"The only thing we can and should trust is the sciences" (John Loftus, The Christian Delusion, 89)
Unfortunately, this claim isn't a deliverance of any natural science. Science can't tell us something like this.
Furthermore, since the claim includes a normative prescription (i.e., "should"), science is impotent to tell us this.
Therefore, we shouldn't trust this claim.
Besides this, there are many things science cannot give us the answers to. I already mentioned normative truths (either ethical or rational), but there's also the reliability of my senses, the laws of logic, the existence of an external world, the existence of other minds, and a justification of the scientific enterprise itself. None of these things are given to us by science; indeed, most of them are presupposed by science.
I really can't fathom why some of the names that blurbed this book on the back cover did so. Michael Martin called it "arguably the best critique of the Christian faith the world has ever known." But of course, among its many other problems, Loftus' claim I quoted above rules out many of the chapters in the book as not worthy of our trust. Indeed, I've just been cherry picking stuff, a real critique would reveal hundreds of other errors of a similar nature, or worse.
Yeah, I pointed that quote out in my review. I expect lots of Christians to seize upon it and conclude just what you have. Makes it really easy to disregard everything else, doesn't it?
ReplyDeleteBen
WOE, he doesn't *defend* WS in his other book, he merely quotes *part* of Moreland and Craig's discussion of it, leaving out some decisive criticisms.
ReplyDeleteAt any rate, if he doesn't believe what he said in the quote then it was dumb to say something he doesn't believe (the "weak scientism" out doesn't help since what he said in the delusion was NOT WS but SS. What he said CONTRADICTS what he said earlier. I, being charitable, didn't think he wanted to contradict himself, but I guess your defense is that he has.) So, at best your defense of Loftus is that he's uncritical, careless, and forgetful (he didn't even qualify or give a foot note). We can also add dishonest since he tries to make hay out of this stronger claim. At any rate, we can just push his pluralist argument against the "strong/weak" distinction. What reason, given his pluralist argument, is there to believe either one? Pluralism is self-refuting.
Paul,
ReplyDeleteI agree, the quote in and of itself looks like SS and is inexcusable.
"...your defense of Loftus is that he's uncritical, careless, and forgetful (he didn't even qualify or give a foot note)"
haha, I don't know if that's a "defense" insofar as it is merely accuracy. That is my honest assessment of Loftus in general though he does have his moments of surprising spot on clarity I don't see anywhere else. You can take that any way you like.
And I completely agree. He should have at least footnoted himself to page 109 in WIBA, where he at least elaborates on what weak scientism is.
"At any rate, we can just push his pluralist argument against the "strong/weak" distinction. What reason, given his pluralist argument, is there to believe either one? Pluralism is self-refuting."
I'm not really sure what you are getting at there. Elaborate?
Ben
Makes me think of the Nacho Libre quote, "I only believe in science!"
ReplyDeleteWOE,
ReplyDeleteRead his quote in light of the context in which he meant it to function as a defeater in. (Also keep in mind he didn't address premise two of his argument, i.e., cultural is the *cause* of the beliefs, and that cause is an unreliable cause. I know you're in the tank for atheism (which precludes your war on error status), but you've got to read more critically than you're doing.
Paul,
ReplyDeleteIn context, I recognize that Loftus is just trying to say that the method of science is going to entail more true conclusions than culturually inherited beliefs (hence the juxtaposition with "on mama's knee") and isn't making a genuinely official philosophical level claim. I also recognize that it just isn't going to seem like it if you are Christian who is looking to pounce on the perils of scientism.
I don't think I have much more to say here that I haven't already covered. As with our previous disagreement, I think both our sides have been heard well enough and we can move on.
Ben
"In context, I recognize that Loftus is just trying to say that the method of science is going to entail more true conclusions than culturually inherited beliefs"
ReplyDeleteUmmmm, but the question put to Loftus was that he was lucky to be born in a culture that caused him to have the beliefs he has. he didn't escape anything. Besides that, he's taking a realist stance on science. But of course there's disagreement. Even today. And, if he were born at other times and in other places then he'd not have his realist view. So, he didn't even answer the question. C'mon, you need to be able to catch these things. After all, you WAR ON ERROR.
Also, notice that he passes right over Plantinga's argument that the beliefs are not caused in an unreliable way. He doesn't even deal with the arguments out there.
Furthermore, where's the probability calculus? he treats the probability of any religion turning up right as equiprobable. But why make a dumb claim like that? I mean, that seems OBVIOUSLY false. Moreober, notice that when the tables are turned on him he says that we must show him that his beliefs are probably wrong. But he needs to do that with us! But if he does *that*, then he wouldn't *need* his OTF! I mean, if he can show me that my beliefs are probably wrong, which he needs to do to get me to take the OTF (cause that's what he said), then why would I even bother taking the OTF?
The chapter is one failure after another. Your defending it and lauding it seems to indict you.
