journey to absolute truth

8/3/2019 Journey to Absolute Truth

1/62


2/62

2

Jour ney to Absolute T r uth Dom en ic Sav io M ar ban ian g, 19 98 .

Original ly w r i t ten in par t ia l fu lfi l lment of the requirements for thedegree of Bachelor of Th eology, at Centr al Ind ia Th eologicalSem inar y, Itarsi, Ind ia.

Subject:Apol ogetics, Philosoph y, Epistem ology, Wor ld-View s.


3/62

CONTENTS

In t roduct ion

Par t A: W hat i s Tr u th?1 . Defin ing T r uth2 . The Quest for Tr u th and the M odern Un rest3 . Can T ru th Be Know n?4 . God and Tr u th

5 .

Necessar y Assum ption s6 . Definin g M ethods of Verif icat ion

Par t B: The Jour ney1 . Pat h Agnosticism2 . Path Atheism3 . Path Evolut ionism4 . Path Panth eism5 . Path Th eism

Conclusion

Bibl iography


4/62


5/62

In t roduc t ionhis book is a probe into the f ive major phi losophicaland r el igious system s of the w or ld th at c laim topossess th e tr ut h.

The saying, All roads lead to Rome, implying that Allreligious and philosophical systems lead to one goal nolonger s tands va l id today. With the popping up of manyvar ied r eligious, ph ilosophi cal system s, and t he w ays ofth in k ing, I believe, th er e is a r eal call of ur gency for th e lover sof t r u th t o seek t he t r u th and adher e to i t .

But how can t ru th be known? Can we f ind out or dec idethe t ruth about ourselves and the universe? What is thetr ut h? Such ar e the quest i ons w hich thi s book at t em pt s todeal w it h. The book is nei ther an in vent i on of a new solut ionnor th e postulat i on of a new th eor y as the t r uth; r ather, i t i s ar esear ch w or k w it h the pur pose of evaluat in g the alr eadyexisting ideologies, theories, philosophies, and religioussystem s of the w or ld t hat claim to p ossess the t r ue answ er toth e m ost basic questi on of l ife.

The f i r st sect ion h as been devoted t o th e establ ishm ent of theaut hent ic i ty of t he kn ow abil i t y of t r ut h, i t s cr i t er ia , and need.The second part is a pr obe into t he m ajor ph i losophical andr el igious systems of the w or ld. Ow in g to the br evi t y of spaceand th e subject m att er at hand, only f ive m ajor r el igious andph ilosophi cal system s have been selected for th e pur pose ofverification. The system that passes all the acceptable truthtests as w ould be m ent ioned in t he f i r st sect ion w il l behighl ighted as the t r ut h adherable.


6/62

2

It m ust of necessi t y be not ed t hat the book has, in no m eans,been meant to be an exhaustive explanation of eachpart icular bel ief system ; rather, a ver i f icat ion of th e gr oundand consequences of each system, the purpose being clear:the establishment of the system that passes all acceptablet r u th test s as the t r u th .


7/62

PART A

W HAT IS TRUTH?


8/62

I

Defin in g t r u t h

he irony of defining trut h is that w hile in pr acticew e al l inst inctively recognize i t w hen w e see i t , w enevertheless ask the question if i t exists,

theor eti cally. Pr ofessor Dallas W illar d, w ho teachesphi losophy at th e Univ ersity of South er n Califor nia, asksthis of our sensit ivi t y to and t o and estr angem ent fromthe truth. What would you think if you asked your ten-year-old , Susie, is it t r ue th at you ate the cookies at t hecounter? and she placidly r eplied, M other, w hat is

truth? Thankfully, Susie may not have gained thatphi losophical sophi stication.1

Defini t ion s of t r ut h can b e classif ied in to t w o; nam ely,A. Absolute t r u thB. Relat i ve t r uth

A. Absolute t r uth Absolute tr ut h is objectiv e, w hat is,r egar dless of w hat w e thin k , feel , or believe. Th e factexists even though the perceiver doesnt exist . I t is thetruth being permanent , consistent , and unchanging being externa l to the m ind. I t i s not w hat w e perceive tobe. I t is w hat is, t he actual fact .

