Stephen Hawking is worried about meeting up with aliens. (He wouldn't be doing this to drum up business for an upcoming book or media presentation would he?) He's afraid they won't be the nice peaceful beings portrayed in the scientific romances we call SF. He claims it's completely rational to believe in aliens, and thus seems to imply that it's irrational not to believe in aliens. Let's take a look at this bit of space ship speculation.
Quotes and comments;
A. 'The BBC News reported that Hawking considers it “perfectly rational” to believe that aliens exist, but he also believes we should do everything possible to avoid making contact. He said, “We only have to look at ourselves to see how intelligent life might develop into something we wouldn’t want to meet.” [1.]
- Hawking tells us that it's perfectly rational to believe aliens exist. Is it? (As an aside, why is it people so often add the adjective perfectly to rational? Does anyone know what perfect rationality would be like? does such a concept make sense? Oh well; never mind... we shouldn't nitpick, we've got bigger fish to fry.) How is it 'perfectly' rational (I guess ordinary rationality isn't enough for Hawking) to believe in aliens? Well; a belief in aliens is neither rational or irrational. Such a belief doesn't exist in a vacuum; it's a reasoned (rational) deduction from a set of presuppositions. i.e. if (and only if) you believe living organisms on earth somehow 'emerged' from inert matter (without intelligent interference) in a purely 'natural' process, then, if similar planets exist in the cosmos, it's rational to believe the process might well have happened other times.
In other words; the conclusion isn't rational, but the process is, or might be rational. What conclusion we come to (about aliens or about anything else) will depend upon our starting assumptions. In the case of Hawking; the reasoning might go something like; since there is no creator God (no one has seen him around Oxbridge, thus disproving his existence) and since 'life' emerges naturally from inert matter (as easily as a lie from the mouth of a professor) then it's rational (ie. logical) to believe this process has happened elsewhere in the cosmos, and thus it's rational to believe aliens exist elsewhere in the universe.
I prefer to say that aliens might exist, but if they do they would be beings created by God. I maintain this is also a rational statement. The conclusion is based on some assumptions. I take as a starting point that God exists; I then take the view god created all things including all life forms we know about. I believe that it's impossible for living organisms to 'emerge' from inert matter. In addition I take the orthodox position that God governs the universe by a providential plan. Therefore my conclusion that if aliens are discovered they will have been created by God; the same God who created mankind. Though it may not seem so to some, I maintain that this conclusion is every bit as rational as the one made by Hawking.
- Is it 'rational' to compare humans and aliens? Is it 'rational' to make deductions about aliens based on human behavior? How would we know one way or the other? (I don't think it would be rational unless we just assumed that aliens and humans were more or less the same; but we have no evidence for this assumption.)
- I wonder what Carl Cosmos think of this fear mongering by Hawking? I don't think he'd be amused. (Maybe the NASA gang should have included a book on logic, along with the Beatle music and other trivium they sent up into space.) Is this fear rational or not? Well; it again depends on your starting assumptions. Conclusions aren't rational or irrational. It's the reasoning process that is either rational (logically valid) or not rational.
Summary;
In Don Quixote our hero goes mad (if madness it is) from reading too many romances... and I fear Hawking has gone mad from reading too many scientific romances. Having abandoned his creator he's left with no limits on his thinking. If anything is possible then all manner of stupid ideas must be taken seriously; as seriously as any others. The implication of this is that there are no rational or irrational ideas, there are only possibilities... which are limitless. This I think explains the wild invention of current Sf and fantasy; these authors have drunk deeply at the bowl of limitless possibility. I sometimes look through the summaries of these stories, and it's staggering. They're so strange one is disinclined to read them. Each author strives to outdo his rivals in sheer bizarreness. If anything is possible, it soon becomes clear that nothing is all that interesting. (The idea anything is possible is one of our great myths; one of our great 'fictions'.) In terms of Biblical theology, God determines what is possible; and thus there are rational limits on possibility.
- Do I think aliens exist? No I don't; but I have no way of knowing one way or the other.
Notes;
1. Cosmologist Suffers Paranoid Delusions: Media Promotes His Views; Creation/Evolution Headlines 04/26/2010
“They’re coming to get us, and I’m sure of it, because I know everything.” What would you think of someone who talked like that? What if he were one of the most famous cosmologists alive today? The man is Stephen Hawking – that wheelchair-bound math wizard who talks with a speech synthesizer and once fell into a black hole in The Simpsons.
2. Stephen Hawking warns over making contact with aliens
'Prof Hawking thinks that, rather than actively trying to communicate with extra-terrestrials, humans should do everything possible to avoid contact.' BBC
- I'm not sure about this, but is he saying we should treat them like an ex spouse?
3. 'Prof Hawking said: "To my mathematical brain, the numbers alone make thinking about aliens perfectly rational. "The real challenge is to work out what aliens might actually be like."
- This is a classic example of how Darwinian thinking works. First, you assume evolution is true, and then you say to yourself, 'since evolution is true, what else would necessarily have to be true?' In other words, you take a flying leap (even if you're in a wheelchair I guess) over the impossibly difficult part and go on with the easy bits.
