{"id":2870,"date":"2015-09-07T20:41:05","date_gmt":"2015-09-08T00:41:05","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/admin.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/?p=2870"},"modified":"2017-05-20T19:20:21","modified_gmt":"2017-05-20T23:20:21","slug":"must-christianity-be-empirically-falsifiable","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2015\/09\/must-christianity-be-empirically-falsifiable.html","title":{"rendered":"Must Christianity be Empirically Falsifiable to be Rationally Held?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<\/head>

\u2014 Positivist Myths and Fallacies Debunked by Philosophers and Mathematicians \u2014<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

[originally posted on 7-14-10; abridged and re-edited on 9-7-15. Emphases in\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/span>blue<\/span><\/span><\/span>]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\"Putnam2\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Philosopher Hilary Putnam (b. 1926)<\/span> [<\/span><\/span><\/span>Wikimedia Commons<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/span>\u00a0\/\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/span>Creative Commons<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/span>Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 Generic<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/span>\u00a0license]<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

* * * * *<\/p>\n

Dr. Jerry A. Coyne<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/span>\u00a0is a Professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolution at the University of Chicago. He earned his Ph.D. in evolutionary biology at Harvard University in 1978, working in the laboratory of Richard Lewontin. He has written over 110 refereed scientific papers and 80 other articles, book reviews, and columns, as well as the books\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/span>Why Evolution is True<\/i><\/span><\/span><\/span>\u00a0and\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/span>Speciation<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/em>\u00a0( co-authored with H. Allen Orr).<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

In his article,<\/span><\/span><\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/span>\u201cWhat evidence would convince you that a god exists?\u201d<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/span>\u00a0(7-7-10) he made the following assertions:<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

One of the big differences between religion and science<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/span>\u00a0as \u201cways of knowing\u201d is that in science we can almost always specify what observations or experiments would prove our theories wrong. In contrast, the faithful do not (and cannot) specify what observations would disprove their beliefs\u2014or the whole basis of their religion. . . . the faithful carefully insulate those beliefs from disproof . . . Evidence for religious beliefs is counted; evidence against them is dismissed.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

. . . the faithful often won\u2019t let themselves even\u00a0consider<\/span><\/span><\/em>\u00a0counterevidence. . . . Religion is\u00a0<\/span><\/span>not<\/span><\/span><\/em>\u00a0a way of knowing because it doesn\u2019t have\u00a0<\/span><\/span>a way of knowing that it is wrong<\/span><\/span><\/em>. And without that, you don\u2019t know if you\u2019re\u00a0<\/span><\/span>right.<\/span><\/span><\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

In a second article,\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span>\u201cSeeing and Believing: The never-ending attempt to reconcile science and religion, and why it is doomed to fail\u201d<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/span>(<\/span><\/span><\/span>The New Republic<\/i><\/span><\/span><\/span>, 2-2-09): a hostile book review of works by theistic evolutionists Karl W. Giberson and Kenneth R. Miller, Dr. Coyne continues the same hapless, droning theme:<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Like all sciences, evolution differs from religion because it constantly tests its assumptions, and discards the ones that prove false. . . .<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

What, then, is the nature of \u201creligious truth\u201d that supposedly complements \u201cscientific truth\u201d? The first thing we should ask is whether, and in what sense, religious assertions are \u201ctruths.\u201d Truth implies the possibility of falsity, so we should have a way of knowing whether religious truths are wrong. . . .<\/p>\n

Anything touted as a \u201ctruth\u201d must come with a method for being disproved . . .<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

I shall now cite philosophers and mathematicians (not all Christians, by a long shot), who hold that mathematics and some aspects of science (particularly at the level of grand theories) are not falsifiable; they are axiomatic or\u00a0<\/span><\/span>a priori<\/i><\/span><\/span>\u00a0forms of knowledge that are antecedent to and altogether distinct from empirical observation. Mathematics is central to much of science. Therefore, those particular branches of science are built upon a body of knowledge that is in itself unfalsifiable.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Thus, to claim that the only knowledge is that which is observable and falsifiable and to do so speaking from a scientific perspective, is to engage in vicious self-contradiction. In other words, if Christianity is unworthy of belief on these grounds, then so is mathematics, and since mathematics is crucial and central to science, the latter collapses with it (by this fallacious, incoherent reasoning). Conclusion: the argument proves\u00a0<\/span><\/span>too<\/i><\/span><\/span>\u00a0much, and so must be discarded as worthless. Christianity cannot be rationally dismissed on this basis.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

