The scientific worldview

Alright, so let's hop into the scientific worldview that is becoming more and more respected everyday. This is the one that uses sound reason (and not faith) to arrive at our view of the world. Any philosopher of science will tell you though, that assumptions (that is, FAITH) must be used to create the conclusions that science does. My thought is that when someone hops into the scientific worldview, and strives to see through its lenses, that it collapses when you really follow it through all the way to the end.

Problems

1. The problem with empiricism

Empiricism can, in this context, be viewed as synonymous with the scientific worldview (for those of my readers who aren't fully brushed up on their philosophical terms- empiricism is just the idea that all knowledge comes through the senses from what we can observe.)

Empiricism (and also the scientific/naturalistic worldview) has the following at its base:
The only things we can know are those shown empirically (scientifically).

Sounds good, doesn't it? It sounds like a great epistemology right off the bat. However, think about that statement. Is there anything wrong that you notice?

The reality is that this statement fails its own claim. This fact (The only things we can know are those shown empirically) cannot be shown empirically! This statement IMPLODES under its own weight!

You could also look at it this way: we are taught that the scientific method is the ultimate means for knowing, yet why do we make this assumption? The scientific method is not something that you can really scientifically test. Empiricism is a self-refuting view.
2.The mind
Proponents of naturalism deny the existence of God. They say that we were brought about by evolution. The universe is merely a set of random processes and evolution fits this well. Let's think about the ramifications of this: the idea that everything going on is a random process and we are the culmination of this. That means that our mind is also a culmination of this.

Well when discussing reality (or God or their worldview, etc.) with an atheist/naturalist how do they come to their conclusions? They say there's no God and that everything is random. If you asked them how they arrived there, they will proudly state that reason, that logic, was the means to their end. It sounds so good doesn't it? To be on the side of reason.

Remember though, the underlying principle of the scientific worldview though ("the only things WE'RE gonna believe are things that are readily observable"

What would the advocate of pure science say if we asked him to scientifically prove logic. Can logic be readily observed? Furthermore, show me scientifically why reason can be trusted and why the world is a rational place?

It simply can't be done.

The problem here is that this causes an implosion of another kind. If our mind was created out of random atomic collisions culminating over millions of years then our mind right now, though highly refined by the evolutionary process, is still just a natural random phenomena. Our brain (which is synonymous with mind for the naturalist) is a random combination of ATOMS AND CHEMICALS remember- the electrochemical events can't be assumed to be anything more than a statistical anomaly.

From a scientific worldview, logic and reason are impossible!!!
Let me say that again: From a scientific worldview, logic and reason are impossible!!!

We could assume logic and rationality but that assumption would be violating our base of knowledge (that the only ideas that I believe are the ones that can be shown empirically).

*Side note on the mind: Another problem is with consciousness. Where and when does conscious mind arise? I'll gladly stay in the scientific worldview and see that brain evolves over time from a simple to a complex thinking machine. Yet even after all that evolution, I still don't see the evolutionary need for consciousness. It seems to me that the brain would have kept on evolving, becoming more and more efficient but never, at any point, would consciousness arise.

I think it was Leibniz who talked of the brain. He said "Alright, so let's blow up the brain to the size of a factory. We can walk inside it, look at all the cogs that are working, belts that are turning (neurons would be the object of this analogy). Alright, now point me out the mind. Point me out what gives me counsciousness.

On faith

*This post is mainly for my venting and made without enough knowledge I feel to build a really sound argument. That being said, the plan is to think about this, read about it more, and revise it as knowledge is revealed to me.

Intro
Ok, so I had what I thought was a really good thought provoking discush last night with my roommates and have since had a fresh zeal for some of the topics that have been rolling through my head for the last year. One is the idea of faith. This has bugged me far too long to not write about. Talking with people in Florida over spring break, talking with classmates and my intelligent roommates, this idea has surfaced.

It's something to the effect of "I just don't have that kind of faith" or "I can't give my life to something on faith like that".


I just want to tell you that you ARE living by faith. No matter what you believe about God or reality or the world you are making assumptions based on faith!!! I just want to write that sentence a thousand times so that people would really consider what that means in their life. There is NO worldview that survives without faith.

An example
There are assumptions in science that your teachers will never tell you about because they don't know (because noone told them) or moral reasons (the ramifications of the subjectivity of science would detract from their stature as educators).

So here's my between-classes outline about the FLAWS AND PROBLEMS in the scientific worldview. By scientific worldview, I mean the idea that science explains reality. I mean the statement "I can't really believe something until science proves it". I'm talking about the idea that random processes rule and we are merely a product of those (through the big bang and then evolution, etc.).