Three Ways of Knowing

I must admit an amount of frustration lately.  This frustration has stemmed from, not only the differences in worldviews from non-believers, but in the complete inability to communicate on the same level with them.  Even though we are talking about the same topic, it sometimes seems that we aren’t even in the same universe.  Although I’m sure some of this can be chalked up to a certain inability of mine to accurately and legibly enumerate myself, that can’t be the whole explanation.

But that’s it, isn’t it?  We AREN’T in the same universe!  My worldview is guided by an all-knowing, all-powerful Creator God who, for a reason I’ll never comprehend, loves me and communicates with me.  To an un-believer, especially an athiest, such a sentence as I just uttered is pure self-deluding hogwash.  Only cold hard facts can be truly known and any spiritual revelation is just that (or a bad piece of meat from the night before), and should not be applied to anything outside of ourselves. 

If we want to really think about where this difference comes from, the question becomes a question of epistemology (how we know things).

A Lecture on Epistemology

I try to keep up with the articles on Answers in Genesis that they post.  I skim through the topics and if it’s of interest to me I’ll read it or mark it to be read later (and man am I behind!). The posting of this article, entitled, “Great Scott Eugenie!”, was exactly what I had been pondering in regards to the reason it was so hard to communicate with unbelievers.

The writer of the article, Peter Galling, had attended a lecture by Eugenie Scott at Miami University.  Some of you may recognize Scott from “Expelled:  No Intelligence Allowed”.  Her lecture was called, “Science and Religion as Ways of Knowing.”  Galling was quite extensive in his critique of Scott’s lecture.  I, however, will focus in a bit more.

Scott’s “Three Ways of Knowing”

At the beginning of her lecture, Scott categorized three ways to knowledge.  They are:

1. Personal state or insight—a.k.a. intuition or internal knowledge;
2. Authority—which, according to Scott, we have evolutionarily adapted into following. Scott also identified revelation as a subset of authority.
3. Science—a “limited way of knowing” that, she said, can only explain the natural world using natural processes.

Scott treats the authority quite fairly by saying that even though we may take a physicists word for it (since we may not be physicists ourselves) we could, if we felt so inclined, learn and discover the evidence for the physicists position.  We could verify the physicists conclusions.  This is in contrast to “revealed” authority, or revelation, because one cannot put themselves in God’s shoes and independly verify His veracity in the Scriptures.

Inferential Explanation vs. Direct Observation

At one point, Eugenie made a comparison between direct observation and inferential explanation.  In short, she said that Creationists prefer direct observation so much that we reject inferential explanation. 

In truth, Creationists find that inferential explanation is valid most of the time.  However, just as it seems foolish to reject all inferential explanation, it’s foolish to say that inferential explanation is just as valid as direct observation.  It is also disengeous to compare the inferential explanation of a crime scene, where we have observable knowledge of the physics involved and of crime scenes in general, to the inferential explanation of molecules-to-man evolution.  But that is a topic for another time.

Scott admits there is an alternative explanation to any inferrence into the past.  Aliens, or some outside designer with unclear purposes, could have done it.  To answer this, Scott says, “But that’s not a very probable explanation because some things are more probable than others.” 

The Question of Authority

Wait, why?  Apparently, according to Scott, a possible designer is less probable because it just is prima facie (without scientific evidence).  What if we had evidence for extraterrestrials?  What if we had past experience of a mischevious alien race that liked to go around doing intergalactic pranks?

Even Scott admits that the question of God is not a scientific one.  So how can science show a designer to be “less probable”?  And that’s the point, Scott’s position on the science of evolution is necessarily affected by her already decided upon position on God.  If God didn’t create the world, as she assumes He didn’t, then what else is there to except but evolution?

Creationists believe that the evidence, personal revelation, and logical inference proves that God exists.  Not only does God exists, but He wants to, and did, communicate with us.  Why are atheists like Scott so incredulous that we find the question of a designer more than just “probable”?  Wouldn’t it be more logical to trust the direct observation of the Designer who was THERE at the beginning?

What Science Takes on Faith

The point is, one’s belief about God, which is outside the bounds of science, informs that person on what they believe about science and especially the origin of life.  “Specifically, while creationists do value inferential explanation, we value the authority of an infallible, direct observer over inferential explanations that start out by arbitrarily decreeing that a designer is “less probable” (ruling out supernatural explanations” (Galling). 

