The scientific method is excellent at exploring the things it was meant to explore, Just like a ruler is excellent at measuring how long a table is, but that ruler becomes useless if you need to measure a cup of milk..
When assessing things like beauty and morality, science is of little use to us, for that we need philosophy.
We can’t throw it out the window like so many people want us to. Philosophical truths are just as important as the scientific ones.
Relativism’s Moral Hero Disproves Relativism
In a world that happened to begin, where only dead matter existed at the beginning, and where physical forces happened to bring some of that matter together in a particular way such that it now moves around on its own, the concepts of “right” and “wrong” are meaningless fictions.
Sure, there might be an objective way for the collections of molecules we call “humans” to live that will enable those humans to live longer or maximize their pleasurable feelings, but there is certainly no obligation to do so (and nothing to say that either living longer or having pleasurable feelings is something that ought to be done; they’re merely possibilities). Obligation requires a personal Rule Giver to whom we’re rightly obligated, who will hold us accountable to that obligation. Without obligation, without a higher objective standard of the way things should be, without a mind above us and before us, there isn’t properly a “right” and “wrong.” There are merely things we choose to do or not do because of preference.
In this world, who are you to judge anyone’s preferences?
Read more via Relativism’s Moral Hero Disproves Relativism – Stand to Reason Blog.
When an artist does a piece of art, even when he doesn’t write his name on the work he leaves a signature of sorts. A knowledgeable person can say the type of paint is right, the brush strokes are right, the age of the canvas is right…..and if the artist is someone like Rembrandt, an art historian can find out. They could even tell the difference between a student of Rembrandt, and Rembrandt himself.
If God created the universe like I believe he did, there should be a signature we can find in his creation that says he in fact created.
Our universe is amazing! Is it the sort of thing that could be created by a series of happy accidents?
When scientist are talking about evolution, they can’t seem to keep away from phrases like “What evolution had in mind” , and “Mother Nature”. But claim the driving force behind evolution is the survivability of random mutations.
DNA doesn’t have a mind to be thinking about what animals will need when the next environmental change comes. It in no way shape or form knows that a drought is coming. It doesn’t know that it’s predators are getting bigger, so that they need to respond in some way. But yet scientist can’t seem to avoid using terminology that requires a mind behind what we see in the universe.
Maybe they should ask themselves are they looking at the painting all wrong.
Seven Days That Divide the World: The Beginning According to Genesis and Science
by John C. Lennox (PhD, DPhil, DSc)
You must be logged in to post a comment.