What force moves the nations? From war and peace

 What force moves the nations?

Biographical historians and historians of separate nations understand this force as a power inherent in heroes and rulers. In their narration events occur solely by the will of a Napoleon, and Alexander, or in general of the persons they describe. The answers given by this kind of historian to the question of what force causes events to happen are satisfactory only as long as there is but one historian to each event. As soon as historians of different nationalities and tendencies begin to describe the same event, the replies they give immediately lose all meaning, for this force is understood by them all not only differently but often in quite contradictory ways. One historian says that an event was produced by Napoleon’s power, another that it was produced by Alexander’s, a third that it was due to the power of some other person. Besides this, historians of that kind contradict each other even in their statement as to the force on which the authority of some particular person was based. Thiers, a Bonapartist, says that Napoleon’s power was based on his virtue and genius. Lanfrey, a Republican, says it was based on his trickery and deception of the people. So the historians of this class, by mutually destroying one another’s positions, destroy the understanding of the force which produces events, and furnish no reply to history’s essential question.

Writers of universal history who deal with all the nations seem to recognize how erroneous is the specialist historians’ view of the force which produces events. They do not recognize it as a power inherent in heroes and rulers, but as the resultant of a multiplicity of variously directed forces. In describing a war or the subjugation of a people, a general historian looks for the cause of the event not in the power of one man, but in the interaction of many persons connected with the event.

Holding out for a hero

 

Character arc

 

4.2K

What you’ll learn

 

What you’ll learn It’s a common claim that science alone gives us knowledge. As a result, Christian faith has become marginalized as a myth, without any factual basis. Yet, argues philosopher J.P. Moreland, this view called “scientism” is itself a philosophical assumption and not the conclusion of scientific observation. Science must utilize a great deal of philosophy before it can get underway. This pervasive view of scientism has devastating implications for morality, human dignity, knowledge, and much more. Its proponents naively dismiss orthodox Christianity, which actually gave rise to modern science and has historically been committed to evidence and reason. Moreland seeks to clarify what scientism is, how to identify and respond to scientistic assumptions, and how to show that Christian faith actually makes the best sense when it comes to science and a range of other considerations. Read on for key insights from Scientism and Secularism.

1. Knowledge, not faith or mere belief, gives people authority to speak and act in public. It is on the basis of perceived knowledge that we give dentists, lawyers, history teachers and so on the authority to speak about matters within their areas of expertise.  If a dentist said he had a set of deeply held beliefs about molars and was emotionally committed to those beliefs even though he didn’t actually know that his beliefs were true, he would not be allowed to continue as a dentist. Likewise for Christians, they can be confident that their faith (personal trust in God) is no blind leap but is rather a principled commitment to reality. The Christian faith is a rich knowledge tradition that has been dedicated to robust philosophical reasoning as well as public evidences that include eyewitnesses and publicly-accessible miracles— most significantly, Jesus’ bodily resurrection. They can have genuine knowledge of what is real, and they can have a cultural authority that gives them courage and boldness to speak because they know why they believe what they do. The most important idea in a society is its understanding of who does and does not have knowledge, who gets to define reality, truth, and rationality and who doesn’t.

2. Scientism is a philosophical stance that comes in two forms. Scientism is a philosophical position, not a scientific one.  The claims of scientism are assertions about science, not of science.  Scientism takes two forms. The first is strong scientism. This is the view that the only knowledge we can have about reality are those that have been properly tested in the hard sciences—especially physics and chemistry. All other claims—theological, ethical, political, aesthetic, and the like—are mere expressions of emotion and private opinions. The second type is weak scientism. This position allows that there may be modestly justified beliefs outside science. However, the settled assertions of the hard sciences are vastly superior to claims outside science.

