Post Modernism in Art- Don't Throw the Baby out with the Bath-water!

This life's dim windows of the soul,

Distorts the heavens from pole to pole,

And leads you to believe a lie,

When you see with,

And not through the eye.

-William Blake

Tina Farnworth- According to her Google+ Profile is: Married Mum of 2 teenage boys, passionate about atheism, Life, the Universe and Everything!! 

It is a beautiful piece of photographic art isn't it! But I wish to challenge the thinking behind the message.

Lets look at what is assumed in the words that go with the beautiful image. First up we have a moral imperative. Whenever the word "should" is used we should instantly be aware that some moral claim is being made. I just used the word myself in the previous sentence. My reason for using it is because even when people argue against morality in general, they are using a moral argument. People don't always recognize a self defeating argument when they see one. You "should" be aware because we have a moral responsibility to know and verify claims as true or not.

• The argument against any sort of morality, stating (as some do) that: 

"morality is simply a man made convention that ought to be dispensed with",

is a self defeating argument.

In such a case the one promoting it cannot use the word "ought" or "should" because the existence of the moral reality they are trying to defeat is implied and assumed by the use of those words. 

So we- like the self confessed atheist Tina Farnworth- all agree we live in a moral Universe. 

When these words are used there is an assumption being made that one state of affairs is better than another, a moral standard is being presupposed.  One can only appeal to those words as meaningful if a moral standard is assumed. 

• Now if that moral standard was completely relative then it's like trying to stand on shifting sand that is being swept away, first by a wave from this direction and then by another from a completely different direction, it completely undermines any moral standpoint. One cannot stand at all in this state of affairs. 

Once it is pointed out- it is easy to see the following relativistic sentence is inconsistent with itself. If I make the judgement: 

"You should not say this is right or that is wrong" 

then if that statement is true - to be consistent, neither should I make the statement:

"You should not say this is right or that is wrong"

 This is because I am specifically doing what I am at the same time denying or prohibiting. It belongs to the same class of statements like:

"I cannot speak a word of English"

It is self defeating. In fact relativism makes it impossible to make any meaningful statement about right and wrong with any sense of authority. Of course the problem with moral relativists is that they always try to sneak in absolute statements otherwise they could not argue their case.

Even when someone says we should stop all talk of morality or all talk of absolute morality this assumes a standard of absolute morality. If, as many do today, there is a concerted push to make all morality relative, then the argument dissolves itself. C.S. Lewis in another context used the illustration of a knot in a rope. The rope is threaded this way and that way until at the last turn of the rope it is given a quick pull and the whole knot disintegrates and disappears, defeating its own purpose. 

This is necessarily so because if one presupposes that everyone should "live their own truth" and not force it on others we would find life intolerable even impossible. This is what it means to make morality "relative". You see if you agree that "all morality is relative" you have just made an absolute claim with the word "all". When you assume a morally relative world- I might respond and say "Good, I want to bring an absolute system of morality into the world and this is my reality" and if you are a consistent moral relativist then you have no grounds to argue meaningfully against it. Thus it makes itself impotent. Relative morality reveals itself as deficient as a moral basis for living.

This is easily demonstrated in actual life: Suppose, at the local bookstore you purchase a book called  "Moral Relativism- The Right Way to Live" by A.N Idiot. It cost $20 and you hand over a $50 note to the assistant. What would you do if he only handed you $5 change? Of course you would protest!

"You haven't given me the right change" I hear you say.

The assistant with a very frosty look shoves the book and your meagre change towards you and says:

"Read the book honey- this is my reality, this is my truth, this is my morality and don't come in here trying to force your absolutes on me!"

• Moral relativism doesn't work, the alternative is objective or absolute morality. To be objectively true- it is true for all people, for all time, in all places. 

So to recap:

1. We agree with Tina that we live in a moral world.
2. Tina has made a moral claim with regard to religion, and we need to know if it's true, if its good. 
3. We have ruled out moral relativism in this moral world.
4. That means, if her statement is true, it must be objectively true because we have ruled out moral relativism. 
5. If it is objectively true- then its true for all time, for all people, in all places- it is a universal law. It doesn't depend on us for its reality.
6. A universal law can only be accounted for by positing a universal law giver- God.

But that is whom she is trying to disprove isn't it?

The argument from morality leads inexorably to the existence of God.

Ok so I have spent quite a lot of your time in order to convince you that she is making a moral claim, and how to evaluate that, but I have yet to address what those words are actually saying in her picture, what the actual claim is.

We have looked at the word "should" and all that it implies.

Now look at the word "indoctrination". Ooh yuck. This word in the post-modern context implies a lot, and from this perspective it's all bad. It's about a repetitive, systematic brainwashing technique about as good for you as Hitler's propaganda war that National Socialism was good for Germany. In the good old days this word simply meant to teach something until the idea was firmly grasped and made part of ones paradigm, ones overall way of looking at the world. Speaking of which isn't that exactly whats happened with this word?

Now a-days this word "indoctrination" is almost exclusively used pejoratively (in a negative sense). That is, we have been indoctrinated against the word "indoctrination" and words associated with it like "doctrine". It is now (with many of its family) a wax monument in the Hall of Shame of English Words. When one has been indoctrinated it simply meant that one could take it for granted and move on, which is a good thing if what we tucked away in our brain was true. Now we see it in the same light as the way the media put "spin" on things.

Now isn't that a co-incidence! From where I sit- this word-picture, with all its appeal and emotiveness, the beautiful baby, the mystery and glory of the universe, the strong arm upholding the adorable little treasure, all the connotations in the language- is actually attempting to indoctrinate us isn't it?

