Uncertainty of Science: In Regards to David Hume

In the previous post, I went into epistemological basis for where knowledge comes from and how our mind is formed.  I intentionally left out the major views on what mind is to keep the focus on epistemology but I do want to continue talking about how knowledge is gained and what we are able to gain from observational data: through inductive reasoning.  The below is part of a debate I had with a friend named Lance.  I've edited it so as to not be aggressively pointing fingers at the reader.

I would first like to source David Hume, who seems to have the ever looming presence in the world of science as he posed the question on the falsity of the belief we hold to be certain regarding observational studies, science. Although this wasn't his goal (similar to how Descartes wasn't trying to make people fall into solipsism), he doesn't successfully work his way out of this conclusion.  He proposes that we believe in the concept of causality (there is a cause and effect, or everything has a cause) out of habit and it is not a deductively held argument. It's a rather intuitive and seemingly true since if we see a chair on fire, we immediately assume something must have set it off and we often look for he cause.  However, Hume begs to differ.  Let’s say we put our hand above a fire and we feel pain. We seem to think that this gives us solid grounds to think fire causes pain and will cause pain in the future if we put our hand on it again. However, what are the hidden premises to support these suppositions? It is the premise that there is a causal relationship between the two: hand over fire and pain. It is also the supposition that the future will be like the past. However, that is not a deductive inference. For example, a newborn human mind, let’s say if Adam was possible, could not have reasoned his way, deductively to think that a source of warmth and light would consume him if he put his hand on it. He could not deductively reason his way to think that water he drinks for nourishment would drown him if he cannot get out of it. We know these to be true because we’ve experienced it. Hume calls these “matters of fact” and separates it from “relations of ideas” which goes something like, “all unmarried men are bachelors” or 5x2=10. Relations of ideas can be demonstrated using empirical arguments and are conceptually and by definition true. However, Hume goes on to argue that “every effect is a distinct event from its cause. It could not, therefore, be discovered in the cause”. A deductive argument presents premises and can lead us to the conclusion based on it, however, science is not of this nature.

So, what follows from the above?  Proper science does not grant you justification to believe that it is true. Argument of causality only provides us likelihood of consistency and even then, it fails to explain the inferences. For example, we may infer there may be an evolutionary connection or pattern between two species but the pattern we do see does in no way provide us how it actually happened.  If I could cite a clearer example, we may calculate the gravitational constant by observing how fast a ball falls and accelerates onto a ground but that in no way explains anything about the nature of gravity.  Why do two objects attract?

Science fails to give us certainty in our belief but one might say that the likelihood of consistency is enough to justify our belief.  For those enthusiastic believer of naturalistic law of evolution, I would like to ask how much time you spend looking for confirming evidences.  How much time do we spend learning the idea and learning confirming evidence of scientific theories compared to the pursuit of falsifying evidence?  Another famous philosopher of science, Karl Popper, who actually divided sciences from pseudo-sciences, talks about how we can distinguish these two categories. He says that it is easy to find confirming evidences in light of the theory but a confirming evidence should only be valid if it carries the risk of falsification when the observation says otherwise. Many evidences can be looked at “in light of” scientific theories but we must always be wary of whether it is truly a scientific evidence.

Christianity and Certainty

As we discussed above, science is not a study of deductive proofs.  So how can religious believers explain their certainty in the religion.  Indeed, any religion is based on the certainty - based on faith.  Is faith based on deductive reasoning?  I do not speak for all religions or even every Christians but I would like to explain my basis of faith.

I can’t give you a sound deductive proof of Christianity or my faith. Biblical teaching also tells us that faith is not granted in that manner: that faith is a privilege bestowed upon by the Holy Spirit. However, it is possible to explain why I chose biblical teaching as certainty and reject science in uncertain matters. The bestowment of the Holy Spirit is quite a difficult thing to explain. I can tell you that I genuinely and passionately asked for it for years and finally had the moment that I knew God was with me but you can scoff at my experience as mystical and questionable. Nevertheless, as a father can be certain of his love for his child, I became certain of the love of God in that moment. And when it came to deciding between biblical teaching and science, it was always about what I knew for certain versus science that gives me possibilities. I will always take the certainty over a possibility. Here’s a little blurb from a philosopher, Simone Weil, who was raised secular agnostic but turned Christian:

When we are eating bread, and even when we have eaten it, we know that it is real. We can nevertheless raise doubts about the reality of the bread. Philosophers raise doubts about the reality of the world of the senses. Such doubts are however purely verbal, they leave the certainty intact and actually serve only to make it more obvious to a well-balanced mind. In the same way he to whom God has revealed his reality can raise doubts about this reality without any harm. They are purely verbal doubts, a form of exercise to keep his intelligence in good health.

Concluding Thoughts:
Science, at best, by concept, gives a very shallow explanation of the nature of this world. For example, how does gravity work? I know that the force is calculated as (Gm1m2)/r^2 but what is causing this perfect amount of force that keeps the earth in rotation? Evolution may give some possibility that there’s some pattern or similarities between organisms but our universe is not governed by evolution so how did our planet form? It sure wasn’t naturally selected to become a habitable planet. This is where the modern fine-tuning teleological argument of existence of God (argument by design) focuses on. It is so blatantly obvious that any small and random change in any laws of nature such as the strength of gravity or strength of strong nuclear force can shatter any possibility of a living and habitable universe that one must at least give some thought to the possibility of design.