Our Ways are not God’s Ways

Try as he may, man cannot deny that he is a creature, a creation. He cannot put into action the prideful independence that he so covetously desires exactly because he will always be the result of some other first cause. Materialists will say that we are the result of evolutionary ‘blind chance’, while creationists will posit that we are the instantaneous result of God’s will. I say, with a fairly Thomistic motivation, that we did evolve and that this is evident from the facts available to us but I would qualify that statement by saying that we evolved from the propitious result of a ‘First Cause’.

It is most unfortunate that the a priori standpoint of evolutionary materialists is – There is NO God! This is not science but scientism – a pseudo ‘religious’ dogma pursued by those scientists whose basic premise has not stood up to scientific scrutiny and who cross over the ‘scientific/ontological’ divide to resolve their dilemma in another discipline’s domain – Darwinism falls into this category. George Sim describes this quite succinctly, when he said “…a scientist who takes the (often covert) position that because there is no God, any puzzling phenomenon can in principle be explained entirely by material causes, is also out of bounds.”1 In fairness, a creationist can be guilty of the same mistake, sticking God into the gaps of his knowledge without any metaphysical foundation! You cannot mix science and metaphysics; they describe very different aspects of man’s existence! I would venture that many a ‘would be’ scientist or apologist relies on this error to move focus away from their very thin hypotheses!

Science describes the material world; it must not and cannot describe the metaphysical. It cannot answer the ontological questions, ‘Why are we here?’, ‘How did we get here?’ and so forth – these are questions reserved for investigation in the realm of the philosopher. Likewise, philosophers must steer clear of the exactitudes of science where empiricism rules! When one discipline tries to engage in the proficiency of the other, then misunderstanding reigns!

However, it is not hard to see that scientism and materialism in particular seem to hold sway in today’s society and particularly within the scientific community (as broad a definition as that may be).

Why? Perhaps man’s reluctance to acknowledge that he is not always master of his own destiny plays a major role in denying the possibility of a Creator Being! I think possibly, that when man doesn’t understand the actions of nature, he would rather deny the existence of God and rely on his own faculties; similar perhaps to the mannerisms of a petulant child!

This is no less evident in the scientific world. Science deals solely with the physical or material, with so much being an unknown at present and not wanting to relinquish finite reason for the transcendence of God, science perhaps cannot risk losing its reasoned and apex position in society. And nor should it have to, after all whether there is a god or not is outside the purview of science – science deals in what is known to us, the world and universe around us!

This melee of academia is exactly what militant Darwinian evolutionist atheists2 require; it allows them to peddle their anti-religion agenda with verve using the cross discipline mistakes that so many people (scientist and philosopher) tend to make and rely on.

Yet the philosopher, whose job is to try and make sense of the greater scheme of things, the ontology and cosmogony of our existence, is probably faced with even greater unknowns and doubts. Their discipline is one of abstract thought and reason – in the end they can only come up with an ontological hypothesis as to the reason for being! With this amount of conjecture, it becomes tempting to stray into the exact realm of the scientist. The words of Isaiah sum this up better than I ever could:

“For My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways My ways, says the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than earth, so are My ways higher than your ways and My thoughts than your thoughts.”—Isaiah 55:8–9 (RSV.CE)

Notes

1. (Johnston 1988, §1:23)

2. (Wikipedia contributors 2011, Militant Atheism – §2)

Bibliography

Catholic Biblical Association of Great Britain. The Holy Bible (RSV.CE). Catholic. 1 vols. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1966.

Wikipedia contributors. Scientism. August 03, 2011. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientism&ildid=442832497 (accessed August 09, 2011).

Wikipedia contributors. Militant Atheism. August 08, 2011. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Militant_atheism&ildid=443678687 (accessed August 09, 2011).

Johnston, George Sim. Did Darwin Get It Right? Huntington, Indiana 46750: Our Sunday Visitor, Inc, 1988.

Advertisements

About Anthony

I am a married Catholic who is interested in Theology, History, Philosophy and the search for truth. I also have a penchant for photography.
This entry was posted in Apologetics, Atheism, Opinion, Religion, Religious Philosophy, Scientism and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s