[7] The Biblical Worldview – Part 2

In the previous post I demonstrated how for rational justification we have to deduce our propositions from Scripture. So, how do we know? Because God has told us in the Bible. Now, we will study in depth about the metaphysical aspects of Biblical epistemology. What is knowledge? How does man gain knowledge? It is to these aspects we will now turn. So before we study about how man gains knowledge, we need to know about the nature of man and about the nature of knowledge. After this, we can study about how man gains knowledge.

The Image of God

The Biblical doctrine of creation states that man is made in the “image and likeness of God.” Since man is made in the “image of God,” we should discuss about God before we discuss about man. That is the logical order. Anthropology presupposes theology proper and that is way the topics are arranged in any text of systematic theology. Just because man is made in the “image of God” does not mean that he mirrors God’s attributes in every way. God is omniscient. We are not. God is omnipotent. We are not. God is eternal. We are not. We need to know about God’s attributes and which of those has limited expression in man – in other words, God’s communicable and incommunicable attributes.

The Bible begins by stating about the act of creation and the method God employed in the process. Based on just this one chapter alone, we can come to some elementary conclusions about the image of God. The first act that God does is to speak, for “In the beginning God said….” God spoke the whole of creation into existence (Genesis 1: 3, 6, 9, 11, 14, 20, 24, and 26). Man was created “in the image of God” on the sixth day as the crown of all creation. Even if we do not look into the other passages in the rest of Scripture that throw light on this, we can come to some valid conclusions as to what the image is, based on the first chapter of Genesis alone.

First, we see that God spoke. We can at least expect that the image must include linguistic ability. And after God created man, He spoke to him and gave him a command – that is, words to obey (Genesis 2:16,17). This implies that Adam was created with faculties of understanding and reason, to process verbal information. He had to at least know the difference between obedience and disobedience to God’s commands. He did not learn this by experience. God instilled that in his mind when he created him.

God modeled clay and then breathed into it the breath of life, and then man became a living being – both body and spirit put together (Genesis 2:7). It is the image of God that separates us from the rest of creation. Let us look at some verses which throw further light on this:

“But it is the spirit in a man, the breath of the Almighty that gives him understanding.” Job 32:8

“[God] who teaches more to us than to the beasts of the earth and makes us wiser than the birds of the air?” Job 35:11

“for God did not endow [the ostrich] with wisdom or give her a share of good sense.” Job 39:17

Thus, the “breath of the Almighty” is what gives man understanding, “teaches” him more and makes him “wiser” than animals. He was given “wisdom” and “good sense” as opposed to the Ostrich which was not endowed with these. Hence, it is not an exaggeration to say that the image of God refers to a rational mind. Some will say that the “image of God” refers to morality. But, what they fail to notice is that man is moral precisely because he is rational. Let me explain.

God commanded Adam and Eve not to eat from the tree of life. They transgressed and Fall continued. Now for Adam and Eve to obey God, the needed to understand His commands in the first place. They needed to understand what is good and what is evil. They needed to discern the difference between obeying God and disobeying Him. Now all of that is a matter of rational thinking. In other words, morality presupposes rationality.

We don’t call a dog immoral because it mates with more than one female dog during mating season. We don’t speak about righteous cows or wicked horses. Animals are not moral because they are not rational. Moral judgments do not apply to animals because they are not rational. They cannot understand the commands of God, which is why they cannot obey them. On the other hand, man is a rational being. He can understand the commands of God, and is expected to obey them. Refusal to do so constitutes sin. Thus, in the most basic essence, sin is a lapse in rationality. And this is what happened during the Fall. The “image of God” was not destroyed, but distorted.

Since then, man’s ability to think correctly has been greatly hampered. This is referred to as the “noetic effects of sin.” He cannot think correctly about God, though God has made such knowledge clear to him, as explained in Romans 1:18-32. Men suppress the truth by their wickedness. God had already made things plain to them. Since creation, God’s divine attributes have clearly seen so that men who refuse to acknowledge God are without excuse. Their “thinking” was futile and their “foolish hearts” were darkened. They deluded themselves to be wise, when in fact, they were actually fools. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped created things rather than the Creator. Also, their rejection of the knowledge of God has caused them to indulge in reprehensive behavior which is morally deviant, violating God’s ontological status for sexuality.

Sin’s effect on the mind has been comprehensive. It has affected his whole thinking. Theologians call this “total depravity.” Before redemption, man is in spiritual darkness. “The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers” (2 Corinthians 4:4). Because of this, he cannot think correctly about God, even though God has revealed true propositions to sinful man in his mind. This is called general revelation, because this is given to all men at all times, regardless of geographical and cultural boundaries. Psalm 19 and Romans 1 illustrate this point. God’s handiwork is seen in creation. Some people can try to smuggle in an empirical interpretation of this passage. They say that man can “see” God in nature. We earlier saw the futility of empiricism. Rather, the correct interpretation is that God has given the necessary presuppositions to man, so that when he sees God’s creation the appropriate response should be worship.

But this is not the case. Because of their wickedness, men deliberately suppress this knowledge and practice abominable things, thus inviting further divine judgment upon themselves. Thus, general revelation in itself does not have a salvific purpose. To attain redemption, man needs special revelation, that is, propositional content from the Bible which gives true statements about God, man, sin, salvation, and judgment.

Thus, as long as man is in this state of spiritual blindness, he cannot understand and believe true propositions about God. Ephesians 4:17-19 describes the spiritual state of man before conversion. Unbelievers live in the “futility of their thinking,” “darkened in understanding,” and separated from the life of God because of the “ignorance” that is in them because of their hardened hearts. Unbelievers are the way they are because they don’t think correctly, that is, Biblically, about God. And the cure to this also targets the mind. So, when God grants repentance, people are led to “a knowledge of the truth” (2 Timothy 2:25).

Only Christ can lift the sinner out of the epistemological abyss and grant him “the light of the knowledge of God” (2 Corinthians 4:4-6). In Ephesians 4:23-24, we are told to be “made new in the attitude of our minds.” So, to not be like the unbelievers, we must no longer think we way we used to do, before our conversion. We have to put on the new self which is being “renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator” (Colossians 3:10).

Can you see the Scripture’s emphasis on defining the “spiritual life” in terms of intellect? Just because something is “spiritual” doesn’t automatically mean that it is mystical, or something esoteric. The Biblical model of spirituality is centered on the mind, and this should be the target in evangelism and discipleship. When man is born in sin, the “image of God” is in a distorted state, and at conversion, God begins to work on it restoring it gradually to conform it to the likeness of Christ.

It takes a sovereign work of God whereby he converts sinful man’s mind and grants him faith. Since this article is not a treatise on soteriology, I cannot provide detailed exegetical arguments. Please refer any text on Reformed dogmatics (Grudem, Berkhof, Hodge, Calvin, to name a few) to understand soteriology comprehensively. God has given us everything we need for sanctification through knowledge of Him (2 Peter 1:3). The subsequent development as a Christian consists of growing in knowledge and grace (2 Peter 3:18), renewing the mind, which leads to transformation, so that we can know and do the good pleasing and perfect will of God (Romans 12:1-2).

In Psalm 32:9 God says, “Do not be like the horse or the mule, which have no understanding but must be controlled by bit and bridle or they will not come to you.” Therefore, to despise rationality is to mock and insult God’s wisdom in the way He made us. If we shun knowledge, wisdom, and understanding of the things of God, we are not acting like “mature Christians” but like brute beasts which have no understanding.

The Biblical View of Knowledge

Now, we need to understand about the nature of knowledge. What is knowledge? What is the difference between knowledge and opinion? What is the link between knowledge and truth? Are they same or refer to something different? These are the questions that we will unwrap and answer.

Something is considered to be knowledge when the information is true. When we are talking about knowledge, there is a cognitive claim. That is, the idea of truth is implicit when the word “knowledge” is used. Otherwise that proposition is called an opinion or something else. Knowledge, is therefore, based on truth, and something which is not true cannot be reckoned as knowledge. Vincent Cheung defines knowledge as the “intellectual retention and comprehension of true propositions.” We can claim to have knowledge when the propositions we affirm are true.

But now, how do we know which propositions are true? Everybody believes some propositions or the other, the sum of which constitutes his worldview. When there are various worldviews, how does one judge which worldview is true? Answering this would require us to go into the fine details of apologetics and bibliology, and that is beyond the scope of this article. However, I will briefly state a few points which would present the answer in an embryonic form. Later, in another essay, I will elaborate on this.

John 17:17 says, “Thy word is truth.” Truth is defined as God’s Word itself. Notice that the verse does not say “Thy word is true.” This would mean that there is some higher standard of truth, and being “true” would mean conformity to that standard. Rather it says, “Thy word is truth.” This means that truth is God’s Word itself. There is no standard for comparison, since the Bible is the ultimate standard. Every other worldview is judged by the Biblical worldview. The Biblical worldview consists of all the propositions of Scripture and all propositions validly deduced from them. Every non-Biblical worldview is false since they do not start to reason from true premises. Any proposition in any worldview should be evaluated from the vantage point of Scripture. Since God is the ultimate reference point and authority for everything, He alone has the exclusive right to define truth and falsehood, right and wrong. To not believe His Word is rebellion and sin.

Now, we need to know about the nature of knowledge. As I mentioned earlier, for us to discuss about how man gains knowledge, we need to know the nature of man and the nature of knowledge. We have already examined Scriptural data and concluded that the “image of God” in man refers to a rational mind, endowed with understanding, with the capacity to process propositional content in a logical fashion. However, because of sin, man’s ability to reason syllogistically from true premises has been severely skewed. At conversion, this is reversed and the Christian is taught by God from His Word to think correctly.

Now, knowledge refers to true propositions. And when we say that something is “truth,” we are referring to a particular proposition or set of propositions which are true. So, in that sense, knowledge and truth are synonymous. I will be using these terms in that sense from now on. In John 17:17 we saw that God’s Word is truth. The Bible contains the self-justifying claim that all it contains is the truth. Now we have to look study about the nature of truth.

I am stressing the importance of the “nature” of truth again and again because there are a lot of funny ideas floating around. Many say that truth is an experience, an encounter, an emotion, truth is pictorial (“A picture is worth a thousand words”) and so on. However, none of these are true, as we shall see shortly. Some of you might feel that I am delving too much into all this. But this is important. Wrong theory will lead to wrong practice. So, it is worth spending some extra time learning the correct theory, so that apply we can it appropriately and glorify God. Here are some verses which throw light on the nature of truth.

