Host — Adi Schlebush
The idea of objective science as based on rationalism initially found expression in Descartes, embodied in the 19th century by the likes of Max Weber and Leopold Ranke. The idea is that, through the use of pure reason, one can come to scientifically objective conclusions.
However, this idea was challenged firstly by Reformed philosophers such as Groen van Prinsterer, PJ Hoedemaker, Cornelius van Til, Gordon Clarke, and later by Herman Dooyeweerd in particular. These people pointed out that there were inescapable presuppositions or pre-theoretical commitments required to make any scientific engagement possible.
But significantly this notion of objectivity would also be later challenged by postmodernism, a worldview which in turn emphasizes the intersubjectivity of truth and the fact that none of the sciences can lay a claim to doing completely unbiased and “objective” research so to speak. Whereas postmodernism descends into complete skepticism, however, Christian philosophy emphasizes the dependency of truth upon the presupposition of a Sovereign God and his Revelation. For example, this can be seen even in exact sciences such as mathematics, where there is, among some anti-Christian scholars today, a movement aiming to return to the pagan idea of finitism, that is, not recognizing infinity as a legitimate mathematical category, whereas, of course, as Christians, we know that numbers can be infinite, since God, the Creator of Mathematics, is infinite.
However, criticism against the Enlightenment idea of objective scientific investigation seems to have been suddenly forgotten over the past couple of years, with the rise of the “respect the science”-cult now enforcing covid-19 regulations and vaccine mandates over whole populations in the name of a so-called “scientific consensus”, which in itself is a myth propagated by the media.
And so today we are going to talk a little bit about those pre-theoretical presuppositions when it comes to doing any scientific or scholarly research.
So my first question to you, Bret, is this:
- Firstly, do you agree with my proposition that all scientists and scholars have certain biases and pre-investigative commitments? And if so, how does this work? Aren’t scientific facts merely self-evident truths equally available to all people regardless of their religion or worldview?
BLMc responds,
Yes, I certainly agree that all scientists and scholars have certain inescapable bias and pre-investigative commitments. We might call this philosophical prolegomena. The reality of this in the field of Science was established by Thomas Kuhn in his “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions,” published in 1962. Gordon Clark likewise made this case from a distinctly Christian perspective in his, 1964 book “The Philosophy of Science and Belief in God.” Greg Bahnsen likewise has done work locating the philosophical fault in the supposed “Scientific method.” We should also mention Vern Poythress’s “Science and Hermeneutics.” So, yes, it is just silly to suggest that anybody can do philosophy, science, sociology, history without certain biases. Fallen man has to have pre-investigative commitments precisely because he is a creature. Only God being the creator can be objectively objective.
This of course means that for the creature there are no self-evident truths. All truths must be God interpreted first and then man must interpret facts via God’s interpretation. This means that without God there are no stable facts. Facts presuppose the existence of a creator God.
The fact that scientific facts are not merely self-evident truths equally available to all people regardless of their religion or worldview is seen in a host of places but let us start with two scientists with two different religions. One of our Scientists is a Christian who confesses that God made the World all good in six days, resting on the 7th day. Our other Scientist practices the religion of humanism. He does not believe in God instead of believing in evolution and that all has taken place by time plus chance plus circumstance. This is the religion of each. Now each of our scientists is given the same exact fossil and asked to examine it and report back on their conclusions. The first scientist looks at the fossil and concludes that this fossil is consistent with the belief that God made all that is made in 6 days. The second scientist looks at the fossil and starts talking about how the fossil is consistent with the billions and billions of years it took for the earth to form.
Here we have the same exact fact (the Fossil) and yet the two scientists with two different worldviews and religious commitments serving as their pre-investigative and pre-theoretical commitments (presuppositions) each contribute either to recognizing the fact for what it is or to engaging upon practicing fake science.
The problem with most science, as I am fond of saying, is that it is not particularly scientific. One’s science is only as good as one’s theology as theology is the driving force behind whatever science is being done. The whole notion that Science is this independent something so that we can all start chanting… “just follow the science” is absolute nonsense if only because what is typically really being said is, “just follow our humanistic theology and the fake science that is rendered up by our humanistic theology.”
This is particularly true when it comes to the whole “science mantra” that we are living through with our current Deep State virus. The Science that Fauci, Gates, the CDC, the WHO, etc. are pushing is every bit as fake as the fake news that is pushing the narrative of the fake science. We are currently living in a sea of fake reality driven by fake theology.
Adi Schlebusch
- Now that we know that holding certain theological or philosophical presuppositions are inescapable, how would you go about explaining to someone that the Christian worldview is superior to any alternatives?
