Anyone who's familiar with the Origins debate has read and heard a lot of talk about religion vs reason. They've also come across a lot of claims about the need to disavow superstition and to rely strictly upon reason. Let's see if this makes any sense.
Quotes and comments;
A. 'Within the sphere of nature a relative autonomy was ascribed by [St.]Thomas to the human reason, which he supposed to be capable by its own unaided light of discovering the natural truths about the universe and of man’s place within it. [1]
- There's no such thing as the 'unaided' light of human reason. This notion is a Humanist pretense. If man was created by God (in God's image) it's impossible for man to do anything unaided. The pretense that man does things without aid is a pretense based on pride. Not only is man the creation of God; the whole universe is. Man cannot learn anything without the aid of his creator. At times one gets the feeling Humanists would like to pretend that man created his own mind :=) There is no such thing as the unaided light of reason. (This would be like saying; 'I created this webpage with the unaided help of Frontpage.')
The essence of Humanism is to deny God the credit for anything. This project includes giving man the credit for thinking, reason, language, logic, mathematics, science, music, art, etc. Humanists hate the idea of creation because it denies this pretense that man is the fount of all intellectual skills and accomplishments.
The long project we call science has involved many discoveries by humankind about the universe; but none of this was done unaided. Neither was any of this done without the aid of god's spoken word. It's taken as fact that the greeks knew nothing from god's revealed word, and so deserve all the credit for what they came up with. I agree with the scholars who reject such a Humanist view of things. The revealed word of god has been alive in the world since god (in whatever vehicle) spoke to Adam. The accumulated word of god, whether written down or not, was a component of every ancient culture. (It's true this word became debased in various degrees and at various times.) The influence of this revealed word has never been absent from human culture.
- I personally see much of ancient Greek thought as a response to this revealed word. The Greeks were descendents of one of Noah's sons after all. Stories like the creation and the Flood were far too powerful to have ever disappeared.
When we say 'reason' is capable of x, it's vital we know what is meant by reason. The humanist claims that man's ability to reason (often sadly reified as Reason) is a product of chemical evolution; and the biblical creationist claims it's a gift of God (designed by Intelligence for a specific purpose and role). If man's ability to reason were merely the product of matter and chance we wouldn't be here to talk about it. There is no evidence that matter can produce intelligence. This is a Humanist myth. The fact men reason (and can disagree about Origins) is evidence that the materialist pretense is fallacious.
Notes;
1. The Reformation and the Development of Modern Science - E. L. Hebden Taylor/p.6
2. 'As Professor David Knowles writes in his excellent work The Evolution of Medieval Thought:
‘As a follower of Albert who outran his master Aquinas accepted human reason as an adequate and self-sufficient instrument for attaining truth within the realm of man’s natural experience, and in so doing gave, not only to abstract thought but to all scientific knowledge, rights of citizenship in a Christian world. He accepted in its main outlines the system of Aristotle as a basis for his own interpretation of the visible
universe’ (p. 257). ''
3. The allusion to Frontpage might be a bit out of date; but when I started creating websites this was a popular way for non-coders to accomplish the task.
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Thursday, July 22, 2010
The human and non-human sciences
It's my view that the project we call science is based on a fallacious foundation. The view that all things must be explained in a reductionistic and materialist manner is a grave mistake, and one that needs to be remedied if the project is going to get back on the right track.
Quotes and comments;
A. 'But because the mechanical view has a perfect right of existence in a part of the territory which history has gradually assigned to natural science, and has indeed led in it to various valuable results, many have drawn the conclusion that natural science is the only true science, and that the mechanical solution is the only
true solution of all phenomena. [1.]
- It's my view that we need to divide the sciences up into the physical sciences, the animal sciences, and the human sciences. Each requires its own methodology and guiding principles. It is therefore a category mistake to treat human beings as if they were (merely) physical objects. I define scientism as treating human beings as if they were physical objects, or mere animals. In scientism we see the imperialistic spirit of man's intellect at work. Since man was created in God's image, he was created with a capacity and a 'will' to see things in terms of a 'total' picture. (i.e. in terms of God's providence) When men reject God they replace his Providence with a 'totalizing' worldview of their own; thus scientism. [2.]
