Five Strong Points for Defending Christianity and the Bible
Christianity stand or falls with the Resurrection. As Paul said, "And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is useless ...." (1 Cor. 15:17 NET) As it turns out, there is good reason to believe in the Resurrection of Jesus.
In The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus Habermas and Licona give what they call "4 + 1" facts that support the Resurrection. Whenever someone approaches you with "proof" or an argument "refuting" Christianity or the Bible, see if it can answer these five points.
1. Jesus died by crucifixion. (pp. 48-49)
This fact is attested, not only in the New Testament, but also by extra-Biblical writers. Josephus was a Jewish general who took part in the rebellion against Rome. Later, in his book Antiquities he wrote of Jesus and His crucifixion (18.63-64). Tacitus, a Roman, wrote in his Annals that Jesus had suffered the "extreme penalty" referring to crucifixion (15.44). In The Death of Peregrine Lucian of Samosata, a Greek satirist, wrote that Christians worshipped a man who had been crucified. Even the Talmud records that Jesus was "hanged" (Sanhedrin 43a).
2. Jesus' disciples believed that he rose and appeared to them. (pp. 49-62)
Josephus, mentioned above, records that Jesus appeared alive to His disciples after his death (Antiquities 18.64). This was also the testimony of Paul concerning the disciples. It was an early oral tradition of the Church. It is also found in the works of the early Church.
Not only did the disciples claim that Jesus was raised, but they were also changed. Immediately after the crucifixion, we find the disciples dispirited and in hiding. Only a few months later, they were boldly proclaiming the gospel. Even in the face of certain death. They truly believed that Jesus was risen!
3. The church persecutor Paul was suddenly changed. (pp. 64-65)
Something happened that convinced Saul of Tarsus that Jesus was the Christ and that He had risen. Saul was by no means inclined to believe this. In point of fact, he was opposed to this teaching. In Acts, we find the account of how this came to be, an encounter with the risen Christ. Whatever happened, it was dramatic enough to make Saul change his mind about Jesus being the Christ. It was convincing enough to him that he was willing to die for his belief.
4. The skeptic James, brother of Jesus, was suddenly changed. (pp.67-69)
James was by no means inclined to believe that his own brother, Jesus, was the Christ. Yet, soon thereafter James became an important leader in the Church. What could have changed, that James went from rejecting Jesus as the Christ to proclaiming Jesus as the Christ. He was willing to keep on proclaiming this, even to the point of death. Josephus records that James was killed by stoning (Antiquities 20.200).
5. The tomb was empty. (pp. 69-74)
Jesus was publically executed and buried in the tomb of a well-known member of the Sanhedrin. All that would have been necessary, to refute the Resurrection, would be to produce the body of Jesus. Yet, this was never done.
An early accusation used by those opposing the preaching of the Resurrection was that the disciples had stolen Jesus' body from the tomb. This, however, presupposes that it was known where the tomb was and that it was empty.
The account of the empty tomb is also early in the tradition. If it had come late, it would not have been women who were the ones recorded as finding the tomb empty. In that culture, women were not considered to be good witnesses. This would have been an embarrassing situation, and would not have been reported except if it were true.
Most objections to Christianity and the Bible may provide a basis for refuting one or another of these five points. However, they often do not even address these five points. Those objections that do address one or more of these points generally do not do so in a convincing manner. And those arguments that try to address more than one of these points tend to be poorly constructed.
For more in-depth discussion on each of these points and some common objections to them, see The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus.
Habermas, Gary R. and Licona, Michael R. The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus. Kregel Publications: Grand Rapids, MI, 2004.
The biblical quotation is from the NET bible. It can be found online, free, here: http://bible.org/netbible/
A Lesser Son of the King
Copyright RL
Sunday, May 15, 2011
A Story: The Warrior: Part 5
The Warrior: Part 5
There were worse things on the Battlefield, though. The Warrior noticed that there were Soldiers who had taken up some of the Enemies' equipment to replace some of their own Weapons and Armor. Instead of glowing with the brilliance of the Command and the Presence, these appeared gray and sickly. Many of these died quickly in the heat of the Battle. The weapons that they had picked up would not harm the Enemy. The armor that they had picked up did not defend against the Enemies' weapons.
