To See or Not to See?

In chapter 4, Stokes continues on by discussing the tradition of skepticism built into science. He is doing all of this because he ultimately wants to show that scientists - particularly atheists - do not demonstrate the same level of "sober skepticism" they express toward religion that they do towards their own "scientific" conclusions. As we mentioned last time, Hawkings "spontaneous creation" should generate more skepticism from other scientists than it does - if indeed they are committed to science.

Stokes notes that Hume - our consummate skeptic - held to the standard (or at least tried to) that seeing is believing; that is, in order for science to have any validity - and to distinguish itself from supernatural belief - it must be grounded in sense perception. But, as we saw, there are no non-circular arguments for the reliability of sense perception or reason: we just have to believe that they are reliable. So much for "seeing is believing." It's more like "believing is believing."

As Stokes points out, Hume had a choice: "...he could fully accept his skeptical conclusions and reject science (and every other endeavor), or else he could go ahead and trust his cognitive faculties, thereby sustaining his devotion to science. He chose the latter, realizing that true love always requires trust."

The chapter goes on to discuss how - because science is committed to observable phenomenon - it shouldn't have much to say about causes or the "why" of things. For example, while science describes gravity - the force between two objects - it cannot tell us what causes the force. For modern science to be true to itself - to what it can observe - it cannot answer the question "why is the force thus?"

In his desire to be true to science and science alone, Hume would at times become despondent as he asked the questions that science - his chosen worldview - could not answer:
Where am I, or what? From what causes do I derive my existence, and to what condition shall I return? Whose favour shall I court, and whose anger must I dread? What beings surround me? and on whom may I any influence, or who have any influence on me? I am confounded with all these questions, and begin to fancy myself in the most deplorable condition imaginable, inviron'd with the deepest darkness, and utterly depriv'd of the use of every member and faculty.

You might understand why atheists today are stretching science into the realm of the unobservable for answers.