Friday, May 21, 2010

Science against Christianity? Let's look again...

Here is a long quote from Bernard Ramm that pinpoints a huge flaw in the naturalistic universe of natural science, at least that natural science that purposely cuts itself loose from theism.

“The scientist opposes the supernatural on two counts:

A. He opposes the supernatural on the basis that the supernatural is contradictory to natural law.

B.  On the grounds that miracles do not fit into the universe the scientist works in.

A.  However, the concept of natural law is not as simple as appears on the surface. Although the scientist may handle the law as a simple axiomatic notion, it does not admit of such simplicity upon analysis. The first premise of every natural law is the principle of the uniformity of nature. If the uniformity of nature is not predicated the law is meaningless, 1.e., it becomes provincially true of one experiment or a cluster of experiments at one point in time in one section of space. It is the principle of the uniformity of nature that universalizes laws so that what is discovered at one place and time may be predicated of many spaces and times.”

      “Not only is natural law dependent on the principles of uniformity, but all predication is dependent on it. There is no demonstrable method of proving that the future shall be like the past. I can only be assumed in terms of the principle of uniformity.”

      “It is recognized that the principle of the uniformity of nature is a dictum that comes from the medieval period. It was a theological tenet which stated that in that God was an orderly Person the universe must reflect His orderliness. The original source of the principle is to be found in the theistic undergirding of Nature. Now by the strange concourse of events the uniformity of nature is used to controvert theism! In the theistic system the principle of the uniformity of nature finds its rational justification and its metaphysical undergirding in the character of Almighty God.”

      “Further, although the Christian may locate the source of the principle in his theistic metaphysics, the scientist has no method of proving the principle. There is no single experiment that proves it, for it the first principle of all experimentation. To extend the principle from one experiment to all is to use the principle to prove itself. There are two ways out. The scientist may give the principle full metaphysical status as a pervasive feature of reality, but in so doing he as become a metaphysician. Or, he may with the positivists state that the principle is one of the assumed principles of scientific investigation which one takes as true but does not bother to prove. In this case, the question is begged or dodged. Another variety of the positivistic position is to assume the truthfulness of the principle on pragmatic grounds. But if grounded pragmatically, it cannot then be used viciously to exclude the miracle in Biblical history. Pragmatic verification leaves it possible that other situations may occur in which the principle does not hold.”

     " Finally, the Christian theist insists that the uniformity of nature is not the point of argument at all. For the daily routine of life, for he regular procedures of science, and for the practical needs of the commercial world, the principle of uniformity holds true. As will be noted in the discussion of miracles, the Christian insists on a regular order in nature for he very detection of the ‘irregular.’ That is to say, the Christian theist is not arguing for a chaotic or a spontaneous or a haphazard universe when he argues for the supernatural. At this point he only insists that science does not mercilessly and blindly extend the uniformity of all of human history without full appreciation of the nature of scientific knowledge itself, and the worthy contentions of Biblical theism.”

      "The Christian attitude toward the principle of the uniformity is this: For the general routine of life and existence the principle is granted its validity. Its ultimate grounding is in the consistency of God’s nature. But the principle is not to be used to mercilessly rule out all conceivable supernatural events if for other sound and rational arguments such events can be shown to fit into the entire system of the universe.”

      Amen, brother Ramm.

      “For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of Go, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ.”  2 Corinthians 10: 4-5

2 comments:

Mrs. Webfoot said...

Hi, Vic and Aaron.

Mrs. Webfoot said...

Yes! Ramm explains this idea very well. That's the kind of thing that VanTil talked about, too, right?

All rational argumentation has to begin with the God of the Bible.

Naturalists appeal to rationality, thinking that they are adept at logical argumentation, but they reject the Triune God as He revealed Himself in the Bible.

Without that God, rationality has no meaning. Naturalists are especially caught in this conundrum. Something like that?