𝗥𝗶𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗱 𝗗𝗮𝘄𝗸𝗶𝗻𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 "𝗠𝗮𝗼𝗿𝗶 𝗞𝗻𝗼𝘄𝗹𝗲𝗱𝗴𝗲"

A Note of Caution: Richard Dawkins, on the face of it, has so much right and in his favour - on this issue. He is quite correct that science, true science, in terms of objectivity, in terms of universality is knowledge gained that has a great assurance of relating to, and application in the real world. As such it is not "Western science" as he correctly points out, it is simply empirically verified knowledge that is accessible by anyone, can be tested, verified, peer reviewed by anyone, from any culture, language, or worldview, so long as they implement the same tried and trusted scientific method.


So in terms of "Western science" that's totally out of court, as much as "Maori knowledge" is - in terms of a distinction that makes each form, only accessible to each respective group - and here I'll use a phrase that is bandied about by such people - "because that is their lived experience". This is nothing less than an old mis-step in thinking and it is a form of "gnosticism". An idea that Christianity discarded long ago in its pursuit of truth.


But here's where my caution re. Richard Dawkins comes in.

We all know the power, and influence of Science, we like to think that science rules the world, and it does in some amazing ways. But here is my caution.

Science holds such sway in the world, it has such a powerful reputation in the world, the danger is that ideological zealots can use the good reputation of science to further an ideological agenda. And Maori are attempting to do this by presenting Maori knowledge as science, in the same way that other science gets accepted.

But this is not a clean shot.

Maori are in effect smuggling things in like Maori mythology, Maori spirituality, a Maori religious world view, in such a way that it all comes under the magic mantle of "Maori science" or Maori knowledge. This is an abuse of the reputation of science, which absolutely must, in order to retain a sense of public trust, in order to maintain its own valued reputation - keep a strict separation between what is empirically verified, scientifically peer reviewed work conducted according to the scientific method. In that way science can maintain it's good reputation as a source of objective, universally applicable knowledge.

It hardly needs saying, but knowing the current state of our world, I will anyway - that Maori arrived in a strange new land, and needed urgently to acquire knowledge of NZ's flora and fauna, its seasons, when fish were to be caught and where, what plants were poisonous or good for food, what herbs to use for ailments etc - in order to survive.

They have and they did.

I have no truck with this expertise in knowledge of NZ. But rather I honour the fact that it seems to me to be very "co-incidental", the issue that all of humanity, not only Maori - but all of humanity have found the world they live in to be intelligible.

That is the prime question that naturalists who make claims to science, should be asking, yet is conspicuously absent in their otherwise comprehensive quest for truth.

I cannot put it more plainly than the terms in which Albert Einstein put it when he proposed "𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗺𝘆𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘆 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗹𝗱 𝗶𝘀 𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗿𝗲𝗵𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆…[𝘁]𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝗮𝗰𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗶𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗿𝗲𝗵𝗲𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝗮 𝗺𝗶𝗿𝗮𝗰𝗹𝗲.” Likewise, the mathematical physicist Eugene Wigner (1902–1995) opined that “[𝘁]𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗶𝗿𝗮𝗰𝗹𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗽𝗿𝗶𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗻𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗴𝘂𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗰𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺𝘂𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗹𝗮𝘄𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗽𝗵𝘆𝘀𝗶𝗰𝘀 𝗶𝘀 𝗮 𝘄𝗼𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿𝗳𝘂𝗹 𝗴𝗶𝗳𝘁 𝘄𝗵𝗶𝗰𝗵 𝘄𝗲 𝗻𝗲𝗶𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗻𝗼𝗿 𝗱𝗲𝘀𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗲.”

These questions - so studiously ignored by the scientific community, especially those who are naturalists, constrain one to think that those who otherwise take extreme pride in the truth/knowledge gathering exercise - are in fact willfully negligent in avoiding this question of intelligibility. So significant by its absence one could be forgiven for thinking that they may not be enquiring after it - for the same reason a thief might not wish to find a policeman!