1)\u00a0<\/span><\/span>John Passmore<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/span>\u00a0(philosopher),\u00a0<\/span><\/span>\u201cLogical Positivism,\u201d\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/span>in Paul Edwards, editor,\u00a0<\/span><\/span>The Encyclopedia of Philosophy<\/i><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span>, Vol. 5<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a>, 52-57 (New York: Macmillan: 1967):<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Verifiability.<\/b><\/span><\/span>\u00a0The course taken by the subsequent history of logical positivism was determined by its attempts to solve a set of problems set for it, for the most part, by its reliance on the verifiability principle. The status of that principle was by no means clear, for\u00a0<\/span><\/span>\u201cThe meaning of a proposition is the method of its verification\u201d is not a scientific proposition.\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/span>Should it therefore be rejected as meaningless? Faced with this difficulty, the logical positivists argued that it ought to be read not as a statement but as a proposal, a recommendation that propositions should not be accepted as meaningful unless they are verifiable. But this was an uneasy conclusion. For the positivists had set out to destroy metaphysics; now it appeared that the metaphysician could escape their criticisms simply by refusing to accept their recommendations.\u00a0. . .<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

The logical positivists themselves were much more concerned about the fact that the verifiability principle threatened to destroy not only metaphysics but also science.<\/span><\/span><\/span>\u00a0Whereas Mach had been happy to purge the sciences, the logical positivists ordinarily took for granted the substantial truth of contemporary science. Thus, it was a matter of vital concern to them when\u00a0<\/span><\/span>it became apparent that the verifiability principle would rule out as meaningless all scientific laws.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

For such laws are, by the nature of the case, not conclusively verifiable; there is no set of experiences such that having these experiences is equivalent to the truth of a scientific law. . . .<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

For these and comparable reasons\u00a0\u201cverifiability\u201d was gradually replaced by \u201cconfirmability\u201d or by the rather stronger notion of \u201ctestability.\u201d Whereas at first the meaning of a proposition had been identified with the experiences which we would have to have in order to know that the proposition is true, now this was reduced to the much weaker thesis that a proposition has a meaning\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/span>only if it is possible to confirm it<\/i><\/span><\/span><\/span>, that is, to derive true propositions from it.\u00a0. . .\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Whether the confirmability principle can so be restated as to act as a method of distinguishing between metaphysical statements as meaningless and scientific statements as meaningful remains a question of controversy. . . .<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Logical positivism, considered as a doctrine of a sect, has disintegrated.<\/span><\/span><\/span>\u00a0In various ways it has been absorbed into the international movement of contemporary empiricism, within which the disputes which divided it are still being fought out. Originally,<\/span><\/span>\u00a0it set up a series of sharp contrasts: between metaphysics and science, logical and factual truths, the verifiable and the nonverifiable, the corrigible and the incorrigible, what can be shown and what can be said, facts and theories. In recent philosophy, all these contrasts have come under attack<\/span><\/span><\/span>, not from metaphysicians but from philosophers who would in a general sense be happy enough to describe themselves as \u201clogical empiricists.\u201d Even among those philosophers who would still wish to make the contrasts on which the logical positivists insisted, few would believe that they can be made with the sharpness or the ease which the logical positivists at first suggested.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Logical positivism, then, is dead, or as dead as a philosophical movement ever becomes.<\/span><\/span><\/span>\u00a0But it has left a legacy behind. In the German-speaking countries, indeed, it wholly failed; . . .<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

