When you read the popular science press you continually come upon articles that purport to offer more evidence for the veracity of evolutionary theory. The question for today is whether this evidence is discovered or manufactured.
Quotes and comments;
1. "The eyes are more complex than those known from contemporaneous trilobites and are as advanced as those of many living forms. They provide further evidence that the Cambrian explosion involved rapid innovation in fine-scale anatomy as well as gross morphology, and are consistent with the concept that the development of advanced vision helped to drive this great evolutionary event.'' [1.]
- The arthropod eyes being referred to do not provide evidence for rapid evolution of vision capacity. Only if one believes cosmic evolution is a fact, can this be seen as evidence of E. Only if one already accepts e. theory can this be interpreted as evidence for E. This doesn't prove evolution; the theory proves this is evidence! i.e. if you start out with e. you have to end up with evolution, there's no other answer that can arise.
If E. is true, everything is evidence for evolution :=} It's a circular defense of evolution in terms of evolution. i.e. we know this is evidence for evolution. How do we know this? We know this because we know E. is true. If you accept that E. is absolutely, without a doubt, true, no evidence can possibly refute the theory.
2. "Their discovery reveals that some of the earliest animals possessed very powerful vision; similar eyes are found in many living insects, such as robber flies.
Sharp vision must therefore have evolved very rapidly, soon after the first predators appeared during the 'Cambrian Explosion' of life that began around 540 million years ago.'' [1.]
- Why do they say vision 'must' have evolved rapidly? They say this because they know the theory isn't a theory but a fact, and so it can't be wrong. E. could no more be wrong than that it's possible to wake up tomorrow to find gravity had disappeared.
3. "Given the tremendous adaptive advantage conferred by sharp vision for avoiding predators and locating food and shelter, there must have been tremendous evolutionary pressure to elaborate and refine visual organs.'' [1.]
- Evolutionary pressure? What's that? Is it like the pressure of a gas? The pressure of gas after a bad meal? The pressure in a propane tank? Has anyone observed evolutionary pressure? Since we know it was a tremendous pressure I assume this means they were able to measure it :=}
This isn't empirical science, it's just storytelling. There isn't any 'pressure' that produces the mutations that supposedly create all body plans.
We see in examples like this how theory manufactures evidence, and this evidence is then used to support the theory. i.e. it's not the data that produce the so called evidence, but the theory that produces the evidence. When you find a fossil (etc.) you don't observe evidence, you observe some data. No one has ever seen evidence; as evidence is manufactured by a rational process.
The whole concept of evidence is non-empirical. Evidence is a philosophical concept in origin; and is based on the assumption truth exists, and that one can find support for propositions. (esp. via observation) For evidence to exist, one must have a theory of truth to base your claims; for if there is no truth, there can be no evidence. (It was Van Til's position that there is no autonomous method for truth, and he spoke of the necessity of scripture.)
This is the dangerous position the evolutionist is in. By claiming E. is a certain fact, as certain as anything knowledge possessed by humankind, they have made it impossible to refute, and all contra evidence (such as this is in my view) is interpreted in a way friendly to the theory, or if this seems impossible, it's just ignored.
Let's say the theory is false; this means that the people who accept it unconditionally would never be able to refute the theory.... as all the data must be interpreted in such a way as to provide more evidence the theory is correct. By claiming it to be not a theory but a fact they've placed themselves in a prison of their own making. To claim a theory is a fact is imprison critical thought.
By insisting E. isn't a theory but a fact, the Darwinist protects himself from self doubt and from non-evolutionary critique. If E. is a certain fact he need not concern himself with critiques of E. theory, and can just brush them aside with a wave of his hand. By claiming he can tell us what the true nature of reality is, man has usurped the role of God, for to claim that x is a fact is to claim omniscience. (Apparently an omniscient God is impossible, but an omniscient human being isn't :=}
As I've said before, finite, fallible, and fallen man is incapable of determining facts, and if he's wise he will resist the temptation to do so. It was Van Til's opinion that the only facts (truth) man has access to come from the special revelation we call the Bible.