Now here is where I criticize Richard Dawkins.

Richard Dawkins, once touted in our local paper as - (Big Headline) - "𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗔𝗽𝗼𝘀𝘁𝗹𝗲 𝗙𝗼𝗿 𝗔𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝘀𝗺", is correctly noted as having his own religious axe to grind. In other words, he is not strictly speaking as an unbiased, neutral or impartial observer. He is just as guilty of abusing science, by leveraging off his own reputation as a scientist, to make - not scientific claims, not empirically verifiable, testable claims - but philosophical claims against all religions, chief of which among his critiques has been Christianity.

 People who abuse their scientific status in order to push a personal barrow should not be trusted - or at least not in every respect.

While at this point I'd like to re-iterate that he is right in regards to "Maori science" - his angst has less to do with science, than his personal crusade against all religion.

Now many of you may be thinking - "𝘞𝘩𝘰 𝘢𝘮 𝘐 𝘵𝘰 𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘴𝘶𝘤𝘩 𝘢𝘯 𝘦𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘭𝘺 𝘧𝘢𝘮𝘰𝘶𝘴 𝘴𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘴𝘵 𝘴𝘶𝘤𝘩 𝘢𝘴 𝘙𝘪𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘳𝘥 𝘋𝘢𝘸𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘴?"

Well I've read his world famous best selling book "The God Delusion", excerpts from another major work called "The Blind Watchmaker" and bits and pieces from other material as well as watching him in various debates.

But here is proof of what I say from his own words:
"𝙄𝙣 𝙖 𝙪𝙣𝙞𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙨𝙚 𝙤𝙛 𝙗𝙡𝙞𝙣𝙙 𝙥𝙝𝙮𝙨𝙞𝙘𝙖𝙡 𝙛𝙤𝙧𝙘𝙚𝙨 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙜𝙚𝙣𝙚𝙩𝙞𝙘 𝙧𝙚𝙥𝙡𝙞𝙘𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙨𝙤𝙢𝙚 𝙥𝙚𝙤𝙥𝙡𝙚 𝙖𝙧𝙚 𝙜𝙤𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙩𝙤 𝙜𝙚𝙩 𝙝𝙪𝙧𝙩, 𝙤𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙧 𝙥𝙚𝙤𝙥𝙡𝙚 𝙖𝙧𝙚 𝙜𝙤𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙩𝙤 𝙜𝙚𝙩 𝙡𝙪𝙘𝙠𝙮, 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙬𝙤𝙣’𝙩 𝙛𝙞𝙣𝙙 𝙖𝙣𝙮 𝙧𝙝𝙮𝙢𝙚 𝙤𝙧 𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙨𝙤𝙣 𝙞𝙣 𝙞𝙩, 𝙣𝙤𝙧 𝙖𝙣𝙮 𝙟𝙪𝙨𝙩𝙞𝙘𝙚. 𝙏𝙝𝙚 𝙪𝙣𝙞𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙨𝙚 𝙬𝙚 𝙤𝙗𝙨𝙚𝙧𝙫𝙚 𝙝𝙖𝙨 𝙥𝙧𝙚𝙘𝙞𝙨𝙚𝙡𝙮 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙥𝙚𝙧𝙩𝙞𝙚𝙨 𝙬𝙚 𝙨𝙝𝙤𝙪𝙡𝙙 𝙚𝙭𝙥𝙚𝙘𝙩 𝙞𝙛 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙧𝙚 𝙞𝙨, 𝙖𝙩 𝙗𝙤𝙩𝙩𝙤𝙢, 𝙣𝙤 𝙙𝙚𝙨𝙞𝙜𝙣, 𝙣𝙤 𝙥𝙪𝙧𝙥𝙤𝙨𝙚, 𝙣𝙤 𝙚𝙫𝙞𝙡 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙣𝙤 𝙜𝙤𝙤𝙙, 𝙣𝙤𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙗𝙪𝙩 𝙗𝙡𝙞𝙣𝙙 𝙥𝙞𝙩𝙞𝙡𝙚𝙨𝙨 𝙞𝙣𝙙𝙞𝙛𝙛𝙚𝙧𝙚𝙣𝙘𝙚. 𝘿𝙉𝘼 𝙣𝙚𝙞𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙧 𝙠𝙣𝙤𝙬𝙨 𝙣𝙤𝙧 𝙘𝙖𝙧𝙚𝙨.
𝘿𝙉𝘼 𝙟𝙪𝙨𝙩 𝙞𝙨. 𝘼𝙣𝙙 𝙬𝙚 𝙙𝙖𝙣𝙘𝙚 𝙩𝙤 𝙞𝙩𝙨 𝙢𝙪𝙨𝙞𝙘" -Richard Dawkins' (River Out Of Eden, p.133)