Your righteousness is everlasting and your law is true. (Psalm 119:142)

Yet you are near, O LORD, and all your commands are true. (Psalm 119:151)

All your words are true; all your righteous laws are eternal. (Psalm 110:160)

For the word of the LORD is right and true; he is faithful in all he does. (Psalm 33:4)

Every word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. (Proverbs 30:5)

To the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: These are the words of him who is holy and true, who holds the key of David. What he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open. (Revelation 3:7)

To the angel of the church in Laodicea write: These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God’s creation. (Revelation 3:14)

Then the angel said to me, “Write: ‘Blessed are those who are invited to the wedding supper of the Lamb!’” And he added, “These are the true words of God.” (Revelation 19:9)

He who was seated on the throne said, “I am making everything new!” Then he said, “Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true.” (Revelation 21:5)

The angel said to me, “These words are trustworthy and true. The Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, sent his angel to show his servants the things that must soon take place.” (Revelation 22:6)

As the above verses state, it is the “words” which are true. We can now conclude that truth is propositional. A proposition, as defined in logic textbooks, refers to a sentence which can be either affirmed or denied. A sentence consists of a set of words connected in a meaningful fashion. A proposition is a “technical” term for a sentence. Words and clauses without context do not constitute a proposition. I am stating and explaining all this to the minute detail, because this has wide implications for what follows.

According to the Bible, truth is propositional, since only a proposition can be true or false. Truth is not pictorial. A picture is not worth a thousand words. Read Daniel chapter 2. King Nebuchadnezzar has a strange dream where he sees a lot of images and is deeply troubled by it. He calls in the courtiers to tell him the dream and interpret it. Nobody is able to do so. Daniel intervenes and God reveals the dream to him and the interpretation of it. The king did not understand the meaning of the image in gold, silver, bronze, iron and clay. The king did not understand what was meant by the stone striking the feet of the image and the image crumbling down. Both the image and event by themselves did not convey an iota of meaning to the king. Later on, Daniel, having been given the revelation by God, explains the meaning in propositions to the king and then it makes sense to him.

This proves that a picture is not worth a single word, let alone thousand words! If it is really so, that a picture is worth a thousand words, then why not convey that very idea through some picture? Why waste seven words to explain that idea when you can try to communicate that through a painting or some other pictorial equivalent? Obviously, it is impossible to communicate that idea through any picture. That is why they use words and not pictures to say that a picture is worth a thousand words! These statements might sound romantic but are stupid to the core. As children of the light, we should not parrot the clichés that the children of darkness repeat so very often. They don’t know what they talk about most of the time. In contrast with them, we should think before we speak.

I had mentioned that words or clauses without context do not constitute a proposition. In Daniel chapter 5, another king, Belshazzar sees the handwriting on the wall. There are four words, and the king is clueless as to what they mean. Daniel is called in, God reveals the necessary propositions to him, and then he makes sense of those words. This proves that single words, or phrases by themselves, without a context are meaningless and do not convey anything. After Daniel explains, the king knows and understands. Before that he was in an emotional frenzy. He was frightened, his face turned pale and his knees were knocking together. None of this emotional hype gave him truth. It was Daniel’s explanation in propositions that gave him truth. This also serves to reinforce that emotional excitement or fright will not convey any truth. Only propositions will convey truth.

In conclusion, it is worth quoting Vincent Cheung again: “knowledge is the intellectual retention and comprehension of true propositions.”

Biblical Epistemology

Having discussed the nature of man and the nature of knowledge, we are now fit to discuss about what the Bible teaches about how man acquires knowledge. The introductory chapters of 1 Corinthians provide an outline of Christian epistemology besides teaching other things. In 1 Corinthians 1:20-21, we learn that God has made the wisdom of the world to be foolish in His sight. God had determined that human ingenuity would not discover the truth about God, “for in the wisdom of God, the world through its wisdom did not know him” (v 21).

Commenting on these verses, Mathew Henry says, “All the valued learning of this world was confounded, baffled, and eclipsed, by the Christian revelation and the glorious triumphs of the cross. The heathen politicians and philosophers, the Jewish rabbis and doctors, the curious searchers into the secrets of nature, were all posed and put to a nonplus. This scheme lay out of the reach of the deepest statesmen and philosophers, and the greatest pretenders to learning both among the Jews and Greeks. All the boasted science of the heathen world did not, could not, effectually bring home the world to God. In spite of all their wisdom, ignorance still prevailed, iniquity still abounded. Men were puffed up by their imaginary knowledge, and rather further alienated from God.”

In chapter 2:9-10, we learn about God’s plan. “Eye has not seen, ear has not heard (empiricism), no mind has conceived (unaided rationalism), what God has prepared for those who love Him – but He has revealed it to us by His Spirit.” Notice the contrast that is being drawn up here. Man, with his own effort, could not do anything to reach out to God. But God has taken the step to reach out to man and reveal knowledge to him.

Based on sensations (“eye has not seen, ear has not heard”) man could not learn or discover anything about God. We earlier saw how on the basis of empiricism, one cannot know anything truly, let alone know about God. On the basis of unaided rationalism, one cannot know the true premises (“no mind has conceived”), so the entire reasoning is arbitrary and haphazard. Empiricism and Rationalism cannot provide man with knowledge of God. So, what is the way out of this epistemological abyss? REVELATION!

Scripture continues and says “God has revealed it to us by His Spirit” (2 Corinthians 2:10). Empiricism and Rationalism (that is, unaided rationalism) have failed to provide humanity with the knowledge of God. Quoting Mathew Henry again: “all the boasted science of the heathen world did not, could not, effectually bring home the world to God.” In spite of all their meticulous efforts, “ignorance still prevailed.” With all the hype of civilization, men still had only “imaginary knowledge” and were “further alienated from God.” What pitiable state of affairs for those without the knowledge of God! But this was so, because God determined this is the way it ought to be (1 Corinthians 1:21). This was to frustrate human effort, pride, and wisdom (1 Corinthians 1:29). This was so that man could never boast.

The Bible says that we know about God because God has chosen to reveal knowledge about Him through the words of the Bible. “All Scripture is God breathed,” that is, (in the Greek) literally, from the mouth of God. Again, read the section on bibliology from any text on systematic theology to understand the doctrine of the Word comprehensively. God has given us knowledge about Him in His Word, the Bible. Theology is possible because God has revealed knowledge. If God did not reveal it, we would not know about it. “The secret thing belong to the Lord our God, but the things revealed belong to us and our children forever, so that we may follow all the words of this law” (Deuteronomy 29:29).

Now, the Bible teaches that God creates, controls, and facilitates all operations in the universe, whether it is the death of a sparrow, or knowledge acquisition by man. When it comes to knowledge of God, though He has revealed truth about Him in His Word, not every person reading it can understand it or believe it. Because, even there, man is dependent on God for understanding and believing truth. Here are some verses which teach that.

All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him. (Matthew 11:27)

When the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and honored the word of the Lord; and all who were appointed for eternal life believed. (Acts 13:47-48)

When Apollos wanted to go to Achaia, the brothers encouraged him and wrote to the disciples there to welcome him. On arriving, he was a great help to those who by grace had believed. (Acts 18:27)

And Isaiah boldly says, “I was found by those who did not seek me; I revealed myself to those who did not ask for me.” (Romans 10:20)

If God decides to reveal knowledge to somebody He will do so, and if He decides to withhold knowledge from another person, He will do so. Knowledge acquisition by man is solely dependent upon the power and pleasure of God.

At the same time Jesus said, “I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because You have hidden these things from the wise and the learned and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this was Your good pleasure.” (Mathew 11:25-26)

No other view of epistemology will be more humiliating and frustrating to human effort and pride. But this is precisely the reason, why God determined it this way – so that no man may boast before Him. Knowledge is possible because God reveals it to man through the Bible and reinforces it in his mind and makes him understand it when he sees or hears propositions from it.

However, some will say that one still has “see” the words that are written on the paper in the Bible or “hear” the words of the Bible when it is being read aloud. That is, they still want to hold on to empiricism. We have already refuted the futility of empiricism, and we need not repeat it here. They make this objection not because empiricism is defensible, but because the noetic effects of the Fall is strong in their minds, and they need Divine operation to blast the strongholds of empiricism. God have mercy on them.

Knowledge is conveyed and retained in the form of propositions. Knowledge is retained in the mind. God engraves knowledge in the mind of man. So what then, is the role of “seeing” and “hearing”? Are they the means of conveying knowledge? NO! That is what we refuted in the earlier part of the essay. To answer this, we again we turn to 2 Corinthians 2:9-10. Here we see that neither seeing nor hearing can provide us with knowledge of God. But “God has revealed it to us by His Spirit.” It’s God’s Spirit who imparts knowledge of God in the form of propositions to the mind of man. So, knowledge does not reach us through seeing or hearing. Sensations do not provide any means of knowledge. God’s Spirit conveys the propositions directly to the mind of man without any sensations coming in between. Verse 11 and 12 go on to explain that no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. And God conveys His thoughts to us through His Spirit, so that we may understand what God has given us.

Sensations are merely the occasions during which God conveys knowledge to the mind of man. That is, upon the occasion of reading the Bible, God directly conveys knowledge to the mind of man and causes Him to believe what is written. Upon the occasion of hearing the words of the Bible, God directly conveys knowledge to the mind of man and causes him to understand and retain it. So, knowledge NEVER came from sensations. The sensations are merely the occasions during which God directly conveys knowledge to the mind of man. This also explains why those people who are deaf and blind from birth can still understand the Bible using the special means of communication available for them. Hence, this view is also called occasionalism, which refers to the fact that upon the occasion of the concerned sensation, God directly and immediately conveys knowledge to the mind without any secondary means.

This is Biblical epistemology and it is consistent with the Biblical view of the nature of man and the Biblical view of the nature of knowledge. Biblical occasionalism is the only hope for finding the way out the epistemological darkness.

[6] The Biblical Worldview – Part 1

It would help to read through essays [1] and [2] again, because unless you grasp the core issues of the first principle, it will be impossible to evaluate any worldview. So, I repeat it again that it would be worth reading those essays before you read this essay.

Now, I prefer to use the term “Biblical” worldview over “Christian” worldview because the former is more specific as to the content, when the latter is more likely to arouse feelings of the cultural ambience that goes along with Christianity. Moreover, in the present-day religious climate, there are so many things done under the name of “Christianity,” such as Catholicism, and other cults which borrow Christian terminology, when in fact, they are diametrically opposed to Christianity. For this reason, when the term “Biblical worldview” is used, it would point to a very specific source of content – the Bible.

The First Principle – Biblical Infallibility

The first principle of the Biblical worldview is “the Bible alone is the Word of God.” A first principle should be the starting point, should be self-authenticating, make knowledge possible, and the rest of the propositions in the worldview should be deduced from it.

Now, no first principle can be “proved,” in the sense that it cannot be argued for on the basis of some other proposition. If that is so, then it is no longer the “first” principle. If you want proof for everything you can have proof for nothing, since, to prove A you will need B, and to prove B you will need C, and you will land up in an infinite regress. If that is so, the worldview cannot even begin! So, the idea that we should have “proof” for everything is nonsense. What “proof” do you have for the very idea that you should have proof for everything?

But just because one does not have “proof” for the first principle does not mean that it cannot be logically defended. In the following essay, this is what I intend to do regarding the Biblical worldview.

