Principles for Science II

[dtyler]

A discussion of presuppositions of science was initiated some weeks ago and this led to some useful exchanges. However, as often happens, no conclusion was reached. Nevertheless, new threads are being launched with little or no appreciation of these more fundamental issues. Hence, I want to revisit the issue of presuppositions by looking at a current debate relating to Darwinism.

The trigger for this is a paper in “Biology and Philosophy”, 18, 653-668, 2003. “Darwin’s nihilistic idea: evolution and the meaninglessness of life” by Tamler Sommers and Alex Rosenberg (Duke University, NC). To read it, please download from: http://www.kluweronline.com/issn/0169-3867/contents
(Click on Issue 5 November 2003.)
This paper builds on the arguments of Daniel Dennett in “Darwin’s Dangerous Idea”. Dennett is well-known for his “universal acid” metaphor. “[Darwinism] has made Darwinians into metaphysical Nihilists denying that there is any meaning or purpose to the universe, its contents and its cosmic history.” (653).

Towards the end of his book, Dennett sets out to show that Darwinism does not sweep away “the values we cherish”. In short, he believes that there is such a thing as Darwinian ethics or ethical naturalism. That is, it is possible to look at nature and derive testable ethical truths from it. Basically, the two authors analyse Dennett’s position and show that it is untenable.

The Darwinian “mechanism of random variation and natural selection is a substrate-neutral algorithm that operates at every level of organization from the macromolecular to the mental, at every time scale from the geological epoch to the nanosecond. But it took Dennett to express the idea in a polysyllable or two. These two features of Darwinism undermine more wishful thinking about the way the world is than any other brace of notions since mechanism was vindicated in physics.” (653). “The solvent algorithm should have made them into ethical nihilists too. For intrinsic values and obligations make sense only against the background of purposes, goals, and ends which are not merely instrumental. But the leading Darwinian philosophers have shied away from this implication and instead have embraced ethical naturalism.” (653).

Dennett is critiqued, along with Ruse and Wilson. “The nihilist will deny that adaptational explanations can preserve ‘‘the values we cherish’’, and still less that they enable us to construct ‘‘sounder versions of our most important ideas’’ [citations from Dennett, p. 521] (656).

The driving force for ethical naturalism is described on page 659. “permissible outcome for the Darwinian naturalist. For if there are ethical truths which escape explanation by naturalism, then at a minimum there will be a range of emergent irreducible facts, forces, causes, that make a difference to human life beyond those that Darwinian science deals with. If such facts and forces exist and can be known to us, there is more in heaven and earth than is dreamed of in Darwinism. If there are ethical truths which escape naturalism, then there are facts about biological systems (us and perhaps other creatures) that are not the result of the operation of a mindless substrate-neutral algorithm Dennett rightly identifies as Darwinism’s core. The admission of this one class of exceptions which won’t succumb to the universal acid must open the flood-gates to other exceptions–the immaterial mind, vital forces, hidden purposes, omega points, the deity of the theists–that trimmers of and qualifiers on Darwinism (along with its deniers) have sought from A.R. Wallace’s day to John Paul II’s. It is in fact this implicit and sometimes explicit recognition that mere compatibility of ethical claims and Darwinian theory is not sufficient, coupled with the horror of nihilism, that have driven Darwinians, who should have known better, to commit the naturalistic fallacy.”

The reason why Darwinism is crucial to the argument is given on page 660. “The upshot of all this is that neither a Darwinian naturalist nor any other kind of naturalist can be satisfied merely to show that ethical truths are consistent with the theory of natural selection. They must show how the adaptationist scenarios of the theory of natural selection constitute at least a significant portion of the truth-makers for the ethical truths they allege we know. For example, suppose one adopted an ‘‘ideal-observer’’ version of naturalism, according to which the natural truth-makers for true ethical judgments are facts about how each and every normal Homo sapiens would respond psychologically to some event under so-called ‘‘ideal conditions’’. Without reference to the Darwinian connection between the ‘‘natural’’ fact about ideal observers and our actual moral beliefs, such a theory cannot claim to be naturalistic. Why? Because there is an undeniable causal connection between on the one hand, psychological response to stimuli, especially of the sort which result in expressions of the (moral) emotions of anger, shame, guilt and disdain (under ideal conditions or otherwise)—and, on the other hand, survival and reproduction. Our dispositions to react affectively to certain situations have been formed, at least in large part, by natural selection. Even the ideal observer naturalists cannot be satisfied with mere consistency between their theory and Darwinism. This is why, short of simply denying the truth of the theory of natural selection in general, Darwinian naturalism is the only game in town for any naturalist. If Darwinian naturalism fails, the Darwinian is left with a choice between nihilism and intuitionism. And no Darwinian can be satisfied with intuitionism.” So these arguments for Darwinian naturalism are critiqued and nihilism is shown to be the only acceptable conclusion.