I find this use of the innocence of children to politicize a cause as disturbing. As disturbing as that photo of Michael Jackson. In this case the babies face is covered. Was it to spare the infants innocence from some harsh reality? We understandably shudder at this and it is as repugnant to us as much as we are moved empathetically by the other photo above.  But do the sentiments expressed in the above really match up to the claims implied?

 At the very least, and I suspect all too commonly, it is simply affirming what many already believe.

Well let us give Tina Farnworth the benefit of the doubt. Lets just say she would rather all children made their own minds up about reality. The picture gives a cogent hint as to what she intends, that is- they should only look to nature for all of reality.

But is a completely natural way of looking at the world an unbiased view of reality?

"Naturalism commonly refers to the viewpoint that laws of nature (as opposed to supernatural ones) operate in the universe, and that nothing exists beyond the natural universe or, if it does, it does not affect the natural universe. Adherents of naturalism (naturalists) assert that natural laws are the rules that govern the structure and behavior of the natural universe, that the universe is a product of these laws." (Wikipedia- emphasis mine)

Naturalism does not disprove the existence of God it simply makes the assumption that God doesn't exist, then forms a view of reality that accommodates this presupposition. This then, can hardly be called a neutral worldview or an unprejudiced worldview without bias. That is the point of Blake's poem, if you look at the world the way a child does, presupposing that that which one beholds is all there is, and nothing else exists- then that is hardly an unbiased position.

In order to gain an undistorted view of reality what we see must be interpreted by a mind conditioned by truth and a conscience, both of which are not part of the material world. If what Tina implies is true, (that what the child sees is all there is to see), then why does Tina appeal to truth? There is no need for truth in a strictly materialistic world view, neither is there any explanatory power in that worldview for the existence of truth which she nonetheless believes in and appeals to.  

Is it possible to bring any child up in a completely neutral way- in some sort of moral vacuum? Would it not presuppose that the parents also would have to be completely neutral?

The view of the infant gazing out at the wonder and beauty of the Universe is by any account beautiful. And so is the idea of growing up without bias. But who believes for a moment that the child is going to be left to itself to form its own ideas about reality? The view that the caring parent is all but out of the picture, leaving the child to form a completely natural view of reality even if it  is possible does not guarantee a freedom from bias.

What is that child going to conclude when it gazes out at the starry sky or looks inwardly at itself -the marvel of the biological machine. Well OK we admit so far that naturalism has a coherent answer, but that is no guarantee of its truth, its veracity. And then what will he believe about self- consciousness? Will he say with Kant:

"Two things fill me with wonder, the starry sky above and the moral law within."

 The naturalist or materialist account does not give an adequate explanation for consciousness, for moral law,  for truth, for the intelligibility of the universe even for the capacity to think!

Greg Cootsona in his blog- The Right Rhythm says:

[C.S.] "Lewis, who in many ways gloried in moving against the grain of the culture, readily argued for the irrationality of materialism. I use “irrationality” advisedly because Lewis argued that materialism did not allow for rationality and thus obviated truth as well. In materialism, things just are; they are neither true nor false. And I mean this literally—Lewis concluded that, if we take nature to be all that there is, there is no place for rational thought. That is why naturalism defeats itself. It cuts off the very branch on which it sits." (emphasis mine)

From a previous blog post of my own quoting Lewis out of his book Miracles:

"It would be impossible to accept naturalism itself if we really and consistently believed naturalism. For naturalism is a system of thought. But for naturalism all thoughts are mere events with irrational causes. It is, to me at any rate, impossible to regard the thoughts which make up naturalism in that way and, at the same time, to regard them as real insight into external reality. Bradley distinguished idea-event from idea-making, but naturalism seems to me committed to regarding ideas simply as events. For meaning is a relation of a wholly new kind, as remote, as mysterious, as opaque to empirical study, as soul itself.
Perhaps this may be even more simply put in another way. Every particular thought (whether it is a judgement of fact or a judgement of value) is always and by all men discounted the moment they believe that it can be explained, without remainder, as the result of irrational causes. Whenever you know what the other man is saying is wholly due to his complexes or to a bit of bone pressing on his brain, you cease to attach any importance to it. But if naturalism were true then all thoughts whatever would be wholly the result of irrational causes. Therefore, all thoughts would be equally worthless. Therefore, naturalism is worthless. If it is true, then we can know no truths. It cuts its own throat.
“The validity of rational thought… is the necessary presupposition of all other theorizing.”
"There is no reason, at this point, to bring in either Christianity or spiritualism. We do not need them to refute naturalism. It refutes itself. Whatever else we may come to believe about the universe, at least we cannot believe naturalism. The validity of rational thought, accepted in an utterly non-naturalistic, transcendental (if you will), supernatural sense, is the necessary presupposition of all other theorizing. There is simply no sense in beginning with a view of the universe and trying to fit the claims of thought in at a later stage. By thinking at all we have claimed that our thoughts are more than mere natural events. All other propositions must be fitted in as best they can round that primary claim.
Holding that science has not refuted the miraculous element in religion, much less that naturalism, rigorously taken, can refute anything except itself, I do not, of course, share Professor Price’s anxiety to find a religion which can do without what he calls the mythology."

Again from Greg Cootsona: Some, even within the naturalist and therefore atheistic camp, saw the problems inherent in arguing that “the mind is what the brain does.The famous geneticist and evolutionary biologist, John Scott Haldane wrote this:

"It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms."