I know this is getting lengthy, but the devil is in the details.

 The above statement is not strictly scientific. It is not empirically proven, can not be demonstrated in a laboratory, it's hardly even testable, meaning how is it to be given universal accord, or seen as "objective"? How indeed is it possible to believe it to be a statement evidenced from the scientific method?

It is in fact a philosophical statement made by a scientist. Now scientists - when they stay in their lane, are very knowledgeable about their particular area of expertise, but they can be as dumb as the next guy when they stray out of their specialty. And as someone who read his "The God Delusion", I can vouch - as others far more qualified than myself, like Alistair McGrath have, that he makes a very poor philosopher.

Science has assuredly not disproved the "God Hypothesis".

This abuse of science by scientists to attempt to harness the reputation of science to push an ideological barrow in the name of science - actually has quite a long pedigree.

Here's another example.

David Hume was an early empiricist, one of those who contributed greatly to the advancement and understanding of reason and rationality, the laws of logic, and the development of the scientific method.

He discovered a logical gap within what had become known as the "Principle of the Uniformity of Nature". (PUN). This gap became known as the famous "Problem of Induction" and has never been fully resolved since he elucidated the issue some hundreds of years ago.

Such was his brilliance.

But then he took the presuppositions of his worldview into the area of knowledge, into his "scientific" community and revealed - not truth - but how his own preconceived atheistic worldview blinded him, (as it indeed is capable of us also), blinded him to the truth.

As a thinker discovering the problem of induction he left the whole thrust of the Enlightenment project in serious doubt - if not in jeopardy - such was his brilliance.

But just as I've demonstrated with Richard Dawkins, he also let his bias influence his thinking.

Here's what he said in defiance of religion, (Christianity in particular as that was the default position of his time):

"𝙄𝙛 𝙬𝙚 𝙩𝙖𝙠𝙚 𝙞𝙣 𝙤𝙪𝙧 𝙝𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙖𝙣𝙮 𝙫𝙤𝙡𝙪𝙢𝙚; 𝙤𝙛 𝙙𝙞𝙫𝙞𝙣𝙞𝙩𝙮 𝙤𝙧 𝙨𝙘𝙝𝙤𝙤𝙡 𝙢𝙚𝙩𝙖𝙥𝙝𝙮𝙨𝙞𝙘𝙨, 𝙛𝙤𝙧 𝙞𝙣𝙨𝙩𝙖𝙣𝙘𝙚; 𝙡𝙚𝙩 𝙪𝙨 𝙖𝙨𝙠, 𝘿𝙤𝙚𝙨 𝙞𝙩 𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙩𝙖𝙞𝙣 𝙖𝙣𝙮 𝙖𝙗𝙨𝙩𝙧𝙖𝙘𝙩 𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙨𝙤𝙣𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙘𝙚𝙧𝙣𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙦𝙪𝙖𝙣𝙩𝙞𝙩𝙮 𝙤𝙧 𝙣𝙪𝙢𝙗𝙚𝙧? 𝙉𝙤. 𝘿𝙤𝙚𝙨 𝙞𝙩 𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙩𝙖𝙞𝙣 𝙖𝙣𝙮 𝙚𝙭𝙥𝙚𝙧𝙞𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙖𝙡 𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙨𝙤𝙣𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙘𝙚𝙧𝙣𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙢𝙖𝙩𝙩𝙚𝙧 𝙤𝙛 𝙛𝙖𝙘𝙩 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙚𝙭𝙞𝙨𝙩𝙚𝙣𝙘𝙚? 𝙉𝙤. 𝘾𝙤𝙢𝙢𝙞𝙩 𝙞𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙣 𝙩𝙤 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙛𝙡𝙖𝙢𝙚𝙨: 𝙛𝙤𝙧 𝙞𝙩 𝙘𝙖𝙣 𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙩𝙖𝙞𝙣 𝙣𝙤𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙗𝙪𝙩 𝙨𝙤𝙥𝙝𝙞𝙨𝙩𝙧𝙮 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙞𝙡𝙡𝙪𝙨𝙞𝙤𝙣," - 𝙗𝙮 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙥𝙝𝙞𝙡𝙤𝙨𝙤𝙥𝙝𝙚𝙧 𝘿𝙖𝙫𝙞𝙙 𝙃𝙪𝙢𝙚.

