“THAT WHICH CAN ASSERTED WITHOUT EVIDENCE CAN BE DISMISSED WITHOUT EVIDENCE.” (CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS). DO YOU AGREE? There have quite possibly been numerous times where you have been asked, “how do you know that?” The question begs you to give evidence behind something you have just asserted; though feasible in some situations, there are often times where no obvious or logical explanation can be given as an answer. Hitchens’ statement goes beyond this simple skepticism of one’s knowledge and attempts to immediately refute any assertions if they have no more than a surface level understanding, or lack explanations or confirmations. In addition, the statement also suggests that if what is asserted passes the initial test of having evidence, it can only be dismissed once there is substantial contradictory evidence. Two interesting areas of knowledge which draw from evidence are natural science and ethics, which often encounter each other with opposing viewpoints. Natural science studies the environment around us but also ourselves, just from an outwardly approach (seeing ourselves as a species rather than a society). Ethics, on the other hand, deals with the understanding of human’s thoughts and …show more content…
In short, after observing an issue or problem, scientists form a hypothesis, carry out experiments to validate the hypothesis, and arrive at a conclusion (though many steps come after this like repetitions and modifications, this is a basic example). If irrefutable, the hypothesis has the ability to become widely accepted by scientists or classed as a theory. Hitchens’ statement is greatly contradictory to the scientific method; in some ways a hypothesis has no evidence therefor according to Hitchens could be dismissed, however dismissing a hypothesis before experimentation takes place would have constricted science and its
The video Collision is a collection of clips from debates between Christopher Hitchens and Douglass Wilson. Hitchens, the atheist, raised many objections to Christianity, which are addressed in this paper. They are with God anything is permissible; the laws of physics have never been broken and galaxies simply hold themselves together; and that if there was an eternal and unchanging God we would be living in a totalitarian universe.
Kelly James Clark, who is a former Professor of Philosophy at Calvin College, wrote “Without Evidence or Argument” which is published in Reason and Responsibility: Readings in Some Basic Problems of Philosophy. The article starts off with the scenario of a stranger giving a man a note that his wife is cheating on him. However, there is no evidence and her behavior has not changed at all, how should he react? Does he take the note as complete truth and confront her or should he find security in the trust that he has built up with his wife over the past years together (Feinberg 138)? Clark uses this example, as well as others, to bring attention to the connection between significant beliefs and evidence. Furthermore, Clark goes on to state his
Thomas Paine was an influential individual at his time, whose most famous work, Rights of Man, described America as a safe heaven for those trying to start a new life, where no individual would be over privileged, men would be equal, and the government would not be corrupt. Although the America of today has improved substantially over the two-hundred or so years since Paine’s, Rights of Man, providing several benefits for the the poverty-stricken, and improving culturally as a people, America is plagued with over privileged wealthy men who run the government and control the public, acting as puppet masters, who control the will of the people through a corrupt government. So although Thomas Paine was correct about America’s benefits for the
It can also be opinionated. Scientists observe and experiment in order to prove or disprove something. Religionists only have to believe and put faith into God. Sometimes religion and science are exclusive to each other because they have a different perspective on certain topics. For example, scientists claim that it was the Big Bang that created the universe. In Jane Goodall’s, In the Forests of Gombe, she says, “It was not some intangible God who created the universe, [scientists] argue, it was the Big Bang Theory. Scientists believe that the universe started out as a single singularity and over billions of years, the universe was created. Religionists believe that God created the universe. The Bible reads, “ In the beginning, when God created the universe, the earth was formless… And so the whole universe was completed; By the seventh day God finished what he had been doing and stopped working… And that is how the universe was created” (Genesis 1-2). Religionists believe that the universe was created in seven days because that is what the Bible says. There are some people who have a strict set of principles and they are called fundamentalists. There are scientific fundamentalists and religious fundamentalists. Their beliefs are very extreme. Wendell says, “They all seek power-- they seek victory,in fact-- by abandoning the properties that permit us to seek and to honor what is true while acknowledging the limits of our ability to know” (22). Both parties want to be right but they abandon everything to prove one point. This is not that definition of science because science observes and experiments in order to prove. Even though the study of science is to obtain facts and proof, fundamental scientists express something that is a belief and presents it as a fact. In Wendell Berry’s essay, Professor Weinberg, a fundamental scientists,
First, when observations are made, hypothesises are formed. To test these hypothesises scientists conduct experiments. If their hypothesis is right, it is confirmed by further experiments and validated by other scientists. After many experiments and confirmations, a theory is formed. A scientific theory is a broad and general idea or explanation provided by scientists and is related to observations and is supported by a large amount of evidence. A theory is not a fact however it is just a possible explanation. An example of a theory is the Big Bang Theory.
