Verification

A Christian Apologist says...

"You need to acknowledge the limits of the human tool of science and its limited verification processes, which fall well short of describing, quantifying and/or analyzing all aspects of reality ?

PART 1 - The strange assumptions made by the Apologist

(a) "Limited verification processes" - Verification processes are verification processes. They are no more or less limited than any other process. 

(b) "Science and its..." - Verification processes are not unique to science. Human beings perform verification all the time, every time they check something. We often double-check! When we buy something we verify that we've received the right amount of change. When we book a hotel we confirm the booking. When evidence is presented in a court of law, it is examined and tested. The list of such examples is endless.

(c) "...fall well short of describing, quantifying or analyzing..." - Verification processes don't describe, quantify or analyse, so they can't "fall well short" of doing those things. Verification is a means of testing an explanation or prediction or assertion to ensure a certain level of accuracy or confidence. 

(d) "...all aspects of reality." - Reality has yet to be defined. Any explanations of reality are models, not necessarily "true". It's possible the true nature of reality will never be known. Every species uses its brain to create an "intelligible" model of its environment and humans are no different. And scientific explanations are no different. The model of the atom we know from school, with ping pong balls on spokes, is a great model because it enables us to visualise how atoms work, but an atom is nothing like that in reality. Quantum physics provides unfailingly accurate predictions of how the subatomic world behaves - but does it reflect the true nature of reality? Impossible to know. All we know is it provides a model that works. 

The idea that verification is "limited" is strange. I suppose the process of verifying a hotel booking before we arrive limits the surprise we might experience should we turn up and find there's no room for us. Verification certainly doesn't limit science. It simply enables us to say which ideas have been verified and which are hypothetical. And of course every theory is subject to continual verification until it is enhanced or superseded.  For example, the multiverse is a hypothesis, natural selection is a theory because it has been verified and it continues to be verified, day after day. Science does not "limit" itself to that which can be verified. In fact science would not exist without speculation and intuition. 

The difference with religion is that nothing in theology can ever be verified because it makes no testable predictions - because it is essentially unfalsifiable.

The chart explains...

Step:	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
Event:	An observation or idea	Possible explanation	Predictions made	Prediction is tested	Prediction verified	Verification inconclusive	Prediction fails
Description:	Intuition	Speculation	Falsifiable hypothesis	Tested hypothesis	Accepted theory	Go to step 3	Failed hypothesis - Go to step 2
Religion:	✓	✓	x	x	x	x	x
Reason:	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
Level of faith to assume truth:	Very high	Very high	High	Low	Very low	High	Very high

Graphical image...

PART 2 - HOW THE APOLOGIST LEAPS FROM STEP 2 to 7

To start with, there's no difference between the approach of the Religious Apologist and anyone else. We all have intuitive ideas because that's human nature. The verification process always begins at step 1. 

But as we go through the process, we see the how the Apologist omits crucial steps. The arguments for the existence of God are always inductive arguments. The scope of inductive arguments is in steps 1 and 2. But for verification, we also need predictions to be made which can be tested and deductive arguments, which is what happens in steps 3 to 6. 

These are the crucial steps omitted by the Apologist. And that's why such explanations for god (or the supernatural in general) rely on faith. It's not just religious apologists who fall into the trap. Scientists can do it, for example Fred Hoyle had faith in the steady state theory (which as actually an un-verified hypothesis). Stephen Hawking showed how that faith was mistaken.  

WORKED EXAMPLE

Speculation, hypotheses and theories all provide explanations of certain facts, but each one provides a different level of confidence.  To illustrate, take the example of someone who speculates that the earth is about 6000 years old. They claim their speculation explains certain facts such as (a) Certain paragraphs in the Bible, (b) the amount of mud on the sea floor (c) the quantity of fossils. The next step (3) would be to form a hypothesis and determine if it is falsifiable. If not then the idea remains speculation. Otherwise we look at predictions made by the hypothesis and (4) test them. If the predictions are verified then (5) we have a theory. In this case, the young earth hypothesis fails at step (4) and the strongest theory is that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old.  

If someone believes truth is determined at step (3) then they are using a very large amount of faith.

Verification FAQ

1) There is more to evidence and reasoning than supposedly falsifiable tests, Jim, and even so called "falsifiable" tests are subject to inaccuracies which means conclusions based on them still require faith.

The phrase “falsifiable test” makes no sense.  It’s a tautology. Falsifiable means capable of being tested. God is unfalsifiable because the existence of God is not something that can be tested.

2) EVERY conclusion we reach--even a conclusion supposedly based on quantification and/or qualification--is faith-based. 

Not true. A conclusion which claims to be true in the absence of evidence is faith based. 

3) There many approaches to reasoning and evidence which have nothing to do with claims of falsifiability. 

Falsifiability only applies to explanations that can be tested. There are of course many explanations that cannot be tested – for example, claims that rely on the existence of gods, gnomes, fairies, UFOs etc. are just one example. 

4) One draws all sorts of conclusions from what is later discovered to be an erroneous basis, such as theories based on "scientific materialism" before quantum mechanics were widely studied and observed, or claims that the universe existed "forever" before the Big Bang became the accepted model. 

That’s exactly the point I’ve been making regarding theories. They are models which are always subject to improvement over time as new information is discovered. Hence Newton’s law of gravity described many phenomena very accurately, but Einstein’s theory was found to be much more accurate. The more knowledge we gain, the better our explanations become. The problem I have with your hypothesis that "God did it" is that it relies on the existence of God, and that hasn't been demonstrated.

5) "Falsifiable" tests aren't really "falsifiable" since all conclusions derived from such rely on faith to a greater or lesser extent. 

The phrase “falsifiable test” is a tautology. Falsifiable hypothesis, yes. Falsifiable test… makes no sense. Falsifiable means capable of being tested. 

6) No conclusions can be drawn from a test which do not rely on faith in the accuracy of the test and/or in the accuracy of the conclusions derived from such, agreed? 

Not agreed. Faith is not required because the accuracy of the test is taken into account. The result of a test has a level of confidence based on those factors and others. Believing the result of a test is a fact requires faith. 

7) I'm refuting your false claim not to rely on "faith" in reaching your conclusions, Jim.

My conclusions don’t rely on faith. They rely on evidence. 

8) As I've pointed out numerous times while you keep ducking the issue, absolutely NOTHING is falsifiable beyond all doubt, even for conclusions which rest on a supposedly falsifiable basis. 

I have never ducked that issue because it’s not an issue. I have made it clear multiple times that nothing is falsifiable beyond all doubt. Falsifiable means capable of being tested. It does not mean the results are beyond all doubt.  Every theory is assumed to be incomplete or capable of improvement in some way.