Why Just Saying "NO" is So Intellectually Foolish, part 3

 Scientific Methodology[1] and its Bearing on a Dismissive[2] Attitude Against Christianity

To make matters worse for the critic, identifying the phenomena that Christians must reconcile with our faith, at the same time highlights a body of facts that the critic must also explain on the basis of an atheistic world view too: whether that be strong atheism or weak atheism.  For starters, atheists for example are obligated to explain the following:

·        The universe came into existence out of zero-volume singularity (absolutely nothing).[1]

·        Our universe is habitable by humans only because at its inception aspects within the atom, the electro-magnetic force, and the force of gravity were precisely set.[2]

·         Virtually every life-form, including the most primitive, contains DNA whose information-laden genetic code specifies the formation and construction of every single body part.[3]

·        No other hypothesis than that Jesus rose from the dead, fully reconciles with the entire body of twelve historical facts that even skeptical historians acknowledge are trustworthy.[4]

Critics evade their responsibility to account for the above realities for the reason that they have no case.

I received my M.A. with Honors in "Science and Religion" through BIOLA University in 2017. 

---

[1] W.L. Craig. Reasonable Faith. Third edition (Crossway, 2008), pp. 125-140,  ** my paper, “God’s Prints are Everywhere,” at my website.

[2] Hugh Ross. The Creator and the Cosmos. Fourth edition. (RTB, 2018), chs. 4-6.  Dr. Ross founded Reasons to Believe at www.reasons.org

[3] Stephen Meyer. The Signature in the Cell DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design. (Harper One, 2009).

[4] See my two papers, “Twelve Historical Facts Surrounding Jesus’ Resurrection” ** “Hoax? Myth? Or Literally True?” at my website.  

Why Just Saying "No" is So Intellectually Foolish, part 2

Scientific Methodology[1] and its Bearing on a Dismissive[2] Attitude Against Christianity

A truly scientific conclusion can never be proved.  On the one hand, strictly-mathematical formulas and calculations and also logical deductions can each be proven for the reason that they are not science.  But phenomenal[1] things, which are the object of scientific study, cannot finally be proven.  This does not mean that science cannot ever approach the truth.  But scientific truth is often reached only by hard-fought steps.  Consider, for example, the search to achieve science’s present understanding of DNA, to name just one single example among many.[2]  So I repeat the point of my previous paragraph, that instead of settling for rejecting the points of view of others, scientists seek to reach a conclusion which makes the most sense of the known facts known.  This methodology is called abduction, also known as the theory of multiple-competing hypotheses.  This means that instead of seeking proof, scientists independently frame the same knowable yet incomplete data in an endeavor to provide a superior view which harmonizes the same, most comprehensibly, similar to the group effort of putting a complex puzzle together.  Again, the goal is to construct a coherent picture that includes every puzzle piece.  Interestingly, Dr. Stephen Meyer[3] argues that it was this very method that Charles Darwin employed in his investigational work leading to his book, On the Origin of Species.[4]  So, if you want to be on the side of science, deeming atheism to be a default position is wrong-headed for the reason that it commits, scientifically speaking, a categorical error.  Furthermore, it contradicts the scientific spirit.

The bottom line is, every time Christian claims are dismissed on the allegation that they conflict with scientific knowledge, the critic has invariably established a standard which s/he judges must be met in order for Christianity to qualify as truth.  Further, the critics also imply that Christians are obligated to provide reasons for their beliefs in the first place.  Yet the hard fact is that these realities consequently also obligate the critic as well, in light of the previous paragraph, to in turn account for their own belief system, which they imply is superior to that of the Christian.  Russell’s decrial of the insufficiency of the evidence (above) is manifestly unimpressive because of his neglect to account for either our existence or the biblical claims about Jesus of Nazareth.  For example, his book, Why I am Not a Christian,[5] is a com-plete disappointment due to its failure to address either the contemporaneous cosmological discoveries (e.g. the Big Bang, which persuaded Einstein to acknowledge a Creator of the universe[6]) as of the time of its first publication in 1967, or the historical evidence concerning Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection.[7]  To be continued...