1 Ravi Zacharias, The Inextinguishable Light, Just Thinking, Oct.97, RZIM, Chennai.


9/62

Jour ney to A bsolute Tr ut h

3

Very simply stated, truth is the judgment expressedw hen w e use the w ord is. The verb is assert s

som ethin g about r eal i ty to w hich the statem entconform s. In other w ord s, th e statem ent T his is so,expresses a state of existence that is real, and notdependent on belief in i t in order to make i t t rue. Ther eality of b eing r epresent ed is objective, uni versal, andtr anscendent. Th is is pr ecisely th e logic by w hich w eeither make statements about real i ty or make denialsabout w hat is not r eal. Th e logic of tr uth is the sam e foral l exclusionary claim s to tr uth (M ort im er Ad ler,t r u th i n

Religion , p . 16 ) .2

I t is ver y im por tant t o dist in guish betw een b el iefs andt r uth , w hen speaki ng in categor ies of absolute t r ut h. I t isa fact beyond disput e that of ten w hat is bel ieved t o be anunchal lenged t ruth in one generat ion is r idiculed as amyth and fol ly in another generat ion. The termunchal lenged t ruth used above actual ly refers to thatprevail ing belief held as absolute truth at that t ime. Forexam ple, the sta tement , Th e ear th is f lat , w ould havebeen accept ed as un challenged t r ut h a few cent ur iesago, bein g the pr evalent concept and b elief of th e t im e, bu tder isively r ejected t oday as the gr eatest fallacy.

In one sense, this characteristic of truth (that truth isobjective) is self-evident. For example, regardless ofw hatever I m ay believe or feel about m y bank balance,the trut h of the m atter i s recorded in m y pass book andis ind ependent of m y b elief or feelin g. Sincer it y of belief(or absence of i t ) does not contr ibute to the truth (oroth erw ise) of th e basis of th e beli ef. One has tonecessari ly in vestigate w heth er a belief-system has anadequate basis just as I have to verify my pass book toensure that my belief about my financial solvency is

2 Ibid


10/62

Defining Trut h

4

ju st i f ied . T her efor e one sh ou ld nev er confuse the r eali tyof tru th w ith ones belief (or unb elief) about i t . Tr uth and

belief can logically be r elated in only on e w ay tr ut hpr ovid es the justifiabi lit y on w hich one bases onesbelief.3

Thus, absolute truth is objective, exclusive, universal ,t r anscend ent , and im m utable.

B. Relat ive Truth Relat ive t r ut h is just the opp osi te ofabsolut e t r uth . Relat iv e t r ut h m eans t r ut h as r ela ted t o thekn ow er . I t i s not w hat i s ; it i s w hat i s to m e. And ow ingto i ts nature, i t is variable, changing, unfirm andunconstant w ith each per son.

Another real breeding-ground of a l l th is doubt andquestioning and uncertainty, and indeed of theasser ti ons m ade w it h so m uch confi dence, is to be foundin t he general spir it ual clim ate of our age.

It has ari sen out of a w hole range of scient ific di scover iesmade since the nineteenth century, demanding theoverhaul of our t ime-honored ways of l i fe and thoughtand belief and setting a heavy question-mark againstthem . The w hole thin g can be sum m ed up in t he singlew ord Relativ ism : that is, the basis is taken aw ay fromall absolutes and matters of certainty; everything iscom parative (r elat ive) and w e can l ive only i n a

perpetual state of uncertainty, of inquiry andexperi m ent. Th ere is in fact bu t one absolute, w hich isthat noth in g absolute exists.4

3 L. T. Jayachandran, Jesus the truth, Just Thinking , RZIM,Chennai.4 Hendrik Kraemer, Why Christianity of All Religions (LucknowPublishing House, 1966), pp. 37-38.


11/62


5

Thus, re la t ive t ruth as being a perfect contradict ion ofabsolute t ruth is subject ive and mutable; and so is not

t r uth at a l l i t is seem in gness or w hat seem s to m eand as such is vary in g w it h each person, place and t hin g.

Conclusion

From the above def in i t ion of the two kinds of t ru th i t i sclear and evident t hat t r u th t o be t r u th m ust be absolute

and not hing else. To cal l r e lat i ve t r ut h as t he t r uth for a l lat a l l t im e is self-cont r adi ctor y.


