Dan Popp
Atheism's failures in practice disprove the theory
By Dan Popp
One might in a preliminary way define reality (or fact) as what you run into when you are wrong. The collision is usually painful. – Dallas Willard
We're told that if we can make accurate predictions based on a theory, then that theory must be true. It's the defense that Darwinists often put forth. Of course Darwin predicted that "innumerable transitional forms" would be found in the fossil record – and they were not. And as I see it, Darwinists made several failed predictions when they asserted that humans have "vestigial organs." They were predicting that no one would ever find current functions for your appendix, your tonsils and your gall bladder, among others.
Oops.
We need to be clear on the distinction between proof and disproof. Accurate predictions (or successful models) cannot prove a theory. We made successful predictions based on Newton's description of gravity as a pulling force. Then we made other valid predictions based on Einstein's description of gravity as a warping of space/time. Now we have doubts about both those theories, despite all the correct predictions that were built on them.
But, while successful predictions don't prove a theory, it could be that a failed prediction disproves a theory. Certainly thousands of failed predictions should disqualify a theory for further consideration, right?
I thought about this when I heard that some officials at [The] Ohio State University were excusing the Muslim who stabbed and tried to run over innocent people. It's our fault, you see. We must have made him act that way. The obvious refutation is that not everyone in his circumstances does act that way. To shift to a related example, if poverty caused theft, every poor person would steal and no rich person would ever steal. Clearly reality begs to differ with the theory.
The rabid assertion that society, never the individual, is to blame comes from the premise that people are basically good. If they act wickedly – excuse me – if they act inappropriately, it's because society failed them somehow. Our institutions, from family to church to school to government, are all inherently bad, you see (even though they were created by people who are good). (Hmm.) And if we can just "reform" those institutions so they all function like a kindergarten for special needs kids, all will be well.
This is the worldview of humanism, which is atheism. And it has failed over and over and over again for at least hundreds of years, that we know of. Most people were not delusional enough to believe anything so patently false until we had Marx and a "systematic atheology," with government schools to push it.
I need to admit here that the would-be reformers of institutions have often been Christians, listening to their own sin-damaged hearts rather than to the Holy Spirit, trusting in their own wisdom rather than in the Bible. For example, the high-sounding notion that prisons should be a place of rehabilitation rather than punishment doesn't come from God. And "surprise, surprise," it doesn't work. Hospitals work when they're run the Christian way – privately, voluntarily; and they fail when government force is substituted for authentic compassion.
This is my "shocked" face.
The abysmal, universal and predictable failure of programs based on the assumptions of humanism should lead us to question those assumptions. Maybe humanity really isn't good. Maybe our institutions are needed to curb wickedness. Whatever the malfunction with humanism/atheism, no one can deny there is something wrong. When applied to the real world, it just doesn't work. Ever. Whatever measures we put in place to enforce "equality," greater inequality is the result. Whenever man tries to reconstruct the social order on anything but the theistic blueprint of reverence for God, one man/one woman marriage, personal responsibility, reward of virtue & punishment of vice, duty, private property, charity and so forth, human misery and mass death follow.
With the Hindenburg-esque failures of humanism in practice, the atheists are not necessarily proving God. But they are definitely disproving atheism.
© Dan Popp
December 6, 2016
One might in a preliminary way define reality (or fact) as what you run into when you are wrong. The collision is usually painful. – Dallas Willard
We're told that if we can make accurate predictions based on a theory, then that theory must be true. It's the defense that Darwinists often put forth. Of course Darwin predicted that "innumerable transitional forms" would be found in the fossil record – and they were not. And as I see it, Darwinists made several failed predictions when they asserted that humans have "vestigial organs." They were predicting that no one would ever find current functions for your appendix, your tonsils and your gall bladder, among others.
Oops.
We need to be clear on the distinction between proof and disproof. Accurate predictions (or successful models) cannot prove a theory. We made successful predictions based on Newton's description of gravity as a pulling force. Then we made other valid predictions based on Einstein's description of gravity as a warping of space/time. Now we have doubts about both those theories, despite all the correct predictions that were built on them.
But, while successful predictions don't prove a theory, it could be that a failed prediction disproves a theory. Certainly thousands of failed predictions should disqualify a theory for further consideration, right?
I thought about this when I heard that some officials at [The] Ohio State University were excusing the Muslim who stabbed and tried to run over innocent people. It's our fault, you see. We must have made him act that way. The obvious refutation is that not everyone in his circumstances does act that way. To shift to a related example, if poverty caused theft, every poor person would steal and no rich person would ever steal. Clearly reality begs to differ with the theory.
The rabid assertion that society, never the individual, is to blame comes from the premise that people are basically good. If they act wickedly – excuse me – if they act inappropriately, it's because society failed them somehow. Our institutions, from family to church to school to government, are all inherently bad, you see (even though they were created by people who are good). (Hmm.) And if we can just "reform" those institutions so they all function like a kindergarten for special needs kids, all will be well.
This is the worldview of humanism, which is atheism. And it has failed over and over and over again for at least hundreds of years, that we know of. Most people were not delusional enough to believe anything so patently false until we had Marx and a "systematic atheology," with government schools to push it.
I need to admit here that the would-be reformers of institutions have often been Christians, listening to their own sin-damaged hearts rather than to the Holy Spirit, trusting in their own wisdom rather than in the Bible. For example, the high-sounding notion that prisons should be a place of rehabilitation rather than punishment doesn't come from God. And "surprise, surprise," it doesn't work. Hospitals work when they're run the Christian way – privately, voluntarily; and they fail when government force is substituted for authentic compassion.
This is my "shocked" face.
The abysmal, universal and predictable failure of programs based on the assumptions of humanism should lead us to question those assumptions. Maybe humanity really isn't good. Maybe our institutions are needed to curb wickedness. Whatever the malfunction with humanism/atheism, no one can deny there is something wrong. When applied to the real world, it just doesn't work. Ever. Whatever measures we put in place to enforce "equality," greater inequality is the result. Whenever man tries to reconstruct the social order on anything but the theistic blueprint of reverence for God, one man/one woman marriage, personal responsibility, reward of virtue & punishment of vice, duty, private property, charity and so forth, human misery and mass death follow.
With the Hindenburg-esque failures of humanism in practice, the atheists are not necessarily proving God. But they are definitely disproving atheism.
© Dan Popp
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
