Watched the debate with Jessica tonight. Enjoyed it. I thought each gentlemen presented his case well. However, I think many viewers likely missed the case being presented.
It's late, so I'll be as brief as I can. I just wanted to at least wash off the make-up from this debate to show the nature of the discussion: Scientism vs. Presuppositionalism. Not evidence vs. counter-evidence.
This wasn't a debate in which two opponents brought evidence to the audience regarding a conclusion. The core of this debate is epistemology, one of my favorite topics, and one of the reasons I'm familiar with Ham's circle. Epistemology is the study of knowledge. Perhaps you recall hearing Ham saying things like "Why should we trust the laws of nature?" "Nye must lean on Christian foundations to use his logic." Etc.
Ham comes from a group called Presuppositionalists. Evidence is not their cup of tea. In fact, they're opposed to the idea of presenting evidence for consideration regarding the veracity of the Bible. If you have the right/ability to weigh evidence and decide if the Bible is true, you're putting yourself above god; putting god on trial. Presuppositionalism is a fascinating concept, and I won't go into much detail here. However, a few points.
Presuppositionalism has five-point Calvinism for its roots—total depravity of man. Even the mind of man is unredeemed. You cannot reason with an unbeliever because his mind is corrupt; his mind must first be redeemed.
The typical approach of this group is to undermine the scientific idea of knowledge. You saw Ham talk about the uncertainty of the past. The past can't be proven. Indeed, I agree. In fact, try to prove to me we weren't all created five minutes ago...programmed with all the memories from pre-five minutes ago. Can't be done. Is it absurd to suggest the idea? Why? Show me scientific evidence to the contrary. Am I not then entitled to this 5-minute historical view and still maintain respect in society as a reasonable individual? You might ask yourself what type of responsibility you have to give assent to an idea. Is it important to you? Should it be important to others?
Presuppositionalists maintain an incredibly skeptical outlook on what seems common sense. "How do you know these elements deteriorated at the same rate in the past?" Everything gets thrown into murky water. Then, the core question is, what gives you the right to have your worldview? From where do the laws of logic come? Etc. You'll notice he wasn't presenting evidence for a 6K year-old earth. He was presenting ideas to challenge what's used to show an old earth. The evidence of a 6K earth is the genealogy in Genesis.
Nye, on the other hand, has the scientific worldview. Knowledge is always tentative. We have no absolutes; everything is subject to further evidence and testing. On any topic, we have degrees of certainty based on the quantity/quality of evidence. The scientific worldview is always open to change its mind on a topic. Nye's answer to "What would it take to change your mind?"—Evidence. This worldview isn't as fun for some people. "Where did life come from?" I don't know. "Where did conscious originate?" I don't know. Many people dislike uncertainty. Scientists thrive on unknowns; they get to go try to find answers.
Ham's answer to "What would it take to change your mind?"—I'm a Christian. Evidence isn't part of the equation. He will not leave it to himself to judge the veracity of the Bible. The very of idea of changing his mind is opposed to his philosophical core. Can't be done. This leaves Ham with certain answers to questions. "Where did life come from?" God made it. "Where did conscious come from?" God made it. That's more fun for some.
To the surprise of many people unfamiliar with philosophy, the study of knowledge is incredibly complex. Heavy thinkers strive to assume nothing and work their way up from there...give everything some logical base. However, a problem arises in this exercise. Moving backwards, we end up in murky water. Back in the 1700s, Baron Munchhausen called this problem the Munchhasuen trilemma. For brevity, I'll let Wikipedia serve those who are interested.
The conclusion: epistemic underpinning (i.e. where you start your assumptions) is arbitrary. This is the reason for the name Presuppositionalists. They say, "Everyone is presupposing something." Scientists make assumptions regarding the laws of nature and such. OK. Well, we're just doing the same thing. We also have the right to make our own starting assumptions. We've decided to make our base the Bible. They'll take it a step further after that to demonstrate their assumptions are more consistent than any other worldview.
In any case, I've come to the conclusion an epistemic underpinning is philosophically arbitrary. I don't feel one has philosophical superiority over another. However, it seems clear to me the scientific worldview has been quite kind to the human race. It has what we might call practical superiority over other worldviews; it seems to work on this planet. And in the end, I often wonder if anyone would question the efficacy of a scientific worldview when falling from the sky at 30,000 feet.
Further, I do think there is something absurd about randomly choosing epistemic underpinnings. In this line, I imagine I can choose whatever I like as my base assumptions...plenty of absurd places I could start. I'm reminded of a group in Africa heavily steeped in ideas of witchcraft. They believe they can cast curses on each other. So, an individual may stub their toe on a root. "I knew my neighbor put a curse on me!" Well, could it be you just happened to be walking down this path and didn't see the root? "Ah, but why was that root there!? Why was I walking down this path?!" There's really no stopping this type of imaginative thinking. It doesn't sit well with me. And honestly, I just think we—humans—are ready to be passed this type of stuff. But that's me.
In conclusion, this debate wasn't about evidence. Certainly not about weighing evidence to see if the Genesis account is true. Ham is opposed to such a process. However, I think many of the Christians watching the debate are likely unfamiliar with the underpinnings of Ham's group. He gave their side of the story, and that's always fun to hear. Go Ham! However, I wonder how many would embrace all the theological and practical implications that come with Ham's philosophical core.
So hey...maybe check it out. You know...if you want to. :)
No comments:
Post a Comment