If I give an illustration I hope what is being discussed above might easier to grasp. To the naturalist who believes that everything can be explained in terms of the material, that only matter exists, she is left with this enormous gap in in its explanatory power with regard to the mind. It can explain thoughts as electro-chemical properties in the brain in exactly the same way paper and ink explains a book, but is left in an absolute quandary with no reasonable explanation for what that paper and ink equates to in terms of meaning and value. It cannot explain the immaterial because of course it has cut off its own branch, in terms of its self imposed restriction to the strictly material explanation- it cannot even account for self-conscious thought.

This serious disconnect between the physical organ the brain, and the explanation of self-conscious thought has been observed for quite some time. In an article submitted to Academia, "You Are Not Your Brain", Greg Nixon (Assistant Professor in the School of Education at the University of Northern British Columbia writes:

The hard problem, however, is how and why there is conscious awareness at all. To this point, neuroscience has been no help in explaining this: “The really hard problem of consciousness is the problem of experience” (Chalmers, p. 200). This difference – the explanatory gap – was adroitly noted as far back as 1879 when psycho-neurologist John Tyndall conceptualized the impossible rift:

The passage from the physics of the brain to the corresponding facts of consciousness is unthinkable. Granted that a definite thought and a definite molecular action in the brain occur simultaneously; we do not possess the intellectual organ, nor apparently any rudiment of the organ, which would enable us to pass, by a process of reasoning, from one to the other. (John Tyndall)

When William Blake penned the words at the top of this post he was referring to the self deception that takes place within every human being that does not learn to distinguish between what her eyes or senses are telling her in their raw state and how we must learn to interpret what we see with a developed conscience. As with a garden, so with the mind, if we do not cultivate it, it will according to its own nature develop useless weeds.

Plato seemed to be speaking against a naturalist view of reality over a fifteen hundred years ago with these words:

  Plato: "Every seeker after wisdom knows that up to the time when philosophy takes it over his soul is a helpless prisoner, chained hand and foot in the body, compelled to view reality not directly but only through its prison bars, and wallowing in utter ignorance. And philosophy can see that the imprisonment is ingeniously effected by the prisoner's own active desire, which makes him first accessory to his own confinement. Well, philosophy takes over the soul in this condition and by gentle persuasion tries to set it free. She points out that observation by means of the eyes and ears and all the other senses is entirely deceptive, and she urges the soul to refrain from using them unless it is necessary to do so, and encourages it to collect and concetrate itself by itself, trusting nothing but its own independent upon objects considered in themselves, and attributing no truth to anything which it view indirectly as being subject to variation, because such objects are sensible and visible but what the soul itself sees is intelligible and invisible."

How do we define religion? (Another word which- for many- leaves a bad taste in the mouth.)

Now I know most people associate "religion" with the idea of a supernatural realm and a super being that is greater than all aka- God. However any world view which seeks to answer the same questions that are asked (and answered) by religion are reasonably said to be- if not religious in nature, then at the least- semi-religious or as Alvin Plantinga puts it: "Quasi- religious" 

Alvin Plantinga (until recently) Professor of Philosophy Emeritus at the University of Notre Dame says Naturalism is  at least semi-religious. At a lecture Plantinga delivered to Biola University on October 6th 2010 called: “Science & Religion – Where the Conflict Really Lies“ he said:

“Naturalism – the thought that there is no such thing as the god of theistic religion, or anything like god. Naturalism is an essential element in the whole naturalistic worldview, which is a kind of semi-religion. It’s a quasi-religion, or it’s like a religion in the sense that it plays one of the most important roles that a religion plays. Namely that of answering these fundamental human questions. Where do we come from? What fundamentally is it to be a human being? What’s real in the world? What is our connection – how are we related to the animal kingdom and the rest of god’s creation? And so on. These are questions that are answered by religions (Christianity) but also answered by naturalism.” [7:28]

In short then whether one is indoctrinated into the theistic form of religion or whether one is indoctrinated in the quasi-religion of Naturalism, one still ends up making conclusions about the world and about reality that rely on metaphysical statements. One is therefore indoctrinated one way or the other whether by the natural tendency of all human nature to view nature as all there is as in Naturalism or whether one is taught the ways of theism or other religions.

The idea then of neutrality when it come to a world view is a myth! 

Besides all of this even an atheist will not agree with the view of naturalism-

Listen to eminent Philosopher Thomas Nagel, an atheist as critiqued by Christian Philosopher Professor Alvin Plantinga: 

The eminent philosopher Thomas Nagel would call it [naturalism] something else: an idol of the academic tribe, perhaps, or a sacred cow: “I find this view antecedently unbelievable—a heroic triumph of ideological theory over common sense. ... I would be willing to bet that the present right-thinking consensus will come to seem laughable in a generation or two.” Nagel is an atheist; even so, however, he does not accept the above consensus, which he calls materialist naturalism; far from it. His important new book is a brief but powerful assault on materialist naturalism.

 

Nagel has endorsed the negative conclusions of the much-maligned Intelligent Design movement, and he has defended it from the charge that it is inherently unscientific. In 2009 he even went so far as to recommend Stephen Meyer’s book Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design, a flagship declaration of Intelligent Design, as a book of the year. For that piece of blasphemy Nagel paid the predictable price; he was said to be arrogant, dangerous to children, a disgrace, hypocritical, ignorant, mind-polluting, reprehensible, stupid, unscientific, and in general a less than wholly upstanding citizen of the republic of letters. (by Alvin Plantinga reiviewing Nagel's book Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False

To summarise then:

• Any moral argument leads to God. 
• Naturalism which is really the philosophy of appearances does not guarantee neutrality.
• Naturalism is a quasi-religion.
• Naturalism assumes the non existence of immaterial realities it doesn't attempt to disprove them, therefore revealing a systemic bias.
• Naturalism which is the position most atheists hold cannot validate or explain human thought.
• Naturalism is self defeating.
• A picture can represent a thousand words, but is it true, or is it indoctrination?

