Articles Archives - Page 5 of 5 - Apologetics Made Simple

Miracles of the Qur’an: Linguistic Miracles

February 16, 2015 by Jason Petersen Leave a Comment

Introduction

In S. 2:23, the Qur’an says, “And if you are in doubt as to that which We have revealed to our servant, then produce a chapter like it and call on your helpers besides Allah if you are truthful.” In this particular verse, the Qur’an is putting forth a challenge. Muslims claim that this challenge has never been answered.

One of the central arguments for the Islamic faith is that the Qur’an is very rich in a literary and linguistic sense. Muslims say that Muhammad, who claimed to be a prophet of Allah, was illiterate, and the fact that he was illiterate made the writings of the Qur’an a miracle. This is the challenge that the Qur’an puts forth, and it reiterates similar challenges in passages such as S. 10:38 and 11:13. If one doubts the divinity of the message of the Qur’an, then let the challenger produce another book like it, says the Qur’an. Muslims say that the challenge has not been met to this day.

An Undefined Challenge

When this author sought out a Qur’an for purposes of personal study, he was sure to choose one that had commentary by an Islamic scholar.[ref] The late Muslim scholar Maulana Muhammad Ali writes concerning S. 2:23:

A similar challenge is contained in 10:38 and in 11:13 doubters are challenged to produce ten chapters like it, while in 17:88, a very early revelation, the whole of mankind are declared to be unable to produce a book like the Qur’an. Is it a question of mere style and diction? The Qur’an itself does not say so, nor does any saying of the Holy Prophet. That the Qur’an itself is a unique production of Arabic literature and has has ever been regarded as the standard of the purity of literature, goes without saying, but the chief characteristics of the Holy Book, in which no other book can claim equality with it, is the wonderful translation which it accomplished, and is to this characteristic that it lays claim in the very commencement when it says that this book is a guide (2:2). That the transformation wrought by it is unparalleled in the history of the world is admitted on all hands, for if the Holy Prophet was the “most successful of all prophets and and religious personalities” (En. Br. 11th ed., Art. Koran), this success was due to no other cause than the Qur’an. Its injunctions swept off the most deep-rooted evils,like idolatry and drunkenness, so as to leave no trace of them in the Arabian peninsula, welded the warring of elements of Arabian society into one nation, and made an ignorant the foremost torchbearers of knowledge and science, and a politically down-trodden people the masters of the greatest empire of the world. Besides, every word of the Qur’an give expression to Divine majesty and glory in a manner which is not approached by any other sacred book. The challenge remains unanswered to this day.

The passage by Ali is quite lengthy, but within the passage, he states that neither the Qur’an nor Muhammed himself specified what the challenge was. How are doubters of the Qur’an going to respond to a challenge that is not defined in the first place? At this point, an example is in order. Suppose two men are being competitive. We shall call the two men Bill and Bob. Bill challenges Bob, but when Bob asks Bill what the challenge is, Bill will not tell him what the challenge is. How is Bob going to meet Bill’s challenge if Bill won’t tell Bob what the challenge is?

In part, the same situation is encountered with the Qur’an and Muslim apologists. They proclaim that the challenge that the Qur’an gives is not answered to this day, but the Qur’an does not tell us what the challenge is in the first place. Instead, Muslims, such as in the case of Maulana Muhammad Ali, have defined the challenge for us. The issue is that there is not a Muslim that can give any epistemological basis for how he can know exactly what challenge the Qur’an was putting forth in the first place. There are many attributes that books may share in common. Perhaps they have literary devices (some more than others), perhaps books can be the same color. Perhaps more than one book can claim divine inspiration. Perhaps books may reference the same characters. The possibilities of commonality are endless. The assertion that the Qur’an is speaking of a literary challenge is not demonstrable from any axiom. Even if the Muslim were to start with an axiom of revelation from the Qur’an, they would not be able to deduce what the challenge was, rather, they would only be able to induce it.

The Problem of Induction and the Challenge

There are a lot of aspects to the problem of induction, but this author will only focus on one aspect in this section of the article. Induction is a process that involves reasoning from a more specific proposition to a more general proposition. Induction is problematic because even if the premises that lead to the conclusion are true, the conclusion can still be false. This means that the inductive process cannot justify the belief that any conclusion that is reached by induction is true. Most defenders of an inductive argument will fall back on the premises that precede the conclusion in order to argue that the conclusion is in fact true, but if the premises do not lead to the truth of the conclusion, then falling back on the premises only begs the question that the premises do indeed show the conclusion is true in the first place.

This problem is very applicable to the challenge that is laid out by Muslims (and not the Qur’an since the Qur’an doesn’t tell us what the challenge is). Even if it were true that the Qur’an is unique in regards to the richness of its literature, it would not demonstrate that the challenge of the Qur’an consists of producing a book with the literary qualities of the Qur’an. The Muslim’s claim concerning the nature of the challenge remains unsubstantiated. Until such a challenge can be defined, one cannot say that the challenge has not been met, for perhaps, unbeknownst to them, the challenge that the Qur’an gives has actually been met. Until the Muslim can solve the problem of induction, they have no grounds for claiming that they know the nature of the challenge given by the Qur’an.

A Question of Standards

It is interesting that the Qur’an would appeal to an outside source to prove that it is divinely inspired. Recall, once again, S. 2:23,”And if you are in doubt as to that which We have raveled to our servant, then produce a chapter like it and call on your helpers besides Allah if you are truthful.” The Qur’an is clearly stating that if one is unable to produce a work like the Qur’an, then the person is not being truthful. The implications of this challenge is not an inductive claim. So, one must ask, what standard is the Qur’an adopting?