So what's wrong with the statement?

Here’s the irony: Hume’s own criterion fails its own test.
The statement “All meaningful statements must be either mathematical or empirical” is neither mathematical (it’s not a theorem of logic) nor empirical (you can’t observe or test it in experience).
Therefore, by Hume’s own rule, his statement is meaningless and should itself be “committed to the flames.”

Hume the brilliant thinker let his atheism get in the way of good thinking, and subsequently made a fool of himself, though it was perhaps a good while before his au fait moment was recognized for what it is.

But let us revisit Richard Dawkins statement, particularly where he said: "𝘿𝙉𝘼 𝙟𝙪𝙨𝙩 𝙞𝙨. 𝘼𝙣𝙙 𝙬𝙚 𝙙𝙖𝙣𝙘𝙚 𝙩𝙤 𝙞𝙩𝙨 𝙢𝙪𝙨𝙞𝙘".

This view has quite a consensus among scientists who also happen to adopt the philosophical position known as "Naturalism". Please note this is an inference, or an extrapolation from science, at best an interpretation of reality through a naturalist worldview lens - not strictly scientific.

Naturalism - as a philosophy - presupposes that we live in an absolutely closed system. That nature is all there is. Nothing extra-nature exists. Of course that cannot be proven scientifically, because the scientific method, properly understood, can only study nature, that's what it was specifically designed to do. So how could it, alone, make judgements about the existence or not, of anything outside of nature?

So naturalism entails that if we have any problem to solve, any explanation to find, it will be found in nature, because in this scheme - nothing else can exist.

So we come crashing back down to Dawkins "𝘿𝙉𝘼 𝙟𝙪𝙨𝙩 𝙞𝙨. 𝘼𝙣𝙙 𝙬𝙚 𝙙𝙖𝙣𝙘𝙚 𝙩𝙤 𝙞𝙩𝙨 𝙢𝙪𝙨𝙞𝙘".

What does he mean? What problem is he attempting to solve? What's his point?

Dawkins is attempting to prove a widely held view among naturalists, including scientists who take that view, that everything about humanity is physically determined. Everything you do, every decision you make, while in your experience - feels like the exercise of your free will - is in fact determined by your DNA. You are nothing more than a biological machine, programmed from conception to death, and free will is entirely an illusion passed on to you by your experience of life, but having no substance in reality.

That's it.

That's what he intends - at the end of his books - for what you should believe. But here's the thing to recognize, it's just as much a "faith" position, as any other religious system.

Why?

Because it is an extrapolation from what is and can be scientifically known. It is an inference to what naturalists "believe", (note the word) about humanity and life. An inference to the best explanation they can muster. But it is their atheism that forces them into this position. It is not a deductive solid conclusion from the actual known facts, but an inductive argument.

Yet it gets much worse.

