“For the
Lord
gives wisdom;
from his mouth come knowledge and understanding.” – Proverbs 2:6
Modern atheistic science claims to be the only source from which knowledge comes (www.debate.org ). This argument, like atheistic science’s Ad Hoc observations is fallacious, but the problem it presents is it leaves people of faith with trying to prove a negative and rewrites what has been known since before the time of Moses (primary author of the Torah). Knowledge originally and definitively comes from God (Proverbs 2:6), not science.
It is from polity we learn that proving negatives is impossible not from science. Therefore, we have at least two other sources of knowledge in the world, God and polity. Furthermore, from argumentation and debate we learn there are two basic forms of argument: policy and value. Both present two more sources of knowledge that do not involve science. Some would say, we are now speaking of social sciences. Again, this is atheistic science’s attempt to claim every form of knowledge. Their efforts, though childish, have become convincing to our less educated attendees of academia. Similar methods practiced by people of faith would look like “anthropological religion”, “astrological religion”, “and “neurological religion”, and all fields of science followed by religion.
We are experiencing nothing less than what Catholicism tried a thousand years ago and what Muslims have done since Mohammed started conquering the Middle East in the 600’s A.D. When you control the government, academia, and the social narrative like the two religions mentioned did and do in their areas of influence, then those who blindly follow are duped and taken advantage of in droves and for centuries until the truth comes to light. It takes brave people to take a stand against obvious manipulation.
Hence, what we have today with atheistic science and what people experienced a thousand years ago with theistic religion is the same. Whomever controls information holds the power over everyone else. So what is the answer? Obviously more disciplines exist than science and certainly there are more effective methods than that which atheistic science has offered us.
The known disciplines must share power and information and do so selflessly. Granted, mine is a redemptive method, converted even, and some would say too lofty. A method where everyone plays nice but should not be confused as a form of tolerance per se. Modern day understanding and use of tolerance is politicized as another power play, much like the race and gender identity cards. So what I propose is not tolerance but understanding. An understanding that no one discipline or people has all the answers. Nor is it a utopia because history has taught us (another source of knowledge, BTW) that utopias not only don’t exist but bring usurpations when we try to force them into existence. It is not a utopian but an organic effort.
Another source of knowledge is the earth in which we all live, and the larger environment in which our earth exists, namely the universe. Of the sources mentioned, atheistic science will admit they do not know everything but position themselves to be the source from which what we can know comes from. Herein is the real issue. It is not that atheistic science is the source of all knowledge, it is that they want to control all information discovered from all known sources of knowledge and thereby take the credit so as to change whatever does not agree with their platform.
Again, history has proven their efforts will fail but at great cost to the rest of society because they currently have control over the rest. Another answer is a method that we reading this are beneficiaries of, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The goal and effort behind both of these social experiments is exactly what is being advocated in this article.
Another angle to consider is the elephant in the article. If atheistic science is wrong and God does exist then no one’s vote, influence, or power grab is relevant. Exploring this angle exposes two other sources as biblical writings and prophecy. Although nebulous and interpretive based on the variety of religions in the world, it is beyond simple to determine which ones are correct based on the original languages and outcomes. The bottom line is atheistic science would have us all believe that life and existence is nothing more than an evolutionary chess board and match. Judeo/Christian teaching would agree with the chess board piece but from a different point of view. Instead of those who hold the power and control dictating the moves on the board, God controls not only the moves on the board but He created the board.
Perhaps my biggest issue with atheistic science is the same issue they pose toward God fearing people. What about suffering? With all the scientific advances and modernization made by the scientific community in the Western world, why haven’t they done more to help those who suffer? Instead what I see are non-profit faith organizations leaping to the rescue in super hero fashion in nearly all third world countries across the planet. Take for example, the Red Cross. Although they have departed from their original founders and their theological ideals, their methods have remained pretty much the same except for the political influences. Another is the Southern Baptist Convention. The SBC is the second largest response agency in the world. Second only to the Red Cross. Or how about, Samaritan’s Purse. They go places not even our military special operators will go and provide medicine, food, water, and doctors. Or how about the third most responsive agency known as Catholic Relief Services. Or how about the Jewish response agencies, like IsraAid? They are single handedly more responsive than all Muslim nations combined? Or, Australian Christian response agencies that are small but quickly growing?
If atheistic science is all it is cracked up to be, then they should be far-far more responsive to disaster relief, other emergencies, and suffering in general and throughout the world. Basically, those who suffer are not part of their narrative. If they were, cancer would not be a money maker but cured. Disease would not be an issue because we would have antidotes for all of them. Birth defects would be extinct instead of aborted. Accidents would be determinable and preventable as Chaos Theory purports. Euthanasia wouldn’t be a goal because we would live hundreds of years. Crimes would never happen because justice would be swift and flawless.
The indictment against atheistic science is irrevocable and warranted.
What believers long for is nothing less than heaven and what everyone else longs for is nothing less than man made utopia. In the end, you and I have a choice. Alas, another and my final observation of forms of knowledge. Your own mental ability and aptitude. The fact that you have the capacity to choose and make your own choices. You and I can believe and live as atheistic science would have us believe and live and continue to play on man’s chess board and according to their rules and limitations or you can trust a loving God to have His creation well in hand.
It is important to note, that regardless of what you and I decide, God is still and will remain God alone. Mine and your decisions, power plays, and desires for control and knowledge and information do not sway Him or prevent Him from fulfilling His will over all of creation.
“Jesus Christ is the same, yesterday, today and forever.” – Hebrews 13:8