If the Qur’an is adopting literary standards, then the Qur’an is appealing outside of the scope of its revelation. There are no verses in the Qur’an that tell us how one ought to write; the validation of the Qur’an would come about by man’s fallible standards. But what are the standards? Disagreements about how one ought to write abound. One person believes Shakespeare was brilliant, another person believes that he is overrated.[ref] Whose standard of literacy should we adopt? And why should we accept the Qur’an as divine if we must appeal to outside sources in order to confirm it? If the Qur’an is authoritative, then it should not need any outside confirmation in order to prevent doubt about its alleged divinity.

The Fallacy of Asserting the Consequent and Miracles

The way that Muslims treat the literary miracle of the Qur’an commits the fallacy of asserting the consequent. This fallacy occurs when one assumes that only one antecedent can be responsible for the consequent. One can hear this fallacy committed in a video by a Muslim apologist by the name of Hamza Tzortzis.[ref] In the video, Tzortzis begins by rejecting the definition of miracle that is often given by secular philosophers in favor of an Islamic definition. He states that in Islam, a miracle is defined as an impossible act. Tzortzis states that this means that all possible natural explanations for an event have been exhausted. He gives an example of the account given for Moses by the Qur’an. When speaking with the Pharaoh, Moses threw down his staff and it turned into a snake. Tzortzis then goes on to say that we can experiment with a staff to see if we can turn it into a snake by using a variety of approaches, but once all of the approaches have been exhausted, it is considered a miracle.

What Tzortzis is suggesting is that one can use the scientific method to show that the staff turning into a snake was a miracle. What Tzortzis doesn’t understand is that the scientific method commits the fallacy of asserting the consequent. The fact that the scientific method commits this logical fallacy is the reason why the method itself is theologically neutral. Science cannot demonstrate natural or supernatural causation. In fact, science cannot demonstrate anything to be the case because the scientific method is not meant to be a truth-finding method in the first place.[ref] Committing such a fallacy entails that there are an infinite number of possible causes for the effect (e.g., a staff turning into a snake). Because there is an infinite number of possible causes, it is impossible for Tzortzis to exhaust all possible natural causes.[ref] If Tzortzis were able to exhaust all possible natural causes, the feat would perhaps be a miracle.

Does the Qur’an Teach Muhammad was Illiterate?

It appears that the central crux of the challenge put forth by Muslims (and apparently not the Qur’an) is that an illiterate man cannot write a book that is so rich in literary devices; some allege that the Qur’an does not lend support to the notion that Muhammad was illiterate. Even if it were the case that Muhammad was illiterate, the Greek Poet Homer was blind and still managed to write one of the most famous pieces of literature, Iliad and the Odyssey. Should this writing also be considered a miracle of Allah? Some Christians (and even Muslims) allege that the notion that the Qur’an is illiterate was a fabrication by Muslims in order to answer a repetitively asked questions by the Christians and the Jews, “Where are your prophets miracles?”[ref]

It is interesting that in, S. 25:4-5 doubters allege the possibility that Muhammad forged the Qur’an.[ref] While the passage is interesting, it is not definitively against the notion that Muhammad was considered illiterate in the Qur’an. S. 96:14 says that Muhammad received his first revelation by writing. Most detractors to Islam will say, “See? How can an illiterate man read a revelation?” The Muslim will most likely respond by saying that Muhammad’s ability to read the revelational writing was the beginning of the linguistic miracle of the Qur’an. While the claim by the Muslim is arrived at from the passage inductively, it does show that the Qur’an does not definitively teach that Muhammad was initially literate.

Supporters of the notion that the Qur’an portrays Muhammad as initially illiterate have brought up some reasonable points. One of the central arguments for Muhammad being portrayed as originally illiterate in the Qur’an is the use of the Arabic word ‘ummi.’ The Muslims that claim that Muhammad was initially illiterate say that the word ‘ummi’ when used in the Qur’an to describe Muhammad means ‘illiterate.'[ref] The argument that the advocates of Muhammad’s initial illiteracy puts forth is an inductive one, but there is an inductive objection that comes from the detractors of the illiteracy position that appears to be equally as forceful. The advocates of the position that Muhammad was not illiterate argue that the word ‘ummi’ in the Qur’an is never used in a way that suggests that it means ‘illiterate.'[ref] Both sides have made numerous points against one another that will not be fully analyzed in this article (but perhaps it may be addressed in a later article). The reader is encouraged to check the sources laid out in the footnotes for more information from both sides of the argument.

It should be evident that the argument concerning whether or not Muhammad was actually portrayed as being initially illiterate in the Qur’an is a matter of semantics and linguistics. This is in a way ironic when one considers that the argument that is being evaluated in this article concerns the linguistics of the Qur’an. The author, however, cautions the reader on even approaching this topic with a Muslim. The majority of Muslims believe that Muhammad was initially illiterate, and while that does not mean that Muhammad was indeed portrayed as initially illiterate in the Qur’an, it may suggest that the arguments put forth by the detractors of the proposition that the Qur’an teaches that Muhammad is illiterate are largely ineffective. This author will defer judgment as to whether or not the Qur’an teaches that Muhammad was initially illiterate. The reader, however, is free to evaluate the issue and decide whether or not this objection is worthwhile.

Conclusion

Issues with how the Qur’an portrays Muhammad’s initial level of literacy notwithstanding, there are at least several effective objections to the notion that the Qur’an was a literary and linguistic miracle. First, the challenge to produce a book like the Qur’an is undefined. Second, the notion that the only way that the Qur’an could have been written as a miracle from Allah commits the fallacy of asserting the consequent. Third, the defining of the challenge by the Qur’an by Muslim scholars and apologists are arrived at from the fallacious process of induction. And last, the Qur’an gives mixed messages as to whether or not Muhammad truly was illiterate prior to receiving revelation by Allah.

