Radical Skepticism and Scientism PDF

Preview

Summary

Essay describing Radical skepticism...

Description

1

Jamie Tidwell PHI-103 October 8, 2020 Dr. Cadillac

Radical Skepticism and Scientism Essay Certain philosophical ideologies are more extreme than others and some are simply ridiculous in nature. When forming the basis for what we believe it is important to understand various perspectives. As a Christian there are certain philosophies that directly contradict our beliefs and values. Radical skepticism and scientism are good examples of paradoxes that simply can not be true from a Christian worldview. The two concepts in the definition are in themselves largely self-refuting. Taking a deeper dive into skepticism I will be addressing Hume’s perspective and how exactly this effects knowledge plus Christian value; then similarly I will proceed into understanding scientism’s inconsistencies. Radical skepticism arose from the late 1700’s philosopher David Hume. He had studied the works of John Locke and George Berkeley regarding empiricism. He wished to expand on the ideology by utilizing scientific methods of observation towards the nature of human intelligence. His goal was to figure out why we believe what we believe. His skepticism viewpoint had many supporting theories integrated into it. Hume asserted that you cannot deductively or inductively determine understanding from the external world. Induction being based on what we see as a trend in the world around us that has resulted in the same outcome multiple times can not be proven absolute. Then, according to Hume, deduction is unreasonable due to the inability to fully understand every conceptual value or outcome that something can

2

bring. This leads to a dilemma that nothing can really be determined without there being some level of skepticism. This maintains that doubt occurs as the authenticity of every belief and certainty is consequently not ever vindicated. No initial principle can be so self-evident to be beyond any suspicion or doubt. Fundamentally radical skepticism cannot be true if perceived from a Christian worldview. “Hume thinks that all analytic judgments are a priori and all synthetic judgments are a posteriori.” (Daniel, S. H. Empiricism: Hume & Positivism). Essentially all significant statements are accurate or false by definition or experience. Using this perspective, it is impossible to determine anything about or world. You cannot determine propositional statements such as “God is real” by definition or experience and even if you could there is no way to then prove it to others. Radical Skepticism is arrogant in the fact that it automatically excuses another’s argument based on the radical’s criteria. It essentially eliminates the fact that any form of knowledge exists in the first place. Everything can be doubted, this creates a toxic perspective that simply is not helpful to people who are determining information. Radical skepticism questions the concept of “matter of fact”, a cause does not necessarily have to have the same effect based on previous experience. This is logical; however, it does not justify the whole ideology. God just as any and all other beliefs is doubted to exist. The skepticism claims to be an impeccable argument, however from a Christian view we know that God gave us knowledge and the ability to determine matters. Scientism is the endorsement of science as the finest or only independent means that society should use to ascertain standard and values related to knowledge or justification. Saying that science is the only way to determine things is an impossible statement to make. In order for one to even perform science, they first must have necessary traits that inconceivably can not be

3

determined by science such as consciousness and morals. These can not be explained by any conduction of scientific study or experiment, but rather they are better understood through philosophy. The cognitive assumptions and attributes of the one performing the science cannot exactly be trusted. The human mind in itself, if proved only by science, cannot be trusted. If by scientific evidence man came about by accident, then you create a paradox. “Accidents by nature do not produce things which necessarily hold to any pattern, which means that minds can never be trusted to accurately understand or perceive anything, nor can we ever begin ton make any argument from them (Lewis, Abolition 1997, p. 53-82). Science is constantly changing as well, there is new evidence that disproves the former. If it is only true at the time, and new evidence is able to refute it, then it can’t be trusted as certain. This does not mean that science is now not viable, it simply opens the option of there being other ways to understand the world apart from science. Scientism of course is a direct contradiction to the Christian worldview. Though there is no way for a Christian to prove God through science without a reasonable doubt, there are many other sound reasons that we can provide. “Science should not be considered a preferential means if knowing the world around us to the exclusion or discrediting of other ways of knowing.” There are so many other ways to determine validity. God has given us knowledge and performed miracles that are outside the laws of science. Every time that something interrupts a normal function of science such as gravity, it forces the science to be wrong. There are so many variables that cannot be determined by science and can be explained by the existence of a creator. One simply can not expect for accidents to produce reliable results, there must be a creator involved. The ideologies that we are looking at simply have too many flaws to be considered legitimate. On top of that, as a Christian it would be impossible for either to have any coherent

4

value. The point to take away is that God gave us knowledge and outside cognitive abilities for a reason. To overlook common sense and consistently provide non-arguments based on logic is outrageous. It is important to however learn the reasoning behind these particular beliefs and be able to refute their legitimacy in the future.

5

Reference Page Lewis, C. S., 1944, 1947, 1971, 1974,The Abolition of Man: New York, HarperCollin PHIL 103 Philosophy of Science NOTES Daniel, S. H. Empiricism: Hume & Positivism . Empiricism: Hume & Positivism. http://people.tamu.edu/~sdaniel/Notes/emp-hume.html....