12/62

I I

Th e Quest for Tr ut hand th e M oder n

Unresthe qual i ty of hum an is to acqui r e kn ow ledge and actaccor din g to i t . From th e very b eginni ng of his l i feon t his eart h, a baby l ear ns to learn , start s acqui r in g

kn ow ledge: th ats how th er e is a personali t y d evelopm ent ,an understanding of self and the surroundings, peoples,p laces, locati on s, etc, and hi s relati on t o t hem . As th e daysprogress, they give r ise to important , meaningfulquest ion s in hi s l i fe-quest ions l ike W ho am I? W hy am Ihere? W hy d o I lo ok l ik e th is? etc. Th ere is an i ncr easedzeal for kn ow ledge t r ue answ er s. The f i r st t im e he hasfaced one of the greatest questions of human life thequestion of life, its meaning, and death. He needs anexp lanation . Th e questi on deepens. Other question s ar iseunexpectedly as he view s thin gs ar ound and beginsthi nk ing. Hi s reason te l ls him to go ask his elders; and th eansw er s he r eceives fr om th er e w ould d eterm in e his l i fe.

The elders too had t he sam e quest ion s w hen they w er eyoun g, and so di d ever y l ivi ng m an w ho cam e to t his ear th .Som e answ ers w er e ages long, un tr aceable, fr om


13/62


7

unk now n; som e ar ose som ew her e due to some r evolut ion,some new enl ightenment of t ruth, as supposed or

bel ieved; some from modern advancement of scient i f ick now ledge. Child r en ar e sim ple and believe t oo easily. Th edepth of this belief quells these basic questions andw ond erin gs to a lull un ti l , un less, he begins t o r easonfr om experi ence.

As w e have already n oted befor e , th er e is a w or ld ofdifference between bel iefs and t ruth. The concept of

k now ledge i t self im pli es th e existence of tr ut h. Beliefs arechallenged w hen r eason and experi ences com e t o playtogether.

By r eason, let m e m ean t he capaci t y for r at i onal thought ,inference, or discriminat ion;5 by experience, myknowledge of the wor ld and condi t ions throughexperience.

Reason and exper ience m ust play an im por tant r ole in t hem aki ng of decisions. I t m ay even b e w el l und er stood t hatr eason and exper ience m ust play an im por tant r ole in th edevelopm ent and dir ect ion of em otion s. The st r ength andrise of emotion is of ten dependent on the kind ofk now ledge, or say, belief one hold s and ones r easonin gfr om th at stance. So th en, i t follow s th at r ight em otion s, or

reasonable emotions ar ise from reasonable and t ruebeliefs otherw ise, w hy should th e Nazis have hated th eJew s?

Thus, i t fol lows that bel iefs that do not tantamount totruth have disastrous consequences. Reason and

5 The American Heritage Dictionary , 2nd edn.


14/62

Quest for Truth and the M odern Unr est

8

exper ience must p lay an impor tant ro le in dec iding thetr uth of a bel ief or bel ief-system.

The modern society, especially Indian, is largelyplur al ist ic . W e have been juxtaposed w it h variousr eligion s, belief-system s, and w ays of thi nk in g, and ar easked to b e toler ant to each oth er . M any do n ot . W hen anEastern phi losopher vented that i t s a l l a matter ofbr otherh ood, Ravi Zacharias r etor ted but w hy do I see

more hoods than brothers. I t is very diff icul t to l ive aplur al ist ic l i fe or a l i fe of toler ance w hen w e com e tom att er s of bel ief and th ink in g for as w e have seen, th eyhave con sequ ences.

The rel igious m an w ould say and th er e is a plur al i ty ofrel igions that his is the t ruth; the phi losopher, that heund er stands i t bet ter. The pol i t ic ian w ould say that he

sees i t th e right w ay, and t he psychologist , th at he sees i tbet ter. W ho is t r ue? W here is the t r uth ? W hat is the t r uth ?One goes to th e school and im m ediately fin ds oneself in agreater pluralist ic context. The school adamantly teachesthat one should be obedient to parents and respectteacher s. I t w ouldn t begin t he classes w it hout th em orn in g assem bly and p r ayer t o God. On the other hand ,i t a lso teaches that man came from monkey; and God

di sapp ear s from th e realm of science, po li t ics, econo m icsThe modern man is in confusion. He behaves rela t ivelyand gives in, in most parts, to circumstances. Thebombardment of our cul ture by Western influences, andthe remix of thoughts and bel iefs has put the modernyouth in unrest and confusion. The l ie of theadvertisement deceives him, and he is incapable of


15/62


9

und er standin g the t r uth . W hat is needed is an act ive questfor t r ut h, not p assivi t y, a cr i t er ion for t r uth; not tolerance

i t i s alm ost im p ossible.