Footnotes:

1. This author wanted to make sure that he could accurately represent Islam in his critiques.

2. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2009/apr/14/shakespeare-theatre

3. https://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/unt.not.html

4. In verse 4, the doubters raise the possibility that Qur’an was not forged by Muhammad alone. Perhaps an Muslim could suggest that someone helped write the Qur’an while Muhammad dictated it. (The commentary that is in this author’s Qur’an suggested that other people helped him write it down. This suggestion does appear to be consistent with the context of S. 25:4-5.) This is normally one of the first verses detractors use to show that the Qur’an shows that Muhammad was actually literate, but one should use caution with invoking this passage.

5. One of the central arguments that Muslims use against atheists is a variation of the cosmological argument. One of the common-supporting arguments used is that there cannot be an infinite regress of causes. Since Muslims argue that infinite regress is irrational, they are being intellectually hypocritical if they affirm an argument that commits the fallacy of asserting the consequent.

6. https://www.questionsonislam.com/question/was-our-prophet-illiterate-what-does-illiterate-prophet-mean-if-he-could-not-read-and-write

7. https://www.quran-islam.org/main_topics/new_information/muhammad_%28P1259%29.html

Why Islam Cannot Account For Knowledge

July 20, 2014 by Jason Petersen Leave a Comment

Introduction

When anyone thinks of presuppositional apologetics, it is commonly thought of as an apologetic that is used against atheists. This is not so. The primary contention of the presuppositional apologetic is that all other worldviews other than Christianity will inevitably reduce to skepticism. The approach that one can take with Muslims(Which will be covered in this article) or any other is the same as dealing with an atheist. In order to resolve the conflicts of worldviews, the presuppositions of each worldview must be internally examined. If any inconsistency is found, then that worldview is irrational.

Allah is a Deceiver

Not only is Allah described as a deceiver, he is described as the greatest of all deceivers. The Qur’an says, “But they (the Jews) were deceptive, and Allah was deceptive, for Allah is the best of deceivers” (S.3:54). Certainly, this is in contrast to the Christian God. The God that is revealed through The Bible cannot lie. (Numbers 23:19.) Muslims scholars have attempted to respond by saying that S.3:54 is being misinterpreted. They will reword the verse to say “plot” instead of deceive, and then go on to say that Allah only plots against evil. They will then attempt to bring up the following verses from The Qur’an:

“We have always sent messengers who were proficient in the language of their people, so they could explain the matter clearly. Allah guides or leads astray whomever He pleases. He is the most Powerful, the Wisest! (S.14:4)”

“Had Allah wished, He would have created you all as a single nation. But He guides or leads astray whomever He pleases. And you would very definitely be interrogated regarding everything you used to do! (S.16:93)”

The most condemning issue with the Muslim’s response is that the Arabic in The Qur’an doesn’t translate to plotters, rather, it translates to deceiver. [acp footnote]1[/acp] It is also interesting that the verses that are quoted support our point that Allah is a deceiver. Of course, if Allah is the ultimate authority, then he is not accountable to anyone. This is something that Christians must accept because The Bible says the very same thing about God in Romans 9. It would not be wise for the Christian to attack the fact that Allah has the ability to lead people astray, rather, we must attack it from the angle that Allah does indeed lead people astray. We should not approach this issue from a moral standpoint, rather, we should approach it from an epistemological standpoint. In other words, the point that should be pressed is that if Allah does directly lead astray and deceive, then a major issue for Islamic epistemology arises. If Allah can and does deceive(unlike the Christian God), then according to the Qur’an, Allah’s revelation to the Islamic people cannot be considered trustworthy.

Second, there are other verses that support the notion that Allah, as defined by the Qur’an is a deceiver:

“And verily, those before them did deceive/scheme (makara), but all deception/scheming is Allah’s” (S. 13:42).

“Even so have we placed in every city, ringleaders of its wicked ones, to scheme therein : but only against themselves shall they scheme! and they know it not” (S.6:123).

Since Allah is deceptive, the purpose that is intended by the Muslim who is bringing up S.14:4 and S.16:93 is negated. These verses explain that even though people may think they can deceive Allah, but the thought that Allah can be deceived is a deception from Allah himself. The Muslim may respond by saying that the Qur’an teaches that Allah will not deceive anyone who is a devoted follower of Islam, but rather, only those who turn against Allah will be deceived by Allah. This apologetic from the Muslim leads to a very serious issue in Muslim epistemology.

The Soteriology of Islam Reduces to Skepticism

The Muslim might persist that our argument for Allah being a deceiver is invalid because Allah only plots/deceives against the wicked. The question that one might ask is, “How does Allah determine who is wicked and who is good?” We will see that as a judge, Allah is corrupt, and because he is corrupt, he is a deceiver.

First, it is imperative that any Christian who is going to press this antithesis has knowledge about salvation in the Muslim worldview. In the Islamic worldview, salvation isn’t guaranteed by Allah. The Qur’an teaches that both faith and works are necessary for salvation in Islam, “To those who believe and do deeds of righteousness hath Allah promised forgiveness and a great reward” (S.5:9).

Such a notion by the Qur’an leads to a big issue in Muslim soteriology. If works are a necessary component of salvation, then what percentage of good works are needed for salvation? The Qur’an says that everyone’s good and evil deeds will be weighed. (S.21:47) If the good outweighs the bad, then the Muslim will be able to enter heaven. The Muslim will be considered “righteous” if 50.1% of their works are good works. However, someone who can only do 50.1% good works cannot be considered righteous. After all, anyone who scores 50.1% on a test has certainly failed that test. Allah lies by calling those righteous who are not righteous. It is like a corrupt judge in a government. If you do a few things for them, they will let you slide. This means that Allah is not a holy god. He is not a just god. Allah’s conception of morality is corrupt. This is because the evil deeds of the Muslim shall be overlooked due to the good things they did for Allah.

