If George Wald can get away with referring to time as a hero, I hope I can get away with playing with the metaphor a little. Let's take a not entirely serious look at time as hero. Yes; it's another episode of the Grammarian detective.
Quotes and comments;
1. 'Time is in fact the hero of the plot. The time with which we have to deal is of the order of two billion years. Given so much time, the "impossible" becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait: time itself performs the miracles. [1.]
- In saying 'time is the hero' Wald admitted, despite himself, that the 'miracle of life' required intelligence and personhood (i.e. to turn inert matter into a living organism) Only human beings (persons) are heroes, neither inanimate matter or time can qualify. I think we can safely say that there are no heroes on a dead world.
Why might he have let the word hero slip? Was he thinking of Prometheus (I notice that atheists still love some myths.) If he was, that doesn't fit, because there were people around when Prometheus supposedly did his thing, there would have been no people around when our hero time brought life into being.
So why say hero? There were no bad guys to slay, no wrongs to right. Wasn't he admitting that it would take the miraculous; i.e. something myth-like for this to happen?
Isn't hero just another word for god when used in this fashion?
Time can't do anything of course; expecting time to accomplish anything is like digging a well with the idea of a shovel, or escaping from a jail cell with the idea of a hacksaw.
As I see it, time is just what we mean by motion; without motion there's no time. So; can motion accomplish miracles? Not that I've heard of.
Where does the word hero come from? It comes from mythology.
To say time is the hero is to bring mythology into the picture; it amounts to saying we need a mythological answer to our problem. (You no doubt remember that Plato would enlist myths to resolve unanswerable problems in cosmology or metaphysics... so this kind of thing has a long history.)
In mythology the hero is often (if not usually) of divine parentage or origin. To say 'time is the hero' is to say the answer must almost certainly be of divine origin. The hero often possesses divine gifts (supernatural gifts). We can see the fit, as it would almost certainly require divine gifts of some kind to turn a rock into a living organism, and then turn that proto-cell into a human being (i.e. a creature capable of inventing heroes; turning mere paper into a living
creature.)
A hero is usually someone favored by the gods. This allows him to pull off some of the superhuman stunts he becomes famous for. You can see why (in our scenario) he might need some divine favor. He didn't merely have to slay a dragon, he had to create one.
Heroes are known for risking their lives. I'm not sure this fits here, as there was no life. Can you risk your life when you're not alive?
I don't know of anyone who thinks time is alive. They might think time is a hero but I don't know of anyone who thinks time is alive. (What time would look like in this plot I don't know. Would it have a cape? I'm not sure.
I've looked hero up in the dictionary, but I don't see time listed as a representative. Funny. Is it possible Wald was wrong?
Heroes are known for their great strength, so perhaps it was the strength possessed by Time that did the trick. Perhaps it squeezed the life out of a stone or something.
A few heroes are known for their intellectual prowess, but I don't think Time qualifies.
Hero;
1. 'A real or mythical person of great bravery who carries out extraordinary deeds.
- the question we need to ask is this; was time a real hero or a mythical one? (Answer carefully; the fate of science may depend on your answer.)
Turning inert matter into a living organism (whether once or several times the oracles do not say) certainly qualifies as an extraordinary event. It was certainly out of the ordinary; as inert matter rarely comes together to create life forms.
A hero is sometimes a protaganist in a work of fiction. Yes; that might work... but where is the contest, and what is it about? In a dead world what is there to contend about? There won't be maidens for a long time to come. Who are there to contend over the maiden who isn't there?
The hero is sometimes the leader of a cause, but it's hard to see Time in this light isn't it? Why would life be a cause in a dead world? Who would there be to fight for this cause, and why would they enlist?
In modern terms we might refer to Time as the leading actor in a drama. We have to admit that since Gamow knighted Time as the great hero, it certainly has gained a lot of honors, and gained a lot of added power as well.
A hero is sometimes a mere mortal who gets raised to godhood after death. It's certainly true that Time has only recently been granted godhood, and given the power to accomplish miracles, and it's true that Time now sits with the gods on Olympus... but of course Time never was alive, so I don't know if this fits.
Summary;
Without an almost endless amount of time, evolution becomes an obvious miracle; but a miracle with no one to perform it.
In the words of someone more eloquent than myself;
'An important aspect of the standard evolutionary geological time table is the urgent necessity for countless millions of years to dilute the miracles of evolution and make them seem 'natural.' It is assumed that changes that are impossible or else miraculous when pinpointed in time can be rendered plausible and natural when blanketed with millions of years.' [2.]