- How does he know he has a 'mathematical' brain? The fact he's better than most of us at math doesn't mean the essence of S. Hawking is equal to this ability... that the essence of his person is mathematics. The essence of man isn't some intellectual ability but his spiritual nature; the fact he was created by God for a relationship to God. The essence of man is therefore the image of god; and this is as true for S. Hawking as it is for anyone else.
4. 'Professor Cox added: "Closer to home, the evidence that life could exist on Mars is growing.'
- I've said it before, but it bears repeating; there is no such thing as life. What we see around us are living creatures, we do not see life. (We need to get rid of the old Greek idea of thinking in terms of abstractions.)
5. The next episode of his Discovery Channel series, Moskowitz revealed, is titled, “The Story of Everything.”
- Story is about it. [Hawking is famous for making absurdly big claims; claims he can't back up.] If you want the truth, read Genesis. (Hopefully you'll feel inspired to read the rest of the book.)
- I've heard that Hawking is a big SF fan.
Monday, May 31, 2010
Friday, May 28, 2010
Creation, faith, and knowledge
There are a lot of oddball characters in the Origins debate. One of them is Ken Miller. Although he claims to be Catholic, he's one of the fiercest critics of any kind of creationist thinking. Is it possible to make any sense of this seeming dichotomy? I'll take a brief look at Thomas Aquinas in an effort to understand his opposition.
Quotes and comments;
A. 'The notion of Aquinas that an object of faith cannot at the same time be an object of knowledge, and that an object of knowledge cannot at the same time be an object of faith, can find a great deal of support in Augustine's earliest writings.' [1.]
- I think this is an important point; and one that is still relevant. What did Aquinas mean by this statement? He seems to have meant that if we know something we don't have to accept (by faith) what God says about it. (i.e. in scripture.) The mistake Aquinas makes is to employ abstract (and Greek) ideas of knowledge and faith. His argument or claim is a highly abstract one, and uses a perfectionist idea (ideal) of knowledge. To look at the world and deduce it must have had a creator is knowledge, but it isn't true or complete (comprehensive) knowledge. There is still a lot of room (as it were) for faith here. We cannot know the full truth about creation from a study of the world, and therefore the doctrine of creation still remains one of faith. I believe this example applies to all biblical doctrine.
What Aquinas is doing here (and what unfortunately he did most of the time) is to rely on philosophy (e.g. Aristotle) as his authority, instead of relying on scripture.
I think Aquinas is also wrong in his claim an object of faith cannot be at the same time an object of knowledge. To say because it's a Christian doctrine that God created the world that we can't know anything about it (e.g. can't find evidence for it) is simply fallacious. Again he's using perfectionist concepts; relying on abstractions and ignoring God's word. He seems to be saying that we can't possibly know if scripture is true. When he does this he's relying on Greek definitions of his terms, rather than on what scripture tells him. (His attempt to synthesize Aristotle and scripture leads him to deny both, to be untrue to both.) Contrary to his claims, there is much evidence for all of the Christian truth claims. Faith isn't blind faith, but faith that is grounded in evidence. [2.]
Aquinas is continually mired in error because he deals with abstractions instead of concrete reality and truth. (The more he works away at his system the deeper he sinks.)
Summary;
As far as I can see, Aquinas makes the mistake of conflating human and divine knowledge. He falls into error because he ignores the creator/creature distinction. He seems to assume that it's possible for man and God to know X in the same way. This isn't true of all things, but it is true of some things. This means (for Aquinas) that if man has knowledge of X he has the same knowledge of it that God does; therefore this knowledge cannot be the object of faith. The take home message seems to be that scripture (special revelation) has no value to the enterprise of science; that it's useless at best, but can be pernicious in leading people astray in their thinking.
It appears to me that Ken Miller sees things the way Aquinas did, and that he thinks the origin of life on earth (and the origin of the universe) are things man can determine on his own, without any help at from special revelation. He seems to believe it's possible for man to attain to the same knowledge of Origins as that held by God. [3.]
Notes;
1. Cornelius Van Til - A Christian Theory of Knowledge p.127
2. I'm aware Aquinas gave proofs for God, but these aren't proofs of the Triune God of the Bible. (As far as I know, he also doesn't try to give a proof for the veracity of Biblical scripture.)
3. I'm giving Miller the benefit of the doubt here. It may be that the 'god' of his theology is only an idea or limiting concept.
4. Update;
I've just reread this post and I see that it makes about as much sense as Ken Miller does.
- Well; I tried.
Quotes and comments;
A. 'The notion of Aquinas that an object of faith cannot at the same time be an object of knowledge, and that an object of knowledge cannot at the same time be an object of faith, can find a great deal of support in Augustine's earliest writings.' [1.]