Based on all of this, Muslims cannot truly know if they are saved or not until after they die. One cannot simply keep a tally of all of the good things and bad things that they have done throughout every day of their life. Because of this, the Islamic soteriology collapses into skepticism, for the Mulsim cannot truly know if they are saved, for Allah does not guarantee salvation by faith. Further, the fact that Allah falsely calls Muslims righteous makes Allah a liar and a corrupt judge of what is Holy. This inference falls directly in line with the Arabic word used for “deceive” in S.3:54.

If the Qur’an is true, The Bible is true

According to the Qur’an, The Bible is the Word of God.(S. 2:40-42, 89,126; 3:3,71, 93; 4:47; 5:47-51, 69-72; 6:91; 7:157; 29:45,46; 35:31.) When The Qur’an references The Bible, the Qur’an calls it “The Book.” The Qur’an repeatedly tells Muslims that The Bible is trustworthy:

And believe in that I have sent down, confirming that which IS with you, and be not the first to disbelieve in it. And sell not My signs for a little price; and fear you Me. S. 2:41

And when there came to them a Book from Allah verifying that which they have, and aforetime they used to pray for victory against those who disbelieve, but when there came to them (Prophet) that which they did not recognize, they disbelieved in him; so Allah’s curse is on the unbelievers. S. 2:89 Shakir

And when they were told, ‘Believe in that God has sent down,’ they said, ‘We believe in what was sent down on us’; and they disbelieve in what is beyond that, yet it is the truth confirming what IS with them. Say: ‘Why then were you slaying the Prophets of God in former time, if you were believers?’ S. 2:91

Say: Whoever is the enemy of Jibreel — for surely he revealed it to your heart by Allah’s command, verifying that which IS before it and guidance and good news for the believers. S. 2:97 Shakir

And when there came to them an Apostle from Allah verifying that which they have, a party of those who were given the Book threw the Book of Allah behind their backs as if they knew nothing. S. 2:101 Shakir

He sent down to you this scripture, truthfully, confirming all previous scriptures, and He sent down the Torah and the Gospel. S. 3:3 Khalifa

And when God took compact with the Prophets: ‘That I have given you of Book and Wisdom; then there shall come to you a Messenger confirming what IS with you — you shall believe in him and you shall help him; do you agree?’ He said. ‘And do you take My load on you on that condition?’ They said, ‘We do agree.’ God said, ‘Bear witness so, and I shall be with you among the witnesses.’ S. 3:81

You who have been given the Book, believe in what We have sent down, confirming what IS with you, before We obliterate faces, and turn them upon their backs, or curse them as We cursed the Sabbath-men, and God’s command is done. S. 4:47

And We have revealed to you the Book with the truth, verifying what IS before it of the Book and a guardian over it, therefore judge between them by what Allah has revealed, and do not follow their low desires (to turn away) from the truth that has come to you; for every one of you did We appoint a law and a way, and if Allah had pleased He would have made you (all) a single people, but that He might try you in what He gave you, therefore strive with one another to hasten to virtuous deeds; to Allah is your return, of all (of you), so He will let you know that in which you differed; S. 5:48 Shakir

And this is a Book We have revealed, blessed, verifying that which IS before it, and that you may warn the metropolis and those around her; and those who believe in the hereafter believe in it, and they attend to their prayers constantly. S. 6:92 Shakir

This Koran could not have been forged apart from God; but it is a confirmation of what IS before it, and a distinguishing of the Book, wherein is no doubt, from the Lord of all Being. S. 10:37

In their stories is surely a lesson to men possessed of minds; it is not a tale forged, but a confirmation of what IS before it, and a distinguishing of every thing, and a guidance, and a mercy to a people who believe. S. 12:111

And that We have revealed to thee of the Book is the truth, confirming what IS before it; God is aware of and sees His servants. S. 35:31

No indeed; but he brought the truth, and confirmed the Envoys. S. 37:37

Yet before it was the Book of Moses for a model and a mercy; and this is a Book confirming, in Arabic tongue, to warn the evildoers, and good tidings to the good-doers. S. 46:12

They said: O our people! we have listened to a Book revealed after Musa verifying that which IS before it, guiding to the truth and to a right path: S. 46:30

If the Qur’an is true, then The Bible must be true; therefore, the Muslim cannot reject the axiom of revelation, The Bible is the Word of God, for the Qur’an repeatedly says that The Bible is the Word of God. When the Muslim rejects scripture, they contradict the Qur’an.

If The Bible is true, The Qur’an is False

The Qur’an says that the Trinity in The Bible is God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Virgin Mary. Of course, the Trinity that is revealed in scripture is God the Father, God the Son(Jesus Christ) and God the Holy Spirit. The Qur’an also says that Christian worships three Gods.(Sura 5:73-75,116) Of course, this is not what The Bible teaches. The Bible teaches that there is one God that is revealed to us in three distinct persons.

Some Muslims will respond and say that the churches held Mary in great veneration and worshiped around statues of her holding Jesus. If this is true, it explains why Mohammed,the author of the Qur’an, would accuse Christians of worshiping Mary; however, if Mohammed had revelation from Allah about what the Christians believe and what The Bible says, as he claimed to have revelation from Allah on these matters, then he would have given the Biblical position and would not have said that Christians worship Mary. Instead, it appears that Mohammed appealed to observation(by his own or by others) of some church rituals. It should also be noted that Mohammed did not attempt to say that the Christians have turned their back on The Bible by worshiping Mary. This is yet another indicator that Mohammed was ignorant on what The Bible says about Mary. The Muslim might respond by asking, “Why is it that your church worshiped Mary?” The proper answer is that not all Churches are of God. The ultimate authority in Christianity is scripture, not tradition. If the Church says or does something that contradicts what scripture says, the Church is wrong. Just as some Churches have went astray in the time of the Apostle Paul, so too will other Churches go astray beyond the time of Paul. The actions of other Churches is simply not a valid objection to Christianity.

