Refuting Objections: Science and empirical evidence is the only way we can know things
A popular argument some atheists use to show that God doesn't exist is that of the testimony of science and empirical evidence (evidence that is based on or verifiable by observation rather than pure logic, reasoning, or theory). These atheists, agnostics, and skeptics argue that since we can't observe God with our five senses, we cannot, therefore, prove that He exists. This line of argumentation, however, is extremely flawed and is even self-contradictory. Let's take a quick look at this issue and respond to some of the objections.
First, as I said, this whole argument some people raise flat-out contradicts itself. It says that we can't know that anything is true except by the light of empirical science and the evidence discoverable by our sensory-perceptions. However, we must ask how these people know that it is true. After all, science cannot tell us that science is the only way we can know things to be true! To know this, people would have to reason to that fact and would have to offer philosophical proofs for the veracity of this statement. And thus, we see that the assertion that science is the only way we can know things defeats itself and so, fails in its tracks.
Now, let's take a look at some other truths that we can know without empirical evidence and science. Take the existence of human minds. We are not able, by scientific study alone, to come to the conclusion that other human beings have minds and that they are thinking, reasoning, imagining, and so on just like we ourselves are. We can only come to this truth by making a philosophical assumption about other beings. Also, moral truths cannot be discovered by scientific evidence. The basic principle that a person should not inflict pain and anguish upon another for the mere purpose of doing so is not verifiable by empirical evidence. Science cannot say whether or not stealing or murder are wrong. We must use another means of coming upon truth in order to say that these actions are wrong and therefore must be avoided.
So, to conclude this short article, we can see that science alone is not the only way we can know things or prove them to be true. While good when used according to their purpose, science and empirical evidence lack the authority to determine moral and philosophical truths. Any honest person must see this fact and agree with us in saying that science, though a valuable thing, has its own limitations and boundaries that it must operate within. And so, the lack of scientific, empirical evidence for God's existence does not in any way, shape, or form disprove the existence of God. In fact, nothing discoverable by science can ever disprove the First Cause we call God. This would be a contradiction for science studies all kinds of things, including causes and effects. To deny a First Cause or Mover would be unscientific and totally unreasonable for any knowledgeable person who understands the principles of cause and effect and the logical necessity for God entailed as such.
First, as I said, this whole argument some people raise flat-out contradicts itself. It says that we can't know that anything is true except by the light of empirical science and the evidence discoverable by our sensory-perceptions. However, we must ask how these people know that it is true. After all, science cannot tell us that science is the only way we can know things to be true! To know this, people would have to reason to that fact and would have to offer philosophical proofs for the veracity of this statement. And thus, we see that the assertion that science is the only way we can know things defeats itself and so, fails in its tracks.
Now, let's take a look at some other truths that we can know without empirical evidence and science. Take the existence of human minds. We are not able, by scientific study alone, to come to the conclusion that other human beings have minds and that they are thinking, reasoning, imagining, and so on just like we ourselves are. We can only come to this truth by making a philosophical assumption about other beings. Also, moral truths cannot be discovered by scientific evidence. The basic principle that a person should not inflict pain and anguish upon another for the mere purpose of doing so is not verifiable by empirical evidence. Science cannot say whether or not stealing or murder are wrong. We must use another means of coming upon truth in order to say that these actions are wrong and therefore must be avoided.
So, to conclude this short article, we can see that science alone is not the only way we can know things or prove them to be true. While good when used according to their purpose, science and empirical evidence lack the authority to determine moral and philosophical truths. Any honest person must see this fact and agree with us in saying that science, though a valuable thing, has its own limitations and boundaries that it must operate within. And so, the lack of scientific, empirical evidence for God's existence does not in any way, shape, or form disprove the existence of God. In fact, nothing discoverable by science can ever disprove the First Cause we call God. This would be a contradiction for science studies all kinds of things, including causes and effects. To deny a First Cause or Mover would be unscientific and totally unreasonable for any knowledgeable person who understands the principles of cause and effect and the logical necessity for God entailed as such.
Comments
Post a Comment