An atheist would respond, “I see how your religious beliefs (which fall into Scott’s categories of authority and personal states of being) override actual science. But those religious beliefs are taken on faith, whereas science is verifiable. That’s why I only accept scientific facts.”  This is the main reason why we are on completely different levels when we discuss with one another.  To show how erronoeus the atheistic thinking is when it comes to scientific “facts”, I will respond to this argument in relation to Scott’s lecture.

On one of her slides, Scott showed the assumptions of science:

1. There is an objective reality outside of the individual.
2. The universe operates according to regularities.
3. Human beings can understand these regularities.

As Scott admits, these assumptions are outside the perview of science.  That is, there can be no scientific evidence to verify the validity of a belief in these assumptions.  Remember Scott’s “Three Ways of Knowing”? 

So, my question to Scott is, “What area of knowledge gives you grounds for choosing your ‘scientific’ assumptions over any other assumptions (such as assuming the Bible is true)?”  Science can’t verify those assumptions, so your belief in them must come from one of the other two “ways of knowing”, personal insight or authority.  What authority or personal insight gives you the knowledge to assume these scientific assumptions instead assuming the Word of God to be true?  At the heart of science are philosophical axioms that can’t be proven scientifically. So on what grounds should someone accept those axioms instead of biblical truth?

I can’t put it any better than Peter Galling did, so I won’t attemp to:

So, either Scott accepts science on authority (she has faith in someone or something that tells her the scientific assumptions are better than other assumptions) or she accepts science based on a personal state (such as her own personal emotions/experience that aren’t transferable to someone else). She has attacked both authority and personal states of being as the domain of religions, pointing out that they lack the verifiability of science, yet this is where she must lay the foundation of science!

 Why the Atheist Is Deluding Themselves

What do we say, then, of science as a way of knowing?  Scott reveals that

Science can’t produce factual certainty (it can only disprove hypthotheses).

Science is based on untestable philosophical assumptions.

That’s the point.  Science, empiricism, and factual certainty are impossible with unscientific, philosophical assumptions, which many times includes excluding the supernatural at the outset.  This is why those atheists that claim to “believe only in scientific facts” are deluding themselves.  Not only this, but they attempt to hold Christians to this empirical self-delusion, demanding that only scientific evidence matters while being willfully ignorant of the assumptions inherent in science.

Is science, therefore, rejected as a way of knowing?  Of course not.  Can science be taken absent of it’s naturalistic assumptions?  Not rationally. 

I’d like to ask an open question to anyone who reads this.  Since the assumptions needed for science are known by either personal or authoritative revelation, what makes them the correct assumptions?  That is, why are the unscientific philosophical beliefs of atheists considered more correct than the philosophical beliefs of Christians?  And this question is more important than the first:  How do you know this?

Keith Olbermann’s Humanism

It has become quite a popular video, the one with Keith Olbermann giving his “special comment” on the Prop. 8 in California.  Keith basically asks those who voted for the measure a series of questions.  However, Keiths opinion is not just that, it is indicative of a spreading, media supported worldview. 

 

Secular Humanism

 

Wikipedia defines secular humanism as “a humanist philosophy that upholds reason, ethics and justice, and specifically rejects the supernatural and the spiritual as the basis of moral reflection and decision-making“.  This partial definition begs the question of where they get their values of reason, ethics and justice in the first place, and what makes those words “valuable” absent of God.  Wikipedia continues, “Like other types of humanism, secular humanism is a life stance focusing on the way human beings can lead good and happy lives.”  This the entire basis for Keith’s opinion on the matter of same-sex marriage. 

This is verified by the Council for Secular Humanism’s affirmations,

“We deplore efforts to denigrate human intelligence, to seek to explain the world in supernatural terms, and to look outside nature for salvation.”

I honestly wonder how they are defining “salvation” here.  Are they attempting to assert that salvation exists inside of nature, and if so, is death “salvation”?  Or, are they just showing that, according to them, there is no such thing as salvation and the entirety of humanity shares the same fate of eventual meaningless annihilation.  This forces me to ask how reason, ethics and justice are meaningful when there is no difference between my fate and Hitlers’?

 

But I digress.