M. Johnson [frfarer at gmail.com]
Notes;
1. Complex Arthropod Eyes Found in Early Cambrian; Creation/Evolution Headlines June 29
2. 'A side-by-side comparison of the fossil imprint with a living insect eye shows virtually no difference in complexity.'
- As is usual, no evolutionary progress is seen in the history of an animal kind; the animal appears out of nowhere, and remains almost identical to end of its years on earth. This looks like a refutation of the theory to me, but then no one is paying me to defend Darwinism.
3. 'In their concluding paragraph, they affirmed use of the phrase “Cambrian explosion” as a real event. They could offer no explanation for the evolution of these eyes, nor did they put forward any transitional forms.
- If there really was a 'Cambrian explosion' then what gets exploded is the myth of Darwinism, for this is not what he assumed and predicted, nor what he thought he had proved with his armchair speculations. Since Darwinists know E. is true, this can't be the case however, and feel they've got nothing to worry about :=}
4. I'm referring to Cornelius Van Til
5. Why we need to prove evolution if it's already a fact is a matter for another day.
Showing posts with label Van Til and creation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Van Til and creation. Show all posts
Monday, August 8, 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.)
Sunday, May 29, 2011
The uniqueness of Christianity; as evidence for its veracity
The popular atheists of our day like to lump all religions (and revelations) together, and so confuse the issue of Christianity's uniqueness.
Quotes and comments;
1. "Nowhere else in human literature, we believe, is the concept of an absolute God presented. And this fact is once more intimately related to the fact that nowhere else is there a conception of sin, such as that presented in the bible.'' [1.]
- Despite the attempts of non-Christians to confuse the matter, the God of the bible is utterly unique; as are other doctrines that concern; creation, sin, the Fall, dominion, redemption, antithesis, evil, special revelation, natural revelation, prophecy, miracles, the incarnation, the atonement, the final judgment, etc.
Other worldviews may appear to have some of these elements, but they turn out to be partial imitations at best. In the biblical view this is evidence for the claim Christianity is both a revealed religion, and the only revealed religion. Neither its God or its main doctrines are appealing to the natural man, so it would appear to be absurd to claim they are human inventions.
Doesn't the hatred these doctrines have been subjected to negate the idea they are human inventions? Why would men invent doctrines they hate?
The answer the non-Christian (e.g. materialist) will make, is that it's very true they weren't invented by reasonable men (e.g. atheists), but were instead invented by men who delighted in their irrationality and perversity. It's my contention that no natural man (and these are the only kind there are if the materialist is correct) would invent such doctrines.
Only after men have received grace do they find any of these doctrines appealing - and even so, its mainly their perceived need that moves them to do so, not their obvious attractiveness or beauty. e.g. the convert to Christianity doesn't see Christ on the cross (atoning for the sins of the annointed) a beautiful thing, but a necessary thing.
If he's a true Christian his heart will break at the thought such a horrific thing had to happen, be reminded of his guilt and thankful for his salvation. (The atheist finds the atonement offensive because he doesn't believe it was necessary.)
2. ''According to the bible, sin has set man at enmity against God.'' [1.]
- To the best of my knowledge the bible is the only book that tells us man is an enemy of God. When people like Richard Dawkins present themselves as enemies of god (and religion), what they mean is that they are enemies of these (false) notions of God. Since they don't believe God exists, they can hardly be (in their minds) his enemies. They thus deny (or reject) the Bible's claim that they are (in reality) enemies of God.
This difference is crucial, as we can hardly expect that the natural man invented a doctrine that claimed he was an enemy (in reality) of God. (i.e. the God who exists)
The fact atheist types deny God exists rather than announcing their rebellion to the living God, is ample evidence this doctrine was not invented. The natural man after all wants to present himself as fair minded, willing to go where the evidence leads - and he can hardly do this if he admits God exists, but then rejects him in rebellion.
Notes;
1. Van Til's apologetic - Greg Bahnsen p. 517.
2. The atheist believes that he can save himself, and thus (or so he claims) finds the atonement offensive.
Quotes and comments;
1. "Nowhere else in human literature, we believe, is the concept of an absolute God presented. And this fact is once more intimately related to the fact that nowhere else is there a conception of sin, such as that presented in the bible.'' [1.]
