What is Truth? Part 2


Further to my previous article on this subject which focused on the political aspect of truth, I now shift to some of the philosophical and intellectual aspects of truth – namely, how much value does the ideological left place on truth? In particular, does ‘science’ have an implicit, if not often times blatant, ideological agenda that elevates itself as the source of all knowledge … leaving truth discarded in the ditch wondering what the hell happened?

And recall:

“Man is the measure of all things.” The idea that there is no truth but that which individuals deem to be the truth (Protagoras – 490 BC – 420 BC).

I’m speaking here of the dominant definition of a brand of science known as Materialism or Naturalism – both of which assert something akin to a theory claiming that “our reality consists entirely of physical matter that is the sole cause of every possible occurrence, including human thought, feeling, and action.”

This is a world view of atheism plain and simple, and a world view adhered fervently by the large majority of scientists today, in particular in the academic world of Evolutionary Biology and other disciplines having to do with the study and investigations of life – how it came to be and in particular, how did man-kind come to be.

So let’s look at this definition of reality from the perspective of truth and look at the statements of some of its prominent proponents:

  • ” …the “Big Bang” was an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics.” Stephen Hawking
  • ” … tiny quantum fluctuations in the very early universe became the seeds from which galaxies, stars, and ultimately human life emerged” Stephen Hawking
  • “Creation … , really does amount to something complicated springing spontaneously into existence”. Richard Dawkins
  • If you look at the universe and study the universe, what you find is that there is no evidence that we need anything other than the laws of physics and the other laws of science to explain everything we see. There’s absolutely no evidence that we need any supernatural hand of god. — Lawrence Krauss, World-Renowned Physicist
  • “It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid, or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that)” – Richard Dawkins
  • “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.” – Richard Lewontin of Harvard
  • The theory of evolution by cumulative natural selection is the only theory we know of that is in principle capable of explaining the existence of organized complexity. – Richard Dawkins
  • My personal feeling is that understanding evolution led me to atheism. – Richard Dawkins
  • “IDers argue that such traits, involving many parts that must cooperate for that trait to function at all, defy Darwinian explanation. Therefore, by default, they must have been designed by a supernatural agent. This is commonly called the “God of the gaps” argument, and it is an argument from ignorance. What it really says is that if we don’t understand everything about how natural selection built a train, that lack of understanding itself is evidence for super-natural creation.” – Jerry Coyne
  • Anyone who tells children that God – literally – created the world in seven days 6,000 years ago is guilty of perverting education. The truth – and education should be above all else a search for truth – is that the world, and the flora and fauna in it, including homo sapiens, evolved over millions of years. – Susan Elkin: an education journalist, author and former secondary teacher of English.
  • “Mac: I don’t remember seeing ANY evidence presented by you, so why not try some? Is this ‘bullying’ by 1 retiree on another retiree, or is it just me exposing the inanity, blind ignorance, dishonest, illegal & treasonous, faithist IDiocy of a smelly intruder into this valuable place for science education?” Mac here is a commenter at the National Center for Science Education (NCSE). He goes by the moniker CdnMacAthiest, and has been bullying and insulting me and others on a regular basis at this NCSE – so called science education advocacy organization.

I think these snapshots sufficiently picture the mindset of the Materialist and Naturalist (Athiest), so now let me delve into this world view keeping in mind the idea of truth.

All of the insights into the minds shown above are assertions being claimed as fact … hard incontrovertible facts of reality and thus science. But are any of them statements of fact … and thus science .. and therefore “truth?”

Let’s take a few and see where they lead:

Stephen Hawking makes the statement” … tiny quantum fluctuations in the very early universe became the seeds from which galaxies, stars, and ultimately human life emerged.”

Richard Dawkins makes the statement “Creation … , really does amount to something complicated springing spontaneously into existence”.

The very core and definition of Materialism/Naturalism“our reality consists entirely of physical matter that is the sole cause of every possible occurrence, including human thought, feeling, and action.”

Each of these statements, and many others, is claimed by their proponents to be statements of reality and scientific fact – ergo “truth.” And yet pause for a moment and consider the credentials that would be required of anyone making such statements.

  • They must have complete knowledge of the entire physical universe.
  • They must have complete knowledge of the history of the entire universe.
  • They must have complete knowledge of the beginning of the entire universe.
  • The must have a view of the total universe from the vantage point of an outsider looking into the universe.
  • And I suppose they must have complete knowledge of what preceded the universe.

But those making such statements admit an almost complete void of such required knowledge: “Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people.”
Carl Sagan

So I must conclude that the statements of the Materialist and Naturalist are assertions and not statements of fact .. and therefore cannot be claimed as statements of truth. And these statements are not the statements of the agnostic who will say “I just don’t have enough information … .” No, these materialistic/atheist statements are presented as truth … truths to live by … truths that undergird an entire way of life … truths that inform and guide the quest of ‘science’ and thus the quest for ultimate knowledge and truth. These statements of ‘truth’ from those quoted above are intentional and purposeful and often times forcefully inserted into public policy.

Thus I conclude that the Atheist … the Materialist … the Naturalist fails the test of truth … fails the test of a claim they are seeking truth. Richard Lewontin of Harvard summarizes if best when he states “… we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”

Furthermore I conclude that ideology and a religious fervor … not an objective search for truth … drives the Materialist. And, as you can see from the comments of my friend Mac the Atheist at NCSE (just me exposing the inanity, blind ignorance, dishonest, illegal & treasonous, faithist IDiocy of a smelly intruder into this valuable place for science education?”) they are determined ” … that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”

This is the nature of the extreme element that occupies a significant portion of influential mainstream science – an influential element that seeks to impose it’s view of reality and science upon the culture and the nation, and thus turn the direction of the nation.

Note I said “the extreme element.” There are undoubtedly many scientists that do not hold to these extreme Materialistic/Atheistic assertions. But those must constantly watch over their shoulders and be careful of every step lest they find themselves in the cross hairs of those that can ruin reputations and careers. The operative word these days is “denier,” and its use is growing and being used in similar fashion as are the terms “racist”, “terrorist”, “homophobic”, “sexist” and of course the dreaded “N” word in the culture at large. So don’t be surprised when you find yourself being called by one or more of the denier prefixes – “evolution denier”, “science denier”, “climate change denier”, and a new one I heard just the other day “income inequality denier.”

The bullies are out in force – and ideology trumps truth.

Don Johnson – June 2014

 

 

 

 

 


 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s