Truth Really Matters

According to the philosophy of scientism, science is the core, the very quintessence of truth and rationality.  The strong form of scientism is that knowledge is valid or something specific is true if and only if it has been tested by an accepted scientific method.  Outside such testing, you cannot know anything.  Weak scientism is not so strict, allowing some other forms of knowledge, but only in a secondary status, certainly not in the class of scientific truth!

Scientism is self-refuting, however.  The claim that science is the only valid basis for knowledge has not been validated by any scientific method.  Furthermore, making the claim necessitates more foundational elements such as consciousness, rationality, and logic.  Scientism is integrally woven with atheistic materialism which posits that all that ever was in the universe was matter, energy, and forces.  Somehow, conscious beings evolved out of this, introducing for the first time thoughts, desires, and rational discourse.  But there is nothing in the particles of matter or in the laws of physics that describe how they interact, that explains consciousness . . . which must include a free will to allow philosophical choices such as, ‘Is scientism right?’.   How can free will and therefore rational thought occur if ‘you’ are simply the sum of your deterministic brain chemistry?

Consciousness simply does not fit in a naturalistic worldview, explains J. P. Moreland in his book Scientism and Secularism:  Learning to Respond to a Dangerous Ideology, 2018.  Moreland cites the naturalist philosopher Colin McGinn:  “How can mere matter originate consciousness?  How did evolution convert the water of biological tissue into the wine of consciousness?  Consciousness seems like a radical novelty in the universe, not prefigured by the after-effects of the Big Bang; so how did it contrive to spring into being from what preceded it?”

Indeed.  In fact he mustn’t gloss over the wonder of ‘biological tissue.’  I’ve expounded much on this web site regarding the physical and mathematical impossibilities attached to any naturalistic scheme for the origin of even the simplest building blocks of biology, protein and DNA molecules, for example.

Let’s pull some nuggets from Moreland’s book.  He emphasizes the importance of the issue, citing research that links the dominance of scientism in education and in the culture as a primary cause for children rejecting the Christian faith over the last few generations.  He makes the case that scientism is not science, rather it undermines science, provoking people to misuse science in support of ideologies or politics.  Evolution, of course, is the most pervasive anti-evidence, anti-logic, and destructive element of public school education in every generation since Darwin, but we’ve seen even more dramatic misuse of so-called scientific claims since the onset of COVID.  (Unfortunately, Moreland published his book before COVID, or he would have had a wealth of recent notable illustrations.)

Moreland relates a wonderful anecdote about a senior engineer challenging him after he had spoken at an evangelistic conference.  This engineer was just finishing up a late-in-life PhD in physics  at Johns Hopkins U.  He started by confessing that when he was young and immature he enjoyed reading philosophy, but he’s outgrown that, since the only possible knowledge of reality is what can be quantified scientifically in a laboratory.

Moreland let the fellow go on for two to three minutes, then responded with apparent surprise:  “Sir, you have made thirty to forty assertions in the last few minutes, and as far as I can tell, not one of them can be quantified, measured, and scientifically tested in the laboratory . . . By your own standards, all you have been doing in our conversation is spouting your private opinions and idle speculation.  Given this, I am wondering why I or anyone else ought to give you the time of day or think a single thing you said is knowably true.”  The fellow turned red and changed the subject.

A generation ago, in 1989, the state of California issued guidance to science teachers on how to deal with students who resisted evolutionary ideas because of their “religious or philosophical beliefs.”  Teachers were offered a script:  “I understand that you may have personal reservations about accepting this scientific evidence, but it is scientific knowledge about which there is no reasonable doubt among scientists in their field, and it is my responsibility to teach it because it is part of our common intellectual heritage.”

The language is loaded with assertions and appeals to authority.  We must not dare to question scientists, who have “no reasonable doubt.”  That should settle it!  I also find it curious that the priests of evolutionary faith love to use the word ‘evidence’, but never cite any, nor do they discuss validity or counter-evidence.  See my free ebook on the subject of evolution in the free ebookstore on this site.

Throughout my lifetime I have been distressed by the lack of apologetics teaching and training in the churches.  Because Christians cannot defend the truth of biblical history, the Gospel has too often been packaged in a form to appeal to an individual’s felt needs and a promise that Jesus can make your life better.  This is a false Gospel.  It produces multitudes of false converts who try out Jesus, but fall away when life gets difficult – See the parable of the seed and the sower, Matthew 13.