Dennett has a colourful paragraph that reminds me very much of Richard Dawkins in suggesting a way for scientists to experience a sense of awe and wonder before the material world. Here it is:
“Darwin offers us an explanation of how God is distributed in the whole of nature: it is in the distribution of Design throughout nature, creating in the tree of life, an utterly unique and irreplaceable creation, an actual pattern in the immeasurable reaches of design space that could never be exactly duplicated in its many details. Is this Tree of Life a God one could worship? . . . Is it something sacred? Yes, say I with Nietzsche. I could not pray to it. But I can stand in affirmation of its magnificence. This world is sacred.’’ [Dennett, p. 520]
With an iconoclastic flourish, the two authors respond thus:
“The prose is moving and sincere. But in the cold light of philosophical scrutiny, it won’t wash. It doesn’t do the work Dennett requires. Sacred to us, for example is not the same as sacred tout court or sacred simpliciter. The indubitable fact that chance and necessity together have produced one or a vast number of unique things is by itself no reason that these things have value or impose obligation just in virtue of their origin, their existence, or their uniqueness. All this is obvious enough. But what may be harder to focus on in the moving prose is that Dennett has really provided no argument for thinking to the contrary. What he has produced are strong arguments for thinking that everything of importance to us, including (indeed especially) our ethical beliefs, is just a product of mindless purposeless forces. If, as Dennett must agree, these are the only forces that there are in the universe, importance is explainable without residue in terms of mindless purposelessness. And if there is no residue left to explain, we can answer the challenge of the anti-Darwinian, ‘‘You’ll never explain this!’’ [p. 521] at least to our own Darwinian satisfaction. There is nothing left of morality to explain.” (667)

Their general conclusion is on page 668.
“Darwinian nihilism explains away ethics by showing that our ethical beliefs reflect dispositions very strongly selected for over long periods, which began well before the emergence of hominids, or indeed perhaps primates (vide the vampire bat). These dispositions are so ‘‘deep’’ that for most people most of the time, it is impossible to override them, even when it is in our individual self-interest to do so, still less when there is no self-interested reason to do so. Hence, the Darwinian nihilist expects that most people are conventionally moral, and that even the widespread acceptance of the truth of Darwinian nihilism would have little or no effect on this expectation. Most of us just couldn’t persistently be mean, even if we tried. And we have no reason to try.”

How does this relate to presuppositions? Very simply, Sommers and Rosenberg have pointed out, correctly in my view, that if you start with mindless and unsupervised processes, you will never get to something that is other than nihilism. As the Preacher wrote: “Meaningless, meaningless, all is meaningless” (Ecclesiastes 1:2).

My contribution on the earlier “Principles for Science” thread was to point out the other side of the argument. Only by starting with theistic philosophy and theistic science can we arrive at a conclusion that the world shows abundant evidences of design, purpose and moral values.

Sommers and Rosenberg fail to apply the universal acid to their own rationality. This is what I also contributed in the earlier thread. The only defence of our rationality being relevant to the search for truth comes from theism.

How do these thoughts relate to other threads on the Natural Sciences Forum? It is vitally important for us to probe our presuppositions. Facts do not yield ‘self-evident’ truth. All data needs interpretation. If we need to invoke God to justify the use of our rational processes, it is no less important for us to enquire whether God has revealed anything that has a bearing on our search for understanding. It is this fuller framework of interpretation that allows us to converge on truth rather than flounder in a “virtual reality” of our own devising.

[geochron]

Perhaps you'd like to offer explanations in context of some of the terms you use?

For instance: "nihilism", "meaningless", "rationality" and "truth".

And why do we have to justify the use of our rational processes?

[Archimedes]

Today @ 05:46 PM post located here
dtyler:

My contribution on the earlier “Principles for Science” thread was to point out the other side of the argument. Only by starting with theistic philosophy and theistic science can we arrive at a conclusion that the world shows abundant evidences of design, purpose and moral values.

That's nice. Too bad that the natural world does not show evidence of design, purpose nor moral values. Those are all man-made ideas. But then you jump into another conclusion:

Sommers and Rosenberg fail to apply the universal acid to their own rationality. This is what I also contributed in the earlier thread. The only defence of our rationality being relevant to the search for truth comes from theism.