The Qur’an also claims that Jesus was not the Messiah, nor was he God, but rather, he was a messenger. This, of course, contradicts scripture. Jesus made it clear that he was God. The Qur’an says that The Bible is the Word of God, yet the Qur’an contradicts what The Bible teaches. Therefore, if what The Bible says is true, and what the Qur’an says concerning scripture is false, then the Qu’ran must be false.

Final Words on Islam

When the first principles and the presuppositions of Islam are taken into account, it is plain that at least two areas of Islam collapse into skepticism: soteriology and epistemology. The Muslim cannot know if they are saved, because they won’t know if they did enough good works to inherit eternal life. The epistemology of Islam is also called into question because the Qur’an repeatedly says that Allah is a deceiver. While the Muslim may object and say that Allah only deceives the wicked, we can also see that Allah deceives the Muslim because Allah falsely tells them that they are righteous. The Qur’an says that The Bible is God’s Word, yet the Qur’an contradicts The Bible. If the Qur’an is true, then The Bible must be true, but if the Bible is true, the Qur’an must be false.

Footnotes:

1. Answering Islam, Allah: Truthful Or Deceiver? <https://answering-islam.org/authors/cornelius/makr.html> (14 March 2014).

An Examination: Christianity, Science, Atheism, and Operationalism

June 23, 2014 by Jason Petersen Leave a Comment

Written by Jason Petersen

Note: This is an older article from 2014 that was transferred over to this website.

Introduction

This article will go over some of the issues concerning science, Christianity, and the philosophy of science known as Operationalism. This article is not meant to be comprehensive, rather, it is to give an overview of the relationship between science, Christianity, and operationalism. Other articles will be published in the future that will go into the issues discussed in more detail.

The Secularist View of Science

Today, it is often insinuated by humanists, the media, atheists, and even some Christians, that science is the ultimate arbiter of truth. There is a meme that is often passed around by atheists and other advocates of this view of science:

This view of science that Tyson advocates is an ignorant but common attitude that has resonated in European and Western culture. Many of the proponents of this view might say, “Well, science has given us a myriad of things. Because of science, we have computers, the internet, cars, easy access to food, etc.” This is, of course, true. Science has certainly proven to be a useful and fruitful enterprise. Of course, usefulness does not equate to truth. There have been a myriad of useful models in science that turned out to be false. This will be discussed later in the article. Suffice it to say, however, that the public’s view of science is one of ignorance. The new atheists, humanists, and secularists have been arguing and loudly proclaiming that science is the standard by which all truth is weighed against. Some may not go as far to say that science is the only way to achieve knowledge of the truth, but many will adamantly and confidently state that all things should be weighed against science:

The Consensus-Academic View of Science:

Anyone who has taken a philosophy of science class has hopefully been taught the limitations of science. The Indiana University has a web lesson online that talks about some of the limitations of science. A few of the relevant points will be listed here[acp footnote]1[/acp]:

1. Science is not a process that can solve all kinds of problems and questions.

The realm of science is limited strictly to solving problems about the natural world. Science is not properly equipped to handle the supernatural realm (as such), nor the realm of values and ethics.

3. It’s not a process that seeks the truth or facts.

The goal of science is to come as close as we can to understanding the cause-effect realities of the natural world. It’s never “truth” or “facts”. “Truth” and “facts” can mean different things to different people.

5. It’s not a process that can produce any kind of explanation.

Scientific explanations must be potentially disprovable. Therefore, supernatural explanations cannot be used, since they can never be disproved (supernatural forces, by definition, do not predictably follow the laws of nature). Whatever results occur in any test can be attributed to those nebulous forces, effectively ending any further efforts to explain.

6. It’s not a process that produces certainties, or absolute facts.

Science is a process which can only produce “possible” to “highly probable” explanations for natural phenomena; these are never certainties. With new information, tools, or approaches, earlier findings (theories, or even facts) can be replaced by new findings.

7. It’s not a process that can always be relied upon due to its total objectivity and internal self-correction.

Science can be done poorly, just like any other human endeavor. We are all fallible, some of us make fewer mistakes than others, some observe better than others, but we are still subjective in the end. Internal self-correction mechanisms in science merely increase the reliability of its product.

The author does not fully agree with every point made on the website, however, it does speak to the ignorance of some individuals, such as Tyson, on the scope of science. There are other papers and university websites that say the same sort of things that the University of Indiana does. In short, anyone that understands science will understand that science is not truth, and that it cannot produce certainty.

Implications of the Consensus-Academic View of Science

Let us go point by point at the implications of the philosophy of science, as given by Indiana University’s website:

1. Not all claims can be resolved by science. Thus, people like Hitchens and Tyson are incorrect when they say that everything must be weighed against science.

3. Science is the study of the cause-effect realities of the natural world. It’s not “truth” or “facts” in the absolute sense. The goal of science is to have as accurate of an explanation of these facts as possible. Thus, science is not truth, rather, it’s an approximation of the truth.

5. Scientific explanations must be falsifiable. Super natural explanations may not be used because they are not empirically falsifiable. Thus, when an atheist says that science shows The Bible is wrong in some area, they are committing a category error. Because of the nature of science, science by definition cannot disprove Christianity or any of the claims of scripture.

6. Science does not produce certainties or absolute facts. Even what some may think to be the most established theories in science are subject to question. This, despite the athiest’s contrary proclamations, includes evolution.

