Archive for the ‘Philosophy’ Category

The Limits of Science and the Bias of Scientists

October 9, 2013

Scientists cannot explain why the universe is infinite yet expanding. How can infinity expand? And what is space. Nothing, they say. So how can nothing expand? Sometimes scientists should just say “we don’t know” and then be quiet. The problem with scientism is that it presumes, without proof, that “material” (matter) is all there is, and knowledge can only be derived from observing matter. (this is philosophical materialsim) They study the physical sciences and glibly speak of metaphysics (i.e., spiritual matters) as if observing the physical world can tell us something about the spiritual world – they do this while they can’t even provide a reasonable degree of certainty of the nature of the physical world that they allege to know so well. When challenged, they often respond with forceful authority and big words, and use an assortment of offensive names to belittle anyone that disagrees with their inbred philosophies. In reality they are, above all, Malthusians; and the real agenda is to rid the world of religion so that people will stop obeying the Bible’s command to “be fruitful and multiply”, for they are convinced that the Earth is doomed unless people stop breathing and eating (in other words die – except for them, of course). Yet according to past warnings from the-sky-is-falling Malthusians, the world should have already been destroyed, with the Earth’s resources completely exhausted decades ago. But that has not happened. And why is that? Could it be that their philosophical leanings skew their empirical observations of the Earth’s capabilities? Probably.

Theology: God and Logic

November 13, 2011

In one of my first posts in 2007 on this blog entitled “John 1:1 Commentary”, I said this: 

John says “In the beginning was the Logos” What can we learn about Logos? We can learn that Logos is God expressing Himself in a person – the person of His Eternal Son – Christ, Jesus, Our Lord. But what more of Logos can we learn? This: We get the word “logic” from “logos”. Many Bible teachers imply or outrightly declare that “God is not logical”. This notion comes from unwillingness on the part of the Bible student to resolve apparent contradictions (there are no actual contradictions in the Bible) in a logical way. Why are they unwilling? Because they don’t like the obvious conclusions that scripture will lead them to. They prefer to declare the word of God to be a “mystery”, or a “paradox”; two seemingly contradictory truths that remain in perpetual tension, and have no resolution.

I would ask you this: do you really think God is illogical? Or as some would say – alogical? I would think that we would accept from the onset, as the Apostle John presents it, that Christ is God’s LOGICAL personification.

In support of my comments, I found the following short treatise on the matter as I was browsing the internet – comments very important in Christian Theology and missing from many churches today.

The basic laws of logic are neither arbitrary inventions of God nor principles that exist completely outside God’s being. Obviously, the laws of logic are not like the laws of nature. God may violate the latter (say, suspend gravity), but He cannot violate the former. Those laws are rooted in God’s own nature. Indeed, some scholars think the passage “In the beginning was the Word [logos]” (Jn 1:1) is accurately translated, “In the beginning was Logic (a divine, rational mind).” For example, even God cannot exist and not exist at the same time, and even God cannot validly believe that red is a color and red is not a color. When people say that God need not behave “logically,” they are using the term in a loose sense to mean “the sensible thing from my point of view.” Often God does not act in ways that people understand or judge to be what they would do in the circumstances. But God never behaves illogically in the proper sense. He does not violate in His being or thought the fundamental laws of logic.  (from http://christian-apologetics.org/2011/what-are-the-three-laws-of-logic/).

Notice the statement, “the laws of logic are not like the laws of nature. God may violate the latter (say, suspend gravity), but He cannot violate the former. Those laws are rooted in God’s own nature.”  Herein lies the trip-wire for too many Bible students.  They assume wrongly that God’s ability to violate the laws of nature represents an ability to be illogical.  This stems from the confusion of deduction and induction.

The modern mind has been trained to think inductively.  The scientific method is based on inductive reasoning, which is why knowledge gained by the so-called scientific method a most UNRELIABLE source of knowledge, much contrary to popular opinion.  Inductive reasoning is reasoning based on observations, particularly observations of nature.  Inductive reasoning claims that if some number of repeated actions all produce the same result, then it can be safely ASSUMED that those given actions will ALWAYS produce the same results.  Now, this sounds good, and indeed without dispute has been greatly beneficial in the development of modern medicine, engineering feats, and other such great accomplishments.  We are greatly indebted to the scientists that have used the scientific method to inductively discover the inner workings of the natural order and used that knowledge for our betterment.  However, scientific induction, failing to foresee the consequences of its inability to account for ALL possible outcomes, has often failed catastrophically, resulting in sickness, death, turmoil, and uncertainty in the human world it seeks to inoculate.

But even more catastrophic is the failure of scientific induction to answer the really big questions – questions about purpose, feeling, origins, and faith – that has dealt a mortal wound to the hope of man, engulfing him in nihilistic futility and doubt.  In terms of producing knowledge of things beyond the natural world, modern science has been and will always be an abysmal failure. 

Jesus said, “The Kingdom of God cometh not with observation”.  Now we might have some discussion as to His meaning of this, but the implications are obvious.  The ways of God are not clamped inescapably to nature.  Indeed, He is far above the natural physical world (transcendent). 

The knowledge of God, being beyond the physical world, starts with metaphysical axioms, and relies on deduction rather than induction to discover the implications of those axioms.  For many people who deny the existence of God, it is equally necessary to deny truth, and more specifically, axiomatic (indisputable) truth.  Logic is where they meet there match, for they futilly deny the undeniable truth that “a” cannot be “not a” at the same time and in the same way.  This is an axiom.  This is metaphysical.  This is not simply “nature”, but is the Nature of God.  This is not the nature which God is above, but this is the nature of which GOD IS.

In light of the importance of metaphysics and the obvious inability of physics (modern science) to even approach questions of faith, I find it very curious that such an atheist and doubter as Steven Hawking  has usurped the role of Knower of All Things, delving into what for him ought to be nothing more than rank speculation about the origins, purpose, and destination of the universe and life itself. 

One would think that educators, regardless of religious mindset, would be highly disturbed by the influence of men like Hawking on young people who see him as an intellectual icon.  Hawking and others like him simply proclaim their opinions as if they were undisputable, established facts; not so unlike the alleged statements by a Russian cosmonaut, who supposedly said, “We went to outer space and we didn’t see God there”, which was supposed to be some sort of proof that He doesn’t in fact exist!  Lord, save us from this type of convoluted, illogical thinking.  Amen.

By the way, at the time of this writing, as far as I can tell, Mr. Hawking currently does not believe there is a God.  I point this out because it’s my understanding that in some previous time, he did hold to at least a possibility of a God.  And perhaps by the time I publish this article, he will have changed his mind again, for this is the nature of inductive reasoning – always looking for evidence to support a hypothesis, and never being able to come to the knowledge (certainty) of the truth.  Thus, there is a God one day, there isn’t One the next day; a certain medicine is good for you today, tomorrow, it’s bad for you; there is global warming one day, and not global warming but instead global turbulence the next; and so on.  And it seems that when scientists change their mind, they are at least as certain they are right THIS TIME as they were BEFORE!

It’s one thing to invest some guarded trust in these kind of thinkers when it comes to our bodily health, but should we ever trust our souls to them?  Maybe it’s time for we the people living the modern/post-modern world to build our hope on this axiom:

“In the beginning was the Word*; and the Word* was with God, and the Word* was God”.

*Logos/Logic