Hi, Cliff Goldstein here,
00:00:20.86\00:00:23.06
and I want to welcome you
to Contending for the Faith.
00:00:23.09\00:00:26.46
We are continuing our series
00:00:26.49\00:00:28.72
on the questions
of faith and science,
00:00:28.75\00:00:31.71
because I have said on
a number of the programs
00:00:31.74\00:00:34.06
in many ways faith and science
00:00:34.09\00:00:36.18
work together very harmoniously,
00:00:36.21\00:00:39.02
very harmoniously though
times there have been problems
00:00:39.05\00:00:43.11
and this is been exacerbated
00:00:43.14\00:00:45.43
by men like
Richard Dawkins Slake,
00:00:45.46\00:00:47.62
the late Christopher Hitchens,
Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett.
00:00:47.65\00:00:52.45
These men have been
deemed the new atheists
00:00:52.48\00:00:55.81
and they could be
best described as kind of
00:00:55.84\00:00:57.98
oh, atheists fundamentalists.
00:00:58.01\00:01:01.20
But with
fundamental is being used
00:01:01.23\00:01:03.42
in the worse sense of the word.
00:01:03.45\00:01:06.14
And that's
because these man are,
00:01:06.17\00:01:09.44
they use a phrase hardcore
ontological materialists.
00:01:09.47\00:01:14.95
That means that
they believe that
00:01:14.98\00:01:17.06
all existence
is purely material,
00:01:17.09\00:01:20.58
as an atoms, and protons,
and fermions, and bosons
00:01:20.61\00:01:24.97
and that's all
there is to anything
00:01:25.00\00:01:27.16
and there is no room
for the supernatural,
00:01:27.19\00:01:30.35
there is no
place for the divine,
00:01:30.38\00:01:32.54
no place for the spiritual
00:01:32.57\00:01:34.44
as in a belief in
God's spirituality.
00:01:34.47\00:01:37.92
They utterly refuse,
00:01:37.95\00:01:40.24
you know, to
allow any idea of God
00:01:40.27\00:01:42.35
or the supernatural or a faith
00:01:42.38\00:01:45.07
as in anyway
traditionally understood
00:01:45.10\00:01:48.44
and they are
promoters of the myth,
00:01:48.47\00:01:51.82
yes, the myth that's science
00:01:51.85\00:01:54.97
is all rationality and
reason and experiment and truth
00:01:55.00\00:02:00.49
and that religious
faith is just well, you know,
00:02:00.52\00:02:03.71
silliness and
superstitions and nonsense.
00:02:03.74\00:02:08.62
And you know,
interestingly enough
00:02:08.65\00:02:10.97
there position is really
not a scientific position.
00:02:11.00\00:02:15.47
It's not something
that science even demands.
00:02:15.50\00:02:19.07
It is a metaphysics position,
a philosophical position
00:02:19.10\00:02:24.87
that some tried to
push off as science.
00:02:24.90\00:02:29.13
In fact, listen
to this well know--
00:02:29.16\00:02:30.63
this quote by a scientist.
00:02:30.66\00:02:32.32
This quote is been
made the rounds for a while.
00:02:32.35\00:02:35.17
Listen to this "We
take the side of science
00:02:35.20\00:02:39.38
in spite of the patent absurdity
00:02:39.41\00:02:42.00
of some of its constructs,
in spite of the tolerance
00:02:42.03\00:02:45.99
of the scientific community
00:02:46.02\00:02:48.32
for
unsubstantiated just-so stories,
00:02:48.35\00:02:53.18
because we have a priori,
00:02:53.21\00:02:55.93
we have a prior
commitment to materialism.
00:02:55.96\00:03:00.50
It's not that the methods
and institutions of science
00:03:00.53\00:03:04.20
somehow compel us to
omit material explanation
00:03:04.23\00:03:09.20
of the phenomenal
world, but on the contrary,
00:03:09.23\00:03:13.46
that we are forced by
our a priori adherence
00:03:13.49\00:03:17.29
to material causes to create
an apparatus of investigation
00:03:17.32\00:03:23.17
and a set of concepts that
produce material explanations,
00:03:23.20\00:03:28.71
no matter how counterintuitive,
00:03:28.74\00:03:32.09
no matter how
mystifying to the uninitiated."
00:03:32.12\00:03:38.44
Now I don't want to
brag down and in all this
00:03:38.47\00:03:40.47
and you can find this
quote and pursuit yourself.
00:03:40.50\00:03:44.51
But what he is saying here
00:03:44.54\00:03:46.14
is that even though
science itself does not demand,
00:03:46.17\00:03:50.60
that scientists
expect a material
00:03:50.63\00:03:53.60
explanation of the world,
00:03:53.63\00:03:55.62
a purely materialist
explanation of the world
00:03:55.65\00:03:58.40
the science do it, the
scientists do it anyway.