Mike Johnson
Notes;
1. 'Time is in fact the hero of the plot. The time with which we have to deal is of the order of two billion years. What we regard as impossible on the basis of human experience is meaningless here. Given so much time, the "impossible" becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait: time itself performs the miracles.
2. The mythology of science - R.J. Rushdoony p.52
'An important aspect of the standard evolutionary geological time table is the urgent necessity for countless millions of years to dilute the miracles of evolution and make them seem 'natural.' It is assumed that changes that are impossible or else miraculous when pinpointed in time can be rendered plausible and natural when blanketed with millions of years.'
- This book (a brief review of evolutionary science circa 1965) is available online, and is well worth reading; especially for a comparison with the current scene. [Chalcedon]
- Rushdoony points out that if the supposed events of evolution took place over a short period of time (e.g. 6000 years, or even 60,000) they would have to be called miracles. For some reason people believe or accept the idea that if these miracles happen over millions of years they're not miracles. We're supposed to believe that 'time' makes all these miracles possible.
So what is this miracle maker time? Isn't it an immaterial force? Isn't it a mere abstraction? Is there such a 'thing' as time? Can time DO anything? Not that I can see. As far as I can see, time is just a name given to entropy. I think people confuse time with motion.
Let's be agreeable and assume time = motion. How can motion accomplish miracles? How motion can create life from non-life?
If you want a true picture of evolution, imagine a picture of a rock turning into a human being, all with no outside help. That's the kind of miracle we're talking about. (i.e. imagine it as an animated film)
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
Monday, June 13, 2011
All atheists know God, even Isaac Asimov
A distinctive of the apologetic developed by Cornelius Van Til was his insistence that all men know God, and that since they do, it's a mistake to try and prove his existence to them.
Quotes and comments;
1. "It will not do to say that the natural man knows nothing of God...'' [1.]
- How can Van Til say the atheist knows God, if the atheist denies that he does? Isn't this being unfair? I don't think so. Let's look at an example that I think is illuminating.
Isaac Asimov was the media's favorite atheist before a certain Brit came along, and he was not shy about claiming that God didn't exist. On one occasion I heard (or read) him say, that he was aware that to say God didn't exist was to affirm a universal negative, and that this was a logical fallacy. However, he added, he believed the evidence was so overwhelmingly in favor of god's non-existence, that he felt he was justified in his claim God did not exist.
I think we see here a case of a man saying x while he knows it's inaccurate to do so. i.e. he knows he can't prove God doesn't exist, but yet he says it anyway. He knows God at least in the sense he knows he can't disprove his existence. (I would claim he knows a lot more about God than this seemingly minor point.)
Asimov was one of the best educated minds of his time (especially in science), this means that he of all men, had the smallest excuse for rejecting God.
Asimov might have asked himself why it was that logic didn't allow him to deny the possibility of God's existence, or why it seemed (as it were) to defend God.
He might have asked how logic came to be? i.e. if all were matter in motion, what was logic?
He might have asked how it was the chemical reactions in his brain were capable of logic, or how they knew about logic, or why they trusted in logic.
He might have asked how, if only the physical can exist, logic can exist, or what exactly it is.
He might have asked how it is that the universe seems rational. He might have asked why matter cares about logic (which in terms of materialism can only be matter itself).
Van Til emphasizes the point that it is wrong to say that the natural man does not know God. It is impossible for any man not to know God; although it might be possible for him to be unaware of this (at least in full detail), or unaware of how much he knows of God. The atheist no doubt wants some evidence for this and we'll offer some.
Since the universe was created by God, to know the universe is to know God. e.g. if I read a novel by someone I don't know, who even lives half way around the planet, when I finish it I'll know something of its author, even if I don't consciously think of this knowledge.
To see a painting is to know something of the person who painted it. To listen to a piece of music is to learn something of its composer. To know a child is to know something of his parents.
To the extent man is familiar with his own nature he knows God. e.g. by knowing the contents (and workings) of his conscience man knows something of God, of the God who made him, and who originally formed his conscience.
To know his abilities and capacities (e.g. his intelligence, his capacity for creativity) man knows something of God. To realize the extent of the universe is to learn something about God.
Even the atheist who insists he knows nothing of God, who claims He does not even exist, knows a great deal about God. Men know a lot more about God than they realize.
All languages have their origin in the language God shared with Adam, so there's a sense in which to know language is to know God.
Since we think (largely at least) in and with language, to think is to know God. The basic assumptions of language depend upon a Creator for their veracity and validity, and these assumptions give man knowledge of God. (e.g. that reality exists, that truth exists, that separate minds exist, that words mean something, etc.)
