IrContent

Check out Notre Dame philosophy professor Alvin Plantinga’s quality thrashing of Dawkins “God Delusion” book HERE. This is why scientists shouldn’t try to be philosophers.

I received an e-mail recently regarding a mock conversation I wrote on SoulDevice to try to show how one of Aquinas’ philosophical arguments might be related to “the man on the street.” This e-mail was supposed to be a detailed refutation, but was mostly just his confused ranting about how this point or that had not been proven because it was only opinion and not fact. As I read through the e-mail it became apparent to me that not only was this person completely ignorant of Aristotelian metaphysics (and, really, who can blame him?), he was also suffering from an acute case of Scientism. Scientism is the view that science alone provides facts about the world and conclusions from any other discipline are just opinions (”Science” is being used here in the popular sense of it being an empirical discipline that excludes the more speculative disciplines of history, philosophy, theology, etc.). Scientism is a real danger to the health of people’s minds, so I’d like to provide a bit of an antidote here. The first thing to note about Scientism is that it is self defeating. Scientism is neither a science nor is it a conclusion from science. Scientism is a philosophical position about the nature of truth and knowledge - a theory of how reality works. It is not an empirical theory. That is, there is no experiment that can be performed to prove Scientism. You cannot get a jar of Scientism and test for its truth value in a lab. So, to say that science alone provides truth is to remove “the position that science alone provides truth” from the category of true things. Scientism is therefore necessarily false.Suppose, though, that someone were to admit to truth in other disciplines but just not very important or trustworthy ones. This does not help, because a conclusion cannot be stronger than its support. Another way to say this is that a theory cannot be more sure than the evidence or argument that supports it. Since Scientism is a philosophical position it must be supported philosophically. But if philosophy is not as trustworthy as science then the philosophical position that science gives the most trustworthy beliefs is not very trustworthy.

And it only gets worse for Scientism when we start to really look at what truths are the most trustworthy. Philosophy tells us that a statement cannot be both true and false in the same sense. [Some] science [currently] tells us that both humans and birds evolved from a common ancestor. The former is absolutely true and cannot be rationally denied, the latter is extremely questionable and may never be able to be proven true in this life. So now we not only have a devastating theoretical problem with Scientism, we have demonstrated counter-examples that also prove it false.

What many science worshipers seem to miss is that science could not even get started without philosophy. Consider the following necessary requirements for doing science that cannot be provided by science itself:

1. A world outside our minds must exist.
2. We must be able to attain true knowledge of this world.
3. Logic must be operable.
4. Our sense must give us trustworthy data.
5. Nature must be orderly and constant.

Now, all of these might sound “scientific” but they are really philosophical. Science cannot prove any of these things to be the case - it merely assumes them and goes on with its projects. This is not to say that scientists cannot speak to these subjects, they just can’t do it as scientists. When a person who is a scientist by trade begins to speak about philosophy he is speaking as a philosopher. Whether or not he should try to do so is another question (that should often be answered “No!”). Most scientists lack the philosophical acumen that is required for them to make legitimate claims about the underlying assumptions of their discipline. So it is not that they lack the tools of their trade, it is that they don’t always recognize where those tools come from or how to use them properly.

Scientists hate it when philosophers or theologians venture into “their domain”, but they trespass in other disciplines’ territory all the time - especially philosophy and theology. Scientists are generally very smart people - but their knowledge, just like everyone else’s, is limited to the areas where they have been trained. Science has nothing, and never will have anything, useful to say about the nature of the soul, the relation of the mind to the brain, the existence of God, or a host of other philosophical and theological issues.

Thus, it is not that philosophy gave science its foundation and science proceeded to surpass philosophy as a useful pursuit. Rather, it is that science is dependant on philosophy and actually is much more limited in its ability to investigate reality. This does not make science unimportant - it simply makes science limited in its importance (just like any other discipline). Scientism is the denial of this obvious fact and it should be fought wherever it rears its befuddled head.