The Gospel is the good news that overcomes the reality of the bad news, that you and I are sinners, justly condemned, in desperate need of the one and only Saviour, Jesus Christ, who shed His blood on a cruel cross, raised Himself from the dead, and promises eternal life to those who thoroughly repent from their sins and trust in Him, and follow Him, demonstrating a spiritual new birth that changes everything about one’s life.  This Gospel is grounded in the history of all of creation that starts in Genesis 1:1 and is traced for 4,000 years until the long-promised arrival of the Messiah who, in future prophetically documented history, will come again to establish His kingdom . . . and so on.

The Gospel is can i buy gabapentin in mexico so much more than an antidote for sadness, loneliness, etc.  It’s not about finding something to make life ‘work’ better.  The Gospel is rooted in true history and reality.  Such truth is the enemy of all unbelieving philosophies, including scientism . . . which cannot even account for consciousness and rational thought.  (The Christian worldview can so account!  Our consciousness is a necessary quality of personhood, derived from the person of God, who created us as image-bearers, able to think rationally, and morally, and discerningly with respect to what is really true.)

Moreland:  “Given scientism, moral knowledge is impossible.”  At the most basic level, if our actions are strictly the consequences of brain chemistry, there is no right or wrong, there just is what happens.  But if ought exists, then free will exists and it matters how we treat others.  Secularists talk and act as if they have freedom to do whatever they want to do, as if they have free will to choose.  But in their materialism they have already negated morality, and so they justify the most vile sins, even those that work against their own conscience.  Western societies are now entering the end game, suffering the normalization of abortions up to and beyond birth, the normalization of pedophilia, and the outright promotion of so-called “gender transition” surgeries for children.  Homosexual behavior and gay marriage have become old-fashioned, uncontroversial.

Biblical freedom, however, is a freedom to do right by others, in accord with God’s laws, which are rooted in reality.  God conveyed His laws to us for our peace and prosperity, which include prohibitions on murder, theft, adultery, lying, coveting, etc., knowing that people cannot live happily without moral boundaries.  Declared positively, Jesus sums up the law in two parts:  love God with all your heart and love your neighbor as yourself.  Just practice those positives and you don’t need to remember the prohibitions.

I was surprised to see Moreland, an establishment seminary professor, make a pointed criticism of current evangelical church culture.  In neglecting to provide its members with firm reasons for Christian beliefs, “the church has become its own ‘gravedigger.’  The methods and policies of modern church growth produce a church that is anemic and marginalized.”  Megachurches grow via “watered-down, intellectually vacuous, simplistic preaching that is always applied to a parishioner’s private life,” while neglecting the most pressing doctrinal and cultural battles of the day.

He doesn’t mind the use of what he calls “good Christian music” – I don’t agree that it’s “good.”  He likes the small group emphasis – if only there were substance designed in, which I’ve rarely found.  But he points out that absent in a church’s weekly life is the opportunity to stretch minds, to train in defending the faith, to develop “godly, intelligent ambassadors for Christ.”  Amen.  He observes that when challenged by unbelievers, Christians get defensive, whereas knowledge promotes authority and courage.

I recall an adult Sunday School class in which a middle-aged couple told of JW visitors who had knocked on their door that week.  They, of course, shooed them away.  Everyone else in the class nodded, knowingly.  I was aghast and decided to speak up.  “Why didn’t you see this as an opportunity to share the Gospel with them?  They’re just lost people, after all, and came to your door looking for conversation on spiritual matters.”  My query was met with an aggravated silence.  In a class of 30 adult, seasoned Christians, no one spoke up.  (Nobody invited us out to lunch afterward.)

Christians should understand, Moreland notes, that scientism is the enemy of science.  The conclusions of science are built upon presuppositions, which are inherently philosophical.  Such presuppositions include:

1. The “world” exists out there, independent of mind, language, or theory.  Eastern religions deny this, claiming the “world” is illusion.
2. The world’s nature is orderly with a deep structure (atoms, laws of physics) underlying the macroscopic world we see and touch. Furthermore, this structure is reliable, consistent.
3. Objective truth exists.
4. Rationality exists – our sensory and cognitive faculties can discern objective reality. Furthermore, we can make valid, logical inferences not driven purely by brain chemistry.
5. Values and “oughts” exist. Morality is part of reality.
6. The laws of logic and mathematics exist.

