I'm somewhat amused by the media's fascination with swine flu-related panic promotion. It's hard to see what gain there is to be had by journalists for blowing such concerns out of all proportion.
Chuck Colson offers the suggestion that the secular worldview, in which science protects us from disease and capitalism ensures our economic stability, has taken a double whammy in recent months. It's only natural, he says, that this leads to a form of real uncertainty and panic among those most committed to this view.
More generally, I used to wonder why the media tends to be so opposed to Christians and their worldview. I think the answer is a related one. It used to be (some time ago now) that news was that information that was potentially life-changing, knowledge necessary to rightly ordering one's life. Announcement of such news was infrequent and sporadic--it only occurred when real newsworthy events took place.
Today, of course, the news is a multi-billion-dollar industry, and its success depends upon convincing us that we need to tune in hourly, subscribe to the daily paper, check our internet news source at every opportunity.
And this premise, in turn, is contrary to consistent Christianity. That is, we Christians serve a Lord who transcends time, who is the same yesterday, today, and forever. He is not surprised by swine flu, by financial down-turns, or even by horrendous terrorist attacks, much less by the sorts of things that fill the headlines most days. The God of Christianity is in sovereign control of all that goes on.
That being the case, we who follow Christ should be above the panic and the sensationalism that are used by journalists to sell their offerings. I'm not sure at what level of consciousness this understanding is held among jounalists. But I suspect that at some level, most journalists realize that if culture were filled with Christians who consistently lived with assurance of God's sovereignty over all things, it would be a whole lot tougher to find buyers for most of what passes for news these days.
Showing posts with label worldview. Show all posts
Showing posts with label worldview. Show all posts
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Horse-Kick Christianity
I'm almost finished with Dinesh D'Souza'a What's So Great About Christianity. Parts of the book are excellent, and others not so stellar, and so I'll probably use it as a springboard for a few blog posts. Here's a quote from the introduction that's worth sharing...
Precisely because the Christians usually duck and run, the atheists have had it too easy. They have been flogging the carcass of "fundamentalism" without having to encounter the horse kick of a vigorous traditional Christianity.In the next post, I'll offer my thoughts on the distinctions between "fundamentalism" and traditional Christianity.
Saturday, November 29, 2008
Thanksgiving Thought
Thanksgiving is easily one of my favorite holidays, and that because it is so inextricably tied to America and Christianity. I'm not saying that it can't be secularized (I've heard people refer to it as 'Turkey Day'); but it would be really hard to even try to make a reasonable case that would somehow sever the historical ties of this holiday to the gratitude of early American men, women, and children expressed to the one true God.
Monday, July 28, 2008
Ancient Greek Science
(This post is reprinted from one of my earliest, when I first began blogging.)
Arguably the first important underwater archaeological find was a shipwreck discovered in 1900 off the Aegean Sea island of Antikythera. The ship was Greek, dated from the time of Christ, and carried a wealth of statues and pottery.
Also aboard this ancient ship was a heavily-encrusted instrument, which little-by-little came to be recognized as a navigational device. It wasn't until the 1950's, though, that with x-ray and gamma-ray examination of its internal structure investigators recognized it as a sophisticated instrument that accurately mimicked past, present, and future movements of the sun, moon, and planets. Some early Greek had developed an analog computer 2000 years ago!
Historians of science recognize that several ancient civilizations besides Greece--Mesopotamia, China, India, Egypt, and Islam--made impotant contributions to modern science (especially in mathematics and astronomy, but also in other areas). In the case of each of these cultures, however, such contributions (and the individuals that effected them) were rather anomalous. They weren't followed by further progress, or by a succession of like-minded individuals and similar innovation and advance. Science historian Stanley Jaki has argued that science was "stillborn" in these other cultures. Why?
Worldview. These cultures each had worldview inadequacies, aspects of their overall view of reality that stifled scientific advance. Modern science was conceived, was born, and flourished only within the Judeo-Christian worldview of 16th and 17th century Europe. All of the founders of modern science were either devout Christians (Boyle, Newton, Pascal, Kepler, Bacon, Descartes, Leibnitz, Linnaeus, Mendel, Cuvier, Agassiz, Pasteur, and others) or at least operated within a Christian understanding of reality (Copernicus, Galileo, van Leeuwenhoek, and others).
And this was not just a coincidence. The very philosophical presuppositions that allowed the scientific revolution come from a biblical understanding of the world. What's more, science only makes sense within a theistic--and specifically Christian--worldview. While science can be (and increasingly is) conducted by atheistic naturalists, naturalism fails to provide a rational foundation for science. Naturalists engaging in science do so on capital borrowed from Christian theism.
(The Antikythera Device was in my local paper today, which is what prompted this repost. New research indicates that the device was also used for organizing the calendar with regard to the four-year cycle of the ancient Olympic Games.)
Arguably the first important underwater archaeological find was a shipwreck discovered in 1900 off the Aegean Sea island of Antikythera. The ship was Greek, dated from the time of Christ, and carried a wealth of statues and pottery.
Also aboard this ancient ship was a heavily-encrusted instrument, which little-by-little came to be recognized as a navigational device. It wasn't until the 1950's, though, that with x-ray and gamma-ray examination of its internal structure investigators recognized it as a sophisticated instrument that accurately mimicked past, present, and future movements of the sun, moon, and planets. Some early Greek had developed an analog computer 2000 years ago!
Historians of science recognize that several ancient civilizations besides Greece--Mesopotamia, China, India, Egypt, and Islam--made impotant contributions to modern science (especially in mathematics and astronomy, but also in other areas). In the case of each of these cultures, however, such contributions (and the individuals that effected them) were rather anomalous. They weren't followed by further progress, or by a succession of like-minded individuals and similar innovation and advance. Science historian Stanley Jaki has argued that science was "stillborn" in these other cultures. Why?
Worldview. These cultures each had worldview inadequacies, aspects of their overall view of reality that stifled scientific advance. Modern science was conceived, was born, and flourished only within the Judeo-Christian worldview of 16th and 17th century Europe. All of the founders of modern science were either devout Christians (Boyle, Newton, Pascal, Kepler, Bacon, Descartes, Leibnitz, Linnaeus, Mendel, Cuvier, Agassiz, Pasteur, and others) or at least operated within a Christian understanding of reality (Copernicus, Galileo, van Leeuwenhoek, and others).
And this was not just a coincidence. The very philosophical presuppositions that allowed the scientific revolution come from a biblical understanding of the world. What's more, science only makes sense within a theistic--and specifically Christian--worldview. While science can be (and increasingly is) conducted by atheistic naturalists, naturalism fails to provide a rational foundation for science. Naturalists engaging in science do so on capital borrowed from Christian theism.
(The Antikythera Device was in my local paper today, which is what prompted this repost. New research indicates that the device was also used for organizing the calendar with regard to the four-year cycle of the ancient Olympic Games.)
Friday, May 16, 2008
Whence the Badger's Senses?
In my last post, I said,
And let me start by asserting that badgers are extremely well-adapted to their ecological role--that their combination of senses serves them very well in the environment in which they live. Moreover, both evolutionists and creationists (to use very general terms) agree upon this. So the question is, Is this adaptiveness designed or not? Or, to put it another way, Are the badger's nose and ears purposed for smelling and hearing, or do they just happen to function (at the long end of a purposeless evolutionary history) to gather smells and sound waves in such a way as to make the badger so adapted for his environment?
I, like the vast majority of thinkers and scientists who have ever lived, come down firmly on the side of teleology--the belief that these things are the way they are by design and purpose. Indeed, so overwhelming are both the intuition and the evidence that this is so, that it boggles my mind that a few modern-day biologists have hoodwinked so much of the public into thinking that this position has somehow been disproven.
You see, the true evolutionist must daily remind himself that everything--the universe, the galaxy and solar system, individual life forms and whole ecologies--only appears to be designed. The evolutionist cannot even use words like "purpose" or "design," because his naturalism cannot condone such concepts. The badger's nose was not produced "in order to smell." Smelling was not the goal or telos of the cells that today make up the badger's olfactory system (nose and associated nervous and circulatory systems and such). Rather, incremental evolutionary changes in some (undiscovered) pre-olfactory cells of some (unfossilized) proto-mammal allowed that hypothetical creature to out-reproduce those members of his cohort whose pre-olfactory cells didn't have those small changes in place. The fact that today the badger's nose gives it sufficient information about his environment--to successfully survive, reproduce, and pass along the genetic blueprint for his fully-functional (but purposeless) nose--has no bearing on the very interesting question posed by anonymous. And that's because Natural Selection is so much more powerful than any purposeful designer could possibly be.
