Against Empricism - Main

Continuing from last post.

Having established that the only way to dismiss a worldview is to adopt it and check for internal consistency, let us run the numbers on empiricism:

"The only reliable basis for knowledge, the only route from subjectivity to objectivity, is to relentlessly subject a belief to doubt, then to allay the doubt (or confirm it) by gathering evidence that’s independent of one’s commitment to the belief."

We must subject this statement to itself. Where is the evidence that this is true? At best, we have only pragmatism, "It has worked in the past". By the same logic, I will live forever, since I haven't died yet. (And no, proving I will die doesn't address the point - pragmatism is not an empistemology)

There are more internal ironies:

"science as it’s commonly practiced manifestly does not make any commitment to naturalism"

"scientific theories rule out any appeal to an explanatory agency or power, whether it be God, the soul or free will, for which there is no good evidence or testable specification."

"Ruling out any appeal to a Higher Power" is naturalism. Again, where is the evidence that God is subject to test? God specifically says, "Do not put me to the test".

"we must find evidence for them outside private subjective experience, evidence that’s publicly observable by those who haven’t experienced God’s embrace"

Again, where is the evidence that "public observable evidence" is the only way of knowing? God says that He intentionally darkens those who are wise in their own eyes - blinding them to knowledge of Him.

Some choice quotes:

"there’s no epistemic space in which to construct such an alternative [as supernaturalism]"

"any deliberate departure from [empiricism] is immoral since it jeopardizes the well-being of the entire community"

"any ideological bias against the necessity for empiricism, such as faith in God’s providence, should be seen as a disqualification for public office"

Ahh, now we see the violence inherent in the system!

"To imagine that one’s worldview, whether religious or secular, is beyond disconfirmation helps to license an absolutism which brooks no dissent and countenances the demonization of those with different ideas."

Wait, didn't they just argue empiricism is beyond disconfirmation? Don't they license an absolutism which brooks no dissent and countenances demonization?

Empiricism is false under its own assumptions. It is hypocritical and self-righteous.

The Myth of Neutrality

Continuing my series.

Closely related to objectivity is neutrality. From the article:

"Non-empirical ways of knowing fail to meet worldview neutral standards of epistemic adequacy, which is how we judge between competing ways of knowing."

When two parties disagree, we seek a neutral third party to arbitrate. Ideally, there would be some third way between naturalism and supernaturalism.

However, an appeal to "ideally" is really an argument from desire. "I want this, therefore it exists" - which is faulty.

The simple fact is there is no neutral worldview. You are either for God or against God (Matthew 12:30).

So, their "worldview neutral" point is really against God. Then, it is no surprise when they come to the conclusion there is no God. It also allows them to dismiss the theistic position, as "not neutral".

Again we see the underlying idolatry, "which is how we judge". God is the ultimate judge. We seek to usurp His judgment and impose our own.


The only way to judge a worldview is to (provisionally) adopt that worldview, and apply its arguments to their logical conclusions. If the worldview is internally contradictory (it reaches conclusions counter to each other, or counter to its assumptions), then that worldview must be false.

Jesus and Empiricism

Today my pastor was preaching from John 8:12-20, and I thought it relevant to the current series.

It begins:

"When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, 'I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.' The Pharisees challenged him, 'Here you are, appearing as your own witness; your testimony is not valid.' Jesus answered, 'Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid, for I know where I came from and where I am going. But you have no idea where I come from or where I am going...'"

Now this is interesting. First we have Jesus comparing Himself to light.

The religious authorities reply that the Law requires the testimony of two witnesses for any account to be considered true.

Jesus replies that His testimony is true in and of itself.

How does this relate to empiricism?

The empiricist desires confirmation of results ("the testimony of two (or more) witnesses").

But that is for explanations (theories). No empiricist would deny the existence of light, he simply measures it.

Jesus is saying the same thing - "Here I am, measure me."

Against Intersubjectivity

(continuing from last post)

Now we come to the crux of the argument:

"beliefs worthy of being called knowledge must submit to the tribunal of intersubjective, that is, publicly observable, evidence. Objectivity is only gained through intersubjectivity."

First of all, this statement is arbitrary. There is no basis. Where is the author's authority for such a requirement? While it sounds nice, there is no guarantee that intersubjectivity will lead to objectivity. Nor is any reason given that intersubjectivity (the experience of many) is better than individual experience.

Now I agree that the experience of many is superior to the experience of one. But that is because I believe in sin. A singular sinner becomes great in his own eyes. He overlooks his sin - that is nature of sin. Multiple people can see sin in others, that is also part of sin (I focus on your sin, and overlook my own)!

