How Can Atheists Be Scientists? (Part 1)
By way of review, we've learned that knowledge is "true, justified belief." Jesus said that the truth will make you free (John 8:31, 32), that He is the truth (John 14:6), so He is the one who will make us free from sin (John 8:34, 36). We have also talked about two different definitions of truth:
that which corresponds to reality, and
that which corresponds to the mind of God (if it's something God would say, then it is truth; otherwise, it's not).
That second definition has its basis in verses such as John 1:1 where we learn that Jesus is "the Word" (John 1:1), and from Colossians 2:2, 3, where we see that all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden in Christ Jesus.
In order to have knowledge, we must have good reasons for believing what we do...otherwise, it's superstition, a hunch, or just plain old wishful thinking. One of my students mentioned Claudius Ptolemy (c. 100 – 170 AD) and his (in)famous cycles and epicycles that modeled a geocentric universe. For 1,500 years, everybody knew the sun and all the planets revolved around the earth, and the people of that day thought they had knowledge. But unfortunately, it wasn't until Copernicus, Galileo, and Kepler came along that it was discovered that although Ptolemy's contemporaries seemed to have good reasons for believing in geocentricity (based upon observation and mathematics), they lacked the principal ingredient of knowledge: truth.
We also revisited our working definition of "science," which we pulled from one student's memory:
Science is a method for observing the natural world via formulating hypotheses, observation, and experimentation.
This same student also remembered that the word "science" comes from the Latin word scientia which means, simply, "knowledge" (compare 1 Timothy 6:20 KJV to any other English translation and you can see this equivalence manifest).
Finally, we talked about the three key criteria for something to be examined via the scientific method; it must be:
Observable
Testable
Repeatable
This necessarily means that some things are out of the "reach" of the scientific method, notably historical events and persons (which are generally not observable nor are they repeatable), miracles (not repeatable), and the supernatural (by definition, since such things are "above the natural").
Once something has been observed, tested, and repeatedly verified, the scientist has another responsibility: to report his findings truthfully.
How Can Atheists Be Scientists?
Scientific observation requires the utilization of one or more of the following:
Sight
Taste
Smell
Hearing
Touch
Yep—our five senses. If scientific inquiry is going to go anywhere, we have to presume that these senses are basically reliable. I say "basically" because we all know that our senses can be tricked, like when a blindfolded subject has a sliced onion held under his nose while a piece of raw potato is put in his mouth. Illusionists make a living out of fooling our senses, and sometimes illness or medications can cause us to hallucinate. But as a whole, we all take for granted that our senses are generally trustworthy—we have little choice.
Testability and Repeatability both assume that nature is consistent over time. When I was a kid, I enjoyed mixing baking soda and vinegar to see how big of a frothy mess I could make. The funny thing is that no matter how many times I mixed the two substances, I got the exact same result every time. If I do it today, I'll get the same result. If I do the same thing tomorrow, I'd expect the exact same frothy mess. Because nature is consistent and the laws of chemistry do not change over time, I won't have to worry that in 10 years, mixing baking soda and vinegar will start a fire, release deadly fumes, or produce deadly radiation.
If our knowledge of the physical world is to increase, we have to trust that our senses are basically reliable, we have to assume that nature (e.g., the laws of physics, chemistry, etc.) is consistent over time, and we must also report our findings accurately and honestly so that others can learn.
Alas, I ran out of time in class to answer the homework question, so we're going to have to revisit the question but from a slightly different angle which, Lord willing, I'll actually be able to answer next week:
Homework
Do atheist scientists have good reasons (i.e., justification) for believing that their senses are basically reliable, and that nature is consistent over time, both of which are required for gaining knowledge? Why or why not? If not, then do atheist scientists actually know anything?