Of those who survived, most continued to drop pieces of their good Armor and Weapons, replacing them with more and more pieces from the Enemy. Some units only retained the Banner of the Commander. The casualties in these units were horrendous. Not only were they completely ineffective in the Battle, but they also inspired many others to abandon the Commander's Equipment for the Enemies', causing much harm.
And yet, as bad as some of these things were, some Soldiers who had taken up some of the Enemies' equipment would drop it and get good Equipment. Some Soldiers who had only accepted or only been given partial sets of Equipment would gain pieces. Some of these gained because they read the Instruction Manual. In other cases, it would be a Quartermaster who would read it and suddenly understand what Equipment needed to handed out. Ironically, in places where there were not many Instruction Manuals available, the Soldiers were more likely to be properly equipped. In those places, the Instruction Manuals were cherished, read, and believed.
A Lesser Son of the King
Copyright RL
![]()
There were worse things on the Battlefield, though. The Warrior noticed that there were Soldiers who had taken up some of the Enemies' equipment to replace some of their own Weapons and Armor. Instead of glowing with the brilliance of the Command and the Presence, these appeared gray and sickly. Many of these died quickly in the heat of the Battle. The weapons that they had picked up would not harm the Enemy. The armor that they had picked up did not defend against the Enemies' weapons.
Of those who survived, most continued to drop pieces of their good Armor and Weapons, replacing them with more and more pieces from the Enemy. Some units only retained the Banner of the Commander. The casualties in these units were horrendous. Not only were they completely ineffective in the Battle, but they also inspired many others to abandon the Commander's Equipment for the Enemies', causing much harm.
And yet, as bad as some of these things were, some Soldiers who had taken up some of the Enemies' equipment would drop it and get good Equipment. Some Soldiers who had only accepted or only been given partial sets of Equipment would gain pieces. Some of these gained because they read the Instruction Manual. In other cases, it would be a Quartermaster who would read it and suddenly understand what Equipment needed to handed out. Ironically, in places where there were not many Instruction Manuals available, the Soldiers were more likely to be properly equipped. In those places, the Instruction Manuals were cherished, read, and believed.
A Lesser Son of the King
Copyright RL
A Story: The Warrior: Part 4
The Warrior: Part 4
The Warrior looked around the Battlefield. He saw there were places where the Host was not advancing. He noticed that in those places, many of the Soldiers were ill-equipped. Many had armor that was missing pieces. Some were missing shields. These Soldiers would take terrible wounds and would have to retreat. Some were missing offensive weapons. While these did not lose ground, they never gained any ground either.
Sometimes, the Quartermasters for entire units were at fault. They weren't properly equipping the Soldiers in their care. They had access to all of the equipment, but they would only had out partial sets.
Sometimes, individual Soldiers or groups of Soldiers were at fault. They had been given all that they needed, but had lost pieces. Others had everything with them, but hadn't equipped it properly.
In other places, the units were properly equipped, but poorly led. The squad leaders had received orders from the Commander, but they misunderstood what was to be done. Instead of attacking at the Enemy's weak points, some of these units would charge headlong into a point where the Enemy was particularly strong. While these units didn't take many casualties, they also didn't gain any ground.
A Lesser Son of the King
Copyright RL
![]()
The Warrior looked around the Battlefield. He saw there were places where the Host was not advancing. He noticed that in those places, many of the Soldiers were ill-equipped. Many had armor that was missing pieces. Some were missing shields. These Soldiers would take terrible wounds and would have to retreat. Some were missing offensive weapons. While these did not lose ground, they never gained any ground either.
Sometimes, the Quartermasters for entire units were at fault. They weren't properly equipping the Soldiers in their care. They had access to all of the equipment, but they would only had out partial sets.
Sometimes, individual Soldiers or groups of Soldiers were at fault. They had been given all that they needed, but had lost pieces. Others had everything with them, but hadn't equipped it properly.
In other places, the units were properly equipped, but poorly led. The squad leaders had received orders from the Commander, but they misunderstood what was to be done. Instead of attacking at the Enemy's weak points, some of these units would charge headlong into a point where the Enemy was particularly strong. While these units didn't take many casualties, they also didn't gain any ground.