---

[1] The term means an observable “fact, occurrence, or circumstance.” Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary.(Barnes &Noble, 1989).

[2] James Watson and Francis Crick received significant criticism both by the scientific community as a whole, and by their scientific competitors prior to arriving at their ultimate discovery. Bill Bryson. A Short History of Nearly Everything. (Broadway, 2003), Ch. 26.

[3] S. Meyer. Signature in the Cell. (Harper One, 2009), p. 153.  ** J. Ladyman. Understanding Philosophy of Science. (Routledge, 2002), p. 209f.

[4] Harvard University Press, 2003, facsimile of his 1859 edition.

[5]  academia.edu/11791682/Bertrand_Russell_Why_I_Am_Not_a_Christian_and_Other_Essays_on_Religion_and_Related_Subjects

[6] Walter Isaacson. Einstein: His Life and Universe. (Simon & Schuster, 2008), p. 355, 389.  ** Antony Flew, Op.cit. (3).

[7] Gary Habermas and Antony Flew. Did Jesus Rise from the Dead: The Great Debate. (Harper and Row, 1987).  Much of this material was also knowable during Russell’s time too. See Dr. Simon Greenleaf. The Testimony of the Evangelists (1846). (Kregel Classics, 1995).

---

[1] The common term is scientific method. Yet I prefer to add the suffix, ology, because every branch of thinking, including theology, demands the same level of care even as each one both employs its own unique data and requires its own specific tools.

[2] By my employment of the word “dismissive” I am not suggesting every ism deserves an equal level of consideration, but instead that the very objections posed against Christianity apply equally to the worldview of the skeptic. 

Why Just Saving "No" is So Intellectually Foolish, part 1

 Scientific Methodology[1] and its Bearing on a Dismissive[2] Attitude Against Christianity 

                  The late former[1] atheist Antony Flew had at one time sought by his essay, “The Presumption of Atheism,”[2] to put the burden of proof on theists[3] to demonstrate God’s existence decisively.  Although his preference of beginning point was more procedural than prejudicial, he nevertheless failed to high-light that very investigational strategy which this paper will advocate.  Yet prior to Flew, the late atheist Bertrand Russell even more glaringly changed the world intellectually…for the worse!  It is said that a lady once confronted him with the question, “If God were to ask you, ‘Why did you not believe in me?’ What would you say?”  He replied, “Not enough evidence God, not enough evidence.”[4]  By this response, his impact” on the “thinking” of his disciples actually stifles vibrant inquiry as opposed to encourages it. 

               It is extremely common for skeptics of every stripe to dismiss, out-of-hand, consideration of historical and scientific claims that Christians offer which favor both the existence of the God of the Bible[5] and the doctrine that Jesus Christ is God’s Son (John 1:1-3.14).  Although the reasons for skeptical denial may be manifold,[6] in every case this ploy actually violates scientific methodology as understood in its broadest sense.  The concept, “rationality” (or logic), while vital to scientific investigation, is distinct from science.  The concept, “empirical,” while also vital to scientific knowledge, is likewise distinct from it.  The goal of scientific methodology is to study any physical phenomenon (cloud formation, human anatomy, geological processes, the nature of stars, etc.) in order to fully understand it in all of its aspects.  My point is that scientific methodology is NEVER CONTENT to disprove theories others hold.  It instead seeks to attain positive truthful apprehension of whatever matter is under consideration. 