7. The scientific process is corruptible. There can be mistakes, and there are biases. In fact, there was a study that demonstrated that the peer-review process is not quite as rigorous as secularists and atheists would readily admit. In early 2014, nature.com released an article that stated that at least 120 peer-reviewed papers were removed from some prominent journals.[acp footnote]2[/acp] The papers were removed because the papers were computer generated. The computer generated papers were nonsensical banter that was constructed using very complex terminology.

Thus, we can see from these points that advocates of the “science is truth” movement such as Tyson and the late Hitchens have philosophies that do not square well with even the secular-academic views of science.

Implications on Truth and Epistemology

Given that science isn’t truth, one might ask, how can science lead to truth? And if science is not truth, then how can any conclusion reached by the scientific method be considered justified-true belief? Surely, something cannot be justified-true belief if the method in which that truth was founded upon cannot produce truth in the first place. What good is an approximation of truth if the truth that is being approximated is unknown? Surely, an approximation of the truth cannot be truth. After all, something that is not completely true cannot be considered to be truth. According to the law of contradiction, two contrary propositions cannot be true at the same time. Therefore, that which is false cannot be true. Thus, it is obvious that science can lead to no truth whatsoever.

The definition of knowledge is hotly debated in philosophy. There are a host of disagreements about the definition of knowledge and the nature of it. In this article, let knowledge be defined as facts or information that are justifiably known to be true. Following from this definition, science cannot produce knowledge because science must by necessity be skeptical of every claim. Thus, since science is not truth and cannot lead to truth, then science cannot lead to knowledge either. Thus, science must always be false.

Implications of Science Concerning Christianity and the Supernatural

If science cannot lead to truth or knowledge, then what threat is it to Christianity? Logically speaking, science, by definition, cannot be a threat to Christianity. If science cannot lead to truth or knowledge, then science cannot logically poise a challenge to Christianity. Science is also unable to empirically investigate the supernatural, because the supernatural does not abide by the limitations of nature. Thus, science can’t challenge the supernatural. If anyone proposes that science is truth, can lead to knowledge, and is able to investigate the super natural, then they are not advocating science, rather, they are advocating pseudo-science. Indeed, any individual that tries to amend the skeptical tendencies of science is a great danger to the usefulness of the scientific method.

An atheist named James Randi has a website that lists a one million dollar challenge to prove the supernatural[acp footnote]3[/acp]:

The Foundation is committed to providing reliable information about paranormal claims. It both supports and conducts original research into such claims.

At JREF, we offer a one-million-dollar prize to anyone who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event. The JREF does not involve itself in the testing procedure, other than helping to design the protocol and approving the conditions under which a test will take place. All tests are designed with the participation and approval of the applicant. In most cases, the applicant will be asked to perform a relatively simple preliminary test of the claim, which if successful, will be followed by the formal test. Preliminary tests are usually conducted by associates of the JREF at the site where the applicant lives. Upon success in the preliminary testing process, the “applicant” becomes a “claimant.”

To date, no one has passed the preliminary tests.

The method that is used by Randi is the scientific method. However, as we covered before, science, by definition, cannot speak on the supernatural. Also, science is unable to produce truth or knowledge. Since Randi is a proponent of this kind of testing on the supernatural, then that certainly makes Randi an advocate of pseudoscience. Such an implication would be quite damaging to any atheist that brings up James Randi’s challenge to a Christian. Instead of arguing about whether or not the supernatural exists, all the Christian must do is show that science is not in a place to challenge the supernatural or Christianity. If the atheist objects to such a statement, the Christian need only explain the nature and limitations of science, and the Christian can also explain that trying to take science outside of its scope is an exercise in pseudoscience. If the atheist continues to object, repeatedly point out the mistake every time the atheist uses science outside of its scope.

Science is Not Logical

Science is an enterprise that is, while useful, not logical. This is the case for two primary reasons:

1. Science commits the fallacy of asserting/affirming the consequent.

Asserting the consequent is considered a logical fallacy because the hypothetical consequence occurring does not necessarily validate the hypothesis. Asserting the consequent is a logical fallacy that follows this formula:

A. If P, then Q.

B. Q

C. Therefore, P

Take this example for instance:

A. If the cookie is made of sugar(P), the cookie is sweet.(Q)

B. The cookie is sweet.(Q)

C. Therefore, the cookie is made of sugar.(P)

What about another empirical observation? Surely science can logically prove the most obvious facts, such as rain making the road wet:

A. If it is raining(P), then the road is wet.(Q)

B. The road is wet.(Q)

C. Therefore, it is raining.(P)

Thus, empirical observations and the scientific method commits the fallacy of asserting the consequent. Logical fallacies are called fallacies because they are mistakes in reasoning. Since all scientific observations and experiments commit this fallacy, science cannot be logical. The proclamation that atheists regularly make, “science and reason” is a self contradiction. Science cannot be a reasonable means of obtaining truth if science is logically fallacious.

2. Science uses induction.

Induction is the process of reasoning from specific propositions to more generalized propositions. Inductive arguments allow for the conclusion to be false even if the premises lead up to the conclusion are true. For example:

1. All of the ducks we have seen are yellow.

2. Therefore, all ducks are yellow.

I have no doubt that all readers are aware that not all ducks are yellow. While it is true that the observer only saw yellow ducks, the conclusion is still false. Typically, inductive arguments are referred to as “strong” or “weak” inductive arguments. The same can be said for the process of induction itself. The strength of the inductive inference is measured by how probable the inference is. Thus, induction is probabilistic in nature, not absolute. From this fact, it is also can be, by good consequence, deduced that induction is an approximation of truth.