A Lesser Son of the King
Copyright RL
Saturday, May 14, 2011
A Story: The Warrior: Part 3
The Warrior: Part 3
Armed and armored, he looked a bit like a Roman soldier of old. But his weapons and armor were fashioned for a different Battle than those the ancient Romans fought, since his enemies were not mortal.
His sword, and the weapons of his fellow soldiers, were among the most potent weapons ever formed ... at least when used as guided by the Commander. It was necessary for it to be so. Otherwise, a thoughtless swing could have leveled mountains.
His armor was proof against the strongest attacks of the Enemy, as long as he used it properly. The Twins, at the behest of the Commander, blocked some of the attacks aimed at the Warrior. Others, he was able to block himself. Some of those that were allowed past by the Twins got past his defenses, but with muted force. This was in accordance with the will of the Commander, so that the Warrior's skills in Battle would continue to improve. The only times he was severely injured was when he foolishly removed or neglected some piece of his armor. Yet, even then, the Twins prevented him from being killed.
As strong as were the Warrior's weapons and armor, those of the Twins were even more so. And even stronger still, the Presence was even more powerfully armed and armored. His weapons could shatter the universe. Enemy blows that He intercepted came to nothing, with the very weapon of the attack disappearing, as if it had never been.
A Lesser Son of the King
Copyright RL
![]()
Armed and armored, he looked a bit like a Roman soldier of old. But his weapons and armor were fashioned for a different Battle than those the ancient Romans fought, since his enemies were not mortal.
His sword, and the weapons of his fellow soldiers, were among the most potent weapons ever formed ... at least when used as guided by the Commander. It was necessary for it to be so. Otherwise, a thoughtless swing could have leveled mountains.
His armor was proof against the strongest attacks of the Enemy, as long as he used it properly. The Twins, at the behest of the Commander, blocked some of the attacks aimed at the Warrior. Others, he was able to block himself. Some of those that were allowed past by the Twins got past his defenses, but with muted force. This was in accordance with the will of the Commander, so that the Warrior's skills in Battle would continue to improve. The only times he was severely injured was when he foolishly removed or neglected some piece of his armor. Yet, even then, the Twins prevented him from being killed.
As strong as were the Warrior's weapons and armor, those of the Twins were even more so. And even stronger still, the Presence was even more powerfully armed and armored. His weapons could shatter the universe. Enemy blows that He intercepted came to nothing, with the very weapon of the attack disappearing, as if it had never been.
A Lesser Son of the King
Copyright RL
A Story: The Warrior: Part 2
The Warrior: Part 2
The Warrior sometimes felt that he fought on alone, despite the presence of the Twins. But, often unseen in the midst of the Battle, he was but part of a mighty Host. And, unseen behind him was a mighty Presence, shining forth the glory of the Commander. The Warrior did not know that the Presence had often deflected attacks that would have obliterated the Warrior. He was completely oblivous to almost all of these attacks.
At times, the Warrior was aware of others fighting alongside him. Sometimes the Warrior would be in charge of a squad, and at other times he was just one of the common soldiers. At such times, the Twins appeared to grow in size. As always, they protected the flanks of his unit. He would begin to glimpse the truth of the true size of the Twins, and that they defended the flanks of the entire Host, towering over it.
The unseen Presence was greater still with the glory of the Commander flowed from Him. This glory, sometimes felt but never truly seen, surrounding the Host. In truth, the glory covered the entire Battlefield, even those places where it wasn't felt.
A Lesser Son of the King
Copyright RL
![]()
The Warrior sometimes felt that he fought on alone, despite the presence of the Twins. But, often unseen in the midst of the Battle, he was but part of a mighty Host. And, unseen behind him was a mighty Presence, shining forth the glory of the Commander. The Warrior did not know that the Presence had often deflected attacks that would have obliterated the Warrior. He was completely oblivous to almost all of these attacks.
At times, the Warrior was aware of others fighting alongside him. Sometimes the Warrior would be in charge of a squad, and at other times he was just one of the common soldiers. At such times, the Twins appeared to grow in size. As always, they protected the flanks of his unit. He would begin to glimpse the truth of the true size of the Twins, and that they defended the flanks of the entire Host, towering over it.