- I think this is an important point; and one that is still relevant. What did Aquinas mean by this statement? He seems to have meant that if we know something we don't have to accept (by faith) what God says about it. (i.e. in scripture.) The mistake Aquinas makes is to employ abstract (and Greek) ideas of knowledge and faith. His argument or claim is a highly abstract one, and uses a perfectionist idea (ideal) of knowledge. To look at the world and deduce it must have had a creator is knowledge, but it isn't true or complete (comprehensive) knowledge. There is still a lot of room (as it were) for faith here. We cannot know the full truth about creation from a study of the world, and therefore the doctrine of creation still remains one of faith. I believe this example applies to all biblical doctrine.
What Aquinas is doing here (and what unfortunately he did most of the time) is to rely on philosophy (e.g. Aristotle) as his authority, instead of relying on scripture.
I think Aquinas is also wrong in his claim an object of faith cannot be at the same time an object of knowledge. To say because it's a Christian doctrine that God created the world that we can't know anything about it (e.g. can't find evidence for it) is simply fallacious. Again he's using perfectionist concepts; relying on abstractions and ignoring God's word. He seems to be saying that we can't possibly know if scripture is true. When he does this he's relying on Greek definitions of his terms, rather than on what scripture tells him. (His attempt to synthesize Aristotle and scripture leads him to deny both, to be untrue to both.) Contrary to his claims, there is much evidence for all of the Christian truth claims. Faith isn't blind faith, but faith that is grounded in evidence. [2.]
Aquinas is continually mired in error because he deals with abstractions instead of concrete reality and truth. (The more he works away at his system the deeper he sinks.)
Summary;
As far as I can see, Aquinas makes the mistake of conflating human and divine knowledge. He falls into error because he ignores the creator/creature distinction. He seems to assume that it's possible for man and God to know X in the same way. This isn't true of all things, but it is true of some things. This means (for Aquinas) that if man has knowledge of X he has the same knowledge of it that God does; therefore this knowledge cannot be the object of faith. The take home message seems to be that scripture (special revelation) has no value to the enterprise of science; that it's useless at best, but can be pernicious in leading people astray in their thinking.
It appears to me that Ken Miller sees things the way Aquinas did, and that he thinks the origin of life on earth (and the origin of the universe) are things man can determine on his own, without any help at from special revelation. He seems to believe it's possible for man to attain to the same knowledge of Origins as that held by God. [3.]
Notes;
1. Cornelius Van Til - A Christian Theory of Knowledge p.127
2. I'm aware Aquinas gave proofs for God, but these aren't proofs of the Triune God of the Bible. (As far as I know, he also doesn't try to give a proof for the veracity of Biblical scripture.)
3. I'm giving Miller the benefit of the doubt here. It may be that the 'god' of his theology is only an idea or limiting concept.
4. Update;
I've just reread this post and I see that it makes about as much sense as Ken Miller does.
- Well; I tried.
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Evolution and chance
People are confused by the theory of evolution. They don't realize that the theory depends entirely upon the concept of chance. When apologists say, 'evolution produced x' they're really just saying that it happened by accident, that it's the 'product' of blind chance. Molecules to man evolution (M2M) needs a source of original information, and though people try to hide it, all they've got to offer as this source is chance. The trouble is that chance (if it's even possible in a law governed universe) isn't creative or directed. It's my view that chance is an abstraction that can produce nothing original and creative. Let's take a look at a recent example of how this plays out.
Quotes and comments;
A. Insect glue;
'To Russell Stewart (U of Utah) it can only mean one thing: “They came to this underwater adhesion solution completely independently,” he said. The press release added, “showing that it repeatedly evolved because of its value in helping the creatures live and thrive, Stewart says.” [1.]
- What Stewart is really saying is that these underwater adhesives just happened by chance; not only once but many times. When you cut through the obfuscating language that's what he's saying. When he reduce this to the level of physics he's making the claim that elegant solutions to 'problems' happen 'because' (via) of the random motion of particles. The word evolve (evolution) is used to confuse people; when you look at what he's saying it simply means that all these amazing creations just happen by accident, by the chance motion of atoms swirling in the void. He talks of cause, but all he has to offer us is chance. A major refutation of this idea is that there would seem to be no possibility of chance in merely material universe. (Contra the ancient Greeks, atoms do not swerve.)
Apologists for evolution like to speak of the 'solutions' they find in nature, but they don't like to talk about where those solutions came from. i.e. they like to talk about the wonders of natural selection, and how it chooses one 'solution' over another, but they don't like to tell us how those solutions came into being. When you look at the subject closely you realize that evolution is just a fancy word that covers up a shabby and poor concept called chance.
Summary;
The irony here is that we're talking about products our best scientists, in our best labs, can't duplicate... but yet our apologists for evolution tell us that these 'solutions' just happened by the accidental (blind, undirected) motions and collisions of atoms. How is it that people can believe such a far fetched notion?
Notes;
1. Natural Wonders Can Be Useful Creation/Evolution Headlines 03/06/2010
- The above 'article' is is an interesting collection of new discoveries in biomimetics.
2. Insect glue: The Caddis fly is well known to fishermen. They are accustomed to hunting for the tube-shaped larva shelters, made of grains of sand and rock. The larva glues those grains together with silk made of a wet adhesive that is attracting the attention of inventors.