And yet, in the 160 years since Darwin posited Natural Selection as a driving force in biological diversity, the actual evidence has served to refute Darwin's claims at every significant step. We now can say with great certainty that there is no evidence (read 'zero,' 'nada,' 'zippo') that natural selection has any ability to cause any genetic, morphological, or physiological advance. Instead, natural selection's only role is to maintain the integrity of an organism's existing morphology and physiology. In short, natural selection works to ensure that a well-adapted species remains much as it always has been.
Despite overwhelming claims to the contrary, evolutionary theory and its many outspoken proponents have singularly failed to explain the apparent design that surrounds us at every moment and at whatever scale of the universe we might consider. In regards to the question of design or chance, you can bet that the most primitive tribesman is much closer to the truth than the 'New Atheists' produced by some of our modern university systems. The evidence and common sense are still all on the side of the position that has predominated throughout the history of Western civilization--that things in this universe appear designed because they are in fact designed.
In coming posts... "What about theistic evolution?" and "Is there then no evolution occurring?"
Badgers possess good hearing and an excellent sense of smell, but fairly poor eyesight.An anonymous comment then asked...
Did God make them with good hearing, smell, and bad eyesight or did they evolve this way?I'd like to take a couple or more posts to answer this question.
And let me start by asserting that badgers are extremely well-adapted to their ecological role--that their combination of senses serves them very well in the environment in which they live. Moreover, both evolutionists and creationists (to use very general terms) agree upon this. So the question is, Is this adaptiveness designed or not? Or, to put it another way, Are the badger's nose and ears purposed for smelling and hearing, or do they just happen to function (at the long end of a purposeless evolutionary history) to gather smells and sound waves in such a way as to make the badger so adapted for his environment?
I, like the vast majority of thinkers and scientists who have ever lived, come down firmly on the side of teleology--the belief that these things are the way they are by design and purpose. Indeed, so overwhelming are both the intuition and the evidence that this is so, that it boggles my mind that a few modern-day biologists have hoodwinked so much of the public into thinking that this position has somehow been disproven.
You see, the true evolutionist must daily remind himself that everything--the universe, the galaxy and solar system, individual life forms and whole ecologies--only appears to be designed. The evolutionist cannot even use words like "purpose" or "design," because his naturalism cannot condone such concepts. The badger's nose was not produced "in order to smell." Smelling was not the goal or telos of the cells that today make up the badger's olfactory system (nose and associated nervous and circulatory systems and such). Rather, incremental evolutionary changes in some (undiscovered) pre-olfactory cells of some (unfossilized) proto-mammal allowed that hypothetical creature to out-reproduce those members of his cohort whose pre-olfactory cells didn't have those small changes in place. The fact that today the badger's nose gives it sufficient information about his environment--to successfully survive, reproduce, and pass along the genetic blueprint for his fully-functional (but purposeless) nose--has no bearing on the very interesting question posed by anonymous. And that's because Natural Selection is so much more powerful than any purposeful designer could possibly be.
And yet, in the 160 years since Darwin posited Natural Selection as a driving force in biological diversity, the actual evidence has served to refute Darwin's claims at every significant step. We now can say with great certainty that there is no evidence (read 'zero,' 'nada,' 'zippo') that natural selection has any ability to cause any genetic, morphological, or physiological advance. Instead, natural selection's only role is to maintain the integrity of an organism's existing morphology and physiology. In short, natural selection works to ensure that a well-adapted species remains much as it always has been.
Despite overwhelming claims to the contrary, evolutionary theory and its many outspoken proponents have singularly failed to explain the apparent design that surrounds us at every moment and at whatever scale of the universe we might consider. In regards to the question of design or chance, you can bet that the most primitive tribesman is much closer to the truth than the 'New Atheists' produced by some of our modern university systems. The evidence and common sense are still all on the side of the position that has predominated throughout the history of Western civilization--that things in this universe appear designed because they are in fact designed.
In coming posts... "What about theistic evolution?" and "Is there then no evolution occurring?"
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Christians and Textual Deconstruction
A couple of posts ago, I demonstrated why textual deconstruction is a failed philosophy. And as Christians, we are told (through Paul, in Colossians 2:8),
Up until 100 years ago, when we analyzed, say, a novel, what we were concerned with was determining what meaning the author intended to convey. It was his or her meaning that mattered. Gradually, literary critics began to move from this position and begin to see the novel itself as the meaning-maker. Thus, it no longer mattered, say, what Herman Melville meant in Moby Dick; instead, the story's meaning was somehow inherent to the text itself, completely apart from the author's intent. But now, the view has progressed even further. Today, the book itself isn't even the holder of meaning. Rather, each reader provides the meaning as he or she interacts with the text. This is the subjective view of postmodernism. And it is logically absurd.
But don't we hear this same sort of thing in Bible study? Most of us have experienced it in a small group; the leader reads a Bible passage and then asks, "What does this mean to you?" We go around the circle, each one sharing his or her own idea of the passage's meaning. We all (especially those of us who are the products of the Protestant Reformation) acknowledge the importance of personal Bible study. But when we take a subjective approach to interpreting the Bible's meaning, we have abandoned proper interpretation for the sort dictated by our postmodern culture.
A Bible passage means only one thing. And that is what the original author (and the Holy Spirit through him) intended to convey to the original audience. (There are, of course, prophecies--including those with multiple fulfillments--that complicate this issue. Nonetheless,) proper biblical interpretation has been held to involve (at least since the Reformation) use of the grammatico-historical method. This method is meant to focus our attention on the original meaning of the text, and by doing so we avoid "reading into Scripture" our own ideas of what it ought to say.
When we abandon this method, we have conformed to the empty philosophy of our present age and culture.
Do not be taken captive by empty philosophy...But despite the absurdity of textual deconstruction, this postmodern idea has infiltrated all aspects of our culture, including the church.
Up until 100 years ago, when we analyzed, say, a novel, what we were concerned with was determining what meaning the author intended to convey. It was his or her meaning that mattered. Gradually, literary critics began to move from this position and begin to see the novel itself as the meaning-maker. Thus, it no longer mattered, say, what Herman Melville meant in Moby Dick; instead, the story's meaning was somehow inherent to the text itself, completely apart from the author's intent. But now, the view has progressed even further. Today, the book itself isn't even the holder of meaning. Rather, each reader provides the meaning as he or she interacts with the text. This is the subjective view of postmodernism. And it is logically absurd.
But don't we hear this same sort of thing in Bible study? Most of us have experienced it in a small group; the leader reads a Bible passage and then asks, "What does this mean to you?" We go around the circle, each one sharing his or her own idea of the passage's meaning. We all (especially those of us who are the products of the Protestant Reformation) acknowledge the importance of personal Bible study. But when we take a subjective approach to interpreting the Bible's meaning, we have abandoned proper interpretation for the sort dictated by our postmodern culture.
A Bible passage means only one thing. And that is what the original author (and the Holy Spirit through him) intended to convey to the original audience. (There are, of course, prophecies--including those with multiple fulfillments--that complicate this issue. Nonetheless,) proper biblical interpretation has been held to involve (at least since the Reformation) use of the grammatico-historical method. This method is meant to focus our attention on the original meaning of the text, and by doing so we avoid "reading into Scripture" our own ideas of what it ought to say.
When we abandon this method, we have conformed to the empty philosophy of our present age and culture.
Friday, February 22, 2008
Textual Deconstruction
Another aspect of postmodern philosophy that faces the fatal logical problem of self-refutation is textual deconstruction. This is an idea that comes originally from Jacques Derrida (1930-2004). According to his theory, meaning is not determined by the text itself but comes only as the reader interacts with the text. The text has no inherent meaning, and no single meaning. In fact, the text has as many different valid interpretations as there are readers of it.
The problem is that Derrida put his theory into writing (as do most of those who have followed him). But Derrida (like all authors) had a clear intent in writing down his theory. He wanted to convey a particular meaning to each and every one of his readers, and he likely wrote as clearly and persuasively as he could in order to convey that meaning. And yet the message he sought to convey was that any meaning an author intends is inconsequential, that whatever the reader chooses to interpret from a text is what matters.