The unseen Presence was greater still with the glory of the Commander flowed from Him. This glory, sometimes felt but never truly seen, surrounding the Host. In truth, the glory covered the entire Battlefield, even those places where it wasn't felt.
A Lesser Son of the King
Copyright RL
A Story: The Warrior: Part 1
The Warrior: Part 1
The Warrior looked up from where he had fallen on the Battlefield ... again. The Twins, Chessed (loving-kindness) and Charis (grace), came and helped him back to his feet.
As a child, the Warrior had been hurt when bandits attacked his family. It was because of this that he had become a soldier. His heart's desire was to aid the helpless and to shield those in danger. But his legs were weak from the old injury. They were becoming stonger, but just when he would forget about it, he would fall again.
The Commander was aware of the Warrior's problem. It was He who had assigned the Twins to help the Warrior. He couldn't remember how many times the Twins had helped him back up. More times than he could count, it seemed.
At times, the Warrior was ready to give up. But the Commander wouldn't let him. After spending time recovering in Camp Eiraenae Soetaerou (peace of the Savior), the Warrior would be ready to face the Battle again.
He had helped many ... many more than he ever knew. The Commander knew the numbers, but often didn't reveal them to the Warrior. At times, he felt useless. Ironically, it was at these times that he accomplished the most.
Standing again, he strode back into the midst of the Battle.
A Lesser Son of the King
Copyright RL
![]()
The Warrior looked up from where he had fallen on the Battlefield ... again. The Twins, Chessed (loving-kindness) and Charis (grace), came and helped him back to his feet.
As a child, the Warrior had been hurt when bandits attacked his family. It was because of this that he had become a soldier. His heart's desire was to aid the helpless and to shield those in danger. But his legs were weak from the old injury. They were becoming stonger, but just when he would forget about it, he would fall again.
The Commander was aware of the Warrior's problem. It was He who had assigned the Twins to help the Warrior. He couldn't remember how many times the Twins had helped him back up. More times than he could count, it seemed.
At times, the Warrior was ready to give up. But the Commander wouldn't let him. After spending time recovering in Camp Eiraenae Soetaerou (peace of the Savior), the Warrior would be ready to face the Battle again.
He had helped many ... many more than he ever knew. The Commander knew the numbers, but often didn't reveal them to the Warrior. At times, he felt useless. Ironically, it was at these times that he accomplished the most.
Standing again, he strode back into the midst of the Battle.
A Lesser Son of the King
Copyright RL
A Critique of the Grand Design: Part 2
Covering the bulk of Hawking's book, The Grand Design.
Reality vs. Fantasy
Hawking delves into philosophy again, but without warning. In chapter 3, Hawking propounds that there is no objective reality. All reality, he claims, is dependent upon the model through which you filter the Universe. And, in chapter 1, Hawking tells us that we are free to choose whichever model is most convenient. But, the question remains, how do we determine what is convenient? (The answer is of course, subjective.)
So, where does this philosophical muddle leave us? If there is no objective reality to compare a theory against, then there is no objective way to determine the validity of a theory. Theories can then only be evaluated subjectively. But, does this line up with what the Bible teaches? (Remember, we are dealing with philosophy here, not science.) Firstly, the Bible teaches that God's view is predominant. He created all that is, and He is the ultimate authority. He determines what reality is; He can cause or prevent whatever He desires. Second, we are responsible for our actions and sins. The judgment that we will face will not be subjective, but will be based objectively upon God's decrees.
Already, we have a huge discrepancy between the philosophy that Hawking is propounding and the teaching of the Bible. And we haven't even gotten to the science yet!
Further, the denial of objective reality seems to shake the very philosophical foundations of science. Science, as we know it, came into being based upon the belief that the Universe is rational. The proponents for this emerging science came the Western world, with its underlying beliefs in the God of Creation. It was assumed that the order established by God was consistent and explorable. Ironically, many of these early scientists also believed in the supernatural and miracles. They believed in an objective reality, established by God. It was this objective reality against which their theories were to be tested.
The model dependent reality propounded by Hawking stands in opposition to the roots of science. If there is no objective reality, there is no basis for rational thought; but rational thought is the basis for scientific theories. We have a new philosophy that Hawking and many other scientists are espousing that undermines the basis for rational thought.
