Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Christian Podcast Central

Home
Evangelical - Sponsored
The Summit Lecture Series: Scientific Naturalism Worldview with JP Moreland, part 3

The Summit Lecture Series: Scientific Naturalism Worldview with JP Moreland, part 3

Last updated on: August 20, 2014 at 3:55 pm by Christian Podcast Central

The Summit Lecture Series: Scientific Naturalism Worldview with JP Moreland, part 3 2014-08-20T15:55:24-08:00 Christian Podcast Central

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

To purchase the entire Summit Lecture Series, Vol. 1 on DVD, go to: summit.org.

A Contingent Truth is a truth that could have been false. So, if you want to understand a Contingent Truth, think of something that is true that God could have made false if He wanted to.

For example, it’s a Contingent Truth that there is a clock in the room. It’s evident and true that there is, in fact, a clock right there in the room. But, that could have been false – it’s possible that a clock actually wasn’t in the room.

Another example – it’s a Contingent Truth that electrons exist. There are, in fact, electrons, but God could have refrained from creating the world with electrons. Their existence is contingent on God creating them.

So, a Contingent Truth is a truth that is true, but God could have made it false. Take the statement “All ravens are black”. Of course, all ravens are black, but God could have chosen to make some albino or any other color for that matter.

Contrast this with a Necessary Truth. A Necessary Truth is a truth that could not have been false. One example of a Necessary Truth is 2+2=4. 2+2 doesn’t just happen to equal 4, nor did God play a role in the creation of 2+2, it’s necessarily true. The laws of arithmetic and the laws of logic are grounded in the divine mind in such a way that they reflect the very heart of the way God thinks. They could not have been otherwise.

Now, all scientific truths are Contingent and Aposteriori, which means “known by the senses”. For example, consider the statements “dogs are mammals” or “water is H20”. These statements could have been false, but 1) God made them so; and 2) we can use our senses to determine the statements’’ accuracy.

On the other hand, the laws of logic and mathematics are Necessary and Apriori, which means that they are known independent of the senses. Suppose God created angels, without sense organs, and without a physical earth. Just angels. An angels would still know the laws of logic and of mathematics, even without use of our five senses.

Now, why is this a big deal?

Because the Naturalist says that all of mankind’s knowledge is based upon science. The problems is that scientific knowledge is Aposteriori, which means that it rules out knowledge of math and logic, which are prior to the senses.

To put the point differently, logic and math are not scientific knowledge. They’re actually prior to science. We don’t discover the truths of logic and math within science, rather we presuppose them. Science has to presuppose logic and mathematics. In fact, you can’t even practice science until you’ve got math and logic in place.

So, if Scientism is true, it not only rules out God, but it also rules out logic and mathematics.

Another area, which we have knowledge in, is Moral Values. Certain fundamental moral principles are so obvious that philosophers call them self-evident. An example would be the claim, “Torturing little babies for the fun of it is wrong.” It’s pretty obvious, no matter where you come from, what your cultural background is, what your senses tell you or what era you live in – this claim is true. It is not subjective. If someone disagrees with this statement, then there is something deeply wrong with them. They need a counselor, not an argument. Them suggesting that it’s a false claim would be similar to someone saying that 2+2=19. It’s simply self-evident.

For more educational and engaging videos and podcasts, visit the E-Squared Media Network at www.e2medianetwork.com

Previous Post

August 20, 2014

The E3 Partner’s Expedition Podcast 2: Lisa in Panama

Next Post

August 21, 2014 Reflections of Grace 43: Living From the Heart, part 6

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Brad Stine Has Issues Christian Podcast Central Classic Podcast Experience God Life Grounded Ouxano Parent Like You Mean It The Protest Show with Thor Ramsey The Summit Lecture Series Uncategorized What You’ve Been Searching For

Select a Month July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 June 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz