The Matter of Irrationality-Part II

Dearest hijas and hijo,

Discussions with a non-Christian:

Non-Christian: So you’re saying that science and all the discoveries of scientists down through the centuries is worthless? That the collective knowledge we have gained through scientific discovery through time is utterly void?

^{(Borrowed capital)}

Christian: No, I am not saying that (see my post the seduction of scientism: a warning). There have been great accomplishments in science and through scientists who are not Christian. Non-Christian science has done a great work and brought to light much truth, but this is in spite of its assumptions—the assumption of Chance and a chance universe—and not because of them. Non-Christian science has worked with the borrowed capital of Christian theism, and for that reason alone has made great progress and given us incredible detail into our universe.

Non-Christian: What do you mean by ‘borrowed capital?’

Christian: You as a non-Christian, as well as non-Christian science which works within a metaphysic of Chance, must assume that the world is knowable and predictable in order to live and work. It is not a world of chaos. There is order and predictability; laws that govern the operational nature of the universe as a whole, e.g., gravity, electromagnetism, the strong and weak nuclear forces, the laws of physics and planetary motion, the laws of biogenesis, etc. But such assumptions do not come out of and are foreign to your metaphysic of Chance. Chance does not produce order but disorder; it does not produce coherence, but dissonance and imbalance; it does not produce predictability, but unpredictability and confusion. So you must borrow from Christianity and the Judeo-Christian system of thought (albeit unwittingly) in order to make sense of your theories and hypotheses.

Non-Christian: What? How do we borrow from Christianity and the Judeo-Christian system of thought?

Christian: You must first look at when and where modern science arose. It arose in the 16th and 17th centuries in Europe out of the milieu that was the Protestant Reformation. When Martin Luther pinned his 95 theses to the Wittenberg Door, a tsunami of intellectual freedom was unleashed against the backdrop of intellectual slavery that was the Roman Catholic Church and its adherence to Aristotelian philosophy.

With this tsunami, men and women’s minds were free to think for themselves. This pivotal turning point in history freed minds to think carefully about the world and universe around them. Modern science arose within this new intellectual freedom. The early scientists wanted to think and investigate God’s thoughts after Him. They understood that God is a God of order, of law, of coherence, of immutability and because they believed that God created the universe they discovered these same laws, order, coherence, and predictability within the material universe itself. These things do not come out of a metaphysic of Chance, but rather out of a metaphysic of God.

Non-Christian: So unless I presuppose a metaphysic of God rather than a metaphysic of Chance I am unable to correctly make sense of the universe I live in?

Christian: Correct. Any brute fact that you wish to investigate and predicate upon must be related and correlated within a system of interpretation about all the other brute facts of the universe or it is unintelligible and meaningless. Facts and interpretation of facts cannot be separated. It is impossible even to discuss any particular fact except in relation to some principle of interpretation. We’re talking about your (i.e., science’s) philosophy of fact here again. Current science and its methodology assumes Chance and brute fact. It then relies upon the mind of man and his experience for interpretation, rather than understanding that God has already interpreted all the facts of the universe because He created them. They are not brute facts, but God-interpreted facts. He has revealed His interpretation of those facts to us in the Bible. This, current science and its methodology, cannot allow and refuses to acknowledge.

In other words, as Cornelius Van Til¹ has said, “a metaphysic of Chance is assumed as the matrix of facts. Then the chance collocation of facts is taken as the rational tendency among these brute facts. The relevancy of any scientific hypotheses is then determined by its correspondence to this “rational tendency” in things. You start with brute fact and end with brute fact. The circle is complete.”

It’s a vicious circle. Science and its methodology presupposes Chance as the Absolute and therefore concludes that God cannot exist. Science and its methodology presupposes Chance as the Absolute and concludes that miracle and/or the supernatural cannot exist. Is this rational? To argue in a circle like this?

Non-Christian: It’s no more rational than you presupposing a metaphysic of God. What’s the difference?

Christian: The difference lies within your own constitution. As I said in my last post, you are a culpable knower of God. God does not have to reveal Himself to you in a burning bush like He did Moses (Exodus 3:1-9). He doesn’t have to slap you upside the head to get your attention. You actually know that God exists from those things you see around you and encounter every day, and God holds you accountable for that knowledge, yet you try to suppress it; push it away from you and not think about it (see my post Willfully and Obstinately Ignorant). You must stop suppressing that knowledge of God you already have and follow it through to some conclusions. You must ask some deep and hard questions and seek out the answers to them within the knowledge you do have that God exists. Of utmost importance is the question of what does God require of me? Does He speak to me/us, and how? Who is Jesus and what does He claim for Himself?

Follow the threads through with diligence. Don’t be lazy about this and give up or claim there are too many unanswered questions. Don’t fall back to your metaphysic of Chance for that gives you no answers whatsoever. To believe and accept the metaphysic of Chance is like jumping out the open door of an airplane 10,000 feet up without a parachute and believing if you just flap your arms hard enough you can fly safely to the ground.