The natural man ought to ask himself, what would need to be true for these assumptions to be valid.
This is true even on a banal level. If you were to live in a stranger's house you would learn something about them, even if they weren't there.
All men know God, but many deny that God exists, because they don't want to admit that they know.
The Bible tells us that the universe is full of God's glory; this being the case man cannot but know God.
Man lives within the sphere of God's influence. His presence is inescapable; and since man was created with an ability to know God, he cannot escape being aware of evidence for God. ("For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him.'' - Roman 1:21) [5.]
Notes;
1. "It will not do to say that the natural man knows nothing of God...'' - Van Til's Apologetic - Greg Bahnsen p.631
2. This indirect knowledge of God (and there's far more than I mentioned) adds up since God is a unified and unconflicted being. This means that the various things we know about God don't conflict with each other.
3. Van Til claimed that man not only knew God, he knew God's character as well.
4. If atheists would turn their critical powers (which can't be explained by matter in motion in my opinion) upon the idea of materialism they might be shocked to see how inadequate it is. They rarely do this however, and enjoy shooting arrows at Christianity much more. The atheist is like the man scared to look at himself in the mirror. (He'd rather write as if that face wasn't there, and wasn't looking at him.) I see a tendency that the more doubts a person has about their own worldview, the more intent they become on looking critically at other worldviews. This animus towards other worldviews can be a defense against doubt.
5. "...because that, knowing God, they glorified him not as God, neither gave thanks; but became vain in their reasonings, and their senseless heart was darkened.'' - ASV
6. I might add that although Asimov was presumably named for him, he had a very negative view of the story of Abraham and Isaac. For him this story illustrated all that he didn't like about religion. The point that seemed to escape him was that in terms of materialism his animus against God and against religion made no sense. i.e. if all is matter in motion then moral standards are a delusion.
7. I remember as a teenager that each month I would eagerly read the new column by Asimov, that was published in 'Fantasy and Science Fiction'. (I guess you could say I learned my atheism from the best of them. It was only men years later that I abandoned materialism for creation... and only years later that I developed any interest in Christianity.)
- I don't want to give the wrong impression here; as I remember it, most of the columns concerned astronomy. (It is true however, that Asimov had a strong dislike for any kind of creationism, as he called it. He saw this as a product of the radical 'sects' of Christianity. i.e. believers in Genesis.)
Quotes and comments;
1. "It will not do to say that the natural man knows nothing of God...'' [1.]
- How can Van Til say the atheist knows God, if the atheist denies that he does? Isn't this being unfair? I don't think so. Let's look at an example that I think is illuminating.
Isaac Asimov was the media's favorite atheist before a certain Brit came along, and he was not shy about claiming that God didn't exist. On one occasion I heard (or read) him say, that he was aware that to say God didn't exist was to affirm a universal negative, and that this was a logical fallacy. However, he added, he believed the evidence was so overwhelmingly in favor of god's non-existence, that he felt he was justified in his claim God did not exist.
I think we see here a case of a man saying x while he knows it's inaccurate to do so. i.e. he knows he can't prove God doesn't exist, but yet he says it anyway. He knows God at least in the sense he knows he can't disprove his existence. (I would claim he knows a lot more about God than this seemingly minor point.)
Asimov was one of the best educated minds of his time (especially in science), this means that he of all men, had the smallest excuse for rejecting God.
Asimov might have asked himself why it was that logic didn't allow him to deny the possibility of God's existence, or why it seemed (as it were) to defend God.
He might have asked how logic came to be? i.e. if all were matter in motion, what was logic?
He might have asked how it was the chemical reactions in his brain were capable of logic, or how they knew about logic, or why they trusted in logic.
He might have asked how, if only the physical can exist, logic can exist, or what exactly it is.
He might have asked how it is that the universe seems rational. He might have asked why matter cares about logic (which in terms of materialism can only be matter itself).
Van Til emphasizes the point that it is wrong to say that the natural man does not know God. It is impossible for any man not to know God; although it might be possible for him to be unaware of this (at least in full detail), or unaware of how much he knows of God. The atheist no doubt wants some evidence for this and we'll offer some.
Since the universe was created by God, to know the universe is to know God. e.g. if I read a novel by someone I don't know, who even lives half way around the planet, when I finish it I'll know something of its author, even if I don't consciously think of this knowledge.
To see a painting is to know something of the person who painted it. To listen to a piece of music is to learn something of its composer. To know a child is to know something of his parents.
To the extent man is familiar with his own nature he knows God. e.g. by knowing the contents (and workings) of his conscience man knows something of God, of the God who made him, and who originally formed his conscience.