 

---

[1] Although Flew had previously been regarded as the leading intellectual proponent of atheism, in 2004 he renounced that position on the grounds of scientific discoveries of both the Big Bang beginning of the universe out of nothing, and advancing insights from Intelligent Design.  For a documentation of that turn of events, see Antony Flew with Roy Abraham Varghese. There is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed his Mind. (Harper One, 2007).  ** Although this book is heavily criticized by the atheistic community, charges against it have been roundly answered. See the section, “Book with Varghese and Authorship Controversy” at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Flew

[2] Antony Flew. The Presumption of Atheism & Other Essays. (Barnes and Noble, 1976).  ** Also an internet text: http://homes.chass.utoronto.ca/~ekremer/resources/Flew%20The%20Presumption%20of%20Atheism.pdf

[3] “Theism” is the belief that God is “transcendent and immanent, omniscient, sovereign, and good.” Robert McTeigue S.J. Real Philosophy for Real People. (Ignatius, 2020), p. 81. 

[4] Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. “Religious Epistemology: 2. The Evidentialist Objection to Belief in God.” https://iep.utm.edu/relig-ep/#:~:text=Bertrand%20Russell%20was%20once%20asked,objection%20to%20belief%20in%20God.

[5] Such claims include firstly that God is the creator of the heavens and the earth, secondly, that He consequently transcends (stands outside of) the reality of nature (the created order) (Genesis 1:1), third, that God is a personal being who is both loving and holy, to name just a few.

[6] These factors include firstly a world-view known as philosophical materialism which almost entirely pervades academia.  This position trickles down to the average citizen. It suggests for example that belief in a personal God amounts to superstition. Secondly public institutions of education either discourage or downright forbid intellectual dialogue over the question of God’s existence.  Thirdly, the chronic presumption that since the biblical God is holy, that view instills fear that His goals are pleasure-stifling. This list is only partial.  

[7] The term means an observable “fact, occurrence, or circumstance.” Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary.(Barnes &Noble, 1989).

[8] James Watson and Francis Crick received significant criticism both by the scientific community as a whole, and by their scientific competitors prior to arriving at their ultimate discovery. Bill Bryson. A Short History of Nearly Everything. (Broadway, 2003), Ch. 26.  

Do Not Cave Into Secularism’s Pseudoscientific Demands! part 2

“How long will you go limping between two different opinions? If the LORD is God, follow him; but if Baal, follow him.” (1 Kings 18:21)

              Although I am a committed Christian, please notice that I am not imposing Christian values onto Leftists; but employing the very standards that they both champion themselves, and demand of their opponents.  Even though one of Joe Biden’s best-known slogans is, “Follow the science, man!”  his administration contradicts that aim by not merely ignoring the intellectually-required investigation, but also censoring all qualified opponents.[1]  Further, they even demand assent from the average citizen that every Leftist lie is true (Isaiah ch. 5), often under threat of severe penalty.  For example in public schools, teachers, staff, and students are all obligated to address transgender claimants according to the gender reference of the latter’s choice.  One official document indeed states that “Schools can’t force a transgender student to use facilities that don’t match their gender identity,”[2]  Yet by so saying, they are forcing every other student to face that very experiences that they decry for themselves.  Further, they employ brainwashing by forcing students to affirm as true what they know to be false.  How ironic it is then that secularists are offended by voluntary religious teaching even if it cannot be proven to be false while they insist on forcing secularist teaching which can be proven to violate scientific facts.     

 

The denial of truth is not a “victimless crime.”  Both Christianity and every other belief system have the very same stake with respect to whether or not truth is honored.  In every case, in the absence of truth, it is impossible to persuade others of their credibility of any position.  Indeed there is no other measuring stick of any kind that can effectively discern what is valid in any possible context.  The whole-sale suppression or distortion of truth can only then benefit the tyrants who impose their agendas; but never the “masses” who are instead forced to endure the messes brought about by the former.