00:03:58.43\00:04:02.21
And that is therefore
00:04:02.24\00:04:03.33
just right out of
the gate before hand.
00:04:03.36\00:04:06.09
They have--
that's because right out
00:04:06.12\00:04:07.19
of the gate before hand
00:04:07.22\00:04:08.40
they have made a
commitment to do that,
00:04:08.43\00:04:10.60
and it's not science demands
it they just do it anyway.
00:04:10.63\00:04:14.22
Now I don't want to be,
00:04:14.25\00:04:15.28
but I find that
in amazing quote.
00:04:15.31\00:04:18.11
I'm really stunned by how
open and honest this guy is
00:04:18.14\00:04:22.08
and he also gives the
reason why they do it.
00:04:22.11\00:04:25.18
Listen to the reason
why they locked themselves
00:04:25.21\00:04:27.58
in this dogmatic a
priori materialism.
00:04:27.61\00:04:30.85
Here is what he said,
00:04:30.88\00:04:33.18
and he goes "It's
not that the methods
00:04:33.21\00:04:34.69
and institutions of
science somehow compel us
00:04:34.72\00:04:37.29
to accept a material explanation
00:04:37.32\00:04:39.76
of the phenomenal
world, but on the contrary,
00:04:39.79\00:04:42.64
that we are forced by
our a priori adherence
00:04:42.67\00:04:45.63
to material causes to create
an apparatus of investigation
00:04:45.66\00:04:50.31
and a set of concepts that
produce material explanations,
00:04:50.34\00:04:54.33
no matter how intuitive--
how counterintuitive,
00:04:54.36\00:04:57.71
no matter how
mystifying to the uninitiated."
00:04:57.74\00:05:01.64
Then he says "Moreover,
that Materialism is absolute,
00:05:01.67\00:05:06.25
for we cannot allow a
Divine Foot in the door."
00:05:06.28\00:05:12.66
In other words, the
idea that they can't possibly
00:05:12.69\00:05:15.42
allow anything
smacking of God, of faith,
00:05:15.45\00:05:18.65
of the
supernatural into their science,
00:05:18.68\00:05:21.04
this is the idea.
00:05:21.07\00:05:22.70
Now I risk reviewing
00:05:22.73\00:05:23.76
a lot of unanswered
questions here by moving on
00:05:23.79\00:05:27.08
but I don't brag
down in all of this,
00:05:27.11\00:05:29.69
but this is the
point I want to say,
00:05:29.72\00:05:31.97
is that if you hold this view,
00:05:32.00\00:05:34.27
automatically by
default that without any real
00:05:34.30\00:05:37.89
even any real
reasons at all other than
00:05:37.92\00:05:41.05
just wanting to keep out
00:05:41.08\00:05:42.76
what has been
deemed the God hypothesis,
00:05:42.79\00:05:45.85
if you want to keep
that out of your science
00:05:45.88\00:05:48.60
then there is no
question that faith
00:05:48.63\00:05:51.33
which we understand here
00:05:51.36\00:05:52.55
at the Jhudiel
Christian tradition.
00:05:52.58\00:05:55.11
And science which you know
refuse as it's now practice,
00:05:55.14\00:06:00.45
then you gonna have conflict.
00:06:00.48\00:06:01.94
How could they
not be in conflict?
00:06:01.97\00:06:03.81
One absolutely doesn't allow
anything at all like that in
00:06:03.84\00:06:07.79
the other is that's
foundational toward thus,
00:06:07.82\00:06:11.43
you have the conflict.
00:06:11.46\00:06:14.16
But I said before on programs
00:06:14.19\00:06:16.27
for most of the history
and science and religion,
00:06:16.30\00:06:20.28
the term science really
this is a much later term
00:06:20.31\00:06:23.00
that really
wasn't a conflict at all.
00:06:23.03\00:06:27.05
We tend to view the
history of faith and science
00:06:27.08\00:06:29.63
through the lens of
Galileo in the church
00:06:29.66\00:06:32.50
or through the
creation ever loops
00:06:32.53\00:06:34.75
and controversy and there they--
00:06:34.78\00:06:36.34
and they have there roles
00:06:36.37\00:06:37.94
but there is much
more complicated than that.
00:06:37.97\00:06:41.38
In fact, listen
to another quote,
00:06:41.41\00:06:43.53
this from a book
titled "Science and Religion,
00:06:43.56\00:06:46.35
A Historical Introduction.
00:06:46.38\00:06:49.19
Yet science is even more
changeable them theology.
00:06:49.22\00:06:53.00
If the historical
landscape is littered
00:06:53.03\00:06:55.35
with discarded
theological ideas,
00:06:55.38\00:06:58.44
it is equally littered
with discarded scientific ones.
00:06:58.47\00:07:03.54
Failure to understand
this historical reality
00:07:03.57\00:07:06.96
has led those who
see the march of science
00:07:06.99\00:07:09.67
as one of inexorable
progress to view controversies
00:07:09.70\00:07:13.86
between science as
religions in-dispute as disputes
00:07:13.89\00:07:18.02
in which
religion was always wrong
00:07:18.05\00:07:20.59
and science is always right.