3. Scientism leads to Secularism and marginalizes Christianity and ethics. Scientism leads to the secularization of culture because it leads people to believe that no one can know anything about God, right and wrong, and so on.  If something like religious, ethical, or related claims cannot be quantified and proven in the laboratory, then the claims are nothing but hot air, mere expressions of feeling that cannot carry any authority.  Thus, the Christian faith and morality may be safely disregarded since no one can know whether those claims are reasonable or foolish. Scientism in turn has contributed to troubling trends. One of these is relativism in ethics—the view that affirms that morality is just person- or culture-relative; this is the perspective that claims, “That’s just your morality. Your moral standards are right for you, but not for me.” Scientism has also contributed to a pluralism in religion: no one religious perspective is savingly true for all people; rather, all religions are equally capable of bringing salvation or liberation. Scientism undergirds the idea that those who claim their views are true in these areas are intolerant bigots.

Want more insights? Go premium to access hundreds of titles in text and audio.

4. Scientism is causing people to abandon Christianity and is contributing to the church’s increased ineffectiveness. According to the Barna Research Group, five of the six reasons Millennials leave the church and abandon Christianity involve the suspicion that there is no good reason to believe it in the first place. These five reasons involved doubts and various intellectual issues; one of these is key:  the church does not keep up with the developments of modern science, nor does it know how to relate to them from a biblical perspective or worldview. Nor does it help parishioners to do so. The church isn’t adjusting to the discoveries of modern science. No wonder scientism seems credible to many—it seems that Christian claims are mere expressions of feeling with no authority to command belief. Scientism has marginalized the church. Given its numbers, its impact on culture should be orders of magnitude greater than it is. Why? Because Christians lack boldness and courage. Society believes Christian ideas to be irrelevant and not authoritative since they cannot be known without scientific proof.

5. Strong scientism is self-refuting and must, therefore, be rejected. A statement or sentence is self-refuting if (1) it refers to a group of things; (2) the statement or sentence itself is included in that group; (3) the statement or sentence does not satisfy its own requirements of acceptability.  For example, “All English sentences are shorter than three words” refers to the group of all English sentences; the sentence itself is a part of that group; and the sentence fails to satisfy its own requirements of acceptability. (It contains eight words and, thus, is not shorter than three words.) Strong scientism makes this self-refuting claim: “The only knowledge we can have about reality is that which has been properly tested in the hard sciences.” But this statement about reality is not itself one that has been properly tested in the hard sciences. So it cannot be a knowledge claim about reality. It is actually a claim of philosophy to the effect that all claims outside the hard sciences, including those of philosophy, cannot be known to be true. Strong scientism doesn’t live up to its own demands.

6. Weak scientism is a foe and not a friend of science. Science rests on a number of assumptions. For example, it takes for granted the laws of logic and math. It assumes the objectivity and rationality of the external world and that our faculties are suited for gaining knowledge of the external world; this includes its deep structure that lies underneath the everyday world of commonsense and causes that world to be what it is.  Science assumes the correspondence theory of truth: a mind-independent reality makes a belief or a claim true. When a claim doesn’t correspond to reality—like “Paris is the capital of Spain”—it is false. Notice that all of these assumptions cannot be formulated or tested within the limitations of science, especially the hard sciences. Yet every one of them has been challenged and rejected by many in the academic community. One of the tasks of philosophy is to formulate and defend the assumptions of science so that science’s claims can be taken as approximately true and rational. A theory, including scientific theories, can only be as strong as the assumptions on which it rests. By disregarding the rationality of philosophy, weak scientism disallows the clarification and defense of science’s assumptions. Thus, weak scientism is a foe and not a friend of science.

7. Contrary to scientism, we have more confident knowledge about certain theological or ethical truths than certain claims in science. Consider these two claims: (1) Electrons exist. (2) It is wrong to torture babies for the fun of it.  Which do we know with greater certainty? (2) is the correct answer. Why? The history of the electron has gone through various changes in what an electron is supposed to be. J. J. Thomson (1856-1940) at Cambridge University was the discoverer of electrons, but no one today believes that Thomsonian electrons exist because our views have changed so much. It is not unreasonable to believe that in 50 to 100 years, scientific depictions of the electron will change so much that scientists will no longer believe that what we mean by an electron today exists. Regarding (2)—the wrongness of torturing babies for the fun of it—someone may not know how she knows it is true, but nevertheless, we all, in fact, know it is true. If someone denies that, she needs therapy, not an argument. Now it is not hard to believe that in fifty to one hundred years, most people will no longer believe (2). But it is hard to see what kind of rational considerations could be discovered that would render (2) an irrational belief. Thus, we have more certainty in (2) than in (1). And the same is true for certain theological assertions such as that God exists.