This has not been adequately supported. In the earlier thread it was demonstrated that evolution and naturalism do give plenty of reason to assume that our cognitive facilities are reliable and that humans are capable of some level of rationality. This is as much as anything a theistic framework can offer.

How do these thoughts relate to other threads on the Natural Sciences Forum? It is vitally important for us to probe our presuppositions. Facts do not yield ‘self-evident’ truth. All data needs interpretation. If we need to invoke God to justify the use of our rational processes, it is no less important for us to enquire whether God has revealed anything that has a bearing on our search for understanding.

There are two things amiss with the highlighted assertion above:

1) We don't need to justify the use of our rational processes in order to use them. If one were to adopt a stance that everything has to be justified in some form, the theistic framework falls flat when it cannot justify God. But that's besides the point because the whole idea of presuppositionalism is that there are some things that are not justified, i.e our presuppositions.

2) On the other hand, there are multiple things that can explain our rational processes apart from a creator. Evolution is one of them.

[Roy]

Today @ 05:46 PM post located here
dtyler:

My contribution on the earlier “Principles for Science” thread was to point out the other side of the argument. Only by starting with theistic philosophy and theistic science can we arrive at a conclusion that the world shows abundant evidences of design, purpose and moral values.

So it's not possible to conclude that creationism is true unless you assume it's true to start with. What a waste of time.

Roy

[dtyler]

Various responses to geochron, archimedes and rthearle

geochron writes:

Perhaps you'd like to offer explanations in context of some of the terms you use?
For instance: "nihilism", "meaningless", "rationality" and "truth".
And why do we have to justify the use of our rational processes?

For nihilism, the authors of the paper cited define this on page 655. For the other terms, I'm happy with dictionary definitions. You need to be able to justify the use of rational thinking because rational thinking is like a tool - if we do not use the tool correctly/appropriately, we are likely to end up wasting out time and effort, and we are likely to become deluded.

Archimedes writes:

In the earlier thread it was demonstrated that evolution and naturalism do give plenty of reason to assume that our cognitive facilities are reliable and that humans are capable of some level of rationality. This is as much as anything a theistic framework can offer

I did not get any justification to suggest that, apart from a theistic rationale, our rational processes can support the type of disussion we are having on this list. Any justification based on evolutionary theory supports rational activity to enhance our survival and passing on our genes. Anything more than this is either pragmatism or arbitrary.

rthearle did not agree with "Only by starting with theistic philosophy and theistic science can we arrive at a conclusion that the world shows abundant evidences of design, purpose and moral values." He writes:

So it's not possible to conclude that creationism is true unless you assume it's true to start with. What a waste of time.

What if I had written "Only by starting with atheistic philosophy and atheistic science can we arrive at a conclusion that the world shows no evidences of design, purpose and moral values."?
Would it thereby follow that: "So it's not possible to conclude that evolutionism is true unless you assume it's true to start with."?

All I am trying to say here is that the wording and style of thinking is equivalent. Your comment about the "waste of time" is particularly appropriate to evolutionism, because, as Sommers and Rosenberg argue, Darwinism is essentially nihilistic.

The real waste of time is when we indulge in debate without addressing these fundamental issues of presuppositions. Numerous posts suggest that certain data demonstrates either an old earth or disproves the Flood, etc, - but in most cases they do nothing of the sort. Speaking for myself, I am mostly quite comfortable with the data presented! That is where the waste of time is pronounced. Clearly, something deeper is bring understanding and meaning to our exchanges - and I continue to think that what we all need is a better appreciation of the presuppositions underpinning our science.

[Jake]

The problem here is assuming the existence of God is a necessary presupposition for the application of science. It isnt. Claims that God created the world this way or that way are amenable to scientific scrutiny, but they are not presuppositions, they are hypotheses. The claim that God created the world 6,000 years ago is a hypothesis that has been disproven. Belief has nothing to do with this.

The existence, non-existence or nature of God are not things that science can test, and should be left to faith.

[PlumpDJ]

Jake wrote..

The existence, non-existence or nature of God are not things that science can test, and should be left to faith.

Says who? :-)

Faith is one of those words that gets chucked about quite a lot.

[Science Boy]

It is eternally amusing that people cannot accept that others may be a mixture of traits and opinions.

It seems from the opening post in this thread that one can ONLY be 100% naturalistic in ALL aspects of EVERY second of EVERY situation on the entire planet. period.