Christopher Hitchens took a very one-sided approach to the idea of science and religion co-existing. In his work, “Does science make belief in God obsolete?” he made various attempts to poke fun at the concept of religion in modern times. However, the one that stuck out to me the most was when Hitchens said “It is how we came up with answers before we had any evidence. It belongs to the terrified childhood of our species, before we knew about germs or could account for earthquakes. It belongs to our childhood, too, in the less charming sense of a demanding a tyrannical authority: a protective parent who demands compulsory love even as he exacts a tithe of fear.” (4). Religion was a method of our predecessors to give answer the questions they couldn’t solve, and give a purpose to life. But, I believe it is an outdated method since science has become commonplace after 1832.
hat for a belief to be true knowledge, it must be supported by evidence. Evidentialism also claims
evidentiary fact in science, just like all other facts of biology, physics, chemistry, etc. It
This paper will dispute that scientific beliefs are not the right way to accept a belief and it will question if we should let one accept their rights to their own beliefs. In Williams James article Will to Believe, we accept his perspective on how we set and fix our beliefs. This paper will first outline his overview on the argument that someone does not choose their belief but rather one just has them. Following, it will outline my perspective on how we set our beliefs and agreement with purse. Then it will explain how other methodologies such as science cannot conclude to one’s true beliefs. Science has been seen as a way to perceive life and taken to consideration as the truth. This paper should conclude that humans define ourselves by
In addition to logical consistency, testability is an important piece when evaluating a theory. According to Akers & Sellers (2013), “a theory must be testable by objective, repeatable evidence” (p.5); thus, if the theory is not testable then it has no scientific value. There are several reasons why a theory might not be testable; such as its concepts may not be observable or reportable events and tautology. Tautology refers to a statement or hypothesis that is tr...
“The lack of conflict between science and religion arises from a lack of overlap between their respective domains of professional expertise—science in the empirical constitution of the universe, and religion in the search for proper ethical values and the spiritual meaning of our lives. The attainment of wisdom in a full life requires extensive attention to both domains—for a great book tells us that the truth can make us free and that we will live in optimal harmony with our fellows when we learn to do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly.”
Popper believes that science does not begin with the collection of empirical data, but starts with the formulation of a hypothesis (Veronesi, 2014, p1). Alexander Bird outlines Popper’s view on the scientific method in his book Philosophy of Science (1998, pp.239-240). This view is that scientists use a process of imagination to invent a hypothesis. However, once this has been established, scientists must attempt to
In many aspects of our lives, the use of faith as a basis for knowledge can be found. Whether it is faith in the advice of your teacher, faith in a God or faith in a scientific theory, it is present. But what is faith? A definition of faith in a theory of knowledge context is the confident belief or trust in a knowledge claim by a knower, without the knower having conclusive evidence. This is because if a knowledge claim is backed up by evidence, then we would use reason rather than faith as a basis for knowledge . If we define knowledge as ‘justified true belief’, it can be seen that faith, being without justification, can never fulfill this definition, and so cannot be used as a reliable basis for knowledge. However, the question arises, what if a certain knowledge claim lies outside of the realm of reason? What if a knowledge claim cannot be justified by empirical evidence and reasoning alone, such as a religious knowledge claim? It is then that faith allows the knower to decide what is knowledge and what is not, when something cannot be definitively proved through the use of evidence. When assessing faith as a basis for knowledge in the natural sciences, the fact arises that without faith in the research done before us, it is impossible to develop further knowledge on top of it. Yet at the same time, if we have unwavering faith in existing theories, they would never be challenged, and so our progress of knowledge in the natural sciences would come to a standstill. Although I intend to approach this essay in a balanced manner, this essay may be subject to a small degree of bias, due to my own non-religious viewpoint.
... that can ever be certain is a philosophical idea called “Solipsism”. This theory determines that the only thing that can be known for sure is the self. I can be sure that I exist, and that I think. However, this theory also has its complications, because there can only be one solipsist. Therefore, there is no means of proving this hypothesis. I believe that different ways of knowing immensely affect our perception of truth. It appears unfathomable to be certain that anyone can see the truth, because the different ways of knowing influence our perception of what we believe to be ‘reality’. ‘Truth’ is formed in our minds. In my opinion, what is true and what is believed to be true cannot be discerned; I believe that we form a truth in our own minds, and that we consciously choose to believe in it, because we have no other way of being certain about our reality.
Some feel that scientist are atheists. Some scientists say we still believe in God. St. Thomas answers some questions about faith and science and why faith cannot be tested by the rules of science. In obj.4 he says, “ Because the object of science is something seen, whereas the object of faith is the unseen, as stated above”(258). What he is saying is science is something that has to be seen and proven whereas faith is something as unseen and relies solely on an individual 's beliefs. St. Thomas also says, “ In like manner it may happen that what is an object of vision or scientific knowledge for one man even in the state of wayfarer, is , for another man, an object of faith, because he does not know it by demonstration”(258). Meaning that what one person sees as scientific and fact, can appear to another man as just another sign of faith, faith has no bounds whereas science has boundaries and