So Derrida was in the self-contradictory position of hoping that his readers would in this one instance suspend their belief in textual deconstruction long enough to apprehend his meaning and accept his theory of textual deconstruction.
The problem is that Derrida put his theory into writing (as do most of those who have followed him). But Derrida (like all authors) had a clear intent in writing down his theory. He wanted to convey a particular meaning to each and every one of his readers, and he likely wrote as clearly and persuasively as he could in order to convey that meaning. And yet the message he sought to convey was that any meaning an author intends is inconsequential, that whatever the reader chooses to interpret from a text is what matters.
So Derrida was in the self-contradictory position of hoping that his readers would in this one instance suspend their belief in textual deconstruction long enough to apprehend his meaning and accept his theory of textual deconstruction.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Death Tolls
The so-called New Atheists, like Richard Dawkins, maintain that religion in all its forms is bad. They cite the acts of terrorism being perpetrated today by extremist Muslims, and then assert that all religions lead inevitably to violence and killing. With specific regard to Christianity, they point to the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, and witch trials as proof of their assertions.
There is much to be brought to bear against these claims, but I won't spend the time here. The reason for this post is to once again bring your attention to a thoughtful post by my friend Bob Perry. Go here for a clear comparison of the deaths for which professing Christians can be blamed and those for which an atheist worldview (like that of Dawkins) is responsible.
There is much to be brought to bear against these claims, but I won't spend the time here. The reason for this post is to once again bring your attention to a thoughtful post by my friend Bob Perry. Go here for a clear comparison of the deaths for which professing Christians can be blamed and those for which an atheist worldview (like that of Dawkins) is responsible.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Ezekiel 33
In the last post, I used the title of a Francis Schaeffer book, How Shall We Then Live? to springboard to some thoughts about Blaise Pascal, one of the historical figures mentioned by Schaeffer, and one who in my opinion lived well.
But to be truthful, this was a misuse of Schaeffer's book title.
Superficially, it would make sense to take Schaeffer's title this way... 'In light of the conclusions to which this history of philosophy has led, how ought we to live?' But Schaeffer tells us (in the concluding Note) that the title comes directly from Ezekiel 33:10...
Schaeffer is drawing the analogy between our times and those of Ezekiel. We have come to the point where our culture (like that of Europe when Schaeffer was writing) is naturalistic, denying the existence of God, of immaterial minds, and souls, and of the immortality of the human spirit. Even though many in our culture claim to believe in God, in practice we live and reason as though He were not our Creator and Sustainer. Like the Israelites of old, we must either repent of these attitudes and behaviors or be willing to accept it if God reveals His wrath upon us or gives us over to our own passions (Rom. 1:18-32).
Schaeffer's note ends,
But to be truthful, this was a misuse of Schaeffer's book title.
Superficially, it would make sense to take Schaeffer's title this way... 'In light of the conclusions to which this history of philosophy has led, how ought we to live?' But Schaeffer tells us (in the concluding Note) that the title comes directly from Ezekiel 33:10...
If our transgresions and our sins be upon us, and we pine away in them, how should we then live?In its larger context, this verse is addressing the fact that the Israelites of Ezekiel's day had turned away from acknowledging, knowing, and obeying the one true God. Not only that, but they despised those like Ezekiel sent by God to warn them of the consequences of acting as though He weren't necessary to their existence. The conclusion "How should we then Live?" means "Why would God allow us to continue to live if we carry on without any reference to him?"
Schaeffer is drawing the analogy between our times and those of Ezekiel. We have come to the point where our culture (like that of Europe when Schaeffer was writing) is naturalistic, denying the existence of God, of immaterial minds, and souls, and of the immortality of the human spirit. Even though many in our culture claim to believe in God, in practice we live and reason as though He were not our Creator and Sustainer. Like the Israelites of old, we must either repent of these attitudes and behaviors or be willing to accept it if God reveals His wrath upon us or gives us over to our own passions (Rom. 1:18-32).
Schaeffer's note ends,
This book is written in the hope that this generation may turn from the greatest of wickednesses, the placing of any created thing in the place of the Creator, and that this generation may get its feet out of the paths of death and may live.
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
A World of Difference
I'm really excited by the recently released book A World of Difference by Kenneth Richard Samples. It's the best book on worldviews that I've come across. I had the fortune to look at the manuscript just after it went to press. Moreover, I've been using the material in this book for several years, having received it in a course I took under Professor Samples. I'm thrilled that this important material has now been made widely accessible through this book (subtitled Putting Christian Truth-Claims to the Worldview Test).
In 16 easy-to-read chapters, philosopher, theologian, and apologist Samples presents a thorough discussion of the subject of worldviews. The first section (4 chapters) covers the concept of worldview, the fact that everyone has one (whether he has examined it or not), and the task of developing an accurate worldview. Chapters 5 through 11 explore the Christian worldview, detailing what the Bible and Christian orthodoxy have to say about truth, knowledge, history, revelation, God, creation, humanity, and morality.
Chapters 12 through 16 are my favorites, as Samples proceeds to walk us through an evaluation of each of the primary competing worldviews of our day. These are naturalism, postmodernism, pantheistic monism, Islam, and, finally, Christianity.
Here's a quote from chapter 1...
In 16 easy-to-read chapters, philosopher, theologian, and apologist Samples presents a thorough discussion of the subject of worldviews. The first section (4 chapters) covers the concept of worldview, the fact that everyone has one (whether he has examined it or not), and the task of developing an accurate worldview. Chapters 5 through 11 explore the Christian worldview, detailing what the Bible and Christian orthodoxy have to say about truth, knowledge, history, revelation, God, creation, humanity, and morality.
Chapters 12 through 16 are my favorites, as Samples proceeds to walk us through an evaluation of each of the primary competing worldviews of our day. These are naturalism, postmodernism, pantheistic monism, Islam, and, finally, Christianity.
Here's a quote from chapter 1...
Unfortunately, many people consider philosophical reflection in general--and worldview consideration in particular--a waste of time. Ironically, however, even this position of apathy reveals a philosophical viewpoint (in that the sentiment "philosophy is a waste of time" is itself a philosophical position). Philosophy is difficult, if not impossible, to avoid. A generally unexamined or scarcely examined approach to life may explain why so many people hold underdeveloped, disjointed, and poorly understood worldviews.For anyone wishing to examine their worldview, I can recommend no better place to start than A World of Difference. But wait! Don't go to the Amazon link immediately. If you're in the Central Oregon area, I'll have several copies available at a discount price this Sunday morning at Antioch's Ministry Fair. Drop by the Acts 17 (Apologetics Ministry) table before or after the 9:30 service (for this week only in theatre #9) and pick up your copy.
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Presuppositions for Science
(This was originally posted on 6 February 2007 as "Foundations for Science." I repost it here in response to a comment on yesterday's post.)
A few days ago (in a post called "The Antikythera Device") I made the statement that all of the founders of modern science were devout Christians or at least operated within a Judeo-Christian view of reality. This assertion enjoys virtually unanimous support today among historians of science. But I received a fair question in an anonymous comment. I had further asserted that, "The very philosophical presuppositions that allowed the scientific revolution come from a biblical understanding of the world." With regard to this statement, the commentor asked whether it committed the fallacy of association, and specifically the fallacy known as "honor by association." He asked,
The (modern) modern scientist operating within the artificial constraints of naturalism can only consider the presence of order and of physical laws in the universe as a fortuitous happenstance. His paradigm offers no way of explaining it. Likewise, if human senses and ability to reason are themselves the product of purposeless, undirected evolutionary processes, there is no defensible foundation for trusting them to provide us with truth about distant galaxies or biochemistry. According to physicist Paul Davies,
(on the history of science) Reality and Scientific Theology by Thomas S. Torrance, and For the Glory of God by Rodney Stark.
(on philosophy of science) Christianity and the Nature of Science by J.P. Moreland, and Reason in the Balance by Phillip Johnson.