- Despite the attempts of non-Christians to confuse the matter, the God of the bible is utterly unique; as are other doctrines that concern; creation, sin, the Fall, dominion, redemption, antithesis, evil, special revelation, natural revelation, prophecy, miracles, the incarnation, the atonement, the final judgment, etc.
Other worldviews may appear to have some of these elements, but they turn out to be partial imitations at best. In the biblical view this is evidence for the claim Christianity is both a revealed religion, and the only revealed religion. Neither its God or its main doctrines are appealing to the natural man, so it would appear to be absurd to claim they are human inventions.
Doesn't the hatred these doctrines have been subjected to negate the idea they are human inventions? Why would men invent doctrines they hate?
The answer the non-Christian (e.g. materialist) will make, is that it's very true they weren't invented by reasonable men (e.g. atheists), but were instead invented by men who delighted in their irrationality and perversity. It's my contention that no natural man (and these are the only kind there are if the materialist is correct) would invent such doctrines.
Only after men have received grace do they find any of these doctrines appealing - and even so, its mainly their perceived need that moves them to do so, not their obvious attractiveness or beauty. e.g. the convert to Christianity doesn't see Christ on the cross (atoning for the sins of the annointed) a beautiful thing, but a necessary thing.
If he's a true Christian his heart will break at the thought such a horrific thing had to happen, be reminded of his guilt and thankful for his salvation. (The atheist finds the atonement offensive because he doesn't believe it was necessary.)
2. ''According to the bible, sin has set man at enmity against God.'' [1.]
- To the best of my knowledge the bible is the only book that tells us man is an enemy of God. When people like Richard Dawkins present themselves as enemies of god (and religion), what they mean is that they are enemies of these (false) notions of God. Since they don't believe God exists, they can hardly be (in their minds) his enemies. They thus deny (or reject) the Bible's claim that they are (in reality) enemies of God.
This difference is crucial, as we can hardly expect that the natural man invented a doctrine that claimed he was an enemy (in reality) of God. (i.e. the God who exists)
The fact atheist types deny God exists rather than announcing their rebellion to the living God, is ample evidence this doctrine was not invented. The natural man after all wants to present himself as fair minded, willing to go where the evidence leads - and he can hardly do this if he admits God exists, but then rejects him in rebellion.
Notes;
1. Van Til's apologetic - Greg Bahnsen p. 517.
2. The atheist believes that he can save himself, and thus (or so he claims) finds the atonement offensive.
Thursday, May 12, 2011
Calculating God; or, who's in charge here?
A key concern for any worldview is the matter of authority; of who has the ultimate authority in the system. As RJR used to say; authority is an inescapable concept.
Quotes and comments;
1. The natural man ''thinks of himself as the ultimate judge of what can and cannot be.He will not allow any authority to stand above him, revealing to him what may or may not have happened in the past...'' [1.]
Let;s imagine that one fine day (in May) an alien spaceship (from an obviously advanced species) shows up on our doorstep. (If it can happen in the pages of SF I see no reason it can't happen in reality. Are these writers not our new prophets? Can they all be wrong?) Let's say these aliens are doing some kind of bureaucratic check up. They tell mankind the (horrible) truth; man did not evolve, they say (doing the alien equivalent of laughing) but was a creation of theirs in the distant past.
"How long ago?"
"It's not important."
Now, having placed this scenario in view, we'll ask a question. What do you think our scientific leaders would say to this? How do you think they'd respond? Do you think they'd accept this 'fact' (of small c creation) or would they reject it, and maintain a belief in (M2M) evolution? (Let's add that these aliens are far more advanced in technology, etc. than we earthlings are, that they can prove they've been touring the galaxy for millions of years.
I don't know your answer might be, but I'm sure our elite would not accept the 'truth' of creation, but would continue to believe in the 'myth' of Evolution.
"They can't prove this," someone would say. "We all know evolution is a fact, so they must be lying."