Paul,
ReplyDelete"...the question put to Loftus was that he was lucky to be born in a culture that caused him to have the beliefs he has. he didn't escape anything."
In the link above I already quoted Loftus (responding to jayman777) as saying, "Science transcends geographical borders. Anyone can do the experiments themselves. That’s the difference."
So yeah. He's lucky to be born into a culture that has an especially strong aspect about it that cares about the rigor and accountability of its methodology.
Ben
. . . which says nothing of the realism/anti-realism debate. And, that belief is just a product of his culture, of his acceptance of various philosophical positions presupposed by science, etc. You're not being free thinking enough.
ReplyDeleteand of course, Christianity transcends borders.
ReplyDeletePaul,
ReplyDeleteYeah, science transcends the most borders and is openly and actively accountable to everyone. I don't see how you can possibly hope to defend otherwise. Even if you don't spend years in a university getting dozens of PhDs, the exploits of the success of science are all around us in technology. We can't say the same about the truth of a religion that distinguishes it from another. Even if you are a young earth creationist and drop historical scientific claims, science covers so much ground and has so much influence on everything else and every day life that even still, nothing meaningful about Christianity or any other religion can hope to compare. Regardless of what one concludes about realism or anti-realism, science isn't going to take a meaningful enough hit to matter. Please show me a majority of realists or anti-realists who reject the vast majority of scientific conclusions. The scientific method is nearly the definition of passing the OTB. Nothing about Christianity competes at all.
You can have the last word here in this thread, because if you hadn't already gotten the point, I doubt you will in any follow up round of comments.
Ben
WOE,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the last word:
Of course the alleged openness of science is hotly contested. Why, just read all the non-Christian sociologists who point out that science/scientists are beholden to political and economic power grabs. Of course, the vast majority of scientific findings are not available to the public, being too complex, and so the public (people like you) just take their word for it. Not to mention, science is justified only on certain philosophical presuppositions that are logically prior to anything science delievers. But that's not the point. The point is that Lofus admits his belief in science is produced by the luck of his cultural location; and an unargued premise Loftus slips into his chapter is that beliefs produced by culture are unreliable. this, of course, serves as an undercutting defeater to any positive epistemic status he ascribes to science. he nowhere argued that all of a sudden, and quit magically, his culturaly-produced belief escapes the Loftusian truism that culturally produced beliefs are reliable.
cont.
cont.
ReplyDelete>>science covers so much ground and has so much influence on everything else and every day life that even still, nothing meaningful about Christianity or any other religion can hope to compare.<<
Of course you're just making a biographical comment about what you take to be important is. What we consider "meaningful" and "important" is often a product of our culture and, to bring it back to the point that keeps escaping you, needs to have an OTF applied to it. From where I'm standing, I doubt you'll think TVs and MacBooks are that menaingful and important when you stand before God. Moreover, I dare say that certain ethical and philosophical beliefs are more important than TVs and MacBooks, and those are not "scientific." Of course you can place those bothersome things on your Procrustean bed and simply annouce them "unimportant" (with a wave of the hand, no doubt), but that's just a function of your culturally-produced values--which are, of course, per Loftus, unreliable.
>>Regardless of what one concludes about realism or anti-realism, science isn't going to take a meaningful enough hit to matter.<<
Really, whether we can say with any justification whether our scientific theories are true isn't a meaningful hit? And again, what you consider "meaningful" is just an expression of your culturally-produced biases--which are, of course, per Loftus, unreliable.
>>The scientific method is nearly the definition of passing the OTB.<<
As atheist Larry Lauden ( a well known philosopher of science) tells us, "the" scientific method is a "Will-O'-the-Wisps. Anyway, what kind of ridiculous comment is it that claims that knowledge of religious truths is given by scientific methods? That's just dumb. If you do not hold to strong scientism, then why think that for a belief to be true, known, or justifiably believed, it has to pass the scientific method?
But, even if I grant the scientific response you're offering, that does nothing to rebut the other claims I made. Where is the probability calculus? Loftus said we must show him that his beliefs are probably wrong before he takes an OTF for, say, his belief in the external world. Well, et tu, Brutas. But of course, if you have such an argument, then the OTF is superfluous. So, either the OTF is superfluous, or, the OTF admits that there is no argument that shows me that my belief is probably false. So either way, I have no need to take the OTF!
>>Nothing about Christianity competes at all.<<
Again, this is of course just an expression of what you take to be important. It also assumes Christianity and the story it tells about reality, man, man's problem, and the solution--not to mention many other things--is false. You're not at war with error, you're just a yes man for radical atheism. You just take for granted the naturalistic worldview that determines what you consider important.
Paul,
ReplyDeleteCould you point me in the direction of this:
"just read all the non-Christian sociologists who point out that science/scientists are beholden to political and economic power grabs."
Thanks,
Ben