If I hear one more person whine about someone being “judgmental” and then quote Matthew 7:1 I might go insane. This is one of the most common misinterpretations I hear regarding Christ’s words in the whole of the gospels and it’s a mistake being made by believers and unbelievers alike. Please pay attention - this is important. When someone accuses someone of “judging” they are, in fact, judging that it is wrong to judge. Read that again if you missed it! Yes, it’s self defeating. If we are not to make judgments then how could we ever discover that someone was doing it? You see, when we proclaim something to be true or false or right or wrong, we are judging that thing. The issue is not whether or not we are to judge (for to even say it is wrong to judge is itself a judgment), the issue is how we are to judge.If we judge others self righteously then we are guilty of sinful “judgment” - this is confirmed by the very next verse (i.e. Mt. 7:2 plus Rom. 2:1; ch. 14; James 4:11-12). Only only God is truly “Self Righteous” and therefore in a position to judge according to His own thoughts.

But stating facts is not this type of judgment. For example, if I state that homosexual behavior is sinful I am stating a fact (for God has stated that this is the case). If I say that a homosexual is going to hell I am judging wrongly - because I just don’t know. With only that information I cannot make an accurate judgment. If I am told that a homosexual has received Christ but continues to live in sin I can only state that he is living in sin - I STILL don’t know if he is really saved or not. But if that homosexual comes to me and says, “I have rejected God and do not believe in Christ,” then I can make this accurate statement: “If what you have said is true, you will go to hell if you die right now.” I am not “making the call” here - this is simply what is true based on what Scripture records.

Further, we cannot avoid judging even in a “good” sense. When we say that a thing is “good” that is in itself a judgment! We can judge things to be good as well as bad, but no one ever complains when we say something is good. But in order to know that something is good we need to know that it is not not-good (i.e. bad). So once again we are judging between good and bad. There is simply no way to avoid this (in fact, to even think that we should avoid making judgments would require a judgment!).

If the philosophical problems with this erroneous view are not enough then let’s look at Scripture. We are actually commanded to judge in many places. Jn. 7:24 says to judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment. Wisdom is judging situations (Prov. 1:2), “testing the spirits” is judging messages (1 John 4:1), confronting sinning believers is judging actions (Mt. 18:15; 1 Cor. 5:3-13, 6:2-4, ), “correcting those in opposition” is judging doctrine (2 Tim. 2:25), etc. Anytime we differentiate between one thing or another we have judged. How could we even tell the difference between right and wrong without judging? (see Lk. 7:43, 12:57; Jn. 7:51; Acts 4:19, 16:15).

So the next time someone accuses you of being judgmental do this: Ask yourself if the statement you made was a statement of fact or just your own ideas. If it is just your opinion, apologize and restate what you said. If not, simply ask them, “Is it your judgment that I am wrong for judging?”

This isn’t being clever, it’s being consistent.

There seem to be a lot of folks who glide through a life of sin and never really have to face up to it. Some people who “get saved” continue in a life of lukewarm mediocrity afterwards. Then there are those who truly repent and then suffer for it. What the heck? Why does God allow this evil state of affairs? This is not just a modern problem either - Asaph asked basically the same thing in Psalm 73. As I was pondering this the other night I thought of some of the books I have read about mountain climbing and I think I might have stumbled upon something worth discussion. First, some history . . . Mount Everest stands over 29,000 feet above sea level – about the cruising altitude of a jet airliner. The oxygen level at this altitude is so low that if someone were taken directly from sea level to the top without acclimatizing they would die in minutes. But even the lower elevations are merciless. Climbing on Everest has been described as climbing the stairs of the Empire State building all day every day for a week while breathing through a stir straw (and with a couple tires slung on your back!). If that weren’t bad enough, the temperature can get to 100 degrees below zero with 100mph winds that scream like a freight train across the ice - yet the inside of one’s mouth can sunburn from reflection off the snow. At the higher camps one rarely eats or sleeps. It should come as little surprise, therefore, that it took 31 years and 13 deaths before the first climbers managed to reach the summit. Since that first success in 1953 about 1,200 people have made it to the top. About 200 have died trying, and about 120 frozen bodies now litter its slopes. Yet despite all this, over 10,000 men and women have tried to climb Everest with 100’s of more are being added every year. These hopefuls are now paying around $65,000 each - just for a shot at spending a few minutes on top of a big rock.