B. 'Robert Mayer, for instance, the discoverer of the law of the conservation of energy, completely excluded from this law the entire domain of psychical life, and considered it a great error to identify things physical and psychical. [3.]
- To insist all phenomena in the universe be studied and explained in terms of a single methodology is a philosophical decision. There is nothing in the data which shows this to be correct or that necessitates such a choice.
Notes;
1. The philosophy of revelation - Herman Bavinck/p.87
2. Another way of seeing this drive is as one for unity. Because man was created in the image of God he seeks unity in his worldview. (We can see this drive as evidence such unity exists.)
3. ibid p.101
Quotes and comments;
A. 'But because the mechanical view has a perfect right of existence in a part of the territory which history has gradually assigned to natural science, and has indeed led in it to various valuable results, many have drawn the conclusion that natural science is the only true science, and that the mechanical solution is the only
true solution of all phenomena. [1.]
- It's my view that we need to divide the sciences up into the physical sciences, the animal sciences, and the human sciences. Each requires its own methodology and guiding principles. It is therefore a category mistake to treat human beings as if they were (merely) physical objects. I define scientism as treating human beings as if they were physical objects, or mere animals. In scientism we see the imperialistic spirit of man's intellect at work. Since man was created in God's image, he was created with a capacity and a 'will' to see things in terms of a 'total' picture. (i.e. in terms of God's providence) When men reject God they replace his Providence with a 'totalizing' worldview of their own; thus scientism. [2.]
B. 'Robert Mayer, for instance, the discoverer of the law of the conservation of energy, completely excluded from this law the entire domain of psychical life, and considered it a great error to identify things physical and psychical. [3.]
- To insist all phenomena in the universe be studied and explained in terms of a single methodology is a philosophical decision. There is nothing in the data which shows this to be correct or that necessitates such a choice.
Notes;
1. The philosophy of revelation - Herman Bavinck/p.87
2. Another way of seeing this drive is as one for unity. Because man was created in the image of God he seeks unity in his worldview. (We can see this drive as evidence such unity exists.)
3. ibid p.101
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Creation and the fear of reality
Conventional wisdom tells us that to be considered scientific, a theory cannot violate any of the known facts of science. It's my contention that consensus accounts of fossils commonly commit just this error. I look at one example of this below.
Quotes and comments;
A. 'The standard dinosaur fossilization story holds that the reptiles were crossing a stream and got caught in a rising river. But no rising streams today deposit fossil graveyards.' [1.]
- This rather typical account of fossilization goes against what we know; this means that it's not a scientific theory. (I've read many times that a 'theory' that goes against what we know cannot be considered a scientific theory... even if one day it turns out to be true. i.e. all theories to be considered scientific must extrapolate from known observations.) If you deny a known observation in your theory it cannot be considered scientific.
In this case the evolutionary account of dinosaur fossils seeks to evade the truth (of the Flood) by inventing a story that goes contrary to known observations. e.g. we don't see massive fossilized 'bonebeds' formed by tropical storms do we? Therefore, we have good reason to reject this as a scientific theory.
B. 'Tropical storms, however, are known to drive water ashore and devastate landscapes, washing over whatever animals lie in their paths. The tropical storm model may be an improvement over the flooded stream scenario, but it is equally true that today's hurricane storm surges don't produce fossil graveyards either! [1.]
C. 'Eberth cited hurricanes as the reason why dinosaur fossils "are often found preserved so exquisitely."2 And yet "exquisite" fossil preservation is not a byproduct of even the most powerful of today's hurricanes. A more catastrophic event is needed that could carry much more sediment to deeply bury the remains and keep them from decaying. None of today's natural processes are adequate to explain the centrosaur and other fossil graveyards.' [1.]
- What we see here are evolutionists who refuse to make the obvious conclusion. They avoid talking of massive floods because they want (at all costs) to avoid mention of Noah's flood; i.e. of a worldwide catastrophe. Darwinism was born in the gentle world of Lyellian gradualism and Uniformitarianism. It was a self-conscious repudiation of the catastrophic model of Genesis. Now that the data demand a return to the catastrophic model, Darwinists are loathe to take the plunge. They fear giving comfort to the hated fundamentalist and biblical creationist. Fearing the truth, they take refuge in stories they know very well can't be true. Reality is something (in this case) they can't face. We might say that true science is something they can't face.
