Logical Positivism

 

[Rubble, C/O Dan Seddon, open source]

In last week's "Whataboutery Wednesday" we discussed why science does not prove there is no God.

We left one challenge unexplored, however. What if all we can know is what is proved by science or true by definition? If all we can know is what is scientifically verifiable or true by definition, and God's existence is neither empirically verifiable or true by definition, then it would follow we could not know if God exists.

Now, we could respond to this several ways. We could say it is possible to prove God's existence is true by definition a la some version of the ontological argument. Or we could say, given that God is being itself, His existence is logically inescapable. 

But that answer would mire us in more philosophy than I have time to expound. 

What if there is a problem in the criteria itself? Do we really want to say ALL knowledge is either true by definition or scientifically verifiable? Well, that criteria itself is neither true by definition or empirically verifiable. That is, logical positivism is self-defeating, creating a standard it cannot itself meet. 

Further, logical positivism assumes epistemological methodism. That is, logical positivism asserts we must know how we know something prior to knowing what we know. The problem in this scenario is in order to know logical positivism as a method, we would need a method for knowing our method, and a method for knowing that method, and so on. As J. P. Moreland notes, this would land us in an infinite regress, having to justify each method of knowing with some more fundamental method of knowing. Eventually, we'd have to assert we simply know something, in which case we would have ceased being epistemic methodists at all. 

Logical positivism fails, setting up a standard it cannot meet, and relying on an assumption of epistemic methodism that falls into an infinite regress. And we have sufficiently disarmed the notion that science proves there is no God.

Fortuitous Friday - Communism as a Failed System

 

[Photo of a mural in Havana, Cuba; C/O Yerson Oliveres, open source]

President Joe Biden is making headlines for calling communism a universally failed system. He further noted that socialism is not an attractive substitute.

This is just too delicious to pass up. On the one hand, many of Biden's critics and supporters view him as a stepping stone on the path to socialism. For Biden to say what he did will no doubt delight conservatives who see the gaping fracture within American liberalism. It will also isolate the far left of his own party, including the so-called "Squad." 

However, we should not take this commentary with too much optimism. Biden was none too quick to strongly denounce the repressive and tyrannical regime of Cuba and his denunciation now is undoubtedly a political calculation. It has taken the near-collapse of the Cuban regime for US Democrats to awaken to the reality they need to stop flirting with communism. And so far many Democrats still have not recognized that reality. Bernie Sanders and AOC seem to think the US embargo on Cuba is to blame for the suffering of Cubans. This is a firm reminder that the people screaming most loudly about oppression have no idea what it is, where it comes from, or how to deal with it. 

This is also a real opportunity for us as a country to transcend political division and re-articulate the principles of government for which the people of Cuba now protest. It is an opportunity to remind ourselves and our fellow citizens of the natural law. The people of Cuba are created equal, equal to their government officials, and equal to all other people. The people of Cuba, like all people, are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights. Among these are the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. 

Those rights have been infringed upon by a tyrannical communist government for far too long. In other communist states, like China, the rights of even more people continue to be brutally infringed upon. And the specter of communism or socialism remains a grim possibility of our own political future in the USA. We must remind ourselves that our republic is not self-sustaining, it must be purposefully maintained. We must know our principles and ideals, and we must deliberately pass them on to each new generation. We have too often failed to do this, and the result is a generation that doesn't know if we should support the Cuban protests or why we should do so. 

At the end of the day, it's nice that a Democratic president called communism a universally failed system and Cuba a failed state. But it's not enough. The real work is to be done in raising each generation up to fulfill its civic duty; and as Christians, we must do that in a way that honors Christ above all. We are watching the failures of communism before our very eyes, let us not waste the opportunity. 

Thomism Thursday - Can Anything Happen Outside of God's Government?

[Photo of St. Peter's Basilica, C/O Chad Greiter, open source]

"Reply to Objection 1. There is nothing wholly evil in the world, for evil is ever founded on good, as shown above (I:48:3). Therefore something is said to be evil through its escaping from the order of some particular good. If it wholly escaped from the order of the Divine government, it would wholly cease to exist." - St. Thomas Aquinas, ST I, q. 103, a. 7, ad 1

Time forbids us from considering the totality of this point. However, I want to point out the Angelic Doctor is addressing whether anything contingent can happen and ultimately if anything can happen outside of the Divine Government (aka - Providence). Aquinas affirms nothing can resist God's will, though some things do happen which evade *particular* goods. Why is this the case? God so governs the world that if something happened completely outside of God's will, that thing would simply cease to exist. 

How does this apply to us today?

First, it seems our society is in some respects in total rebellion against God. However, as sinful as our society indeed is, it cannot completely escape God's will. God governs all things, and all things depend on God for their existence. The desire to completely escape God's will is self-destructive, and I mean that literally! To completely escape God would be to completely cease to exist. 

Secondly, following from this, the arguments of the sort "You are on the wrong side of history" are absurd! People aiming at and wishing for the complete cessation of existence have no business appealing to history. Period.

