Posted by Nathan Richardson
In the opening essay of the BYU physical science textbook, the authors included a section on some of the basic premises upon which the reasoning portion of the scientific method rests. They explain, “All reasoning must rest upon assumptions, and the scientific method … assumes basic philosophical ideals as a foundation. … There are some assumptions that are so logical and basic that we present them here as six “self-evident truths.”1
When I first read this essay as a college freshman, I got kind of excited, wondering what those fundamental truths might be upon which the rest of my text was based. I was a little disappointed when I read some of them.
1. Existence. There exists a physical world separate and distinct from our minds that is comprehensible through our senses. We expect in addition that it is governed by certain generalities called the “laws of nature.â€
2. Causality. Events—effects—in the physical universe have natural causes. Causes precede effects and can be explained rationally in terms of the laws of nature.
3. Position symmetry. The laws of nature are the same everywhere in the universe.
4. Time symmetry. The laws of nature have remained the same through time. They are the same now as they were in the distant past, and they will be the same in the future.
5. Noncontradiction. Of two contradictory propositions, both cannot be true.
6. Simplicity (Occam’s Razor). If alternative explanations of any phenomenon are available, where each are logical and explain the phenomenon equally well, then the simplest explanation shall be chosen.1
While I can see why these assumptions can be useful in simplifying and expediting the scientific process, and while I agree that they are probably true in many ways, I have reservations about calling them all “self-evident” truths. And because of that, I find myself qualifying every conclusion based on them. They may have pragmatic value for solving everyday problems, such as in medicine and engineering, but when they are used to draw problematic conclusions, I find myself reaching for a grain of salt. I will examine each premise and its claim to “self-evident truth.”
Discussion
Noncontradiction. I didn’t have any major problems with number five. Of course, that’s with the caveat that many times two true statements appear to be in conflict, but that is usually due to either limited knowledge or the ambiguities of spoken language. Note, for example, that the rhetorical definition of “paradox” is often “an apparent contradiction” due to dual meanings, not necessarily a genuine conceptual contradiction.
Existence. I would accept the first sentence in number one with a qualification. The physical world is largely comprehensible through our senses, but I would be presumptuous to think my senses (or technological instrumentation) could detect all of the physical world. Who knows what aspects of the physical world may never be detectable through senses or mechanical instrumentation? Especially in light of the doctrine that “all spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes” (D&C 131:7). Likewise, who knows what aspects of the physical world may never be “comprehensible” to our finite minds? I would be sad if the universe were mundane enough that none of it was outside our current mortal ability to comprehend.
The second sentence may need qualifying, too. The universe may be “governed by certain generalities called the ‘laws of nature,'” but I wouldn’t say that they are the only things that govern the universe, nor that they are the highest governing factor that trumps all others.
Causality. Number two depends completely upon the definition of the word “natural.” It’s obvious that events have to have causal links from other events; I think that’s one thing Bruce R. McConkie meant when he said that agency requires laws in order to exist: laws binding an effect to its cause. But assuming “natural” here means mechanistic and without the involvement of divine will and intervention, then it would preclude any involvement at all by Heavenly Father on earth. Tell me, what would be the “natural” cause of the First Vision? Or of a spirit entering a body during gestation? Or of a sudden storm that happens to save Zion’s Camp from destruction?
Saying that all effects in the universe have “natural” causes not only precludes divine will; it also precludes human will. When a man and woman selflessly serve their children, is that merely the unavoidable outcome of several initial environmental conditions? Are they inert puppets, maximizing the odds of passing on their genes because those genes demand it, or do they genuinely choose altruism? The gospel makes clear that every person is free to choose, and that means “natural causes” cannot explain all, or even most, of what we see happen every day.
Conclusion
I am not trying to prove each of these points wrong; I am trying to show that some are wrong and that others have not been proven right. In fact, they may be unproveable. Of course, that is the nature of a premise—it is a starting point from which further conclusions flow. So we should be very cautious about what we accept as a premise, as well as any conclusions drawn from them when they remain unexamined. In my next post, I will examine the other three “self-evident” premises.
Continued in More “Self-evident” Premises of Science.
