Thread: The Philosophical Presuppositions of Science

I was reading this in JP Moreland's Love your God with all your Mind and while I agree with what he listed, and would use them in an argument with an anti-theist, I am struggling with finding examples to prove my point. Here are some philosophical presuppostions of science that he listed:
1. The existence of a theory, independent, external world.

2. The orderly nature of the external world.

3. The knowability of the external world.

4. The existence of truth.

5. The Laws of Logic.

6. The reliability of our cognitive and sensory faculties to serve as truth gathers and as a source of justified beliefs in ourintellectual environment.

7. The adequacy of Language to descrive the world.

8. The existence of values used in science (for example, "test theories fairly and report test results honestly).

9. The uniformity of nature and induction

10. The existence of numbers and mathematical truths.

ANy help with examples to prove my point would be appreciated.

The problem is not so much haveing these presuppositions, but the fact that a scientist, staying within the parameters of science, cannot account for these presuppositions. He holds to them "because that's the way it is." A Christian can understand the presuppositions of science because they understand that the Creator made the world to function in the way it does and designed our minds to function rationally, morally, and logically as a reflection of His own character. We can account for the above listed presuppositions of science. Atheist/evolutionist scientists cannot.

The orderly nature of the external world is one of my favorite examples. I was talking to a guy here at Rhodes a bit ago and told him that his agnostic view could not account for uniformity in nature, to which he said past experience lets him know. I restated his position to him, pointing out to him that he was essentially saying, "I know the future will be like the past because it's always been like it before." I then asked him if he could see in any sense how that was begging the question, and he repeatedly kept saying he couldn't, no matter how many times I tried to demonstrate it...

Originally posted by Me Died Blue
The orderly nature of the external world is one of my favorite examples. I was talking to a guy here at Rhodes a bit ago and told him that his agnostic view could not account for uniformity in nature, to which he said past experience lets him know. I restated his position to him, pointing out to him that he was essentially saying, "I know the future will be like the past because it's always been like it before." I then asked him if he could see in any sense how that was begging the question, and he repeatedly kept saying he couldn't, no matter how many times I tried to demonstrate it...

Sometimes they will get obstinate. But usually they still mull it over in their heads and come back with more questions. Don't think you haven't made them think just because they are initially stubborn.

Thanks guys, I know what he is talking about now. See Bahnsen's opening statement against Tabash concerning the uniformity of nature.

Thanks Patrick, I'll keep that in mind.

Sadly enough, Paul, that is exactly what I kept doing, but he just kept insisting that it was perfectly rational for him to claim to know the future will be like the past since it's always been like the past in the past! Well, at least it makes me all the more certain of the effects total depravity and sin have on the intellect!

Welcome back Paul!!!! Great to hear from you again!

That's insufficient, guys...I think this calls for a full-fledged banana-dance!





OK, I'll stop now...

That's a good idea - thanks.