A few days ago (in a post called "The Antikythera Device") I made the statement that all of the founders of modern science were devout Christians or at least operated within a Judeo-Christian view of reality. This assertion enjoys virtually unanimous support today among historians of science. But I received a fair question in an anonymous comment. I had further asserted that, "The very philosophical presuppositions that allowed the scientific revolution come from a biblical understanding of the world." With regard to this statement, the commentor asked whether it committed the fallacy of association, and specifically the fallacy known as "honor by association." He asked,
Did they actually come from it or is it possible that most of these great minds of the scientific revolution culturally happened to be Christians?This thoughtful question warrants a response. My point was that the relationship between the Christian worldview and the scientific revolution was clearly not one of mere happenstance, coincidence, or even correlation. Rather, the biblical portrayal of reality uniquely provided (and provides) the philosophical justification for scientific endeavor. Here's how historian Rodney Stark has it,
The rise of science was not an extension of classical learning. It was a natural outgrowth of Christian doctrine: Nature exists because it was created by God. To love and honor God, one must fully appreciate the wonders of his handiwork. Moreover, because God is perfect, his handiwork functions in accord with immutable principles.We could discuss a number of philosophical presuppositions upon which modern science is founded (and I likely will at a later date in these peregrinations). But for now let's just take two, mentioned in the Stark quote above but also picked up by a number of other historians and philosophers of science. These are 1) that the universe reflects the rational nature of its Creator, and is orderly and uniform, and 2) that humans are uniquely created in God's image, and are thus capable of reasoning and discovering the order in creation.
The (modern) modern scientist operating within the artificial constraints of naturalism can only consider the presence of order and of physical laws in the universe as a fortuitous happenstance. His paradigm offers no way of explaining it. Likewise, if human senses and ability to reason are themselves the product of purposeless, undirected evolutionary processes, there is no defensible foundation for trusting them to provide us with truth about distant galaxies or biochemistry. According to physicist Paul Davies,
People take it for granted that the physical world is both ordered and intelligible. The underlying order in nature--the laws of physics--are simply accepted as given, as brute facts. Nobody asks where they came from; at least not in polite company. However, even the most atheistic scientist accepts as an act of faith that the universe is not absurd, that there is a rational basis to physical existence manifested as law-like order in nature that is at least partly comprehensible to us. So science can proceed only if the scientist adopts an essentially theological worldview.In a similar vein, philosopher Alvin Plantinga writes,
Modern science was conceived, and born, and flourished in the matrix of Christian theism. Only liberal doses of self-deception and double-think, I believe, will permit it to flourish in the context of Darwinian naturalism.I trust I've clarified just what it is that I'm asserting. For further support of that assertion, I recommend,
(on the history of science) Reality and Scientific Theology by Thomas S. Torrance, and For the Glory of God by Rodney Stark.
(on philosophy of science) Christianity and the Nature of Science by J.P. Moreland, and Reason in the Balance by Phillip Johnson.
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Science and Naturalism
I opened this year's (Bend, OR) Apologetics Guild luncheon series today with a talk on "Science and Naturalism." We discovered that there is no historical, philosophical, or scientific justification for bringing a naturalistic worldview or approach to science. Indeed, we saw that, as Alvin Plantinga asserts,
There is one thing, which bears upon this question, that I didn't have time to share. I'll do that now (for those of you who heard my talk, consider this bonus coverage).
I cannot think of a single scientific discipline--except for evolution itself--in which understanding biological evolutionary theory (macroevolution) has any practical value for conducting research. One can be a top-notch chemist, physicist, geologist, astronomer, ecologist, conservation biologist, biochemist, medical researcher, or what have you, and never let biological evolutionary theory cross one's mind. Likewise, the research carried out in any and all of these disciplines contributes nothing to understanding or advancing evolutionary theory.
Richard Dawkins is so enamored with evolution that he believes that if superintelligent beings from elsewhere in the universe ever make contact with us, the first question they will ask is "Have you discovered evolution yet?"
But if biological evolution is of such central importance to science--if, indeed, it is the imagined success of evolutionary theory that has caused us to unwisely accept a naturalistic approach to science generally--then why can research in all of the other scientific disciplines be conducted without any reference to it?
Modern science was conceived, and born, and flourished in the matrix of Christian theism. Only liberal doses of self-deception and double-think, I believe, will permit it to flourish in the context of Darwinian naturalism.I hope to make both the PowerPoint and the audio portion of my talk available for download and listening, and will let my readers know when those are available.
There is one thing, which bears upon this question, that I didn't have time to share. I'll do that now (for those of you who heard my talk, consider this bonus coverage).
I cannot think of a single scientific discipline--except for evolution itself--in which understanding biological evolutionary theory (macroevolution) has any practical value for conducting research. One can be a top-notch chemist, physicist, geologist, astronomer, ecologist, conservation biologist, biochemist, medical researcher, or what have you, and never let biological evolutionary theory cross one's mind. Likewise, the research carried out in any and all of these disciplines contributes nothing to understanding or advancing evolutionary theory.
Richard Dawkins is so enamored with evolution that he believes that if superintelligent beings from elsewhere in the universe ever make contact with us, the first question they will ask is "Have you discovered evolution yet?"
But if biological evolution is of such central importance to science--if, indeed, it is the imagined success of evolutionary theory that has caused us to unwisely accept a naturalistic approach to science generally--then why can research in all of the other scientific disciplines be conducted without any reference to it?
Sunday, July 29, 2007
No Ultimate Morality
Yesterday, I pointed out that scientific naturalism and postmodernism begin with very different epistemologies (or views of what we can know and how we know). Indeed (I argued), the latter is in some ways a reaction against the former. Nonetheless, these two worldviews are very similar with regard to morality, as both end up undermining or denying the traditional view--held throughout most of Western history--that there exists an ultimate morality that is the same for all humans.
I will spend several posts describing (and demonstrating what is wrong with) three different types of moral relativism associated with postmodernism. For now, though, let me just state that scientific naturalism likewise leads to a denial of morality.
Let me be clear here--I am not saying that atheists or materialists cannot be or are not people with high moral standards and behaviors. Many can and are. My simple point is that if there is no God--no transcendent Lawgiver--then there is no ultimate logical foundation for ascribing to any moral values. If--as on the materialist view--humans are the accidental result of purposeless evolution, then no good rational justification exists for discussing (much less enforcing) any particular moral viewpoint.
This, of course, is just one of the many lines of evidence that can be brought to bear to show that naturalism is an inaccurate depiction of reality. We all have moral intuitions--beliefs and thoughts about right and wrong, about how things ought to be--that are so foundational to who we are that we hardly even think about them. I'll develop this argument more as we examine the brands of moral relativism brought to us by postmodern thought, but when I do, try to keep in mind that that argument cuts equally against the claims of scientific materialism. The traditional "moral argument" remains powerful evidence for the existence of a transcendent God, as I will hope to demonstrate in the next week or two.
I will spend several posts describing (and demonstrating what is wrong with) three different types of moral relativism associated with postmodernism. For now, though, let me just state that scientific naturalism likewise leads to a denial of morality.
Let me be clear here--I am not saying that atheists or materialists cannot be or are not people with high moral standards and behaviors. Many can and are. My simple point is that if there is no God--no transcendent Lawgiver--then there is no ultimate logical foundation for ascribing to any moral values. If--as on the materialist view--humans are the accidental result of purposeless evolution, then no good rational justification exists for discussing (much less enforcing) any particular moral viewpoint.
This, of course, is just one of the many lines of evidence that can be brought to bear to show that naturalism is an inaccurate depiction of reality. We all have moral intuitions--beliefs and thoughts about right and wrong, about how things ought to be--that are so foundational to who we are that we hardly even think about them. I'll develop this argument more as we examine the brands of moral relativism brought to us by postmodern thought, but when I do, try to keep in mind that that argument cuts equally against the claims of scientific materialism. The traditional "moral argument" remains powerful evidence for the existence of a transcendent God, as I will hope to demonstrate in the next week or two.
Saturday, July 28, 2007
Naturalism vs. Postmodernism
I think the two most important worldviews opposing Christianity in our day and culture are naturalism and postmodernism. Both end up at the same place (at least, relative to the Christian understanding) with regard to morals (which is what I want to discuss in the next few days). This is somewhat ironic, however, in that these two worldviews are really quite different from one another, especially in their opposite epistemologies. So let me interact with that for a bit...
(Warning: I'm about to make some very simplistic and superficial statements about the origin of postmodern thinking. The actual case is much more complex. Nonetheless, I think there is validity to what I'm going to assert.)