2)\u00a0<\/span><\/span>Rafe Champion\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/span>(philosopher),\u00a0<\/span><\/span>\u201cAgreeing to Disagree: Bartley\u2019s Critique of Reason\u201d<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/span>\u00a0(<\/span><\/span>Melbourne Age Monthly Review<\/i><\/span><\/span>, October 1985):<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Critics have demonstrated that there is no way to justify positively (certainly) the basic premise of rationality itself (or indeed the basic premises of any argument) because any attempt to provide a reason to support the basic assumption of the argument simply begs the question to provide a justification for the supporting statement, and so on, ad infinitum.<\/span><\/span><\/span>\u00a0This has been a continual source of irritation to rationalists whenever an opponent bothers to make an issue out of it. For Bertrand Russell, one of the greatest rationalists of all time, frustration alternated with deep despair of reason. . . .<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

The problem for rationalists is that\u00a0the traditional dogmatic framework of thought guarantees that the irrationalists can always win, any time that they force the issue and demand that the rationalist produce truly justified beliefs<\/span><\/span><\/span>. That is to say, any time that Ayer (or Stove) is asked to nominate a theory along with its warrant of verification (or its numerical probability). In this way\u00a0<\/span><\/span>the dogmatic framework provides the seedbed for the weeds of irrationalism and this yields the shocking discovery that dogmatic (justificationist) theories of rationality actually nurture and maintain that seedbed.\u00a0. . .\u00a0\u00a0the great rationalist Bertrand Russell fought irrationalism at one level but sustained it at a deeper level. . . .<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Popper\u2019s ideas have failed to convince the majority of professional philosophers because his theory of conjectural knowledge does not even pretend to provide positively justified foundations of belief. Nobody else does better, but they keep trying, like chemists still in search of the Philosopher\u2019s Stone\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/span>or physicists trying to build perpetual motion machines.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

3)\u00a0<\/span><\/span>Charles Parsons<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/span>\u00a0(mathematician),\u00a0<\/span><\/span>Mathematics in Philosophy: Selected Essays\u00a0<\/i><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/span>(Cornell University Press, 2005, pp. 196-197):<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

But\u00a0<\/span><\/span>no proposition of pure mathematics has been\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/span>falsified<\/i><\/span><\/span><\/span>.<\/span><\/span><\/span>\u00a0If we view mathematics in this light,<\/span><\/span>no proposition of Euclidean geometry is falsified by the discovery that physical space is not Euclidean<\/span><\/span><\/span>. . . .<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

4)\u00a0Charles Parsons,\u00a0<\/span><\/span>Mathematical Thought and Its Objects<\/i><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a>(Cambridge University Press, 2009, pp. xiii-xv):<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

I am not convinced that the notion of a priori knowledge is as clear as is often assumed. It is quite obvious that<\/span><\/span>\u00a0experience and perception do not play the direct role in the justification of mathematical propositions that they play in natural science<\/span><\/span><\/span>\u00a0or in most factual statements of everyday life.\u00a0<\/span><\/span>The mathematician in proving a theorem does not appeal to experimental results or other forms of observation<\/span><\/span><\/span>. Rigorous proofs can generally be represented as deductions from axioms. . . .<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

5)\u00a0<\/span><\/span>Alvin Plantinga<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/span>\u00a0(philosopher),<\/span><\/span>\u00a0\u201cAdvice to Christian Philosophers\u201d\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/span>(<\/span><\/span>Faith and Philosophy: Journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers<\/i><\/span><\/span>, vol. 1, October 1984):<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