 

What then about the Judeo-Christian belief system?  It is on the one hand popularly held that religious faith is the antithesis (opposite) of credible scientific discoveries that can be measured.  Yet that prejudicial view is easily rebutted.[3]  The reality that the Bible embraces the concept of truth according to the classical definition can be established by five prongs.  Firstly, Scripture employs the terms “truth,” “deceit,” “truly,” “truly, truly,” “false” and its cognates, “testimony,” and “witness” just short of a thousand times (984X), fairly evenly across both Testaments.[4]  Apart from miracle claims and disputes over literal/figurative interpretations, no defiance of logic is to be found.  Secondly, the char-acter of God is univocally described as both the very embodiment of rational truth, and the instiller of rationality[5] and consequently, truth.[6]  Thirdly, Romans 1:18-21 declares it wickedness to suppress the witness of nature (in this case, specifically as it indicates the existence of a Creator—Psalm 19:1).  Indeed, the Bible, as a matter of principle, takes our obedience to factual truth and rational thinking very seriously.  Fourthly, Jesus equally calls us to draw conclusions from the facts of both history and nature (Matthew 11:2-6, John 3:12; 14:11; and 18:37).  Fifthly, the Bible in actual practice appeals to the fact of coherence between biblical pronouncements and the phenomena that they describe.[7]

 

 The Bible discourages irrational mysticism by warning that it is unbelief that leads to chaos (Rom. 1:18f).

---

[1] See my blog posting, “Mark Zuckerberg has Neither Competence, Nor Standing, to Censor Anything,” (01/18/2021) at Op.cit (10).

[2] https://www.transequality.org/sites/default/files/ED-DCL-Fact-Sheet.pdf

[3] Philosopher of Science professor, Dr. John C. Lennox  argues that there are aspects of absolutely vital knowledge that scientists cannot possibly answer concerning existence itself, mathematical correspondence to physical laws, purpose, morality, etc.  He further employs his “Aunt Matilda’s Cake” analogy  which argues that the fact that she loves baking equally accounts for the presence of a cake on the table as does a good recipe. See God’s Undertaker. (Lion, 2009), pp.207,8. ** See also my paper, “Scientism is Not Science,” at Op.cit. (11).

[4] James Strong. The New Strong’s Expanded Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible.  (Thomas Nelson, 2001). Main concordance, p. 1.

[5] William Shedd writes, “When God creates a rational being, he makes him after his own image... All finite reason must resemble the infinite reason in kind. When God creates a rational spirit, he must, from the nature of the case, make it after his own likeness and after no other pattern [in nature.]” Alan Gomez, ed.  William Shedd. Dogmatic Theology. 3^rd ed. (P&R Publishing, 2003), pp. 61.

[6] Shedd quotes Leibnitz, “The laws of motion…are a wonderful proof of the existence of an intelligent and free being.” Ibid, p. 59.

[7] See my paper, “The Pervasive Employment of Apologetics in the Bible” at Op.cit. (11).

Do Not Cave into Secularism’s Pseudo-Scientific Demands! Part 1

“How long will you go limping between two different opinions? If the LORD is God, follow him; but if Baal, follow him.” (1 Kings 18:21)

 

               As the Prophet Isaiah (59:14) decried[1] some 2,600 years ago, our society today is witnessing an accelerating disintegration of truth both as a concept, and as an essential standard that everyone is morally compelled to keep.  Our nation neither began, nor can it be expected to further itself,[2] by deny-ing the obligation to obey truth under its classical definition.  This view, the “Correspondence Theory of Truth,” defines that term simply, as “whatever corresponds to reality.”[3]  A more technical description states that, “a belief is true if there exists an appropriate entity – a fact – to which it corresponds.  If there is no such entity, the belief is false.”[4]  Although the renowned philosopher Aristotle is rightly credited with clarifying and categorizing the rules of logic,[5] he did not invent them.  Even though the Bible doesn’t mimic his analytic treatment of logic, it never once defies or even denies the principles of logic.  Indeed this posture should be expected universally since logic, by definition, pertains to reality as opposed to fantasy.  The point then is that societies cannot possibly function effectively in defiance of logic.[6]  Nevertheless, overthrowing truth (as a guiding and binding principle) is the unfolding goal of the people who are currently usurping governmental authority away from the general population.