Epistemology is a two-dollar word for the study of knowledge. When we discuss issues of truth, knowledge, and how we know things, we are talking epistemology. And materialism/naturalism and postmodernism begin with quite different epistemologies.
By and large, the naturalist has a very high view of science and of truth. Most naturalists are rational realists, believing that science makes statements that are true--that correspond to the real world 'out there.' Postmodernists do not affirm a correspondence view of truth, but suggest that our beliefs are separated from any reality 'out there' by impenetrable barriers of language and/or senses. (Some postmodernists used to claim that "There is no truth," but the self-refuting nature of that statement was all too obvious. Most now make more contorted--but, unfortunately, no less self-refuting--claims about their view.)
In a very real (though, as I've already admitted, simplistic) sense, postmodern epistemology is a reaction or defense against scientific truth claims. Here's how that works.
Science has enjoyed immense success in the past century, curing illnesses, eradicating some diseases, placing men on the moon, and generally increasing the quality of life and the understanding of our universe. In academia and in the minds of the many-headed, science is the ultimate arbiter of truth. Science is the best--if not the only--way of discovering truth and of knowing anything. In particular, the hard sciences (like physics and chemistry), with their rigid experimental design, repeatability, and predictive power, have the monopoly on truth. And this understanding is reflected (in academia, for example) in the amount of research dollars and grant money that flows into these disciplines.
This, of course, leaves professors in English, history, sociology, and such on the outside looking in (with what is known colloquially as "physics envy"). Unable to challenge the chemist on his own turf--discovering truth through scientific means--these professors in the humanities have taken a different tack--they have sought to discredit even the existence of truth. When the scientist says that only he has the methodology for discovering truth, the literature teacher responds, "Truth? What's that?"
So, whereas the naturalist has a very high view of truth and of our ability to discern truth, the postmodernist denies the existence of truth or our ability to discover it, or both. Tomorrow, I'll examine the ironically similar conclusions about morality to which these two different views arrive.
(Warning: I'm about to make some very simplistic and superficial statements about the origin of postmodern thinking. The actual case is much more complex. Nonetheless, I think there is validity to what I'm going to assert.)
Epistemology is a two-dollar word for the study of knowledge. When we discuss issues of truth, knowledge, and how we know things, we are talking epistemology. And materialism/naturalism and postmodernism begin with quite different epistemologies.
By and large, the naturalist has a very high view of science and of truth. Most naturalists are rational realists, believing that science makes statements that are true--that correspond to the real world 'out there.' Postmodernists do not affirm a correspondence view of truth, but suggest that our beliefs are separated from any reality 'out there' by impenetrable barriers of language and/or senses. (Some postmodernists used to claim that "There is no truth," but the self-refuting nature of that statement was all too obvious. Most now make more contorted--but, unfortunately, no less self-refuting--claims about their view.)
In a very real (though, as I've already admitted, simplistic) sense, postmodern epistemology is a reaction or defense against scientific truth claims. Here's how that works.
Science has enjoyed immense success in the past century, curing illnesses, eradicating some diseases, placing men on the moon, and generally increasing the quality of life and the understanding of our universe. In academia and in the minds of the many-headed, science is the ultimate arbiter of truth. Science is the best--if not the only--way of discovering truth and of knowing anything. In particular, the hard sciences (like physics and chemistry), with their rigid experimental design, repeatability, and predictive power, have the monopoly on truth. And this understanding is reflected (in academia, for example) in the amount of research dollars and grant money that flows into these disciplines.
This, of course, leaves professors in English, history, sociology, and such on the outside looking in (with what is known colloquially as "physics envy"). Unable to challenge the chemist on his own turf--discovering truth through scientific means--these professors in the humanities have taken a different tack--they have sought to discredit even the existence of truth. When the scientist says that only he has the methodology for discovering truth, the literature teacher responds, "Truth? What's that?"
So, whereas the naturalist has a very high view of truth and of our ability to discern truth, the postmodernist denies the existence of truth or our ability to discover it, or both. Tomorrow, I'll examine the ironically similar conclusions about morality to which these two different views arrive.
Saturday, July 7, 2007
An Immaterial Soul
So, I want to return to the article I was discussing a couple of posts ago, "Science of the Soul?" I have argued that the naturalism with which it begins and ends represents a faulty, artificially-constrained approach to science that actually limits our ability to discover truth about the world in which we live. Now, I want to get a bit more specifically critical, to show that this particular article is grossly imbalanced in its treatment of this controversial subject.
The conclusion of this article is the party line among naturalists, that mind and consciousness are merely emergent properties that have evolved in higher animals, including humans. This is meant to convince us that physicalism is true, and that there are no immaterial aspects to reality (God, angels, souls). And this, of course, would have to be true if naturalism is true. We've already discussed the circular nature of this sort of argument. But this article also comes nowhere near giving an accurate depiction of the state of research in this area of science.
Once Darwinism gained wide acceptance (despite the abundant evidence that continues to present huge problems for it), researchers in nearly all fields of science (and history, economics, sociology, and other disciplines) began to adopt a naturalistic approach. Thus, neurobiologists and brain physiologists (for the past many years) have begun with a working belief in naturalism and physicalism (and a denial of any immaterial component). But the evidence has inexorably caused objective researchers to come to the opposite conclusion.
A case in point is Wilder Penfield, considered the father of neurosurgery.
(Most of what I've shared in this post--including all of the quotes--can be found in chapter 10, "The Evidence of Consciousness" in Lee Strobel's The Case for a Creator. I also recommend Beyond Death by Gary Habermas and J.P. Moreland.)
The conclusion of this article is the party line among naturalists, that mind and consciousness are merely emergent properties that have evolved in higher animals, including humans. This is meant to convince us that physicalism is true, and that there are no immaterial aspects to reality (God, angels, souls). And this, of course, would have to be true if naturalism is true. We've already discussed the circular nature of this sort of argument. But this article also comes nowhere near giving an accurate depiction of the state of research in this area of science.
Once Darwinism gained wide acceptance (despite the abundant evidence that continues to present huge problems for it), researchers in nearly all fields of science (and history, economics, sociology, and other disciplines) began to adopt a naturalistic approach. Thus, neurobiologists and brain physiologists (for the past many years) have begun with a working belief in naturalism and physicalism (and a denial of any immaterial component). But the evidence has inexorably caused objective researchers to come to the opposite conclusion.
A case in point is Wilder Penfield, considered the father of neurosurgery.
Through my own scientific career, I, like other scientists, have struggled to prove that the brain accounts for the mind.In the end, the evidence (primarily from brain stimulation experiments) caused Penfield to give up the struggle:
To expect the highest brain mechanism or any set of reflexes, however complicated, to carry out what the mind does, and thus perform all the functions of the mind, is quite absurd. What a thrill it is, then, to discover that the scientist, too, can legitimately believe in the existence of the spirit.Likewise, Sir Charles Sherrington, Oxford physiology professor and Nobel Prize winner, after a career of pioneering research in the workings of the brain and spinal cord, said (five days before he died)...
For me now, the only reality is the human soul.Even affirmed naturalists acknowledge that the physicalist position is unsupported:
We don't have an adequate theory of how the brain causes conscious states, and we don't have an adequate theory of how consciousness fits into the universe.Another area of research that has caused scientists to abandon the physicalist view is the study of near-death experiences and the continuance of consciousness after death. Sam Parnia, a physician conducting such research says that it
would support the view that mind, 'consciousness,' or the 'soul' is a separate entity from the brain.Anthropologist Marilyn Schlitz makes a similar summary of the evidence...
I would take the position of a radical empiricist, in that I am driven by data, not theory. And the data I see tell me that there are ways in which people's experience refutes the physicalist position that the mind is the brain and nothing more. There are solid, concrete data that suggest that our consciousness, our mind, may surpass the boundaries of the brain.In light of this glimpse of the actual situation in this field of scientific research, the New York Times article can be seen (at best) as a very poorly-balanced piece of jounalism. At worst, it represents a mere insistence that physicalism must be true (because 'I don't want to make room for God in my worldview'), with no more convincing evidence and argumentation than that of the child who screws up his face and balls his fists and repeats unendingly "but I want that one!"
(Most of what I've shared in this post--including all of the quotes--can be found in chapter 10, "The Evidence of Consciousness" in Lee Strobel's The Case for a Creator. I also recommend Beyond Death by Gary Habermas and J.P. Moreland.)
