Salon.com Article on "The New Atheists"

[CapelDodger]

I don't see Haught disagreeing with this point. However superior it may be to any other method, it doesn't in itself preclude other methods having a possibility of success in areas where science has its limits.

Haught's limit seems to be this side of consciousness, which is indeed a very hard problem. Science has not given up on it by any means, though; there's a lot of attention and effort in that direction. It's hard to see a way across from Science to our personal experience of consciousness, but that's not to say it's impossible.

One thing we do know about consciousness is that it emerges from complex physical systems, mostly surrounded by skulls and all surrounded by skins. Theology is therefore not called for in any explanation that may be available to us. If Science can't explain consciousness nothing else will, and we'll just have to shrug and live with it.

 

[Egg]

No. We know for a fact that our knowledge of the world vastly increased since humans began to employ the scientific method. For that you only have to assume that there is an objective reality, that other people exist, and that what we know about history isn't completely wrong.

Well, you and I know that, but I understood that the naturalistic approach was only to accept things shown to be true by the scientific method. How would you say we know such things are fact if not by the scientific method?

Perhaps I'm misrepresenting the naturalistic approach here.

 

[danielk]

Perhaps I'm misrepresenting the naturalistic approach here.

Yes, I think so. The scientific method is the process of observation, rational evaluation, formulation of a falsifiable theory and further observations to put the theories to test. It requires the assumption that rational reasoning and empiric observation are valid, but goes beyond that.

 

[Dunstan]

Apologies if I misrepresented you there, that wasn't my intention. I made a jump to the assumption that we would use the scientific method to test that the predictions were correct.

It was really the bit about "proving" the scientific method that I was objecting to, but I don't want to get bogged down in semantics.

Hmm..what about if by using astrology to test the predictions that astrology made we found consistency?

I don't understand that statement. What would it mean to find "consistency"? Sure, you could ask the stars whether asking the stars works. I brought up astrology as an example something that doesn't do what it claims. If astrology only claimed to be a method of making up stuff based on the stars, that would be a different -- and uninteresting -- story.

The example he does give is "the idea that science alone can lead us to truth". While we can show that science is the best method, how can it be shown that it's the only method which can lead us to truth? If it can't be, then is he right in suggesting that belief in the idea is a matter of faith?

There are many different ways of coming up with "answers." Science is just one of them. Prayer, meditation, astrology, Magic 8-ball, making up stuff that feels good, are all other methods of coming up with "answers."

But when you add the "lead us to the truth" part, you're implying that not all answers are equal. Specifically, we prefer answers that are true (or at least closer to the truth) than those that are false. So now you've got your criterion for evaluating answers, and thus the criterion for evaluating the different processes that can lead to answers.

How do we "score" the different answers, then? Science has a way. These other methods don't, as far as I know. They basically refuse to submit themselves for evaluation. That is, unless you want to torture the definition of "truth" so that it means "whatever gives you spiritual fulfillment" or something like that. And if that's your game, then yeah, science isn't the only way to "spiritual fulfillment." But I don't think anyone, "new atheist" or otherwise, is claiming that.