About me:
I am a retired Clinical Diagnostic Scientist, a Registered Nurse, and a life-long student of philosophy.
Heuristic Critiques is a collection of essays directed at restoring sanity to a number of leading, corrupted ideologies: politics, education and epistemology, religion and Faith, morality, language, reason and logic, transgenderism and gender identity, Wokeism, and Critical Race Theory. Topics examined are undergirded by my conviction that we exist within an objective, natural reality which is practically and logically independent of human minds, social interaction, and social constructs.
We cannot gather truth apart from Belief and Faith, which are the sails that propel our vessel of empirical Truth into the harbors of Knowledge.
How we ought to correctly picture the universe has been a topic of historic debate. Over time, two pictures have immerged as predominate alternatives. On the one hand is the philosophical position known as Materialism. The contention is that the universe and every existing thing in it, results from matter and energy. Both presumed either to have been generated spontaneously, or else to have existed forever. It was espoused by the Greek philosopher Democritus; and in rather modern times has found favor with scientific atheism in the form of Naturalism. Nature is explained from the “bottom up”: all things, from the smallest subatomic particle to the workings of the brain, are products of undesigned and unguided natural processes.
Through this reductionism, the human mind becomes merely matter and energy, and God simply a human invention. This view has been observed to carry a number of logical difficulties. Difficulties from which scientific atheists summarily claim exemption, while, nevertheless, oddly riding them to the inevitable irrationalities to which they must lead. The first and most obvious is that of putting Reason itself in doubt. If science is truth, generated by an organ (the brain) guided solely by a mindless, materialist random process, then, when the consequence is drawn, they can have no assurance in either science or truth and, hence, atheism. There is in it an intractable, comical element: when brought to their attention, scientific atheists seem incapable to even comprehend the implication.
Another philosophical doctrine is Theism: the notion that simultaneously with matter and energy is the transcendental reality of the gods, or variously, God. It figured strongly in the teachings of Plato and Socrates. Theism is a “top down” explanation for reality, such that Nature herself is the ultimate expression of the creational power of God. He did not merely create the universe and then quietly exit into some reclusive noninvolvement. He is to be contemplated as the God who also sustains it; otherwise, there would be no universe of which to contemplate.
But it is not so readily tolerated when, practically in the same breath, they declare the absence of objectivity necessarily leads to the irrefutable conclusion of God’s nonexistence. We may be unable to find a needle in a haystack; but this is no proof that it isn’t there
It is upon a vague appeal to Naturalism that the scientific atheists remind us that, as scientists, they have never seen God. A venial, non-essential, reminder at that; for if they had, I suspect they would cease to be atheists. Now, while exercising what honesty remains, they confess that science is incapable of disproving God’s existence. But a believer must here constrain zeal to avoid falling into a tempting, logical trap: What I hope to prevent is the mistake of assuming a failure to disprove God therefore implies the alternate conclusion; that He must exist. In bending to this temptation, though we should hardly be accused of denying God, we will surely be guilty of affirming a weak argument for Him.
As any logician among us will quickly point out, our appeal to ignorance is simply an appeal to the opponent’s inability to prove the contrary. It is to be avoided because essentially it is no argument at all. But the scientific atheists forget that they too are sometimes guilty of the same fallacy, only the other way round. I can tolerate their recycled argument that natural science offers no objective evidence for God, although it is a proposition easily disputed. But it is not so readily tolerated when, practically in the same breath, they declare the absence of objectivity necessarily leads to the irrefutable conclusion of God’s nonexistence. We may be unable to find a needle in a haystack; but this is no proof that it isn’t there.
I seriously doubt that the scientific investigation for God is ever as sincerely and meticulously pursued as often claimed. Not because I suspect deception, but rather because I suspect that God, as a conscious Mind, can Himself bias and distort that investigation in ways a purely material, inanimate object cannot. Which explains well enough why scientific methods applied exclusive to the material are doomed to failure as a mere anecdotal proof when attempted toward God. I am aware that studies have been undertaken to determine the efficacy of prayer on behalf of the ill. I cannot, of course refrain from making the charge that even to consider engaging it is a clear-cut, blasphemous “tempting” of Sovereignty. But as this was never a deterrent, as a proposed proof for God it, nonetheless, retains every semblance of manifest nonsense.
To consider the disposal of God as prerequisite to reaping the rewards of science is to rival science against God. It succeeds only for two kinds of persons: the scientist who is more atheist than scientist (think Dawkins) and the Theist who is more scientist than Theist (think Hawking).
In the first place, such a study can only proceed by presuming what cannot rightly be presumed. It must begin from the dubious hypothesis that if God is in fact real then all prayer will be granted. Any “scientific value” (assuming there is any value) requires disregarding the accepted doctrine of prayer in relation to the Will of God (falsifiability aside): petitions are only granted as they conform to that Will, others not, as they fail to conform. Clearly, the doctrine is itself the explanation for subsequent observed outcomes and, thus, in this light the very study becomes meaningless; and if the doctrine is ignored, every appeal is made from a flawed hypothesis and, again, meaningless.