3. I can't resist commenting on an article mentioned in the same C/E post.
Sea Squirt;
'The article said, for whatever it means, “as long ago as Darwin, it has been recognized that sea squirts may be our closest invertebrate relatives; in their immature, tadpole form, they resemble proper vertebrates, and they share about 80% of their genes with us.”
- This 'relationship' number is beside the point; it's about as meaningful as saying computers and cars share about 99 percent of the same materials.
This is the the kind of nonsense you get when you look at things in reductionistic terms.
Quotes and comments;
A. Insect glue;
'To Russell Stewart (U of Utah) it can only mean one thing: “They came to this underwater adhesion solution completely independently,” he said. The press release added, “showing that it repeatedly evolved because of its value in helping the creatures live and thrive, Stewart says.” [1.]
- What Stewart is really saying is that these underwater adhesives just happened by chance; not only once but many times. When you cut through the obfuscating language that's what he's saying. When he reduce this to the level of physics he's making the claim that elegant solutions to 'problems' happen 'because' (via) of the random motion of particles. The word evolve (evolution) is used to confuse people; when you look at what he's saying it simply means that all these amazing creations just happen by accident, by the chance motion of atoms swirling in the void. He talks of cause, but all he has to offer us is chance. A major refutation of this idea is that there would seem to be no possibility of chance in merely material universe. (Contra the ancient Greeks, atoms do not swerve.)
Apologists for evolution like to speak of the 'solutions' they find in nature, but they don't like to talk about where those solutions came from. i.e. they like to talk about the wonders of natural selection, and how it chooses one 'solution' over another, but they don't like to tell us how those solutions came into being. When you look at the subject closely you realize that evolution is just a fancy word that covers up a shabby and poor concept called chance.
Summary;
The irony here is that we're talking about products our best scientists, in our best labs, can't duplicate... but yet our apologists for evolution tell us that these 'solutions' just happened by the accidental (blind, undirected) motions and collisions of atoms. How is it that people can believe such a far fetched notion?
Notes;
1. Natural Wonders Can Be Useful Creation/Evolution Headlines 03/06/2010
- The above 'article' is is an interesting collection of new discoveries in biomimetics.
2. Insect glue: The Caddis fly is well known to fishermen. They are accustomed to hunting for the tube-shaped larva shelters, made of grains of sand and rock. The larva glues those grains together with silk made of a wet adhesive that is attracting the attention of inventors.
3. I can't resist commenting on an article mentioned in the same C/E post.
Sea Squirt;
'The article said, for whatever it means, “as long ago as Darwin, it has been recognized that sea squirts may be our closest invertebrate relatives; in their immature, tadpole form, they resemble proper vertebrates, and they share about 80% of their genes with us.”
- This 'relationship' number is beside the point; it's about as meaningful as saying computers and cars share about 99 percent of the same materials.
This is the the kind of nonsense you get when you look at things in reductionistic terms.
Saturday, May 22, 2010
The Evolutionary critique of Liberal theology
A popular critique of Naturalism in our day has been the argument put forward by Alvin Plantinga, that since the naturalist believes in macro-evolution, he has no basis for believing the validity or veracity of his own thought process. [1.]
Quotes and comments;
A. 'The Romanist and Arminian think they know that reality cannot be such that human responsibility operates within the plan of God.' [2.]
- I think this observation applies to all 'liberal' theologians, and to most evangelical ones as well.
The liberal (Humanist) theologian claims that he knows what reality can and cannot be - and that he uses this knowledge to judge scripture. If it weren't so serious a matter it would be comical. We might bring up Plantinga's critique of naturalism and apply it to 'liberal' theologians, since they too claim to be a proud believers in Darwinism. If man is evolved pond scum (how this could be, no one, not even god, knows) then how is it his mind is capable of judging the truth of God's word? How does this 'mind' know the limits of the possible, and the coordinates of the real?
I see no answer to that critique. (To live with Darwin is to die with Darwin.) To affirm Evolution is to lose all basis for a critique of God's word. (Since using human standards as a method of rewriting Biblical theology is the bread and butter of Humanistic theologians, this leaves them without a reason for being.)
Liberal Christians don't seem to understand how their acceptance of M2M evolution has undercut their ability to to do theology and apologetics. The same arguments they use against the atheist and the naturalist can be used against them. If the naturalist can't trust his own thoughts, then neither can the theologian who believes in evolution. Why should the atheist (or anyone) accept what the Darwinian theologian says about God and God's word?
Summary;
It's only Biblical Christianity that gives man a basis a confidence that his mind is a competent organ; and it's only this Faith that gives him a basis for true knowledge. It was Van Til's view that man is not fit to judge the veracity of scripture; that his only hope of attaining a true picture of the universe was to accept the Bible as the word of God.