As valuable a com m odit y as it i s and as ind ispensable asit is to meaningful existence, truth is possibly the mostviolated concept in our w or ld. society at large does notbelieve in the existence of absolute truth truth as acategor y has been jett isoned even am ong conser vati ves.

The m ost d isconcert ing aspect of thi s at t i tu de tow ardtr uth i s that anyone w ho holds to the possibil i ty of tr uthis categori zed as one w ho m erely believes t hat such isa reality. Th e im plicati on i s that because tru th does notexist, w hat is held to b e tru e is only a belief and istherefore not a rationally admissible fact. At the sametim e, those w ho dismi ss trut h can end up believinganything at all , and any belief that is contemptuous oftr uth is considered plausible for that r eason alone. Th isis the raw nerve of postm odern existence, and unl ess w eestabli sh t he possibi lit y and t he necessity of tr ut h, and ofhow one ar r ives at th e tru th , any belief system can bem ocked at w ill , or offh andedly dism issed as cultur e.6

Note: This a t t i tude, largely prevalent in Westerncivi l i zat ion , no d oubt is beginnin g to f ind i t s place in oursociety.

6 Ravi Zacharias, The Inextinguishable Light, Just Thinking , July1997, RZIM.


16/62

Can Tru th Be Kno w n?

I I I

Can Tr u t h Be Know n?he possibi lit y of k now ledge is dependent on the existenceof Truth. If truth doesnt exist as an absolute categorythere can be no k now ing for k now ledge im plies being

true .

But the question is If t r uth exists can i t b e know n? I answ er,Yes, substanti ally, th ough n ot exhaustiv ely. For i f I say that t r ut hcannot b e know n, I am , in another w ay saying that I k nowsom ethin g of tr uth t hat i t cannot be know n and this is t ru e. Thisis an evid ent self-contr adiction. If I said that t r ut h did not exist,i t would st i l l be an absolute contradict ion: for if t ruth did notexist , how do I kn ow that th e sta tem ent Tr uth d oes not exist i str ue? Therefore, t r uth can be know n.

Yes, I said that t hough w e may not c laim to k now it exhaustively,w e can k now it substantially. That i s, the kn ow ledge w e possesswould not be in contradict ion to the truth (or a lready exist ingfacts). The r eason I said w e m ay not , at pr esent, kn ow tr ut hexhaustively is because of the limits of our reason andunderstanding. Take, for example, the question Why? It isim possible to answ er th is questi on exhausti vely, because it h asthe pot ent ial to stretch to infi nit y i .e., each answ erin g of thequestion raises another question W hy, unti l w e arr ive at apoin t w here w e think w e are at an im passe. Th is is because ofthe fin it ude of our m in ds. But ju st because a questi on cannot beansw ered exhaustively doesnt m ean that w e shou ldnt ask it . It


17/62


11

w ould be as absur d as saying th at since gold cannot b e hadexhaustively w e should not dig for i t .

W h o Ca n K n o w th e Tru th ?

1. Lover s of the Tr uth :

Intent , in the pursuit of truth, is prior to content , or tothe availabilit y of i t . Ar th ur Geor ge MacDonald once said,To give tr uth t o him w ho loves i t not i s only to give him

more plentiful reasons for misinterpretat ion. Therem ust be the love of tr uth and the w il l ingness to subm itto i ts dem ands.7

Only those who love the t ru th can, when they f ind i t ,del igh t in i t . Those w ho do no t w ant to know the t ru th ,shudd erin g at i t s consequences or pr oud enough t o searchint o i t , cann ot stand th e r evelat ion of the t r ut h.

2 . Non-sk ept ics:A Skept ic can n ever k now anyt hing forsure because i t is his nature to doubt everything. Andsin ce he doubts every thi ng he can k now no t r uth ; for eventhough he encount er s i t he w ould s t i l l doubt i t .

3. Considerate: I t means not just reading and l is teningbut al so w eighing the infor m at ion.

H o w D o W e Kn o w t h e Tr u t h?

1 . Reason a nd Experience

I t is th e experi ence of self , of the w or ld t hr ough t hesenses; experiencing conditions etc. Reason based on

7 Ravi Zacharias, The Inextinguishable Light, JT , Oct. 97.


18/62

God and Tru th

12

experience is used in evaluat ing and understanding thew orld; pr agmat ism , to pr ove i t i s w ork able.