People who are much more adept at philosophy, have - for argument sake -assumed as true, what Dawkins and others have proposed, and worked from that presupposition, that we are entirely programmed, and -employing the right use of good philosophy - have taken that proposition to its final, logical conclusion.

(By the way philosophy is the parent of the scientific method, science at one point not being called science at all - but known by the phrase "Natural Philosophy")

So here's Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga's clear rebuttal to Dawkins proposal that every aspect of humanity, (including the ability of free thought), is not free - but completely dictated by events and circumstances such as dictated by the (uncontested) programmed instructions written in our DNA.

• Plantinga’s defeater argument — naturalism cannot guarantee that belief-producing faculties [our minds] -are aimed at truth rather than mere survival utility. (This is based on the observation that most naturalists, also subscribe to unguided evolution.
• Under Naturalism, our faculties are selected for survival. Thus, if naturalism is true, it gives a defeater for trusting our own reasoning. 
• Plantinga argues naturalism is possible, but once you reflect on its consequences for knowledge, it becomes epistemically self-defeating, because it undercuts the probability that our minds produce true beliefs.

Here's the contradiction:  If we don't have any reliable sense of "free will" at all, if it is entirely an illusion, then where does that leave our supposed ability to think freely? Where does that leave the ability to know truth?

If everything is programmed - then how can we know if our thoughts have any relationship to what is true?

But Dawkins ideas about naturalism- is that naturalism is true. Yet if we believe naturalism is true, (humanity is fully determined, including his thoughts), then that view undermines the very idea of valid thinking.

C.S. Lewis elucidated the idea very succinctly:

"You cannot have a thought that destroys the validity of thinking,"

It is a version of his argument that you cannot use your own reasoning to prove that reason itself is invalid. He argued that if you use thought to prove that thinking is unreliable, you are undermining the very tool you need to make that argument in the first place.

The determinism that Dawkins proposes - does just that.

Here is one more sample that analogously demonstrates this idea:

"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," [or alternatively as Dawkins states about being strictly externally programmed by DNA] "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".

Just one more thing I want to add regarding the political educational cultural situation in NZ and I'm done.

The tenets of Multiculturalism have a deep stranglehold on our education, political, social realms in NZ.

 This has come about by our educators deeply imbibing Post-Modern philosophy.

Here is the basic train of thought:
There is no absolute truth>Therefore there cannot be absolute objective moral truth> Culture is the distinctive collective of shared values, beliefs attitudes that create communities and around which they gather and by which create the bonds which allow those communities to cohabit peacefully, (more or less)> Because there is no universal objective truth, and therefore no objective morality all of these cultures have equal value> The claims made to objective truth, such as in Western science, or any form of knowledge, (religious, social, experiential, intuitive), are cynically observed to not actually be objectively true, but merely the means by which self-conceived "superior" groups armed with that "knowledge" seek to gain power over those outside the group> This creates hegemonic structures which keeps those with this knowledge having all of the best the world has to offer and consequently keeps everyone on the outside as the downtrodden and marginalized> The progamme of asserting equality, even superiority of such things as Maori knowledge helps to even the playing field, and answers the need for equity, (forced equality)> We all live happily ever after, owning nothing and reduced to the status of third world countries.

As with any system that at it's foundational level has embedded a lie, expose the lie, and the whole worldview collapses like the pack of cards it is.

Here's the lie, found right at the beginning of those attempts to take things one step at a time to their logical conclusions in that whole system of Post Modern philosophy:
The first premise upon which every other premise stands and followed from is "There is no such thing as absolute truth".

"No such thing..." means without exception. It's therefore proposing an absolute. What absolute is it proposing? The truth that there is no such thing as absolute truth. It is in fact proposing absolutely what it is denying absolutely and is therefore self defeating right from the start and exposed as a lie.

That is the state of many Western nations today, not excluding New Zealand. 