First, the dreaded \u201cVerifiability Criterion of Meaning.\u201d During the palmy days of logical positivism, some thirty or forty years ago, the positivists claimed that most of the sentences Christians characteristically utter-\u201cGod loves us,\u201d for example, or \u201cGod created the heavens and the earth\u201d-don\u2019t even have the grace to be false; they are, said the positivists, literally meaningless. It is not that they express\u00a0<\/span><\/span>false<\/span><\/span><\/em>\u00a0propositions; they don\u2019t express any propositions at all. Like that lovely line from\u00a0<\/span><\/span>Alice in Wonderland<\/span><\/span><\/em>, \u201cT\u2019was brillig, and the slithy toves did gyre and gymbol in the wabe,\u201d they say nothing false, but only because they say nothing at all; they are \u201ccognitively meaningless,\u201d to use the positivist\u2019s charming phrase. The sorts of things theists and others had been saying for centuries, they said, were now shown to be without sense; we theists had all been the victims, it seems, of a cruel hoax-perpetrated, perhaps, by ambitious priests and foisted upon us by our own credulous natures.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Now if this is true, it is indeed important. How had the positivists come by this startling piece of intelligence? They inferred it from\u00a0<\/span><\/span>the Verifiability Criterion of Meaning, which said, roughly, that a sentence is meaningful only if either it is analytic, or its truth or falsehood can be determined by empirical or scientific investigation-by the methods of the empirical sciences. On these grounds not only theism and theology, but most of traditional metaphysics and philosophy and much else besides was declared nonsense, without any literal sense at all<\/span><\/span><\/span>. Some positivists conceded that metaphysics and theology, though strictly meaningless, might still have a certain limited value.\u00a0. . .\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Many philosophically inclined Christians were disturbed and perplexed and felt deeply threatened; could it really be true that linguistic philosophers had somehow discovered that the Christian\u2019s most cherished convictions were, in fact, just meaningless? There was a great deal of anxious hand wringing among philosophers, either themselves theists or sympathetic to theism. . . .<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

By now, of course,\u00a0<\/span><\/span>Verificationism has retreated into the obscurity it so richly deserves<\/span><\/span><\/span>; but the moral remains. This hand wringing and those attempts to accommodate the positivist were wholly inappropriate. \u00a0. . .<\/span><\/span>the Verificationists never gave any cogent arguments; indeed, they seldom gave any arguments at all. Some simply trumpeted this principle as a great discovery, and when challenged, repeated it loudly and slowly; but why should\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/span>that<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/em>\u00a0disturb anyone?<\/span><\/span><\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

6)\u00a0<\/span><\/span>Hilary Putnam<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/span>\u00a0(philosopher),\u00a0<\/span><\/span>Words and Life<\/i><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/span>\u00a0(edited by James Conant, Harvard University Press, 1995,\u00a0<\/span><\/span>p. 258<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/span>):<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

[A]s a matter of descriptive fact about our present cognitive situation,\u00a0<\/span><\/span>we\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/span>do not know<\/i><\/span><\/span><\/span>\u00a0of any possible situation in which the truths of mathematics (as we take them to be) would be disconfirmed<\/span><\/span><\/span>, save for situations in which the meanings of terms are (by our present lights) altered.\u00a0<\/span><\/span>To insist that these statements\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/span>must<\/i><\/span><\/span><\/span>\u00a0be falsifiable, or that\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/span>all<\/i><\/span><\/span><\/span>\u00a0statements must be falsifiable \u2014 is to make falsifiability a third (or is it a fourth by now?) dogma of empiricism.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

7)\u00a0<\/span><\/span>Michael Scriven\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/span>(philosopher),\u00a0<\/span><\/span>Evaluation Thesaurus<\/i><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a>(Sage Publications, 4th ed., 1991,\u00a0<\/span><\/span>p. 165<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/span>):<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

The status of mathematics is also somewhat unclear on the falsifiability criterion, since it is widely believed to be tautological and hence not falsifiable<\/span><\/span><\/span>, but it can hardly be said to have no information content in any useful sense. In fact,\u00a0<\/span><\/span>it is informative in much the same way that tautological scientific laws are informative<\/span><\/span><\/span>.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