Wednesday, July 4, 2007
Is Science Naturalistic?
The quote I shared yesterday (which came from a New York Times article about scientific findings with regard to the human soul) articulates a view found commonly in our day and culture...
Is there historical justification for equating science with a naturalistic worldview? Clearly, the answer is no. Modern science was founded by men and women who shared a monotheistic worldview. While other, more ancient civilizations made scientific advance (as in astronomy, navigation, and paper-making), science was 'stillborn' in those civilizations because their worldviews did not adequately provide justification for scientific pursuit. That rational justification came uniquely from the Judeo-Christian worldview of mid-second-millenium Europe. Indeed, for most of the time during which modern science has flourished, a supernatural (rather than natural) understanding of reality held sway among scientists. There is no historical justification for seeing science as naturalistic.
Is there philosophical justification for defining science in naturalistic terms? Again, the answer is clearly no. The question "What is science?" is best answered not by scientists themselves, most of whom have had little or no training in the philosophical basis for their pursuit. The experts on this question are philosophers of science. And they are unanimous in recognizing that there is no clear line of demarcation between science and non-science. Specifically, whether a theory is naturalistic or (conversely) involves an appeal to an intelligent designer does not mean that one is less scientific than the other. Naturalism is not a necessary criterion for adjudging a theory scientific, nor is appeal to the supernatural a sufficient criterion for rejecting a theory as unscientific.
Moreover, the historical case discussed above provides further insight into this question of philosophical justification. The same philosophical presuppositions that made modern science feasible--those that were uniquely present in the Judeo-Christian worldview and absent from that of other civilizations--are likewise absent from the naturalistic worldview. Let's consider just two. Christians have reason to expect (and a good explanation for) order, pattern, regularity, and purpose in the universe. They see these things as a natural (i.e., logical) expression of the transcendent Creator, who is Himself a rational, personal Being. On the naturalistic worldview, order and the fixity of natural laws are unexplained, brute facts, and it is taboo to even discuss the concept of 'purpose.' On the Judeo-Christian view, humans can discover the order in the universe because we are made in the image of God and thus likewise rational beings. Moreover, in His revelation to us (the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments), the Creator commands us to study the universe around us. But on the naturalistic worldview, there is no rational justification for believing that our reasoning or our senses are reliable for discovering truths about the most distant galaxies or the innermost workings of the cell. If our senses and brains are merely the result of a purposeless process whose selective mechanism worked only toward our survival to reproduce, then the ability to ask and answer esoteric scientific questions would seem to be outside the purview of evolution. Doing science still makes sense only within a Judeo-Christian worldview, whereas a naturalistic view provides no ultimate rational foundation for scientific endeavor.
If there's no historical and no philosophical basis for defining science naturalistically, is there a scientific justification for doing so? Is a naturalistic approach to science so successful that it merits acceptance as the best approach? Obviously not. We have already seen that the only reason a naturalistic explanation for the diversity of life (neo-Darwinian evolution) remains the dominant view is that its proponents have successfully (in school boards, courts, and media) excluded competing theories from the arena by wrongly appealing to naturalism as a necessary criterion for science. But the point I want to make here is that the diversity of life is only one of the many big questions about the reality of our universe that science ought to attempt to explain. Others include 'Why is there a universe?', 'Why is there order in the universe?', Why does the universe, our galaxy and solar system, our Earth exhibit the extremely fine-tuned characteristics necessary for life?', 'How did life come to be in the first place?', and 'How did consciousness arise?' Naturalism provides no reasonable explanation for any of these questions, while scientists operating from within a Judeo-Christian worldview do.
Indeed (to look at just one of these questions more closely), the latest science with regard to the origin of the universe undermines the naturalistic view in (at least) two ways. Not only does naturalistic science offer no reasonable explanation for the origin of the universe*, but the finding that the universe had a begining a finite time ago is at odds with a basic premise of Darwin's theory (the premise that the universe itself is eternal, that natural selection had a near-infinite amount of time with which to work).
Throughout most of western history, it has been perceived as irrational to adopt a naturalistic view of reality. Only with the acceptance of Darwin's theory for the diversity of life has naturalism attained even a modicum of reasonableness. And yet, there is a great deal of evidence that can be (or could be were it not artificially ruled out as 'unscientific') brought to bear against naturalistic evolution as a satsifactory explanation even for the single question it addresses--the diversity of life. More importantly, a theistic understanding provides a far better explanation (than a naturalistic one) for all of the other big questions about which science is interested.
It is high time that science was ransomed from the religious worldview--naturalism--that has commandeered it in our generation, and freed to once again be what it originally was--a search for truth about the way things are. Naturalism does nothing but artificially constrain the range of possible explanations, preventing us from discovering truth.
There simply is no justification for adopting a naturalistic approach to science, much less for insisting that all scientists adopt such an approach.
* Most naturalists end by appealing to the idea that ours is one of an infinte number of universes, and just happens to be the one that exhibits the parameters conducive to life. This view faces huge philosophical and scientific problems. Logically, such a view merely pushes back the problem of first cause, and most philosophers recognize the need for a self-existent Being behind either the universe we see or the multiverse we can only speculate. Of equal importance, appeal to an infinite number of universes concedes that on this most important question ('Why is there a universe?') science is impotent. Were there any other universes, we could never find the least bit of evidence for the existence of any of them, according to a simple (and long-known) mathematical theorem (proof).
There is no credible scientific challenge to the theory of evolution as an explanation for the diversity and complexity of life on Earth.The fact is that there are indeed credible challenges, but that by redefining science as naturalistic we can dismiss such challenges as "unscientific." So the question before us today is, "Is there justification--historical, philosophical, or scientific--for allowing as science only naturalistic theories?"
Is there historical justification for equating science with a naturalistic worldview? Clearly, the answer is no. Modern science was founded by men and women who shared a monotheistic worldview. While other, more ancient civilizations made scientific advance (as in astronomy, navigation, and paper-making), science was 'stillborn' in those civilizations because their worldviews did not adequately provide justification for scientific pursuit. That rational justification came uniquely from the Judeo-Christian worldview of mid-second-millenium Europe. Indeed, for most of the time during which modern science has flourished, a supernatural (rather than natural) understanding of reality held sway among scientists. There is no historical justification for seeing science as naturalistic.
Is there philosophical justification for defining science in naturalistic terms? Again, the answer is clearly no. The question "What is science?" is best answered not by scientists themselves, most of whom have had little or no training in the philosophical basis for their pursuit. The experts on this question are philosophers of science. And they are unanimous in recognizing that there is no clear line of demarcation between science and non-science. Specifically, whether a theory is naturalistic or (conversely) involves an appeal to an intelligent designer does not mean that one is less scientific than the other. Naturalism is not a necessary criterion for adjudging a theory scientific, nor is appeal to the supernatural a sufficient criterion for rejecting a theory as unscientific.
Moreover, the historical case discussed above provides further insight into this question of philosophical justification. The same philosophical presuppositions that made modern science feasible--those that were uniquely present in the Judeo-Christian worldview and absent from that of other civilizations--are likewise absent from the naturalistic worldview. Let's consider just two. Christians have reason to expect (and a good explanation for) order, pattern, regularity, and purpose in the universe. They see these things as a natural (i.e., logical) expression of the transcendent Creator, who is Himself a rational, personal Being. On the naturalistic worldview, order and the fixity of natural laws are unexplained, brute facts, and it is taboo to even discuss the concept of 'purpose.' On the Judeo-Christian view, humans can discover the order in the universe because we are made in the image of God and thus likewise rational beings. Moreover, in His revelation to us (the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments), the Creator commands us to study the universe around us. But on the naturalistic worldview, there is no rational justification for believing that our reasoning or our senses are reliable for discovering truths about the most distant galaxies or the innermost workings of the cell. If our senses and brains are merely the result of a purposeless process whose selective mechanism worked only toward our survival to reproduce, then the ability to ask and answer esoteric scientific questions would seem to be outside the purview of evolution. Doing science still makes sense only within a Judeo-Christian worldview, whereas a naturalistic view provides no ultimate rational foundation for scientific endeavor.