The Starting Point

The first principle should be the starting point of the worldview. There can be no proposition higher than this from which it is derived. This is the ultimate proposition in the entire worldview, and this means there can be no other proposition greater than this. The first principle of the Biblical worldview is Biblical infallibility. This means that the Bible is cannot make a mistake when it talks about something.

“All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.” (2 Timothy 3:16).

“Prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried by the Holy Spirit.” (2 Peter 1:21)

This means that all the propositions in the Bible are true. This is so because God revealed all the propositions in the Bible. All of Scripture – ALL of it – carries God authority, and this means you cannot selectively take some propositions from Scripture and reject others. When you come to the Bible, you accept it as a whole. If you take some propositions and reject others, by what epistemological standard are you doing so? If you affirm the first principle of the Biblical worldview, then you are committed to affirming all that the Bible states.

There is another term – inerrancy – which means that the Bible does not make an error when it talks about anything. Though these two terms are somewhat similar in meaning, the term infallibility is more specific since it denotes the actual potential (the Bible cannot make a mistake) than the actual state of affairs (the Bible does not make a mistake).

Now, every worldview has its first principle. No one can deny us taking our first principle as Biblical infallibility. Every worldview begins somewhere or the other, and we begin with the proposition that God has revealed all the propositions in the Bible. This is called presuppositionalism.

The critics will say that we first assume the existence of God, and then we come to the Bible to prove it. But if you notice, I am not concerned with proving the “existence” of God at all. Merely proving that God “exists” means nothing. Which God (? god)? The God of the Bible, or the Koran, or some New Age idea of Cosmic Consciousness? I am not assuming the existence of God independent of the Bible, and then coming to the Bible to prove it. Rather I first come to the Bible, and then know that God exists, and that He has revealed Himself in the words contained therein.

Self-authentication

Next, a first principle should be self-authenticating. That is, it should satisfy the very demands it is making. In case of the Biblical worldview, the first principle is self-authenticating. How do we know the Bible is the word of God? The very Bible tells us so!

“Thy word is truth.” (John 17:17)

“Every word of God is flawless.” (Proverbs 30:5)

Now, there are those who will say that this amounts to circular reasoning – using the conclusion as a part of the premise. But you should note that we are dealing with the first principle. You cannot have a higher authority to validate the first principle. Since the first principle is the ultimate proposition in the worldview, it should not depend on any other proposition for its justification. So, how do I know the Bible is the word of God? The Bible tells me so.

Just take a look at the first principles of other worldviews. In agnosticism, the first principle is that one cannot know anything about reality. But this first principle cuts itself because one has to know something about reality in order to state that nothing can be known about reality. One assumes some knowledge of reality in order to deny it in the first place. Thus, agnosticism cannot stand logical scrutiny at the level of the first principle.

Next, in empiricism, the first principle is that “all knowledge comes through sensations.” Does this first principle justify itself? Did the very idea that all knowledge comes from sensations, come from sensations itself? No. Then, where did it come from? You see, the first principle of empiricism does not validate itself. Moreover, how do you know the senses are reliable? The reliability of sensations has to be established prior to that, which has not been done, and one cannot proceed to do so, on the basis of this first principle which collapses right at the start.

Next, in the scientific worldview – scientism – the first principle is that something is true only when “proved” by science. Ignoring the logical fallacies in the scientific method for now, was that very proposition – that everything should be proved by science – proved by science itself? If everything should be proved by science, then you also have to prove that very proposition by science – which cannot be done. The first principle of the scientific worldview digs its own grave.

In contrast with these irrational worldviews, the first principle of the Biblical worldview states that God has revealed Himself in the words of the Bible. And how do I know that? From the Bible itself! So, the Biblical worldview is self-justifying.

But, just because any worldview claims infallibility does not mean that it is, indeed infallible. For example, the Koran also claims infallibility. But when we examine the Koran and look at the other propositions in it, we will find that it contradicts itself and thus self-destructs. I will write about this in a separate post in the near future.

The Possibility of Knowledge

Next, the first principle of the worldview should make knowledge possible. For example, if I choose a first principle such as, “a guitar has six strings,” such a proposition may be true but does not tell me about the nature of the universe, or why murder is wrong. So, a first principle must be broad enough to make knowledge possible.

Any worldview has components such as epistemology, metaphysics, anthropology, ethics, soteriology, and eschatology. The first principle should be epistemological. If the first principle is metaphysical or ethical, it cannot be self-authenticating and cannot proceed. For example the proposition, “God exists,” does not make knowledge possible. How does one know about the existence of God in the first place? So, the first principle should be the epistemological foundation of the entire worldview.

In the Biblical worldview, the first principle is that “the Bible alone is the word of God.” So, on this basis the rest of the categories can be derived from taking the propositions from Scripture and validly deducing other propositions from them.

Network of Propositions Deduced From the First Principle

Finally, it is important to remember that a worldview is a network of propositions. That is, all the propositions will be related to each other. If they are not related and end up contradicting each other, then the worldview will self-destruct. Also, all the propositions in the worldview should be derived and deduced from the first principle. If a proposition is not derived from the first principle, then it means its rejects the first principle, and depends upon some other worldview’s first principle. This reeks of inconsistency and contradiction, and such a worldview should be rejected straight away.

I have shown you earlier that the other worldviews cannot even begin on the basis of the first principle, let alone validly deduce other propositions from it. In contrast with this irrationality, in the Biblical worldview, we start of with the first principle of Biblical infallibility and deduce the rest of the propositions from it. This is called systematic theology, and to this we will now turn.

Components of the Biblical Worldview – Systematic Theology

To know the components of the Biblical worldview one needs to study systematic theology. In systematic theology, we gather all the verses regarding a particular topic and validly deduce conclusions from them. The topical arrangement that is followed in most systematic theologies corresponds to the philosophical outline which I had outlined earlier.

The doctrine of the Word of God (Bibliology) is the theological equivalent of epistemology, which is the theory of knowledge? How do we know? Because God has told us so in His Word.

Next, moving on to doctrine of God (Theology Proper), we are told about the nature and attributes of God. We learn about creation, providence, and the beings of the spiritual world such angels and demons. This corresponds to metaphysics, which deals with the nature of reality (Greek, meta = beyond; physics = material world).

Next, we move on to anthropology and we learn about the creation, purpose, and nature of man. A subdivision of anthropology is the doctrine of sin, or hamritiology. We are told about what went wrong with man and the state mankind is in.

Next, there is soteriology, or the doctrine of salvation. But prior to this, there is Christology, or the doctrine of Christ, where we learn about the nature and attributes of Christ, and about the work He has accomplished for His people. As a result of this we study about the application of this in soteriology.

Finally, there is eschatology, or the doctrine of the end times, which is the Christian theological equivalent of the doctrine of time. We learn that time is not cyclical, but linear, and that God will bring history to a grand finish at Judgment Day, when He will judge the world through Christ.

This is a succinct summary of the components of the Biblical worldview. In systematic theology textbooks there are other components such as pneumatology, ecclesiology, and missiology, but those are not the core doctrines which accentuate and separate the Biblical worldview from the rest of the worldviews.

What about truth in other worldviews?

Now a question which might arise is, what about truth in other worldviews? What about other religions? Aren’t all religions just the same? Don’t we all reach to the same God? Most of the amicable folks who want to promote “world peace” and “religious harmony” keep harping on such statements again and again. But repeating something again and again does not make it true. Most of those who say that there is truth in all religions, that all religions are basically the same, and that we can learn from all of them, betray their ignorance in wide measure. In fact, if they take the minimal effort to study world religions, the contrast between the worldviews will be glaringly obvious.

To affirm that there is some truth in every worldview means that the person making the claim already has all the truth, so he is able to recognize it in each and every worldview. Unless one has omniscience, one cannot declare one worldview true and the other as false.

In Colossians 2:3, we are told that in Christ are hidden “all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.” There is no wisdom, knowledge, and revelation elsewhere in any other religion or worldview. In Revelation 19:13, Christ is also called the Word of God. Hence, by deduction we can state that all knowledge and wisdom is found the Word of God – the Bible. Of course, this does not mean that God has revealed exhausted His mind in the Bible, but it means everything He wants us to know is revealed in the Bible. The Bible was given to reveal truth and not to conceal it. God is omniscient, and He has revealed a portion of His mind to us in Scripture. This is not an excuse to shout “mystery” to justify our laziness or unbelief, but to pursue the knowledge of God with all ferocity and vigor since “everything we need for life and godliness” is revealed to us in Scripture (2 Peter 1:3).

The Bible provides us with sufficient information for all intellectual and pragmatic endeavors. To deny this is spiritual treason. Since God has revealed Himself in the Bible, and His knowledge is infallible, it means that everything the Bible speaks about is completely true.

There are some who say that worldviews can be partially true, and partially false. But this is just a subtle attempt to cover up their incompetence. To say that a worldview can be partially true means that there are some propositions which are true and other which are false. However, on what basis will you decide which propositions are true and which are false? This means that you should presuppose another worldview and judge the worldview under question on the basis of that worldview. But how do you know whether the worldview which you use to judge the other worldview is completely true?

Unless you have infallible information revealed to you by an omniscient mind, there is no way for you to authoritatively judge any worldview. This is what God has done in the Bible. He has infallibly revealed His mind to us in the words of Scripture. So, on the basis of Scripture we judge each and every worldview that exists.

The Biblical Worldview vs other worldviews

Strictly speaking, there are only two worldviews – the Biblical worldview and the rest of the worldviews. Right at the dawn of history, God ordained this conflict (Genesis 3:15), maintains it. The contrast between the worldviews is so glaring that the Bible refers to it as the contrast between light and darkness (2 Corinthians 4:4-6). This is why conversion from any other worldview to the Biblical worldview entails a complete revamping of one’s thought life wherein he or she is taught to think on the basis of Scripture (Psalm 1:2).

Darkness is not a dim light, but rather the absence of light. That is the intellectual state of all the other worldviews. The Biblical worldview is not “more” rational than the other worldviews. The Biblical worldview is the only rational worldview and the rest are irrational gibberish, no matter from where they come from (Romans 1:22).

So, what does the Bible say about other worldviews? From Psalm 147:19-20, 2 Timothy 3:16, 2 Peter 1:21, we are told that God revealed His Word only through the prophets of Israel and the apostles in the New Testament. He has not revealed His Word elsewhere. So, on the basis of the Biblical worldview, we affirm that there is no possibility of truth elsewhere. On the basis of the Biblical worldview we affirm that every other worldview is false and will lead to damnation (John 14:6).

Isaiah 8:20 says, “To the Law and to the Testimony! If they do not speak according to this Word, they have no light of dawn!” What is peculiar about the light of dawn? It has very minimal light, since it is just recovering from the night. That is the way it is with anyone who does not speak according to the Bible. They do not even have that minimal light and understanding. They are in intellectual and epistemological darkness. So, how does one get out? Not until God sovereignly grants understanding to their mind. We will now look at this in detail.

[5] Can Science Discover Truth?