In attempting to disprove God’s existence, perhaps the best that scientific atheists can do with failure is to concede it a proposition which fails like any other. No number of failures really disproves it; for science, the case for each failed attempt stands precisely where it stood before the attempt, not disproven. When all is considered, I can only suppose the scientific atheists can find no evidence for God because they have already determined no evidence possible; or because their preferred method precludes the very possibility of finding it.
Conversely, you may point out, a Theist merely sees the evidence because he has beforehand ordained God the creator of that evidence. And you will be right. But this is not the real issue. The issue is the charge that Theism, that believing in God, automatically impinges the effectual study of Nature; and the subsequent imperative that one must therefore choose God or science. But we have just seen that the conflict is not between God and science. The charge that my interpretations of scientific data are tainted by my belief in God is without merit. And can only deserve merit when, and if, they cease to be scientific interpretations. That I see in them Theistic evidence, does not preclude offering a “natural” explanation. Moreover, when a natural explanation is given, I will be acting entirely rational by affirming, evening praising, it as a proximate effect for which God is the ultimate cause. In effect, I can do what the scientific atheists cannot. I can retain mysticism in the outer reaches of the universe, while seeing the objective evidence of the Big Bang. I can investigate how all things naturally emerge, because I glimpse the Mind from Whom all things were eternally conceived.
All the great religions praise the Wisdom of God, but I know none that thank Him for the stupidity of Man. Solomon asked, above all, for wisdom; he was granted both wisdom and wealth.
To consider the disposal of God as prerequisite to reaping the rewards of science is to rival science against God. It succeeds only for two kinds of persons: the scientist who is more atheist than scientist (think Dawkins) and the Theist who is more scientist than Theist (think Hawking). And it shows that both are confused as to the true character of God. Both operate from the premise that God is a fiction invented by the mind to fill in wanting scientific knowledge. The gaps left by our failed intellect prompt us to inventing a “god of the gaps” as a sort of compensation. And this is, as I earlier indicated, an accusation delightfully made by the scientific atheists. They reason that with ever increasing knowledge, God must eventually disappear and only science will remain. Now clearly, if you believe in a “god of the gaps” you will eventually discover that you will in fact choose between God and science. By definition, God has been reduced to, “that which remains unknown.” And so, it is asserted that the more science the more known; and, thus, the less God. It becomes a self-evident proposition.
But the proposition assumes me to be saying something I am not. Something too, by the way, bearing no historical record as having ever been spoken by any great monotheistic religion. It assumes the faithful are saying “the greater our ignorance, the more visible God becomes.” But I am unaware of the principle anywhere operating as a major doctrine. All the great religions praise the Wisdom of God, but I know none that thank Him for the stupidity of Man. Solomon asked, above all, for wisdom; he was granted both wisdom and wealth. Though it has been said hundreds of times, the scientific atheists respond as if they have never heard it once: God is the agency behind what we do understand as well as what we don’t.
My problem with the scientific atheists is less with their disbelief in God and more with the kind of god they disbelieve. Worse still is their insistence that the God I believe is the same god of their disbelief.
Although I can’t fully understand the initiation for DNA translation of proteins, I am confident that God is the Ultimate Cause behind it. On the other hand, I can understand the intricate, interdependence of the cardiac and pulmonary systems. In both cases God is the suffice agency answering the question why the systems are there at all. I conclude Him to be behind both the physiology I understand and the physiology I don’t. But according to a scientific atheist, I have just freed myself form the bondage of God and am now justified and advised to expel all belief. A heretic may rightly justify heresy; that is what being a heretic means. But a Christian can’t justify dissolution of reason when Reason itself leads to Christianity. Contrary to scientific atheists’ expectation, perfect no less than imperfect understanding lead me to the same conclusion. You will notice that the more you understand the subtleties of art, the intimate dance between light and shadow, the more you will rightly admire the genius called Rembrandt. As for myself, I discover that the more I learn about the human body on this earth, the more I admire the One who created it from the earth. I can, therefore, find little ground for the notion that if I am to maintain my science, I must sacrifice my Faith.
There never has been, and never can be, a truly pious notion of God as a fabricated “magic man.” No Jew, Christian, or Muslim could, by dream or nightmare, ever derive a concept of God as is characterized by the scientific atheists. Their whole concept is pretentious. They pretend not to know what all Monotheistic people, in all places, and in all times, have always known: a god of fiction, an invented god of magic, is the same as no God at all. God is understood as the proper Ultimate Cause because He cannot properly be understood to be anything less. My problem with the scientific atheists is less with their disbelief in God and more with the kind of god they disbelieve. Worse still is their insistence that the God I believe in is the same god of their disbelief.
The confusion is obviously their own. I am not claiming to believe in an “invented god,” they are, however, claiming to disbelieve in one. But this is not so much a profundity as a paradox. A paradox can have a useful place, but there is no room for it as a mere cunning defense of the indefensible. A man may justify atheism when seeing a scientific concept as a superior explanation. But that requires him to first set it fairly against the proper and true concept of God. Otherwise, all justification is illusory: for its basis will be a derivative not from his understanding of science, but from his lack of it about God. If atheism means suspended belief in a god of fiction, then I too am an atheist. Scientific atheists claim to clearly see all things but clearly can’t see the fog of their own reasoning.
It is now a Naturalistic Scientism: it begins with wonder of Nature and when Nature is explained, the wonder must by necessity die. Nature is now to be viewed more as an object to be conquered rather than one to be understood.
Perhaps equally paradoxical is the mere suggestion that a non-existent God is somewhere hiding within the existing universe. Every new explanation for an observable event now becomes the means to that end. For every event, say the scientific atheists, we can find a natural explanation. We don’t need God to explain it, they cry, as if His existence feasibly depends on human need. The scientific atheists are really playing a game of universal Mine Sweep. For every mine natural science uncovers, it becomes one less respite throughout the reaches of the cosmos wherein God can safely hide. And, by extension, one more piece of evidence against a belief which no rational mind ought to entertain. Their argument then becomes the following: God is not needed to explain the universe, and because science can explain it without resorting to God, then God is not an explanation. If the argument appears unpalatable to common sense it is because common sense itself prohibits it. The argument is a fallacy. It is the fallacy of circular reasoning- the method of beginning an argument with the conclusion and, as such, the proof is invalid. If it proves anything at all, it is only that even minds of great insight are not exempt from great oversight.
In the face of zeal, the scientific atheists will discoverer that one is rarely compelled to dispose of their science while retaining one’s Faith. Rarer still will one conceivably abandon Faith for the sake of science. The scientific atheists see that an innovative approach is needed. If they cannot alter the natural, but irrational, inclination toward religion, they must then alter the structure of science itself. And if a Naturalist, then they will gleefully address the domain of natural events. The scientific atheist must make fashionable a false notion of what science can (and cannot) properly address. And so, they do. Again, by way of an unwarranted and illusory authority, all knowledge is narrowed to an investigation of purely measurable forces at the exclusion of all the rest. It is now a Naturalistic Scientism: it begins with wonder of Nature and when Nature is explained, the wonder must by necessity die. Nature is now to be viewed more as an object to be conquered rather than one to be understood.
They cannot logically assert that all knowledge and truth is born solely from what science can tell, while simultaneously restricting what can be told.
The damage inflicted upon the enlightened and intellectual maturity of our society is little grasped. With one swift and mighty surge, all philosophy, poetry, ethics, theology, and the humanities are suddenly reduced to a useful, intellectual, category of things no more useful than a street corner bingo game. All metaphysical explanations are now off the table. The scientific atheists do not suspect the impairment of truth that inevitably follows from their Naturalism. They will not suspect that in their confined effort to uncover truth, the effort itself will make that uncovering impossible. Lest anyone doubt the unparalleled horror that befalls an exclusive Naturalist explanation, one glance at Quantum Physics should sufficiently create it.
But there is an easier way to picture this horror. Imagine with me for the moment that we could witness an event of unequaled magnitude. Imagine that the cosmic sphere of space-time was observed rolling back on itself: so that past, present and future suddenly appeared before as if we were standing in a hall of mirrors. And while in awe and terror, the thunder of archangel trumpets filled the heavens from horizon to horizon. The scientific atheists, having no alternative and no modus operandi other than the confines of their own making, must offer a credible, natural explanation to an otherwise unnatural event. Their approach, indeed, the only approach, will be to undertake a search for a “cause-and-effect” account grounded exclusively in a natural process. They cannot now turn their mind to metaphysics, having long ago turned away from it. Though the evidence points to the contrary and working only from the truncated science of their own making, they must announce that they cannot conclude an ultimate cause, and therefore cannot conclude it to be a supernatural act of God.
The scientific atheists’ dilemma is the consequence to which the road of Naturalism inevitably leads. They are free to follow the road if they choose. What they cannot logically do, is go against the spirit of science in the name of science. They cannot logically assert that all knowledge and truth is born solely from what science can tell, while simultaneously restricting what can be told. The scientific atheists’ goal is to offer up an explanation for the universe as it really is; to follow the data and the evidence to its reasonable conclusion. And so, a method of science which from the outset excludes as false a conclusion that in fact might be true is not an honest reflection of science nor objective truth.
On their view, on any conceivable view, the scientific atheists cannot by definition lay down a contract for Materialist and Naturalistic restrictions on inquiry, and then assert that all knowledge must necessarily lay within those confines. It is the same old song and dance of circular reasoning; and clinging to the failed notion that science alone is the purveyor of truth. They may of their own volition define confirmation or denial of an ultimate cause to be beyond the scope of scientific inquiry. But after being thus deterred, they cannot, in any imaginable context, proclaim that science is shot through and through with objective evidence substantiating an Ultimate Cause unknowable! There may come a day in the Days of Men when the scientific atheists know all that can possibly be known about Nature; it does not follow that they then know all that can be known. Science can explain the workings of the most remote quasar but cannot answer a question from even a simple child: “What happens after we die?”