We see something similar in the refusal of evolutionists to deal with the implications of genetic code. They know very well that only intelligent agents are capable of writing code, but they can't face the implications, so they invent stories to account for the code that they know aren't true.) As the Eliot said, ''man cannot bear too much reality." The atheist likes to charge the theist with this accusation, but he needs to take a look in the mirror as well. (I think all men cringe from various aspects of reality.)
Summary;
Everyone knows that the so called fossil layers don't get laid down gradually, but yet Darwinists claim that this is who they were formed. The theory contradicts everything we actually observe. We don't see animal fossils being formed gradually. In my opinion the consensus view of the fossil layers should not be considered scientific. We don't see this happening today, but we're supposed to believe it happened in the past. When we do see rock layers laid down we see it being done catastrophically.
M. Johnson
Notes;
1. Canadian 'Mega' Dinosaur Bonebed Formed by Watery Catastrophe - by Brian Thomas
2. 'It makes more sense to interpret this fossil graveyard as a result of one of the many tsunami-like waves that gradually pulsed over the continents during the course of the year-long Flood event.' [above]
Quotes and comments;
A. 'The standard dinosaur fossilization story holds that the reptiles were crossing a stream and got caught in a rising river. But no rising streams today deposit fossil graveyards.' [1.]
- This rather typical account of fossilization goes against what we know; this means that it's not a scientific theory. (I've read many times that a 'theory' that goes against what we know cannot be considered a scientific theory... even if one day it turns out to be true. i.e. all theories to be considered scientific must extrapolate from known observations.) If you deny a known observation in your theory it cannot be considered scientific.
In this case the evolutionary account of dinosaur fossils seeks to evade the truth (of the Flood) by inventing a story that goes contrary to known observations. e.g. we don't see massive fossilized 'bonebeds' formed by tropical storms do we? Therefore, we have good reason to reject this as a scientific theory.
B. 'Tropical storms, however, are known to drive water ashore and devastate landscapes, washing over whatever animals lie in their paths. The tropical storm model may be an improvement over the flooded stream scenario, but it is equally true that today's hurricane storm surges don't produce fossil graveyards either! [1.]
C. 'Eberth cited hurricanes as the reason why dinosaur fossils "are often found preserved so exquisitely."2 And yet "exquisite" fossil preservation is not a byproduct of even the most powerful of today's hurricanes. A more catastrophic event is needed that could carry much more sediment to deeply bury the remains and keep them from decaying. None of today's natural processes are adequate to explain the centrosaur and other fossil graveyards.' [1.]
- What we see here are evolutionists who refuse to make the obvious conclusion. They avoid talking of massive floods because they want (at all costs) to avoid mention of Noah's flood; i.e. of a worldwide catastrophe. Darwinism was born in the gentle world of Lyellian gradualism and Uniformitarianism. It was a self-conscious repudiation of the catastrophic model of Genesis. Now that the data demand a return to the catastrophic model, Darwinists are loathe to take the plunge. They fear giving comfort to the hated fundamentalist and biblical creationist. Fearing the truth, they take refuge in stories they know very well can't be true. Reality is something (in this case) they can't face. We might say that true science is something they can't face.
We see something similar in the refusal of evolutionists to deal with the implications of genetic code. They know very well that only intelligent agents are capable of writing code, but they can't face the implications, so they invent stories to account for the code that they know aren't true.) As the Eliot said, ''man cannot bear too much reality." The atheist likes to charge the theist with this accusation, but he needs to take a look in the mirror as well. (I think all men cringe from various aspects of reality.)
Summary;
Everyone knows that the so called fossil layers don't get laid down gradually, but yet Darwinists claim that this is who they were formed. The theory contradicts everything we actually observe. We don't see animal fossils being formed gradually. In my opinion the consensus view of the fossil layers should not be considered scientific. We don't see this happening today, but we're supposed to believe it happened in the past. When we do see rock layers laid down we see it being done catastrophically.
M. Johnson
Notes;
1. Canadian 'Mega' Dinosaur Bonebed Formed by Watery Catastrophe - by Brian Thomas
2. 'It makes more sense to interpret this fossil graveyard as a result of one of the many tsunami-like waves that gradually pulsed over the continents during the course of the year-long Flood event.' [above]
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Science and reality
At the foundation of the scientific enterprise is a belief in objective reality, but is there such a thing, and can we know what it is.