 

The point is that, in this video, Keith is a self-righteous preacher of the religion of secular humanism and the television camera is his pulpit.  As you will see, Keith attacks any notion of truth in regards to God’s Word.  That there can be no greater calling than his humanist calling, no greater cause than the happiness of human beings, regardless and in spite of what any religous text says.  In fact, Keith is willing to use Biblical quotes to further his humanist agenda while ignoring the Biblical ideals that deny humanism.  This will become apparent as you watch the video.  I really recommend watching it instead of just reading my responses.  It’s quick, and a great example of the battle of the worldviews that we find ourselves in.

 

 

 

 

(I apologize ahead of time for the snark in some of my replies.  Mr. Olbermann is so condescending that I just can’t help it)

 

“What does this matter to you?”

 

I have a question as an answer.  Who is Keith to suggest that it shouldn’t?  Who is he to tell me that human history, my conscious, my religion and my God are wrong in telling me the traditional definition of marriage?  Who is he to suggest that I am wrong in sticking up for this?

 

Keith also says that homosexual couples, “want the same chance at permanence and happiness that is your option . . .”

 

Putting away the ridiculous assertion that a marriage license is synonymous with permanence (especially in California), I have another question as an answer.  Their relationships aren’t already permanent and happy?  The marriage license will make them MORE happy, MORE permanent?  Aren’t they committed to each other because they’re committed to each other, not because some license tells them they are?  A marriage license instantly makes you more happy, therefore we are denying homosexual couples happiness?  Talk about a strawman of epic proportions.  In fact, most of married America, and the divorce rate, will tell you that being married leads to a DECREASE in happiness!

 

Keith goes on, ” . . . they don’t want to deny you yours.”

 

The point that he ignores is:  Yes they do.  They want to deny me my right to define marriage as between a man and a woman.  They literally want to force me to define marriage as they define it.  This is exactly what the issue is about. 

 

Keith continues, “. . . they want what you want, a chance to be a little bit less alone in the world.”

 

This is sensationalism that I didn’t think Keith was capable of; I guess I didn’t know him enough.  Keith is suggesting that Prop. 8 breaks apart same-sex couples.  Are you kidding me?  How can he take himself seriously, much less expect anyone else to, if he makes these kind of comparisons?  He is equating the people of California standing up for the traditional definition of marriage with us FORCING couples apart, making them more alone.  The ridiculousness of the suggestion speaks for itself.

 

“…just as you are taking away the legal right that they already had.”

 

How did they acquire this ability?  By a court ignoring the will of the people and overturning Prop. 22, essentially creating legislation, which courts aren’t supposed to be allowed to do.  Remember that system of checks and balances that our government is based upon?  The In re Marriage Cases decision violated that system, and yet, nobody is talking about this part of it.

 

“What if someone passed a law saying that you couldn’t marry”

 

If I didn’t meet the requirements for acquiring a driver’s license, I wouldn’t expect the government to give me one.  Same-sex couples just don’t meet the requirements for acquiring a marriage license.  It’s that simple, and it’s nothing personal, nor are any rights being violated.  As Keith just admitted (and passed over as quickly as he could), same-sex couples right now have the exact same rights under the law. 

 

However, if Keith wanted to argue that since “marriage” is a religious distinction and a religious issue, therefore “marriage” should not be legislated by the state, that the state should call everything a “civil union” and leave the definition of marriage, and wether couples get married or not, to the individuals.  I would stand next to him, in support of such legislation.  Let’s take the principle of “separation of church and state” to it’s logical conclusion and keep the word “marriage” out of government.  We can all agree on this, right?

 

“If this country hadn’t redefined marriage, black people still couldn’t marry white people…”

 

Justifying an incorrect redefining of marriage (same-sex marriage) with ANOTHER incorrect redefinition of marriage (racial restrictions) doesn’t make his argument valid.  In fact, it shows that Keith has no argument because he must pull on the heart strings of Americans who are still hurting from the racial strife of our past.  This issue isn’t about race, it’s about redefining a word and forcing that definition upon everyone else.  In fact, Keith, you should be ashamed of yourself for bringing up race.  This country now has an African American president-elect, and you want to shove us back fifty years.  You should be ashamed for pulling the race card.

 

“Marriages were not legally recognized to be married if the people were slaves.”