If there's no historical and no philosophical basis for defining science naturalistically, is there a scientific justification for doing so? Is a naturalistic approach to science so successful that it merits acceptance as the best approach? Obviously not. We have already seen that the only reason a naturalistic explanation for the diversity of life (neo-Darwinian evolution) remains the dominant view is that its proponents have successfully (in school boards, courts, and media) excluded competing theories from the arena by wrongly appealing to naturalism as a necessary criterion for science. But the point I want to make here is that the diversity of life is only one of the many big questions about the reality of our universe that science ought to attempt to explain. Others include 'Why is there a universe?', 'Why is there order in the universe?', Why does the universe, our galaxy and solar system, our Earth exhibit the extremely fine-tuned characteristics necessary for life?', 'How did life come to be in the first place?', and 'How did consciousness arise?' Naturalism provides no reasonable explanation for any of these questions, while scientists operating from within a Judeo-Christian worldview do.
Indeed (to look at just one of these questions more closely), the latest science with regard to the origin of the universe undermines the naturalistic view in (at least) two ways. Not only does naturalistic science offer no reasonable explanation for the origin of the universe*, but the finding that the universe had a begining a finite time ago is at odds with a basic premise of Darwin's theory (the premise that the universe itself is eternal, that natural selection had a near-infinite amount of time with which to work).
Throughout most of western history, it has been perceived as irrational to adopt a naturalistic view of reality. Only with the acceptance of Darwin's theory for the diversity of life has naturalism attained even a modicum of reasonableness. And yet, there is a great deal of evidence that can be (or could be were it not artificially ruled out as 'unscientific') brought to bear against naturalistic evolution as a satsifactory explanation even for the single question it addresses--the diversity of life. More importantly, a theistic understanding provides a far better explanation (than a naturalistic one) for all of the other big questions about which science is interested.
It is high time that science was ransomed from the religious worldview--naturalism--that has commandeered it in our generation, and freed to once again be what it originally was--a search for truth about the way things are. Naturalism does nothing but artificially constrain the range of possible explanations, preventing us from discovering truth.
There simply is no justification for adopting a naturalistic approach to science, much less for insisting that all scientists adopt such an approach.
* Most naturalists end by appealing to the idea that ours is one of an infinte number of universes, and just happens to be the one that exhibits the parameters conducive to life. This view faces huge philosophical and scientific problems. Logically, such a view merely pushes back the problem of first cause, and most philosophers recognize the need for a self-existent Being behind either the universe we see or the multiverse we can only speculate. Of equal importance, appeal to an infinite number of universes concedes that on this most important question ('Why is there a universe?') science is impotent. Were there any other universes, we could never find the least bit of evidence for the existence of any of them, according to a simple (and long-known) mathematical theorem (proof).
Tuesday, July 3, 2007
The Circularity of Naturalism
Readers of Sunday's Bend (OR) Bulletin's science section were treated to no less than seven articles describing new research and assuring us that evolutionary biologists have proven that there is no God. Much of the actual research shared in these articles was fascinating, and much of it has real potential for advancing our understanding of the ways things are. Unfortunately, in each case, the authors of the articles and the researchers themselves begin with the uncritical ("faith-based," if I may borrow a term for my own use) acceptance of naturalism and common ancestry (macroevolution). Not only is the real value of the studies lost in a metaphysical mantra ("Evolution is the only God, and Natural Selection is his greatest Prophet"), but the entire project is an exercise in circular reasoning.
Let me give you an example. One of the articles (by Cornelia Dean of the New York Times News Service) is titled "Science of the Soul?" Its thesis can be found in this quote,
The actual evidence offered to support this bold thesis statement falls far short of doing so. It consists of two sets of observations. One is that feelings (including those from which moral senses seem to arise--empathy, disgust, joy) have a physical component in the brain. The other set of observations is that these sensations and their physical component are not unique to humans but seen also in higher animals, birds and mammals.
This entire article is a thinly-veiled attempt to address the problematic (that is, to naturalistic evolutionists) argument for the existence of God known as the "Moral Argument." The latter says that the only reasonable explanation for the universal moral intuition unique to humans is that there is an ultimate Lawgiver (the Christian version going on to make explicit that humans are uniquely "created in His image"). But theists have always been willing to grant both that higher animals have soulishness--share with us such things as mind, will, and emotion--and that there is a physical basis for these things.
The Christian view is that we are souls who have bodies, and further, that there is an immaterial (spiritual) component to our souls (which likely is not an aspect of the souls of higher animals). The view of naturalistic evolutionists is that all is physical and that there are no immaterial components to reality (whether souls or minds or God or angels). The problem is that this article provides no evidence that would distinguish between these two views, but then adds a great deal of absurd rhetoric claiming a scientific success on behalf of their view.
As is the case with each of the evolutionary articles in Sunday's paper, this one suffers from the fallacy of special pleading, in which only selective evidence is given and contrary evidence suppressed. In another post, I'll share some of the research that has led formerly naturalistic scientists in this very field (brain physiology) to abandon their naturalism and acknowledge the existence of an immaterial soul.
But the point of this post is to demonstrate that evolutionists are so trapped in their faith that they cannot recognize either the limits of their evidences (dealt with above) or the fallacious, circular nature of their reasoning processes. As to the latter, here's another quote from the article:
So watch for it--circular reasoning by evolutionists--coming soon to a newspaper, classroom, or television near you.
Let me give you an example. One of the articles (by Cornelia Dean of the New York Times News Service) is titled "Science of the Soul?" Its thesis can be found in this quote,
The idea that human minds are the product of evolution is "unassailable fact," the journal Nature said... on new findings on the physical basis of moral thought.(As an aside, I was startled to learn that the journal Nature had evolved to the point of saying things itself; I suspect that the reality is that some individual--an intelligence--actually said these things in the journal Nature, but that citing this nameless someone would not have given us the same sense of authority and credibility as does crediting the journal itself.)
The actual evidence offered to support this bold thesis statement falls far short of doing so. It consists of two sets of observations. One is that feelings (including those from which moral senses seem to arise--empathy, disgust, joy) have a physical component in the brain. The other set of observations is that these sensations and their physical component are not unique to humans but seen also in higher animals, birds and mammals.
This entire article is a thinly-veiled attempt to address the problematic (that is, to naturalistic evolutionists) argument for the existence of God known as the "Moral Argument." The latter says that the only reasonable explanation for the universal moral intuition unique to humans is that there is an ultimate Lawgiver (the Christian version going on to make explicit that humans are uniquely "created in His image"). But theists have always been willing to grant both that higher animals have soulishness--share with us such things as mind, will, and emotion--and that there is a physical basis for these things.
The Christian view is that we are souls who have bodies, and further, that there is an immaterial (spiritual) component to our souls (which likely is not an aspect of the souls of higher animals). The view of naturalistic evolutionists is that all is physical and that there are no immaterial components to reality (whether souls or minds or God or angels). The problem is that this article provides no evidence that would distinguish between these two views, but then adds a great deal of absurd rhetoric claiming a scientific success on behalf of their view.
As is the case with each of the evolutionary articles in Sunday's paper, this one suffers from the fallacy of special pleading, in which only selective evidence is given and contrary evidence suppressed. In another post, I'll share some of the research that has led formerly naturalistic scientists in this very field (brain physiology) to abandon their naturalism and acknowledge the existence of an immaterial soul.
But the point of this post is to demonstrate that evolutionists are so trapped in their faith that they cannot recognize either the limits of their evidences (dealt with above) or the fallacious, circular nature of their reasoning processes. As to the latter, here's another quote from the article:
There is no credible scientific challenge to the theory of evolution as an explanation for the diversity and complexity of life on Earth.The problem here is that the author wrongly confuses science (the supposedly objective discipline) with naturalism (the metaphysical or religious philosophy). The statement would be perfectly true if the author redressed this error, and replaced the word 'scientific' with the word 'naturalistic':
There is no credible naturalistic challenge to the theory of evolution as an explanation for the diversity and complexity of life on Earth.There are (and always have been) credible scientific challenges to the theory of evolution. But they are inadmissable if we first redefine science to be naturalistic. In tomorrow's post, I'll (once again) show that there is neither an historical, a philosophical, nor a scientific justification for so redefining science. But for now, let me reiterate: to declare in advance that naturalism (physicalism) accurately describes reality, then to offer only naturalistic interpretations of your research, and finally to conclude that you have bolstered the proofs for a naturalistic theory, is nothing more than a self-deluding exercise in circular reasoning.
So watch for it--circular reasoning by evolutionists--coming soon to a newspaper, classroom, or television near you.