Quotes and comments;
A. 'The same is true with reference to the problem of the ultimate nature of that reality which must be accepted unless we are willing to sink into solipsism. Whether we take the theistic standpoint here, or accept some one of the different forms of monism, we do not attain to our conception of the nature of reality by the way of experience, but must permit ourselves to be led by metaphysical reasoning on the basis of observation. - Herman Bavinck [1.]
- There can never be a scientific definition of reality. Science is utterly dependent upon some idea of reality, and since reality cannot be defined by science (by naturalism) science is dependent upon a certain metaphysical notion of what reality is. (Science and metaphysics are as intimately connected as body and soul.) A belief in creation, or a belief in materialism are both acts of faith. No matter what view of reality we adopt, we have not made a discovery, but have made a faith based commitment.
When philosophers deal with reality they can do little more than ask questions. (i.e. if they reject scripture) e.g. what is reality? are there different levels? is reality different for different creatures? who gets to define reality? does reality exist? is reality objective or subjective? is reality physical or mental? is it changing or unchanging? can it be known? how can it be known? how can we be sure of our epistemology? and so forth.
In centuries past this question used to be answered simply (if superficially) by claiming reality was what human senses experience. With the invention of new instruments of inquiry and examination (eg. telescopes, microscopes, etc.) this answer is increasingly inadequate. We now know of a 'greater universe' that exists 'outside' of normal human perception. This brings up questions such as 'does reality exist on the microscopic level? the sub-atomic level? on the sub-atomic?' Does reality exist on the level of rational thought or on the level of chemical reaction? i.e. are thoughts merely chemical reactions?
Having rejected Christianity the humanist has no way of determining what reality is. He doesn't know what it is, or on what level to even seek it. His empirical science can't tell him what it is. What he's done is to abandon the question and to accept a kind of naive realism; but this is a view that has no basis in his materialist worldview.
Summary;
Biblical Christianity gives us a view of reality. This view is based on an original creation of all things by God, and by his providential governance of the universe thereafter. We can draw a banal analogy. Let's picture a train set and a track (the kind many of us had as kids) or a racing car set up. Does reality exist at the level of the cars going around the track, or does reality exist at the level of the person with the controls? The materialist claims reality consists of the track and the motion of the cars, while the creationist claims reality exists at the level of the person at the controls.
Notes;
1. The Philosophy of Revelation - Herman Bavinck/p.92
Quotes and comments;
A. 'The same is true with reference to the problem of the ultimate nature of that reality which must be accepted unless we are willing to sink into solipsism. Whether we take the theistic standpoint here, or accept some one of the different forms of monism, we do not attain to our conception of the nature of reality by the way of experience, but must permit ourselves to be led by metaphysical reasoning on the basis of observation. - Herman Bavinck [1.]
- There can never be a scientific definition of reality. Science is utterly dependent upon some idea of reality, and since reality cannot be defined by science (by naturalism) science is dependent upon a certain metaphysical notion of what reality is. (Science and metaphysics are as intimately connected as body and soul.) A belief in creation, or a belief in materialism are both acts of faith. No matter what view of reality we adopt, we have not made a discovery, but have made a faith based commitment.
When philosophers deal with reality they can do little more than ask questions. (i.e. if they reject scripture) e.g. what is reality? are there different levels? is reality different for different creatures? who gets to define reality? does reality exist? is reality objective or subjective? is reality physical or mental? is it changing or unchanging? can it be known? how can it be known? how can we be sure of our epistemology? and so forth.
In centuries past this question used to be answered simply (if superficially) by claiming reality was what human senses experience. With the invention of new instruments of inquiry and examination (eg. telescopes, microscopes, etc.) this answer is increasingly inadequate. We now know of a 'greater universe' that exists 'outside' of normal human perception. This brings up questions such as 'does reality exist on the microscopic level? the sub-atomic level? on the sub-atomic?' Does reality exist on the level of rational thought or on the level of chemical reaction? i.e. are thoughts merely chemical reactions?
Having rejected Christianity the humanist has no way of determining what reality is. He doesn't know what it is, or on what level to even seek it. His empirical science can't tell him what it is. What he's done is to abandon the question and to accept a kind of naive realism; but this is a view that has no basis in his materialist worldview.
