Scientism - Tumblr Posts
Science & God’s Existence
By Author Eli Kittim
Can We Reject Paul’s Vision Based On the Fact that No One Saw It?
Given that none of Paul’s companions saw or heard the content of his visionary experience (Acts 9), on the road to Damascus, some critics have argued that it must be rejected as unreliable and inauthentic. Let’s test that hypothesis. Thoughts are common to all human beings. Are they not? However, no one can “prove” that they have thoughts. That doesn’t mean that they don’t have any. Just because others can’t see or hear your thoughts doesn’t mean they don’t exist. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Obviously, a vision, by definition, is called a “vision” precisely because it is neither seen nor observed by others. So, this preoccupation with “evidence” and “scientism” has gone too far. We demand proof for things that are real but cannot be proven. According to philosopher William Lane Craig, the irony is that science can’t even prove the existence of the external world, even though it presupposes it.
No one has ever seen an electron, or the substance we call “dark matter,” yet physicists presuppose them. Up until recently we could not see, under any circumstances, ultraviolet rays, X – rays, or gamma rays. Does that mean they didn’t exist before their detection? Of course not. Recently, with the advent of better instruments and technology we are able to detect what was once invisible to the human eye. Gamma rays were first observed in 1900. Ultraviolet rays were discovered in 1801. X-rays were discovered in 1895. So, PRIOR to the 19th century, no one could see these types of electromagnetic radiation with either the naked eye or by using microscopes, telescopes, or any other available instruments. Prior to the 19th century, these phenomena could not be established. Today, however, they are established as facts. What made the difference? Technology (new instruments)!
If you could go back in time to Ancient Greece and tell people that in the future they could sit at home and have face-to-face conversations with people who are actually thousands of miles away, would they have believed you? According to the empirical model of that day, this would have been utterly impossible! It would have been considered science fiction. My point is that what we cannot see today with the naked eye might be seen or detected tomorrow by means of newer, more sophisticated technologies!
——-
Can We Use The Scientific Model to Address Metaphysical Questions?
Using empirical methods of “observation” to determine what is true and what is false is a very *simplistic* way of understanding reality in all its complexity. For example, we don’t experience 10 dimensions of reality. We only experience a 3-dimensional world, with time functioning as a 4th dimension. Yet Quantum physics tells us there are, at least, 10 dimensions to reality: https://www.google.com/amp/s/phys.org/news/2014-12-universe-dimensions.amp
Prior to the discoveries of primitive microscopes, in the 17th century, you couldn’t see germs, bacteria, viruses, or microorganisms with the naked eye! For all intents and purposes, these microorganisms DID NOT EXIST! It would therefore be quite wrong to assume that, because a large number of people (i.e. a consensus) cannot see it, an unobservable phenomenon must be ipso facto nonexistent.
Similarly, prophetic experiences (e.g. visions) cannot be tested by any instruments of modern technology, nor investigated by the methods of science. Because prophetic experiences are of a different kind, the assumption that they do not have objective reality is a hermeneutical mistake that leads to a false conclusion. Physical phenomena are perceived by the senses, whereas metaphysical phenomena are not perceived by the senses but rather by pure consciousness. Therefore, if we use the same criteria for metaphysical perceptions that we use for physical ones (which are derived exclusively from the senses), that would be mixing apples and oranges. The hermeneutical mistake is to use empirical observation (that only tests physical phenomena) as “a standard” for testing the truth value of metaphysical phenomena. In other words, the criteria used to measure physical phenomena are quite inappropriate and wholly inapplicable to their metaphysical counterparts.
——-
Are the “Facts” of Science the Only Truth, While All Else is Illusion?
Whoever said that scientific “facts” are *necessarily* true? On the contrary, according to Bertrand Russell and Immanuel Kant, only a priori statements are *necessarily* true (i.e. logical & mathematical propositions), which are not derived from the senses! The senses can be deceptive. That’s why every 100 years or so new “facts” are discovered that replace old ones. So what happened to the old facts? Well, they were not necessarily true in the epistemological sense. And this process keeps repeating seemingly ad infinitum. If that is the case, how then can we trust the empirical model, devote ourselves to its shrines of truth, and worship at its temples (universities)? Read the “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” by Thomas Kuhn, a classic book on the history of science and how scientific paradigms change over time.
