The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free! "Science has belief in naturalism"in Philosophy

AlexOland

 I have heard this in a video that defends theism. It argues that science is not to correct way to reach the truth as it draws a connection between apparant reason and consequence, while this connection is not properly justified. I have my own answers to this but I would like to hear how other atheists of Debate Island respond to this argument.

 Also, he argues that the reasons science presents cannot be actual reasons and he makes this analogy: "This sentence abides the rules of english but it was written by a conscious, intelligent person. Therefore, just like the rules of english do not write a sentence, the laws of the universe cannot create a universe just by themselves." I have told him that this is not evidence, just a false analogy, but he then asked "how exactly is it false?". Again, I have my own answers, but I just want to hear how others will respond. Maybe your response will be far more clearer than mine.

MayCaesar

I would answer this by noting that without the assumption of causality our thinking simply does not work. There is no other way to cognise the world than getting to the "why" of things; the only other way is neutral observation and description of the world, which is not particularly useful. If we assume that there is no connection between apparent reason and consequence, then we have to admit that our brains are useless in trying to understand how the world works, and in that case both theism and atheism become equally irrelevant.

For the second part, it is, indeed, a poor analogy, because it assumes that the laws of the present universe have created this Universe - but this is not actually what science claims. Science does not make any claims about the laws in the world "prior" to the formation of our Universe, because it is in principle impossible for us to interact with that world and deduce anything about it - but we do know that the Universe was formed X years ago, and this is the starting point of our scientific journey.

I am not sure why theists like to bring up the matter of "who/what created the Universe" all the time. Science does not have any stance on this, and theists have a stance for which they have 0 evidence. We do not know who/what created the Universe, and, in fact, from our modern perspective this question does not even make sense. What is interesting is what happened then; what made the Universe appear is not important, and, perhaps, the answer is simply "nothing".