Notes
1. Physical Science Foundations, 2nd ed., BYU College of Physical & Mathematical Sciences.
Nathan,
Nice analysis. Okay, let’s change number one to read:
1. Existence. There exists a physical world separate and distinct from our minds, which we experience through our senses. We expect that it is governed by certain generalities called the “laws of nature.â€
I would hesitate to say that other laws trump the laws of nature; is not even God subject to the laws of nature. When Jesus turned water into wine, he was not trumping the laws nature; he knows them well enough to do things that we consider miraculous. I submit that all beings follow the laws of nature, but that we don’t comprehend all the laws of nature. One fundamental law of nature may be that all matter is free to choose. I couldn’t find the reference right off, but the scriptures teach us that matter obeys God. Does this mean that the molecules that make up a diamond are arranged such because they are being obedient to their master? This brings us to cause and effect. If a fundamental law of nature were the free will of all matter, this broadens that concept as well.
Why can’t we categorize the first vision as cause and effect? Let us bring Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ into the definition of the “physical world that is separate and distinct from our minds.”
If this textbook was written for BYU students, I would have liked to see one more assumption:
Mosiah 4:9 Believe in God; believe that he is, and that he created all things, both in heaven and in earth; believe that he has all wisdom, and all power, both in heaven and in earth; believe that man doth not comprehend all the things which the Lord can comprehend.
I’ll do some reading to find the scriptural references about free will and matter. . .fun discussion.
I like your comments! I can’t wait to see how Nathan responds; I hope he’ll forgive me if I present some of my thoughts:
Aaron: I would hesitate to say that other laws trump the laws of nature; is not even God subject to the laws of nature.
Real soon, I’ll be writing about two different intellectual traditions: Hebrew thought and the Greek philosophy. Eventually, I’ll make the argument that the belief that there are universal scientific laws to which God Himself is subject is an artifact of Greek philosophy, and has some problematic implications. If this seems like an odd claim, don’t worry, I’ll explain it in detail later—for now, just be excited for a new and provocative point of view!
Aaron: I couldn’t find the reference right off, but the scriptures teach us that matter obeys God. Does this mean that the molecules that make up a diamond are arranged such because they are being obedient to their master?
You are precisely right; I believe things do as they do because they are following the commands of their Master; there is no law without a lawgiver. It is precisely this reason that molecules rearrange themselves according to their Master’s commands (water to wine, etc.). The reference you were looking for may be Jacob 4.
Heya Aaron,
I like your point of changing “comprehend” to “experience” as a way of qualifying the degree or accuracy of our perception of the universe.
Aaron: I would hesitate to say that other laws trump the laws of nature; is not even God subject to the laws of nature?
That depends on what a person means by “laws of nature.” I think we could find prophetic statements saying God is subject to laws, but I don’t think those laws are synonymous to the “laws of nature,” as usually defined by scientists. Where do the scriptures say that for God, force equals mass times acceleration in all cases? He certainly follows laws, but we don’t know if laws he binds himself to are the same ones we use to label our observations of matter.
I’m also not sure whether his subjection to those laws are voluntary or unavoidable. I subject myself to the law of not drinking alcohol—I never have and I never will. But that does not mean that law is higher than me; I subject myself to it, but it does not determine my actions.
One fundamental law of nature may be that all matter is free to choose.
Interesting. I think that might be a good candidate for a genuinely fundamental law. I’ll have to think about the implications.
I couldn’t find the reference right off, but the scriptures teach us that matter obeys God.
You might be thinking of Abr. 4:18—“And the Gods watched those things which they had ordered until they obeyed.” Yes, that is an interesting statement!
Why can’t we categorize the first vision as cause and effect?
The problem with the essay’s definition of causality is that scientists use the term “natural” in a deterministic way. They mean that given the complete set of variables A, no other possible outcome can happen except B. Given the set of conditions of the state of the world, Joseph’s heart, etc., Heavenly Father did not have to appear to him. It was not an inevitable, predetermined outcome of the existing variables. There are events that are chosen, and not determined by the conditions.
I like your idea of free will as a fundamental law. It seems to me that “natural laws” as used by scientists is the opposite of free will. Free will says that given the complete set of variables A, there are several possible outcomes, not just B.
Yes, an excellent point Aaron. I too know that the Lord does in fact work through natural channels to perform miracles but we do not always understand them. I believe you were giving reference to Talmage when you mentioned the miracle at the wedding feast. This is a priceless observation and I am indeed grateful for Talmages’ insight on the matter.