Should we believe a philosophy, supposedly based on rational thought, that ultimately denies the existence of rational thought? Such a philosophy is nonsense. Yet, this is what is being proposed as the necessary undergirding for science. Ultimately, this is where all naturalistic/materialistic philosophies and theories must lead, a destruction of their very basis.
For thought to be rational, it must be based in more than materialistic/naturalistic determinism. If physical interactions are all that exist, then thought itself is based upon the random movement of particles. Thus, thought itself becomes irrational. But the theories proposing this are supposedly rational. What a contradiction! Many holding to these theories accuse Christians of being irrational for believing in the supernatural, the very thing that allows for rational thought!
Why, you may ask, would scientists choose to propose such a dangerous philosophy? In part, as mentioned before, it is because of a denial of the existence of God. True, not all of these scientists are atheists or agnostics, but they do science as if they were. Second, Quantum Mechanics treats the world probabilistically. At the subatomic level, the very act of observation changes results and the results of an event cannot be predicted beforehand. Only probabilities for the various outcomes can be given. At this level, the world appears irrational and subjective. If this theory truly reflects reality, then it must hold at all distance scales, from the subatomic to the galactic and beyond. This would make the Universe itself irrational, at its base.
While Quantum Mechanics is a useful too, it does not mean that it is the ultimate reality. Newtonian physics was once thought to reflect ultimate reality, but in the beginning of the 20th century, this was found to not be true. Special and General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics were developed to answer questions that could not be answered by Newton's theories. Given this, it should sound a warning that Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are not compatible. Despite M theory, which Hawking mentions as early as Chapter 1 in the book, this incompatibility still remains to be resolved. In point of fact, it was in an attempt to resolve this conflict that the superstring theories at the root of M theory were developed. It has still not borne the promised fruit. In fact, there is not one theory, but rather 10^500 theories. (That is, 1 with 500 zeroes behind it, an incredibly huge number.) Instead of resolving the problem, the water has been muddied beyond measure.
Why do they search so hard for a theory to explain everything? In part, it is still an attempt to do away with the need for God. In this muddle, with so many theories to choose from, they try to bring hope by proclaiming that all of the theories are valid. Supposedly, each corresponds to its own Universe! But now, instead of answering how our Universe came into being, they have again propounded the problem, in a way that cannot even be explored by science. How would one go about verifying that this multitude of additional universes even exists? By definition, they should be unreachable.
Many scientists want to redefine what science is and how it is done. But if we remove the requirement of testability, then we are going back to the quasi-science of the ancient Greeks. This would not be progress, but regress.
What Hawking and so many scientists today are suggesting is not a flight to reality, but a flight into fantasy. Many disdainfully reject the teachings of Christianity, only to propose a reality that requires even more faith. For every hurdle that they overcome, a multitude more arise. Why? Because they have rejected objective reality and the ultimate Truth. In the "reality" they propose, Absolute Truth does not exist. All becomes subjective and ultimately irrational.
Now, I am not saying that science has become useless. There is still a vast abundance of good science being done. What I am saying is that the very foundations of science are being destroyed, leaving the entire edifice in danger of toppling over.
A Lesser Son of the King
Copyright RL
Reality vs. Fantasy
Hawking delves into philosophy again, but without warning. In chapter 3, Hawking propounds that there is no objective reality. All reality, he claims, is dependent upon the model through which you filter the Universe. And, in chapter 1, Hawking tells us that we are free to choose whichever model is most convenient. But, the question remains, how do we determine what is convenient? (The answer is of course, subjective.)
So, where does this philosophical muddle leave us? If there is no objective reality to compare a theory against, then there is no objective way to determine the validity of a theory. Theories can then only be evaluated subjectively. But, does this line up with what the Bible teaches? (Remember, we are dealing with philosophy here, not science.) Firstly, the Bible teaches that God's view is predominant. He created all that is, and He is the ultimate authority. He determines what reality is; He can cause or prevent whatever He desires. Second, we are responsible for our actions and sins. The judgment that we will face will not be subjective, but will be based objectively upon God's decrees.
Already, we have a huge discrepancy between the philosophy that Hawking is propounding and the teaching of the Bible. And we haven't even gotten to the science yet!