In this essay, we will consider another facet to empiricism – science – which finds wide application in virtually all academic and educational circles today. “Science has proved it,” is considered to be an infallible statement, touted by everybody, right from elementary school kids to university professors, not to mention the average man on the street. So, if somebody is told to be “not scientific,” it is a subtle insult on his intellectual credentials. In this essay, we will subject the discipline of science to logical analysis and see whether science has the credibility these people claim it does.

Epistemology Is the Issue

It is important to note that in all these essays I am writing about epistemology – about how we can gain knowledge. We have been examining various schools of thought in the history of philosophy and critiquing them. We saw how agnosticism and empiricism makes knowledge impossible. Epistemology is the controlling principle in any worldview. So, please read this current essay with that in mind, since in this essay we will be looking into whether science can discover “truth.” (It will help if you will read essays [1] and [2] again, so that you will grasp the concept of worldview more comprehensively, and can understand my critique against the epistemological “foundation” of science.)

Science has had a lot of “success,” in the sense that today we have computers, aircraft, digital cameras, microwaves, medical technology, the internet, and a host of other amenities which has made life more comfortable than what it was couple of centuries ago, or maybe, even half a century ago. But it is a grave error to confuse pragmatic success with epistemological power. The two are totally unrelated. Just because we get certain results, it does not mean that the method used to achieve them is infallible. We will analyze science from the vantage point of epistemology, and see whether it deserves the reverence which many scientists claim it does.

Defining Science

We begin by defining the terms. “Science” is a word that is too common in usage, that almost everyone using it think they know what it means. But a simple challenge for them to define it might leave them gasping for an answer. It is indeed a miserable state of affairs that the scientist, who is busy experimenting, and charting graphs in his lab, is most of the time not aware of the very foundations and limitations of his discipline. That is left for the philosophers to worry about, he thinks. This often so because, the scientist is a very “practical” guy who wants results immediately, while the philosophers are those who have a lot of time at hand, who can “theorize” about these issues. But it is this very attitude – that, we shouldn’t worry too much about theory, but focus on practical results – that makes scientists more stupid than they realize they are. I wouldn’t be surprised if that statement had jolted you. But if you share my worldview, you cannot help but affirm that “God has made foolish the wisdom of the world” (1 Corinthians 1:20). In this essay I intend to demonstrate precisely just that, so read on.

So, let’s being by defining science. This is what Merriam Webster has to say about it:

Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin scientia, from scient-, sciens having knowledge, from present participle of scire to know; perhaps akin to Sanskrit chyati he cuts off, Latin scindere to split – more at shed

Date: 14th century

1: the state of knowing: knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding

2a: a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study <the science of theology> b: something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge <have it down to a science>

3a: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b: such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena: natural science

4: a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws

The meaning of a word if often limited by its usage in the historical context. Today, “science” refers to the academic discipline where information is gained by the process of observing, experimenting, framing hypotheses, repeating the experiment again, cross-checking, and arriving at a conclusion. But that is not the sense in which the word was used a few centuries ago. The word “science” is derived from the Latin word scientia which means knowledge. Science, way back then, referred to an organized body of knowledge, regardless of the method of acquiring it. But it is not so it today’s context.

So, in my critique of “science,” I will be operating on the colloquial usage of the term – the third and fourth definitions given in Merriam Webster above.

The First Principle

The first principle of any worldview which starts off with science is based on observation and sensation. So, the crucial point to note is that science is based on empiricism, and I have refuted empiricism in the previous essay. So, we can dismiss science straightaway, without further ado. But, since such a big deal is made about science by the majority of the populace, it will be worth the effort to show them the chinks in the scientific armor.

There is a truism in scientific circles that they will accept something as true only when “proved” by science. It is repeated so often, and from various angles such that most school goers and college students are brainwashed with this maxim. It will take a considerable amount of reason to wipe this from their consciousness.

It can be stated without exaggeration that the first principle of the scientific worldview is that “everything should be proved by science.” But again, does this proposition justify itself? Does it satisfy the very demands it is making? Can you prove that very statement – that “everything should be proved by science” – by science? No! Worse still, can you deduce the other components of a worldview such as metaphysics, ethics, soteriology, and eschatology from such a first principle? No! Right at the level of the first principle, science collapses, but wait! I have lots more to say. Keep reading…

Observation and Sensation

The first thing to note about science is that it is based on observation, which, in turn, is based on sensations. Sensations are unreliable, which is why two people looking at the same thing, can come up with totally different conclusions. Please read the previous essay on empiricism to understand why sensations are unreliable.

If observation is SO reliable, then why do you want to repeat an experiment? Why do you want other people to repeat the same experiment? This is a subtle betrayal that your senses are not reliable, and you want to test them again.

But, how many times do you want to repeat it? Three times? Five times? Thirty-seven times? On what basis do you set the limit? Who decides, and why? That is purely arbitrary.

Also, most scientists are not content with their own experimentation. They want others to repeat them. But why? Is it because your own sensations are not reliable? If so, are the observations and sensation of the next scientist reliable? How do you know? Who decides? Do you want to call in a third person? But why should his senses be more reliable than both of yours’ put together? When do you decide where to stop?

How many people should repeat the experiment? In how many places should they repeat it? There is no rational justification for the choice that is made here. Most often for the sake of convenience, the readings and experiments are repeated three to five times, under highly selective conditions, by few or several people.

Let me illustrate what I have written above with an example which might strike you close to home. Try jogging your memory back to your high school physics lab. Take any experiment you want. I will use the simple illustration of the experiment in which we measure the focal length of a concave or convex lens. Were all the readings you got the same? Wasn’t there a variation? What does this mean? It means that your senses are not reliable. Now go and check the readings your other classmates have got. Were they the same? If you have any degree of intellectual honesty, you will say no.

Usually, the readings will be close to the actual focal length of the lens, but it is not unusual to get a reading which is far outside the “normal” range. For example, if the actual focal length was 20cm, the readings you get might be 18.4cm, 19.2cm, 17.5cm, 18.7cm, and so on. On more than one occasion, when doing this experiment several times, you might get 13.4cm, 24.5cm or something similar.

You can apply this line of reasoning to any experiment you did in high school or college – whether it is measuring the thickness of a wire using the screw gauge, checking the temperature at which salivary amylase acts, or about the color of the flame when calcium salts are burned – and you will see the unreliable nature of observation. Scientists have no explanation for this happening, which is why during calculations with the data, when they want the “results,” the eccentric readings will be left out. This is not logical acumen, but selective bias. I will write more about this shortly. So, point one is that science is based on observation, and since observation is unreliable, science is unreliable.

Induction

Next, we have to note that science is based on induction. Induction is the attempt to arrive at universal conclusions based on general instances. But induction is always a formal fallacy. By observing isolated instances one can never make a universally binding statement. This is so because, to make a universal statement, one needs all the knowledge that is possible, and that means you should be omniscient.

Take for example, the experiment whereby gravity is determined by observing a pendulum bob. By just observing the motion of a steel pendulum for a few seconds, followed by a few calculations, you cannot generously state that gravity is the same everywhere, all the time. Have you observed all the pendulum bobs in the past, present, and future? Have you observed them in all places, under conditions which differ from yours? What if you used a bob made out of lead, or a hollow copper bob filled with water or mercury? Will the readings and calculation remain the same? Will the calculation for the “gravity” you get be unanimous? Go try it out, and honestly evaluate the results.

You will find that even when using the same bob, under the same conditions, you get different readings, let alone using different material in different conditions! You see, based on couple of hours of experimentation in an air-conditioned lab, surrounded by the scientific “aura,” you cannot make a universally binding authoritative statement.

Vincent Cheung takes this one step further. In his book, Ultimate Questions, he writes this:

Some people try to rescue induction by saying that, although it cannot conclusively establish any proposition, at least it can establish a proposition as probable. But this is both misleading and false. Probability refers to “the ratio of the number of outcomes in an exhaustive set of equally likely outcomes that produce a given event to the total number of possible outcomes.” Even if we grant that empirical and inductive methods can discover the numerator of the fraction (although I deny that they can do even this), to determine the denominator requires knowledge of a universal, and omniscience is often necessary to establish this.

Since probability consists of a numerator and a denominator, since the denominator is a universal, and since empirical and inductive methods cannot know universals, then to say that induction can arrive at “probable” knowledge is nonsense. Even apart from other insoluble problems inherent in empiricism itself, an epistemology that is based on an empirical principle cannot succeed, since empiricism necessarily depends on induction, and induction is always a formal fallacy.[1]

Asserting the consequent

Next, science cannot avoid the fallacy of asserting the consequent. In logical language it is stated as,

1. If P, then Q

2. Q

3. Therefore P

Notice the form of the argument. Premise 1 only states what will follow if P is the case. That is, if P is true, then Q will be true. But there are a number of things which can be substituted for P, and still Q will be true. There is no reason whatsoever to assume that Q will follow only from P. I will illustrate this with an example. If it is raining, the ground will be wet. The ground is wet. Therefore it is raining. However, the conclusion just does not follow from the premises. The ground can be wet due to so many reasons. A water pipe might be leaking, or a truck might have spilled water along the way.

I will use another example from my field of study. If the brain stem is damaged, then the patient will be dead. The patient is dead; therefore the brain stem is damaged. This is ridiculous! The patient can die due to various reasons. It just does not follow that the brain stem has to be damaged in all situations. He might have had a heart failure, renal failure, respiratory failure, or a massive blood loss.

Take another example from literature. If someone reads Shakespeare, he will have good command over the English language. He has good command over the English language; therefore, he has read Shakespeare. This again, is fallacious!

If the law of gravitation is true, then freely falling bodies will have constant acceleration. Freely falling bodies have constant acceleration; therefore the law of gravitation is true. Can you see the fallacious nature of this type of “reasoning”?

The scientist starts off with a hypothesis where he predicts a result. He then, performs an experiment, and he gets the result. Therefore, the smart scientist concludes, his hypothesis is true! This is the type of “thinking” that takes place in the hallowed portals of science today. Science “works” by asserting the consequence, and you cannot achieve formal syllogistic validity with such type of reasoning. It is irremediably fallacious. You cannot side-step this fact, no matter how much you try to brush it under the carpet of scientific jargon and elitism.

Equations are Arbitrary

Next, we will deal with the method by which equations are discovered. Again, let’s go back to your high school physics lab. You have dangled the pendulum bob and recorded readings till your patience is exhausted. You have a set of readings, which are different from each other. Then you take the sum of them and then divide them by the number of readings. That is then touted as the “objective” value. But why did you choose to average all the readings? Why not take the mode? Why not the median?

You see, your choice of the average was purely whimsical. That is, it was arbitrary. Your data did not dictate that choice to you. You have a set of data before you. Now what do you do with it? How do you proceed? No matter in which direction you go, the data did not direct you to do so. It is a private decision independent of the data.

And, even then, what you have is the average, and not the actual reading itself. It seems like you have thrown out all your facts (the recordings) and stick to what is not a fact (the average). So much for observation, experimentation, and the claim that science deals with “facts”! Half-baked characters, whether in the university or in the ghetto, can easily chant that “science discovers facts, science discovers facts…” again and again. But asserting something again and again does not make it true.