Notes;
1. 'The evolutionary argument against naturalism (EAAN) is a philosophical argument regarding a perceived tension between biological evolutionary theory and philosophical naturalism --- the belief that there are no supernatural entities or processes. EAAN argues that the combination of evolutionary theory and naturalism is self-defeating on the basis of the claim that if both evolution and naturalism are true, then—according to Plantinga's calculations—the probability of having reliable cognitive facilities is low. - Wiki
2. Common Grace - Cornelius Van Til/p.224
3. I've given Plantinga credit for this observation but it goes all the way back (at least) to Charles Darwin, who wondered why anyone should take seriously the thoughts of an (evolved) ape. (I think Plantinga borrows the idea from Van Til as well.)
- I can't find the quote I wanted from Darwin.
Quotes and comments;
A. 'The Romanist and Arminian think they know that reality cannot be such that human responsibility operates within the plan of God.' [2.]
- I think this observation applies to all 'liberal' theologians, and to most evangelical ones as well.
The liberal (Humanist) theologian claims that he knows what reality can and cannot be - and that he uses this knowledge to judge scripture. If it weren't so serious a matter it would be comical. We might bring up Plantinga's critique of naturalism and apply it to 'liberal' theologians, since they too claim to be a proud believers in Darwinism. If man is evolved pond scum (how this could be, no one, not even god, knows) then how is it his mind is capable of judging the truth of God's word? How does this 'mind' know the limits of the possible, and the coordinates of the real?
I see no answer to that critique. (To live with Darwin is to die with Darwin.) To affirm Evolution is to lose all basis for a critique of God's word. (Since using human standards as a method of rewriting Biblical theology is the bread and butter of Humanistic theologians, this leaves them without a reason for being.)
Liberal Christians don't seem to understand how their acceptance of M2M evolution has undercut their ability to to do theology and apologetics. The same arguments they use against the atheist and the naturalist can be used against them. If the naturalist can't trust his own thoughts, then neither can the theologian who believes in evolution. Why should the atheist (or anyone) accept what the Darwinian theologian says about God and God's word?
Summary;
It's only Biblical Christianity that gives man a basis a confidence that his mind is a competent organ; and it's only this Faith that gives him a basis for true knowledge. It was Van Til's view that man is not fit to judge the veracity of scripture; that his only hope of attaining a true picture of the universe was to accept the Bible as the word of God.
Notes;
1. 'The evolutionary argument against naturalism (EAAN) is a philosophical argument regarding a perceived tension between biological evolutionary theory and philosophical naturalism --- the belief that there are no supernatural entities or processes. EAAN argues that the combination of evolutionary theory and naturalism is self-defeating on the basis of the claim that if both evolution and naturalism are true, then—according to Plantinga's calculations—the probability of having reliable cognitive facilities is low. - Wiki
2. Common Grace - Cornelius Van Til/p.224
3. I've given Plantinga credit for this observation but it goes all the way back (at least) to Charles Darwin, who wondered why anyone should take seriously the thoughts of an (evolved) ape. (I think Plantinga borrows the idea from Van Til as well.)
- I can't find the quote I wanted from Darwin.
Friday, May 21, 2010
Reasoning about reason
Although people speak carelessly about 'reason' - in actuality there is no such thing. There is no abstract or generic reason. What we see in the world are people who reason; we do not see reason.
Quotes and comments;
A. In his book on Common grace, Cornelius Van Til discusses different approaches to apologetics. "It was also impossible to agree with the Old Princeton position to the effect that appeal must be made to reason without differentiating between a reason conceived of as autonomous and reason conceived of as created." [1.]
- At the heart of Van Til's theology is a creationist view of reason. In this view reason is neither normative or neutral; nor is it correct to reason from the basic assumption of human autonomy. Reason isn't an abstract or generic entity. There is no such thing as 'pure' reason. What man possesses isn't reason, but human reason (a complex of abilities created by God, for man, for specific purposes). What conclusions men come to when they reason depends almost entirely upon their starting assumptions - and their starting assumptions are never chosen without purpose and bias.
Van Til's position is that since man is a rebel against God he always chooses (as his epistemological foundation) assumptions that will lead him away from God and from any truths connected with God. (Man never reasons in a vacuum; and it's in fact impossible to reason in a vacuum.) This then explains the antithesis between the Christian and the non-Christian. (The difference is not that one reasons and the other does not, but that they reason from different starting points.)
Also mistaken is the idea that 'reason' evolved somehow, and that if we could trace it back we would find its sources in the phosphorescence of pond scum. The entire idea of reason found in the dictionaries used by students in our day (and I feel sorry for them) is a delusion and a phantasm. [3.] It's only in biblical theology that we find a true conception of reason. Man is able to reason (think logically, clearly, and rationally) because God created him with this ability. Reason is in no way an independent and autonomous entity. It is dependent for its existence to its creator, and dependent for its operation on a personal agent.
B. Speaking of a valid method of apologetics Van Til says, "This involves interpreting human reason itself in terms of God. It involves saying that unless human reason regards itself as being what Scripture says it is, created in the image of God, that then it has no internal coherence. To this it must be added that it involves the fact of sin as darkening the understanding and hardening the will."