00:07:20.62\00:07:23.05
The true factors of the
case are very much more complex
00:07:23.08\00:07:27.39
and refuse to be summarized
in these simple terms."
00:07:27.42\00:07:33.30
That's heavy,
especially this idea,
00:07:33.33\00:07:37.05
this idea about the
landscape being littered
00:07:37.08\00:07:40.42
with discarded scientific ideas.
00:07:40.45\00:07:44.64
You know, we forget that
00:07:44.67\00:07:46.38
there were some very
smart educated scientists
00:07:46.41\00:07:50.28
who had very good for belief,
00:07:50.31\00:07:52.77
reasons for belief
in scientific theories
00:07:52.80\00:07:55.59
that we today know or
believe turned out to be wrong.
00:07:55.62\00:08:01.69
And that's why we
today, we need to be aware
00:08:01.72\00:08:04.79
that many of the things
00:08:04.82\00:08:06.38
that science tells us
could be wrong as well.
00:08:06.41\00:08:10.03
In fact, I think
that many of them
00:08:10.06\00:08:12.23
and particularly when it comes
to human origins are wrong.
00:08:12.26\00:08:16.33
And that's it we been looking at
00:08:16.36\00:08:17.85
and what I want to continue
to look at in this series
00:08:17.88\00:08:21.04
and if you been
following along you know
00:08:21.07\00:08:22.90
what I been saying,
00:08:22.93\00:08:24.26
but I want to repeat this again
00:08:24.29\00:08:26.43
we have to realize that
science as powerful as it is,
00:08:26.46\00:08:30.28
it doesn't have all the answers.
00:08:30.31\00:08:33.76
And I don't think could
ever have all the answers for me
00:08:33.79\00:08:38.19
because me as believer
in the God of the Bible,
00:08:38.22\00:08:41.00
I think that reality
is too big, too broad,
00:08:41.03\00:08:44.74
you know, for the
relatively narrow scope
00:08:44.77\00:08:47.43
that science works in.
00:08:47.46\00:08:50.10
I think of the text
in 2 Corinthians 4:18
00:08:50.13\00:08:54.21
"While we do not look at
the things which are seen,
00:08:54.24\00:08:57.50
but the things
which are not seen.
00:08:57.53\00:09:00.42
For the things which
are seen are temporary,
00:09:00.45\00:09:04.45
but the things which
are not seen are eternal."
00:09:04.48\00:09:10.02
I don't think that scientists
with their atom smashers
00:09:10.05\00:09:14.09
or their test tubes
or their space telescopes
00:09:14.12\00:09:17.86
are gonna be too much
help to us there, do you.
00:09:17.89\00:09:22.23
And one of the
reasons we are looked at
00:09:22.26\00:09:26.31
is you saw the program before,
00:09:26.34\00:09:28.09
one of the things we looked at
00:09:28.12\00:09:29.16
if you saw on
the program before,
00:09:29.19\00:09:31.31
the program is
called Seen is Believing.
00:09:31.34\00:09:34.44
We looked at this fancy term
called empiricist epistemology.
00:09:34.47\00:09:39.12
Epistemology is the
study of what we of--
00:09:39.15\00:09:42.54
how we come to know what we know
00:09:42.57\00:09:45.02
and empiricism is how we come
00:09:45.05\00:09:48.01
to know things
through our senses.
00:09:48.04\00:09:50.37
It's a way we
come to knowledge okay,
00:09:50.40\00:09:54.18
that we use our senses.
00:09:54.21\00:09:55.37
I mean, for instance
if you say in mathematics
00:09:55.40\00:09:59.61
you know, when I
divide 65-- 650/5 you get 130.
00:09:59.64\00:10:05.50
You don't actually sit there
and count those things, do you?
00:10:05.53\00:10:08.52
You don't count
them out and so on.
00:10:08.55\00:10:10.67
No, you can't have
certain mathematical techniques
00:10:10.70\00:10:13.79
that help you
give you the answer.
00:10:13.82\00:10:16.24
If you say that the number 100
00:10:16.27\00:10:18.58
is greater than the number five
00:10:18.61\00:10:20.23
you don't have to get 100 things
00:10:20.26\00:10:21.86
and count them out
00:10:21.89\00:10:22.99
and five things
and look at them.
00:10:23.02\00:10:24.46
No, you don't have
to use your senses.
00:10:24.49\00:10:26.53
You can just use
rational thought to do that.
00:10:26.56\00:10:31.38
No math and reasons are
another form of knowledge
00:10:31.41\00:10:34.35
another kind of epistemology.
00:10:34.38\00:10:36.99
Though science uses math,
00:10:37.02\00:10:39.25
it uses it to
inscribe empirical things,
00:10:39.28\00:10:42.02
it uses it to
describe things of the world
00:10:42.05\00:10:44.42
as they come to us.