Summary;
Biblical Christianity gives us a view of reality. This view is based on an original creation of all things by God, and by his providential governance of the universe thereafter. We can draw a banal analogy. Let's picture a train set and a track (the kind many of us had as kids) or a racing car set up. Does reality exist at the level of the cars going around the track, or does reality exist at the level of the person with the controls? The materialist claims reality consists of the track and the motion of the cars, while the creationist claims reality exists at the level of the person at the controls.
Notes;
1. The Philosophy of Revelation - Herman Bavinck/p.92
Monday, July 12, 2010
The philosophical basis of Science
Despite popular notions to the contrary, you can't do science without doing philosophy. The two are inextricably intertwined and connected.
Quotes and comments;
A. 'This is already evident from the fact that the science of nature, although it has in many respects the advantage over the mental sciences, still utilizes, and is compelled to utilize, all sorts of ideas which are not derived from experience, but are present from the very start. Ideas like " thing " and " property," " matter " and " force," " aether " and " movement," " space " and " time," " cause " and " design," are indispensable to natural science ; but they are derived from metaphysics.'' - Herman Bavinck [1.]
- Let's examine just one of these concepts; causation. People normally speak in terms similar to; 'X caused Y' and we normally accept such statements as meaningful or even conclusive. The question is why we should. We could easily ask, 'but what caused X?' or 'did x cause Y by itself or were other factors involved?' We just take it for granted that 'X caused Y' is a valid explanation, and don't see that this is a decision based upon philosophical ideas and theories. We accept as valid what is an arbitrary decision. We could demand the causal chain be extended several or many places. We could demand that the cause by presented in terms not of a single unit but in terms of systems. The point is that causation is inherently philosophical, and this makes science inherently philosophical.
We often hear in our day the claim that religion must be kept out of science. This sounds like a valid objection to some people, but they fail to realize that the claim really means we should keep metaphysics out of science, and I think I've shown that this can't be done. All scientific thinking is grounded in some kind of metaphysics, whether people realize it or not. The biblical creation that many Humanists object to is merely one kind of metaphysical view.
B. 'Haeckel once said that the eye and the ear are so marvellously constructed that they might seduce us into believing in a creation according to a definitely thought-out plan of construction. But he steels himself against the " seduction." And thus he betrays the fact that the so-called conflict between science and faith lies not in the realm of the physical, but in that of the metaphysical ; concentres not in nature, but in God. What nature is to us is determined by what we think of Godand who he is for us. [2.]
- In my opinion, when a Richard Dawkins speaks about the appearance of design he's admitting that he knows God. His rejection of god has nothing to do with the data, but solely with his aversion to God, and the 'horrors' he imagines have resulted from such a belief. When Charles Darwin spoke of the eye and the flower as making him sick to his stomach, he was admitting he knew god existed. (I take it he was sick all the time because so much of the world reminded him of god's existence.)
If men are 'seduced' into a belief in creation who is doing the seducing? If the answer is man himself, then we have the curious case of a bit of matter seducing other bits of matter to belief in divine creation. (If anyone is being seduced, I don't think it's those who believe in creation.)
The decision to accept or reject the design argument doesn't lie in the data, but in a decision based on metaphysics. The claim that the design argument is rejected on the basis of science is simply false. This claim depends upon a particular (philosophical) conception and definition of science. i.e. upon a particular methodology. This methodology is founded upon a particular metaphysical view. i.e. materialism. Materialism is not a scientific view, and in no way can it be proved.
Notes;
1. Bavinck - Philosophy of Revelation/88
2. ibid/103
Quotes and comments;
A. 'This is already evident from the fact that the science of nature, although it has in many respects the advantage over the mental sciences, still utilizes, and is compelled to utilize, all sorts of ideas which are not derived from experience, but are present from the very start. Ideas like " thing " and " property," " matter " and " force," " aether " and " movement," " space " and " time," " cause " and " design," are indispensable to natural science ; but they are derived from metaphysics.'' - Herman Bavinck [1.]