I will hereby admit defeat, as I look back at all that I have written I must admit her picture looks far better, far more appealing than the screeds of words and time that I have lavishly squandered on something that looks so unattractive and uninviting. We live in an age where soundbites and headline grabbing images are the only sort of thing that people are willing to spend their time on. The appearance is the message- there is nothing deeper than this...And people are merely life imitating art.

Post Modernism in Art- It is Black and White is It?

What are we too conclude from this? The Post modern worldview does not like to deal in absolutes. It doesn't want to admit any at all, totally and absolutely! This mood in our culture today wants to rid the world of absolutes, but in attempting to do this it finds itself totally involved in absolutes. They are, much to the distaste of many, undeniable.

The movie makers are not philosophically neutral, there is a deliberate, calculated message that instances of this kind are making. It is indoctrination. They often come at a moment of climax, a moment of truth- and the message is hammered home. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with that, so long as the moment of truth doesn't turn out to be false.

Darth Vader and his association with the Sith are obviously on the wrong side of "right", the "absolutists" are characterized as evil. Even the black clothes and capes and the super exaggerated Nazi helmet give an unmistakable impression of evil.

The piece of artwork above stands as a memorial to the message of the movie but has become even more specific. I have no wish to defend the Pope but the attempt to paint him as a "dark' character is clear.

What I do wish to defend is the absolute statement made by Jesus, from Mathew
12:30. It is a clear claim of this verse that there is no neutrality in the world- anywhere with regard to this question of Christ. You are either for him or against him. And this artwork actually stands as a symbol of this truth. The world is an ideological battlefield of the mind. Every influence is to pull you, and mold you into its image. This shows there is no neutrality, there are dark forces out there to win the mind, to make your thinking conform to its darkness.

Obi-Wan in his attempt at wisdom should now feel a little foolish, because in his accusation against Siths he has committed the same "fault". The script writer, in his rush to convince the world that absolutes are evil- through his heroic character Obi-Wan- has cut off the branch on which he stood. He himself makes an absolute statement while pointing out this "evil" in others.

The writer has- in and through the character of Obi-Wan- made himself a liar.

But are absolutes really evil? Why does the post-modern worldview have such a predilection for knocking absolutes?

 The mood in today's world does not like the idea of absolute truth, because if it were even to admit that much it may have to give up even more ground. The worst possible scenario would be to admit that not only does absolute truth exist- somewhere out there, it might possibly be known as well, it might become a personal absolute. Heaven forbid. Actually there might even be more bad news, it might be possible not only to know some absolutes but there might even exist.....gasp (furtive looks in all directions) an absolute morality (In whispered tones)

Proof God Exists

“I Know God Exists”

Suppose someone makes a statement: “I can prove the existence of God?”  One of the first things to do before embarking on such a voyage as this might prove to be is to decide on the terms used in the statement.

What, for instance, do we mean by the word “proof’? It may not be difficult to understand what the word means, but as Descartes quickly realized, it certainly is quite an elusive thing. Rene Descartes (1596 –1650),an important early philosopher, scientist and mathematician, wanted to find out how we arrive at certainty of knowledge. His idea entailed systematically doubting everything he thought he knew, drilling down as it were until he could arrive at a starting point for knowledge which he could not doubt.

Rene Descartes

“Knowledge” may be defined in simple terms as facts about real states of affairs, facts about reality. At this point we might distinguish knowledge from belief. I might know the sun is shining right now where I am, but tomorrow I believe it will rain. Knowledge involves the concept of certainty. Knowledge must be true, it is not enough to merely think something is true and claim that as knowledge. We cannot claim to know of a square circle. Since a circle is defined by its circularity and a square by its straight lines they are mutually exclusive. In regard to certainty, Descartes is most famous for the statement: “cogito ergo sum”, in popular terms, “I think, therefore I am”

Rene Descartes: “I noticed that while I was trying to think everything false, it was necessary that I, who was thinking this, was something. And observing that this truth, "I am thinking, therefore I exist "[cogito ergo sum] was so firm and sure that all the most extravagant suppositions of the skeptics were incapable of shaking it, I decided that I could accept it without scruple as the first principle of philosophy I was seeking”


For Descartes then, the Cogito is the firm ground upon which he can stand as he worked to restore his beliefs. He related this to the idea Archimedes expressed. “Archimedes used to demand just one firm and immovable point in order to shift the entire earth; so I too can hope for great things if I manage to find just one thing, however slight, that is certain and unshakable.”


Why was Descartes taking such pains to arrive at certainty? Descartes appreciated the value of knowledge, he also understood that often things were claimed to be “known” when in reality this was not the case. For example in the ancient world it was “known” that we lived in a system that involved planets, the moon and the sun, and earth was the center around which these heavenly bodies revolved.

The Ptolemaic System with earth as center.

Eventually this geo-centric system was replaced by the Copernican heliocentric system which correctly observes the sun as the center of our solar system. This is often regarded as the event defining the scientific revolution; Descartes also played a strong part in this movement. There were a number of natural philosophers whose interchange of ideas was responsible for the empirical method which underpins what we now know as the scientific method of today. This period marked an era of momentous upheaval in the world of ideas; everything was being questioned and queried with a rigor previously unheard of. It was no longer acceptable to put faith in appearances and basic observations. Perhaps finally the world was taking notice of words spoken some 1600 years prior when Jesus said: “Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.” (John 7:24)

Just a few years before Descartes was born the geocentric system which had held sway for 1400 years was displaced by the heliocentric system. Perhaps when Descartes considered how long a time that an erroneous idea had misled people this became a catalyst for his own drive towards certainty.