“In the contemplation of the miracles wrought by Christ, we must of necessity recognize the operation of a power transcending our present human understanding. In this field, science has not yet advanced far enough to analyze and explain.†(Jesus the Christ, Ch. 11, Miracles in General)
I also might agree with Nathan when he observed that God the Father chooses to subject himself to such laws of nature, thought they be not as limitedly understood by Him as they are by our modern day scientists (or for that matter, by us.) But I do however have reason to believe that God’s subjection to such laws is voluntary. I simply tell it so because were it involuntary, God would no longer be one to act but one to be acted upon, (2 Ne. 2:26) losing his agency, which thing to me is wholly unfounded and untrue. Therefore, I find Nathan’s exemplary choice of subjecting himself in obedience to the Word of Wisdom, not only commendable, but in harmony with the way God works.
A great thought provoking article. Good work!
For sake of understanding, when saying that God works through natural channels, what is that opposed to? What does it mean to not work through natural channels? What would that look like? What notion exactly is being rejected when people say, “God works through natural laws.”
Good question. To not work through natural channels would look very much like the world of Harry Potter. Squeezing a 6 bedroom house into a 5′ x 5′ pup tent, stopping a speeding bus on a dime, etc. Working against natural channels defy our understanding of the laws of physics. Certainly, our understanding of the laws of physics is temporal (of the earth). I would venture to guess that an omnipotent God could pull off just about anything we see in Science Fiction or Fantasy and stay well within the bounds of universal laws.
I think the law of creation has to have pretty strict bounds, though. The way that Saruman created his Uruk-Hai–that seems to defy universal laws. They didn’t have a mother or father (unless I missed that in my reading). A living organism must have a mother and a father; certainly Heavenly Father can’t work against that universal law. It’s too bad that many humans try to work against that law; rather pretentious and foolish.
I am reminded of something I read from Nibley. From what I recall, the people during the time of the tower of Babel were trying to do just this: defy the natural laws. We hear the story of a tower trying to get to heaven and think of primitive people who have no sense of where heaven is; Nibley reveals that many documents share something very different: an extremely advanced civilization that was trying to control the earth’s elements (the tower was built to control the weather). This is “trying to get to heaven” in the sense that they are elevating themselves to the level of God–something that shows extreme pride and foolishness.
I’m much more lazy than Nathan or Jeff; and I don’t take the time to cite my sources. I’d hate to misrepresent Nibley or his work. I will need to find this account and report back in a later comment.
Hear, hear, to Mr. Richardson’s original presentation, and to everyone else’s insights that made it even so much better.
It has caused my own thoughts on the matter that I expect to place in my own blog. I’ll let you know.
Aaron,
Interestingly, I’ve often considered the progressive scientific movement as a kind of modern-day “Tower of Babel.” We seem to believe that we can obtain God-like power over the natural world through our own rational faculties; we seem to believe that knowledge is all that is necessary to become gods, in a sense. Today, we too are trying to control the weather, extend our life-span, and save the world through scientific knowledge rather than looking to our Creator.
Jake J. Crenshaw posted:
“But I do however have reason to believe that God’s subjection to such laws [i.e., laws of nature] is voluntary. I simply tell it so because were it involuntary, God would no longer be one to act but one to be acted upon, (2 Ne. 2:26) losing his agency, which thing to me is wholly unfounded and untrue.”
I don’t think that follows at all. I don’t see how natural laws act upon us. They are just how matter interacts and gets organized. We are not acted upon by laws of nature at all. How could we be, since laws of nature are not agents to be capable of acting at all? Quite the contrary, in fact — as we learn to understand the laws of nature, we gain more and more control and power over nature. That is, our ability to act increases.
God’s glory, the thing that makes him so great, is intelligence, or in other words, light and truth (D&C 93:36). Truth, one aspect of what makes God so great, is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come (D&C 93:24). So one of the things that makes God a god is that he knows how things are, how they were, and how they’ll be. That sounds to me like he knows the laws of nature, and that’s what gives him his power.
I think God does not somehow choose to follow the laws of nature even though he could abrogate them at his whim. Such an idea seems to make a mockery of the concept of knowing things as they are, as they have been, and as they will be. That is, it seems to make a mockery of the idea of truth, and therefore of the glory of God — for what is the unique value of knowing something if you can completely change it at any time?
I think God cannot alter the laws of nature at all. Rather, it is his complete understanding of the laws of nature that makes him so special. And his understanding of the laws of nature lets him do things that seem to our pitiful minds as though he were operating against natural laws, but he is not. It only seems that way to us because our thoughts are not his thoughts. If we thought as he does, it would seem perfectly natural to us — and we would be as he is.