To know his abilities and capacities (e.g. his intelligence, his capacity for creativity) man knows something of God. To realize the extent of the universe is to learn something about God.
Even the atheist who insists he knows nothing of God, who claims He does not even exist, knows a great deal about God. Men know a lot more about God than they realize.
All languages have their origin in the language God shared with Adam, so there's a sense in which to know language is to know God.
Since we think (largely at least) in and with language, to think is to know God. The basic assumptions of language depend upon a Creator for their veracity and validity, and these assumptions give man knowledge of God. (e.g. that reality exists, that truth exists, that separate minds exist, that words mean something, etc.)
The natural man ought to ask himself, what would need to be true for these assumptions to be valid.
This is true even on a banal level. If you were to live in a stranger's house you would learn something about them, even if they weren't there.
All men know God, but many deny that God exists, because they don't want to admit that they know.
The Bible tells us that the universe is full of God's glory; this being the case man cannot but know God.
Man lives within the sphere of God's influence. His presence is inescapable; and since man was created with an ability to know God, he cannot escape being aware of evidence for God. ("For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him.'' - Roman 1:21) [5.]
Notes;
1. "It will not do to say that the natural man knows nothing of God...'' - Van Til's Apologetic - Greg Bahnsen p.631
2. This indirect knowledge of God (and there's far more than I mentioned) adds up since God is a unified and unconflicted being. This means that the various things we know about God don't conflict with each other.
3. Van Til claimed that man not only knew God, he knew God's character as well.
4. If atheists would turn their critical powers (which can't be explained by matter in motion in my opinion) upon the idea of materialism they might be shocked to see how inadequate it is. They rarely do this however, and enjoy shooting arrows at Christianity much more. The atheist is like the man scared to look at himself in the mirror. (He'd rather write as if that face wasn't there, and wasn't looking at him.) I see a tendency that the more doubts a person has about their own worldview, the more intent they become on looking critically at other worldviews. This animus towards other worldviews can be a defense against doubt.
5. "...because that, knowing God, they glorified him not as God, neither gave thanks; but became vain in their reasonings, and their senseless heart was darkened.'' - ASV
6. I might add that although Asimov was presumably named for him, he had a very negative view of the story of Abraham and Isaac. For him this story illustrated all that he didn't like about religion. The point that seemed to escape him was that in terms of materialism his animus against God and against religion made no sense. i.e. if all is matter in motion then moral standards are a delusion.
7. I remember as a teenager that each month I would eagerly read the new column by Asimov, that was published in 'Fantasy and Science Fiction'. (I guess you could say I learned my atheism from the best of them. It was only men years later that I abandoned materialism for creation... and only years later that I developed any interest in Christianity.)
- I don't want to give the wrong impression here; as I remember it, most of the columns concerned astronomy. (It is true however, that Asimov had a strong dislike for any kind of creationism, as he called it. He saw this as a product of the radical 'sects' of Christianity. i.e. believers in Genesis.)
Thursday, June 9, 2011
Science; a short history of worldview conquest
Despite talking of the need for separation of church and state, materialists have long had as their goal the control of all things. They've managed their conquest by using science and scientists to oust all comers. They have achieved a near total control over the seats of power; political, social, academic, educational and all else.
Quotes and comments;
1. Summarizing the atheist or materialist view, Rushdoony says;
'... because God is a myth, the evolutionary and empirical approach to man's problems must be scientific; i.e. experimental, and man is thus the prime laboratory test animal.' [1.]
- A worldview has three basic components; metaphysics, epistemology and ethics. Materialists (in the name of science) now have control over all three. By banning creation and doubts about Darwin from the classroom they've taken over metaphysics. By claiming that real knowledge only comes from science, and by getting judges to define terms, they've taken over epistemology. By enforcing the politically correct agenda they've taken over, and are taking over, ethics.
I'll remind you that when the State takes over ethics it enforces its 'ideas' with all the power at its command. (So much for the humble interests of science.) A scientific ethic is an enforced ethic.
According to materialists this worldview conquest was necessary because once men discovered that there was no God, a firm foundation for philosophy (and society) had to be found. Thankfully 'science' was ready to rush in and fill the void.
It didn't start this way of course; in its early days science was a humble affair not at all interested in global conquest. It's been quite a ride.
The first thing scientists did was to call themselves scientists. The philosophers could keep the wisdom niche, what they were interested in was knowledge; and as Bacon had said, knowledge is power.
They spurned supposed wisdom for practical power; and sought the knowledge that could be turned into power. (Power that could be used to get the elite what they wanted.)
