Wanted; a simple universe

In the philosophy (or worldview) of Materialism we see a desire for simplicity. The Humanist wants a building block universe, that he can play with as a child plays with lettered blocks or Leggos.

Quotes and comments;
1.  'An ancient and persistent danger is the demand for simplicity. There  is a pronounced resentment on the part of very many men against knowledge that is beyond their capacity.  [1.]
- Materialism is the demand for simplicity. The whole point of reductionism is that it 'simplifies' things; but at what point, and where, does this process become oversimplification? or simplification into falsehood? The materialist claims that the idea of design is unnecessary; but I think we can read this to mean that it's too complicated, too complex. The materialist wants (and even insists) that everything be simple; and thus he contends that the wonders of creation are but the 'productions' of mindless, physical forces. This is the demand for simplicity with a vengeance.

The modern cosmologist doesn't imagine that anything is beyond his capacity, but yet I see his rejection of Christianity as an example of resentment. He both resents and is frustrated by the doctrine of creation by God. Since it eludes his analysis or ability to analyze, he rejects it. The univere must be simple he inists. Why? I want it to be, that's why. (It's not a good answer, but it's the only one he has.)

Why this demand for 'cosmological simplicity'? I think it stems from a desire not to have God in one's experience; a way to get Him out of the universe.

What if life isn't simple? We know that many want it to be simple, but what if it's not. The picture of the universe given to us in the bible isn't simple, it's highly complex. People are prone to object to this or that event or doctrine by saying, ''but I can't understand such a thing'' or "I don't understand how that can be right'' and other objections. They want to turn God into somebody's grand daddy and the universe into a child's toybox. They want all motion to obey simple equations and all objects to be as simple as rocks. Their rejection of anything they can't understand is a disguised version of the demand for simplicity, and thus requires the rejection of God' predestinating governance of the universe.

Let's do a small word study;
Simple;
Having or composed of only one thing, element, or part.
- you can see how simple fits with a monist/ic view of the universe.
adj. Not involved or complicated; easy: a simple task.
- i.e. so simple that purely physical forces could somehow fabricate the wonders of living organisms.
Having or manifesting little sense or intelligence.
- the desire for simplicity is a rejection of intelligence and a preference for the non-intelligent; a preference for the impersonal over the personal. Why? This makes things easier to understand and explain. (We've all heard evolutionists complain that if creation were true it would be impossible for them (i.e. autonomously) to explain a lot of things.)
Single; not complex; not infolded or entangled; uncombined; not compounded; not blended with something else; not complicated.
- the materialist denies that the world could be a 'blend' of creation and evolution. This wouldn't be simple enough for him. (One wonders at times if anything could be simple enough for him.)
Not given to artifice, stratagem, or duplicity; undesigning; sincere; true. - for the materialist design simply isn't (not remotely) simple enough. It is art and what he wants is chance. i.e. you can't 'scientifically' explain a great painting. Why? It's art; not the product of necessity. The desire for simplicity is the desire for human autonomy; the idea man doesn't need God or revelation.
- Behind every method (i.e. scientific methodology) is an idea of what the universe is like; and since materialism posits a very simple universe it employs a simple method. i.e. all things must be the result of matter in motion, of observable actions (and reactions) in the physical realm. In other words; since m. posits an impersonal universe persons must be left out of all causation. (Such a method can't give you truth, but only a conclusion made in conformity with the model.)

One can only laugh at people who criticize Christianity without ever having read a serious (orthodox) book on systematic theology, and who can't even be bothered to look up the Westminster Confession. They proudly parade their ignorance and expect to be taken seriously. They want to see it as a simple superstition and thus one not even worthy of study; but they confuse their desire for reality. If I believe one thing it's that the universe is not simple, that it is instead, highly complex, far too complex for human beings to fully comprehend. (Surely the mass confusion in most of the sciences is a good indication the reality of the universe, and of our experience within it, is not simple!)

I don't know why  anyone but a textbook writer would want the universe to be simple. (This is akin to wanting your spouse or your child to be simple.... but far worse.) To go further, and to insist the universe (etc.) is simple is sheer madness. Why should it be? to satisfy the simple minded? to satisfy the materialist? to satisfy the atheist? Scripture gives us a very different picture of things, and I have far more confidence its declaration of a highly complex, personal and transcendent universe.