- Let's examine just one of these concepts; causation. People normally speak in terms similar to; 'X caused Y' and we normally accept such statements as meaningful or even conclusive. The question is why we should. We could easily ask, 'but what caused X?' or 'did x cause Y by itself or were other factors involved?' We just take it for granted that 'X caused Y' is a valid explanation, and don't see that this is a decision based upon philosophical ideas and theories. We accept as valid what is an arbitrary decision. We could demand the causal chain be extended several or many places. We could demand that the cause by presented in terms not of a single unit but in terms of systems. The point is that causation is inherently philosophical, and this makes science inherently philosophical.
We often hear in our day the claim that religion must be kept out of science. This sounds like a valid objection to some people, but they fail to realize that the claim really means we should keep metaphysics out of science, and I think I've shown that this can't be done. All scientific thinking is grounded in some kind of metaphysics, whether people realize it or not. The biblical creation that many Humanists object to is merely one kind of metaphysical view.
B. 'Haeckel once said that the eye and the ear are so marvellously constructed that they might seduce us into believing in a creation according to a definitely thought-out plan of construction. But he steels himself against the " seduction." And thus he betrays the fact that the so-called conflict between science and faith lies not in the realm of the physical, but in that of the metaphysical ; concentres not in nature, but in God. What nature is to us is determined by what we think of Godand who he is for us. [2.]
- In my opinion, when a Richard Dawkins speaks about the appearance of design he's admitting that he knows God. His rejection of god has nothing to do with the data, but solely with his aversion to God, and the 'horrors' he imagines have resulted from such a belief. When Charles Darwin spoke of the eye and the flower as making him sick to his stomach, he was admitting he knew god existed. (I take it he was sick all the time because so much of the world reminded him of god's existence.)
If men are 'seduced' into a belief in creation who is doing the seducing? If the answer is man himself, then we have the curious case of a bit of matter seducing other bits of matter to belief in divine creation. (If anyone is being seduced, I don't think it's those who believe in creation.)
The decision to accept or reject the design argument doesn't lie in the data, but in a decision based on metaphysics. The claim that the design argument is rejected on the basis of science is simply false. This claim depends upon a particular (philosophical) conception and definition of science. i.e. upon a particular methodology. This methodology is founded upon a particular metaphysical view. i.e. materialism. Materialism is not a scientific view, and in no way can it be proved.
Notes;
1. Bavinck - Philosophy of Revelation/88
2. ibid/103
Sunday, July 11, 2010
The importance of the doctrine of creation
I believe the doctrine of creation has a vital importance to every area of thought and life. Today I'm going to post a long quote by the Reformed theologian Herman Bavinck that shows how broad this influence is.
Quotation;
A. 'The doctrine of creation maintains the divinity, the goodness and sacredness of all created things. In this world man now receives his own independent place. He is of kin to all the world, formed out of matter, earthy of the earth ; nothing natural is strange to him. But in one respect he is different from all creatures ; he
is the son, the image, the similitude of God, his offspring. Thereby he is elevated above animal and angel, and destined and fitted for dominion over all the world.
'In this relation of man to God and to the world is the foundation laid and the origin given of all science and art. For how can it be explained that man through his senses can observe the world, and through his intelligence can know and understand it ? Whence this wonderful correspondence of knowing and being? What is the basis of the belief that the conception and the thought in the human brain are no imagination and no hallucination, but correspond with the reality ? What is the ground for the harmony between subject and object, the ego and the non-ego ?
'What is the root from which springs the unity of the laws of existence, the ideas of our thinking, the norms of
our actions ? In what do physis, gnosis, and ethos find their common systema? What is the foundation of the
symbolism of nature, not in the sense of an unfounded nature-theosophy, but in the sense in which Christ saw in the world a parable of the kingdom of heaven ; in the sense in which Goethe said that " all transitory things
are but a parable " ; in the sense in which Drummond in " the natural law " detected an analogy of the law of the spirit?
'On what, in a word, are founded comparison, metaphor, poetry, art, and all science and all culture ? On what else do they rest but on the confession that one word, one spirit, one divine intelligence lies at the foundation of all things and maintains their unity and mutual relations ?
Notes;
1. The philosophy of Revelation - Herman Bavinck/p. 107
- I found the book available free online. As I remember it, I found it at Archive.org
- Although the lectures that compose the book were given in 1908, I find them as interesting as anything written in our day. Reading them gives you a good feel for how the debate was being handled a century ago. (Bavinck was a contemporary of Ernst Haeckel for example.)