\u2014 Positivist Myths and Fallacies Debunked by Philosophers and Mathematicians \u2014 [originally posted on 7-14-10; abridged and re-edited on 9-7-15. Emphases in\u00a0blue] Philosopher Hilary Putnam (b. 1926) [Wikimedia Commons\u00a0\/\u00a0\u00a0Creative Commons\u00a0Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 Generic\u00a0license] * * * * * Dr. Jerry A. Coyne\u00a0is a Professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolution at the University of […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2331,"featured_media":2871,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[112],"tags":[237,329,436,328,439,446,444,441,443,445,440,119,301,442,447,438,187,437],"class_list":["post-2870","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-philosophy-science","tag-axioms","tag-christian-apologetics","tag-empiricism","tag-epistemology","tag-falsifiability","tag-geometry","tag-justification-of-belief","tag-logical-positivism","tag-mathematical-axioms","tag-mathematics","tag-philosophical-warrant-for-religion","tag-philosophy-of-religion","tag-philosophy-of-science","tag-positivism","tag-reason-and-faith","tag-testability","tag-unproven-axioms","tag-verifiability"],"yoast_head":"\nMust Christianity be Empirically Falsifiable to be Rationally Held?<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"I cite philosophers & mathematicians who hold that mathematics is not falsifiable; it's an axiomatic or a priori form of knowledge rather than empiricism.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2015\/09\/must-christianity-be-empirically-falsifiable.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Must Christianity be Empirically Falsifiable to be Rationally Held?\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"I cite philosophers & mathematicians who hold that mathematics is not falsifiable; it's an axiomatic or a priori form of knowledge rather than empiricism.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2015\/09\/must-christianity-be-empirically-falsifiable.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:author\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2015-09-08T00:41:05+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-05-20T23:20:21+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2015\/09\/Putnam2.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"540\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"768\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Dave Armstrong\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Dave Armstrong\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2015\/09\/must-christianity-be-empirically-falsifiable.html\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2015\/09\/must-christianity-be-empirically-falsifiable.html\",\"name\":\"Must Christianity be Empirically Falsifiable to be Rationally Held?\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2015-09-08T00:41:05+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-20T23:20:21+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e\"},\"description\":\"I cite philosophers & mathematicians who hold that mathematics is not falsifiable; it's an axiomatic or a priori form of knowledge rather than empiricism.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2015\/09\/must-christianity-be-empirically-falsifiable.html#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2015\/09\/must-christianity-be-empirically-falsifiable.html\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2015\/09\/must-christianity-be-empirically-falsifiable.html#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Must Christianity be Empirically Falsifiable to be Rationally Held?\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/\",\"name\":\"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism\",\"description\":\"Catholic biblical apologetics\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e\",\"name\":\"Dave Armstrong\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/820e6db89734ae7a9e5dac8d498f5ac7?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/820e6db89734ae7a9e5dac8d498f5ac7?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Dave Armstrong\"},\"description\":\"Dave Armstrong is a Catholic author and apologist, who has been actively proclaiming and defending Christianity since 1981, and Catholicism in particular since 1991 (full-time since December 2001). Formerly a campus missionary, as a Protestant, Dave was received into the Catholic Church in February 1991, by the late, well-known catechist and theologian, Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. Dave\u2019s articles have appeared in many influential Catholic periodicals, including \\\"This Rock\\\" (now called \\\"Catholic Answers Magazine\\\"), \\\"Envoy Magazine\\\" (Patrick Madrid), \\\"The Catholic Answer,\\\" \\\"The Coming Home Journal,\\\" \\\"Gilbert Magazine\\\" (American Chesterton Society), and \\\"The Latin Mass.\\\" He also writes a featured column for every issue of \\\"The Michigan Catholic\\\": published by the archdiocese of Detroit, and was editor for most of the apologetics tracts published by the St. Paul Street Evangelization apostolate. Dave\u2019s apologetics and writing apostolate was the subject of a feature article in the May 2002 issue of \\\"Envoy Magazine.