Of all the various strawmen arguments that I have experienced in a variety of postings is the odd notion that Christians are anti-science. This accusation is at face value ridiculous. It is built on a notion that if in effect the Christian is critical of any aspects of the theory of evolution, they have rejected the whole of the fields of science. Careful examination of the issue demonstrates this farcical argument to be an inept evasion of the central issue of the nature of science, whether the sciences must by default accept a philosophical foundation of closed materialistic systems.
A Christian is hardly anti-science. This area of study is a part of all curricula in the Lutheran school systems I have come across. The branches of scientific research in the areas of earth, life, physical, and health science is grounded in our concepts of Christian education. We question important aspects of evolutionary science only on the theory's inability to explain a system of creation of life, a questioned ability to develop adequate forms of complicated life, the origins of sexuality, and concepts of explanation of mind and consciousness. We acclaim the earliest pioneers in the modern scientific revolution to have Christian roots. We. therefore, find it insulting to be labeled as ignorant or scientific endeavor or procedures.
We take greatest offense at the sweeping claims of scientism to be sole arbiter of all truthful propositions, if for no other reason that religion and philosophy would make no such claims. It is also a position that is indefensibile to a thoughtful individual who would take the moment to wonder at the ability of scientism to adequately prove its own truth claim. I offer the following analogy to try to explain the difficulty of scientism to maintain itself, if other methods of inquiry can claim to support the search for truth. This is done with full understanding of the advances due to scientific inquiry and am thankful for same. But the basis philosophy of such a breed of science must be shown its short-comings. It is in this spirit I offer this modern parable.
Read and ponder.
THE ANALOGY OF THE VANISHING PHENOMENA
You have come to this town for reasons of business. Having registered at your hotel, you have spent a restful night and have wakened at 7:00 and taken it into your head to take a morning stroll through the mostly deserted downtown district in search of a restaurant to take in breakfast. The blocks you pass through are for the most part pedestrian-less, and the first light of morning is well there. You can see clearly enough, with only a few shadows, and that suddenly disappearing as you turn onto a well lit, sunny avenue, with good chances of dining establishments down the street.
It is here that you see about a block from you a walker heading in your direction. Nothing noteworthy is made of this person, other than he appears to be or typical size and slenderness. In your walk, you clearly view him a good minute. As you near each other, with only ten yards separating, suddenly his form disappears. Nothing. You move to where he had been moving. Again, no evidence of him actually having been there. But you have seen him. His disappearance is jarring, alarming, but you ponder the possibilities, coolly, calmly, reflecting all you've seen and noted. You immediately offer yourself a line of possible explanations.
1) This has been somewhat of a mirage.
2) This has been some sort of hallucination.
3) This is some sort of prank, a projection or holographic image placed in your path by some ingenious member of MIT, Cal Poly, or some special effects group trying out some new technique.
Oh, and you can't help thinking, and quickly discounting:
4) This must have been a ghost. Tee hee. A silly thought. Not worth any account.
As you find your breakfast spot, you think over the three "scientific" or "reasonable" explanations. While all three of them have the advantage of natural explanation (and you are sure you could think of more on further reflection), you admit they have equal merit, and equal deficits. You consider the morning's suns angles too high to acknowledge a chance of this phenomenon to be comparable to that of "witch water." You had taken nothing that morning that would bring on any sensation closely resembling an hallucination. You have great respect for the field of special effects technology, but the municipality you have visited doesn't have any demographics that would suggest that such a technologically trained individual would reside in the town. Still, you are intriqued enough to ask the patrons and staff at the restaurant you've entered. They know a large segment of people that live in and frequent the general area. They know of many an intelligent individual that works in the offices of the area, but none are technically trained in the field that would have projected an apparent morning walker.
And that's when you stumble across the truth.
**************
ANSWER: The phenomenon you've encountered was a ghost.
**************
And yes, you have a reason to complain at the definiteness of the answer. It is the only non-scientific, non-natural explanation that had been offered. But many of the patrons and restauranteers, on inquiring why you are asking about projections and holographs, learn of your encounter. And they tell you the story of an unfortunate fellow whose death was a shock, yet many have too seen this individual, could tell you the background story, and beg that you take them seriously.
The issue of scientism is, of course, that you cannot take this explanation seriously. More possible natural explanations could be raised, while objections can be made to the proposed supernatural explanation. This is the nature of science in its raw philosophical base of materialistic naturalism. Scientism has reduced at whole of what is factual and true within the confines of the scientific "box." It acknowledges nothing beyond this box.
This leads to two weaknesses: 1) only one manifestation beyond the box needs be demonstrated to disallow the "box." And 2) science has no apparatus that could look beyond the confines to verify whether such be true/false. It can only assume on metaphysical grounds the validity of its closed system box, but never capable of proving it. It can only question, denounce, eliminate, discredit, any evidence of the "beyond." This is the scientific foundation that scientism is locked into, a blind man's glance into the darkness. I as scientist wish nothing to be there, but am incapable of the justifying glance.
The analogy, to be frank, is a quick telling of a story that offers a crude enigma, but I feel must be responded to. I look forward to all thought that would clarify this issue.
No comments:
Post a Comment