As for the idea in the main post that the concept of natural laws precludes will, I don’t think many scientists suppose that will doesn’t exist. In physical science, it can be relatively easy to ignore will as beyond the scope of inquiry, but in any kind of life science, the concept of will becomes significant. It just seems so obvious that living beings effect many events through the action of will, and that will then becomes one of the causes that can be discussed within rational explanations of the phenomena we experience in terms of the laws of nature.
I think one needn’t even go so far as Aaron has to say that all matter has will. It’s sufficient to say that living beings — naturally and as a law — have will. A proper understanding of that will lets scientists explain the events caused by its action just fine in terms of natural law.
Wesley: “As for the idea in the main post that the concept of natural laws precludes will, I don’t think many scientists suppose that will doesn’t exist.”
Not many scientists will admit it, but the denial of free will is a logical implication of the belief in deterministic natural law. See “Shackled by Determinism” for more information. Simply put: mechanical determinism destroys agency.
Also, I do not believe God is the “Great Scientist,” and is constrained by scientific law. In a future post, as I told Aaron, I will show how this belief is an artifact of the same Greek philosophies that led to the Great Apostasy. Simply put: God has all power to circumvent scientific laws, because He is the one who gave them.
We’ve fallen in love with a scientific worldview that is entirely alien and foreign to those who wrote our scriptures. We believe in a world of dead matter whose motion is governed by deterministic laws; however, I believe matter is alive, and honors and follows God’s commands. That is how the scriptures speak of matter, and that is how God can command the elements and be obeyed.
Wesley: “I think God does not somehow choose to follow the laws of nature even though he could abrogate them at his whim. Such an idea seems to make a mockery of the concept of knowing things as they are, as they have been, and as they will be.”
This is only true if you believe foreknowledge is simply advanced prediction. It seems as though you believe as Laplace did, that as a person learns more about the mathematical laws of science, his powers of prediction will increase until “nothing would be uncertain for him; the future as well as the past would be present to his eyes.”
Simply put, that isn’t how it is done. God certainly knows the future, but not because He mathematically predicts it based upon present circumstances and mathematical laws. He knows the future because He is the embodiment of Truth, and, as you said, Truth is knowing things as they are, as they have been, and as they will be.
Explain, how does commanding the elements to reorganize themselves and operate under a different set of rules mock knowledge of past, present, and future?
“Not many scientists will admit it, but the denial of free will is a logical implication of the belief in deterministic natural law. See ‘Shackled by Determinism’ for more information. Simply put: mechanical determinism destroys agency.”
I don’t think all scientists accept determinism. Your other post has five sources advocating the idea, but that’s nowhere near unanimity.
I have seen plenty of studies in behavioral science (particular in the matter of depression) that show that the collocations of atoms that dictate our moods are actually themselves dictated by our own conscious thoughts and choices. That’s does more than leave room for free will; it invites it in, sets out the comfy chair for it, and asks it how it wants its tea.
Certainly some scientists don’t believe in will, but I think they’re in the minority. I think most scientists see will and its effects far too often to begin to question its existence.
“In a future post, as I told Aaron, I will show how this belief is an artifact of the same Greek philosophies that led to the Great Apostasy.”
I look forward to reading this. It sounded like you were planning on contrasting Greek thought with Hebrew thought. I hope you won’t make the mistake of assuming that Hebrew thought is somehow superior to or more godly than Greek thought. But understanding the various cultural lenses through which we all interpret the word of God could be enlightening.
“I believe matter is alive, and honors and follows God’s commands.”
That’s a fine belief to have, albeit a somewhat fringe belief within the Church. But who’s to say that God didn’t command matter in the beginning to forever behave in accordance with defined, eternal laws — laws that could be understood by man with increasing clarity and insight until we understand those laws precisely as God did when he lay them down? If that’s what he did, then isn’t that essentially the same from our mortal perspective as if those laws somehow preceded our Father?
“This is only true if you believe foreknowledge is simply advanced prediction. It seems as though you believe as Laplace did, that as a person learns more about the mathematical laws of science, his powers of prediction will increase until “nothing would be uncertain for him; the future as well as the past would be present to his eyes.â€
Simply put, that isn’t how it is done. God certainly knows the future, but not because He mathematically predicts it based upon present circumstances and mathematical laws. He knows the future because He is the embodiment of Truth, and, as you said, Truth is knowing things as they are, as they have been, and as they will be.”