\\\" He served as the staff moderator at the Internet discussion forum for The Coming Home Network, from 2007-2010. Dave has been interviewed on many nationally syndicated Catholic radio shows, including \\\"Catholic Answers Live\\\" (twice), \\\"Faith and Family Live\\\" (Steve Wood), \\\"Kresta in the Afternoon,\\\" \\\"Son Rise Morning Show,\\\" \\\"Catholic Connection\\\" (Teresa Tomeo), and \\\"The Catholics Next Door.\\\" His large and popular website, \\\"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism,\\\" was online from March 1997 to March 2007, and received the 1998 Catholic Website of the Year award from \\\"Envoy Magazine.\\\" His blog of the same name (now transferred to Patheos), begun in February 2004, contains more than 1,500 papers, at least 500 debates or dialogues, and over 50 distinct \\\"index\\\" web pages. Unsolicited correspondence has indicated many hundreds of conversions (or returns) to the Catholic faith as a result, by God's grace, of these writings. Dave's conversion story was published in the bestselling book \\\"Surprised by Truth\\\" (edited by Patrick Madrid; San Diego: Basilica Press, 1994). Sophia Institute Press has published six of his books: \\\"A Biblical Defense of Catholicism\\\" (Foreword by Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J., 1996 \/ 2003), \\\"The Catholic Verses\\\" (2004), \\\"The One-Minute Apologist\\\" (2007), \\\"Bible Proofs for Catholic Truths\\\" (2009), \\\"The Quotable Newman\\\" (editor: 2012), and \\\"Proving the Catholic Faith is Biblical\\\" (2015). He is co-author (with Dr. Paul Thigpen) of the inserts for \\\"The New Catholic Answer Bible\\\" (Our Sunday Visitor: 2005), and editor for \\\"The Wisdom of Mr. Chesterton: The Very Best Quotes, Quips, and Cracks from the Pen of G. K. Chesterton\\\" (Saint Benedict Press \/ TAN Books: 2009). \\\"100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura\\\" was published by Catholic Answers in May 2012. His \\\"Quotable Wesley\\\" compilation was published by (Protestant \/ Wesleyan publisher) Beacon Hill Press in April 2014. Several of his 49 books are bestsellers in their field. Dave maintains a popular personal Facebook page, a Facebook author page, and has a Twitter account as well. He offers almost all of his books in e-book form on his own Biblical Catholicism site (http:\/\/biblicalcatholicism.com\/), at a permanent deep discount: only $2.99 for ePub, mobi, and AZW, and $1.99 for PDF. His writing has been enthusiastically endorsed or recommended by many leading Catholic apologists, authors, and priests, including Dr. Scott Hahn, Fr. Peter M. J. Stravinskas, Marcus Grodi, Patrick Madrid, Steve Ray, Tim Staples, Devin Rose, Mike Aquilina, Al Kresta, Karl Keating, Fr. Dwight Longenecker, Brandon Vogt, Marcellino D'Ambrosio, and Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. Dave has been happily married to his wife Judy since October 1984. They have three sons and a daughter, and reside in southeast Michigan (metro Detroit).\",\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/biblicalcatholicism.com\/\",\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798\",\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/@LuxVeritatisApologetics\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/author\/davearmstrong\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Must Christianity be Empirically Falsifiable to be Rationally Held?","description":"I cite philosophers & mathematicians who hold that mathematics is not falsifiable; it's an axiomatic or a priori form of knowledge rather than empiricism.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2015\/09\/must-christianity-be-empirically-falsifiable.html","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Must Christianity be Empirically Falsifiable to be Rationally Held?","og_description":"I cite philosophers & mathematicians who hold that mathematics is not falsifiable; it's an axiomatic or a priori form of knowledge rather than empiricism.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2015\/09\/must-christianity-be-empirically-falsifiable.html","og_site_name":"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism","article_author":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798","article_published_time":"2015-09-08T00:41:05+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-05-20T23:20:21+00:00","og_image":[{"width":540,"height":768,"url":"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2015\/09\/Putnam2.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Dave Armstrong","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Dave Armstrong","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2015\/09\/must-christianity-be-empirically-falsifiable.html","url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2015\/09\/must-christianity-be-empirically-falsifiable.html","name":"Must Christianity be Empirically Falsifiable to be Rationally Held?","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website"},"datePublished":"2015-09-08T00:41:05+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-20T23:20:21+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e"},"description":"I cite philosophers & mathematicians who hold that mathematics is not falsifiable; it's an axiomatic or a priori form of knowledge rather than empiricism.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2015\/09\/must-christianity-be-empirically-falsifiable.html#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2015\/09\/must-christianity-be-empirically-falsifiable.html"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2015\/09\/must-christianity-be-empirically-falsifiable.html#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Must Christianity be Empirically Falsifiable to be Rationally Held?"