We hear people talk about reason in reified terms; that we must decide things by reason etc. But this is a false notion. Reason only exists when particular persons reason - and thus it never operates independently of the will, desires, ideas and biases of the person involved. People must reason from a basic starting point - and this makes all the difference. (It is crucial then which 'road' we go down when we begin to reason. It won't do us any good to reason if we're going down the wrong road.)
Notes;
1. Cornelius Van Til - Common Grace p. 186
2. ibid p.190
3. Dictionaries in our day serve the purpose of defining God out of existence. In biblical terms, they are attempts to deny reality by substituting false ideas and conceptions for real and true ones. (You can see this process in operation by looking at older dictionaries and comparing them with current ones. Someone needs to write a history of the dictionary, or a philosophy of the dictionary.)
4. We end up with very different ideas of reason if we start out with matter as our basic starting point, or if we start with the Triune God of scripture. The Materialist has little basis for believing in the effectiveness or validity of an 'evolutionary' reasoning process. He has no basis for knowing what reason exists for, or for knowing where it came from. He has no basis for knowing how to employ reason, or to know what limits (if any) should be placed upon it. He has no foundation for reason other than randomness and chance.
Quotes and comments;
A. In his book on Common grace, Cornelius Van Til discusses different approaches to apologetics. "It was also impossible to agree with the Old Princeton position to the effect that appeal must be made to reason without differentiating between a reason conceived of as autonomous and reason conceived of as created." [1.]
- At the heart of Van Til's theology is a creationist view of reason. In this view reason is neither normative or neutral; nor is it correct to reason from the basic assumption of human autonomy. Reason isn't an abstract or generic entity. There is no such thing as 'pure' reason. What man possesses isn't reason, but human reason (a complex of abilities created by God, for man, for specific purposes). What conclusions men come to when they reason depends almost entirely upon their starting assumptions - and their starting assumptions are never chosen without purpose and bias.
Van Til's position is that since man is a rebel against God he always chooses (as his epistemological foundation) assumptions that will lead him away from God and from any truths connected with God. (Man never reasons in a vacuum; and it's in fact impossible to reason in a vacuum.) This then explains the antithesis between the Christian and the non-Christian. (The difference is not that one reasons and the other does not, but that they reason from different starting points.)
Also mistaken is the idea that 'reason' evolved somehow, and that if we could trace it back we would find its sources in the phosphorescence of pond scum. The entire idea of reason found in the dictionaries used by students in our day (and I feel sorry for them) is a delusion and a phantasm. [3.] It's only in biblical theology that we find a true conception of reason. Man is able to reason (think logically, clearly, and rationally) because God created him with this ability. Reason is in no way an independent and autonomous entity. It is dependent for its existence to its creator, and dependent for its operation on a personal agent.
B. Speaking of a valid method of apologetics Van Til says, "This involves interpreting human reason itself in terms of God. It involves saying that unless human reason regards itself as being what Scripture says it is, created in the image of God, that then it has no internal coherence. To this it must be added that it involves the fact of sin as darkening the understanding and hardening the will."
We hear people talk about reason in reified terms; that we must decide things by reason etc. But this is a false notion. Reason only exists when particular persons reason - and thus it never operates independently of the will, desires, ideas and biases of the person involved. People must reason from a basic starting point - and this makes all the difference. (It is crucial then which 'road' we go down when we begin to reason. It won't do us any good to reason if we're going down the wrong road.)
Notes;
1. Cornelius Van Til - Common Grace p. 186
2. ibid p.190
3. Dictionaries in our day serve the purpose of defining God out of existence. In biblical terms, they are attempts to deny reality by substituting false ideas and conceptions for real and true ones. (You can see this process in operation by looking at older dictionaries and comparing them with current ones. Someone needs to write a history of the dictionary, or a philosophy of the dictionary.)
4. We end up with very different ideas of reason if we start out with matter as our basic starting point, or if we start with the Triune God of scripture. The Materialist has little basis for believing in the effectiveness or validity of an 'evolutionary' reasoning process. He has no basis for knowing what reason exists for, or for knowing where it came from. He has no basis for knowing how to employ reason, or to know what limits (if any) should be placed upon it. He has no foundation for reason other than randomness and chance.
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Science and the need for special revelation
Perhaps the most fierce condemnation of Christianity we hear from the 'new atheists' is that it would limit the sciences in what they could study or determine, by forcing them to accept a Biblical view of creation.
Quotes and comments;
A. 'And the essence of this natural theology is that it attributes to the natural man the power of interpreting some aspect of the world without basic error.. Even though men do not recognize God as the creator and controller of the facts of this world, they are assumed to be able to give as true an interpretation of the laws of nature as it is possible fore finite man to give.' [1.]
- In the view of Cornelius Van Til, it's simply not true that man (natural man) doesn't need God's special revelation to be able to engage in valid investigation of the world, himself and the universe. (i.e. science). We can show this by pointing out that the very foundational claims of 'naturalistic' science are fallacious. The basic claim is that man, depending only on himself (we might point out that the self he depends upon is not who and what he claims it is), using only native reasoning powers, can come to an accurate view of the universe. From a Biblical viewpoint this is simply fallacious.