Science is built on top of these foundational layers.

Moreland entitles a chapter, “Why Weak Scientism Is No Better Than Strong Scientism.”  In our culture when claims conflict, theologic vs. scientific for example, which claim gets more traction?  Under COVID, the mere pronouncements of government scientists and scientist / bureaucrats were deemed equivalent to buy Lyrica online usa SCIENCE!  Those who disagreed were punished and / or cancelled.

Too often Christians have compromised or caved when atheistic scientists make pronouncements that contradict Scripture, even if no evidence is on the table.  The subject is enormously relevant to creation vs. evolution, which I have covered extensively on this site, so I’ll move on.

Moreland spends some time discussing the uncertainties of scientific theories.  Historically, theories come and go.  Often there are competing theories for a phenomenon.  There are certainly criteria and methods to find a ‘winner,’ a best theory.

Math and logic are different.  They involve necessary truths.  “Even God could not create a world in which 2 + 2 = 57.68.”  Nor could He create a world in which something is both true and false at the same time in the same way . . . ie., it is raining and not raining at a specific location and time.

What about conscious states?  A neuroscientist with appropriate sensors may say something definitive about what is happening in my brain, but cannot know with certainty what is going on in my mind.  Introspection is the only way one can know what is going on, and that only in his own mind.

Moreland explores the question, How do we explain things?  When we say that one event causes another, that’s called event-event causation.  A covering law model of event-event causation has two features:   (1) a universal or statistical law of nature, and (2) some initial causal conditions.  For example:

1. All metal rods expand if heated.
2. Metal rod X was heated.
3. Therefore, metal rod X expanded.

Another covering law explanation is associated with the ideal gas law:  PV = nRT

When an ideal gas has a temperature “T”, contains “n” moles, and is enclosed within a volume “V”, with “R” being the gas constant, then the pressure will certainly be measured as “P.”

But no scientist is satisfied at the level of the ideal gas law.  “Why” is it true?  We need an underlying model of atoms and molecules and mechanics that predicts the ideal gas law.  We want to understand the mechanisms involved that relate pressure to temperature.

Now, personal explanations are quite different from scientific explanations.  For example, Judy sets a dinner table in such a way to provide an enjoyable dinner for her neighbors.  Why is the dinner table arranged this way?  Judy has both the intention and the basic power to do so.  An agent brings about a result by exercising a power to fulfill an intention.

In a murder trial, intention (motive) is vital.  The jury seeks personal explanations and assurance that the agent (accused) has the means and opportunity (basic power) to convict the defendant of the result (crime).  The detailed physical laws are not usually relevant, like the frictional interaction of the bullets with air molecules or the enthalpy of the gunpowder’s explosive reaction.

The important issues are properties of persons – intentions and willful actions.  In a materialistic worldview, we’re all just clumps of molecules in motion.  But our entire legal systems are built on personhood.

According to scientism, though, the entire history of the universe is completely described by the physical interactions of particles via the laws of physics . . . wherever they came from.  Consciousness makes complete nonsense of that worldview.  Everything important about human life transcends the merely physical, not only legal justice, as above, but also morality, integrity, love, hope, meaning, and life’s purpose for every made-in-the-image-of-God person.

Moreland lists five things that science cannot, in principle, explain . . . but theism can.  First, science cannot explain the origin of the universe.  Briefly, there had to be a beginning.  The universe cannot be infinitely old.  Just as you cannot count to a positive infinity because you’ll never get there, so also the universe cannot extend backward to a negative infinite age, because you could never reach the present moment.  Think about it.

Furthermore, science cannot explain the origin of the universe and its physical laws and particles because science is defined only by the methods we employ in the universe that already exists, with its forces and particles.  Science presupposes an existing universe.  There is no other kind of science.

Secondly, science cannot explain the physical laws of nature.  Physics is simply how we describe what we see, what happens.  We discover these laws and apply them.  No one has any clue why they are what they are.  Science presupposes the physical laws we know about.  There is no other kind of science.

