Is the scientific method really scientific? In presuppositional apologetics, I must challenge the assumption that the "scientific method" is really scientific. Are things truly only known by observations that are repeatable? I believe evolutionists start with a presupposition that is unproven.
Now most people recognize this. It is like saying that there is no absolute truth except for the absolute truth that there is not absolute truth. This is just silly. But we have to start somewhere. I submit we start with a whole lot more in our hidden bags than just the "scientific method".
Atheists often say something to the effect that we can only know the physical world. The supernatural is by definition outside of science. I, however, do not accept this definition of science. By what authority do atheists get to determine the rules of science? Their own worldview cannot even account for morality, laws of logic and ect..
We watch science all the time tell us about people we have never even seen. Archaeologists spend much of their time digging up remains of pottery and finding all kinds of trash societies of the past have left for us. It is always amazing to me how much one can learn about a person from their garbage. Forensic sciences are telling us about dead bodies that are found. They can tell if they were murdered. If a person was discovered to have been murdered, they even discover if it was a crime of passion. Imagine that! Motives of a crime can even be determined by scientists who only have a decayed body and possibly some other circumstantial evidence. (So much for the scientific method!)
Atheism starts off by having certain presuppositions that cannot fully explain on a consistent basis the philosophy it adheres to. It is always convenient for atheists to borrow from the Christian worldview when arguing with Christians. For instance, many atheists will challenge Christians with the problem of a loving omnipotent God and evil in the world. For the question by the atheist to even be asked presumes the Christian Worldview to be true. Therefore, the atheist secretly uses Christian assumptions against them, all the while claiming to be morally superior.
Part of the problem is that most evanjellycals are embarrassed to speak about the God of Scripture or wrath against sin or the curse on creation by God. If evanjellycals will not set aside their Traditions of "God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life theology", then atheism will simply die a slow death to post-modernism, not because of compelling Christian thought and arguments.
In an era when atheism is dying, I most certainly want to help drive in the last nails into its coffin. Please keep in mind though, that evolutionism will not simply die and go away just because atheism does. Evolutionism did not gets its foundations from atheism but from eastern religions. I believe Dr. Walter Martin was absolutely correct when predicting the rise of the New Age Movement in the Post-Modern Era.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Sound thoughts.
"theists, those who claim that such deities exist, clearly have the burden of proof."
Again, my point is that you have to assume the Christian worldview in order to put me in a corner. I assume the Christian worldview. I assume God exists. There is no way to account for the laws of logic and morality and ect. with an atheistic worldview
"Questioning the scientific method is fine, but not when the point is to discredit it to make room for a faith you cannot prove but believe for the sake of personal comfort."
I am not questioning the scientific method as much as the worldview that assumes it. You just accused me in that statement that I have to make room for my faith. This is where atheists try to have their cake and eat it too. You want to assume the scientific method without stating why philosophically. But to use philosophy, you must borrow from the Christian worldview.
So, I am saying the burden of proof is upon the atheist to demonstrate the scientific method using their worldview. I simply do not think it is possible. I find that you must use my worldview in order to do so.
You are actually borrowing from my worldview (your using the laws of logic) and then telling me that I am wrong. Yet you cannot account for the laws of logic. You cannot account for your assessment of my views by using my worldview.
In other words you may start with your premise that there is no God. I start with the premise that there is a God. But your presuppositions are not consistent enough to explain why I am wrong. Instead you borrow my presuppositions and use them against me. I don't accept that.
"Atheism is not dying."
That may be. I admit I am using anecdotal evidence. I am personally finding that atheists still exist. I am simply assuming however that with the rise of post-modernism, modernism (and atheism along with it) must be dying out.
I have seen post-modern atheists say that maybe both atheism and Christianity are both true. This next generation may be more difficult for us more than we both care to think about.
Post a Comment