The Ant And The Bulldozer

Imagine an ant, a tiny inconspicuous creature, standing between his anthill and a giant bulldozer blade advancing towards the anthill.
The huge earth-worn, shiny surface of the blade polished by tons of gravel scraping its surface dominates the ants gaze. He cannot see over it, around it or under it as flattens all resistance before it - inexorably advancing upon the ants home. He cannot see or comprehend the immense power of the diesel engine, the heavy tracks that grip the earth, the intelligence seated behind all of this, commanding this mighty machine.
Like many creatures, quite oblivious to the limitations of his own strength, and unaware of the incomparable might of the bulldozer to his puny power, the ant advances towards the oncoming blade... he gets to the blade and resists it with all his might.
All of his anthill mates look on from a safe distance with a mixture of hope and dread.
Can their friend succeed against such might?
The ants legs kick up little squirts of dust as he is slowly but inexorably forced backwards as he strives with all his might against the terrible invader.
Miraculously the blade grinds to a halt, all the ant onlookers are in stunned silence, and then they begin to cheer. The defiant ant is an instant hero.
The situation has every appearance of successful resistance.
However, far from the ants gaze, beyond his hearing over the roar of the bulldozer engine, the driver in relative quiet in his air conditioned and sound insulated cab has pulled his 'dozer to a halt because he's just received a call from his boss. "That's far enough, no need to go further, you are at the edge of the designated site clearance, don't go any further".
While the ant - in its apparent success - appeared to have the upper hand, the power to thwart the actions of the bulldozer - the reality is that its resistance to the advance of the bulldozer was not the ultimate cause, but only the apparent cause, of its success proving the old adage, correlation is not necessarily causation.
Now before I go further I want to say some things about this little story.
It's an analogy.
An analogy is picture or an illustration of something quite difficult to understand put in in a way that children and adults alike can understand. Before I go further I'd like to say this analogy - like all analogies - has its faults, it fails in certain areas. If an analogy equalled in all respects what it's trying to illustrate, why, there would be no need to speak of it as an analogy, it would no longer be an analogy but the thing itself.
So the problem with the little story is that I have made the little ant the hero of the story, and that is not what the actual lesson is which I wish to convey through the story. In reality, the real hero is the bulldozer, because it represents something of a mystery to many people. But I've had to represent it this way, maybe because of my lack of imagination in finding a better way to do it. Maybe you could do better when you see what I'm trying to get across, and if you do, by all means let me know because I am intensely interested in such things.
The little ant story is my attempt at reconciling a certain aspect of the relationship between God and man. An attempt to show the difference between what is apparently happening and what is actually happening when the world - with complete disregard for God - thinks they are successfully resisting what God has commanded we do, which He has every right to ask. Every right because, it is “‘In Him we live and move and have our being". Everything - including our existence is - from the perspective of the Christian narrative - due to His workmanship.
A man once told me "But we and GOD'S angels are given free will and can resist Truth."
Yes, I never doubted that humanity can resist truth, and in resisting truth, especially spiritual truth, this is universally and absolutely true of humanity - but for the grace of God.
But let me develop this a little further, on resisting truth. Which is after all resisting God, because all truth is God's truth.
There may yet be those among you reading these comments who have not been completely given over to Satan's lies. And who knows? God may yet grant you repentance, and I pray He does for Jesus sake and His glory - Amen.
So a perfect example of resisting God is the story of Pharaoh.
Now please understand there are two senses that are common to the idea of resisting God.
Here is one sense: God told Moses to tell Pharaoh "Let my people go". It was clearly God's revealed will not only to tell Pharaoh "to let His people go", but His will to actually do it.
Pharoah did not let them go, (at least initially). A prime example of resisting God's will. But truth be known, Pharaoh's experience of apparently resisting God was true only in respect of His revealed will relayed through Moses and Aaron.
And this experience of Pharaoh, resisting God's will, is precisely how the world at large see themselves resisting God.