——-
Cosmology, Modern Astronomy, & Philosophy Seem to Point to the Existence of God
If you studied cosmology and modern astronomy, you would be astounded by the amazing beauty, order, structure, and precision of the various movements of the planets and stars. The Big Bang Theory is the current cosmological model which asserts that the universe had a beginning. Astoundingly, the very first line of the Bible (the opening sentence, i.e. Gen. 1.1) makes the exact same assertion. The fine tuning argument demonstrates how the slightest change to any of the fundamental physical constants would have changed the course of history so that the evolution of the universe would not have proceeded in the way that it did, and life itself would not have existed. What is more, the cosmological argument demonstrates the existence of a “first cause,” which can be inferred via the concept of causation. This is not unlike Leibniz’ “principle of sufficient reason” nor unlike Parmenides’ “nothing comes from nothing” (Gk. οὐδὲν ἐξ οὐδενός; Lat. ex nihilo nihil fit)! All these arguments demonstrate that there must be a cosmic intelligence (i.e. a necessary being) that designed and sustained the universe.
We live in an incredibly complex and mysterious universe that we sometimes take for granted. Let me explain. The Earth is constantly traveling at 67,000 miles per hour and doesn’t collide with anything. Think about how fast that is. The speed of an average bullet is approximately 1,700 mph. And the Earth’s speed is 67,000 mph! That’s mind-boggling! Moreover, the Earth rotates roughly 1,000 miles per hour, yet you don’t fall off the grid, nor do you feel this gyration because of gravity. And I’m not even discussing the ontological implications of the enormous information-processing capacity of the human brain, its ability to invent concepts, its tremendous intelligence in the fields of philosophy, mathematics, and the sciences, and its modern technological innovations.
It is therefore disingenuous to reduce this incredibly complex and extraordinarily deep existence to simplistic formulas and pseudoscientific oversimplifications. As I said earlier, science cannot even “prove” the existence of the external world, much less the presence of a transcendent one. The logical positivist Ludwig Wittgenstein said that metaphysical questions are unanswerable by science. Yet atheist critics are incessantly comparing Paul’s and Jesus’ “experiences” to the scientific model, and even classifying them as deliberate literary falsehoods made to pass as facts because they don’t meet scholarly and academic parameters. The present paper has tried to show that this is a bogus argument! It does not simply question the “epistemological adequacy” of atheistic philosophies, but rather the methodological (and therefore epistemic) legitimacy of the atheist program per se.
——-
Thinking of my Megacrossover events; The Order of Cair Paravel
One Saga, involving RWBY, BlazBlue, Skullgirls, Bionicle, Skeleton Knight in Another World, Code Geass, Fate, D.Gray-Man and a few others which focus on original characters, notably one is the granddaughter of Susan Pevensie and her love interest who is an American dude who's a bit of satire of New Hollywood movies of the 1980s and set in mostly our world which shares the Fate World and references many 1980 films such as Ghostbusters and The Goonies and is all about fighting disenchantment and uses Chronicles of Narnia as a basis
Then there's another saga that involves the bully of the American character's school finding redemption involving Lies of P, Alice Madness Returns, Bioshock and a few others but uses The Ransom Trilogy and bits of The Silver Chair, even involves worlds including world of Fritz Lang's metropolis and overarching themes of the horrors and evils of scientism and modernity
Both involve evil Cults/Secret societies who are under the influence of "The Bent One" aka The Devil
The Potential of Alice x P(American McGee’s Alice/Lies of P): Romanticism, Healing, and possibly Adventure(WARNING: HEAVY SUBJECTS)
I've been thinking a lot about these two and I'm being reminded of other things from my childhood including a cringe fan fiction concept but now remembering the basic idea along with the recent works I've been reading/listening works such as CS Lewis Ransom Trilogy(currently finishing Out of The Silent Planet) and watching others such as Fritz Lang's Metropolis and looking back to Logan's Run, I think I got an idea for Alice and P(or who I call 'Pietro' which to me sounds like a perfect fusion of Carlo and Pinocchio)
I remember the game Alice Madness Returns and have played it(I still have a physical copy) and remembering while the it is about overcoming one's madness, accepting the past, and moving on, there's another theme that while in my opinion runs secondary, is important. The evils of modernity, notably scientific progress for its own sake and basing morals purely on science.