The reader might recall some of the observations made concerning science and the nature of truth earlier in this article. Earlier, it was demonstrated that an approximation of the truth cannot be truth. An approximation of the truth can only be false. Thus, induction is always false.

Another issue that is a fallacy known as begging the question. This is where a proposition(that is not axiomatic) can only be justified by appealing to the proposition. Any argument given to justify induction leading to knowledge will be an inductive argument. Of course, inductive arguments use induction. Therefore, induction is logically fallacious. If induction is fallacious, then induction is not logical.

Thus, we can conclude based on the two points given that science and reason do not go hand in hand as the atheists claim. Rather, obtaining knowledge from science is irrational.

A Christian might feel concerned after reading up to this portion of the article. After all, Christians use induction and science every day. Do we not expect the sun to rise every morning? Do we not use our cars to go to and fro? Are we irrational for using science and induction? The Christian need not be concerned, because scripture gives us justification for using these processes.

Operationalism

Operationalism is a view of science that acknowledges that science, by its own merits, cannot produce truth or knowledge; however, operationalism does recognize that science is useful. After all, science has helped produce ideas that have lead to inventions such a cars, computers, phones, planes, etc. Science’s success involves the manipulation of nature for our benefit. The operationalist view is that science should be used for pragmatic purposes despite the fact that it doesn’t ultimately lead to knowledge.

Operationalism and Implications on Christianity

Christians are able to hold to a view such as operationalism because The Bible teaches us about nature being uniform.(Genesis 8:22, Jeremiah 31:35-37) This gives us justification for using induction and the scientific method for pragmatic purposes. Since The Bible teaches that nature is uniform, we have logical justification for believing that the ideas behind devices such as computers, phones, cars, etc. will remain useful and produce beneficial results. Thus, justification for science and induction are deducible from scripture. This means that Christians are able to avoid the problem of induction and asserting the consequent by appealing to a top-down epistemological, deductive, justification from scripture.

Certainly, if scripture is true, science will inevitably reach some conclusions that are true; however, the truth that science does reach will not be able to be validated by the scientific method, because science is naturally skeptical of every conclusion that is reached. Thus, the Christian’s knowledge concerning nature should not come from science itself, but rather, from scripture and what is deducible from scripture.

Operationalism and Implications on Atheism

Unfortunately for atheists, the only justification they would have for being an operationalist would come from the very same processes that they have deemed to be fallacious. If induction and asserting the consequent is fallacious and can’t lead to knowledge, then how could the atheist then turn around and say, “We can be justified in knowing that the principles of science that are useful will remain useful in the future”? Is that not utilizing the same process of induction that operationalists have repudiated in the first place? Thus, atheists have no justification for being operationalists.

Are Operationalists Anti Science?

One objection to operationalism can be easily anticipated. A number of people that are entrenched in their view of science leading to truth may call someone who says that science cannot lead to truth “anti science.” Well, there are numerous approaches one could take to addressing such an objection. On one hand, someone can repeatedly point out how science, by it’s nature, cannot lead to truth or knowledge. Such an approach would certainly make the objector look to be a fool. It may be worth pointing out, however, that while some objectors are against operationalism, they are actually operationalists in principle. One need only to look to the history of science to point this out.

In the days of ancient philosophy, numerous issues were being dealt with by philosophers. The problem of motion, the problem of causation, the problem of induction, asserting the consequent, etc. were issues that philosophers were trying to tackle in order to justify science. Many of these issues, in the author’s opinion, are still unsolved today. The reasons why will not be elaborated on here. However, anyone who acknowledges that these problems are unsolved(or perhaps anyone that doesn’t care about the problems) is an operationalist in practice when they press on with the scientific method. What he have found is that scientists today are not concerned with these issues at all. In fact, some scientists, such as Lawrence Krauss, argues that philosophy is dead. Nevermind that Krauss is making a philosophical statement when he declares that philosophy is dead.

Those who are not familiar with some of the intricacies concerning philosophical problems and their relationship to the history of philosophical inquiry may not be so comfortable with explaining the different views on the aforementioned problems. Fortunately, there is an easier way to prove that scientists are operationalists in practice. There have been numerous questions of whether light is a particle or a wave. Of course, according to the law of contradiction, light cannot be both a particle and a wave. However, some conventional and widely-used models in science assume that light is a particle, whereas other conventional models assume that light is a wave. What other justification would there be to hold such a self-contradictory position? One option is to accept that light is both a particle and a wave while still maintaining that science leads to knowledge. This position, of course, would violate the law of contradiction. If a person chooses to reject the law of contradiction, then experience, thought, and reality becomes unintelligible. How could one distinguish between different objects or concepts if there were no opposing propositions? A rejection of the law of contradiction would make science impossible, for science assumes the laws of logic to operate. Not only would a rejection of the law of contradiction destroy logic, but it would kill science as well; science cannot live without logic.

There is another position that one could hold, after all, there are many models in science that are widely used, but contradict each other. One could use light as a particle in one instance, while considering light a wave in another instance if they accept that light cannot be both a wave and particle at the same time. How could this be accomplished? It can only be accomplished by adopting operationalism. If one views science as a pragmatic enterprise while realizing that science isn’t ultimately knowledge or truth, then the individual is justified in accepting contradictions in science for the sake of manipulating nature for his benefit. In fact, this is what scientists do. Even though some issues are unsolved, those models are still used to make predictions. If they are doing so in the pursuit of truth, then they are irrationalistic, because using contradictory models would be a rejection of logic. There have been notable operationalists that are often cited as experts, Karl Popper, Bertrand Russell, and Albert Einstein among others. Would any atheist in their right mind consider Albert Einstein to be anti science? Albert Einstein once said that there is no chance that his theory of general relativity is correct, yet he promoted it anyway for pragmatic purposes in hopes that it might lead to more accurate and useful models in the future. Einstein said that science will never know that it has the truth, even if it happens to obtain the truth.[acp footnote]4[/acp]

Even when the models don’t quite fit together, the models are still used to manipulate nature and further investigate predictions and results. One modern example of this is the apparent contradiction between quantum mechanics and general relativity. A new, workable, theory of quantum gravity must conceived in order for the two models to be able to work in synergy. Until that theory is conceived, scientists continue to use both quantum mechanics and general relativity, despite their contradictions to each other. Thus, we can see that in practice, scientists are pragmatists. If scientists did not take a practical-operationalist approach and instead focused on philosophical problems concerning science, we would still have technology equivalent to what we have seen in ancient Greece. Thus, we can see that in practice, scientists are operationalist. We can also see that all those that object to the operationalist approach have the operationalist approach to thank for cell phones, TVs, computers, cars, etc.

