Rene Descartes, Noam Chomsky, the Scientific Method, and Catholics!

Descartes was a well-meaning Catholic. He said some things which are beautiful and has helped to show why atheism is an untenable position, even for the absolute relativist, for whom nothing except himself can be certain. However, I will be so bold as to claim that the father of modern philosophy made a grave error in the very heart of his philosophy.

"Cogito, ergo sum: 

Behold the long-sought rock on which the edifice of knowledge must be built" 

                                   - Descartes

He had been looking for a single solid hinge with which he could turn the whole universe—the one most solid, most indubitable foundation upon which to build the rest of knowledge. He found it in himself. "I think, therefore I am." But if Descartes was going to doubt, he needed to doubt further!

COGITO ERGO SUM

This statement relies on ASSUMPTIONS that must be true to uphold it. Namely:

• Truth
• Reason
• Existence

What he means by COGITO is: "it is true with absolute certainty that I think." For him to say this, it must first be true that TRUTH exists, and that it can be discovered by him through reason. When he says ERGO, (therefore) he assumes the existence of REASON, that truths can be connected, so that an "if...then..." statement can be made. By the time he gets to SUM (I am) and tries to establish his existence, he has already assumed that truth and reason EXIST!

He later tried to prove the existence of God by building up from this "solid foundation," but he had not seen that this "foundation" would crumble without truth, existence, and reason.

What is Existence? What is Truth?

It has been revealed to us: in the Old Testament, God revealed himself as the great I AM. He is existence itself. In the New Testament, God revealed more about himself: "EGO SUM VIAM, VERITAS, VITA." That is, "I AM the WAY, the TRUTH, and the LIFE."

DESCARTES HAD ALREADY ASSUMED AND PROVEN THE EXISTENCE OF GOD! He didn't need to go any further to try to prove Him.

Descartes & The Scientific Method

Descartes is important for me to understand as a scientist because he is the father of modern science and the scientific method, which is based on his method of discovering truths through by overcoming skepticism. 

When making a hypothesis, one considers known facts, constructs an explanation, and makes a testable prediction that would demonstrate it. In grade school, we are taught that a hypothesis is an "if...then..." statement. Really, a hypothesis should be more like one, big, run-on "given (facts), if (experiment), then (prediction), because (explanation)."

It must be (and it isn't) clearly understood that science never progresses through skepticism alone. The scientific method is to build up questions and doubts in order to conquer them by finding answers. If science stops at skepticism, it doesn't just stagnate, it immediately dies!

Let's say I want to question authority and tradition. Well, I'm always free to do that, but I should follow my question with an answer. Are the scientific tradition and authorities always correct? Certainly not, there are countless accidental errors in science, not to mention widespread corruption in the publishing of scientific literature. There are predatory "peer-reviewed" journals that will publish anything, even a paper from a random text generator for money. China's scientific fraud is getting out of hand because your salary can depend on how many papers you've published in reputable journals. Sometimes, those reputable journals find out, publish retractions, and very sadly, there are Chinese who have committed suicide after it became known that their work was fraudulent. 

So let's say that because of fraud, I decide to become skeptical about every scientific tradition and authority. Well then immediately I die as a scientist, until I can find a cure! If I throw the baby out with the bathwater, and I forbid myself from accepting any SCIENTIFIC REVELATION, then I must begin all of science anew. I must throw away my anatomy books and dig up corpses myself. I must throw out my periodic table, all my electronics, and reinvent the wheel myself. Actually, it sounds like fun, but I will waste my life relearning it all if I can't trust anyone. I cannot have a personal science that is built entirely upon my own foundation.

We cannot have a subjective science. 

This is where Descartes betrays modern science: by building truth upon himself and not upon something universal.

To ever contribute to the progress of science, there are some things I just have to accept, BASED ON THE TRUSTWORTHINESS AND CONSISTENCY of he who says it. Science textbooks tend to have a lot of bias, as they must because all scientists have a purpose or intention. If I read a book by a Lysenkoist, that says I can turn an apple tree into a grape vine, I should consider that this science comes out from the bosom of Communism, which is neither trustworthy or consistent. When I read my physics textbook, if it is a good book, it will accurately describe the world around me, and based on those consistent accuracies, I can trust their formulas. I expect that the American government and big corporations are not bribing the Ph.D. physicists who wrote my book to teach a false physics.

Noam Chomsky on Skepticism & The Scientific Method

If you are studying for the MCAT, you may have gone over Noam Chomsky in your new psychology books. He is a linguist recognized by the AAMC for his nativist theory of language development. It is the theory that our language skills are innate, built into our genes, rather than learned by reinforcement and correction imposed upon a child (B.F. Skinner's behaviorist theory of language) or by our own intrinsic desire (social interactionist theory). To be honest, I just assumed he was a long-dead linguist, driven only by his love for linguistics. But after asking about him, I learned that he is actually a very opinionated political commentator, who is alive and currently. It's good for me to learn that, because this world of science and theory is not divorced from personal motives and opinions. I certainly have opinions, motives, and a personal life that shapes my scientific views, and let's not believe for a moment that our beloved theorists were isolated from religion, anti-religion, and society. 

Noam Chomsky said, "If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all." In honor of that quote, I will share one of his interviews. I certainly don't despise him, but he seems to have a different opinion on Faith and Science from me, but a similar opinion on pure skepticism, which you may hear below:

On Atheism, Religion, and the Scientific Method:


On Skepticism and the Scientific Method:

The Catholic Religion

Catholic means universal. Our truths are not built upon ourselves, but upon a solid, universal foundation.

Just like with science, we cannot make much spiritual progress by simply starting anew. But we also cannot just accept anything we hear from any "spiritual person." We must use our reason to determine who is the most trustworthy, consistent, and whose principles can stand firmly on their own without self-contradiction.

Who is trustworthy? Certainly God who is truth himself and can neither deceive nor be received. HIS REVELATION, HIS BOOK, AND HIS AUTHORITY is the one we should trust.

Now there are two (main) books in the world that claim to hold God's revelation and authority: the Koran and the Holy Bible. We must use reason to compare these books based on consistency and trusthworthiness. When we look at Islam's book, it came very suddenly from an angel and it asserts its own supreme authority. Its downfall is that it claims ties to the Judaism and Christianity which came before it, and affirms the authority of Jesus as a prophet, but at the same time it rejects their truths. It is not consistent with them. For example, their Allah permits lies, whereas the Judeo-Christian God forbids false witness as a commandment and claims to be Truth itself. The Holy Bible did not come suddenly but over time and with the fulfillment of the prophecies of the Jews, with consistent signs and miracles, and with self-evident truths that do not rely on its authority alone.

Jesus is the long-expected Messiah, who reveals the Father. They crucified Him because he claimed to be God, and He did not try to fight His killers because His kingdom is not of this world. Mohammed was a non-expected prophet, who could not reveal God as the Father because he did not understand Jesus's most important claim: that He is God. He encouraged his followers to conquer and uproot the world by force because his kingdom is earthly. If Islam did not speak of Jesus as a prophet, perhaps it could be excused by reason.