 

Now Keith is comparing same-sex couples to slaves.  Again I must wonder how he expect us to take him seriously.  Also, no one is comparing the “correct definition of marriage” to America fifty years ago.  I haven’t heard that once.  We are comparing the definition of marriage to that which the Bible lays down from the book of Genesis on, what has been the definition of marriage since the beginning of recorded history.

 

This next part is hard to quote, but basically Keith is saying that it is a travesty that homosexuals used to have to hide in fake marriages with members of the opposite sex, therefore we should allow same-sex couples to marry.

 

I must be mistaken here, but I was under the impression that American government is not in the business of legislating happiness.  That we aren’t trying to fix the personal problems of those who felt and feel they must hide their chosen lifestyles. 

 

Keith then says that those sham marriages violated the term “the sanctity of marriage”, so much so that the term has no meaning.

 

It’s inconsistent to use the Biblical idea of the sanctity of the marriage bed to try and violate the Biblical definition of marriage between a man and a woman.

 

Again, Keith says, “What is this to you, no one is asking you to embrace their expression of love.”

 

By legislating it, yes they are.  But now Keith has switched from making this issue about race, to making it about “love”.  Do we really agree on a definition for that word “love”?  What kind of love are we talking about?  But more on this a bit later. . .

 

“But don’t you, as human beings, have to embrace that love?”

 

Yes I do Keith, I really do.  People are people and I have compassion and love for all human beings.  But love is not license.  Love does not force me to enable what I see as a destructive lifestyle, to approve of what God tells me is an issue of morality.  Love does not force me to allow the redefinition of marriage and the redefinition of basic human rights.

 

“With so much hate in the world, and so much needless division . . . this is what your religion tells you to do?”

 

Keith has just degraded the Word of God to mere religion.  He is assuming that there is no truth in religion, only meaningless tradition, pomp and circumstance.  Who is Keith to degrade the beliefs of others?  Who is he to trivialize the Word of God, to assume that such a notion as objective truth doesn’t exist?  He is asking those who believe there is truth in God’s Word to violate their beliefs.  Does his public pulpit really afford him the right to do this?

 

“You want to honor your god, and the universal love you believe he represents?  Then spread happiness.”  

 

Just after degrading my religion to mere tradition, Keith appeals to my religion?  Well done.  Just as God is Love, He is also Righteousness, Truth, Justice and Wrath.  To attempt to separate one aspect of God from the rest is to create your own version of god.  This is something that I suspect Keith did a LONG time ago.  Not once, in all of Scripture, did God say He was concerned with our happiness.  But you know what He does say He’s concerned with?  Our righteousness.  Let me give an illustration.  If running into the street makes your child happy, will you allow him/her to do so?  Of course not.  Your child doing the right thing, being safe, is more important than what makes them happy.  This is similar to God’s love for us.

 

And then, Keith takes the cake with this one…

 

“You can quote me whatever you want from your religious leader or your book of choice, telling you to stand against this.  And then tell me how you can believe both that statement, and another statement, ‘Do unto others as you would have them do unto you’.”

 

I wonder if he sees the inherent contradiction in quoting one verse of the Bible, while ignoring the Bible on how it defines marriage? 

 

“You are asked now to stand, not on a question of politics, not on a question of religion, not on a question of gay or straight . . .You are asked to stand on a question of love.”
 

This is where Keith’s secular humanistic belief system rears it’s ugly head.  Keith assumes that human love is the ultimate love.  That how humans define love is the ultimate definition.  He defines love as allowing people to do whatever makes them happy.  And that “happiness” is the ultimate good.  If we believe that God exists, then our definitions of love and happiness should necessarily be defined as God sees it.   In fact, this definition of love assumes that Scripture is not God’s Word and that no God exists.  If we don’t find the ultimacy of the human mind to be convincing, then the question becomes, how DOES God define love?

 

God’s Definition of Love, Not Keith’s, is the One that Matters

 

I’ll give you God’s definition of love, “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16).  The sacrifice of Jesus Christ is God’s definition of love.  It doesn’t find much searching to discover why Christ died on the cross; He died to save us from our sins.  Homosexuality is one of those sins.  It’s no more or no less a sin than lying, no different than heterosexual adultery, there is no greater or lesser sin with God, but it’s still a sin.  So those who are refusing to support a redefining of marriage ARE doing it out of love.  Love for their God and God’s love for their fellow man.