The early scientists allayed fears by the clergy that they were going to intrude into their realm, by telling them they had no interest in questions of value; that all they were interested in was the phenomenal realm; they weren't interested in metaphysics, epistemology or ethics.... if they wanted, the clergy could have these to themselves, or share them with the philosophers.
Such were the early days of science. It didn't last long however, and science (like the British empire) began to expand its borders, taking on more and more of the world's intellectual work. In the end there was nothing they didn't claim to own; from metaphysics to ethics and all else besides.
The conquest has been illegitimate; as scientists are simply not competent to judge in these realms. Having a lab coat doesn't mean you have any special insight into philosophy. Having a brood of rats under your control doesn't mean you have special access to moral knowledge.
Of special concern is the latest foray taken by scientists, and that is its invasion of the realm of ethics. We hear more and more about science being able to determine a moral code, and even moral absolutes. (e.g. S. Harris)
The fact you can't go from what is to what ought to be, doesn't bother these people as they're not interested in truth, but in imposing their own moral code on the populace. Oh they'll pretend their ideas are objective, the discoveries of science, but they'll be nothing of the kind.
The great danger with handing ethics over to the lab coats is that when they hand in their supposed findings, they will demand the government implement them. If the politicians are hesitant to do so they will be branded as anti-science.
Watching the behavior of a rat tells you no more about human ethics than the color of its coat does.
A 'scientific' ethics is about as meaningful as scientific economics, scientific poetry, or scientific art. It's based on the reductionism that says matter is all there is.
Under the influence of materialism, science has become totalitarian, and this has led to the creation of a totalitarian state. There is nothing scientists don't want to take over, and there is nothing the state doesn't want to take over. The two go hand in hand. Each time a bureaucrat wants to defend a gov. policy they use scientists as their authorities; and scientists are more than happy to help out. "It's all based on good science,'' they chirp.
Science is now seen as control; not a search for truth but a search for power. Scientists are almost always control freaks; why else would they conduct experiments that demand complete power on the behalf of the scientist, and utter helplessness of the entities being experimented on? (Are there exceptions? Sure; but they have no power within the science community.)
Scientists have betrayed the humble beginnings of science, and its focus on the physical world, and the realm of the phenomenal. Charles Darwin was one of the major factors in leading science away from an empirical stance, and toward rampant speculation and intellectual megalomania. (Compare him to a Michael Faraday or a James Clerk-Maxwell if you want to get an idea of what happened.)
Darwin was happy to pontificate on any subject under the sun, most of it from under the safety of his sun bonnet. He replaced observation with story; he replaced measurement with speculation and spin. He turned science from empiricism to interpretation; and once that was achieved world conquest was under way.
"It's not hard to imagine...'' was the flavor of the new science, and has been ever since. (e.g. "It's quite likely there are an infinite number of universes...")
What we see in the imperialist science of today are stories taking the place of observation and measurement. There's no real evidence to back up the 'research' that supposedly led to the politically correct ethic of today; it's just a collection of stories and interpretation. (Yes folks; it's the new science of deconstruction; where anything goes, the more extreme the better.)
The idea all that exists is matter isn't an observation of science, but a claim of materialists. It's not science, it's philosophy. Here as elsewhere the materialist claims he's doing science, when his actions are just a smokescreen to hide the smuggling in of philosophical views.
The idea that the only real (true) knowledge comes from science isn't scientific but philosophical. (It also happens to be false)
The claim refutes itself. e.g. if there is no truth in language, the claim science is the only road to knowledge isn't true. As usual the materialist conflates two entirely different realms; the knowledge of the physical realm is not like knowledge in the human realm (psychological, ethical,etc.) at all, and the idea you can use the same method in both is unsupported by anything but bias.
So here we sit and stew; the materialists have won, and it will do no good to deny it. They've managed to persuade the powers that be that matter is all there is, that science is the only road to knowledge, and that only scientists can determine moral truth.
The great irony is that materialism gives no foundation for any of this. If all was merely matter in motion nothing could be known and there would be no one to know it.
The victory is nearly complete, and the scientists will soon hand the baton to the State bureaucrats. It's all a ruse, but how we'll stop the wheel from spinning, and from grinding us all under, I don't know.
Mike Johnson
Notes;
1. The Mythology of science - R.J. Rushdoony p.28
- available online at the Chalcedon website.
Many of Rushdoony's books are available for reading online. (He was/is one of my favorite writers.)
- I would like to be a postmillenialist, but I'm afraid I don't have it in me.
Quotes and comments;
1. Summarizing the atheist or materialist view, Rushdoony says;
'... because God is a myth, the evolutionary and empirical approach to man's problems must be scientific; i.e. experimental, and man is thus the prime laboratory test animal.' [1.]
