For the sake of wasting time, I’ll be explaining philosophy 101 in order to diffuse their argument. First of all, what is philosophy? Contrary to what brain-dead rats may tell you, it “is” not an opinion. Rather, philosophy is a rational process of analyzation that concerns itself with the fundamental questions of reality and human experience. These questions include how we know what we know (epistemology), how to think properly (logic) and what it means for something to exist (metaphysics & ontology).

Philosophy asks these questions in order to acquire knowledge. For an answer to be considered true, it must undergo a rational analysis of ensuring clarity, coherency and correspondence to reality through the use of evidence and argumentation. It will also need to present itself as superior to opposing propositions. This process provides a general method of analyzing positions but it will not ensure that everyone will arrive at the same conclusion since our faculties are limited and imperfect.

Despite such limitations, we’re still capable of arriving at truth, though that very statement is also be subject to philosophical analysis. Nevertheless, it should be clear that philosophy is no more an “opinion” than research. If philosophy is useless, it can only be evaluated as such under some set of values that are philosophical in itself. Even if you’re only skeptical of its usefulness, you’d still be engaging in philosophy by questioning its validity.

Either way, it is impossible to discard philosophy without employing it. The skeptic could attempt to escape this embarrassment by revising their objection to say that the beliefs of philosophers are just opinions. However, it should be clear that the process of philosophy itself is based upon evidence and argumentation. If a philosopher fails to meet these requirements, then it is their responsibility. There’s disagreement among philosophers but all that means is that one of them is right and all the others are wrong.

Now, if the skeptic were to continue to persist in their argument, then science does not escape their wrath. For science must also assume something about epistemology and metaphysics or else science would not be possible. If this is the case, then according to the skeptic, science is also based upon opinion. By doing so, they have literally dug their own grave unless they are prepared to grant the conclusion.

Somehow, these skeptics think it’s possible to condemn philosophy and praise science as the only effective means of discovering truth.  Not only does that statement lack any scientific proof, it also lacks support from the scientific community itself. There’s much to be said about how it also fails to grasp the true nature of science, but that will be dealt with some other time. In any case, I think I’ve done enough to successfully show how their objection is worse than an opinion and shamefully stupid.

Now, one could use many arguments from science to support my position. For life on earth to exist, for example, we must have the right distance from the sun, be in the right orbit, tilted at the right degree, have enough carbon, and so on. Even the evolution of life was so hit and miss that to quote William Lane Craig again, “If evolution did happen, it was a miracle.” But I actually have theological arguments that I prefer.

My primary reason for rejecting even the thought that life exists out there somewhere is the doctrine of the incarnation. If we were not somewhat unique or special, I’m not sure why the second person of the trinity would choose to put on our limited broken flesh for Himself and die for our sins. Now if Jesus had just taken on the human nature while he was on earth then fine, I’d see it compatible with a pro-alien view. But He didn’t do that, He rose from the third day in the same flesh and bone body that He died in and took it to heaven with him. He has chosen to keep that human nature forever.

Once again, is this a valid thought? What feedback do you have?

Applied to science, empirical generalizations (laws of nature) which describe how nature operates do not imply that nature must function in such a way in that these laws cannot be violated.  Simply because nature is a certain way does it mean that it must be that way.  Just as is does not equal ought in ethics, is does not equal must in science.  Thus, laws of nature can only be descriptive.