Let's look at a brief overview of the consensus model of reality as it's taught in our colleges worldwide. This is the idea the universe came into being from nothing and with no cause (let alone intelligent cause). A 'formless' gas somehow became formed into stars and planets. Something the textbooks refer obliquely to as 'life' somehow emerged spontaneously on earth, and this primitive protoplasm became a primitive organism which eventually climbed a ladder composed of insubstantial and theoretical rings (i.e. evolved) and became the class of mammals. Eventually (via much slipping and sliding upon said ladder) some unknown mammal became the noble creature we call man. According to Christian doctrine, this model of the universe is completely wrong; and since it is wrong it disproves the very foundations of the so called autonomous method.
This 'secular' model of reality is deemed to be so profoundly true that it can never be shaken. This isn't merely a theory, we're told, it is simple and basic fact... and only a madman would deny it. If however, it is wrong, it disproves the pretense at the heart of current secular thought that man can (on his own resources) come to an accurate understanding of reality. (This subject is complicated by the fact man never depends solely upon his own resources... i.e. upon an assumed independence and autonomy of human thought and knowledge.) The claim made by Van Til, isn't merely that the natural man doesn't give credit to God for what he does (in the area of science) but that he can't come to a true understanding of the universe without revealed truth. The whole model is wrong; radically, irremediably wrong.
Summary;
Not only is the idea that man can (via independent thinking) come to the truth wrong; the very idea that man's mind is a product of chemical transformationism is wrong. Not only is man's view of reality wrong, but his idea that reality exists or could exist apart from divine will is wrong. Not only is man wrong about what he thinks is true, his idea of truth is wrong. Not only is the autonomous man wrong in his scientific views, he's wrong about who (or what) he thinks man is. Not only is his wrong in his particular views of the universe, he's wrong about what the universe is. Not only is he wrong in his particular scientific views, he's wrong about what he thinks science is. Man is not only wrong in what he says about facts, he's wrong about what he imagines facts to be.
- Michael Johnson [frfarer -at - gmail.com]
Notes;
1. Cornelius Van Til - Common Grace/p.143
- Van Til is referring here to Roman Catholic theology specifically, but the quotes applies to most liberal and even 'evangelical' theology in our day. (As far as I know most Christian theologians would disagree with Van Til in his views expressed above.)
2. Not only is the scientist wrong when he says x or y happened by chance, but he's wrong in his idea that chance even exists. (If the God of the bible is true and only god, then chance does not exist.)
- The non-Christian complains that it is 'arbitrary' for god to 'intervene' in human experience, but the Christian view is that God never acts arbitrarily. i.e. not only is the Humanist wrong to charge God with acting arbitrarily in any particular case, but he's wrong to imagine the arbitrary realm exists.
Quotes and comments;
A. 'And the essence of this natural theology is that it attributes to the natural man the power of interpreting some aspect of the world without basic error.. Even though men do not recognize God as the creator and controller of the facts of this world, they are assumed to be able to give as true an interpretation of the laws of nature as it is possible fore finite man to give.' [1.]
- In the view of Cornelius Van Til, it's simply not true that man (natural man) doesn't need God's special revelation to be able to engage in valid investigation of the world, himself and the universe. (i.e. science). We can show this by pointing out that the very foundational claims of 'naturalistic' science are fallacious. The basic claim is that man, depending only on himself (we might point out that the self he depends upon is not who and what he claims it is), using only native reasoning powers, can come to an accurate view of the universe. From a Biblical viewpoint this is simply fallacious.
Let's look at a brief overview of the consensus model of reality as it's taught in our colleges worldwide. This is the idea the universe came into being from nothing and with no cause (let alone intelligent cause). A 'formless' gas somehow became formed into stars and planets. Something the textbooks refer obliquely to as 'life' somehow emerged spontaneously on earth, and this primitive protoplasm became a primitive organism which eventually climbed a ladder composed of insubstantial and theoretical rings (i.e. evolved) and became the class of mammals. Eventually (via much slipping and sliding upon said ladder) some unknown mammal became the noble creature we call man. According to Christian doctrine, this model of the universe is completely wrong; and since it is wrong it disproves the very foundations of the so called autonomous method.
This 'secular' model of reality is deemed to be so profoundly true that it can never be shaken. This isn't merely a theory, we're told, it is simple and basic fact... and only a madman would deny it. If however, it is wrong, it disproves the pretense at the heart of current secular thought that man can (on his own resources) come to an accurate understanding of reality. (This subject is complicated by the fact man never depends solely upon his own resources... i.e. upon an assumed independence and autonomy of human thought and knowledge.) The claim made by Van Til, isn't merely that the natural man doesn't give credit to God for what he does (in the area of science) but that he can't come to a true understanding of the universe without revealed truth. The whole model is wrong; radically, irremediably wrong.