Further, the denial of objective reality seems to shake the very philosophical foundations of science. Science, as we know it, came into being based upon the belief that the Universe is rational. The proponents for this emerging science came the Western world, with its underlying beliefs in the God of Creation. It was assumed that the order established by God was consistent and explorable. Ironically, many of these early scientists also believed in the supernatural and miracles. They believed in an objective reality, established by God. It was this objective reality against which their theories were to be tested.
The model dependent reality propounded by Hawking stands in opposition to the roots of science. If there is no objective reality, there is no basis for rational thought; but rational thought is the basis for scientific theories. We have a new philosophy that Hawking and many other scientists are espousing that undermines the basis for rational thought.
Should we believe a philosophy, supposedly based on rational thought, that ultimately denies the existence of rational thought? Such a philosophy is nonsense. Yet, this is what is being proposed as the necessary undergirding for science. Ultimately, this is where all naturalistic/materialistic philosophies and theories must lead, a destruction of their very basis.
For thought to be rational, it must be based in more than materialistic/naturalistic determinism. If physical interactions are all that exist, then thought itself is based upon the random movement of particles. Thus, thought itself becomes irrational. But the theories proposing this are supposedly rational. What a contradiction! Many holding to these theories accuse Christians of being irrational for believing in the supernatural, the very thing that allows for rational thought!
Why, you may ask, would scientists choose to propose such a dangerous philosophy? In part, as mentioned before, it is because of a denial of the existence of God. True, not all of these scientists are atheists or agnostics, but they do science as if they were. Second, Quantum Mechanics treats the world probabilistically. At the subatomic level, the very act of observation changes results and the results of an event cannot be predicted beforehand. Only probabilities for the various outcomes can be given. At this level, the world appears irrational and subjective. If this theory truly reflects reality, then it must hold at all distance scales, from the subatomic to the galactic and beyond. This would make the Universe itself irrational, at its base.
While Quantum Mechanics is a useful too, it does not mean that it is the ultimate reality. Newtonian physics was once thought to reflect ultimate reality, but in the beginning of the 20th century, this was found to not be true. Special and General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics were developed to answer questions that could not be answered by Newton's theories. Given this, it should sound a warning that Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are not compatible. Despite M theory, which Hawking mentions as early as Chapter 1 in the book, this incompatibility still remains to be resolved. In point of fact, it was in an attempt to resolve this conflict that the superstring theories at the root of M theory were developed. It has still not borne the promised fruit. In fact, there is not one theory, but rather 10^500 theories. (That is, 1 with 500 zeroes behind it, an incredibly huge number.) Instead of resolving the problem, the water has been muddied beyond measure.
Why do they search so hard for a theory to explain everything? In part, it is still an attempt to do away with the need for God. In this muddle, with so many theories to choose from, they try to bring hope by proclaiming that all of the theories are valid. Supposedly, each corresponds to its own Universe! But now, instead of answering how our Universe came into being, they have again propounded the problem, in a way that cannot even be explored by science. How would one go about verifying that this multitude of additional universes even exists? By definition, they should be unreachable.
Many scientists want to redefine what science is and how it is done. But if we remove the requirement of testability, then we are going back to the quasi-science of the ancient Greeks. This would not be progress, but regress.
What Hawking and so many scientists today are suggesting is not a flight to reality, but a flight into fantasy. Many disdainfully reject the teachings of Christianity, only to propose a reality that requires even more faith. For every hurdle that they overcome, a multitude more arise. Why? Because they have rejected objective reality and the ultimate Truth. In the "reality" they propose, Absolute Truth does not exist. All becomes subjective and ultimately irrational.
Now, I am not saying that science has become useless. There is still a vast abundance of good science being done. What I am saying is that the very foundations of science are being destroyed, leaving the entire edifice in danger of toppling over.
A Lesser Son of the King
Copyright RL
A Critique of the Grand Design: Part 1
Covering Chapter 1 of Hawking's book, The Grand Design
I am a young earth creationist, and I don't apologize for that! In spite of much opposition to this view from current "science", I hold this view because it follows the teachings of the Bible most closely. It is true that the same Scriptures that young earth creationists use as a basis have been interpreted differently by others. However, they do so via eisegesis, that is, reading into the text something that is not there. This is a common failing in our time.