 I hope we can be forgiven for feeling sadness at the fact men can never agree on ultimate issues, but to deny antithesis is to desire simplicity over truth. This is not a simple universe, and the antithesis Scripture speaks of (and which will continue to the end of history) is a part of this 'complexity' I spoke of earlier. The Humanist doesn't like the idea of the saved and unsaved, the regenerate and the unregenerate, the righteous and the unrighteous (etc.) and so rejects and denies them; this however doesn't change the reality of our situation. He too desires simplicity over truth and reality.

The desire for a simple universe involves a denial and rejection of Mystery. Humanism insists that all knowledge is theoretically available to man. (i.e. he may not know x at the present time, but in time he will, or it is possible that he may). Humanism declares that nothing is beyond man's abilities and capacities. (In its extreme forms it declares that even if God existed, man has the capacity to do all this 'God' could do, and to know all this God could know. In other words it denies any creator/creature distinction.) None of these claims can be proven, and so this remains but apostate man's great boast.
Humanism wants a simple universe where man can be a god, and where indeed he can become the God; i.e. controlling all things by the word of his power. i.e. controlling all things in terms of his will and by his power. Alas; this side of the multiverse, no such universe exists.

- Mike Johnson

Notes; 11/11/2012
1. Foundations of Social Order - R.J. Rushdoony p.78
- available for reading online at Chalcedon.edu
3. A great irony has recently developed in that this desire for a simple (materialist) universe has run in to problems with fine tuning (arguments) and as a result cosmologists have had to imagine a multiverse as an escape route (i.e. from creation and theism). It appears the 'simple universe' may not be so simple after all. When man rejects God he subjects himself to continual frustration.
4. We all know the simple idea of evolution given to us by Charles Darwin is false (don't we?) and it's now only a matter of time before its given up. (Atheists needn't worry though, as new simple stories will take its place... they always do.) As the cosmologists have sought to save their simple model of the cosmos by postulating the unobservable, so the Darwinists have sought to save the simple idea of E. by postulating unobservable events (and even ones that violate known discoveries). They postulate mythical creatures and mythical events and processes. In the process their simple theory becomes far from the simple thing it once was... as scientific (i.e. imaginary) 'gargoyles' now hang from Darwin's tree.
Materialist theories of Origins become more and more ungainly, as did Ptolemy's astronomy in its day. (How the multiverse advocates can laugh at Ptolemy's epicycles is beyond me; they were child's play compared with an infinite number of universes.
6. Humanism denies that God (if he exists) and man are really any different. It claims God and man exist on the same level, and are basically the same kind of entity. It denies the creator/creature distinction that is vital to biblical Christianity. It's only because he's a Humanist that Richard Dawkins feels free to criticize God. If one accepts Scripture and what it says about God then his criticisms are utterly absurd and meaningless. (e.g. apart from God there is no absolute standard for right and wrong as He himself is that standard.) His criticisms show us that he desires to live in a simple universe; but this u. he wants is an impossibility and a delusion. (The building blocks of his universe don't add up and are nothing but an incoherent confusion.)
7. The Humanist wants a simple God that doesn't speak and that doesn't interfere in man's affairs.
8. In its incessant desire to simplify the universe, Humanism reduces Jesus Christ to a man, one teacher among many. (We can see Humanism as itself being a reductionism; as being inherently reductionistic.)
9. In his desire for simplicity the materialist speaks (every other minute it would seem) of evolution; but we know that no such thing as generic E. exists. When asked to point to this E. he perhaps points to a change within a bacterial population. ''there'' he says, ''there is evolution.'' What he has pointed to isn't e. but some usually small change. So we ask; what is this e.? is it minute changes? is it life from non-life? is it m2m evolution? is it cosmic (stellar) evolution? what is it? All he has is a word; not an understandable or testable theory.
11. The simplest idea of all is materialism. Richard Dawkins underwrote an advertising campaign in Britain, where buses bore a banner saying ''God probably doesn't exist, so go on and enjoy your life.'' (Why the banner added the probable I don't know.) That about sums about materialism; it's really that simple.