00:10:44.45\00:10:46.53
It can use math to
explain moments of the stars,
00:10:46.56\00:10:49.61
the planets, the
asteroids and light.
00:10:49.64\00:10:52.42
But it still studying them,
00:10:52.45\00:10:54.09
it's still an empiricist method.
00:10:54.12\00:10:57.76
And weather
you're doing chemistry
00:10:57.79\00:10:59.82
or weather you're doing physics
or weather you're doing biology
00:10:59.85\00:11:03.34
you are employing an
empiricist epistemology.
00:11:03.37\00:11:07.66
You are studying
how things appear to us.
00:11:07.69\00:11:11.41
In fact, this leads
to a very deep question,
00:11:11.44\00:11:17.13
a question that
people have been debating
00:11:17.16\00:11:20.50
for literarily
thousands of years
00:11:20.53\00:11:22.78
and amazingly enough
even with all this time
00:11:22.81\00:11:25.87
they still
haven't come to an answer.
00:11:25.90\00:11:30.59
You know, and
this is the question,
00:11:30.62\00:11:32.47
if you remember
one of the early shows
00:11:32.50\00:11:35.76
we talked about Isaac Newton
00:11:35.79\00:11:37.52
and his great work on
the theory of gravity okay,
00:11:37.55\00:11:41.45
but when got
done we looked at it,
00:11:41.48\00:11:43.94
we realize that
Newton never explained
00:11:43.97\00:11:46.59
what was going on, he
never gave a definition.
00:11:46.62\00:11:49.67
All he did was describe how it--
00:11:49.70\00:11:52.72
how nature reacted.
00:11:52.75\00:11:54.65
All he did was make--
you know, make predictions.
00:11:54.68\00:11:58.07
He never gave any answer as
to what was really going on.
00:11:58.10\00:12:04.19
So he just told us
how nature itself acted,
00:12:04.22\00:12:08.62
didn't give us any
explanation of why.
00:12:08.65\00:12:12.38
But you know there
are some who would say
00:12:12.41\00:12:15.99
that Isaac Newton
didn't even get that far.
00:12:16.02\00:12:19.92
They argue that Newton or
any science at all does not
00:12:19.95\00:12:23.87
and cannot tell us at
all about what nature itself,
00:12:23.90\00:12:28.09
about that what
nature itself really is
00:12:28.12\00:12:30.97
or what it's like or
really what it really does.
00:12:31.00\00:12:35.31
Instead and listen to this here,
00:12:35.34\00:12:37.91
because this gets new
odds but it's very important.
00:12:37.94\00:12:41.02
They said all
science can do is tell us
00:12:41.05\00:12:45.39
how nature
appears to our senses.
00:12:45.42\00:12:49.42
That is it tells only how nature
00:12:49.45\00:12:52.14
and the world appeared to us,
00:12:52.17\00:12:54.12
how it looks to us as
human beings constituted
00:12:54.15\00:12:57.97
the way we are
but that's a radically
00:12:58.00\00:13:00.80
different thing from telling us
00:13:00.83\00:13:03.09
what nature is in and of itself.
00:13:03.12\00:13:06.85
Now this is
really a very profound
00:13:06.88\00:13:09.13
and important idea
00:13:09.16\00:13:11.82
and I want you
to listen carefully
00:13:11.85\00:13:13.86
and think it through,
00:13:13.89\00:13:15.88
because if you
think this through with me
00:13:15.91\00:13:18.81
I think it will
help you see that
00:13:18.84\00:13:20.61
there is a very fundamental
and inherent limit to science
00:13:20.64\00:13:25.92
and that could help you
not-- so I have to be so afraid
00:13:25.95\00:13:30.84
when somebody makes
a scientific statement
00:13:30.87\00:13:33.42
that challenges your faith.
00:13:33.45\00:13:35.90
Let me give you an example
of what I'm talking about.
00:13:35.93\00:13:39.26
I could remember a
number of years ago
00:13:39.29\00:13:42.08
I went to the Hirshhorn
Museum in Washington DC
00:13:42.11\00:13:45.41
and that's kind of where some
of the real strange "art" is.
00:13:45.44\00:13:50.08
And I remember I
went to this exhibit
00:13:50.11\00:13:52.11
and I was in a dimly with room,
it was so dark that the ushers,
00:13:52.14\00:13:57.15
an usher had to
guide me by my hand
00:13:57.18\00:14:00.26
and sit me down on a chair
00:14:00.29\00:14:02.63
because it was so dark
I couldn't see anything.
00:14:02.66\00:14:06.75
And I'm just
sitting in this dark room
00:14:06.78\00:14:08.43
and I'm wondering this is art?
00:14:08.46\00:14:10.66
You know, I don't want
to seem like philistine
00:14:10.69\00:14:12.41
but I'm wondering
what's going on here.