I have just shown you that in science, you never deal with the “facts” as they are. You twist and contort them according to your personal whims. Scientific laws are not discovered, they are always chosen according to the private fancy of the investigating scientist. The raw data does not dictate the mathematical procedure you use to arrive at your conclusions. It is done on a purely subjective basis, and cloaked as “objectivity” in academic circles. So much for the intellectual neutrality which scientists claim!

But wait! I am not done yet. We are yet to see how laws are derived. You take your “facts” and plot them on a graph. Then it is time for you to draw a line. But how do you choose? There are an infinite number of lines that can be drawn through the points on the graph. Each line will represent a particular equation. But which line do you choose? Again, that is purely arbitrary! Which line represents the “real” equation? There are infinite number of lines for you to choose from. What is the probability that you will hit the right line? It is one divided by infinity, which is…..zero. Are you shocked? I have just subjected science to strictly logical analysis and this is what emerges.

In case you are dumb enough to say that I am “biased” because of my worldview, and therefore you won’t listen to me, at least listen to what others who have nothing to do with my worldview have said. Karl Popper, a very famous philosopher of science states, “It can be shown that all scientific theories, including the best, have the same probability, namely zero.”[2] Albert Einstein, speaking about the real nature of the universe, said: “We know nothing about it at all…. The real nature of things we shall never know, never.”[3] Now, that was Albert Einstein for you. Bertrand Russell, who was antagonistic to Christianity all his life, said that all scientific laws are based on asserting the consequent, and thus, knowledge is impossible on the basis of science.

Ideal Situations

Finally, we have to note that all scientific laws describe ideal situations, which are never possible to attain in “real” life. Gordon Clark illustrates this point, again, with the pendulum bob.

The law of the pendulum states that the period of the swing is proportional to the square root of the length. If, however, the weight of the bob is unevenly displaced around its center, the law will not hold. The law assumes that the bob is homogeneous, that the weight is symmetrically distributed along all axes, or more technically, that the mass is concentrated at a point. No such bob exists, and hence the law is not an accurate description of any tangible pendulum. Second, the law assumes that the pendulum swings by a tensionless string. There is no such string, so that the scientific law does not describe any real pendulum. And third, the law could be true only if the pendulum swung on an axis without friction. There is no such axis. It follows, therefore, that no visible pendulum accords with the mathematical formula and that the formula is not a description of any existing pendulum.

Some might say that this might apply to physics and not to other disciplines such as sociology and biology. I do not dispute that. But that doesn’t mean you can escape from the rest of the above refutation such as the unreliable nature of observation, induction, asserting the consequent and so on. I mostly chose examples from physics because it is foundational to other experimental disciplines. Coming to the point, in science you deal with ideal situations which are impossible to replicate in real life. You cannot have absolute vacuum, frictionless surfaces, and tensionless strings. If this is so, then on what basis do scientists so cockily assert anything? Purely on the basis of their imagination. Nothing else. What passes for “knowledge” in scientific circles is nothing more than imagination, which is neatly re-packaged as “facts.” In fact, the present day structure for benzene, which is used all over the world in all chemistry textbooks was based on a dream which Kekule (a German chemist) had where he saw a snake engulfing its tail by its mouth. And today, his dream is the basis for chemical equations involving benzene all over the world!

Tissue of logical fallacies

John Robbins calls the scientific method “a tissue of logical fallacies.” Nothing can be more appropriate. Science can give you results, but not truth. So when people say things like “something is true only when proved by science,” they do not know what they are talking about or asking for. “Scientific truth” is an oxymoron. Science can never rid itself of the fallacies which are a part and parcel of its foundational methodology.

There is no point hoping that sometime in the future, we will discover truth through science. As long as you are stuck with empiricism, induction, and asserting the consequent, there is no way you can get out the epistemological abyss. No way! (In case you didn’t hear me the first time.)

But it works!

“But science works!” you say. I heat food with microwaves, fly in planes, send e-mails and so on. It “works”! But you have only succeeded in telling me what science can do. You have not told me how it can discover truth. Science can achieve a lot of pragmatic ends, and its function stops right there. It can NEVER furnish you with truth. This explains why false theories have also “worked.” Long before the theories of relativity, Newtonian mechanics was in vogue and it “worked.” So, when Einstein challenged scientific orthodoxy with relativity, they criticized him severely. But today, physics is unthinkable without relativity! Did Newtonian mechanics “work”? Yes! Do the theories of relativity “work”? Oh, yes! But how can contradictory theories both “work”? Well, welcome to “science”!

Let me again use an example from medicine. About fifteen or twenty years ago doctors stated that beta-blockers (a drug meant for reducing high blood pressure) should never be used in heart failure. So, in your board exams if you had mentioned that you can, in fact, use them, the examiners would have flunked you. Now the medical community recommends the same drug for heart failure with a big smile! You ask, what the heck is going on? (You now realize what a BIG stake you make on your doctor!) In fact, if you are relying too much on medical technology, just read up on the history of medicine and you will actually discover that the “trial and error” method was at the crux of the whole enterprise! Your doctor might not aware of all this. Maybe you should wake him up!

Scientific Mythology

The false conceptions of science which are embraced by scientists and other “intellectuals” is similar to the wide-eyed fascination with which children listen to mythological stories. The essence of mythology is to take you out of your humdrum world and promise you something which it cannot deliver. In the beginning, kids do not realize this, but later on, during adolescence, they grow out of it. The same way, the problem with the big kids – the scientists – is that they never even come close to intellectual puberty, let alone mature after that. They keep listening and drooling, all the while hoping that science will deliver its mythological promises, which it never can.

The solution is not to discard science all together, but to realize its limits and not over-estimate it. Its time to strip the mythological elements in science which have been a part and parcel of its community for so long. Science can help us achieving practical ends. That’s all. Scientists should keep quiet after that. No matter how successfully the theories “work,” it cannot give you truth. This explains why even contradictory theories also “work.” It can never give you absolute truth, so it is always false.

Epilogue / Epitaph

All is said and refuted with regard to the scientific methodology (mythology?). We could have dismissed science straightaway since it is based on empiricism. But, since there is so much of hype created today about science and its ability to discover truth, I think it was worthwhile writing an entire essay blaspheming the god of science. I know many of you who venerate this idol called science will find my attitude to be sacrilegious. I know I might have stepped on your toes. I owe you no apologies for that. In fact, you should be glad that I exposed the falsity of your assumptions. This is the task my Master has equipped me for – to tear down unbelieving strongholds and to take every thought captive to Him (2 Corinthians 10:5). Have you believed that science gives you truth? Its time you woke up from your delusion. You should not expect something from science which it cannot deliver.

Are you having a negative reaction to what I wrote above? You can have three or four PhDs behind your name, you can stroke your chin and try to exude that elitist aura, and you can play with your gizmos, gadgets, and dials, while pretending to ignore the shakiness of your very scientific foundation. But I know where you stand, and I have exposed it to you. You can ignore all of it, and still convince yourself that you are very smart. But the truth is that you are so irrational and stupid, that your reaction seems like brute instinct, rather than careful logical deliberation. For if you had even once ounce of rationality and logical sense, you will see through the epistemologically shaky and irrational “foundation” of science. You can always fool ignorant simpletons with clichés which are asserted again and again in university circles. But if you try such gimmicks with the Ambassadors of Christ, we will turn and tear you to pieces (2 Corinthians 10:5).

Do you want to know absolute truth? With your epistemological bootstraps you cannot pull yourself out to find it. Unless the Light that enlightens every man reveals it to you, you will still remain in your epistemological void. Its time for mythology to end and Revelation to take over. “To the Law and the testimony. If they do not speak according to His Word, they have no light of dawn” (Isaiah 8:20).

---

[1] Vincent Cheung, Ultimate Questions, p 20.

[2] Karl Popper, Conjecture and Refutations, Harper and Row, 1968; quoted in Vincent Cheung, Presuppositional Confrontations, p 11.

[3] Ronald W. Clark, Einstein: Life and Times; Avon Books, 1971; p. 504; quoted in Vincent Cheung, Presuppositional Confrontations, p 10.

[4] Empiricism

Introduction

Empiricism refers to the school of thought which says that all knowledge comes through sensations. That is, when we observe the world around us using our sensations, we gain knowledge. The major proponents in this school of thought were David Hume, John Locke, and George Berkeley. We have already refuted David Hume in the previous essay on agnosticism, so we shall not repeat the same here. Moreover, I will not give a critique of individual views here, since the refutation I outline here will apply to all of them. There have also been some religious men such as Thomas Aquinas and William Paley who have advocated empiricism and tried to build a case for God’s existence based upon that. I will include a brief critique of “religious empiricism” as well.

The First Principle

Empiricism alleges that all our knowledge comes through sensations. Therefore when we see, hear, touch, or feel something, we gain knowledge. Observation is the means of acquiring knowledge.

Now, the questions to be posed to empiricist is, How do you know that all knowledge comes from sense experience? Did the very idea that all knowledge comes from sensations, derived from sensations itself? If not, where did you get that proposition from? How do you know sensations are reliable? How can one state that all knowledge is derived from sensations, without demonstrating the reliability of sensations?

Empiricism collapses right at this level. The first principle is not self-authenticating, and does not make knowledge possible. We can dismiss empiricism right away, but we will pose some more questions and see the logical pitfalls in empirical epistemology.

How do you “sense” sensations?

How do you “know” what is a sensation? That is, how do you know you are experiencing a sensation? Do you know that also on the basis of sensation? If so, then, what is the sensation (S2) that senses the first sensation? In other words, how do you sense a sensation? And how do you sense the sensation (S2) which senses the first sensation (S1)? And how do you sense the sensation (S3) that senses the sensation (S2) that senses the first sensation (S1)? And you cannot stop there! How do you sense the sensation (S4) that senses the sensation (S3) that senses the sensation (S2) that senses the first sensation? You will have to go ad infinitum. You can never even being your worldview if you want to hold on to your view that sensations convey knowledge.

What I have written above is neither a tongue twister nor an exercise for semantics. It is nothing but the logical outworking of empiricism. If it is true that all knowledge comes from sensations, then on the basis of empiricism, you cannot even start your worldview. With which sensation are you going to begin with? And why do you choose that sensation? Nobody has still answered the question of how they know they are having a sensation. Moreover, how do you know that you are not having a sensation? Again, on the basis of sensation? How do you “sense” that you are not having a sensation? You see, empiricism is fatally flawed right at the beginning.

Most importantly, how does sensation translate to knowledge in your mind? One has to write down in syllogistic form the argument defending the view that sensations can instill knowledge in the mind. All of them believe that the mind is a tabula rasa, which is like a blank slate, and sensations writes knowledge on the mind.

But how did you get to know that the mind is a blank slate in the first place? By sensation? Through which sensation did you sense that the mind is blank? Have you “sensed” your own mind the in the first place? How?