BLMc responds,
I would go about explaining that the Christian worldview is superior to any alternative is the fact that all other alternatives are based upon epistemological authority source that is not derivative of the God of the Bible. Christians live by every word of God while the non-Christian lives by every word of fallen man. When the non-Christian gets something right it is only because they have imported Christian capital into their worldview in order to get it to work. If they were consistent with their own epistemological authority source they would eliminate all the Christian capital they have stolen and so be wrong at every turn.
The fact that the Christian lives by every word of God and looks to God and His Word for his epistemological authority source does not mean we look to the bible for answers on how to do heart surgery or how to do siesmology. It means that God’s word gives the reality context wherein the ability to do heart surgery or seismology make sense.
Secondly, I would offer that all worldviews save the Christian worldview are inherently contradictory at some point. Take the Scientific worldview called “Empiricism” and “verificationism” for example.
The Scientific method teaches that all facts must be empirically observed in order to be scientifically endorsed. The problem here is that the Scientific method’s assertion that all facts must be empirically observed in order to be scientifically endorsed is not a fact that is or can be empirically observed and so the Scientific method as a method for gaining facts must be ruled out of bounds before we start since its major premise is not gained by empirical observation. There we see the contradiction of Empiricism.
Therefore, according to its own strict standards, the statement of Science that all things must be Empirically arrived at or can not amount to significant knowledge about the objective world simply reflects the subjective (perhaps meaningless!) bias of the scientist (so-called) who pronounces it. Hence the anti-metaphysician not only has his own preconceived conclusions (presuppositions), but it turns out that he cannot live according to them (Rom. 2:1). On the basis of his own assumptions, he refutes himself (II Tim. 2:25). As Paul put it about those who suppress the truth in unrighteousness: ‘They become futile in their speculation (Rom. 1:21)!
So, to quote Bahnsen here,
That anti-metaphysical presupposition has certain devastating results. Notice that if all knowledge must be empirical in nature, then the uniformity of nature cannot be known to be true. And without the knowledge and assurance that the future will be like the past (e.g., if salt dissolved in water on Wednesday, it will do likewise and not explode on Friday) we could not draw empirical generalizations and projections — in which case the whole enterprise of natural science would immediately be undermined.”
Dr. Greg Bahnsen
Always Ready — pg. 187-188
Adi Schlebush,
- I think a major question on everyone’s mind right now is the prevailing narrative from the scientific establishment. We have a virus, the Covid-19 virus which has spread around the world over the past 18 months. We have been told by the media and by the scientific establishment that firstly full-scale lockdowns and now vaccines are necessary to save lives. However, they have ignored the scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness of Hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin against the virus as well as various studies which have shown that the lockdowns are counter-productive, that is, that they are not preventing people from getting infected and it is also destroying many people’s livelihood, not to mention taking away some of their basic liberties. I know, for example, that there are, despite all the censorship, almost 60 studies published in medical journals proving the efficacy of Ivermectin, for example, and yet, most scientists and the media continue to simply deny this. Why do you think this is, and does it have anything to do with the scientific philosophy or the presuppositions these scientists hold? And would the sanctification of the medical and political sciences help in preventing such deceptive narratives from prevailing in our society?
BLMc,
Why do I think this is?
I think what we are living through now is more a case of “follow the money” as well as “all those who hate Christ love death,” then I think it is about the fault of the Scientific method. In other words, I don’t think there are many Scientists – so-called – out there who believe much of this scat that is being pushed out by the Scientific community. It is my conviction that the problematic philosophies being held are not Empiricism or Verificationism but rather the problematic philosophies we are suffering under right now are competing forms of Marxism, Anarchism, and Nihilism. All that we are experiencing is a consequence of the pursuit of a vision that goes back to the Garden and that is of man rolling God of His throne in favor of some elitist expression of man corporately considered. Science is merely being used for a cover much like the Science of Lamarck and Lysenko was used as a cover for Stalin’s and later Mao’s program of starvation. We are living during a time of “The Great Reset” and the “Great Reset” will use all levers including Science, (so-called) in order to build a globally centralized New World Order where a few “Party Members” will rule the whole globe. “You will have own nothing and be happy.”
I guess one might say that it does have something to do with the preusppositions the Scientists hold because if they were converted and Biblical Scientists they would be standing tall and screaming that this Great Reset is Marxist dung.
Of course if these putative scientists and politicians were converted with the result that these fields were increasingly sanctified we would not be living through this grand-daddy of all Gaslighting endeavors in world history.