"Why would they lie?"
"How do I know?"
"We can't accept this, it would mean the end of science, it would prove that all our science is wrong, that our methods are wrong. It would mean the creationists could claim they were right, or at least on the right track, and so on."
"What will we do?''
''We'll just wait for them to leave, and then claim it never happened, they never said it, or it was a bad translation ad they never meant it, or they were just engaging in a humorous prank,'' says a cooler voice. "Don't worry. We can handle it."
"But what if it's true?"
"Doesn't matter if it is or it isn't."
Warning; speculation ahead;
Isn't it amazing how well SF writers (and I'm a failed one) can get inside the heads of aliens (even if they don't have any) and can internalize alien psychology? I find this impressive. How'z cum? as R.C. Sproul likes to quip. Is it because man has lost (forgotten) his true identity, and has become alien-ated from God? Just a thought.
Summary;
If we are looking for transcendent wisdom we can either look to aliens for it, or we can look to God. Despite the talk about aliens helping save mankind with advanced knowledge and thinking, it's clear to me that the natural (apostate) man will never accept an authority higher than his own. If I ever saw it happen, I'd fall out of my hyper-space, inter-dimensional traveling pod. (You can see why I failed.)
Mike Johnson [frfarer at gmail.com]
Notes;
1. Van Til's Apologetic - Greg Bahnsen p. 310
2. The natural man claims that he's competent to judge who should have authority over mankind; the Bible (God's word) says that he's not competent to judge.
3. I wasn't being entirely serious in my speculations.
4. My title makes an oblique reference to 'Calculating God' by Robert Sawyer. (As a Canadian I'm required by law, to read him.)
Quotes and comments;
1. The natural man ''thinks of himself as the ultimate judge of what can and cannot be.He will not allow any authority to stand above him, revealing to him what may or may not have happened in the past...'' [1.]
Let;s imagine that one fine day (in May) an alien spaceship (from an obviously advanced species) shows up on our doorstep. (If it can happen in the pages of SF I see no reason it can't happen in reality. Are these writers not our new prophets? Can they all be wrong?) Let's say these aliens are doing some kind of bureaucratic check up. They tell mankind the (horrible) truth; man did not evolve, they say (doing the alien equivalent of laughing) but was a creation of theirs in the distant past.
"How long ago?"
"It's not important."
Now, having placed this scenario in view, we'll ask a question. What do you think our scientific leaders would say to this? How do you think they'd respond? Do you think they'd accept this 'fact' (of small c creation) or would they reject it, and maintain a belief in (M2M) evolution? (Let's add that these aliens are far more advanced in technology, etc. than we earthlings are, that they can prove they've been touring the galaxy for millions of years.
I don't know your answer might be, but I'm sure our elite would not accept the 'truth' of creation, but would continue to believe in the 'myth' of Evolution.
"They can't prove this," someone would say. "We all know evolution is a fact, so they must be lying."
"Why would they lie?"
"How do I know?"
"We can't accept this, it would mean the end of science, it would prove that all our science is wrong, that our methods are wrong. It would mean the creationists could claim they were right, or at least on the right track, and so on."
"What will we do?''
''We'll just wait for them to leave, and then claim it never happened, they never said it, or it was a bad translation ad they never meant it, or they were just engaging in a humorous prank,'' says a cooler voice. "Don't worry. We can handle it."
"But what if it's true?"
"Doesn't matter if it is or it isn't."
Warning; speculation ahead;
Isn't it amazing how well SF writers (and I'm a failed one) can get inside the heads of aliens (even if they don't have any) and can internalize alien psychology? I find this impressive. How'z cum? as R.C. Sproul likes to quip. Is it because man has lost (forgotten) his true identity, and has become alien-ated from God? Just a thought.
Summary;
If we are looking for transcendent wisdom we can either look to aliens for it, or we can look to God. Despite the talk about aliens helping save mankind with advanced knowledge and thinking, it's clear to me that the natural (apostate) man will never accept an authority higher than his own. If I ever saw it happen, I'd fall out of my hyper-space, inter-dimensional traveling pod. (You can see why I failed.)