"I provide a service. In the great and awful metropolis, appetites of all sorts must be gratified"-The Dollmaker
In the game, we see the hideous side of industrialized imperial Britain. Factories with unethical labor, prostitution and pedophilia, reductionist and materialistic thinking while various occult movements among high society. Britain was moving away from its humbler Arthurian and more spiritual roots and towards unrestrained capitalism, imperialism, rationalism and America and most of the west following suit, believing these things were substitutions for morality following with The Enlightenment.
Something the romanticism movements in the West were trying to fight against and CS Lewis and Tolkien were speaking ferverntly against in their works.
Which in turn, ravages Wonderland and only Alice looking back to her fond memories and her family, and yes even the horrendous memories of that terrible night and her days in the asylum, does she overcome her tragedy, heal wonderland, and bring an end to Bumby before anymore harm can be done to others.
Now what recent game has a slightly similar theme in regards to criticism of science and industry and neglect of wisdom and basic nature?
Lies of P
The miracle of Ergo was discovered Geppetto of The Alchemists and combined with robotics launched the city of Krat into a magitek robotic utopia.
But like all Utopias, the secret to its success is ugly, unethical to the uttermost horrendous degree, and not worth it.
But the upper class The Alchemists, began to see themselves as gods and saw themselves justified in what they did to the common folk for the sake of scientific and occult progress. Driven by a kind of thinking which its bitter and rotten fruits are on full display in London in Alice: Madness Returns
P as he learns slowly transforms into a human learns about the simpler things in life, emotion, feelings, art, music, and basic human decency. All without the help of some kind of occult or intellectual knowhow.
Now you ask
"What do Alice, P, and romance between them have to do with all of this?"
Alice and P are individuals who were victims of this cruel ideology, or at least its by-products, and are trying to get out of victimhood and move on.
Now the fan-fiction I am conceptualizing them in a story with a few other individuals. Something akin to The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen minus the suck of the movie or the VERY controversial content of the original graphic novels(but what do you expect from Alan Moore.)
Basically, they're recruited by an organization to stop an evil secret society composed of wealthy aristocratic elites obsessed with the occult and unethical scientists from corrupting civilization in pursuit of some kind of transhumanist new age technocratic utopia or something.
But among the subplots of that story is the budding romance between Alice and P aka 'Pietro' helps to convey romanticism vs enlightenment theme.
Though I definitely think their romance should be more accidental, it should happen when they aren't looking for it.
But the main idea came to me when looking up clips of the 1976 movie Logan's Run
Long story short; in a hedonistic utopia which kills its people at age 30 under the guise of 'renewal', a security guard tasked with hunting and killing those who try to escape their fate who are called runners. He soon finds his own time is up and flees with a woman. During their journey, they fall in love and realize the natural order of growing old may not be so bad after all and soon free the rest of the citizens.
Now picture this, Pietro and Alice, a young man and woman after their lives being mired by the byproducts of modernity, come to understand each other, and find solace in each other. Now also healing though a natural bond between man and woman that has existed way longer before any of this hyper-rationalistic and reductionist jargon and gibberish.
Now I am well aware American McGee strictly said romance was not part of Alice's story in American McGee's Alice and Alice Madness was not romance. Same can be said about Pietro. But in this story they've past that point, they're ready to move on.
In fact, that's precisely why I think Alice and Pietro are a good match, because both really don't know much about romance, and discovering it in each other and figuring out how it works makes so much sense.
Now I hear they call Alice asexual, and I don't know I can confirm that with me being straight as an arrow. But I definitely agree her trauma makes it hard for her to fully embrace and that can be said for P as well. But I think the fact they discovering it and learning to appreciate it better than anyone else is a story worth telling.
I'm not trying to fetishize the aforementioned sexuality, but I feel like these two can really fit the bill of "appreciating parts of humanity that other people take for granted"
These two may be inspiration for an original work at least
But anyway, that's my long dumbass ramble why I like these two together so much