This weeks resource, Aborting Aristotle: Examining the Fatal Fallacies in the Abortion Debate comes at a critical time in the conflict between Science and Theism. Not only is this resource relevant there but is written specifically to defend the pro-life position and to demonstrate the fallacies held by those who are ardent defenders of abortion.
Dave Sterrett, Founder of Disruptive Truth, uncovers the chinks in the armor of those who are antithetical to the Christian worldview. He loosens the chains of those who have been held captive by a philosophical naturalism and shows us a better way to understand reality.
In Chapter 5 he explains that “Strong scientism combined with naturalistic materialism is not able to account for transcendence. However, if an immaterial mind is a fundamental reality, one can make sense of levels of consciousness and the existence of personal minds evolving through a process to reach a state where one obtains accurate knowledge of other persons.“(47) Engaging Peter Singer, Sterrett goes on to explain that holding to a “strict naturalistic materialism coupled with a strong scientism leaves no room for any immaterial reality or any type of transcendence.“(47)
It seems here as though Sterrett partly bases his epistemology on a process of evolution orchestrated by a divine being. Even with that divine process, how can we know that the knowledge we possess is warranted? In other words, how can we trust that those processes lead us to true knowledge? Are we content to say that because it is a divinely orchestrated process it necessarily requires the knowledge to be true?
For me it’s a large gap between having a Theistic first mover and the God of the Bible we find in Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1. That gap is too large for me to reconcile an evolutionary process by which we arrive at levels of consciousness and the Logos becoming incarnate. What am I to do with those things I see as inconsistent with one another?
Here I stand on the words of Bavinck. “Revelation, divine authority, is the only pillar on which religion can rest.” Instead of relying on a First Cause and leaping to the God of the Bible my hope is in a divine condescension in which God becomes incarnate in Christ and reveals all the fullness of the Godhead bodily in him.
Points of contact for students
Students need to know that Naturalistic Materialism is not the best explanation for reality. We can give our youth groups a great point to start from regarding the argument coming from Scientism and those who hold it strictly. In the battle of ideas, the Atheist is losing ground and this is one front where we can really engage our students minds leading to deeper discussion of person-hood, other minds, and transcendence. We must, however, base this foundation on revelation and not on theism which, without the incarnate Word as Logos, falls short of the mark.