Mike Johnson [frfarer at gmail.com]
Notes;
1. Van Til's Apologetic - Greg Bahnsen p. 310
2. The natural man claims that he's competent to judge who should have authority over mankind; the Bible (God's word) says that he's not competent to judge.
3. I wasn't being entirely serious in my speculations.
4. My title makes an oblique reference to 'Calculating God' by Robert Sawyer. (As a Canadian I'm required by law, to read him.)
Monday, May 2, 2011
All men know God
People in our day claim the evidence for God's existence is either slim or none. The bible has a different take. It declares that all men know God, that the evidence for his existence is inescapable.
Quotes and comments;
1. 'God has revealed himself to all men, providing evidence that justifies belief in his existence and character...' [1.]
- Men can't escape the evidence for God. It's everywhere he looks; from the microscopic to the macroscopic; from the microsphere to the macroshere; from the cell to the seashell, from the tree to the birds, form the Manatee to the mind of man. From the size of DNA to the size of the cosmos. (Some men are staggered by the size of the universe, and hold this out as 'evidence' God doesn't exist. "Why would God have created such a vast surplus" they ask. The size of the universe is nothing compared to the staggering complexity of the cell. Men should be far more impressed by the tiny cell than they are by the vast universe.
The evidence for God's existence is available to all men; no one has gone without it (been cut off from it). The evidence has been available to all men - and it has impressed all men. No one has failed to be impressed with the world, with the universe. From the very beginning men have been astounded by the world (the logosphere) and the creatures in it. They've studied the world, wrote poems in praise of it, sung songs about it, wrote endless books about it. To say they've been impressed would be an understatement.
What men have not always done is give God the credit. Men have been liberal in their praise of the creation, but stingy in their praise of the Creator.
Notes;
1. Van Til's apologetic - Greg Bahnsen p.184
Quotes and comments;
1. 'God has revealed himself to all men, providing evidence that justifies belief in his existence and character...' [1.]
- Men can't escape the evidence for God. It's everywhere he looks; from the microscopic to the macroscopic; from the microsphere to the macroshere; from the cell to the seashell, from the tree to the birds, form the Manatee to the mind of man. From the size of DNA to the size of the cosmos. (Some men are staggered by the size of the universe, and hold this out as 'evidence' God doesn't exist. "Why would God have created such a vast surplus" they ask. The size of the universe is nothing compared to the staggering complexity of the cell. Men should be far more impressed by the tiny cell than they are by the vast universe.
The evidence for God's existence is available to all men; no one has gone without it (been cut off from it). The evidence has been available to all men - and it has impressed all men. No one has failed to be impressed with the world, with the universe. From the very beginning men have been astounded by the world (the logosphere) and the creatures in it. They've studied the world, wrote poems in praise of it, sung songs about it, wrote endless books about it. To say they've been impressed would be an understatement.
What men have not always done is give God the credit. Men have been liberal in their praise of the creation, but stingy in their praise of the Creator.
Notes;
1. Van Til's apologetic - Greg Bahnsen p.184
Sunday, April 17, 2011
Knowledge, and the contradictions of Materialism
The irony of the assault on Christianity by the new atheists is that they have no epistemological foundation for their various critiques.
Quotes and comments;
1. 'To reason at all, the unbeliever must operate on assumptions that actually contradict his espoused presupposition - assumptions that comport only with the Christian worldview.' [1.]
- The materialist must use a Christian metaphysics to be able to reason, even to be able to voice criticisms of Christianity. He must assume he's capable of knowledge, that true knowledge exists, that truth exists, that good and bad, right and wrong exist, that evil exists, etc. Thus at the heart of the 'new atheism' is hypocrisy and contradiction.
For man to possess true knowledge, true knowledge must first exist. The materialist position makes true knowledge impossible. The reductionism inherent in materialism reduces all data into matter in motion. i.e. to physics. This destroys any possibility of rationality or meaning. [2.]