- A worldview has three basic components; metaphysics, epistemology and ethics. Materialists (in the name of science) now have control over all three. By banning creation and doubts about Darwin from the classroom they've taken over metaphysics. By claiming that real knowledge only comes from science, and by getting judges to define terms, they've taken over epistemology. By enforcing the politically correct agenda they've taken over, and are taking over, ethics.
I'll remind you that when the State takes over ethics it enforces its 'ideas' with all the power at its command. (So much for the humble interests of science.) A scientific ethic is an enforced ethic.
According to materialists this worldview conquest was necessary because once men discovered that there was no God, a firm foundation for philosophy (and society) had to be found. Thankfully 'science' was ready to rush in and fill the void.
It didn't start this way of course; in its early days science was a humble affair not at all interested in global conquest. It's been quite a ride.
The first thing scientists did was to call themselves scientists. The philosophers could keep the wisdom niche, what they were interested in was knowledge; and as Bacon had said, knowledge is power.
They spurned supposed wisdom for practical power; and sought the knowledge that could be turned into power. (Power that could be used to get the elite what they wanted.)
The early scientists allayed fears by the clergy that they were going to intrude into their realm, by telling them they had no interest in questions of value; that all they were interested in was the phenomenal realm; they weren't interested in metaphysics, epistemology or ethics.... if they wanted, the clergy could have these to themselves, or share them with the philosophers.
Such were the early days of science. It didn't last long however, and science (like the British empire) began to expand its borders, taking on more and more of the world's intellectual work. In the end there was nothing they didn't claim to own; from metaphysics to ethics and all else besides.
The conquest has been illegitimate; as scientists are simply not competent to judge in these realms. Having a lab coat doesn't mean you have any special insight into philosophy. Having a brood of rats under your control doesn't mean you have special access to moral knowledge.
Of special concern is the latest foray taken by scientists, and that is its invasion of the realm of ethics. We hear more and more about science being able to determine a moral code, and even moral absolutes. (e.g. S. Harris)
The fact you can't go from what is to what ought to be, doesn't bother these people as they're not interested in truth, but in imposing their own moral code on the populace. Oh they'll pretend their ideas are objective, the discoveries of science, but they'll be nothing of the kind.
The great danger with handing ethics over to the lab coats is that when they hand in their supposed findings, they will demand the government implement them. If the politicians are hesitant to do so they will be branded as anti-science.
Watching the behavior of a rat tells you no more about human ethics than the color of its coat does.
A 'scientific' ethics is about as meaningful as scientific economics, scientific poetry, or scientific art. It's based on the reductionism that says matter is all there is.
Under the influence of materialism, science has become totalitarian, and this has led to the creation of a totalitarian state. There is nothing scientists don't want to take over, and there is nothing the state doesn't want to take over. The two go hand in hand. Each time a bureaucrat wants to defend a gov. policy they use scientists as their authorities; and scientists are more than happy to help out. "It's all based on good science,'' they chirp.
Science is now seen as control; not a search for truth but a search for power. Scientists are almost always control freaks; why else would they conduct experiments that demand complete power on the behalf of the scientist, and utter helplessness of the entities being experimented on? (Are there exceptions? Sure; but they have no power within the science community.)
Scientists have betrayed the humble beginnings of science, and its focus on the physical world, and the realm of the phenomenal. Charles Darwin was one of the major factors in leading science away from an empirical stance, and toward rampant speculation and intellectual megalomania. (Compare him to a Michael Faraday or a James Clerk-Maxwell if you want to get an idea of what happened.)
Darwin was happy to pontificate on any subject under the sun, most of it from under the safety of his sun bonnet. He replaced observation with story; he replaced measurement with speculation and spin. He turned science from empiricism to interpretation; and once that was achieved world conquest was under way.
"It's not hard to imagine...'' was the flavor of the new science, and has been ever since. (e.g. "It's quite likely there are an infinite number of universes...")
What we see in the imperialist science of today are stories taking the place of observation and measurement. There's no real evidence to back up the 'research' that supposedly led to the politically correct ethic of today; it's just a collection of stories and interpretation. (Yes folks; it's the new science of deconstruction; where anything goes, the more extreme the better.)
The idea all that exists is matter isn't an observation of science, but a claim of materialists. It's not science, it's philosophy. Here as elsewhere the materialist claims he's doing science, when his actions are just a smokescreen to hide the smuggling in of philosophical views.