 

               The most glaring examples of Leftist repudiation of empirical[7] truth in society today include,   (1) in utter contradiction to scientific methodology, social and news media outlets[8] have taken it upon themselves to censor every position which intellectually challenges Leftist views,[9] (2) along similar lines Democrat Party spokespersons refuse to face and engage with conservative challengers on the public stage,[10] (3) the certitude of Leftist denial that human sexuality is binary,[11] (4) Leftist rejection of the autonomy of the human fetus inside its mother’s womb,[12] (5) Leftist insistence that the oceans began rising both at the time of, and because of, the industrial revolution,[13] (6) their denial of causal connections between the destructive riots of the Summer of 2020, and Democrat Party leadership,[14] (7) their insistence that Donald Trump instigated the “riot” at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021,[15] (8) and their insistence that the recent Presidential election followed due diligence.[16]  For the sake of full disclosure, in regard to the final three points I have been urged to not rekindle such sore wounds which are  based on a personality despised by so many, including certain self-described Christians.  However, the chronic disconnect between provable facts on the one hand, and prejudicial[17] subjective feelings on the other, commits the ad hominem fallacy[18].  In addition it should be stressed that the footnotes which reference   all eight of these points unfailingly establish that they are either demonstrably illegitimate, or false.

To be continued...

---

[1] “Justice is turned back, and righteousness stands far away; for truth is fallen in the public squares” (boldface mine). Notice here firstly that the common slogan, No Truth: No Justice (together with its premise) was anticipated 2,600 years ago by the prophet Isaiah. 

[2] See the opening paragraph of Elton Trueblood’s book, The Company of the Committed.

[3] “Theories of Truth for Atheists and Agnostics.” https://www.learnreligions.com/correspondence-theory-of-truth-250538

[4] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth/ (08/16/2018), 1.1.2  Boldface mine.

[5] Renford Bambrough, ed. The Philosophy of Aristotle. “Posterior Analytics.” (Mentor, 1963).

[6] Whatever Asian societies may believe in the abstract, they obey the laws of rationality in practice by driving on the right side of the road.

[7] This paper highlights the distinction between empirical facts (which are testable against measurable phenomena) and connective rational arguments that are scrutinized by the principles of logic.  Flawed arguments often begin with a factually-faulty premise.

[8] These include “Alphabet News Outlets together with Amazon, Facebook, Google, Twitter, and even You Tube, etc. 

[9] See my blogsite postings, The Broad Array of Cowardly Plays the Left Employs,” (12/25/2020), and ** “The One Advantage Leftist’s Cannot Possibly Possess,” (03/16/2021) at www.offensivechristianity.blogspot.com

[10] See “What’s Glaringly Missing from Leftist Pronouncements” at my website, www.christianityontheoffense.com 

[11] See my paper, “Transgenderism Public Policy that I Decry as Imbecility,” Ibid.  ** Just tonight Devan Cole of CNN was quoted as saying, “It’s not possible to know a person’s gender identity at birth, and there is no consensus criteria [for assigning such].” Fox News. 3/31/2021, 8:45pm.

[12] See my paper, “Leftism’s Claims to be Champions of Science is a Gigantic Fraud,” at Op.cit. (11).

[13] See my paper, “Glaring Historical Geological Facts Climate Change Militants Chronically Suppress,” at Op.cit. (11).

[14] See my paper, “Would You Discard Imperfect Founders of Liberty in Favor of Clueless Fascist Thugs?” at Op.cit. (11).

[15] See my blogsite posting, “Only One Possible Way to Establish Truth,” (01/09/2021). Op.cit. (10).

[16] Op.cit. (15).

[17] The term “prejudicial” means to make a judgment in the absence (often willful) of relevant evidence to the contrary.

[18] This term means an argument against the perceived character of a person as opposed to his/her conduct that is relevant to the question.