For man to possess true knowledge, he must be a creature capable of acquiring knowledge. The problem of the materialist is that (in terms of his own position) he is decidedly not an entity (organism) capable of knowledge. Materialists characterize man (homo sapien, sapien) in different (various) ways. For some man is just a meat machine; for some he's a bag of chemicals, he's mere matter; he's a 'souped up' (customized) ape; he's a robot being manipulated by his selfish genes; or he's an instinct driven animal.
It's difficult to deal with such a plethora of depictions. It's hard to summarize all these views. What they have in common is a rejection of the biblical portrait of man. Leaving such difficulties aside, we see that there isn't a basis for knowledge in any of these materialist views of man. This is the hopeless position of the materialist. He has no epistemological foundation for knowledge. When he claims to possess true knowelge he's not merely staning on a cloud, the cloud is floating in the void.
Remember this the next time Richard Dawkins gets up on his hind legs and starts spouting off against the 'evils' of Christianity - and gives you the 'truth' about origins. He makes the most foolish child look wise. Everything he says is contradicted by his own basic assumptions of who he is. If he's as wise as he imagines he is, why don't the various components of his worldview comport with each other?
e.g. He says man has no free will, but yet he encourages people to give up their belief in God and creation. This makes no sense. (Aren't ones views supposed to make sense?) Isn't science supposed to be about making sense? Is he so dull of wit (like an axe left for years under a tree) he sees no problem? Is it okay in science to ignore contradictions? Is it okay not to have any epistemological foundation for what you say?
Notes;
1. Van Til's Apologetic - Greg Bahnsen/p. 12
2. 'Van Til asks what view of man, mind, truth, language and the world is necessarily presupposed by our conception of knowledge and our methods of pursuing it." [p.6]
Quotes and comments;
1. 'To reason at all, the unbeliever must operate on assumptions that actually contradict his espoused presupposition - assumptions that comport only with the Christian worldview.' [1.]
- The materialist must use a Christian metaphysics to be able to reason, even to be able to voice criticisms of Christianity. He must assume he's capable of knowledge, that true knowledge exists, that truth exists, that good and bad, right and wrong exist, that evil exists, etc. Thus at the heart of the 'new atheism' is hypocrisy and contradiction.
For man to possess true knowledge, true knowledge must first exist. The materialist position makes true knowledge impossible. The reductionism inherent in materialism reduces all data into matter in motion. i.e. to physics. This destroys any possibility of rationality or meaning. [2.]
For man to possess true knowledge, he must be a creature capable of acquiring knowledge. The problem of the materialist is that (in terms of his own position) he is decidedly not an entity (organism) capable of knowledge. Materialists characterize man (homo sapien, sapien) in different (various) ways. For some man is just a meat machine; for some he's a bag of chemicals, he's mere matter; he's a 'souped up' (customized) ape; he's a robot being manipulated by his selfish genes; or he's an instinct driven animal.
It's difficult to deal with such a plethora of depictions. It's hard to summarize all these views. What they have in common is a rejection of the biblical portrait of man. Leaving such difficulties aside, we see that there isn't a basis for knowledge in any of these materialist views of man. This is the hopeless position of the materialist. He has no epistemological foundation for knowledge. When he claims to possess true knowelge he's not merely staning on a cloud, the cloud is floating in the void.
Remember this the next time Richard Dawkins gets up on his hind legs and starts spouting off against the 'evils' of Christianity - and gives you the 'truth' about origins. He makes the most foolish child look wise. Everything he says is contradicted by his own basic assumptions of who he is. If he's as wise as he imagines he is, why don't the various components of his worldview comport with each other?
e.g. He says man has no free will, but yet he encourages people to give up their belief in God and creation. This makes no sense. (Aren't ones views supposed to make sense?) Isn't science supposed to be about making sense? Is he so dull of wit (like an axe left for years under a tree) he sees no problem? Is it okay in science to ignore contradictions? Is it okay not to have any epistemological foundation for what you say?
Notes;
1. Van Til's Apologetic - Greg Bahnsen/p. 12
2. 'Van Til asks what view of man, mind, truth, language and the world is necessarily presupposed by our conception of knowledge and our methods of pursuing it." [p.6]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
