Finding Truth: 5 Principles for Unmasking Atheism, Secularism, and Other God Substitutes by Nancy Pearcey Page A
Authors: Nancy Pearcey
Tags: Religión, Non-Fiction, Atheism, Defending Christianity, Faith Defense, False Gods, Finding God, Losing faith, Materialism, Richard Pearcey, Romans 1, Saving Leonardo, Secularism, Soul of Science, Total Truth
Ads: Link
thought produced by your brain is akin to the sweat secreted by your glands or the digestive juice produced by your stomach.
The problem is that digestion is not something that can be true or false; it is just a biological fact. If our thoughts are also biological facts, determined by biological laws, then they are not the sort of thing that can be true or false either.
But that has to include our thoughts about materialism—which undercuts its claim to be true. When the implications of materialism are applied to itself, it commits suicide.
C. S. Lewis makes a similar argument in several of his writings. Here is an example: “If minds are wholly dependent on brains, and brains on biochemistry, and biochemistry (in the long run) on the meaningless flux of the atoms, I cannot understand how the thought of those minds should have any more significance than the sound of the wind in the trees.” Lewis then shows how this view defeats itself: “But if I can’t trust my own thinking, of course I can’t trust the arguments leading to Atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an Atheist, or anything else.” 14
How do atheists or materialists avoid that self-refuting conclusion? They make what Lewis calls a “tacit exception” for their own theory—at least, at the moment they are stating their claims. In building their case, they must implicitly trust their own thinking. They must exempt themselves from their own reductive categories of analysis. As one philosopher says, the materialist functions as though he were an “angelic observer” somehow able to float above the determinist cage in which he locks everyone else. 15
In essence, materialists must tacitly assume a Christian epistemology, at least when they are arguing for their claims.
Indeed, the sheer act of asserting materialism contradicts itself. If I say, “Everything that exists is material,” is that statement itself material? Is it merely a series of sound waves? If I write out the statement, is it nothing but marks on a piece of paper? Of course not. The statement has a linguistic meaning. It has logical properties. It has a social function (communicating to others)—all of which transcend the material dimension. Ironically, materialism cannot even be stated without refuting itself.
Because humans are whole and integrated beings, we should expect our thoughts to be accompanied by physical events in the brain. But if we reduce thought processes to brain processes, the result is a logical contradiction.
Evolution Cannot Survive Itself
Another example of self-referential absurdity is a theory called evolutionary epistemology, a naturalistic approach that applies evolution to the process of knowing. The theory proposes that the human mind is a product of natural selection. The implication is that the ideas in our minds were selected for their survival value, not for their truth value.
But what if we apply that theory to itself? Then it, too, was selected for survival, not truth—which discredits its own claim to truth. Evolutionary epistemology commits suicide.
Astonishingly, many prominent thinkers have embraced the theory without detecting the logical contradiction. Philosopher John Gray writes, “If Darwin’s theory of natural selection is true, … the human mind serves evolutionary success, not truth.” 16 What is the contradiction in that statement?
Gray has essentially said, if Darwin’s theory is true, then it “serves evolutionary success, not truth.” In other words, if Darwin’s theory is true, then it is not true.
Self-referential absurdity is akin to the well-known liar’s paradox: “This statement is a lie.” If the statement is true, then (as it says) it is not true, but a lie.
Another example is Francis Crick. In The Astonishing Hypothesis , he writes, “Our highly developed brains, after all, were not evolved under the pressure of discovering scientific truths but only to enable us to be clever enough to survive.”
The problem is that digestion is not something that can be true or false; it is just a biological fact. If our thoughts are also biological facts, determined by biological laws, then they are not the sort of thing that can be true or false either.
But that has to include our thoughts about materialism—which undercuts its claim to be true. When the implications of materialism are applied to itself, it commits suicide.
C. S. Lewis makes a similar argument in several of his writings. Here is an example: “If minds are wholly dependent on brains, and brains on biochemistry, and biochemistry (in the long run) on the meaningless flux of the atoms, I cannot understand how the thought of those minds should have any more significance than the sound of the wind in the trees.” Lewis then shows how this view defeats itself: “But if I can’t trust my own thinking, of course I can’t trust the arguments leading to Atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an Atheist, or anything else.” 14
How do atheists or materialists avoid that self-refuting conclusion? They make what Lewis calls a “tacit exception” for their own theory—at least, at the moment they are stating their claims. In building their case, they must implicitly trust their own thinking. They must exempt themselves from their own reductive categories of analysis. As one philosopher says, the materialist functions as though he were an “angelic observer” somehow able to float above the determinist cage in which he locks everyone else. 15
In essence, materialists must tacitly assume a Christian epistemology, at least when they are arguing for their claims.
Indeed, the sheer act of asserting materialism contradicts itself. If I say, “Everything that exists is material,” is that statement itself material? Is it merely a series of sound waves? If I write out the statement, is it nothing but marks on a piece of paper? Of course not. The statement has a linguistic meaning. It has logical properties. It has a social function (communicating to others)—all of which transcend the material dimension. Ironically, materialism cannot even be stated without refuting itself.
Because humans are whole and integrated beings, we should expect our thoughts to be accompanied by physical events in the brain. But if we reduce thought processes to brain processes, the result is a logical contradiction.
Evolution Cannot Survive Itself
Another example of self-referential absurdity is a theory called evolutionary epistemology, a naturalistic approach that applies evolution to the process of knowing. The theory proposes that the human mind is a product of natural selection. The implication is that the ideas in our minds were selected for their survival value, not for their truth value.
But what if we apply that theory to itself? Then it, too, was selected for survival, not truth—which discredits its own claim to truth. Evolutionary epistemology commits suicide.
Astonishingly, many prominent thinkers have embraced the theory without detecting the logical contradiction. Philosopher John Gray writes, “If Darwin’s theory of natural selection is true, … the human mind serves evolutionary success, not truth.” 16 What is the contradiction in that statement?
Gray has essentially said, if Darwin’s theory is true, then it “serves evolutionary success, not truth.” In other words, if Darwin’s theory is true, then it is not true.
Self-referential absurdity is akin to the well-known liar’s paradox: “This statement is a lie.” If the statement is true, then (as it says) it is not true, but a lie.
Another example is Francis Crick. In The Astonishing Hypothesis , he writes, “Our highly developed brains, after all, were not evolved under the pressure of discovering scientific truths but only to enable us to be clever enough to survive.”
Similar Books