The difference also lies in that unless you presuppose a metaphysic of God, you cannot make sense of the universe around you; its order, its coherence, its predictability, its laws, your own mind and its consciousness, dreams, and passions. Without a metaphysic of God you cannot account for any meaning you wish to give to yourself. You cannot make sense of the personality that is you from an impersonal metaphysic of Chance. How does personality come from that which is impersonal?

All my love,

Dad

Vaya con Dios!

1. Cornelius Van Til, Christian Theistic Evidences, ed. K. Scott Oliphint, P&R Publishing, Phillipsburg, New Jersey, 1978, 2016.

The Matter of Irrationality

Dearest hijas and hijo,

Discussions with a non-Christian:

Christian: God is “there” and He is not silent. Not only do you know about God, but your whole being, your whole constitution, informs you that you truly ‘do’ know God (Rom. 1:19-20). In fact, you are a culpable knower of God. Day after day what you see above you, and around you, and within you, is speaking to you of His existence, and night after night as you ponder the night sky He is speaking His knowledge to you (Psalms 19:1-2). Your own conscience alternates between either accusing you or defending you in what you say, do, and think on a moment-by-moment basis (Rom. 2:15), because the law of God is written on your heart. Therefore, you are without excuse for knowing God, but not honoring Him as God or giving thanks to Him for your very existence (Rom. 1:21).

Non-Christian: Ha! I believe in science. Science has proven that God doesn’t exist. Science has shown that a quantum fluctuation in an energy field produced the singularity from which the Big Bang exploded onto the scene and eventually biological evolution took over on this planet and here we are today. You’ve made an irrational choice to believe in God despite the evidence that proves your Bible wrong.

Christian: Science cannot prove that something comes from nothing. That’s a matter of faith. You actually believe, by faith, in the metaphysic of Chance. And yet chance is not an entity. It has no Being, but is simply statistical probability with no mind behind it to direct it to any purpose. Purpose-less, blind chance cannot take absolutely nothing and produce everything. It cannot take a state of Non-Being and produce a state of Being, because chance has no power in and of itself to do anything.

Non-Christian: Wait. What do you mean by ‘the metaphysic of Chance?’

Christian: You assume that the science of reflective inquiry, which takes advantage of the objective connections around you, testing them repeatedly, and coming to hypotheses and then conclusions leads you to truth about all reality, but in actuality you are granting brute fact and the mind of man an ultimacy that your system of thought based on science and its methodology cannot provide a basis for. I’m talking about your philosophy of fact here.

The goal for which science has set for itself is that of complete comprehension of all facts—the facts are simply “there” to be interpreted by man. You assume that human reason alone is rightly able to judge all the facts presented to it. This is illegitimate for a finite creature such as yourself to do, even if collectively you think all scientific knowledge through all the ages can provide this complete comprehension of all existence. With this ideal and goal you are absolutizing Chance with powers it does not have (purpose, meaning, cohesion, order, Being). This then is your metaphysic.

Non-Christian: Wait. What is brute fact?

Christian: Brute facts are all the facts of the universe that are simply out there standing alone before any interpretation is given to them. Brute facts are devoid of intrinsic meaning, and therefore meaningless and unintelligible. They don’t come with a label attached to them saying, “This is what I am.” You run all these facts through your metaphysic of Chance and conclude that God doesn’t exist. You (i.e., science) are really presupposing Chance and absolutizing it as the matrix or schematism by which you interpret all reality. Chance then is the universal by which you give all these discrete facts meaning.

Non-Christian: So, what’s wrong with that?

Christian: Your system of thought based on Chance and the scientific method excludes God by definition and methodology, and so you conclude God doesn’t exist and/or live your life as “if” He doesn’t exist, yet because you are a culpable knower of God there is tension. You experience guilt, but have no way to explain that guilt and push it away from you within your system. Rather, you should recognize that you have a conscience put there by God, which speaks to you of God’s existence and your own culpability in knowing Him, and seek to answer questions such as “What does God require of me?” and “Why is there this tension of guilt within me and how do I deal with it?”

Non-Christian: So, is that what you mean by asking me prior to our discussion today if I have ever heard the gospel?

Christian: Yes, the word ‘gospel’ means good news. So, logically we want to know “What is the good news?” The bad news is that you are a sinner with no way to meet the requirements of God’s perfect standards. You might think you’re good enough, but God’s standard is perfection. Are you perfect in all your thoughts and actions? I didn’t think so. None of us are.

The answer is in God Himself. He has provided the answer in that He came down and lived among us. This God-man, Jesus, was perfect in all his thoughts and deeds, and died on a cross in your place for the sin which produces the guilt you feel. This then is the good news. Jesus paid the price for your sin and invites you to come to Him for forgiveness; to cry out to Him for mercy. As a culpable knower of God and a culpable knower of your sin, you recognize that, and come to Him for mercy and forgiveness, of which He will gladly give you. The consequences of not coming to Jesus in repentance of your sin will be dire. God will not be mocked.

Non-Christian: I don’t feel guilty about anything, therefore have no sin, and don’t need ‘anyone’s’ mercy.

Christian: So, who then is the irrational one? (see 1 John 1:8)

All my love,

Dad

Vaya con Dios!