How sad.

In fact, nearly everyone I have ever met fits into a broad continuum ranging from one extreme to the other, regardless of the topic. Centrism is the norm, not fundamentalism.

Christians (some in general, many in these forums) seem to feel that they have the ONLY claim on morality and ethics. LOL, that is purely insane and ignores reality.

I am a full-on atheist and I came to atheism via naturalism as taught by the one truth, science. However, I have NEVER thought, "hmm, I wonder how darwinian naturalistic theory would allow for me to feel sorry for the poor old widow next door?"

Just the opposite is true, I FEEL for that woman, I see her as a version of my own grandma and feel empathy for her. I know that one day I will be in a similar position and hope that my good deeds today may teach my son to do the same (and take care of me in MY old age)

Any absolutes regarding ethics or morality are silly at best.

BTW, I study the bible a lot too, go figure that into the ‘atheist’ category that many will place me in.

Tony

[Science Boy]

Today @ 01:31 PM post located here
Jake:

The problem here is assuming the existence of God is a necessary presupposition for the application of science. It isnt. Claims that God created the world this way or that way are amenable to scientific scrutiny, but they are not presuppositions, they are hypotheses. The claim that God created the world 6,000 years ago is a hypothesis that has been disproven. Belief has nothing to do with this.

The existence, non-existence or nature of God are not things that science can test, and should be left to faith.

Top quality post! I agree.

Tony

[Jake]

Jake- “ The existence, non-existence or nature of God are not things that science can test, and should be left to faith. ”

PlumpDJ- Says who? :-)

Faith is one of those words that gets chucked about quite a lot.

Are you referring to the untestability of supernatural claims using the scientific method, or the claim that the nature and existance of God should be matters of faith?

The first is true. The foundation of science is methodological naturalism.

The second is my opinion. I don't intend to denigrate either faith or science by separating them. Both are valid ways to observe the world and our place within it, but they should not be confused.

[Jake]

Cheers Tony!
Jake

[dtyler]

Responses to Jake and Science Boy

The problem here is assuming the existence of God is a necessary presupposition for the application of science. It isnt.

I am well aware that science is practiced by atheists. My point is that they have no philosophical underpinning for what they are doing. They are borrowing fundamental principles that come from a Christian worldview and denying their origin. The Christian has the philosophical underpinning, the borrowers do not.

Claims that God created the world this way or that way are amenable to scientific scrutiny, but they are not presuppositions, they are hypotheses. The claim that God created the world 6,000 years ago is a hypothesis that has been disproven. Belief has nothing to do with this.

Of course. I have never said or implied otherwise. They are amenable to scientific scrutiny as long as you are refering to historical science and not empirical science. There is a significant methodological difference.

The existence, non-existence or nature of God are not things that science can test, and should be left to faith.

This has some things that I agree with and others that are contentious. The contentious bit first: there is a mindset today that makes "knowledge" to be everything that can be determined by science. Other aspects of our being (ethics, beliefs, aesthetics) are subjective, personal and they belong in another box labelled "religion" or "faith". This is not the Christian understanding of knowledge. God's revelation is true knowledge and it integrates all other things that we can know, science included. Christians do not (or should not) have separate boxes for "science" and "faith". We have an integrated panorama over the whole of creation - which, of course, we know imperfectly. I'm not sure what PlumpDJ meant in his comment on this, but I'd like to think he was trying to get people to think along these lines.

The bit that I can endorse is that science cannot investigate God. It does not have the tools to do so. The created order is the sphere of science, not the creator himself.

Science Boy has this:

It is eternally amusing that people cannot accept that others may be a mixture of traits and opinions. It seems from the opening post in this thread that one can ONLY be 100% naturalistic in ALL aspects of EVERY second of EVERY situation on the entire planet. period. How sad.
In fact, nearly everyone I have ever met fits into a broad continuum ranging from one extreme to the other, regardless of the topic. Centrism is the norm, not fundamentalism.

I think you have read the post wrongly. I know that we all, myself included, have a mixture of traits and opinions. Sometimes, that diversity is enriching. But my post was about principles for science, and I do not think we get far on "centrism". That is a recipe for muddled thinking.

I am a full-on atheist and I came to atheism via naturalism as taught by the one truth, science. However, I have NEVER thought, "hmm, I wonder how darwinian naturalistic theory would allow for me to feel sorry for the poor old widow next door?"
Just the opposite is true, I FEEL for that woman, I see her as a version of my own grandma and feel empathy for her. I know that one day I will be in a similar position and hope that my good deeds today may teach my son to do the same (and take care of me in MY old age)
Any absolutes regarding ethics or morality are silly at best.