How did you sense that the mind is “blank”? If the mind is “blank” how did you manage to sense it? What is there in the mind for you to sense it, if it is blank? But, what is the “mind,” to begin with in the first place? Answer that question in a manner consistent with your epistemology. On the basis of sensations alone, first define what the “mind” is. Then, tell me how you got to know that this mind was blank. Again, answer that question on the basis of empiricism alone.

According to you, one has to sense everything to get to know it. But how do you sense a mind? Through sight? Sound? Touch?! Taste?!! Smell?!!! You see, I am simply drawing out the implications of empiricism for you. Do you see with your eyes what is in your mind? Do you hear it? Do you smell it?! Do you taste it?! Do you feel it? Now, tell me, how did you sense your own mind, let alone the minds of other people? Answer that question before reading further. I am holding you to the empiricism you are holding on to. Justify sensations, and then go ahead.

If the mind is “blank,” as empiricists claim, what is there for you to sense in the first place? There won’t be anything for you to sense! So, how in the world can you state that the mind is blank without even knowing what you are talking about? Are you trying to be funny or something?

And how do you sense when the mind is filled with sensations? And how do you sense the sensation that is conveying knowledge to the mind? Have you “sensed” these sensations? How do you know which sensations you are sensing? Again, on the basis of sensation? If you are bombarded with a whirlpool of sensations, which sensation do you pick out from to convey knowledge to you? Again, on the basis of sensation? You should answer all these questions if you seriously believe that empiricism is justifiable.

You see, I am asking, how do sensations translate to knowledge? Write down an argument in non-fallacious syllogistic form and demonstrate that sensations can convey and instill knowledge to the mind. It is impossible to write down that argument. Read again what I have underscored and then think of attempting such an endeavor. You will need all the luck in the universe, since you can never achieve formal syllogistic validity! How can you deduce a proposition form a sensation? Go ahead! I am waiting for some entertainment! Where will you start?! With which premise?!!! And again, if you want to maintain your consistency, you should first begin by justifying your “sensational” epistemology in the first place! (Pardon the pun, but I cannot avoid sarcasm here!) Getting my opponent into such a position is real fun, and resulting nuisance value is simply rollicking!

Are Sensations Reliable?

We know that mosquitoes bite and the water running between our feet in the beach sand feels good because we “sense” these events. However not everybody experiences this in the same way. People who have advanced leprosy will not be able to feel either a mosquito bite or the water running through their toes. People who are blind will not be aware that it is a mosquito which bit them. A thirty year old might not feel mosquito bite with the same intensity as a newborn. Also, if the mosquito bites you in the sole of your foot it won’t be as painful as a bite on your eyelid. People who have had a spinal cord injury might not be aware that they have legs in the first place, let alone experience a bite. And some people, who have had a limb amputated, might still feel that a limb exists (phantom limb phenomenon), and feel pain in that non-existent limb!

You see, the real feeling or sensation is impossible to settle upon on because there are wide varieties of individual factors which will vary from person to person and from time to time. You cannot “know a thing as it is” on the basis of empiricism. Sensations not reliable and it is impossible for people to have a unanimous decision on any given sensation. Just read the examples I have given above. Each person can come up with contradictory interpretations. Take the example of a mirage when you are driving on a hot summer day. You thought it was water, but when you came near it turns out to be nothing! This is the way sensations are. You can never arrive at epistemic certainty on the basis of empiricism.

The scientific discipline is subject to the same pitfalls. Scientists can observe the same set of data and come up with contradictory interpretations. In the next post on scientific epistemology, I will deal with this in greater detail.

Empiricism and Induction

But, wait! I am not done yet. Empiricism is plagued with induction, and you have to answer the following questions as well. Induction refers to the method by which general conclusions are arrived at on the basis of observing particular facts. Now, we have already shown the problems with observation and sensation, and we need not repeat it again. But empiricism is infiltrated with induction, which again damages it all the more.

In induction, you observe a limited number of instances and then conclude that is the case everywhere, all the time. For example, you observe thousand crows, and all of them happen to be black, and then conclude that therefore, all the crows are black. But how do you know that? Have you examined all the crows in the past, present, and future all over the world? There might be an albino. Based on your limited observation (not to mention the problems with observation per se), you can never claim certainty.

Have you known all the minds in the universe in the first place? The minds of all the people who have lived are living and will live in the future? Have you known about the minds of all the people all over the world? If not, how in the world can you shamelessly make an authoritative statement that the all minds are blank and that knowledge is instilled by sensations? If you are trying to be funny, I can understand that. You are truly “sensational.” I appreciate your sense of humor, but the place to be funny is elsewhere and not in the arena of logical argumentation.

Religious Empiricism

William Paley, Thomas Aquinas, R. C. Sproul, and William Lane Craig, are some of the many Christian apologists and theologians who hold to empiricism. It is not my intention to discuss comparative apologetics at present. That will be deserved for a discussion much later on. For now, we will see a major pitfall in their reasoning.

They try to start on the basis of observation and then make a case for the existence of God. Again, they have to answer all the questions posed above. They cannot do that. It is impossible for empiricism to have a self-justifying epistemology.

But there is another area of their arguments which I would like to focus on right now. It is about how they arrive at “God” right at the end of the argument. William Paley was a priest who is famous for his “watch-maker” argument. His argument is based on the fact that there is order and design in the universe. Since it is so, there has to be Designer whom he equates to be God. But how does a Designer in one premise suddenly become God in the next premise? Which God (?god)? This last part of the argument makes a leap in logic. The conclusion just does not follow from the premise.

Thomas Aquinas starts with motion. He finally lands up with a First Mover, and then suddenly makes the conclusion that “it” is God. But which God? The God of the Bible? Or the god of Islam? Or some neo-platonic conception of God? You see, right at the end of the argument, they make a leap from some impersonal entity to “God.” First, this argument is not valid since, if you trace the premises carefully, this conclusion does not follow them. Next, simply stating “God” will not do. Is this “God” the Trinitarian God who has revealed Himself in the Bible or the monistic god of Hinduism?

You see, it’s not some “generic” theism which Christians should defend and preach. We should defend a specific and exclusive Christian theism which will rule out all views contrary to it right from the beginning. I will write more on this when writing about comparative apologetics.

Epilogue (?Epitaph)

All has to do with empiricism has been discussed and refuted. If you still hold on to the view that knowledge comes through sensations, it is not because you are logically smart, but because you are irrational and hopeless. There is no hope for you unless the Morning Star rises in your heart to remove your intellectual blindness. Read on, and you will be told about the Light that enlightens every man.

[3] Agnosticism

Introduction

Agnosticism refers to the school of thought in philosophy which asserts that it is not possible to gain knowledge regarding anything. The term was coined by T. H. Huxley, literally meaning “no-knowledge.” It is also called skepticism. The prominent men in this school of thought were David Hume and Immanuel Kant. They laid the philosophical basis for agnosticism. Immanuel Kant himself was a rationalist until he claimed he was woken up from his “dogmatic slumbers” by reading Hume. When studying the thoughts of these men, and refuting them, you will see that there are close overlaps with empiricism (the philosophy that all knowledge is gained by sensory experience). But since this essay deals with agnosticism, I will reserve a full rebuttal for empiricism later on. In this essay, I would like to briefly outline the chief contributions to agnosticism, refute them, and finally show you that agnosticism kills itself, with its very first principle.

David Hume

David Hume was a philosopher who lived during the time of the European Enlightenment. His epistemology of skepticism led him to agnosticism, and to throw doubt on the possibility of the miraculous and suspend judgments on metaphysical questions.

His skepticism was based on his epistemology. He was an empiricist, and hence believed that all knowledge comes only through sensations. Since no knowledge of God could be gained through sensory experience, he concluded that we cannot know God. In his famous Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding he writes this:

“If we take in our hand any volume – of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance – let us ask, does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact or existence? No. Commit it then to the flames, for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.”

Read the above quote carefully, for with these very words Hume digs his own grave. He says that if a proposition is neither mathematical (abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number) nor empirical (experimental reasoning), it is meaningless. But look at the very statements he made to assert that! Is it either mathematical or empirical? Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. So, what shall we do with his words? In his own words, let us then, commit it to the flames, for it can nothing but sophistry and illusion! According to him, if a statement is neither analytical nor empirical it is meaningless. But look at the very statements he wrote to assert that. It is neither analytical nor empirical. By a consistent application of his own criteria we ought to conclude that his statements are meaningless.

So what do we do with his ideas and books? Commit it to the flames! History does not record whether he was consistent enough to do that, but it’s amazing and funny to see that these so-called giants in the history of philosophy made a morass of their own thinking, but were never aware of it. Hume’s skepticism was a result of his empirical epistemology. But who said that all knowledge comes through sensations? Did the very idea that all knowledge comes through sensations come through sensations itself? Then where did it come from? You can see an inconsistency right there.

Hume’s view was not a harmless one which was just another philosophy to fade with time. It had positive impact on Auguste Comte of the Vienna Circle, and later, A. J. Ayer, who came up with logical positivism. This is a philosophy of language which states that if a statement is not empirically verifiable, then it is meaningless and nonsensical. This view had devastating effects on Christian theology. Since all statements about God would fall outside empirical verification, they concluded that theology is nonsense. However, logical positivism too died by its own sword, since the very first principle that all statements should be empirically verifiable was not empirically verifiable.

Immanuel Kant

Another individual who owed his intellectual development to Hume was Immanuel Kant. He was trained in the rationalist line of thought which was advanced by Rene Descartes, Benedict Spinoza, and Gottfried Leibniz. The rationalists stressed a priori categories of the human mind, and knowledge. They were against the idea that knowledge comes through sensations. Contrary to that, the empiricists, such as John Locke, David Hume, and George Berkley stated that the human mind is a blank slate (tabula rasa) and that knowledge is gained by sensations. These two schools of thought are rivalry, and Kant attempted a synthesis between these two philosophies. What seemed like an epistemological advantage actually landed him up in agnosticism.

Kant was initially trained in the rationalistic tradition, but then after reading Hume he claimed that he was “awakened” from his “dogmatic slumber.” He tried to attempt a synthesis between these two ideas. He said that all our knowledge is gained a posteriori from sensations, but it is structured by the a priori categories in the mind.

However, following this syncretistic epistemology which appears to be an apparent epistemological gain, we land up with wholesale loss. If all knowledge which gained through sensations is structured by a priori categories, then we can only know things as they appear to us, not as they are in themselves. We can know the phenomena, but not the noumena. We cannot know a thing as it really is, but only how it appears to us. We cannot know reality, but only appearance. This led him to state that we can never know the real state of affairs about anything.

Types of Agnosticism

Norman Geisler outlines two ways in which agnosticism can be classified.[i] In the first type, agnosticism can be unlimited or limited. The former holds that God and reality is completely unknowable. The latter claims that God is only partially unknowable because of human finitude and sinfulness. This position will reserve careful consideration later on.

