Science Has Nothing To Say About Human Purposes and the Universe.

(A) Clarifying the ResolutionThe resolution that we have before us today is "Science Has Nothing to Say About Human Purposes and the Universe." By this, I mean to say that science through its methods of deducing facts about the world through means of hypothesis, observation, falsification, and etc., cannot tap into the realm of human metaphysics and its relationship with the universe.I do not mean to say that "human purposes" and "the universe" are two separate issues in this debate. Rather, I mean that human purposes and its relation with the universe cannot be tapped into by the domain of scientific inquiry, and as such must be left to the domain of philosophy and theology. With this addressed, I will now introduce my case.(B) Introduction There have been discussions and debates in history (in various degrees) where one can see a debate between territories of thought cross over on to another, and hence, controversy will emerge. The natural explanations versus mythologies in Greek thought, faith and reason more or less in the Middle Ages, and science and religion most notoriously noted in the mid-19th century Victorian era. My focus however is to examine what scientific methods can we employ in order to understand the more philosophical (or metaphysical) questions about the universe. From the outset I will theme my answer to the following resolution from Paul Davies's inquiry in his book, “The Mind of God” (1992): “Can we really hope to answer the ultimate questions of existence through science and rational inquiry, or will we always encounter impenetrable mystery at some stage?” (cp. 1992, p. 20). Like Davies, I accept the idea that different methods of obtaining knowledge must be employed when approaching certain questions. For instance, answering the question “Does God exist?” will be determined far differently than the question “Are electrons heavier than protons?” Of course, some errors have already taken place thus far into our endeavor. Oxford Biologist and predominant atheist Richard Dawkins in his notorious book, “The God Delusion” (2006) makes the assertion that “the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other” (cp. 2006, p. 72). The problem with this level of reasoning is that we cannot address such a proposition as “God exists” like any other scientific proposition (e.g. “the speed of light is constant between any two given points A and B”). To suggest that it can be, is what we will call the “Cracker Box Fallacy.” The name of the fallacy comes from a famous debate between Dr. Greg Bahnsen (Christian) and Gordon Stein (Atheist) at the University of California in 1985.(C) Stating My Position As you can see, different subjects belong to different methodologies for better understanding those subjects – a mistake made not less than once before. Thus, we are looking at the questions of existence from a scientific standpoint and trying to determine whether or not it is the case that science can take grounds on these sorts of issues. There a couple positions at hand that we can take a look at: (1) Science can say something about these questions. (2) Science cannot say something about these questions. Now, by proposition (2) it could be said that it is perhaps best not to say that science cannot say something about metaphysical or ‘purposeful’ questions of existence, but rather that it simply has nothing to say about them; science is a subject that by definition has endeavors that are not concerned with the disciplines of philosophical inquiry. This view predominately can be seen in the work of Harvard Paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould’s book, “Rocks of Ages” (1999):"I do not see how science and religion could be unified, or even synthesized, under any common scheme of explanation or analysis; but I also do not understand why the two enterprises should experience any conflict. Science tries to document the factual character of the natural world, and to develop theories that coordinate and explain these facts. Religion, on the other hand, operates in the equally important, but utterly different, realm of human purposes, meanings, and values – subjects that the factual domain of science might illuminate, can never resolve…" (Rocks of Ages; cp. 1999, p. 4) As a matter of fact, an interesting passing comment has been by astrophysicist Hugh Ross’s book, “More Than A Theory” (2009). Some scientists and theologians divide science into two domains: origins science, where theological considerations are permissible, and operations (or ongoing-process) science, where they are not. As with Gould’s supposed solution, this approach creates artificial boundaries between science and theology that limit the extent and effectiveness of education research, and the testing of various creation/evolution models. (More Than A Theory; cp. 2009, p. 44) The reason being (as I think Ross is right), is that Gould’s grouping of scientific endeavors with the objective (fact-based) and religious endeavors with the subjective (feeling or experience-based) appears to be an easy way out, but the philosophical choke hold makes such a position as Ross says, “untenable.” Naturalism as such cannot provide an adequate basis for logic, reason, cognitive faculties, mathematics and so forth. The old age problem regarding the uniformity of nature [according to the naturalists] lies within the scope of empirical verification; whereas, begging the question while using empirical verification to try and solve the problem becomes inevitable. In other words, the case could be that the “god of the gaps” fallacy (which I think is a misunderstood and confused concept to begin with) is applied likewise to the naturalists; otherwise known as the “nature of the gaps” fallacy. Researchers wrongfully attribute some unknown phenomenon or event to the realm of natural or physical explanations as a first principle. That is to say, that nature (as the argument goes) must fill all the gaps in human knowledge and understanding. That of course isn’t to say science has or will have it all figured it out, but that in scope, science can will attribute all naturally known phenomenon to the domain of the naturalistically explained.(D) Concluding Thoughts As you can see, science is not an adequate domain of knowledge-deduction (or induction) to touch on the matter of philosophical or religious affairs. I therefore urge a vote in favor of the resolution. My opponent must show as to why science in fact can say something about these matters, and by what methods it is able to do so.