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/","name":"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism","description":"Catholic biblical apologetics","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e","name":"Dave Armstrong","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/820e6db89734ae7a9e5dac8d498f5ac7?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/820e6db89734ae7a9e5dac8d498f5ac7?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Dave Armstrong"},"description":"Dave Armstrong is a Catholic author and apologist, who has been actively proclaiming and defending Christianity since 1981, and Catholicism in particular since 1991 (full-time since December 2001). Formerly a campus missionary, as a Protestant, Dave was received into the Catholic Church in February 1991, by the late, well-known catechist and theologian, Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. Dave\u2019s articles have appeared in many influential Catholic periodicals, including \"This Rock\" (now called \"Catholic Answers Magazine\"), \"Envoy Magazine\" (Patrick Madrid), \"The Catholic Answer,\" \"The Coming Home Journal,\" \"Gilbert Magazine\" (American Chesterton Society), and \"The Latin Mass.\" He also writes a featured column for every issue of \"The Michigan Catholic\": published by the archdiocese of Detroit, and was editor for most of the apologetics tracts published by the St. Paul Street Evangelization apostolate. Dave\u2019s apologetics and writing apostolate was the subject of a feature article in the May 2002 issue of \"Envoy Magazine.\" He served as the staff moderator at the Internet discussion forum for The Coming Home Network, from 2007-2010. Dave has been interviewed on many nationally syndicated Catholic radio shows, including \"Catholic Answers Live\" (twice), \"Faith and Family Live\" (Steve Wood), \"Kresta in the Afternoon,\" \"Son Rise Morning Show,\" \"Catholic Connection\" (Teresa Tomeo), and \"The Catholics Next Door.\" His large and popular website, \"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism,\" was online from March 1997 to March 2007, and received the 1998 Catholic Website of the Year award from \"Envoy Magazine.\" His blog of the same name (now transferred to Patheos), begun in February 2004, contains more than 1,500 papers, at least 500 debates or dialogues, and over 50 distinct \"index\" web pages. Unsolicited correspondence has indicated many hundreds of conversions (or returns) to the Catholic faith as a result, by God's grace, of these writings. Dave's conversion story was published in the bestselling book \"Surprised by Truth\" (edited by Patrick Madrid; San Diego: Basilica Press, 1994). Sophia Institute Press has published six of his books: \"A Biblical Defense of Catholicism\" (Foreword by Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J., 1996 \/ 2003), \"The Catholic Verses\" (2004), \"The One-Minute Apologist\" (2007), \"Bible Proofs for Catholic Truths\" (2009), \"The Quotable Newman\" (editor: 2012), and \"Proving the Catholic Faith is Biblical\" (2015). He is co-author (with Dr. Paul Thigpen) of the inserts for \"The New Catholic Answer Bible\" (Our Sunday Visitor: 2005), and editor for \"The Wisdom of Mr. Chesterton: The Very Best Quotes, Quips, and Cracks from the Pen of G. K. Chesterton\" (Saint Benedict Press \/ TAN Books: 2009). \"100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura\" was published by Catholic Answers in May 2012. His \"Quotable Wesley\" compilation was published by (Protestant \/ Wesleyan publisher) Beacon Hill Press in April 2014. Several of his 49 books are bestsellers in their field. Dave maintains a popular personal Facebook page, a Facebook author page, and has a Twitter account as well. He offers almost all of his books in e-book form on his own Biblical Catholicism site (http:\/\/biblicalcatholicism.com\/), at a permanent deep discount: only $2.99 for ePub, mobi, and AZW, and $1.99 for PDF. His writing has been enthusiastically endorsed or recommended by many leading Catholic apologists, authors, and priests, including Dr. Scott Hahn, Fr. Peter M. J. Stravinskas, Marcus Grodi, Patrick Madrid, Steve Ray, Tim Staples, Devin Rose, Mike Aquilina, Al Kresta, Karl Keating, Fr. Dwight Longenecker, Brandon Vogt, Marcellino D'Ambrosio, and Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. Dave has been happily married to his wife Judy since October 1984. They have three sons and a daughter, and reside in southeast Michigan (metro Detroit).","sameAs":["https:\/\/biblicalcatholicism.com\/","https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798","https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/@LuxVeritatisApologetics"],"url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/author\/davearmstrong"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2870","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2331"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2870"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2870\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2871"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2870"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2870"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2870"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}