This then raises several questions:

• What shall we hold as an acceptable level of proof for the proposition in question?
• What level of certainty do we require before we would believe the proposition “God exists”? 

• Is there a general level of certainty that might be acceptable for a statement to pass from: “I believe God exists” to the more assertive, “I know God exists”?
•  But first perhaps let us ask- What would be an unacceptably high requirement for certainty?
• Is it possible to be unreasonable in our quest for certainty? 
• If the level of certainty demanded was not consistent with the question, would it not show the level of bias against the proposition? 

The requirements differ according to circumstance. We prioritize the level of certainty necessary according to our appraisal of the risk. We do not require a certificate of compliance to be attached to a chair before we sit on it, but we do have systems in place so that before we take a car on the road we are reasonably certain it is safe to drive. I think this is a valid question given today’s skeptical climate. There are philosophers (taking Descartes to extremes) that have written about the impossibility of true knowledge, about the impossibility of knowing anything for certain, and- writing volumes- they will tell you in no uncertain terms! How some people can expend such laborious efforts to pass on the knowledge that you cannot know is beyond me! It seems to me that to say that the only thing you can know for sure is that we cannot know for sure- is bordering on naiveté. Surely at some point this extreme reduces to absurdity.  At this my mind conjures up a scene from Dad’s Army as Captain Mainwaring would say “Getting into the realms of fantasy Jones!”    (“Subjectivism is the philosophical tenet that "our own mental activity is the only unquestionable fact of our experience". Wikipedia, emphasis mine)

Subjectivism

Some people have even embarked on a way of life that takes subjectivism to such an extreme, as to believe that ones own mind is the only reality and everything else including other minds, yours and mine, are actually imaginary!

Based on a philosophy of subjective idealism, metaphysical solipsists maintain that the self is the only existing reality and that all other reality, including the external world and other persons, are representations of that self, and have no independent existence.( Wikipedia)
Such a person is a solipsist.  As a metaphysical position, solipsism concludes that the world and other minds do not exist. Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga recounts an amusing story- at a University where he worked the resident Professor of Surgery was a solipsist. After spending an amiable few minutes speaking with him Plantinga left to carry on about his business. One of the surgery interns quietly pulled him aside and said "You know we take good care of our Professor, after all- once he goes we all go..."


But why should reality be viewed this way? If this extreme subjectivism were so in an absolute sense then wouldn’t that count as some sort of conspiracy of fact? Wouldn’t it make even the skeptic suspicious that some design was at hand? This extreme skepticism is used in thought experiments where we have the idea of a brain in a vat kept alive through immersion in nutrients and all sorts of electrodes on the brain connected to a master computer which creates a virtual reality completely immune to the real world. In such a state he or she cannot know whether most of his or her beliefs might be completely false. If each of us were indeed brains in vats then this "truth"skepticism of reality would be more likely to encourage people to believe in God than deny him, after all no one could deny a master plan and a design and on such a scale it could only be God.

Again Jesus has something to say on the issue of credibility which put the religious leaders of the day on the horns of a dilemma:

“And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead”. Luke 16:31

Here the religious leaders of his day were confronted with their bias against him through the story of Lazarus the beggar and the rich man. They were given evidence of Jesus’ true identity from their own sources of authority (The Law and the Prophets) and Jesus made the point that if they are going to be inconsistent enough even to deny what they considered on other points to be authoritatively true; they wouldn't hesitate to deny the evidence of a resurrection. I guess Jesus would know!

He points out that if they- under normal circumstances- accept what their senses tell them as reliable and  as capable of presenting things as real states of affairs why suddenly did they deny their senses when presented with the reality of his resurrection. The answer lies in the motive and the heart of those who deny the reality. Even if- on a conscious level- they sincerely believed in the impossibility of a resurrection, the real reason lies on another level where the implications of believing it become life changing and too costly to contemplate. After all these religious leaders were not skeptical about the existence of God, then what is such a problem with resurrection?

Suppressing the evidence.

So here we see that for one who is determined enough- no amount of evidence will do. So it becomes a point of the willful suppression of evidence. And for many that may mean unconscious suppression of it. George Macdonald, in The Curate's Awakening, warned:

"To try to explain truth to him who loves it not, is but to give him more plentiful material for misinterpretation."

What we find then is a situation in which all of mankind have an axe to grind, with the regard to the question of God there is in fact no neutrality.

Suppose one wanted to know objective truth about human nature and certain relations to that nature, how would anyone speak with authority on this subject? After all if you are conferring with an expert who is subject to that nature (and of course all humans are) then surely everyone is- accordingly like the definition of a foolish doctor. This doctor, the introspective,  self-diagnosing doctor, it is said,who has a fool for a patient!

“The authority is an expert, but is not disinterested. That is, the expert is biased towards one side of the issue, and his opinion is thereby untrustworthy.”

The Myth of Neutralty.

So atheists who talk about open mindedness and objectivity are already compromised, and are not disinterested, unbiased or neutral about the existence of God, and to take up their ground from which to work from as a common basis for apologetics is to lose ground and court failure.

So if this scenario demonstrates the unreliable witness of all humanity about humanity and certain relations to that nature- while not proving a fallacy certainly undermines human witness to any truth with regard to the question of God.

Perhaps we can see from this why the scripture says: “Let God be true but every man a liar”

We are all human prior to being experts. I no doubt have said this before but I take such delight in it I cannot refrain: 

“A man cannot find God for the same reason a thief cannot find a policeman.” Anon.