What are these people thinking? Why would want to do this to themsleves? A common response is, “If you have to ask, you won’t understand.” George Mallory’s proverbial answer was even simpler: “Because it’s there.” (And so is Mallory – his body was finally discovered in 1999). What is it about climbing that inspires people to risk safety, soundness, and security (the very things normal people spend most of their lives pursuing)? It can’t be fame (most people could not name any mountain climber nor cite any climbing records). It can’t be money (few get rich climbing mountains). No, it is something else – and the danger seems to make it even more enticing.

Now for a little thought experiment. Imagine a person who is in love with the mountains. After years of climbing he finally gets a shot at the highest point on earth. He saves up three year’s wages. He trains his body harshly, submitting it to extreme levels of discomfort and pain just to make it a little bit stronger than it was the day before. He makes the trip, spending a month climbing up and down between camps, pushing a little further each day until he is in position for the summit bid. He is never comfortable and hasn’t slept or eaten much in the last 24 hours. He has lost nearly 40 pounds since beginning the assent. His mind is addled from lack of oxygen. On summit day he gets up at 3am, climbs for 10 hours straight, and finally takes the last grueling step – there is nowhere else to climb. He has made it to the top of the world.

Now imagine a second person. He likes the mountains, somewhat (at least they are better than the burning desert). He prefers watching TV or playing video games all day. Then out of the blue he gets an offer to take a helicopter trip to the summit of Mount Everest (I know you can’t really do this, but work with me here!). Having nothing better to do he takes the trip, is dropped off on the summit, takes a look around, and then flies away.

Now here is the interesting thing: both people stood on the summit. Both saw the same view. But who do you think had the greater experience? The climber of course. All that pain and striving made reaching the goal all the sweeter. Without it, the experience would have been virtually unremarkable.*

I think that perhaps it is the same with life. Bravery, endurance, trustworthiness – these things are celebrated features of good character. Yet without fear how could there be bravery? Without pain how could there be endurance? Without lies how could we value truth? We all know people who have glided through life without having their character molded by hardship – how often do they turn out to be heroic? Heroism requires imperfection.

Therefore I think that at least part of the answer to the question of suffering and evil in this life might include the fact that everyone (whether in heaven or hell) will get exactly what their character deserves (one’s destination is determined by one’s response to Christ, but one’s experience of that destination is determined by what one does in this life – see Rev. 20:12-15).

This life is both the testing and training ground for eternity (“What we do in life echoes in eternity,” as Maximus said in the movie Gladiator). Those in heaven who “just got by” are (like the helicopter guy) not going to have the same amount of joy as those who were willing to suffer for it (like the climber). Yes, they will both be in heaven and they will both have maximum joy – but those who strived harder will have more (both might have “overflowing cups,” but that does not mean their cups are the same size). Likewise, the one in hell who enjoyed a life of sin will suffer more than the virtuous pagan when that enjoyment is gone.

From a total perspective, this stage of life is just a blip when compared to the endlessness of the afterlife. The joys and sufferings of this life are therefore also blips – but they are important blips that make us who we are and who we will be forever once death seals our fate. Don’t get me wrong – I hate suffering. If God gave me the choice of whether or not to suffer every day I’d probably never choose suffering. If I had the power to end the suffering of others I would probably do it. But maybe I wouldn’t - not if I had total perspective and knew the results. If all suffering in this life ended I think we would all, ironically, suffer for it – only that loss would last forever.

*For an even less impressive (but more attainable) experience of Everest’s summit, have a look a this.