The Great Divide Pt. 2

Reverse Induction, Empirical Data, and Epistemic Constraints

Discovering the Great Divide

In the last post we began to look at some of the core issues Plantinga is dealing with in his essay. There is the issue of science and its definition(s), as well as the different sources of knowledge- empirical and revelational were the two we've dealt with so far. At the end we looked at Reverse Induction (RI) and gave a workable definition for it- taking empirical data from the present and extrapolating backward into the past.

Epistemic Constraints

Inductive arguments are by nature probabilistic. That is, their conclusion is never certain (e.g. eggplant jellybeans). This isn't a bad thing per see, it just is what it is. It's simply an admission that inductive reasoning has limits. It's no weakness that my son's Tonka truck cannot provide me with the ability to go for a drive around town. It's a toy. It has limits related to its design. If I expect it to get me to the store and back, I am simply not thinking clearly. I am expecting it to do something that is beyond its scope and capabilities.

The same holds true for inductive reasoning. It seems to work well enough, at least most of the time. And there are times where we have no other choice but to use it. In fact, if we reflect on it a bit, our minds are wired such that we probably make thousands of inductive inferences in a given day. That's just the nature of being human- of being finite. So then, we use inductive reasoning continuously, but at the same time we know that it can let us down. That is, it is fallible.

If inductive reasoning about the future can fail us, it is no stretch to say that RI can fail as well. What makes RI different from inductive reasoning about the future is that at least future contingencies have the possibility of being checked and verified to some extent. The past simply does not. The only way to have knowledge of the past is a) to have experienced it in some way, shape, or form or b) to know someone else who experienced it who in turn can communicate it to us.

It should become clear that when we compare these two types of inductive reasoning (past versus future), one is testable (at least to some extent) and the other, not so much. One is subject to being confirmed or falsified, while the other is automatically insulated from such criticism. Or at least it when nobody questions it.

Empirical Data

The use of empirical data and inductive inference in a testable, repeatable, and falsifiable way is a beautiful thing. Well, at least it can be anyways. While there have been many advancements in weapons and other destructive elements, a substantial portion of scientific achievement has been quite beneficial. I am thankful for Francis Bacon's efforts at kick-starting this whole process in a major way. This is what I and other like minded people might call Observational Science (OS)- using our powers of observation and logic in order to solve problems and come up real solutions. OS allows me to type this blog, to microwave some uber processed frozen food for lunch, to fly across the ocean if I like, or communicate in real-time with someone else halfway around the world.

Empirical data is formed from the stuff around us that can be tested, weighed, measured, and experimented on. Like the leftovers you "discover" were pushed behind the sauces in your fridge. You might try offering them to one of your friends when they come over and see how sick they get after eating them. You could catalog their experience and publish it on a philosophical blog page, that way anyone interested in philosophy would know to stay away from month old leftovers.

Just kidding. Don't do that.

The question before us now is this - Is Observational Science (OS) equivalent to Reverse Induction (RI)?

When it comes to using empirical data to formulate a hypothesis about our Earth's history, many scientists use RI. Who can blame them? What else do they have to go off of? After all, we can't in any genuine way expect them to consult something like the Bible, which of course is chalked full of contradictions and superstitious fiction. They are scientists for cryin out loud! They don't need a revelation that purports to tell them anything about the past. They can figure it out on their own thank you very much.

Now a humble man who uses RI would have to admit that, like the Tonka truck, it has its limits and is fallible. Thus his conlusions would be uncertain given the tenuous nature of RI. And that would be fine in my book. But is that what CNS does? Not exactly. Consider the following short interview with Bill Nye:

Note that Nye conflates OS and RI as being synonymous, even identical. He refers to a whole host of empirical data, but fails to admit that his interpretation of that data might just be mistaken. One example to gleam here involve his comments on radioactivity. Of course radioactivity can be measured and observed with absolutely amazing laboratory equipment. That is not the point in dispute. The question for Nye, and other ardent proponents of billions of years is this- How can we have any assurance that the ratios we observe now can be extrapolated backwards to give us an accurate measurement of historical time?

The simple answer to the previous question is that we can't. The problem here is not the empirical data itself, but rather the interpretation of that data. When it comes to the past, all of the data we have must of necessity be interpreted. What this boils down to is that billions of years may not be right at all. Worse yet, it may actually be bad science when we consider the wide array of evidence available that points in a much different direction.

Of course, being an evolutionist requires deep time, and therein lies the real motivation for the position in the first place. Billions of years is not only necessary, but it also makes Darwinian Evolution (DE) seem more tenable, at least as it is presented to the public. The problem is that for the narrative of DE to survive it must of necessity have millions and millions of years for the impossible to occur. Without it what would it be but just another superstition?

The Great Divide

The Great Divide then is this- we must either trust those who cling to RI as the only foundation for their claims of certainty or find someone who has experienced the past and can give us accurate information about it. If you are a Christian reader then hopefully you already know where to go. If you're not then I hope you at least give this topic some thought and not just casually dismiss it.

With all this said, I am in no way suggesting that their is a dichotomy between faith and reason. It is not as though you have to choose exclusively between purely rational methods of inquiry versus revelation. Honestly, I don't think there is much of a case for separating the two. Trying to divide the two would be akin to having a heart but no brain, or conversely a brain but no heart. You're not going to live long without them. The physical analogy holds true for faith and reason. Faith without reason leads fanaticism and numerous errors in thinking and action. In fact, I would go so far as to say many forms of "faith" that deny any use of reason aren't really faith at all. On the other side of the coin, Reason grounded in disbelief leads to a prideful arrogance that rejects God as the source of all good, and fails to give Him the honor due His Name. As people we tend to gravitate toward one extreme or the other. And as sinners who continually miss God's mark set before us that isn't all that shocking.

Augustine nailed it when he said "I believe in order to understand." Biblical faith seeks a much broader and deeper understanding of life and the world we live in than secularists would admit. Though many love to scoff and insult believers, their insults are hollow and without teeth. The question is, are we going to let them define the debate terms or will we be ready to give an answer in love and truth when the opportunity comes? Let us train our minds daily with that end in mind.