Quotation;
A. 'The doctrine of creation maintains the divinity, the goodness and sacredness of all created things. In this world man now receives his own independent place. He is of kin to all the world, formed out of matter, earthy of the earth ; nothing natural is strange to him. But in one respect he is different from all creatures ; he
is the son, the image, the similitude of God, his offspring. Thereby he is elevated above animal and angel, and destined and fitted for dominion over all the world.
'In this relation of man to God and to the world is the foundation laid and the origin given of all science and art. For how can it be explained that man through his senses can observe the world, and through his intelligence can know and understand it ? Whence this wonderful correspondence of knowing and being? What is the basis of the belief that the conception and the thought in the human brain are no imagination and no hallucination, but correspond with the reality ? What is the ground for the harmony between subject and object, the ego and the non-ego ?
'What is the root from which springs the unity of the laws of existence, the ideas of our thinking, the norms of
our actions ? In what do physis, gnosis, and ethos find their common systema? What is the foundation of the
symbolism of nature, not in the sense of an unfounded nature-theosophy, but in the sense in which Christ saw in the world a parable of the kingdom of heaven ; in the sense in which Goethe said that " all transitory things
are but a parable " ; in the sense in which Drummond in " the natural law " detected an analogy of the law of the spirit?
'On what, in a word, are founded comparison, metaphor, poetry, art, and all science and all culture ? On what else do they rest but on the confession that one word, one spirit, one divine intelligence lies at the foundation of all things and maintains their unity and mutual relations ?
Notes;
1. The philosophy of Revelation - Herman Bavinck/p. 107
- I found the book available free online. As I remember it, I found it at Archive.org
- Although the lectures that compose the book were given in 1908, I find them as interesting as anything written in our day. Reading them gives you a good feel for how the debate was being handled a century ago. (Bavinck was a contemporary of Ernst Haeckel for example.)
Saturday, July 10, 2010
Revelation as the basis for knowledge
Reformed theology claims that revelation (both special and general) is the basis for knowledge; not only the knowledge of God, but of human freedom, and much else.
Quotes and comments;
A. 'This testimony of self-consciousness, combining dependence and freedom in one, is further the basis of religion, and likewise of morality.' Herman Bavinck [1.]
- I take him to mean that while 'science' claims man is not free; both special revelation and general revelation tell us that he is. i.e. the bible says man is free, and we experience a consciousness of freedom. If then we are to maintain that man is free, we will have to rely on revelation as our only foundation for this belief.
B. 'In view of the universality and the spontaneity of religion many have assumed an innate idea of God. But this representation is scarcely well conceived, and the name is somewhat unfortunately chosen. Of course, in the strict sense of the term innate ideas do not exist. They savor rather of rationalism and of a mysticism which separates man from the world, than of a Christian theism which finds God's eternal power and divinity revealed in the works of his hands.
It is the mind of man, with all of its peculiar nature and organization, its intellect and reason, heart and conscience, desire and will, and with the ineradicable consciousness of its dependence and freedom, that is innate, brought into the world in principle and germ at birth, not acquired later phylogenetically or ontogenetically. [1.]
- In more simple terms; man both knows that God exists, and knows himself to be a free and responsible agent because of his inherited nature, of his inherent intellectual capacities. Man is who he is because Adam was created in the image of God, and because we are all his descendents made in his image.
C. 'Thus, when man grows up and develops in accordance with the nature implanted in him, not in detachment from the world and the social organism, but in the environment in which a place was assigned to him at birth, he attains as freely and as inevitably to the knowledge and service of a personal God as he believes in his own existence and that of the world.
He does not invent the idea of God nor produce it ; it is given to him and he receives it. Atheism is not proper to man by nature, but develops at a later stage of life, on the ground of philosophic reflection ; like scepticism, it is an intellectual and ethical abnormality, which only confirms the rule. [2.]
- Materialism isn't a necessary deduction from the data (as atheists claim) but is instead a way to escape revelation. (As the apostle Paul says in Romans; men know God, but don't like to retain this knowledge nor give thanks, but suppress the truth...) We read continually in the scientific press that scientists claim man isn't free, but is as bound as any other bit of matter; but yet scientists themselves admit to the experience of human freedom (e.g. S. Pinker). In terms of Bavinck; they know by revelation they are free, but they deny this in their science. They honor the conclusions of their scientific methodology above the revelation of both experience and scripture.