The idea that the only real (true) knowledge comes from science isn't scientific but philosophical. (It also happens to be false)
The claim refutes itself. e.g. if there is no truth in language, the claim science is the only road to knowledge isn't true. As usual the materialist conflates two entirely different realms; the knowledge of the physical realm is not like knowledge in the human realm (psychological, ethical,etc.) at all, and the idea you can use the same method in both is unsupported by anything but bias.
So here we sit and stew; the materialists have won, and it will do no good to deny it. They've managed to persuade the powers that be that matter is all there is, that science is the only road to knowledge, and that only scientists can determine moral truth.
The great irony is that materialism gives no foundation for any of this. If all was merely matter in motion nothing could be known and there would be no one to know it.
The victory is nearly complete, and the scientists will soon hand the baton to the State bureaucrats. It's all a ruse, but how we'll stop the wheel from spinning, and from grinding us all under, I don't know.
Mike Johnson
Notes;
1. The Mythology of science - R.J. Rushdoony p.28
- available online at the Chalcedon website.
Many of Rushdoony's books are available for reading online. (He was/is one of my favorite writers.)
- I would like to be a postmillenialist, but I'm afraid I don't have it in me.
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
Science? or the sciences?
The first science was epistemology, and it's still the foundation of all the sciences. The fact that we have scientists (plural) means, necessarily, that we have sciences (plural). Only if there were but one scientist on earth could there be such a thing as science (singular).
Quotes and comments;
1. 'The main goal of modern science is to have the knowledge required for prediction, planning and control.' [1.]
- Is there some monolith called science? Is there only one model of science? Should we refer to science or to the sciences? These are some of the questions I want to look at in this post.
Modern science is heavily financed by the State because the political elite want to find out how to achieve total control over the populace. They want to know how best to implement their plans. They want to know how to predict how the masses will respond to any new program. They want to be able to control any negative response by the public to what the elite do. They want scientists to tell them how they can achieve a complete mastery over the rabble; how they can micro-manage every aspect of their lives.
Given all this does anyone wonder why the average person might fear science. (It's not science he should fear, but scientists; and the knowledge scientists pass on to the elite.) There's a steady drumbeat in the press about an irrational fear of science, and its noteworthy that this is the way any opposition to particular programs is described.
e.g. we read something like ''people have no reason to fear science,'' never something like ''People have no reason to fear scientists." The first is hard to refute, while the second is easy to refute; all you have to do is give some examples. Science is presented as infallible; when we know scientists are not. Science is presented as wholly good; while we know scientists are not. Science is presented as harmless, while we know scientists are not.
The talk is always of science, and rarely ever of scientists. Science can then be idealized, glamorized, celebrated, defended, etc. - while this is so much harder to do with real human beings. (e.g. the ones who devote themselves to creating weapons and surveillance techniques, etc.)
The public is told in daily editorials that 'science' can answer all questions. The fact is the average scientist can't even tell you if he loves his wife or his kids. We all know scientists can't answer all questions; anyone whose talked to a few of them knows that. Science is built up into a god-like figure who transcends mere mortals. (Clearly a god made in man's own image.)
This pomposity reminds me of Genesis, and the claim that if Eve ate of the forbidden fruit, "ye shall be as gods....'' I think that what the Serpent meant by this cryptic statement was that ''ye shall be able to answer all questions for yourself."
The myth of science is that there is only one answer to every question, and that this answer must be naturalistic, explaining things solely in terms of matter in motion. i.e. there is no other way of looking at things; if an answer does not conform to Materialist orthodoxy it is simply, undeniably false.
e.g. you aren't allowed (if you want to wear the noble name of science) to say something like, ''well, in terms of the creationist model...." or ''in terms of the theistic model'' or ''in terms of the Buddhist model,'' this kind of qualification is ruled out. One doesn't even talk in terms of the materialist model, one just assumes that the materialist model is correct. e.g. one doesn't say ''in terms of the materialist model x is correct'' but instead one says ''x is correct''.
One isn't even supposed to say something like, ''as far as we know x is correct'' or ''provisionally speaking x is correct'' or ''until proven false we believe x is correct''. This kind of context and qualification is considered giving in to the creationists. The scientist is presented as someone who possesses certain knowledge; absolute knowledge. If you come to his office he can open a drawer and take out a fact to present you with.... and only he can do this. In this glorified model of science the scientist deals in objective truth, while everyone else does not.
Part of the plan to control men is to get them to accept this idealized (idolized?) model of science, to accept the vision of science as an infallible god. This god will then be presented as the source of everything the elite want the public to believe. When editorialists scold the public, and tell them they must accept what all government approved scientists say, they're in effect saying the public must accept what the elite say. As long as the elite hold the purse strings, the scientists will do their bidding, and act as their mouthpiece.