If you read the paper, you will find that the authors advocate "nice nihilism". It's a bit like situational ethics. They recognise that everyone is going to have a personal ethical system (as I do). The authors argument is that ultimately these ethical values are "just a product of mindless purposeless forces". If Darwinism is true, they are correct.

Jake also contributed this:

The foundation of science is methodological naturalism.

So, if we are to be scientists, we must adopt a methodology that says nature is all there is? Our presupposition is that this is how nature works? I want to point out that this presupposition is making a very important statement - full of theological significance. It is saying that we can study the universe as though God has nothing to do with it. This is totally unacceptable for theists (or should be) and it is a denial of history in that the early scientists did not adopt methodological naturalism at all.

There were several ingredients in the mindset of early scientists, but one of these was the Christian teaching on providence. God provides for his creatures in the way he upholds creation. This led the scientists to reflect on the faithfulness of God and to see the order in creation as a signature of God's goodness. This order then was studied as an act of worship, and the scientific laws that resulted were analogous to the moral laws of God. To presuppose that nature is all there is was far from their minds and it did not come in until much later.

To advocates of methodological naturalism, I ask: how would you ever know if MN were not true?

The answer is: you would never know, because you have no tools for breaking the straitjacket of naturalism. You will always cower away from a stereotyped "god-of-the-gaps" position and seek refuge in "infinities" of your own making - whether it be rare chance events, or multiverses.

By contrast, an integrated Theistic approach to science avoids these mental cul-de-sacs and is free to seek truth in a universe that is open to God.

[geochron]

I'm sorry you didn't feel like answering my question. Having you frame the concepts in your own words might well have added some clarity, because I'm still not clear what your argument is.

Is it that the ethical systems we see in the world cannot be a product of mindless, purposeless forces? I think this argument was lost in the previous thread.

Or is it that you feel that in some way things would be different if they were found to be a product of mindless, purposeless forces, and that this would be a bad thing? Ultimately, of course, the universe might just be nihilistic even though you don't like the idea.

It's also not clear how attributing rationality to a God or Gods improves the situation. How do you justify basing your search for knowledge on the actions of some supernatural being (without invoking the wishes or thought processes of that supernatural being)?

Your argument seems to be that one requires an over-arching framework within which to justify our system of justification. But until that framework exists, some things just can't be justified.

1. Science relies on rationality to provide justifications.
2. "Ah-ha" you cry, how can you justify that without using rationality? There is no foundation!!!
3. "God can provide a foundation within which to justify the use of reason." you continue
4 "Ah-ha", we cry, "how can you justify using this foundation without assuming it"?

Both views seem to me to be equally stuck in the same regression. Until there is a context within which things are justified, there is no means of justification. So using a particular context of justification can never be justified.

Oddly, perhaps, this doesn't bother me at all.

[Jake]

Hi David,

Jake- “ The problem here is assuming the existence of God is a necessary presupposition for the application of science. It isnt. ”

I am well aware that science is practiced by atheists. My point is that they have no philosophical underpinning for what they are doing. They are borrowing fundamental principles that come from a Christian worldview and denying their origin. The Christian has the philosophical underpinning, the borrowers do not.

The point I am making here concerns the application of science, not its philosophy. The existance, or absence of God in the universe makes no difference to the application of science. Whilst a hypothetical universe upheld by a creator God may be studied using the scientific method, so may a hypothetical Godless universe.

I am prepared to concede that early science may have been founded upon belief in a rational, predictable deity. This does not mean that a rational, predictable deity is required for the application of the scientific method.

“ Claims that God created the world this way or that way are amenable to scientific scrutiny, but they are not presuppositions, they are hypotheses. The claim that God created the world 6,000 years ago is a hypothesis that has been disproven. Belief has nothing to do with this. ”

Of course. I have never said or implied otherwise. They are amenable to scientific scrutiny as long as you are refering to historical science and not empirical science.

No. They are amenable to scientific scutiny, period. Just because something has happened in the past does not exclude it from examination using the same rules that always apply to science. You are creating a separate category (historical science) into which you can put anything you want to believe in spite of any evidence to the contrary.

There is a significant methodological difference.