This is a critique of Stephen Hawking's most recent book. His understanding of physics is far beyond my own. But ... in this book, he has begun to delve into another realm, that of philosophy. He blithely claims that philosophy has failed and that is should be replaced by ...physics. That is like saying the computer should be replaced by a bicycle! It won't work! Their function is not the same.
In fact, Hawking goes so far as to say that philosophy is dead (p. 5). His reasoning is that philosophy has not kept up with physics and so, now, physics should take the place of philosophy. That is a fine statement, but will it work? No! Just as a computer cannot take the place of a bicycle, and a bicycle cannot take the place of a computer, so physics cannot replace philosophy!
The only way that physics could replace philosophy is for it to stop being physics! Science and philosophy are different things. One does not duplicate the function of the other.
Philosophy is a foundational piece beneath science, and thus, physics. It is philosophy that provided support for the scientific method, that things can be determined through repeated experiment. That is how theories are tested in science! And we have this because of philosophy! Do they want to replace this with untested speculation? This is how the "science" of the Greeks was often done. Their "science" was not science as we know it, as it was not designed to be tested. This is why Greek "science" did not progress as modern science has! Is this what they want us to return to? It doesn't work! And yet, in my study of M-Theory, I have come to understand that this is exactly what some "scientists" want. They want remove the requirement that theories must be designed to be tested. Once that happens, science will fail. Theories will be "tested" via subjective approbation. Hence, it will cease to be science.
Returning to the analogy, a computer can be used to design a bicycle, but it cannot take its place! It is just as absurd to try to replace the computer with a bicycle. Perhaps a hybrid device could be formed. But the more like a computer, the less is can function as a bicycle. The more it becomes like a bicycle, the less it functions as a computer. The hybrid device functions more poorly than the separate devices! In the same way, a hybridization (or complete replacement) of philosophy with physics does not function as well as the two apart!
A Lesser Son of the King
Copyright RL
I am a young earth creationist, and I don't apologize for that! In spite of much opposition to this view from current "science", I hold this view because it follows the teachings of the Bible most closely. It is true that the same Scriptures that young earth creationists use as a basis have been interpreted differently by others. However, they do so via eisegesis, that is, reading into the text something that is not there. This is a common failing in our time.
This is a critique of Stephen Hawking's most recent book. His understanding of physics is far beyond my own. But ... in this book, he has begun to delve into another realm, that of philosophy. He blithely claims that philosophy has failed and that is should be replaced by ...physics. That is like saying the computer should be replaced by a bicycle! It won't work! Their function is not the same.
In fact, Hawking goes so far as to say that philosophy is dead (p. 5). His reasoning is that philosophy has not kept up with physics and so, now, physics should take the place of philosophy. That is a fine statement, but will it work? No! Just as a computer cannot take the place of a bicycle, and a bicycle cannot take the place of a computer, so physics cannot replace philosophy!
The only way that physics could replace philosophy is for it to stop being physics! Science and philosophy are different things. One does not duplicate the function of the other.
Philosophy is a foundational piece beneath science, and thus, physics. It is philosophy that provided support for the scientific method, that things can be determined through repeated experiment. That is how theories are tested in science! And we have this because of philosophy! Do they want to replace this with untested speculation? This is how the "science" of the Greeks was often done. Their "science" was not science as we know it, as it was not designed to be tested. This is why Greek "science" did not progress as modern science has! Is this what they want us to return to? It doesn't work! And yet, in my study of M-Theory, I have come to understand that this is exactly what some "scientists" want. They want remove the requirement that theories must be designed to be tested. Once that happens, science will fail. Theories will be "tested" via subjective approbation. Hence, it will cease to be science.
Returning to the analogy, a computer can be used to design a bicycle, but it cannot take its place! It is just as absurd to try to replace the computer with a bicycle. Perhaps a hybrid device could be formed. But the more like a computer, the less is can function as a bicycle. The more it becomes like a bicycle, the less it functions as a computer. The hybrid device functions more poorly than the separate devices! In the same way, a hybridization (or complete replacement) of philosophy with physics does not function as well as the two apart!
A Lesser Son of the King
Copyright RL
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)