Theologians, philosophers and scientists have this in common, they are all in the pursuit of truth, it’s just that where they seek it and the type of truth they seek is, (at least on the face of it) different. But, and I feel this is important to remember; they are all human before they are theologians, philosophers and scientists (and of course so are we!)  The pertinent question to ask then is: From the perspective as a whole do we have an axe to grind?

Is there possibly a universal human motive for not recognizing the existence of God? 

And, of course- there is! Not the least of which is the fact that if God exists then it is most likely true that all that we are, all that we have, all that we do, all that we enjoy, every breath that we take- we are indebted to this God for.  We owe him- big time and what have we done about it?

Now whether or not everyone has consciously worked through the advantages of being our own man, as convicted mass murderer Timothy McVeigh said “I am the master of my fate: I am the captain of my soul” it makes little difference. In the secret places of our own heart everyone has enjoyed the sweet, delectable enticement and seduction of self will. From an innocent child’s earliest conscious moment when the suckling recognized its independence from its mother and refused to feed- its little mouth firmly shut, to the wizened, frail frame of megalomaniac exemplified in Joseph Stalin- raising himself up off his deathbed to shake a craggy fist at God moments before he passed from this world, we glory in being our own.  

Mankind is the Measure: Kant.

When that subtle beast of the field in that ancient garden whispered: “Yea hath God said…” The unmistakable invitation was for the woman to make up her own mind, to be her own person, to listen to the counsel of her own heart. To look no higher for authority than the authority of her own autonomous mind, and this sentiment possibly took its self referential authority strongest and most self-consciously through the philosophy of Kant. 

"To Kant, the human mind must be autonomous, subject only to its own law. Kant radically rejected the idea of authoritative revelation from God (either in nature or in Scripture) and asserted, perhaps more clearly than ever before (although this had always been the view of secular philosophers), the autonomy of the human mind. The human mind, that means, is to be its own supreme authority, its own criterion of truth and right."

"Kant’s philosophy explicitly presupposes human autonomy. It adopts human autonomy as the root idea to which every other idea must conform."

It was the brilliant Blaise Pascal, French Mathematician, Philosopher and Physicist (1623- 1662), author of The Pensees, creator of the first mechanical computer and Christian mystic who said:

“The heart has reasons that reason cannot know.”

The Bible is not silent on this issue:

 “because the mind of the flesh is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can it be”

Consciously or not we have an axe to grind.

  Someone once wrote about the twin dangers of an extreme skepticism and its opposite of being extremely gullible, saying to the effect:

If we refuse to open our mouth and accept anything offered, we shall soon die of starvation, alternatively if we open our mouth so wide as to accept everything we shall soon choke!

G.K. Chesterton.

G.K. Chesterton (1874 – 1936) in his book “Orthodoxy” gives a humorous but honest definition of the insanity of both extreme skepticism and an extremely materialistic view of reality, (In philosophy, the theory of materialism holds that the only thing that exists is matter or energy; that all things are composed of material and all phenomena [including consciousness] are the result of material interactions. Wikipedia)

G.K. Chesterton:

“There is a skeptic far more terrible than he who believes that everything began in matter. It is possible to meet the skeptic who believes that everything began in himself. He doubts not the existence of angels or devils, but the existence of men and cows. For him his own friends are a mythology made up by himself. He created his own father and his own mother. This horrible fancy has in it something decidedly attractive to the somewhat mystical egoism of our day. That publisher who thought that men would get on if they believed in themselves, those seekers after the Superman who are always looking for him in the looking-glass, those writers who talk about impressing their personalities instead of creating life for the world, all these people have really only an inch between them and this awful emptiness.

Then when this kindly world all round the man has been blackened out like a lie; when friends fade into ghosts, and the foundations of the world fail; then when the man, believing in nothing and in no man, is alone in his own nightmare, then the great individualistic motto shall be written over him in avenging irony. The stars will be only dots in the blackness of his own brain; his mother's face will be only a sketch from his own insane pencil on the walls of his cell. But over his cell shall be written, with dreadful truth, "He believes in himself."

All that concerns us here, however, is to note that this panegoistic extreme of thought exhibits the same paradox as the other extreme of materialism. It is equally complete in theory and equally crippling in practice. For the sake of simplicity, it is easier to state the notion by saying that a man can believe that he is always in a dream. Now, obviously there can be no positive proof given to him that he is not in a dream, for the simple reason that no proof can be offered that might not be offered in a dream. But if the man began to burn down London and say that his housekeeper would soon call him to breakfast, we should take him and put him with other logicians in a place which has often been alluded to in the course of this chapter.

The man who cannot believe his senses, and the man who cannot believe anything else, are both insane, but their insanity is proved not by any error in their argument, but by the manifest mistake of their whole lives. They have both locked themselves up in two boxes, painted inside with the sun and stars; they are both unable to get out, the one into the health and happiness of heaven, the other even into the health and happiness of the earth.”

• What shall we hold as an acceptable level of proof for the proposition in question? 

• What level of certainty do we require before we would believe the proposition “God exists”? 

There indubitably will be differences in what an acceptable level of proof would look like, depending on which side of the fence one sits. Or, as an agnostic might contend, depending on which side of the fence or whether one is sitting on the fence. To some it is a question of no consequence and will engender very little interest, to another it may be as serious as a life and death situation. Given that a stricter level of substantiation will satisfy people at all levels, what forms of investigation are available that satisfy rigorous examination? I propose that there are two commonly used systems and that both may be used with a high level of confidence.

When life or death is literally decided upon in investigations we invariably turn to the law courts for an official verdict. So the legal form of corroboration is one, the other is the scientific investigation based on the empirical method. When it is undertaken to send a man to the moon his life and death is largely in the hands of scientists. So these two powerful forms of enquiry are no doubt useful in the quest for deciding if the existence of God has a valid claim on knowledge. Various facets of an investigation might lend themselves to a scientific enquiry while others the judicial style would suit better.