There is also a core failure here. It is the assumption that many eyes make for perfection (or truth). The problem is that a core design defect will be present in all eyes.

It's like the Pentium FDIV bug. This bug was present in all the first generation parts. You could run your problem on one computer, or a thousand. They would all fail in this regard. You can actually get slightly different results using equivalent algorithms due to the vagaries of floating point arithmetic. For most problems, you can accumulate the results to get a better answer. But for a select set of inputs, the answer would be just way off.

Similarly, intersubjectivity ignores man's Fallen nature. The Bible says the mind of the natural man is the enemy of God, and dysfunctional. No number of Fallen men working together will ever find God, understand God, appreciate Him, etc.

Against Experientialism

(Continuing from last post)

The empiricists make a good point:

"Haught then attempts to establish that religious experience – the felt presence of God – is trustworthy evidence of God’s reality"

The problem with "religious" experience is that there is no way of determining what is true or false. Mormons feel a burning of the bosom; I've talked with Adventists who feel peace, having accepted the Sabbath into their hearts (not those exact words, but similar). Even Muslims can cite miraculous experiences relating to the Koran. Similarly, I have my own experiences I can point to.

Experience is not definitive, but it can be instructive. Indeed, what are scientific results, but experiential (I witnessed these measurements on these devices).

So experience must be accounted for, but it does not have ultimate authority. Authority lies elsewhere, as we shall see (soon).

Also, many "religious" practices shut off the brain. The Bible has nothing good to say about these practices.

Against Empricism

One of the good things about Biologos is that it is a honey pot for atheists. Sometimes being right brings forces against you from two extremes, and sometimes you get crushed between the two extremes even when you're wrong :)

One of the atheist commenters there directed me to a link on empiric epistemology. This is quite a long read, but worth analysis.

To jump ahead a little:

"We must put epistemology first and get it right, and make no bones about it."

Amen. Now, to the beginning!

The introduction talks about the differences between our understanding and reality. How our mental models might be wrong, and that can lead to disaster for us. I would agree, and include theology as the most important mental model.

"that unregulated mortgage-based securities could coexist with a stable financial system, that they represented real wealth, but in reality they didn’t."

This reveals a real problem for the rationalist - why are so many people irrational? And given that we agree that many people are irrational (while believing themselves to be rational), how can you claim to be rational? If these others have blind spots, how can you know of your own log in the eye?

As a Christian, I really have no problem. Sin is irrational.

Then we come to the main argument:

"The only reliable basis for knowledge, the only route from subjectivity to objectivity, is to relentlessly subject a belief to doubt, then to allay the doubt (or confirm it) by gathering evidence that’s independent of one’s commitment to the belief."

I would agree, that apart from God, this is the only way for us to know anything. Of course, it is primarily an inverse way of knowing - we can never be sure of anything. This is the heart of postmodernism, which has overthrown modernism.

I'm running long here, so I will pick this up tomorrow...

Let me give a peek at the end:

"This certainly seems a recipe for nihilism, so those wanting to press the epistemological question in service to empiricism should have a response to such fears. This involves providing reassurance about the existential, ethical and practical viability of worldview naturalism: that without God, the soul and free will we’re still moral agents bound by ethical norms, fully capable of leading meaningful lives and fully engaged with our human communities and concerns"

That is an odd conclusion. What is morality without God?

Further, it is a failure to apply one's worldview to it's logical end (teleology and eschatology). If everything, everywhere will die - then what we do now is meaningless. Our actions and have no effect on the end state.

How Do You Know

It's been a long time since the last epistemology post...

Interesting news from Science Daily:

"evidence that craving disrupts an individual's meta-awareness, the ability to periodically appraise one's own thoughts."

A rationalist's foundation lies in his own thoughts ("I think, therefore I am"). If his mind is lying to him, he is lost - and he doesn't even know it.

Yet, evidence that his mind is lying to him (in certain circumstances) does nothing to shake his faith that it is not lying to him in other matters.

Perhaps, he is better called an Irrationalist.

Sin Is Irrational

Hmm, hot on the heals of yesterday's post, we have some more data to ruin a rationalist's day.

Quote of the day:

"The more elaborate ethical debates that we engage in are largely attempts at post-hoc rationalizations of our earlier decisions. "

Now, if this can happen in a clear cut economic sense, how can the rationalist be sure it's not happening every day, in every way?

The Rationalist's Dilemma

The rationalist must be completely fair in his decision making. Otherwise, his notion of "truth" will be slanted towards his preconceptions (which I argue is true for all rationalists).

Science Daily has coverage of a scientific study showing this notion of "tabula rasa" is unfounded:

"The findings of this research show that risk preferences may be manipulated – while the person making those decisions is unaware of it."