Saturday, June 2, 2007
Revering the Universe
Richard Dawkins begins The God Delusion with a personal story of his own sense of wonder at the universe. We are expected to find his sense of awe deserving of respect and to question any respect we might hold for those who revere an immaterial Being transcendent to that universe. Throughout the book, Dawkins displays his inability to understand the idea that the God of Christian theism is so much more awesome and glorious than His creation. This inability ensures that Dawkins' entire project is nothing more than a straw-man argument, dealing with mischaracterizations of Christianity rather than the real thing.
Early on, Dawkins quotes favorably the late astronomer Carl Sagan (writing in Pale Blue Dot):
As an encapsulization of Sagan's and Dawkins' religious affinities, this is a good one. Each worships the universe itself and reveres science as the only way of knowing things. This religious position is variously known as naturalism, naturalistic materialism, and pantheism, and includes the (self-refuting) views known as scientism and physicalism. Sagan and (more particularly) Dawkins would like us all to share their religious view, to worship the universe (which, for Sagan at least, should be capitalized). That's fine.
But Dawkins' book purports to show that Christianity is false. That being the case, the Sagan quote about major religions in general and Dawkins' use of it seem irrelevant at best and self-defeating at worst. You see, Christianity is the "major religion" that gave birth to science and the only worldview that provides the logical grounding for continuing science (see my blog posts of 3 Feb and 6 Feb of this year). The founders of science recognized their explorations of the universe as attempts to "think God's thoughts after Him." To the extent that science reveals even more grandeur, subtlety, and elegance in the universe, the logical Christian response is to feel and express ever greater wonder at and reverence for the Creator of it.
Moreover, the Christian (and Jewish) Scriptures are replete with admonitions to study and marvel at the universe, the Earth, and its inhabitants, and even to learn more about the Creator through such study. Of course (and this is perfectly reasonable), those same Scriptures are careful to warn people against worshipping the creation rather than the Creator, a problem common to Sagan and Dawkins.
Now I recognize that many who profess Christianity are guilty of what Sagan laments--putting God in a box and denying evidence about the vastness and grandeur of creation because it is at odds with their interpretation of certain Scriptures. But the validity of Christianity is not ascertained by examining how some of its aherents (or professors) behave as much as by what its Scriptures teach. Quite simply, the Bible portrays the universe as marvelous beyond our comprehension and yet the Creator as far exceeding even it in glory.
As an aside, I frankly much prefer to worship God with others who share the sort of wonder at creation that Scripture affirms. I think I've found a local church full of such folks. Central Oregon, with its high desert, magnificent mountains, and wealth of rivers and forests, somehow seems to bring out an appreciation of nature and (for those willing to acknowledge Him) reverence for its Creator. It's a shame that Sagan never experienced the sort of reverence and awe regularly expressed at Antioch.
Early on, Dawkins quotes favorably the late astronomer Carl Sagan (writing in Pale Blue Dot):
How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, 'This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant'? Instead they say, 'No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way.' A religion, old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the universe as revealed by modern science might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths.There's a great deal with which to take issue here, but I'll confine myself to a few quick observations.
As an encapsulization of Sagan's and Dawkins' religious affinities, this is a good one. Each worships the universe itself and reveres science as the only way of knowing things. This religious position is variously known as naturalism, naturalistic materialism, and pantheism, and includes the (self-refuting) views known as scientism and physicalism. Sagan and (more particularly) Dawkins would like us all to share their religious view, to worship the universe (which, for Sagan at least, should be capitalized). That's fine.
But Dawkins' book purports to show that Christianity is false. That being the case, the Sagan quote about major religions in general and Dawkins' use of it seem irrelevant at best and self-defeating at worst. You see, Christianity is the "major religion" that gave birth to science and the only worldview that provides the logical grounding for continuing science (see my blog posts of 3 Feb and 6 Feb of this year). The founders of science recognized their explorations of the universe as attempts to "think God's thoughts after Him." To the extent that science reveals even more grandeur, subtlety, and elegance in the universe, the logical Christian response is to feel and express ever greater wonder at and reverence for the Creator of it.
Moreover, the Christian (and Jewish) Scriptures are replete with admonitions to study and marvel at the universe, the Earth, and its inhabitants, and even to learn more about the Creator through such study. Of course (and this is perfectly reasonable), those same Scriptures are careful to warn people against worshipping the creation rather than the Creator, a problem common to Sagan and Dawkins.
Now I recognize that many who profess Christianity are guilty of what Sagan laments--putting God in a box and denying evidence about the vastness and grandeur of creation because it is at odds with their interpretation of certain Scriptures. But the validity of Christianity is not ascertained by examining how some of its aherents (or professors) behave as much as by what its Scriptures teach. Quite simply, the Bible portrays the universe as marvelous beyond our comprehension and yet the Creator as far exceeding even it in glory.
As an aside, I frankly much prefer to worship God with others who share the sort of wonder at creation that Scripture affirms. I think I've found a local church full of such folks. Central Oregon, with its high desert, magnificent mountains, and wealth of rivers and forests, somehow seems to bring out an appreciation of nature and (for those willing to acknowledge Him) reverence for its Creator. It's a shame that Sagan never experienced the sort of reverence and awe regularly expressed at Antioch.
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Brownback and Evolution
Presidential candidate Sam Brownback has written a guest article in the NY Times explaining his position with regard to the issue of science and faith. Specifically, his goal was to clarify why--when the Republican candidates were asked which of them did not believe in evolution--he raised his hand.
I found his opinions on this issue thoughtful and wise, and I strongly agree with them. Check it out for yourself.
I found his opinions on this issue thoughtful and wise, and I strongly agree with them. Check it out for yourself.
Thursday, May 24, 2007
Fallacious Dawkins
I trust by now that most of you realize that Richard Dawkins' extremely popular book, The God Delusion, is anything but a well-reasoned refutation of Christianity. His errors in critical thinking are so many and varied that atheist philosopher Michael Ruse has written that Dawkins' book "makes me embarrassed to be an atheist."
In our Adult Education class at Antioch, we've read through chapter 3, and have been appalled by the unfounded assertions and poor reasoning. This week, I'm preparing a summary of introductory logic and, specifically, a list of some of the most common informal logical fallacies. As I do this, it has been borne in upon me that Dawkins--in his "argumentation"--provides wonderful illustrations of virtually all of these errors in thinking.
In an earlier post, which I titled "The Cosmological Argument" (May 12), I quoted Dawkins and pointed out a category fallacy whereby he asked of the God of Christianity--who is by definition an uncreated, necessary Being--"who created Him?" In that same quote, Dawkins is guilty of a fallacy known as "argumentum ad futuris"--an appeal to the future. In lieu of a transcendent God, he prefers "a big bang singularity or other physical concept as yet unknown." It is, of course, logically absurd to suggest that something (like the big bang singularity) could create itself. It is also fallacious (argumentum ad futuris) to base one's argument on hypothetical future discoveries. Dawkins must do so, however, because the evidence available to us at present overwhelmingly supports a biblical--not a naturalist--worldview.
Look for more classic illustrations--courtesy of Richard Dawkins--of informal logical fallacies in future posts.
In our Adult Education class at Antioch, we've read through chapter 3, and have been appalled by the unfounded assertions and poor reasoning. This week, I'm preparing a summary of introductory logic and, specifically, a list of some of the most common informal logical fallacies. As I do this, it has been borne in upon me that Dawkins--in his "argumentation"--provides wonderful illustrations of virtually all of these errors in thinking.
In an earlier post, which I titled "The Cosmological Argument" (May 12), I quoted Dawkins and pointed out a category fallacy whereby he asked of the God of Christianity--who is by definition an uncreated, necessary Being--"who created Him?" In that same quote, Dawkins is guilty of a fallacy known as "argumentum ad futuris"--an appeal to the future. In lieu of a transcendent God, he prefers "a big bang singularity or other physical concept as yet unknown." It is, of course, logically absurd to suggest that something (like the big bang singularity) could create itself. It is also fallacious (argumentum ad futuris) to base one's argument on hypothetical future discoveries. Dawkins must do so, however, because the evidence available to us at present overwhelmingly supports a biblical--not a naturalist--worldview.
Look for more classic illustrations--courtesy of Richard Dawkins--of informal logical fallacies in future posts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)