In the second type of categorization, agnosticism can be weak or strong. The weak form holds that God is unknowable, and the strong form holds that God cannot be known. Those who believe that God is unknowable, cannot drive home that proposition with rational certainty. This leaves open the option that God can be knowable. The stronger position, that God cannot be known is the view which deserves sharp criticism.

Geisler, when analyzing these views, narrows them down to three alternatives when discussing about knowledge of God:

[1] We can nothing about God; He is completely unknowable.

[2] We can know everything about God; He can be exhaustively known.

[3] We can know something, but not everything; God is partially knowable.

The first position will be analyzed shortly. The second and third position will be analyzed when dealing with theism and the possibility of knowledge. It is too big a topic to be discussed here and my intention right now is to refute agnosticism, and not to consider the alternatives to it.

Self-refuting statements

Complete agnosticism is self-refuting. The claim that “reality is unknowable” posits some claim to knowledge. Otherwise, they wouldn’t be able to make that statement in the first place. They know that reality is unknowable. One has to know something about God to state that God is cannot be known. In their explicit attempt to deny knowledge, the implicitly posit a claim to knowledge – they know that God cannot be known. One has to assume some knowledge about reality in order to deny all knowledge reality.

Thus we can see that agnosticism self-destructs. If you claim that we can know something, then you are no longer an agnostic. Agnostics are those who know for sure that you cannot know anything for sure. Agnosticism contradicts itself right at the level of the first principle and cannot move any further. Anybody claming to be an agnostic cannot have a worldview at all, since agnosticism is about denying knowledge rather than affirming it.

Agnosticism collapses at the level of the first principle and leaves you in an epistemological abyss. You cannot have a worldview on the basis of agnosticism. You are in intellectual darkness, groping about not knowing where you are going or what you are talking about. Of course, if you are consistent there, you would not “know” that you are in intellectual darkness, which is why you need Ambassadors of the Light to come and enlighten you about it.

Epilogue (?Epitaph)

Strictly speaking, agnosticism cannot be rightly classified as a legitimate epistemology, since in epistemology you are dealing with how knowledge can be attained, and agnostics are trying to avoid that very possibility. Are you skeptic and proud to be one? Have you believed that skepticism is synonymous with sophistication? Well it’s about time you woke up from your “dogmatic slumber.”

If you really don’t know anything, you should just keep your mouth shut. If you do not know, then why do you want to open your mouth to say anything in the first place? If you know nothing whatsoever about reality, you cannot make any statement about reality. Logically, you should keep silence. If you do, however, claim to be an agnostic, every time you open your mouth to state anything, you are contradicting yourself and writing your own epistemological epitaph.

Or are you are in the category which says “I do not know”? If that is so, I commend your humility in owning up to your ignorance. To correct ignorance one needs instruction. Keep reading further and you will be told about the Light that enlightens every man.

---

[i] Norman Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics; Baker Books, 1999; p 11.

[2] Testing Worldviews

In the previous essay I defined a worldview, and stated its characteristics. A worldview refers to a person’s belief system. It is a network of inter-related presuppositions which should ideally cohere and form a recognizable pattern. Since it involves belief, it posits a claim to knowledge, as opposed to feeling or opinion. Also, since it is a system, the individual propositions of the worldview are related to each other, and ideally they should not contradict each other. But, if the individual propositions contradict each other, the entire worldview will self-destruct. Such a worldview reeks of inconsistency and any person with a minimum level of intelligence should not take such a worldview seriously.

Also, we noticed that in each worldview there is a hierarchy of propositions. For example, one cannot make a statement that same-sex marriage is wrong, unless one goes through a sequence of propositions in the reasoning process. Stating that same-sex marriage is wrong assumes that there is right way of marriage. And why is heterosexual marriage right, as opposed to homosexual marriage? So this involves a presupposition about human sexuality. But one cannot talk about sexuality, unless one talks about human nature. And you cannot stop there. You should talk about the origins of humans before that. And you cannot stop there too; you should talk about the origin of everything else before that. Before you do all this, you should tell us how you know all your statements are true. So, in every worldview there is an order of propositions in which each one is dependent on the other, progressing up the chain where one finally comes to the starting point.

The First Principle

Every worldview has a starting point. This is called the first principle. This is the ultimate authority in any worldview. The rest of the propositions in the worldview hang upon this first principle. If the first principle cannot stand rational scrutiny, then we should not take rest of the propositions seriously. You should keep going up the sequence of propositions until you come to the starting point. If a worldview does not have a starting point, then it cannot even begin, let alone proceed, and make other statements about reality. If a person denies that his worldview has a starting point, then don’t waste your time listening to him. Tell him that he would be more useful as a jester in the circus rather than discussing worldviews.

In every debate we should take the discussion to this level – to the starting point. For unless the validity of the first principle is established, it is futile to debate around the other propositions which are derived from it. Just playing around with the peripheral propositions while ignoring the first principle is a cunning way to skirt the fundamental issue. We should not minor on the major (the first principle) and major on the minor (propositions which are derived from the first principle).

A first principle, by virtue of being what it is, is the first. A starting point, by definition, is the beginning of the worldview. It cannot be deduced from some other higher proposition. If it is so, then it is no longer the first principle, and the proposition from which it was deduced becomes ultimate. Every worldview has a first principle and it is unavoidable.

Now, if you randomly catch somebody and ask “what is the first principle of your worldview?” most (if not all) of them (unless they have thought through these things) would not be able to tell you what it is. They might not even understand what you are talking about. It is up to us to patiently take them through the sequence of reasoning, and bring them to their starting point. Then we should explain to them about how the rest of the propositions in their worldview hang upon their first principle. We should then ask them to defend their first principle as we subject it to logical analysis.

Remember that the first principle is everything in the worldview. It sets the tone for the rest of the worldview. If the first principle crumbles under rational analysis and cannot be defended, then the rest of the worldview will collapse. If a worldview cannot start, it cannot proceed, and surely cannot finish. Such a worldview is incomplete and incoherent, and has no place in the marketplace of ideas. When the first principle is destroyed, then the worldview which claims to proceed from it is a farce.

Since the first principle is so important, we need to spend time looking at the criteria it should fulfill, for it to be rationally defensible. As I mentioned earlier, a first principle cannot be “proved,” in the sense that it cannot be deduced from a prior proposition. But that does not mean that it cannot be defended. Recall that I had earlier demonstrated that if you want to have “proof” for everything you cannot have proof for anything. You will land up in an infinite regress, and you cannot even begin. So, the first principle should be the starting point and the rest of the worldview proceeds from it. I am reiterating these things again and again to impress them strongly in your mind so that you realize that it is important to lead a debate or discussion up to this point.

Self Justification

A first principle should be self-justifying. That is, it should contain information to satisfy the very demands it is making. It should validate itself. Now, this does not amount to circular reasoning. In circular reasoning there are two propositions, X and Y, where you would use X to justify Y, and Y to justify X. But when it comes to justification for the first principle, you don’t have two propositions; you have only one. Or putting it another way, the conclusion is already assumed in the premises. But this is the way it should be with any ultimate intellectual criterion. Since the first principle is the ultimate proposition in any worldview, it should authenticate itself. It should not contradict itself and not depend upon some other proposition for its validation.

Most worldviews, as we will shortly see, will fail to satisfy themselves on this level. Even if a worldview claims to have a first principle that can satisfy the demands it makes, we must scrutinize the rest of the propositions in the worldview, to make sure that they are in fact derived from the first principle and do not contradict it, and each other.

The Possibility of Knowledge

A first principle should make knowledge possible. Just because a first principle does not contradict itself, does not automatically salvage the worldview. The first principle should pave the way for the rest of the propositions in the worldview. In other words, the rest of the propositions in the worldview should follow from the first principle. If there is a proposition in the worldview which is not deduced from the first principle (the parent proposition), then it should be rejected, since it is an illegitimate proposition.

This is another way of saying that a worldview should not borrow from propositions in other worldviews to help itself. If it is so, then it is no longer adhering to its first principle, and there is lack of consistency right there. Such a worldview contradicts itself right at that point. If a proposition is not derived from its first principle then where is it from? It is relying on some other first principle, which means it rejects its own first principle. It is not possible to have two first principles, because for any worldview, there is a starting point, not starting points. A first principle, by definition is “first.” It is not possible for two propositions to be first. One of them will be first and the other will either follow from it, or be unrelated to it. Just as how it is impossible for a baby to have two fathers, it is impossible for any worldview to have two starting points. So, if a proposition in a worldview is not deduced from its parent principle (first principle), then it is a bastard proposition, and it should be rejected, and the inconsistency exposed right there.

Let us quickly sum what we have discussed till now. A first principle should be self-justifying. But that alone is not enough. All the propositions in the worldview should be deduced from the first principle. In other words, a first principle should lead to the other propositions in the worldview, and thus make knowledge possible.

Ultimate Thought Categories

Every worldview has to provide answers regarding ultimate thought categories. These include epistemology, metaphysics, anthropology, ethics, soteriology, and eschatology.

Epistemology refers to the theory of knowledge. It is derived from two Greek words, episteme, referring to knowledge, and logos, referring to study. It deals with the possibility, source, scope, nature, limits of knowledge, and methods of its acquisition. The most basic question to ask anyone is, “how do you know?” For unless the validity of his knowledge is defended there is no reason to take the rest of the propositions in his worldview seriously. The questions that epistemology deals with are the ones such as these: does knowledge come from our senses? Or, does knowledge come from reason? What is the difference? What is the difference between faith and reason?

Metaphysics deals with what philosophers call “ultimate reality.” In Greek, meta means beyond, and physics, refers to the material world. Thus, metaphysics deals with study of questions which are beyond the world that is observed with our senses. The questions considered are: does God exist? Is the universe eternal? Who made the world? Did the world create itself? Did God create the world? Are God and the universe identical? What is the nature of the universe? Is there a purpose to the universe? Are miracles possible?

Anthropology deals with the study of man. In Greek, anthropos refers to man, and logos refers to study. It deals with questions such as, where did man come from? What is the purpose of man’s existence? What is the nature of man? What is the connection between the soul and the body? Does the soul exist after death?

Ethics deals with theories of right and wrong. We make moral judgments about individuals and nations almost on a regular basis when we see, read, or hear about any even which occurs anywhere. Ethics answers questions such as: why is murder wrong? What is wrong with stealing? Who defines right and wrong?

Soteriology deals with salvation. That is, is discusses what has gone wrong with man, and what should be done to remedy the situation. What is man’s problem? What is the solution to fix it?

Eschatology deals with the theory of time. Is time cyclical? That is, do events repeat themselves in endless cycles? Or is time linear? That is, does it have a beginning and an end?

In any worldview, the propositions in each of these categories should be consistent with each other. For example, one proposition in ethics should not contradict another proposition in metaphysics or anthropology. And all the propositions regarding these categories should all be derived from the first principle.