One way for people to protect themselves from this agenda is to speak in terms of sciences, not science; to speak of scientists and not science; to speak of science as a verb and not an noun, and to speak of theories instead of facts. It may not seem much, but it's better than nothing, and might be more effective than people think.
Notes;
1. The mythology of science - R.J. Rushdoony p.6
- the book can be read online at Chalcedon.edu (The book was originally published in the 1960s as I remember, but is still valuable.
2. You notice that it makes little sense to refer to a fear of the sciences. (I don't recall ever seeing the phrase.) This tells me that sciences is preferable to science.
Quotes and comments;
1. 'The main goal of modern science is to have the knowledge required for prediction, planning and control.' [1.]
- Is there some monolith called science? Is there only one model of science? Should we refer to science or to the sciences? These are some of the questions I want to look at in this post.
Modern science is heavily financed by the State because the political elite want to find out how to achieve total control over the populace. They want to know how best to implement their plans. They want to know how to predict how the masses will respond to any new program. They want to be able to control any negative response by the public to what the elite do. They want scientists to tell them how they can achieve a complete mastery over the rabble; how they can micro-manage every aspect of their lives.
Given all this does anyone wonder why the average person might fear science. (It's not science he should fear, but scientists; and the knowledge scientists pass on to the elite.) There's a steady drumbeat in the press about an irrational fear of science, and its noteworthy that this is the way any opposition to particular programs is described.
e.g. we read something like ''people have no reason to fear science,'' never something like ''People have no reason to fear scientists." The first is hard to refute, while the second is easy to refute; all you have to do is give some examples. Science is presented as infallible; when we know scientists are not. Science is presented as wholly good; while we know scientists are not. Science is presented as harmless, while we know scientists are not.
The talk is always of science, and rarely ever of scientists. Science can then be idealized, glamorized, celebrated, defended, etc. - while this is so much harder to do with real human beings. (e.g. the ones who devote themselves to creating weapons and surveillance techniques, etc.)
The public is told in daily editorials that 'science' can answer all questions. The fact is the average scientist can't even tell you if he loves his wife or his kids. We all know scientists can't answer all questions; anyone whose talked to a few of them knows that. Science is built up into a god-like figure who transcends mere mortals. (Clearly a god made in man's own image.)
This pomposity reminds me of Genesis, and the claim that if Eve ate of the forbidden fruit, "ye shall be as gods....'' I think that what the Serpent meant by this cryptic statement was that ''ye shall be able to answer all questions for yourself."
The myth of science is that there is only one answer to every question, and that this answer must be naturalistic, explaining things solely in terms of matter in motion. i.e. there is no other way of looking at things; if an answer does not conform to Materialist orthodoxy it is simply, undeniably false.
e.g. you aren't allowed (if you want to wear the noble name of science) to say something like, ''well, in terms of the creationist model...." or ''in terms of the theistic model'' or ''in terms of the Buddhist model,'' this kind of qualification is ruled out. One doesn't even talk in terms of the materialist model, one just assumes that the materialist model is correct. e.g. one doesn't say ''in terms of the materialist model x is correct'' but instead one says ''x is correct''.
One isn't even supposed to say something like, ''as far as we know x is correct'' or ''provisionally speaking x is correct'' or ''until proven false we believe x is correct''. This kind of context and qualification is considered giving in to the creationists. The scientist is presented as someone who possesses certain knowledge; absolute knowledge. If you come to his office he can open a drawer and take out a fact to present you with.... and only he can do this. In this glorified model of science the scientist deals in objective truth, while everyone else does not.
Part of the plan to control men is to get them to accept this idealized (idolized?) model of science, to accept the vision of science as an infallible god. This god will then be presented as the source of everything the elite want the public to believe. When editorialists scold the public, and tell them they must accept what all government approved scientists say, they're in effect saying the public must accept what the elite say. As long as the elite hold the purse strings, the scientists will do their bidding, and act as their mouthpiece.
One way for people to protect themselves from this agenda is to speak in terms of sciences, not science; to speak of scientists and not science; to speak of science as a verb and not an noun, and to speak of theories instead of facts. It may not seem much, but it's better than nothing, and might be more effective than people think.
Notes;
1. The mythology of science - R.J. Rushdoony p.6
- the book can be read online at Chalcedon.edu (The book was originally published in the 1960s as I remember, but is still valuable.
2. You notice that it makes little sense to refer to a fear of the sciences. (I don't recall ever seeing the phrase.) This tells me that sciences is preferable to science.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)