Ray a day: 16

Amazingly, we’re still going through Ray Comfort’s book. Today, Ray’s “angry skeptic” asks Ray how old he thinks the earth is. Comfort responds by saying he doesn’t know, but that scientists keep changing their minds about how old the earth is – each time they decide the earth is not the age we previously concluded it was, and “None of the ‘faithful’ will question it. His point seems to be that we shouldn’t bother believing what a scientist says (about certain things) because scientists change their minds.

Just imagine if you would, what would have happened if, 2000 years ago, “science” (which is I might add, not a single entity, but a collection of people all over the world who happen to use observation, experimentation and rational thinking to determine how the universe operates) had decided it was no longer amenable to new data and observations.

…

…

2000 years ago, people thought that all of the planets revolved around the sun. It was widely accepted that bodily health depended on the balance of the four humors (blood, yellow bile, black bile, and phlegm). People used to believe that animals arose out if inanimate objects (you could buy recipe books for creating animals, like making a scorpion by placing basil between two rocks and leaving it in the sun for several days) mostly due to the Bible’s proclaiming that Adam was created from dust.  If scientists did not amend theories in light of new evidence, then science would basically be a religion. We wouldn’t listen to scientists because their opinions on the nature of the universe would be worthless and contrary to better observation and experimentation

People like Comfort like to point to scientists and say that since they were wrong before, they can be wrong now. This is obviously true.  But this means that science is closer to the truth than any other form of knowledge which refuses to change in light of new evidence. The beauty of science is that it is amenable. Scientists make mistakes, admit that they made a mistake, and move on. People like Comfort, on the other hand, make mistakes, rationalize their mistakes so that they are no longer mistaken somehow, and move on. Who do you think has a better handle on the truth of say, cosmology – people who didn’t have telescopes and who were thus incapable of actually observing the universe in any real way or people who can make real observations about the universe?

So, we also shouldn’t bother listening to (or at least, should seriously question) an individual who refuses to change his or her mind even though compelling evidence is presented which should warrant such a change.  It is not a virtue to behave like this, because then your belief about the truth value of a given phenomenon is independent of the actual truth value of that phenomenon.

I would not say, “I am absolutely certain there is no god” because I’m not. I am fairly sure there is no god in the same way that I am fairly certain consuming oranges will not cure cancer (some tumors look sort of like oranges, maybe if you eat enough the other tumors will get scared and just leave). Am I absolutely certain that eating oranges will not cure cancer? Well, no.

I also should add that it should be fairly obvious that the Bible was not meant to be a book of science.