Featured Post

The "Rights of Englishmen" Series

This is a list of the posts from my "Rights of Englishmen" series, as well as some others: - The Rights of Englishmen Part 1:...

Saturday, March 14, 2015

There is Science

That I might be more familiar with adversaries, I sometimes venture into the land of the faithless. I will occasionally go to an atheist forum and try to observe the behavior of local fauna. I showed my friend one of my recent confrontations with atheists.  He was unimpressed with them:
I got about two pages into the thread and had to close the window. They're too insufferable! Snarky, demanding definitions of words (a half-way literate child can tell you) because it might remind them of a point of view or set of ethics/morals they refuse to accept, and then unleash hell on you for answering.

The more I am exposed to the modernist mind, the more I realize how irrelevant its opinions are. Why? None a damn one of them would fight, kill, or die for anything. Ever. They float down the stream of life, fat on their own ideas, mocking the few willing to swim against the current or try to go the direction of least resistance.
I will admit, dealing with them can be like dealing with spiteful children, but their babble entertains me in a certain way.  Not all exhibit the behavior my friend describes, but a lot of them (most, perhaps) do.  

Months ago, after the lackluster Bill Nye / Ken Ham debate about evolution, I noticed the atheists having an aversion to the idea that the study of "Science" should be broken down. I said:
I was quite satisfied with Ken Ham's division of scientific study. He divides it into two categories:
Observable/Experimental Science - something observed in nature or in a lab, and
Historical Science - scientific assumptions of the past, tabulated from built up evidence
However, I find that most evolutionists despise these distinctions (as Nye did), and they prefer to settle with just this one single word "Science," as if it is just some sort of magical umbrella term that is utilized to silence all opposition in a conversation.
The thread was derailed quickly into typical insults. Also at that same time, I had an atheist in real life get upset, raise his voice, and transform into an observably ruffled state because I mentioned the possibility that "Science" should be broken up into Observable and Historical science.

More recently, I presented the atheists a quotation from a book I've been reading. This quotation seemed to favor Ken Ham's insistence to distinguish Historical Science from Observable Science.  The passage starts off by stating that one science is under another science in two ways:
"The first [way] is when one science is a branch of another broader science, since it only studies a part of the other science, e.g. inorganic chemistry is a branch of the broader science of chemistry. The second way is when one science is subalternated to another science and by this St. Thomas means that the one science receives its principles from another science, e.g., the science of epistemology receives its principles from philosophical anthropology, logic and metaphysics. Therefore, in the consideration of the subject matter of the science, one must also consider if it is a branch of a broader science, i.e. if a science studies a subject matter which is covered at least in part by another science which considers the object of study more absolutely. In this case, the higher science will supply the lower science with conclusions about the object of study and that science assumes those conclusions as principles in its reasoning. The subject matter in philosophy is called the material object."
Even this idea of classifying science was opposed vehemently by one of the first replies. I asked: "Do you believe that one science receives its principles from another science?"  The immediate answer I got was: "No. There is science." (Though, to that community's credit, there was one person there who admitted to "cross pollination" between different scientific disciplines.

Yet, I am given pause.  "No.  There is Science."  When I read that hostile reply, it was as if he believed that science is some sort of magical, undefinable, and unquestionable power.  This idea of "Science" as being some sort of immutable overarching umbrella that cannot be organized reeks of some kind of an emotional religion to me.

Right around the same time as the latter conversation took place, I read one atheist on that forum state this:
"To be atheist you have to FEEL that God doesn't exist, you have to know it in your head. You don't need proof, nor evidence you just know it."
Today's so-called "atheism" is an emotional religion based on a nebulous, cloudy, fuzzy mythology that only takes form after some sort of agreed upon consensus determines the mythology and doctrines.

These people like to keep the idea of "Science" as a massive mystery beyond total comprehension.  This is precisely the kind of thing they try to pin on faithful Christians, and that makes them enormous hypocrites.

There is Science

I'm out in the field.  Meanwhile, Pope Francis is celebrating 50 years of a diminished Catholic Church Vatican II reforms, and hardly any of my brothers and sisters in Christ over at CAF feel convicted enough to partake in any kind of confrontation with the opponents of our faith.

1 comment:

  1. Haha I find it hilarious, that atheist's comment about "feeling".

    Basically, he just admitted that atheism is just as much of a belief system that is not predicated on as much "sound scientific knowledge" as they might seem it is.

    They are no different than the "Academics" of St. Augustine's time.