00:14:12.44\00:14:14.80
Well, anyway
after a little while
00:14:14.83\00:14:17.27
I noticed these lights started
to come out from the wall.
00:14:17.30\00:14:20.98
It was like--
there was just this
00:14:21.01\00:14:22.65
tiny dim light in the
wall and it's started to get,
00:14:22.68\00:14:25.66
it started to
get larger and larger
00:14:25.69\00:14:28.14
it actually started
to come out from the wall
00:14:28.17\00:14:32.68
and I'm assume before long
the room was quite well lit.
00:14:32.71\00:14:36.78
well, as I said sitting
here wondering you know,
00:14:36.81\00:14:40.23
what kind of art this
is and as I'm sitting there
00:14:40.26\00:14:45.01
the usher came in
with another person,
00:14:45.04\00:14:48.58
but what was fascinating
the usher had to guide
00:14:48.61\00:14:51.99
the person in by hand
00:14:52.02\00:14:54.23
and sit the
person down in the seat
00:14:54.26\00:14:57.64
and I remember thinking
00:14:57.67\00:15:00.48
what did that he need usher for?
00:15:00.51\00:15:02.91
Why did he need the
usher to bring him in?
00:15:02.94\00:15:05.42
The room was
filled with light now,
00:15:05.45\00:15:08.62
the room was filled
00:15:08.65\00:15:10.25
as the light
moved out from the wall.
00:15:10.28\00:15:14.26
So what was that
to do with the usher?
00:15:14.29\00:15:17.42
Then it hit me,
the room to my mind
00:15:17.45\00:15:22.92
which had adjusted to the light,
00:15:22.95\00:15:24.77
my eyes have
adjusted to the light,
00:15:24.80\00:15:26.48
my brain had
adjusted to the life,
00:15:26.51\00:15:28.70
seemed bright enough,
00:15:28.73\00:15:31.34
but to the man who
just entered in his--
00:15:31.37\00:15:34.31
in his mind the room was so dark
00:15:34.34\00:15:37.81
as it was to me
when I first came in
00:15:37.84\00:15:40.21
that he needed an usher
to sit him in the chair.
00:15:40.24\00:15:45.75
Now here is the question,
00:15:45.78\00:15:49.82
the reality of the
room seemed different to him
00:15:49.85\00:15:53.28
than it seemed to me.
00:15:53.31\00:15:55.16
Now listen to me here
00:15:55.19\00:15:56.39
because this is
where it gets crucial.
00:15:56.42\00:15:59.51
There was only one room
00:15:59.54\00:16:01.79
and there was
only one light in it,
00:16:01.82\00:16:04.52
so whose view of the loom,
00:16:04.55\00:16:06.60
the room and the
light was the true one
00:16:06.63\00:16:09.46
the view that
accurately corresponded
00:16:09.49\00:16:12.27
to the immediate
environment of both of us?
00:16:12.30\00:16:15.79
That is the
room to me was filled
00:16:15.82\00:16:19.86
with enough light
to me to see clearly
00:16:19.89\00:16:21.92
because my mind
and eyes had adjusted.
00:16:21.95\00:16:24.69
There were receptors
in my mind, in my head
00:16:24.72\00:16:26.93
that perceive the room
where perceiving differently
00:16:26.96\00:16:30.48
from the man who
had just come in.
00:16:30.51\00:16:32.84
To the man who had just come in
00:16:32.87\00:16:34.85
the room was too
dark to see anything
00:16:34.88\00:16:38.17
so he couldn't find the seat.
00:16:38.20\00:16:40.79
Again listen to me
here, there is just one room,
00:16:40.82\00:16:46.64
there is just one light
okay, but my mind perceived
00:16:46.67\00:16:52.31
it radically differently
than did the man who came in.
00:16:52.34\00:16:57.99
So now I ask the question,
00:16:58.02\00:17:01.21
what was the truth
the reality about the room
00:17:01.24\00:17:05.36
and the light themselves, okay?
00:17:05.39\00:17:08.37
What was the room
and the light really like
00:17:08.40\00:17:10.94
in enough themselves okay,
00:17:10.97\00:17:13.63
apart from these two
subjective beings myself
00:17:13.66\00:17:17.14
and that man perceiving it?
00:17:17.17\00:17:20.04
Can you see what I'm
trying to get that here?
00:17:20.07\00:17:23.20
I know how the room looked to me
00:17:23.23\00:17:25.76
but it looked to
me radically different
00:17:25.79\00:17:27.96
than it looked to that man okay.
00:17:27.99\00:17:30.37
So who has had the true
view of the room and the light?
00:17:30.40\00:17:34.41
Was there really
in any absolute sense,
00:17:34.44\00:17:40.23
what that room was like?
00:17:40.26\00:17:42.27
I look at it this way,
00:17:42.30\00:17:44.00
suppose when I entered that room
00:17:44.03\00:17:45.94
instead of two
eyes I had ten eyes
00:17:45.97\00:17:49.61
and suppose my eyes could see
an greater electromagnetic band
00:17:49.64\00:17:54.72
than our eyes now
can, same room, same light,
00:17:54.75\00:17:58.68
the same immediate environment,
00:17:58.71\00:18:01.18
the reality the room
was exactly what it was
00:18:01.21\00:18:03.84
that didn't change at all,
00:18:03.87\00:18:06.23
but the receptors, the receptors
00:18:06.26\00:18:09.27
that I brought in would be
radically, radically different.
00:18:09.30\00:18:14.46
So how would the
room appeared to me than
00:18:14.49\00:18:17.95
and who would have the
correct view of the room?
00:18:17.98\00:18:20.75
That was who would
have the correct view
00:18:20.78\00:18:23.56
that wasn't filtered through
senses or any one senses?
00:18:23.59\00:18:28.28
Suppose someone
came in with 100 eyes
00:18:28.31\00:18:30.77
and with x-ray vision same room,
00:18:30.80\00:18:33.77
only it appear completely
different to that person
00:18:33.80\00:18:37.85
than it would to those who
had two eyes or twenty eyes.
00:18:37.88\00:18:42.60
But see so I'm
asking the question now
00:18:42.63\00:18:46.14
what was the truth of the
room as it came to our senses,
00:18:46.17\00:18:50.99
but what was the
room itself really like?
00:18:51.02\00:18:54.92
If the Germans have a phrase
00:18:54.95\00:18:56.49
they call it the "ding an
sich" the thing in itself.
00:18:56.52\00:19:01.86
Now what appears in our
eyes because we have just seen,
00:19:01.89\00:19:04.85
our eyes will give us
different appearances,
00:19:04.88\00:19:07.40
it will look different.
00:19:07.43\00:19:09.01
What was it in an of itself?
00:19:09.04\00:19:12.70
The German
philosopher Immanuel Kant,
00:19:12.73\00:19:15.07
once he talked about the
world as it appears to us.
00:19:15.10\00:19:18.95
He called that the phenomenon
00:19:18.98\00:19:21.14
and the world as
it was in an of itself
00:19:21.17\00:19:24.83
and he said there is
a gap between the two
00:19:24.86\00:19:28.42
and it's impossible for us
00:19:28.45\00:19:30.58
as human beings
to cross that gap.
00:19:30.61\00:19:35.69
Now if this is
idea is new to you
00:19:35.72\00:19:40.11
take little time to
let the implication sink in
00:19:40.14\00:19:44.55
but there is this idea
that there is a difference,
00:19:44.58\00:19:48.05
a divide between
what is out there
00:19:48.08\00:19:51.22
in the real world,
00:19:51.25\00:19:52.39
the world as it
is in an of itself
00:19:52.42\00:19:55.52
and how we as
subjective beings precede it.
00:19:55.55\00:20:01.41
I think they are
right there is this gap.
00:20:01.44\00:20:03.79
That some argue
that we can never know
00:20:03.82\00:20:07.10
the world as it really is,
00:20:07.13\00:20:09.98
but only as we as human
beings with our limited brains
00:20:10.01\00:20:14.74
and our limited sense
receptors allow us to know it.
00:20:14.77\00:20:20.60
You know, I really think
there is something to this
00:20:20.63\00:20:23.62
and I think it can explain
for instance how right now,
00:20:23.65\00:20:28.59
right now I believe in this room
00:20:28.62\00:20:31.28
or may be where you
are sitting right now
00:20:31.31\00:20:33.66
there could be angels and demons
00:20:33.69\00:20:35.56
right there in
the room with you,
00:20:35.59\00:20:37.79
right now in the room with us
00:20:37.82\00:20:39.58
as it certainly as real
as my voice or any thing here
00:20:39.61\00:20:43.91
and yet we don't see
them, we can't sense them.
00:20:43.94\00:20:49.60
I mean, think about it too,
00:20:49.63\00:20:52.08
I'm gonna be
silent for a second,
00:20:52.11\00:20:55.52
you don't hear anything,
00:20:55.55\00:20:58.76
how many millions
of cell phone calls
00:20:58.79\00:21:03.26
are in the room right now?
00:21:03.29\00:21:05.35
How many millions
of cell phone calls
00:21:05.38\00:21:07.32
are in this room
as real as my voice,
00:21:07.35\00:21:09.88
as real as this
table right here,
00:21:09.91\00:21:12.18
as real as the
air, as real any of that
00:21:12.21\00:21:16.46
and yet do to the
limited preceptors that we have,
00:21:16.49\00:21:20.79
the limited view of
reality that our minds,
00:21:20.82\00:21:23.55
and our brains, and our bodies,
00:21:23.58\00:21:25.01
and our heads give us
we completely miss them
00:21:25.04\00:21:31.16
or take another idea.