8. There are five fundamental realities that science cannot explain but theism can. Theism affirms that an all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing God exists and has uniquely created a world distinct from himself. Theism also affirms that human beings bear the image of God, which confers on them dignity and worth. While science can help us to know much, there are some things it cannot explain—and is not properly equipped to explain. Science cannot account for (1) the origin of the universe, (2) the origin of the fundamental laws of nature, (3) the fine-tuning of the universe, (4) the origin of consciousness, and (5) the existence of moral, rational, and aesthetic objective laws and intrinsically valuable properties. These features make sense if a powerful, intelligent, good, and supremely self-aware being exists--more so than if these are the products of mindless, deterministic, valueless, non-conscious processes.

9. Scientism gains strength from methodological naturalism. Philosophical or metaphysical naturalism affirms three major tenets. First, matter is all the reality there is (materialism). Second, all that occurs can be accounted for by physical processes preceding them going all the way back to the Big Bang (determinism). Third, all knowledge is derived from the scientific method (scientism). By contrast, methodological naturalism is the view that while doing science, explanations of phenomena must be limited to natural objects and natural laws. No appeal to the act of an agent or to personal explanation is allowed to explain a physical event. This means, for example, that Intelligent Design theories and the notion that God created the universe and all it contains is theology and has nothing to do with science. But like philosophical naturalism, methodological naturalism is also false. Consider the number of sciences that explain things by reference to the intentional act of a personal agent and not to a natural object or law. These include areas such as forensic science, archeology, neuroscience, SETI (the search for extraterrestrial intelligence), psychology, and others. These considerations about scientism reveal both its power to marginalize belief in God as well as its deep flaws. This book is written to equip persons who confront the steady drumbeat of scientism that dismisses any claim that cannot be scientifically proven. This book alerts them to the dangers of scientism, pointing out its deficiencies and inherent contradictions. It also makes clear that theism—and the Christian faith more specifically—has strong explanatory power that can stand up under intellectual scrutiny. It can also challenge the leading ideologies of our day—including the powerful and influential view of scientism. Parents would be wise to prepare their children to engage the prevailing ideas of our culture. Scientism, which is the very foundation of our secular culture, cannot be sustained. Understanding the nature of scientism and exposing its inherent weaknesses and dangers should be a top priority for all seeking to engage our own culture and to influence the next generation.

Endnotes These insights are just an introduction. If you're ready to dive deeper, pick up a copy of Scientism and Secularism here. And since we get a commission on every sale, your purchase will help keep this newsletter free. * This is sponsored content

This newsletter is powered by Thinkr, a smart reading app for the busy-but-curious. For full access to hundreds of titles — including audio — go premium and download the app today. A tiny request: If you liked this post, please share this? I know most people don’t share because they feel that us bloggers don’t need their “tiny” social share. But here’s the truth… I built this blog piece by piece, one small share at a time, and will continue to do so. So thank you so much for your support, my reader. A share from you would seriously help a lot with the growth of this blog

  

Poem of the Ring

Original par J.R.R. Tolkien

Three Rings for the Elven-kings under the sky,
Seven for the Dwarf-lords in their halls of stone,
Nine for Mortal Men doomed to die,
One for the Dark Lord on his dark throne
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.
One Ring to rule them all. One Ring to find them,
One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.

Par Chiara Cadrich

Aux Elfes trois Anneaux pour régner sur la Terre,
Sept aux Seigneurs des Nains dans leurs salles de pierre,
Neuf aux hommes ci-bas destinés au trépas,
Un pour le prince noir couronné de ténèbres
Au Pays de Mordor où s'étendent les ombres.
Un Anneau suprême pour les dominer tous
Rameuter leurs terreurs et les enchainer tous
Au Pays de Mordor où s'étendent les ombres

Buttman vs turbines

Buttman

Ironman

Batman theme

No super power?

Cross pen15

Pen15