Words'nTone

What happens if we don’t live in a closed universe?  What happens if we can’t prove everything through the observable scientific method?  What happens if reason and logic and philosophy (that is philosophical questioning) are actually valid forms for determining the validity of truth and whether something is real, or whether it is reasonable for something to exist?  Whoever told Richard Dawkins et. al. that we live in a closed universe?  Whoever told Dawkins that it is only the scientific method (and the observable one to boot) is the only method for determining truth or matters of this universe?  Dawkins in his The God Delusion makes a remarkable faith commitment to his assumptions about time and space and science and the universe.  Dawkins makes a supra-historical, ultimate, non-scientific assumption: “Everything that exists or has existed can be proven and verified by the scientific method.” Now, who told him that?  How did he come to that conclusion?  Did he use the scientific method to prove the scientific method (sounds circular to me)?  What happens if we live in a world that is not closed and is not subject only to the discoveries made though the scientific method?  What happens if we live in an open universe that exposes the limits of the scientific method?  Even if Dawkins and his kind of atheistic worldview want to say, “You can’t prove an open universe?” I’d respond at two levels: First, why are we limited to the observable scientific method?  (Who made that rule?) And second, that’s fine, but your assumption that its the scientific method or nothing else is an a priori assumption that is just as much a faith statement as my belief that Genesis 1:1, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth,” is a true statement.  (In fact, logic and science seem to grant us that the Genesis 1:1 statement is a reasonable one even if one discounts the need for revelation.) Dawkins must start with a faith statement about the universe.  Just saying the universe is closed and what exists only exist if it can be verified it through science doesn’t make it a true.  It just makes it a worldview statement that is a matter of faith.  Dawkins and his atheistic community still must deal with first causes and the matter of matter.  And I love it when they say there was no first cause, we just exist, eternally.  And for that matter, we do have unchanging, eternal laws in the universe that can’t be tested through science—say, the laws of logic.  Ah, Dawkins, for all his verbose in The God Delusion still has a problem with his own first assumptions—they are, shall I be polite—out of this world.

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.