00:21:31.19\00:21:34.24
Suppose everyone in the world
00:21:34.27\00:21:37.83
were color blind
to the color red,
00:21:37.86\00:21:41.29
suppose in all the
cosmos there is no being
00:21:41.32\00:21:44.94
who had the receptors
00:21:44.97\00:21:46.80
that could take the
electromagnetic waves
00:21:46.83\00:21:49.77
that project the color
red and translate them in--
00:21:49.80\00:21:53.73
and translate them into
the sensation of red okay.
00:21:53.76\00:21:57.83
Sure what ever
molecular structure it is that
00:21:57.86\00:22:00.53
creates those
specific light waves
00:22:00.56\00:22:03.16
they are real, they exist
00:22:03.19\00:22:05.42
but it takes us and
our specific receptors
00:22:05.45\00:22:10.16
to give us the color red.
00:22:10.19\00:22:12.87
But as I said suppose
in all the universe there--
00:22:12.90\00:22:16.91
all the
universe were color blind
00:22:16.94\00:22:19.60
that nobody have those receptors
00:22:19.63\00:22:22.09
could there be
the sensation of red.
00:22:22.12\00:22:27.43
I would say,
no. It's impossible.
00:22:27.46\00:22:30.21
Now notice I use
the word sensation,
00:22:30.24\00:22:35.87
is a sensation
something that exist
00:22:35.90\00:22:38.91
only in our minds, its okay,
00:22:38.94\00:22:42.24
is that the same
thing as the reality
00:22:42.27\00:22:44.87
that gives us the sensation?
00:22:44.90\00:22:48.79
I'm staring at
the Mona Lisa let say,
00:22:48.82\00:22:52.51
I have certain
sensations in my minds
00:22:52.54\00:22:56.03
shapes, colors,
forms I see it all.
00:22:56.06\00:22:59.44
But what am I'm really seeing?
00:22:59.47\00:23:01.32
I'm having sensations in my head
00:23:01.35\00:23:04.37
and what our sensations
00:23:04.40\00:23:05.99
but sense impressions
that exist in my mind.
00:23:06.02\00:23:09.65
I mean the
painting is out there,
00:23:09.68\00:23:11.20
the Mona Lisa is out
there but it isn't in my head
00:23:11.23\00:23:15.03
the painting itself
isn't my head of course not.
00:23:15.06\00:23:18.20
What do I see,
00:23:18.23\00:23:19.26
but electromagnetic waves
that the painting reflects.
00:23:19.29\00:23:23.97
Well, actually I
don't even really see them
00:23:24.00\00:23:26.01
if you want to get
technical about it.
00:23:26.04\00:23:28.16
If you really want to
get technical about it
00:23:28.19\00:23:30.23
I don't see that waves
coming at me the speed of light.
00:23:30.26\00:23:33.63
I said its have
impressions in my head
00:23:33.66\00:23:36.08
but these magnetic
waves they hit my eyes
00:23:36.11\00:23:38.99
and then the nerves in my eye,
00:23:39.02\00:23:40.48
the rods and cones take
it back to the optic nerve
00:23:40.51\00:23:43.41
and that goes in to my
brain the back part of my brain
00:23:43.44\00:23:46.84
and I'm given with the electro
chemical processes in my brain
00:23:46.87\00:23:51.12
and its in these brain
that all the stuff out there
00:23:51.15\00:23:53.97
is translated into what
I perceive as the Mona Lisa
00:23:54.00\00:23:59.32
and the shape and
colors of the Mona Lisa.
00:23:59.35\00:24:02.67
So when you sense,
when you see the Mona Lisa,
00:24:02.70\00:24:04.76
it isn't really the
Mona Lisa itself is it?
00:24:04.79\00:24:07.80
It's really just a
bunch of chemicals,
00:24:07.83\00:24:09.92
the paint that is
made up of molecules,
00:24:09.95\00:24:12.22
that are made up of atoms,
00:24:12.25\00:24:13.47
that are made up of
quarks and electrons
00:24:13.50\00:24:16.05
and the forces that
bring them together.
00:24:16.08\00:24:18.46
Isn't that really
what the painting is
00:24:18.49\00:24:20.31
and yet we never
get anywhere near that.
00:24:20.34\00:24:23.84
Instead what I'm saying is
00:24:23.87\00:24:26.84
there is a vast gap
between reality itself
00:24:26.87\00:24:32.51
and what we perceive is reality.
00:24:32.54\00:24:35.37
I once heard a story about
somebody was on chemotherapy
00:24:35.40\00:24:39.51
and the
chemotherapy suddenly food
00:24:39.54\00:24:42.64
that they once
loved became compoundable,
00:24:42.67\00:24:45.56
food they ate their
whole life suddenly--
00:24:45.59\00:24:48.44
but where did the
change take place?
00:24:48.47\00:24:50.09
Was it in the
food or was it in them?