No there isn't.

dtyler- there is a mindset today that makes "knowledge" to be everything that can be determined by science. Other aspects of our being (ethics, beliefs, aesthetics) are subjective, personal and they belong in another box labelled "religion" or "faith". This is not the Christian understanding of knowledge. God's revelation is true knowledge and it integrates all other things that we can know, science included.

I don't think a 'science only' approach to understanding the world is the best one to take. However, non-scientific ways of understanding are by their very nature subjective and must be treated as such. There is no point twisting our observations of the natural world to fit our personal beliefs; this is not science and will not achieve the results science has achieved. Faith can be harmonised with science, but not like this.

The bit that I can endorse is that science cannot investigate God. It does not have the tools to do so. The created order is the sphere of science, not the creator himself.

I agree here. Science can look at the created order, but not beyond it. It can only use information found within the created order to learn about it.

Jake- “ The foundation of science is methodological naturalism. ”

dtyler- So, if we are to be scientists, we must adopt a methodology that says nature is all there is? Our presupposition is that this is how nature works?

No. If we are to be scientists we must adopt a methodology that says nature is all we can observe using the scientific method. You are incorrectly equating methodological and metaphysical naturalism.

I want to point out that this presupposition is making a very important statement - full of theological significance. It is saying that we can study the universe as though God has nothing to do with it. This is totally unacceptable for theists (or should be) and it is a denial of history in that the early scientists did not adopt methodological naturalism at all.

This does not rule out a Creator God, but it does say that if such a God exists, any natural interaction by Him/Her in the universe may be studied using the scientific method. We may be confident that our observations are what they appear to be.

To advocates of methodological naturalism, I ask: how would you ever know if MN were not true?

The answer is: you would never know, because you have no tools for breaking the straitjacket of naturalism. You will always cower away from a stereotyped "god-of-the-gaps" position and seek refuge in "infinities" of your own making - whether it be rare chance events, or multiverses.

By contrast, an integrated Theistic approach to science avoids these mental cul-de-sacs and is free to seek truth in a universe that is open to God.

Methodological naturalism IS the foundation of science. You may not like it, but it doesn't change the fact that this is the case. Inquiry into the universe which does not apply methodological naturalism absolutely and without bias and which allows our preconceived desires to affect our conclusions is not scientific.

Metaphysical naturalism is a philosophy. Equating the two is incorrect.

[Passant]

I am well aware that science is practiced by atheists. My point is that they have no philosophical underpinning for what they are doing. They are borrowing fundamental principles that come from a Christian worldview and denying their origin. The Christian has the philosophical underpinning, the borrowers do not.

I'm so sick of hearing this crap I could spit! What "Christian" principals? Christian philosophical underpinnings are just rehashed myths told to each other to deny the fact that no one REALLY knows the answers to the big questions. I'd rather admit we don't know, than to hang my world view on fairy tales.

This has some things that I agree with and others that are contentious. The contentious bit first: there is a mindset today that makes "knowledge" to be everything that can be determined by science. Other aspects of our being (ethics, beliefs, aesthetics) are subjective, personal and they belong in another box labelled "religion" or "faith". This is not the Christian understanding of knowledge. God's revelation is true knowledge and it integrates all other things that we can know, science included. Christians do not (or should not) have separate boxes for "science" and "faith". We have an integrated panorama over the whole of creation - which, of course, we know imperfectly. I'm not sure what PlumpDJ meant in his comment on this, but I'd like to think he was trying to get people to think along these lines.

Other ways of "knowing" have been shown over and over to be unreliabe at best

God's revelation is true knowledge

That might be true, but Christians are going to have to come to some kind of consensus on what this knowledge is before it can be of any use.
God's revelation has not shown us anything about this world, or the way it works, in fact, the misinterpretation, and confusion about what these revelations REALLY mean, has slowed the progress of man. Rational thought, scientific method, that’s all that we can rely on.

It's the same old thing, religion claims a source of knowledge that revels the ultimate nature of reality, where we came from where we're going, all the big questions, and yet, it has failed to answer ANY of the small questions, and the Christian religion has been wrong about some of the big ones too. Science has fed, clothed, and healed more people in the last couple hundred years than religion has throughout history. Religion cannot heal disease, cannot increase harvests, cannot give us ANYTHING execpt false hope for an eternal life, AFTER we're dead. With the record it has for problem solving, I think I'll worry about what happens BEFORE I'm dead, when I can actually see results.

Or maybe I'll become a Hindu, then have good philosophical underpinnings, perhaps that is the true religion. Or maybe I'll just "borrow" them, just for doing science.