Just as -Descartes realized- a great deal of what we generally accepted as “knowledge” was, under strenuous examination, seen to be explicable in terms of “belief” and not really knowledge- so too we have to understand that these conditions exist in both the scientific and legal communities. We shall have to take a look at the weaknesses of these forms of corroboration. Generally in law the criterion of understanding something to be true is put “beyond reasonable doubt”. In science some might offer the view that the criteria for deciding truth is much higher, that indeed before some fact has passed the bar of scientific judgment elevating its status from hypothesis to “knowledge”, it has to pass through a gauntlet of rigorous reasoning and logical certainty at every step. This is not so.

While it is true that scientific enquiry is thorough, it is far from logical certainty. By “logical certainty” I mean the same sort of certainty that we envisage when we say “1+1=2”.  This fact was made apparent during the aforementioned scientific revolution. And there are historical instances as well as methodological reasons that we can turn to, to illustrate this point.

Science as Logical Certainty: Thomas Kuhn

Thomas Kuhn, a scientist in his own right and a historian of science and contributing to the philosophy of science wrote “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” challenging the long held idea that science advanced at more or less a uniform rate each generation building on the shoulders of what had preceded.

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy says this of him: “His account of the development of science held that science enjoys periods of stable growth punctuated by revisionary revolutions…. While acknowledging the importance of Kuhn's ideas, the philosophical reception was nonetheless hostile…Since the following of rules (of logic, of scientific method, etc.) was regarded as the sine qua non of rationality, Kuhn's claim that scientists do not employ rules in reaching their decisions appeared tantamount to the claim that science is irrational.” Kuhn contended that science (and there is no need to believe that this is not also true of other disciplines) suffers from a kind of mental inertia or resistance to change. Once a theory has gained a widespread following and acceptance amongst scientists any challenge to its “orthodoxy” is met with hostile resistance and incredulity and it is only as the prevailing paradigm is weakened by the death and attrition of its adherents that a new paradigm arises like a phoenix as it were from the ashes of the old regime. In accord with Kuhn the constant use of induction (to which we shall soon turn) in the scientific enterprise also undermines the populist image of science as being the only purely rational discipline as historian and theologian N.T Wright points out:

“Current accounts of knowing have placed the would-be objective scientific knowing (test-tube epistemology, if you like) in a position of privilege.[another name for bias] Every step away from this is seen as a step into obscurity, fuzziness and subjectivism, reaching its peaks in aesthetics and metaphysics. "The Challenge of Jesus"

Thomas Kuhn:

“Scientists can never divorce their subjective perspective from their work; thus, our comprehension of science can never rely on full 'objectivity' - we must account for subjective perspectives as well” 

It was precisely because of the recognition of subjectivity and personal bias that the scientific method developed, nevertheless it continues to exist and is not always recognized or calibrated for as we shall see shortly in one of history’s most infamous examples.

It is clear the subjective element of anyone’s observations must be allowed for in consideration of any scientific enterprise (or, for that matter any endeavor related to truth or reality such as philosophy and faith).

As Christian Philosopher Alvin Plantinga has said

“It would be excessively naive to think that contemporary science is religiously and theologically neutral, standing serenely above this battle and wholly irrelevant to it.”

 (For further discussion re. the bias of secular world view see: Why do the pieces fit? Neutrino News & Neutrality)

One of the popular champions of Science today and author of best seller “The God Delusion” is the outspoken atheist Prof. Richard Dawkins.

In their book “The Dawkins Delusion”, Alister McGrath & Joanna Collicutt- McGrath offer a counter-perspective to Dawkins’ popular book and its attendant claim that religion is largely the result of wish fulfillment. In fact they point out that cognitive dissonance is a double edged sword:

‘Cognitive bias’ is indeed a fundamental characteristic of human psychology’ Yet in general this unconscious bias is manifested not so much in our believing what we would like to be true as in maintaining the status quo of our beliefs. The driving force is not wishful thinking but conservative thinking- that is, thinking that conserves an existing worldview. For example, many people have a positive view of themselves, a sense that the universe is benevolent and that other people like them. They maintain this view by attending to data that fits this view and minimizing that which does not. Others (such as depressed or traumatized people) see themselves as worthless, view the universes as malevolent and think others are out to get them. Once more, they discount or minimize the significance of any data that does not fit in with this view. We thus have a built in resistance to change our position- a resistance that is underpinned by cognitive biases that predispose us to fail to notice or to discount data that are inconsistent with our view. On the whole we do this because it is efficient- it takes effort and is upsetting to have to change one’s mind- even if the change is in a positive direction.'

This underlying resistance to change has been known for centuries as the reformer Martin Luther records:

"Learn from me how difficult a thing it is to throw off errors confirmed by the example of all the world, and which through long habit have become a second nature to us."  

A well known expression such as “turning the tide of opinion” gives a cogent example of this inertial resistance to change spoken of not just in terms of the individual but also on a societal level. In summary then, cognitive bias does not occur in the sole domain of religion but is just as common in the scientific arena. Nor is science the sole domain of rigorous examination- philosophy and theology also practise a most meticulous search for truth and as Luther experienced, students of theology also suffer from cognitive bias.

The Einstein Gaff: Gerald L. Schroeder.

Recently, thanks to neurological research of the human brain, we now have physical evidence to suppose that consistent, habitual ways of thinking actually change the brains structure and how it performs. It creates neurological pathways that reinforce this habitual way of thinking  It has been likened to rain washing down a hillside. At first the rain takes the path of least resistance but after continual washing this accustomed pathway becomes a deep rut that cuts its way deeper and deeper until there is less and less likelihood of change possible if nothing else changes. Thankfully the same research shows that though this is true, real change is possible but the deeper the rut the more effort required.