The Bible tells us that the mind of the unrepentant is unable to comprehend the things of God:

"because the mind of the flesh is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can it be" - Romans 8:7

Not only that, but that their minds do not work correctly, at all, whatsoever:

"Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen." - Romans 1:25

"And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient" - Romans 1:28

The Greek word translated "reprobate" means "worthless" or "rejected".

Post-modern Truth

I posted a quote earlier on the post-modern notion of truth. We can see it in action at Science News.

The key point is:

"Peking Man date[s] to 780,000 years ago, roughly 200,000 years earlier than usually thought, scientists say"

Here is the Stephen Gould quote again:

"Moreover, 'fact' does not mean 'absolute certainty.' The final proof of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent."

The first part is important, logic and mathematics achieve certainty - because they are not about the empirical world (they are self-contained, and purely in the realm of thought).

The second is my point - "Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth". What was true yesterday ("Peking man is 580,000 years old") is today a total lie (because he is now 780k years old). Any "fact" of science could be overturned tomorrow. There is no certainty, no foundation.

The third is the most ironic. Saying it is "perverse" to disagree. The literal meaning is "twisted". Merriam-Webster gives the first definition as "turned away from what is right or good" - a value statement. What is "good"? Apparently, agreeing with evolutionists is good, and disagreeing is evil.

Loving Death

Proverbs 8:36 "But he that sinneth against Me wrongeth his own soul: All they that hate Me love death."

Every unrepentant person hates God (some are more vocal about it than others). They also love death (again, some are more vocal).

Albert Mohler has found a few who are very vocal...

Here again we see the appeal to efficiency.

"For 50 suicide attempts you have one suicide and the others are failing with heavy costs on the National Health Service. If we would have another attitude to suicide, saying suicide is a very good possibility to escape. In many, many cases they are terribly hurt afterwards sometimes you have to put them in institutions for 50 years. Very costly."

Very costly? Is cost our god? What about truth? What about doing right? These things have lost their meaning.

We like to think that all people are equally and infinitely valuable. But the reality is, real (numeric) costs can be assigned to people...

Methods and Conclusions

This is not an April Fool's joke!

Intriguing article from Science Daily yesterday. I am not going to focus on the title ("Hundreds Of Natural-selection Studies Could Be Wrong, Study Demonstrates").

Rather, I am going to examine methods and conclusions.

Many people have an odd view of scientists and science. They think scientists are pure and noble (read Slashdot comments if you are in doubt). Seeking only the truth through holy procedures.

Scientists are people (aka fallen and sinful).

People motivated by greed and ego, pride and stubbornness. Naive ideologues and sinister schemers.

Most papers are published by graduate students and their professors. These people are measured by their output in number of papers and the quality of the conference ("publish or perish"). Corporate researchers are graded similarly (that was my job for six years).

I'm not saying there is a huge conspiracy to promote evolution.

But there is definitely not anything pure or holy in any field of research.

You do what it takes to get published.

The conference committees have certain expectations (things "look right" or "look wrong"). You don't mess around with what works. You don't question everything that came before you. You find the one small tweak on existing papers, and hope you get it done before your competitors (any good idea has been thought of multiple times, and the other guy is not more than a year behind you; probably only six months - if you're lucky).

In most fields, there is real world testing that happens after the research. Bridges fall down, microprocessors turn out with bad performance and high temperature. Rockets explode on the launch pad.

From the article:

"biologists should pair experimental data with their statistical data whenever possible. Scientists [evolutionary biologists?] usually do not use experimental data because such experiments can be difficult to conduct and because they are very time-consuming"

New Tag

Epistemology is the theory of knowledge. It asks "how do you know" and "what does it mean to say you know".

The "Controversy" tag is getting a lot of use. I will be adding "epistemology" to some of these posts (sort of a sub-tag).

How Do You Know?

I will continue to challenge the foundations of atheistic arguments. Most will argue that we can only know what we perceive through our senses. In that light, I found an interesting article on tactile illusions.

This describes an experiment on touch, modeled after the visual illusion where our eye interprets motion backwards and forwards (somewhat like the wheel caps on a car appear to move forward at low speed, but backward at high speed).

"When volunteer subjects were given the diagonally alternating [tactile] stimuli, they perceived them as moving smoothly back and forth--and just as with the visual illusion, the direction of apparent motion flipped back and forth from vertical to horizontal, on average about twice per minute, even though there was no change in the stimulus itself."

That covers vision and touch. I will have to dig up an analysis of "phantom sounds" (common for cell phone uses). Then there will just be smell and taste!