Can there be a logical basis for scientific research or certainty in atheism?

Question

I was an agnostic at one point in my life. One realization that changed my thinking is that, unless there is an all-knowing, rational, creator God who made humankind in His likeness, we have little rational basis for trusting either our sense perception or logic itself, and therefore, no basis for science.

If I believe we all ultimately came from something impersonal and irrational, there is no rational basis to believe that my sense perception is accurate, or that logic itself is anything besides a personal preference, a social convention, or just a chemical reaction in my brain (only).

Has anyone else thought about this, particularly those who are not theists? Do non-theists have a basis to justify the reliability of sense perception or logic, besides a faith that human sense perception and logic are reliable, in a universe (they say) is ultimately impersonal and irrational? Thanks.

Answer 1

Many many many people have thought about this for a long time. Descartes, for example, spent a great deal of time thinking about whether or not we can trust our senses in his Discourse On The Method paper. He went even further to say that if we can't trust our senses (for we might be dreaming), then we also cannot trust logic (like 1+1=2 because there might be an "evil genius" making us think logic is correct). He concluded that the only thing we can know for certain is that he exists because he thinks. That is what "I think, therefore I am" means. If you are interested, you should read it.
Let me also point out that most people are agnostics whether they believe in God or not. Agnosticism deals only with a lack of knowledge, not belief. So, it seems you are still an agnostic, since you infer that you cannot know for sure that God exists.
I am an atheist, which means I believe that God does not exist. However, I also realize that I cannot know for certain that he does not exist, making me an agnostic as well.
I accept the idea that sense perception and logic is not a certain knowledge system. However, I believe it is the best tool we have to gaining knowledge, and until a better way can be found (if that is even possible) I will continue to trust it.
For my final point, let me emphasize something. I will continue to TRUST sense perception and logic. Trust is the key word. There is a gigantic difference between trust and faith; trust is earned, faith is not. I trust the senses and logic in that they earned my trust by being consistantly reliable in gathering knowledge. Faith, however, is merely accepting knowledge whether or not there is reason to accept it.

Answer 2

No. Its the disbelief in gods. Yes, science does often work on mathematical probabilities and only states certainties when this certainty can be proven. This often can be - particularly with medical and technological science. Why is this a bad thing? Seeing as how you asked about atheism, I am wondering if you feel that religion saying things like 'In the sure and certain hope of the resurrection' with no evidence of resurrection at all is more likely to be right that science saying 'The Big Bang is the most likely explanation of the formation of the universe because of all this evidence'

Answer 3

Both C S Lewis and Francis Schaeffer essayed versions of this argument.

It has certain force, particularly against naive assertions of certainty.
But it is flawed because it doesn't really recognise the
"hypothesis"
-"experiment/prediction"
-"confirmation/refutation"
-"reinforcement/alteration"
loops which provide the more solid basis for confidence. (This only approaches certainty asymptotically, course)

One could start with any sort of hypothesis, and the methodology edits it up from there. It's there that the certainty emerges. The really bad guesses get filtered out pretty fast. We're now down to the fact that not many theories account for all the observed effects.

Basically, then, the ability to successfully interact with the universe indicates a definite degree of validity in the sensory and thought processes associated with that interaction.

Answer 4

I don't find atheism to be mathematically probable or emotionally satistisying and it is even more an attitude of faith than any form of theism.
If there is no correction of the unfairness of this mortal life in a life to come, I would not bother to trust my senses,ponder over the meaning of anything or seek the logic of anything because everything would be ultimately absurd. The pain of the pursuit of logic would not be worth it,IMHO, since a wholely materialistic universe would be irrational and a waste.

Answer 5

Yes. But there is something simple at work, given enough time matter evolves into consciousness. We are limited by are 5 senses. We have only 5 ways to perceive the universe. We can also use our imagination and our technology to increase our awareness. Take our eyes, we only see a small fraction of the visible spectrum. There is so much more we can't see and probably never will. To me, that is not god, that is just an infinite universe and our reality in it.

Answer 6

A single persons senses are fairly reliable particularly when it comes to repeated observations. If you add in multiple individuals observing the same phenomena the reliability increases. Thus the need for peer review in scientific papers.

One big caveat is that the observer must work diligently to allow the data to speak for themselves. The most glaring flaw of the creationists is that they have a conclusion, Genesis is true, and they then try to fit the data to their conclusion.

Having been in science education for a number of years I can tell you that nature seldom does things in a "rational, straightforward" way and to look for rationality is natural processes will lead you to many wrong inferences.

Answer 7

How is faith more reliable as a sense that the 5 basic senses?

I don't even think faith counts as a sense but as a thought of the mind.

Answer 8

You can never prove that something don't exist. What you can do, is to prove that God exists. So far no-one has succeded, but it is scientifically impossible to remove all hope.

The problem for is that if you prove that God exists, you will probably also be able to prove which religion is scientifically correct. Which probably would benefit all the other religions that still had to rely on faith and continue to be religions.

Answer 9

That's a very weak argument. You could just as easily suppose that God created us without the faculties of science and reason. Therefor, theism suffers from the same quandary.

We have to trust that reason is, well, reasonable as an axiom.

Answer 10

Sorry but I fail to follow the 'logic' that if man was not created by some type of god he would be incapable of possessing reliable senses.