We now turn to perhaps the most famous example of cognitive bias in the recent past of science alluded to earlier. Gerald Schroeder is an applied physicist and an applied theologian who received his undergraduate and doctoral degrees from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. In his excellent book “Genesis and the Big Bang” Schroeder recounts the ridicule and disbelief that renowned scientists suffered at the outset because they challenged deeply held ideas. He describes several historic blunders by scientists and other critics with regard to pioneering scientists and then describes a faux pas by a scientist in his own thinking- focusing in particular on the worlds most celebrated physicist- Albert Einstein:

Gerald L. Schroeder- Genesis And The Big Bang- The Discovery of Harmony Between Modern Science And The Bible

“AN IMPORTANT LESSON FROM HISTORY

In a sense astrophysics is part of the supersearch for a Creator. As you might expect, astrophysics and biblical scholarship are on the same team, only not all those involved in the search realize this. And that is why both theologian and scientist must beware of subjectively filtering the data gathered in this search. At times the temptation is to use only the agreeable information and neglect those data that seem to contradict a preconceived notion of the truth.

Johannes Kepler succeeded in deducing that the planets revolve around the Sun in elliptical orbits and not circles , because he had the courage to use data that contradicted the generally held concept that all orbits were purely circular.

Newton stated that an object in motion will remain in motion until acted on by an outside force. This was [in then-current physics] blatantly ridiculous. Not only did it contradict Aristotle’s notion that the natural state of all objects is rest, but it also contradicted human experience. Rolling balls always eventually stop rolling.

Think of the professional and social pressure these scientists must have felt to adhere to the prevailing opinions. The psychological strain placed on people with unpopular theories is immense. Consider the following: In 1906 Ludwig Boltzmann, one of the founders of statistical mechanics, committed suicide. One of the causes of this tragic event was the intense philosophical opposition to his work, which now forms an integral part of physics. Not every scientist can withstand the force of that which is accepted as the current truth.

During the accumulation of the data that led to the widespread acceptance of the Standard Model of the universe there occurred an interesting lesson in nonobjectivity by the greatest of scientists. Albert Einstein completed his famous and complex general theory of relativity in 1915. Almost immediately he attempted to solve the relativistic equations to gain a description of the space-time physics of the entire universe. At that time, the current cosmology considered the universe to be isotropic and without expansion. Doppler shifts had not yet been measured in light emitted by galaxies distant from the Milky Way. Einstein’s solutions of his general theory, published in 1917, correctly revealed a universe with expansion but such a concept was not in vogue at the time. Relying on the then–current cosmology, Einstein introduced “a cosmological constant” into his equations. In so doing, he forced his relativistc equations to describe a universe without expansion. Years later, Einstein considered this one of the worst errors of his professional life.

The cosmological constant was no more than what a college freshman would call a “fudge factor”, a totally subjective modification of the objective solution he was seeking. It forced his equations to give the desired answer. Five years later the mathematician Alexander Friedmann resolved Einstein’s equations omitting the fudge factor. The solutions Friedmann obtained revealed a universe in expansion.”

The same unfortunate universal facet of human nature can be seen also in events surrounding the most recent discovery of quasi-symmetry which can be seen here. 

“Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.” Richard Feynman

When one considers perhaps the most distinguished scientist of all time, or at the least the most distinguished of our time made such an error of judgement as to force his calculations to fit the currently accepted view, we begin to appreciate the psychological implications of cognitive bias. If it seems reasonable to postulate that those scientists who are most successful at what they do, and surely Einstein was one of those, are also the same scientists that are most careful about not deceiving themselves (which of course would be detrimental to their level of success) one must ask: What is the underlying stimulus behind this apparent slip in intellectual honesty?

Aside from the motivation of conserving the status quo with regard to cosmology, what other conscious or unconscious implications might have swayed Einstein against his better judgement? When a scientist goes to work he is definitely not out merely to preserve the status quo, why bother researching what we already presume to know? No, a scientist is inspired by the thought of discovering something new, something no one else might have imagined. As someone once commented:

“Discovery consists in seeing what everyone else has seen and thinking what no one else has thought”.

It is interesting that the subject of Cosmology, as Schroeder alluded to above is “part of the supersearch for a Creator”.

Origin, Meaning, Morality and Destiny: Ravi Zacharias.

Well known Christian apologist, author and evangelist Ravi Zacharias says that “a coherent worldview must be able to satisfactorily answer four questions: that of origin, meaning of life, morality and destiny”. One can readily see that astrophysics is not the concern of science alone, but where it touches on the idea of origins it becomes one of the essential concerns for all of humanity and I am sure this implication was not lost on Einstein. The answer to the question of origins has occupied countless minds over many centuries of history and we must attribute much of this intense searching to the broader philosophical questions that involve every human being. Why am I here? What is our purpose?  In seeking to answer what motivated Einstein to introduce his fudge factor to conserve the widely accepted view of a static universe it is well to ask what might be the moral implications of a paradigm shift of major proportions such as that which his theory would cause once the truth of his forced constant became apparent. Scientists, even the best of them have their biases. 

To be continued....Watch this Space!

Put in the section on DNA Stop Press: in the Northern Advocate Jan 25 2013 is this interesting little gem:  UNITED STATES: Scientists have recorded data including Shakespearean sonnets and an MP3 file on strands on DNA, in a breakthrough which could see millions of records. stored on a handful of molecules rather than computer drives.