00:24:50.12\00:24:52.43
I mean, suppose that
person love Cap'n Crunch cereal,
00:24:52.46\00:24:56.61
suddenly now they
eat Cap'n Crunch and--
00:24:56.64\00:24:59.92
they want to vomit it up.
00:24:59.95\00:25:01.37
Where did the change take place?
00:25:01.40\00:25:03.19
Did it change place
in the external reality
00:25:03.22\00:25:06.46
in the Cap'n Crunch
itself as a ding on zeek
00:25:06.49\00:25:11.02
or did it take the
change take place in them
00:25:11.05\00:25:14.35
in their senses?
00:25:14.38\00:25:16.36
The reality itself
was it-- was the same,
00:25:16.39\00:25:20.73
but what changed
was how we perceive it.
00:25:20.76\00:25:25.22
And this I dare say is an
issue with all our senses,
00:25:25.25\00:25:29.56
with all our empirical tools
00:25:29.59\00:25:32.81
and it's the same
thing was science.
00:25:32.84\00:25:36.16
Science in its
own way has to deal
00:25:36.19\00:25:38.85
with this great
limitation as well.
00:25:38.88\00:25:42.47
Thus, we come to a question
00:25:42.50\00:25:45.41
that has been
asked for a long time.
00:25:45.44\00:25:48.32
Does science tell us
what is really out there,
00:25:48.35\00:25:51.59
or does it tell
us or does it tell us
00:25:51.62\00:25:53.45
just how the world
appears to our senses?
00:25:53.48\00:25:57.47
And if it's just how the
world appears to our senses,
00:25:57.50\00:26:00.89
what is it really
teaching us about truth?
00:26:00.92\00:26:04.13
This has been a big question
00:26:04.16\00:26:06.25
and to this day it
remains unresolved.
00:26:06.28\00:26:10.41
That this is true,
00:26:10.44\00:26:12.01
I think if there
is something to this,
00:26:12.04\00:26:13.82
this means that even
science cannot tell us
00:26:13.85\00:26:16.70
what the world is really like
00:26:16.73\00:26:19.18
but only as it
appears in our experiences
00:26:19.21\00:26:22.94
or even in the experiences
00:26:22.97\00:26:24.68
that our scientific
instruments give us.
00:26:24.71\00:26:28.78
Anyway at least
this is the argument
00:26:28.81\00:26:31.46
and I think there
is something to it,
00:26:31.49\00:26:33.56
something to-- we
need to keep in mind
00:26:33.59\00:26:36.08
when we think about the
limits of scientific knowledge.
00:26:36.11\00:26:41.21
You know, I
have said this before
00:26:41.24\00:26:43.80
some people say, who
cares about all this?
00:26:43.83\00:26:45.76
It doesn't matter.
00:26:45.79\00:26:47.05
I want to build
the better mouth strap
00:26:47.08\00:26:49.10
and my science helps me
to build a better mouth strap
00:26:49.13\00:26:52.19
and who care about all the rest
of this stuff and that's fine.
00:26:52.22\00:26:55.52
And there is a whole
weighing of scientists
00:26:55.55\00:26:57.96
and philosophy of
science that says,
00:26:57.99\00:27:00.03
that's all science could
do, that's all that matters
00:27:00.06\00:27:03.19
all the rest of this stuff
is just a bunch of hilosophical
00:27:03.22\00:27:06.44
and metaphysical mumbo-jumbo
00:27:06.47\00:27:08.48
and its got
nothing to do with science.
00:27:08.51\00:27:10.86
Okay, and that's fine
and you can believe that
00:27:10.89\00:27:12.99
and amen, more power to you.
00:27:13.02\00:27:16.12
But on the other hand if
you are looking for science
00:27:16.15\00:27:22.36
as the final orbiter of truth,
00:27:22.39\00:27:26.14
as the ultimate
expression of reality
00:27:26.17\00:27:29.62
then these questions,
then these are questions
00:27:29.65\00:27:32.66
that have not been answered.
00:27:32.69\00:27:34.71
Thus again, I
want to wrap this up
00:27:34.74\00:27:38.71
and I think that
as believers in God,
00:27:38.74\00:27:42.06
as believers in the Bible
we don't have to be afraid
00:27:42.09\00:27:47.08
when someone makes a
scientific pronouncement
00:27:47.11\00:27:51.10
that goes
directly against our faith.
00:27:51.13\00:27:54.26
We can take the Word of God
over and beyond any of that.
00:27:54.29\00:28:00.33
You know, I
know that the context
00:28:00.36\00:28:01.93
is a bit different but Paul says
00:28:01.96\00:28:05.26
"For we walk by
faith and not by side."
00:28:05.29\00:28:11.28
And that I think what we
looked at that's for sure
00:28:11.31\00:28:14.77
especially when you
can't even know for sure
00:28:14.80\00:28:17.15
what you are seeing anyway.
00:28:17.18\00:28:20.69