Summary;
Not only is the idea that man can (via independent thinking) come to the truth wrong; the very idea that man's mind is a product of chemical transformationism is wrong. Not only is man's view of reality wrong, but his idea that reality exists or could exist apart from divine will is wrong. Not only is man wrong about what he thinks is true, his idea of truth is wrong. Not only is the autonomous man wrong in his scientific views, he's wrong about who (or what) he thinks man is. Not only is his wrong in his particular views of the universe, he's wrong about what the universe is. Not only is he wrong in his particular scientific views, he's wrong about what he thinks science is. Man is not only wrong in what he says about facts, he's wrong about what he imagines facts to be.
- Michael Johnson [frfarer -at - gmail.com]
Notes;
1. Cornelius Van Til - Common Grace/p.143
- Van Til is referring here to Roman Catholic theology specifically, but the quotes applies to most liberal and even 'evangelical' theology in our day. (As far as I know most Christian theologians would disagree with Van Til in his views expressed above.)
2. Not only is the scientist wrong when he says x or y happened by chance, but he's wrong in his idea that chance even exists. (If the God of the bible is true and only god, then chance does not exist.)
- The non-Christian complains that it is 'arbitrary' for god to 'intervene' in human experience, but the Christian view is that God never acts arbitrarily. i.e. not only is the Humanist wrong to charge God with acting arbitrarily in any particular case, but he's wrong to imagine the arbitrary realm exists.
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Creation and reality
Why should we think our ideas of what reality is are correct? Bavinck says it's only our faith in God that gives us confidence in this regard.
Quotes and comments;
A. 'Bavinck himself tells us that the only reason why we may hold out thought of reality about us to be correct in what it says is that back of our thought, and of the world about us is the Logos.' [1.]
- I believe that it's only because we believe we were created by God that we believe our idea about reality is accurate (or even approaches the accurate). The non-Christian has no real basis for believing the has an accurate knowledge of what reality is (or even that reality exists). Isn't it the case that reality in a universal sense) can Only exist if the God of the bible is real?
Take the example of an alien race that has a very different constitution and sense organs. It then would have a very different view of what constituted reality. The question then becomes 'what is reality?' i.e. is it the ideas of our alien friends (so different from us they don't even like Star Trek or popcorn?) or is it our ideas? Is there one 'reality' or is there two? Is there any such thing as reality at all?
- In other words, for reality to exist, the 'totalizing' (the all conditioning, as Van Til would say) God of the bible, the Triune God of scripture, necessarily has to exist. Only if a divine Person controls and determines all things is reality possible. Reality is an act of the will, a product of the divine will. It is an imposition' upon the 'matter' of the cosmos.
If there were two or more species of intelligent beings, how could there be a single reality? How could there be reality at all? Isn't this a reason to believe only one intelligent species exists in the universe?
Can't' we go even further and say that unless man and the universe were made as a unity (correlative to each other) no such thing as reality could exist? If reality is what God (in scripture) says, then don't man and the universe have to have been made correlative to the eternal counsel of God?
- Michael Johnson
Notes;
1. Common Grace - Cornelius Van Til p.45.
- reference is to Herman Bavinck
2. Reality is defined simply as what is real (not helpful) or what actually exists. If modern physicists are correct in saying that reality consists of sub-atomic particles or even 'strings' what does it mean to say reality is what actually exists? Exists for whom? Exists in what sense?
Quotes and comments;
A. 'Bavinck himself tells us that the only reason why we may hold out thought of reality about us to be correct in what it says is that back of our thought, and of the world about us is the Logos.' [1.]
- I believe that it's only because we believe we were created by God that we believe our idea about reality is accurate (or even approaches the accurate). The non-Christian has no real basis for believing the has an accurate knowledge of what reality is (or even that reality exists). Isn't it the case that reality in a universal sense) can Only exist if the God of the bible is real?
Take the example of an alien race that has a very different constitution and sense organs. It then would have a very different view of what constituted reality. The question then becomes 'what is reality?' i.e. is it the ideas of our alien friends (so different from us they don't even like Star Trek or popcorn?) or is it our ideas? Is there one 'reality' or is there two? Is there any such thing as reality at all?
- In other words, for reality to exist, the 'totalizing' (the all conditioning, as Van Til would say) God of the bible, the Triune God of scripture, necessarily has to exist. Only if a divine Person controls and determines all things is reality possible. Reality is an act of the will, a product of the divine will. It is an imposition' upon the 'matter' of the cosmos.
If there were two or more species of intelligent beings, how could there be a single reality? How could there be reality at all? Isn't this a reason to believe only one intelligent species exists in the universe?
Can't' we go even further and say that unless man and the universe were made as a unity (correlative to each other) no such thing as reality could exist? If reality is what God (in scripture) says, then don't man and the universe have to have been made correlative to the eternal counsel of God?
- Michael Johnson
Notes;
1. Common Grace - Cornelius Van Til p.45.
- reference is to Herman Bavinck
2. Reality is defined simply as what is real (not helpful) or what actually exists. If modern physicists are correct in saying that reality consists of sub-atomic particles or even 'strings' what does it mean to say reality is what actually exists? Exists for whom? Exists in what sense?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