Wow! It sounds like you’re privy to quite a bit more information about how God does what he does than any other mortal has ever been before. Pray, tell me then, how does God know the future? Since you know so certainly that he doesn’t know the future through what you call advanced prediction, how does he do it? Your brief explanation about his knowing the future because he is the embodiment of truth and thus knows the future is too cryptic, and far too circular, to hold the least theological weight.
“Explain, how does commanding the elements to reorganize themselves and operate under a different set of rules mock knowledge of past, present, and future?”
If God’s glory is founded on his knowledge, but his power to change things functions independently of his knowledge, then his glory isn’t what makes him so great; it’s his power that makes him so great. But God’s glory is, by definition, the thing that makes him so great. So if his power is greater than his glory, then he’s greater than he really is, which is absurd.
God’s glory is the thing that makes him so great. His glory is derived (in part) from his knowledge. That is, without his knowledge, God wouldn’t be all that special a guy. So his power must conform to his knowledge rather than functioning independently of his knowledge. So he does what he does through his knowledge of how things are, have been, and will be — not through some exercise of his own will somehow unfettered by the consequences of his actions (as though Lucifer’s conception of the universe were somehow true for God).
If he could do whatever he wanted regardless of his knowledge of how things are, were, and will be, then his knowledge — and thus his glory — would really be silly and insignificant. A sideshow. But the glory of God is no sideshow.
Wesley: “If God’s glory is founded on his knowledge, but his power to change things functions independently of his knowledge, then his glory isn’t what makes him so great; it’s his power that makes him so great. But God’s glory is, by definition, the thing that makes him so great. So if his power is greater than his glory, then he’s greater than he really is, which is absurd.
God’s glory is the thing that makes him so great. His glory is derived (in part) from his knowledge. That is, without his knowledge, God wouldn’t be all that special a guy. So his power must conform to his knowledge rather than functioning independently of his knowledge. So he does what he does through his knowledge of how things are, have been, and will be — not through some exercise of his own will somehow unfettered by the consequences of his actions (as though Lucifer’s conception of the universe were somehow true for God).
If he could do whatever he wanted regardless of his knowledge of how things are, were, and will be, then his knowledge — and thus his glory — would really be silly and insignificant. A sideshow. But the glory of God is no sideshow.”
I’m sorry, Wesley; you are going to have to clarify, because this passage makes no sense to me.
Also, where in the scriptures does it say that God’s glory is His knowledge? How does commanding the elements to operate differently contradict His knowledge? Whenever God interferes in mortal affairs, commands the earth to stand still and the storms to calm, how does this contradict His knowledge? Where did I say that God’s power is to act unfettered by consequences? How does knowing the future restrict His actions?
I can’t make sense of what you are saying here. Will you help clarify?
Wesley: “I hope you won’t make the mistake of assuming that Hebrew thought is somehow superior to or more godly than Greek thought.”
I hope not either; but I will claim that the Greeks were mistaken about some of their assumptions about truth and reality. If the logical implications of an idea are wrong, then the idea itself is suspect. If the Hebrew worldview is correct, and the Greek worldview differs to the extent that both can’t be true, then the Greek worldview is wrong. I don’t buy the cultural relativism that says that every worldview is true, just different. So maybe I will make that “mistake,” if want to call it that. Personally, I don’t think it is a mistake, because sometimes entire cultures can be mistaken about reality.
Wow! It sounds like you’re privy to quite a bit … far too circular, to hold the least theological weight.
Now now, Wes, play nice. 🙂 Really though, bud, we want readers to feel like they can join the discussion without worrying about whether their thoughts will be treated charitably.
What is the unique value of knowing something if you can completely change it at any time?
What value would there be in knowing something if you could do nothing to change it? We’d all be like Cassandra. It seems like the ability to change things is what makes the knowledge worth having. And since we’re changing it ourselves, our knowledge of it remains current and accurate.
Who’s to say that God didn’t command matter in the beginning to forever behave in accordance with defined, eternal laws … ? If that’s what he did, then isn’t that essentially the same from our mortal perspective as if those laws somehow preceded our Father?
From a mortal perspective, perhaps. But hopefully we’re trying to see the eternal perspective. The difference between the two might have big implications.