It's harder to get the materialist to admit he knows God, that he has had experience of god, but we might ask him where freedom can come from other than the Transcendent. When he admits he can find no answer for the origin of living organisms on the earth isn't he admitting a need for the Transcendent? When he admits he can't find a source for absolute truth isn't he admitting a need for the Transcendent? When he admits he doesn't know what reality is, or whether it exists, isn't he admitting a need for the Transcendent?
D. 'By nature, in virtue of his nature, every man believes in God. And this is due in the last analysis to the fact that God, the creator of all nature, has not left himself without witness, but through all nature, both that of man himself and that of the outside world, speaks to him. In self-consciousness God makes known to us man, the world, and himself. [2]
Notes;
1. Philosophy of Revelation - Herman Bavinck/78.
- Although these lectures were given in 1908 they still remain relevant.
2. p. 79
Quotes and comments;
A. 'This testimony of self-consciousness, combining dependence and freedom in one, is further the basis of religion, and likewise of morality.' Herman Bavinck [1.]
- I take him to mean that while 'science' claims man is not free; both special revelation and general revelation tell us that he is. i.e. the bible says man is free, and we experience a consciousness of freedom. If then we are to maintain that man is free, we will have to rely on revelation as our only foundation for this belief.
B. 'In view of the universality and the spontaneity of religion many have assumed an innate idea of God. But this representation is scarcely well conceived, and the name is somewhat unfortunately chosen. Of course, in the strict sense of the term innate ideas do not exist. They savor rather of rationalism and of a mysticism which separates man from the world, than of a Christian theism which finds God's eternal power and divinity revealed in the works of his hands.
It is the mind of man, with all of its peculiar nature and organization, its intellect and reason, heart and conscience, desire and will, and with the ineradicable consciousness of its dependence and freedom, that is innate, brought into the world in principle and germ at birth, not acquired later phylogenetically or ontogenetically. [1.]
- In more simple terms; man both knows that God exists, and knows himself to be a free and responsible agent because of his inherited nature, of his inherent intellectual capacities. Man is who he is because Adam was created in the image of God, and because we are all his descendents made in his image.
C. 'Thus, when man grows up and develops in accordance with the nature implanted in him, not in detachment from the world and the social organism, but in the environment in which a place was assigned to him at birth, he attains as freely and as inevitably to the knowledge and service of a personal God as he believes in his own existence and that of the world.
He does not invent the idea of God nor produce it ; it is given to him and he receives it. Atheism is not proper to man by nature, but develops at a later stage of life, on the ground of philosophic reflection ; like scepticism, it is an intellectual and ethical abnormality, which only confirms the rule. [2.]
- Materialism isn't a necessary deduction from the data (as atheists claim) but is instead a way to escape revelation. (As the apostle Paul says in Romans; men know God, but don't like to retain this knowledge nor give thanks, but suppress the truth...) We read continually in the scientific press that scientists claim man isn't free, but is as bound as any other bit of matter; but yet scientists themselves admit to the experience of human freedom (e.g. S. Pinker). In terms of Bavinck; they know by revelation they are free, but they deny this in their science. They honor the conclusions of their scientific methodology above the revelation of both experience and scripture.
It's harder to get the materialist to admit he knows God, that he has had experience of god, but we might ask him where freedom can come from other than the Transcendent. When he admits he can find no answer for the origin of living organisms on the earth isn't he admitting a need for the Transcendent? When he admits he can't find a source for absolute truth isn't he admitting a need for the Transcendent? When he admits he doesn't know what reality is, or whether it exists, isn't he admitting a need for the Transcendent?
D. 'By nature, in virtue of his nature, every man believes in God. And this is due in the last analysis to the fact that God, the creator of all nature, has not left himself without witness, but through all nature, both that of man himself and that of the outside world, speaks to him. In self-consciousness God makes known to us man, the world, and himself. [2]
Notes;
1. Philosophy of Revelation - Herman Bavinck/78.
- Although these lectures were given in 1908 they still remain relevant.
2. p. 79
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