In this, God has sent them "strong delusion". They think they have it over God. They think that God is impotent, or at best has "limited Himself" from overriding the will of man. That is the spoken or unspoken attitude of a faithless and unbelieving world. (Why should we be like that?)
The second way to understand God's will is to know His secret decree.
A story not told to Pharaoh, but to Moses and those who have "ears to hear". Even before Moses presented the ultimatum to Pharaoh, God had told Moses "I will harden his heart".
And sure enough, God was as Good as His word, and Pharaoh resisted God and in doing so fulfilled God's will for him.
Pharaoh - in not doing what God commanded, paradoxically, did what God decreed. It was God ultimately, who was the primary cause of his hardened heart, yet God was not guilty, because Pharaoh's heart was what was natural to him, being a child of Adam, under the curse of sin, his heart was deceitfully wicked. And the proof of this is the fact that Pharaoh didn't complain about being forced against his will, despite the increasing personal cost to himself as the plagues brought on by his continued resistance wrenched his kingdom apart.
So, in one sense, Pharaoh appeared to be able to, and indeed did, resist God. But all the while that resistance played into God's higher purpose.
Pharaoh was doing exactly as God planned.
And so it is, has, and ever will be - God's purposes are not thwarted. As it was for Pharaoh so it is for the world that resists God. But if this resistance continues, as it was for Pharaoh, so it shall be for the world.
It will not end well.
In like manner, the ability to "resist" God in any ultimate sense is a delusion, otherwise we cannot truly speak of His omnipotence. Yet where it suits God's purposes, by all appearances, and in reality, we, -speaking in terms of fallen humanity -are in fact resisting God, and this is the bondage of the will.
'All the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, and he does according to his will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand or say to him, “What have you done?” ' Daniel 4:35
All of those born of Adam, do resist God - incessantly, being under the curse, being children of wrath, at enmity with God. But the great lie, or the great delusion, the massive assumption of all of this is that God cannot do anything about our resistance and is "doing his best" but can not, or will not violate our will.
But that idea of God not willing or able as regards violating our will to achieve obedience, is an anthropomorphic understanding of God's power.
Humanly speaking we have made a god in our image when we believe, that God, like a mere man, has only recourse to two ways in which He can get His will done. For humanity the only two ways we can get obedience, is either by persuasion/coercion or by force.
Those are the only actions available to humanity, and because this is true of us, we think it therefore must be true of God also, and thereby impose that thinking upon God.
But as the scriptures attest, God is not like a man.
He need not recourse to force, because he can without fail, turn a mans heart so that his resistance becomes obedience.
"Do not judge by appearances but judge with righteous judgement".
Another great Biblical narrative demonstrates this principle.
Joseph, sold into slavery, betrayed by his own brothers did so because their hearts were hardened against their brother. Yet near the end of the story, Joseph understood what the ant needed to know.
Joseph's brothers were set against, and resisted the command to love their brother. They were, in effect - "successful" in resisting God, in resisting the law of God. (Though the codified law was not formally given until Mt Sinai, it was known - see Gen 26:5) Yet at the same time they were fulfilling God's plan.
And despite people protesting - saying that God just tidied up a bad business, making the best He could out of an evil deed. This is not what the Bible says: "As for you, what you intended against me for evil, God intended for good, in order to accomplish a day like this—to preserve the lives of many people." Genesis 50:20.
Notice that an "intention is not an accident", nor is it something done in a contingency, it is by design. And this is especially true of God's providence.
But the greatest example of this is what happened to Jesus.
"Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it."
Who killed Jesus?
The Jewish leaders demanded he be killed. They delivered him to death.
The Roman leader, (representing Gentiles) took Him and crucified Him.
We whose sin made his death necessary are also responsible.
Jesus gave himself up to death, He said to Pilate words to the effect - "you could have no power over me unless it was given you". He also said "No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of My own accord. " Jesus was free to do so.
Peter stood up and said on the day of Pentecost, and he testified Jesus was crucified because he was "delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God".
It was a predetermined plan where the evil resistance of men accomplished the will of God, and the greatest victory of all time.