So I was watching an interview today between Bill O' Reilly and Richard Dawkins (famous or infamous, depending one's perspective). Dawkins', is a self-proclaimed atheist who's two most recent books, are The God Delusion (2006) and The Greatest Show On Earth (2009). O' Reilly's primary point, which Dawkins quickly conceded, was that Science can't explain how it (the universe) all began; and until Science could explain otherwise, said O' Reilly, he chose to believe in God. Dawkins countered saying thing rather than believe in God, seek a way "to do better science (e.g. have "faith" in science)."
I find it interesting that Dawkins, whose worldview is "Scientism," makes this gratuitous and irrational leap in logic, that even though Science can't explain the origin of the Universe, it would still be appropriate to conclude that it could not have been created by God – despite not having the hard conclusive science to the contrary. This was the primary hole in Dawkin's argument, and I would have loved to have seen O' Reilly catch him in it… Again… if you can't prove something with science, then in equal manner you cannot disprove the same something with it either….
There is a kind of palpitating arrogance for those who embrace Scientism. To (in mind numbing fashion) lightly sweep aside all other worldviews,* and privilege ONLY their own exclusively, is something that most other worldviews do not even consider… Even the most hardened, conservative Christian, for example, understands the value of Science in providing perspective when it comes to what is really real; but Scientism Scientists like Dawkins can't conceive of returning the favor, despite enormous deficiencies in their logic and the Scientism mechanism otherwise. Scientists who embrace Scientism can offer us nothing more than a "hypothesis" (educated guess) in regards to the origins of the universe - which is in essence their Worldview.
Let's get this straight. Scientism Scientists like Dawkins fundamentally believe the only appropriate way "reality" can be determined is through the Scientific Method. That being said let me ask this question:
Has everything that could have been discovered by the
Scientific Method,
Been discovered by the Scientific Method…?
NO…
THEN DOES IT EXIST?
Yes! Things Do Exist Outside The Scientific Method
Regardless of Whether It Has Been Discovered By The Sceintism Scientist Or Not!
Scientists and Scientism Scientists discover new things almost everyday – from sub-atomic physics to biological life forms. Yet, to be logically consistent, those things can't exist according to the Scientism Scientist. Could it be possible, that the Scientific Method is simply a too impoverished a device for discovering all that there can be? Including the existence of God? If one starts with the a priori position that the only reality is a physical one… then the only Worldview one can use is Scientism… And, if one ONLY uses the Scientific Method and no other, how can one know of its potential limitations? The Scientific Method in this way is all exclusive and self-validating all at one time – it reserves the right to be above and beyond all critique, from any other Worldview. After all, one could argue surreptitiously that the Scientific Method hasn't been proven by the Scientific Method - right? So, hmnn... Does it exist?
*The Four Great Questions
of A Worldview
1. Who(se) Are We?
2. Where Are We?
3. What is Wrong?
4. How Do We Fix It?
2 comments:
I agree, is not a complete answer, but I seriously agreed with your "logic" and disagreed with Dawkins. It is very frustrating when the non-believers discount our heart felt knowledge, because we are Christian, so we don't count. But it's an outrage when we disagree with Scientism. I always pray that they will know the truth and the ntruth would set them free. Thanks for sharing.
Rich, very good thoughts. As you point out, scientiets like Dawkins cannot even explain the existence of the universe. They can’t, in other words, explain the “uncaused first cause.” Their theories would lead to the ridiculous conclusion that “nothing created everything.”
They also to refuse to recognize any intelligent design in the universe. With so many discoveries of the intricate nature of cellular processes, environmental systems and many other things that Darwin could never imagine, they continue to believe, contrary to the second law of thermodynamics, that base elements somehow arranged themselves into the myriad of life forms we know of today. Darwin believed that the fossil record would eventually prove his theory, but so many years after he wrote “On the Origin of Species” there is still no evidence of a single transitional life form in the fossil record.
In my opinion, it is they who operate by blind faith.
Post a Comment