LESSONS IN LOGIC: Richard Dawkins Doesn’t Even Know Why He’s Wrong

I found the following video on FaceBook.  It shows Richard Dawkins attempting to answer the question: “Why can we trust science?”  I also read some of the comments made by people who think Dawkins made a point.  They mocked believers because they think Dawkins showed them to be foolish.  Sadly, all this video and the associated comments did was prove just how ignorant Dawkins and his supporters are.  Not only was Dawkins wrong, but he doesn’t even understand why he is wrong.  I’ll explain, after the video:

As is so often the case these days, this issue boils down to definitions. The reason Dawkins is wrong is because he doesn’t understand what the scientific method is: he doesn’t know and understand the definition.  For that matter, Dawkins doesn’t even seem to understand what the scientific method is (let alone who developed it and why).  So let’s start by looking at the definition of the scientific method:

Scientific Method

  1. a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

OK, first, notice that the scientific method is just that: a method.  Just as logic is a set of rules used to guide the process of reasoning, the scientific method is a system of rules used to guide the investigation of…what?

This is the next part of the definition — the part that has been omitted from most modern dictionaries (and for good reason).  The scientific method governs the investigation of the natural sciences: i.e. the natural world!

Now, why would they leave that part out of the definition in most modern dictionaries?  You see, the ‘social sciences’ are not ‘natural science,’ but you wouldn’t know that if all you had to go on was a dictionary definition that leaves out the connection between the natural world and the scientific method.  Now, the social sciences certainly use many of the same principles as the natural sciences, but it deals with things that cannot be directly measured or tested — like the human psyche and societal behavior. Then there are other sciences that have no connection to the natural world, such as economic science, and political science.

But, if you listen to Dawkins and those like him, they would insist that all science is the same, and that it can only be used on those things that can be physically ‘proven.’  Therefore, since God and the notion of the ‘Spirit World’ cannot be proven, they must not exist.  That is what is meant by ‘Super Natural:’ not part of the ‘natural’ world.  So, does that mean economics, psychology, sociology and politics are all ‘super natural?’ For that matter, does Dawkins mean to say that logic, the laws of mathematics, the laws of physics and even the principles of his precious ‘science’ are also ‘super natural?’  He must, because we cannot feel or touch or measure any of those things.  Therefore, by his own definition, they should be dismissed as being just as foolish as the notion of God.

You see, this is just one for Dawkins mistakes: When he tries to equate all sciences with the natural sciences, he is committing the fallacy of equivocation.  He commits another fallacy when he asserts that there a thing must be material to be considered real.  Or that he must be able to measure and test it directly.  There are many things we know to be real but cannot see or feel or touch, which means there are many things we know to be real that cannot be directly measured, or tested.  Much of the work in quantum mechanics is dependent upon indirect testing, yet Dawkins doesn’t deny the conclusions of the scientists working in this field.  Interestingly enough, among those conclusions is the suspicion that there are not only other dimensions we cannot see or touch, but also other universes.  So, why are people like Dawkins comfortable with the possibility of dimensions and universes that cannot be explored by using the scientific method, yet they are equally as opposed to the notion of a Creator and Spirit World (which, after all, could just be different dimensions or another universe)?

The answer is simple: Dawkins simply refuses to accept any possibility of God, therefore, he can ignore all the indirect evidence of His existence.  Ironically, the ‘scientific method’ he so loves was developed by Christians who were convinced they could learn more about the nature of God through the exploration of His creation.  You see, there is no contradiction between the existence of a Creator and the scientific method.  This is just another of Dawkins’ many mistakes.  The scientific method dictates that one cannot rule out any possibilities until after they have been demonstrated to be wrong.  As Dawkins has pointed out — many times — one cannot prove or disprove the existence of God.  Yet, Dakins rejects the possibility of a Creator without ever looking for indirect evidence of His existence.  Therefore, Dawkins violates the first rule of his preciousness ‘science.’  And in another twist of irony, when he does so, he turns science into a religion.  This is because his belief in science is based on an un-justified assumption, or leap of faith, if you will.  In principle, this means Dawkins’ belief in science is no different than the belief in God.  He’s just on the flip side of the faith coin.

Finally, Dawkins ignores another crucial aspect of the definition of the scientific method.  Nowhere in the definition does it say the method can ‘prove’ anything.  it is merely a method to help us better understand and describe the natural world — nothing more.  This is why science has ‘proven’ that people with different skin color were inferior to people of other skin color.  Or why people of a different ethnicity or political beliefs are inferior to people of other ethnicity and political beliefs.  It is how ‘science’ could be absolutely certain that we have all died in the latest ice age, as predicted in the 1970’s, but now, ‘science’ is equally as sure that we will all die of global warming (which they turned into ‘climate change’ when their first predictions failed to meet actual observation).

The point is simple: science does not, cannot and will never ‘prove’ anything.  All it does is help us understand things better.  In a very real sense, it improves our odds of predicting the outcome of an event — nothing more.  Sure, in some areas, like building ships, planes or rocket ships, it can help us predict things with a high degree of probability, but not perfectly.  If ‘science’ were capable of ‘proving; things beyond all doubt, then we would never have engineering failures, like the Titanic, the crash of a plane or the accident during Apollo 13.  But Dawkins is so sure of himself, he cannot even see his mistakes.  This is what the Bible means when it tells us pride leads to destruction.  Pride prevents us from seeing Truth, and Truth is just one more thing ‘science’ cannot see or touch or measure, but it is as real as you are — and you know it!.

[NOTE: I have placed this blog in the Lord’s hands.  I am no longer cross-blogging to other sites.  I am not pushing this blog in any way.  If others are going to find it, and if it is going to grow, it will be up to the Lord to make it happen through you, the reader.  If you like this post, or find it to be of any value, then please share it with others.  Otherwise, I will simply continue to share the understandings I have been given and, as I said earlier, I will leave the fruit of my effort for the Lord to handle.]


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *