I was thinking a little more about rationalism this morning...that 17th-century invention that still directs most 21st-century peoples thinking in fields as diverse as science and religion. At least, it directs when it is convenient. Fair warning: This is a long post. More like a blog...but I dont have a blog set up, so Im putting it here. I wont feel bad if you skip it. :-) Funny thing is, those who understand science know that, while many ideas in rationalism are useful in many situations, like Newtons Laws of Motion are in the realm of physics, it is inadequate to explain everything...also like Newtons Laws. And, even those who believe strongly in the absolute validity of rationalism and the laws of logic still, practically speaking, suspend it when it contradicts their belief systems. Im talking about scientists here too, not just religious people. The inadequacy of rationalism is highlighted by modern science, including quantum theory and, perhaps most dramatically, the wave-particle duality. The wave-particle duality says that photons of light (and electrons and other building-blocks of the universe) are both particles and waves. This was proven as fact a century ago, but as logic it is nonsense: A particle has boundaries and measurable size; as Einstein said, energy quanta...are localized at points in space, which move without dividing, and which can only be produced and absorbed as whole units (Annalen der Physik, vol.17, p.133). Meanwhile, a wave stretches out from infinity to infinity and you cant begin to pin down a location. The two concepts are logically incompatible...by logic, any one thing cannot have the properties of both. Thus, the wave-particle duality breaks the rules of logic...including a fundamental property called consistency, which says that no theorem of the system contradicts another. As one website puts it, since the 1900s, this enigma has still not been solved. So, rationalism cant explain everything, not even scientifically and within the limits of the physical universe. The other problem with rationalism is that even people who are highly committed to it often opt out when it contradicts their belief systems. And that includes even materialistic scientists...who, like the rest of us, have belief systems of their own. Heres an example. One of the biggest fights in the world of science has been over evolution. Im not talking about the fight between creationists and evolutionists...that will never be resolved based on logic, and Im not interested in weighing in on it. What I find much more interesting is the fight between experts in the sciences and mathematics. Many of whom dont give a care for religious subjects, but whose lives are dedicated to gaining better understanding of this physical universe in which we find ourselves based solely on the evidence it presents to us. We owe them a lot, as they have pushed out the boundaries of science, and thus our conveniences, standard of living, and our health. Despite what you hear in the popular and even scientific press, that is, that the matter is settled, even these people fight about this topic. Interestingly, those on one side of the argument stick doggedly with rationality, while those on the other side abandon rationality just this once, though they return to it for most everything else. To save space Ill summarize and provide a couple of references for anyone interested in the details. Many mathematicians and even Nobel Prize winning evolutionary biologists like Sir Peter Medawar have looked at the probabilities of random build-up of molecular complexity and functionality into the life forms of earth. Theyve concluded that, with any mechanism yet proposed, the models still show the odds are inconceivably high against evolution happening. Evolutionary scientists have tried but thus far been unable to refute the math (see Wistar Institute Symposium Monograph No. 5 , Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution; P.S. Moorehead and M.M. Kaplan, editors; Wistar Institute Press, Philadelphia, 1967. Also the Chicago Evolution Conference of 1980, of which Newsweeks Nov. 3, 1980 issue reported that attendees largely agreed that mutation plus natural selection could not cause species change. And the Wistar II Conference of 2008, of which there is a monograph available in public libraries or by purchase from the Wistar Institute). Sadly, those same evolutionary scientists who abandoned winning by rationality on this subject have instead resorted to the cheapest parlor tricks of argumentation: The Strawman (attributing flawed arguments to the opposition, then knocking them down)...Belittling anyone who agrees with their position and calling them names, like ignorant, unintelligent, and gullible...And self-declaring that the argument is over; that evolution is not a theory; it is a fact, or as Stephen Jay Gould and others say somewhat duplicitously, both while still claiming the high ground of fact (stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html; filled with the argumentation tricks and tactics I describe above). This reminds one of Vizzinis offhand dismissal of those he deems below himself: Have you heard of Plato, Aristotle, Socrates? Wesley: Yes. Vizzini: Morons. No need for plausibility, much less posit workable mechanisms. No need for fossil evidence. Just Im smart; youre not. Or often, Im scientific, and youre not. Argument over. And fire or censor anyone who disagrees (Scientific Americans firing of reporter Pamela Winnick for her views on Intelligent Design--though they now strongly deny this as the reason, their assertions do not align well with the facts--or Ball State Universitys censoring of its Professor Eric Haden). Many evolutionary scientists argue that to even introduce the idea that there might be an external creative force at work is to violate the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. This of course clears the playing field for the belief that there is no creative force involved in the universe...an essentially-religious viewpoint which they happen to hold. Their belief system. How convenient. My point is, almost nobody (with the exception perhaps of the above mathematicians) truly follows rationalism. So, why then do people who look to the Bible as the source of spiritual truth try to apply this outmoded framework from the Enlightenment to everything it says? And eliminate most aspects of the supernatural? Why be supernatural in your belief in God, and then strictly materialistic about how you say he works now? Let it be all one (the honest mathematicians at Wistar) or the other (those who allow the possibility of a superior creative being intervening in all aspects of the universe). To mix rationalism and belief systems as they suit your preferences is, I believe, intellectually dishonest. And you wont get anywhere that has integrity, by doing so. As people who believe the Bible is more than just a human book, we should not be tying Gods hands to our man-made rules of logic. The rule the Bible gives for its own interpretation is simple: is it supported by the entire rest of the Bible, in context? No scripture is of any isolated interpretation (2 Pet 1:20). If it works in the context of the whole thing, then it is validated. This one principle would have eliminated all religious wars of imperial christianity, and the other darkest episodes of church history. It would also open the door for much more direct involvement of what Jesus called the Kingdom of Heaven...the expression of Gods love for humanity in works only a supreme being could do.
Posted on: Wed, 12 Mar 2014 17:14:31 +0000
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015