Third, science cannot explain the universe’s fine-tuning.  The precise value of the gravitational constant, the fine structure constant, the speed of light, Planck’s constant, and others enable life to exist.  Just tiny variations would make impossible the very existence of our sun, our solar system, and the biochemistry of life.  This is a big subject, well explored by other authors so I’ll leave it there.  In a Christian worldview, fine-tuning makes perfect sense from a design perspective.

Fourth, science cannot explain the existence of consciousness.  Briefly, on a naturalistic explanation we have particles and forces for billions of years and then we get something from nothing.  “In general, physicochemical reactions do not generate consciousness – not even one little bit . . . The appearance of mind is therefore utterly unpredictable and inexplicable.”  Mental states are different from physical states.  The sweetness of sugar, the blueness of blue, the hurt of pain, the guilt of sin, the self-awaress of “I” – you cannot get there from analytical brain chemistry.

Naturalists often talk of consciousness as an “emergent property” of complex matter.  Emergent is just a mystery word, a place-holder for “we don’t have a clue.”  Moreland asks us to imagine such a complex structure (a brain, for example) composed of billions and billions of molecules.  Now, remove one molecule.  Would consciousness still be there?  Surely it would.  So remove another molecule, etc.  At some point, with just four atoms remaining, perhaps, you would not have enough complexity for consciousness.  Therefore, somewhere along the way, removing just one atom, a small cause indeed, would prevent consciousness, a huge metaphysical effect!  We see that the “emergent property” idea has no explanatory power at all.

Fifth, science cannot explain moral or rational or aesthetic laws, nor the intrinsic value of what humans hold dear.  A moral example is, “It is wrong to torture babies for fun.”  And, “One ought to pursue love and kindness and avoid racist bigotry.”  But on a naturalistic worldview . . . why?  In short, science at best is merely descriptive.  There is no “ought” in science.

 Moreland, originally trained as a chemist, has five decades of experience in teaching theology at the graduate level and reading widely on the philosophy of science.  He concludes that about 95% of science and theology are cognitively irrelevant to each other.  For example, a theologian cares not whether a methane molecule has four or forty atoms of hydrogen.  And a non-Christian chemist cares not about spiritual gifts.  But in that other 5% there is relevance, including the obvious intelligent design inherent to the information content of DNA, archaeological confirmation of Scriptural history, and psychological discoveries on the flourishing of a human life.

Now, Moreland is not a young-earth creationist and so worries that Genesis 1-11 facilitates conflict between science and biblical history.  He is a progressive creationist, allowing for billions of years of Earth history, with God intervening with creation of species at key times.  As I’ve written much on this subject, I’ll just mention that it is only Moreland’s compromised position that generates his worries.  Accordingly, with a proper view of the inerrancy of Scripture and with close attendance to rational views of the fossil record and evidence for a young Earth, it’s easy to see the Bible as overwhelmingly consistent with physical discoveries and with rational philosophical analysis.

Moreland appropriately cites the late Cornell professor of biology, William Provine, for the baseless hyperbole typically offered up by evolutionists when they claim authoritative knowledge apart from scientific methodology:

“There are no gods, no purposes, no goal-directed forces of any kind.  There is no life after death.  When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead.  That’s the end for me.  There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life, and no free will for humans, either.”

So why should I listen to the ravings that result from mere brain chemistry?  Did he not have a purpose in publishing his thoughts, which he certainly believed were freely constructed?  Didn’t he perceive a moral duty in writing what he thought was truth?  Sadly, though, Provine has discovered his errors, alas, too late.

Moreland discerns that the underlying motivation for academic evolutionists is to kick God out of science, out of history, out of everyone’s life.  Groupthink dominates and dissenters  get cancelled.  It’s not about evidence – the evidence for this is that counter-arguments are not allowed in classrooms or textbooks.  No discussion is permitted.  In contrast, the Christian apologist is willing, even enthusiastic to discuss and to debate.

Moreland concludes with a plea to adults to insure that their children and grandchildren understand these issues.  If Christian parents are so negligent as to let their children suffer the indoctrination of a public school, they must at least provide counter-cultural re-education of their own, in parallel.  A child’s very soul is at stake and, if they are converted, their Gospel witness must be founded on a biblical worldview, sharply contrasted with scientism and all other unbelieving philosophies.

• drdave@truthreallymatters.com