Third, and finally, this reveals that the difference between theological liberalism and conservatism is not simply on paper or rhetorical. What it ultimately reveals is a completely different metaphysic, a completely different religion, a completely different theology. People often ask if Christianity and Islam worship the same God. We should also ask if Christianity and liberalism worship the same God? The answer is a resounding "No!" They think I'm on the wrong side of history. I think their position (if it were actually attainable) would render humanity nonexistent. We don't have the same system, we don't worship the same God. 

Does Science Prove There is No God?

 It's "Whataboutery Wednesday", the day we look to answer an apologetic question/objection to the Christian faith.

Today's objection is that nagging claim that science proves there is no God. I want to challenge this claim with three points.

First, it is often claimed Intelligent Design or creationism are outside the scope of science because they are religious or philosophical ideas. If this is true, then on the same token science cannot disprove the existence of God. The question is simply outside the capacity of science to address one way or the other on this line of reasoning. So pick a lane. Is ID necessarily unscientific, or can science prove God doesn't exist?

Second, science itself rests on metaphysical necessities that themselves logically entail the existence of God. This includes such realities as metaphysical motion, the consistency and knowability of the natural world, and the nature of nature. More could be said here, of course, but you get the idea. Science does not exist in an intellectual vacuum. 

Third, this objection rests on a false dilemma. It is assumed that scientific explanation is at odds, or reduces the need for, God as an explanation. But this is patently absurd. Multiple causes are required to explain any event in the natural world. Saying science proves God does not exist is like saying the fact water boils at a certain temperature precludes the possibility water is boiling in order to make tea. This is not only a false dilemma, but a category error. One cause does not preclude the possibility of other causes. 

Science does not, indeed cannot, prove there is no God. Join us next Whataboutery Wednesday as we consider the challenge of logical positivism, the skeptic's last hope to claim science proves there is no God.

Theology Tuesday - On Worship and Entertainment

 My Facebooks posts are known to create a kerfuffle from time to time. Recently it has been on the issue of the nature of worship, entertainment, and Christian artistic expression. 

I enjoy these debates. Not because I love arguing, but because nothing helps us hone and sharpen our own thinking than a serious disagreement hashed out on logical grounds. Iron sharpens iron (Proverbs 27:17) by means of friction. 

In the USA we have a particular view of worship that has been heavily influenced by entertainment. Biblically, I would say "worship" refers to the rightful response to who God is and what He has done. In the United States, we think of "worship" as an event, a mood, or an atmosphere. And we do this because of experience. 

However, our experience and the thinking that flows from it should hardly be considered normal let alone good and proper. What happens in the USA under the guise of "worship" is a theological and historical aberration. 

St. Thomas Aquinas, in considering an objection to the idea of whether religion is a theological virtue, considered the idea of whether it is impossible to worship God too much. Part of his answer is worth considering:

"And it is possible to have too much in matters pertaining to the Divine worship, not as regards the circumstance of quantity, but as regards other circumstances, as when Divine worship is paid to whom it is not due, or when it is not due, or unduly in respect of some other circumstance" (ST II-II, q. 81, a. 5, ad 3). 

Aquinas notes we can err in worship in several ways. We can offer it to someone or something that does not deserve it (which is idolatry). We can offer it when it is not done with reverence (Hebrews 12:28). Or we can offer worship "unduly in respect of some other circumstance." Aquinas goes on, in Question 93, to further explain worship can be "unduly in respect of some other circumstance" when the thing is not proportionate to its end (Article 2). It is this last category that we in the USA run into a lot. We call things "worship" that are not proportionate to the end of worshipping God. That is, the things we call "worship" simply don't fit, they are not appropriate, it is like putting a dress on a pig.

Nowhere is this inappropriateness more obvious than in contemporary "Christian band" culture, where worship and entertainment are routinely obfuscated, often for profit. Now I have no objection whatsoever to an artist charging for their work. I have no objection to musicians being paid for their music. But I must object, in the strongest possible terms, to the idea that worship can be commercialized, packaged in an event, encapsulated in an atmosphere, and sold at the rate where supply meets demand. That is not worship. To claim an event is worship, and then charge for it, is to become the money changers at the Temple. We need more men willing to follow our Lord's example in dealing with such egregious offenses. 

Expected Schedule

 While this schedule isn’t necessarily going to be set in stone, the general publication schedule will be as follows:

Nexus Monday – These posts will contain links to whatever I find useful, with a short description of why it is useful.

Theology Tuesday – A blog post reflecting on any topic related to theology.

Whataboutery Wednesday – A quick response to some objection to Christianity.

Thomism Thursday – An attempt to bring the Angelic Doctor to bear directly on current issues.

Fortuitous Friday – Anything, literally anything, I want to write about that doesn’t fit into some other category.

Sacred Saturday – A short devotional type of post to help prepare the reader for the Lord’s Day.

Sunday – Go to church, you heathens!