The Problem with Pragmatism

In present day apologetical encounters, one is sure to eventually come across an unbeliever who claims that we should not believe the Bible because science has proven it to be untrustworthy. After much back and forth, the apologist may feel a tad bit overwhelmed as the unbeliever responds to point after point with scientific proof and evidences that support their contention. If the apologist disagrees with the conclusions that these scientists have come to, then they find themselves in the unenviable position of having to prove that the conclusions these scientists have come to are wrong.

In addition, the unbeliever may stress that what the Christian has to offer is mere subjective opinion, whereas what science has to offer are “facts” which are “objective” and derived from “repeatable” observations. It is no surprise, then, that the apologist finds himself in a very precarious position. After all, how can the apologist become sufficiently educated in all the various areas of scientific study in order to come up with a meaningful rebuttal to each and every criticism that is raised? How can he or she keep track of all the latest discoveries and “revelations” that are occurring on a daily basis, and (furthermore) determine which are valid and which are not? A daunting task, if one chooses to take this approach.

To add to this frustration, consider what 1 Pet. 3:15 has to say -

“but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect” [ESV] (emphasis mine)

If you weren’t aware that there was Biblical warrant for *always* being “prepared”, well now you know!

As the saying goes, there is more than one way to skin a cat (sorry all you cat lovers), and this is definitely the case when it comes to apologetics. One approach is to attack the conclusions of science themselves, and demonstrate that they are incorrect. However, that is certainly not the *only* way, nor the most effective in my mind, and here is why.

All unbelievers, scientific in their criticisms or not, have to answer the same basic questions - just as believers do. Regardless of the criticisms being leveled against the claims of the Bible, those making the criticisms have foundational questions which must first be answered, before their claims can even be evaluated. For the unbeliever appealing to science to support their criticism of the Bible, the most foundational question is this - “why should we accept science as a method for determining truth?” When it comes to the trustworthiness of the Bible, *truth* is exactly what is being challenged, after all.

If an unbeliever says “this particular claim in the Bible is not true”, then they have taken upon themselves the burden of giving a *reason* why the claim in question is not true. If their reason is because science has concluded something to the contrary, then they now bear the burden of demonstrating why a scientific conclusion is to be accepted as true, as opposed to a conclusion drawn from the Bible.

If you happen to raise this challenge to the unbeliever, be prepared for all variety of backlash. (Please note, I am not saying *all* unbelievers are like this - or even *most* - only that I have encountered enough who respond in this way to confidently state that it is not unlikely for you to encounter similar responses). What types of responses might you get if you challenge science as a means for determining truth? There are a variety, actually, but a very common one is this - “we use science because it works.”

One must at this point ask the question “exactly what do you mean when you say science ‘works’”? It isn’t that you don’t necessarily understand what is meant by the word as it is being used, but rather that you want your unbelieving friend to stop and think about what they are really saying. “It works” implies that “it” (whatever it happens to be) facilitates our ability to accomplish the goals that we set out to accomplish.

Just look at all science has done for us, after all - it has healed disease, extended our lives, made those lives more comfortable, increased dramatically our ability to communicate and transport things across great distances, etc. So, when someone claims to have “scientific proof” that the Bible is not entirely true, it is only natural to sit up and take notice.

Herein lies the problem. The fact that we Christians are so easily taken in by such phrases as “scientific proof” should be bothersome to us. After all, what is it about the fact that science “works” that should lead us to so blindly accept that the conclusions it comes to are true? Just what kind of “reason” for accepting scientific conclusions is this, after all?

What the unbeliever is doing (whether they are aware or not) when they appeal to the claim that “science works”, is offering a pragmatic justification for accepting that scientific conclusions are true. The problem here is that there is no necessary correlation between something “working” and the purported “truth” of the foundational premises used to accomplish the goal in question.

Let me state this a bit differently, and then follow up by way of example.

There is a distinction between “reason” in the sense of a motivation, and “reason” in the sense of logical justification. Many times in this type of discussion, definitions are blurred and equivocation occurs, making it difficult to see this difference.

For instance, when the question is asked “why trust scientific conclusions?” and the answer comes back “because science works”, the “reason” here is really just an explanation of the motivation behind the decision to trust science in this way. The “reason”, as stated, is not a logical justification for believing that the associated premises are true.

Let’s look at an example in the realm of moral justification to make this easier to see. Let’s say a husband abuses his wife. When you ask this man what the reason is for this abuse, he may answer “because it makes me feel good” - in other words, for this man “it works”. This “reason” is simply an expression of his motivation, it is *not* a moral justification for his actions (unless he has a very warped moral standard).

In the same sense, one can offer pragmatism as a motivation for accepting scientific conclusions as truthful, but that is a far cry [i.e. categorically distinct] from offering a logical justification for accepting them as truthful. Pragmatism as a logical reason fails miserably.

The problem with offering the justification “we use science because it works” is that one must also justify that which “works”. In other words, if science allows us to accomplish some particular goal, then one must justify that this particular goal is what we should logically be pursuing.

Even then, using pragmatism as a justification still fails because it is possible to accomplish the same goal by following distinct sets of beliefs which are contradictory to one another. Since there is no logical way for sets of contradictory beliefs to both be true, the fact that either or both allows us to accomplish what we want cannot logically entail that they are representative of reality (i.e. what they claim to be true is in fact true.)

Take the goal of being a moral individual. Since both Judaism and Christianity hold to a belief that one should do this, one could accomplish that goal while accepting either the entire belief system of Judiasm *or* of Christianity. These two belief systems, however, contain contradictory beliefs (especially as regarding the person and nature of Jesus Christ).

If you ask a member of either belief system “why do accept the tenets of your faith as true?” they could both honestly answer “because it facilitates me being a moral individual” - in other words, “because it works”. The only thing different between this line of questioning and the line of questioning above is what the “it” is (i.e. the goal) that “works”. In this example, it is being a moral individual, whereas in the example above pertaining to scientific conclusions, it is being able to predict with a good degree of accuracy, the outcome of future events.

Pragmatic justification, therefore, can only provide a motivation for accepting something as true, but can never provide a logical justification for accepting something is true.

This has direct bearing on the issue at hand - whether or not it is rational to accept claims from science as “gospel” when it comes to the question of evaluating claims in the Bible to be true, just because science “works”. The answer is no, it is not. Since pragmatism does not provide a logical rationale for believing scientific conclusions are true, it does not provide a logical rationale for concluding that Biblical claims that contradict the claims of science must therefore be false.

Let me make a couple of points clear in closing that I should have stated already. First, I am not “anti-science”. Second, I am not claiming that science is *not* useful, or (even more to the point) that no claims of science are true! The only point I am making here is that the statement “because it works” is an insufficient answer as to why we should accept scientific conclusions over against Biblical ones.

Clear as mud? :)

As always, comments are welcome!

-- Brian