What About Creation Science?

Creation science utilizes the scientific method. As such, it commits some of the same fallacies; however, The Bible does say that we will find evidence of God in nature.(Romans 1:19-21; Psalms 19:1-4) God’s revelation through nature is known as general revelation. Since we know through scripture that we will find evidence of God through nature, and perhaps, evidence that the Earth is young and that God created the heavens and the Earth. (2 Peter 3:5-7) Thus, there is certainly merit in the investigation of nature for the purpose of bolstering our faith, but we must recognize that because the scientific method utilizes induction and commits the fallacy of asserting the consequent, we cannot give Creation science as much weight as we give God’s Word. The scientific method is unable to provide epistemic justification for any of its claims, and as a result, The Bible should be the foundation for our beliefs concerning the origins of the universe.

Answers Objections in Defense of the “Science is Truth” Mantra

Objection: Science has brought us a host of technology, and we are able to make predictions that are accurate, thus, science can lead to truth.

Answer: Usefulness is not a measure of truth. Newtonian physics and caloric chemistry was useful for a time, but both have turned out to be false. Thus, usefulness cannot be considered an indicator of truth. This is because false models and theories have been shown to be useful, but false.

Objection: Light is both a particle and a wave, so there is no contradiction in holding light to be a particle in one instance and a wave in another.

Answer: This objection refers to particle-wave duality in quantum mechanics. This model does not say that light is both a wave and a particle at the same time, rather, it says that light is a particle that also has wave-like properties. To say that light is both a wave and a particle is a misunderstanding of quantum mechanics, and it would violate the law of contradiction. Nevertheless, it seems that any objection concerning quantum mechanics is meaningless without a model for quantum gravity. Let us not forget that general relativity and quantum mechanics have not been reconciled. The introduction of the “wavicle” is yet another example of science changing, as it has changed in the past. In essence, physicists still aren’t sure about what light actually is. While the model is useful in some instances(among alternative models), physicists still hold the nature of light as a mystery. The key principle to keep in mind is that a “wavicle” is a particle that also has wave-like properties, contrary to what the name insinuates, it does not mean that light is both a wave and a particle in the context of quantum mechanics.

Objection: You are saying that science isn’t truth, yet you have used the internet and a computer to post your article.

Answer: As I covered in this article, I have operationalist philosophy to thank. If we focused on the solving epistemological-philosophical issues rather than pressing on to manipulate nature for our benefit, we would not have the technology that we have today because the problem of induction would still be unsolved.

Objection: Science does not assert the consequent. Someone can rearrange a syllogism in the form of modus ponens in order to avoid the fallacy. For instance:

P1: If P, then Q

P2: P

Conclusion: Therefore, Q.

Answer: One could attempt to rearrange the syllogism to avoid asserting the consequent; however, the syllogism you laid out is not how the scientific method works. Here are the steps for the scientific method:

1. Observation

2. Develop a Hypothesis

3. Experiment

4. Draw a conclusion

5. Communicate your results to others

The part of the scientific method where the fallacy of asserting the consequence takes place is in number three. Notice that in by the time you reach the experimental phase, a hypothesis has already been created prior to experimentation. If the prediction that your hypothesis has made occurs, then the hypothesis might be considered a success. That being said, let us look at the syllogism:

P1: If my hypothesis is correct/successful(P), I should see the results that I predicted.(Q)

P2: I see the results that I predicted.(Q)

Conclusion: Therefore, my hypothesis is correct/successful.(P)

The syllogism above would be a classic example of asserting the consequent.

What happens if we try to change the syllogism to a form of modus ponens? Let us find out:

P1: I should see the results that I predicted(P) if my hypothesis is correct.(Q)

P2: I see the results that I predicted.(P)

Conclusion: Therefore, my hypothesis is correct.(Q)

To someone that is not familiar with the scientific method, reconstructing the syllogism into a form of modus ponens would seem to be resolve the problem. The issue is, however, is that the syllogism is not consistent with the way the scientific method works. In the scientific method you start with the hypothesis, not the results. In other words, you do not know the results until after the experiment is completed. Thus, by definition, one cannot start with the results and then conclude the hypothesis because you need a hypothesis in order to make the predictions for the experiment in the first place.

Conclusion

The author hopes that by the end of this article, that five distinct points are understood:

1. Science is not truth and cannot, by definition, lead to justified-true belief.

2. To say that science is truth and can lead to justified-true belief is to repudiate logic.

3. Science relies on induction, but the problem of induction remains unsolved.

4. Science should be considered a pragmatic enterprise for the purpose of manipulating nature for our benefit.(Operationalism)

5. Only Christians have a justification for adhering to the operationalist view.

Footnotes:

1. https://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/unt.not.html

2. https://www.nature.com/news/publishers-withdraw-more-than-120-gibberish-papers-1.14763?utm_content=buffer95c78&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

3. https://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html

4. The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University Press, Page 208