In the forthcoming essays, I will discuss about various schools of thought in the history of philosophy and religion and see whether they can stand up to ruthless rational analysis. We will begin with their first principle, and if that itself cannot withstand logical investigation, we need not waste our time with the rest of the propositions. If the worldview cannot even start, then how can it make authoritative statements regarding other things? As I will demonstrate, most worldviews will crumble right at the starting point. Even if a worldview appears to have a stable starting point, when we look into the other propositions derived from it, we will find that they will crumble down. After that, when the dust settles down in the arena after the demolition of these false worldviews, I will proclaim and defend the only True Worldview which is the only logical hope for mankind which will provide true spiritual illumination. Get ready….

[1] What Is A Worldview?

Introduction

The term “worldview” is popular in many Christian circles nowadays. There are quite a few books and many websites which exist to teach believers about how to understand their worldview and relate to people who affirm other worldviews. It’s a good sign that believers are finally taking the interest in thinking through and working out their worldview. In this brief essay, I intend to define the term “worldview,” trace the etymological roots of the word, note the general characteristics and nature of a worldview, and observe the function one’s worldview serves in life.

The term worldview came into the English language as a translation of the German word Weltanschauung. Worldview refers to the beliefs one holds about reality and the way it is interpreted. It is the belief system through which one views the world and makes judgments and conclusions regarding anything. Some people use the phrase “world-and-life-view” to refer to the same thing, expanding on the depth of the definition. For the sake of convenience we will restrict ourselves to the term “worldview.” The term is also interchangeable with “philosophy” or “religion” since they too are systems of thought.

Influence of worldviews

Worldviews are like glasses. Depending upon the color of the sunglasses you wear, your sight will appear tainted according to the particular shade. Likewise, for worldviews, the belief system will color the understanding of reality. Your worldview will determine the way you interpret and evaluate any event or experience in your life or the world around you. Nobody can claim not to have a worldview. They might not be skillful enough in stating it, but that does not mean that they do not have one. Incompetence in articulation does not translate into absence of a worldview. Those who say that they do not have a worldview affecting their interpretation of reality would congratulate themselves thinking they are “objective” while the rest of the world is biased. But this is false, as we will look into this in detail towards the end of the essay.

So, what is a worldview?

I earlier said that a worldview is a “belief system.” Let us dwell for a moment on these two words. First, it relates to belief. A belief refers to an affirmation of what one considers to be true. It is mental assent or persuasion to a proposition (or set of propositions) which is considered to be true. Now, a belief can be held just about anything. It can involve the ultimate philosophical categories of thought and the daily mundane events of life. Thus, beliefs can be held ranging from the metaphysics of pantheism to the violation of traffic rules. There is no category about which one cannot hold a belief. When someone claims to “believe” something, he is making a cognitive claim – that is, a claim to knowledge. This is opposed to feeling or opinion. Feelings are vague dispositions of the mind where there is disturbance of thought. This is why most people cannot clearly express in words what they “feel” so passionately. An opinion is frequently confused with belief. However, they are not the same thing. When you opine, you do not claim certainty, whereas, in belief, there is a claim to certainty – to knowledge.

It might help here to briefly touch upon the link between belief and truth. Something is not true just because you believe it. That is, your belief does not create reality. Truth is independent of belief. So, a belief should follow from truth, and not the other way round. For example, at one point in time, people believed that the earth was flat. Later on, somebody set sail around the world, and then people believed that the earth is spherical. In this situation, it is not that “truth” had changed. Rather, people changed from holding false belief to a true one. Truth was what it was all along. Belief, in and of itself, cannot create reality. A belief is a mental state regarding the state of affairs about reality. You hold a belief about something. And this something is not what it is just because you believe it. It is what it is regardless of your belief. You can have a false or a true belief about it. Belief does not create truth. Rather, your belief should be based on truth. Truth is prior to belief.

Next, the word “system.” A worldview consists of collection of propositions which relate to each other. It contains a network of inter-related presuppositions. These propositions will usually cohere together in an orderly fashion to form a recognizable pattern. This is important because a worldview should be consistent. That is, the individual propositions in the worldview should not contradict each other, and the other propositions deduced from them. If a worldview is not consistent, then it will self-destruct, and nobody with critical faculties should take such a worldview seriously.

Another thing to be noted is that, a worldview is about the “basic” beliefs about reality. “Basic” beliefs are those fundamental propositions which have to be affirmed before one can talk about others. For example, one cannot make a statement regarding human sexuality unless one first knows about man. But you cannot talk about nature of man without talking about the origin of man, which in turn, would depend upon the origin of the world. Thus, in any worldview, there is a hierarchy of propositions. Some propositions are more central to the system than others.

The First Principle

Therefore, every worldview should have a starting point. This is referred to as the first principle. Since this is the starting point of the worldview, this is the ultimate proposition. The rest of the propositions in the system hang upon this proposition. If the ultimate proposition cannot stand rational scrutiny, then the rest of the worldview will collapse. Being “ultimate” it cannot depend upon some other proposition for its justification. If it does, then it is no longer ultimate. An ultimate proposition should be self justifying. That is, a first principle should justify itself. This does not amount to circular reasoning. In circular reasoning there are two propositions (X and Y), where you would use X to justify Y, and use Y, in turn, to justify X. But when we are talking about self-justification, you don’t have two propositions to justify each other. The ultimate proposition should justify itself. That is why the first principle is called the starting point.

A starting point, by definition, does not have anything before it. Every worldview has to have a starting point, or otherwise there is nothing left to such a “worldview.” If a worldview cannot start, it cannot proceed and make any statement regarding anything. A first principle or starting proposition is unavoidable. If every proposition should be justified by a prior proposition, then you cannot have justification for any proposition. That is, to justify X you need X1, and to justify that you need X2, and to justify that you will need X3, and to justify that you will keep going on and on into infinity. Thus, you cannot even begin. If you cannot even begin, how can you proceed, and why should anyone waste their time listening to you? If you want to have justification of every proposition you cannot even start, let alone work out the other details of your worldview. This is why a worldview needs to have a self justifying first principle for it to start and then construct a system which is consistent, in which the other propositions derived from the first principle do not contradict each other. We will look into this in more detail in another essay when we discuss about the fundamental questions any worldview should answer.

The relation between the first principle and the other propositions in the worldview can be illustrated by comparing the axioms and theorems which are found in geometry. Axioms are the foundational principles from which theorems are deduced. Axioms, by their very nature, are not deduced from some other higher proposition. They are taken as the starting point. You don’t prove an axiom. It has to be assumed. Axioms cannot be “proven.” In fact, they have to be assumed, if you want to have proof for something else.

But what about evidence?

There are some who think they are very “rational” and deride those who make assumptions. They claim that they don’t assume anything. They have “evidence” and “proof” for everything. But, this only proves the carelessness of their thinking. One should only question these characters on the proofs they have. Keep questioning the proof they have for everything they state. Keep moving them up their ladder of thinking, and you will find that they will come to a starting point, beyond which they cannot have “proof.” There, you will find out their intellectual hypocrisy. They will implicitly assume something, and explicitly deny it. They will assume something and act as though they don’t.

Like I said earlier, if you want proof for everything, you cannot have proof for anything. For proving A you will need B, and to prove that you will need C, and to prove that you will D, and thus, you will keep moving on and on into in an infinite regress. So, if you cannot start, how can you proceed, let alone finish? You say you will accept something only with proof and evidence. And when we question you and ask you proof for everything you state, you will soon land up with some assumptions for which you do not have “proof.” And you will scoff at those who “assume” something, as though you don’t. You assume that you do not have any assumptions. And you think you are “rational” and smart? It doesn’t take long to strip one of his intellectual hypocrisy and expose his double standards. He judges other worldviews based on some criteria and tries to protect his worldview from the very same criteria he is applying to other worldviews. If you have a sense of shame, you will acknowledge your duplicity rather than know about the inevitability of assumption, and then lie about it. Please go and stand in front of a mirror and congratulate yourself on your “rationality.”

Worldviews and objectivity

Now, there are those who say that having a worldview means that one cannot be “objective” when it comes to interpreting reality. That is, they say that if you have some prior presuppositions, then you will be “biased.” Let us think through this carefully. The word “bias” refers to the idea of personal preference in evaluating something as opposed to the “correct” interpretation of something. So, before you can complain that somebody is “biased” you should already know the “correct” interpretation. For unless you know the correct interpretation, you cannot state which interpretation is false. That is, before you can judge falsehood, you should know the truth. If I were to tell you two plus two equals thirteen, immediately you would immediately correct me. Why? You already know that two plus two is four, which is why you can immediately recognize the false statement. Therefore, for recognizing falsehood, you should already know the truth.

So, before you can say that someone is “biased” you should already know the truth. I can just as easily state that you are “biased” and stump your claim to “objectivity.” Usually when the word “bias” is used, it is set in opposition to “objectivity.” Objectivity is taken to refer to neutrality. But intellectual neutrality is not possible. Everybody has presuppositions based on which they interpret reality. It not about who has presuppositions and who doesn’t – everybody does. The real issue is who has the true presuppositions which will render correct interpretation possible. If an “objective” perception refers to true interpretation, then you need to have presuppositions anyway. You cannot avoid presuppositions. You cannot even think without presuppositions, let alone “objectively” interpret reality. Intellectual neutrality is sheer fantasy. It does not exist. If you have believed in it till now it’s about time you woke up.

Summing this up, every one has a worldview – a belief system – based on which one perceives reality. It is not possible to have a neutral perception – that is, without any presuppositions coloring their interpretation. It is not possible to have a “colorless” state. Even when you contemplate the term “colorless” you will think of white or something, which is a color in the first place. Presuppositions are inescapable. The real issue is who has the true presuppositions, and therefore, the true worldview.

Impact in life

Now, we should briefly mention about the importance of a worldview in a person’s life. A worldview is totalitarian – if affects the way one thinks about everything. Your worldview will control the way you think and make judgments regarding each and every minor and major decision in life – whether it is about the amount of oil to add in cooking, or the choice of a spouse. A worldview will affect the poet’s pen, the sculptor’s chisel, the artist’s brush, the doctor’s medicine, engineer’s design, and so on. A worldview serves as a compass, or a guide through which one navigates or “makes sense” of life. It orients you to the world, and shapes your perspective regarding what you find in it.

So, now the issue, finally, is not about whether you have a worldview or not. Rather, do you have the true worldview? Do you? If you do not have the true worldview then your whole interpretation of the world till now has been false. It’s scary to realize such a thing, especially if you have lived with false presuppositions all your life. It will strike at the heart of your ego, for nobody likes to have their fundamental assumptions challenged. Perhaps, you always thought you were right, until somebody came and told you otherwise. It might be hard for you to give up on your false presuppositions easily, considering the fact that you have grown old with them. But truth is not a matter of convenience or desire. Truth is independent of your affirmation or denial of it. Do you, my reader, have the true worldview? How do we know which worldview is true? Which worldview is built on true presuppositions? I will discuss this and more in the forthcoming essays.

Logic

This category will contain material on fallacies and how important logic is to clear thinking in theology and exegesis.