2 . Revelat ion

This is the bel ief in the revelat ion of t ruth in theScriptures. Different re l igions have their own scriptures.Revela t ion to be t ru th must correspond to t ru th . Anyrevelat ion that is not open to reason (or experience)cann ot be established as tr ut h.


19/62

IV

God an d T r ut h

y God, I mean the God of Judeo-Christ ianperspective; eternal, infinite, immutable, absolute;th e creator , r uler , and sustainer of t he univ erse.

Tr ut h can exist only i f th er e is an objecti ve standard byw hich t o m easur e it . An absolute is basically anunchanging poin t of refer ence by w hich all otherchanges ar e m easur e. Each discip line br ings w it h it ahandful of certainties by which others are developed.

These certainties, if assumed, must be previouslydem onstr ated w hen used as absolutes.

For the Christian, the starting point is God. He is theeternally existent one, th e absolute , from w hom w e drawall definitions for lifes purpose and destiny. This Goddoes not expect us to com e to Him in a vacuum . He hasso framed this world and sour minds that the laws ofr eason and logic that w e use lead us to t he certain ty of

His being, and assur e us that w e m ay know Him w ho isthe source of a ll t r uth.8

Truth to be t ruth must be an absolute category. We, ashum ans, can never com e to kn ow t r u th w i th our unaidedreason alone. Many facts in the universe are evidently

8 Ravi Zacharias, The Inextinguishable Light, JT , Oct 97.


20/62


21/62

Journ ey t o Absolute Trut h

15

The pr oblem could h ave been easily solved by goin g backto t he teacher and confessin g th at one could nt com e to a

specif ic answ er . The teacher w ould give the answ er .

Thus, i t should be evident by now tha t man cannot f indmeaning in l i fe by depending on unaided reason alone.God being the source of t ruth (All t ruth is Gods t ruth)r eveals the t r ut h t o those w ho d esire i t . I f God d oesntexist , th ere m ust be som ethin g else to r eplace thi s place asthe sour ce of al l t r ut h, or else , t r ut h w ould be im possible

(Let me c lar i fy tha t I have in my mind, a t th is moment ,Problem 3 and Stage 4). But that something else, beingimpersonal ( thing), wouldnt be able to reveal , and wew ould st i l l be ignor ant and t r u th w ould be imp ossible.Reason w ould have to stop at level 4 and end up in tot alnih i l ism ( How th en can on e be sur e of the aut hent ic i ty ofones ow n r eason or senses?). If you cann ot b e sur e ofkn ow ledge at Stage 3, w hat is the m eani ng of k now ledge

at Stage 2 (Here I have not simple mathematicalpr oposi t ions but r eal l i fe issues in m ind , quest ion s aboutlife and i t s pu r pose; death, i t s m eani ng and r eali t y, etc).

Thi s, th ough i t doesnt p r ove t he existence of God, str essesth e need and necessit y of H is existence for t he existence oft r u t h .


22/62

V

NecessaryAssumpt ions

A. Absolu tes do ex ist

or , if absolutes do not exist , t r ut h cann ot exist as anabsolute category. Mathematical axioms, scientificlaw s or di scover ies of m edicines, m or als, et c canno t

be rejected as relative and subjective proposit ions. Theyar e axiom atic, un iver sal , and absolut e.

B. Som e view s ar e t r ue an d other s ar e false

Th er e ar e only thr ee possible basic appr oaches to tr uth :

( i) All c laims to truth are false .This is a very popularview held by ath eists and r elati vists. How ever , thi sappr oach self d estru cts because thi s appr oach w ould alsobe f alse. ( i i ) All c la ims to t ru th a re equal ly va l id .This is thecomm on pantheist ic posit ion. How ever t his approachcannot be valid b ecause i t w il l have to include view (i) astr ue w hich is im possible . ( i i i ) The only a l te rna t ive tha t remains is tha t someviews are t rue and o thers a re fa lse .Th e m o m en t w em ake a com parison betw een tw o claim s to tr uth, w e are


23/62


17

(consciously or unconsciously) positing an absolutestandard to which other truer c laims correspond more

closely.9

C. A belief-system cannot be the truth just because itcontain s som e tru th. To be the t r u th , ever ythin g i t posi t sm ust be t rue .

D. The ques t for t ru th must engage our completebeing (Reason+Relat ionship).I t is not just t he intel lect

but also exp erience, vo li t ion , and affection s.Tr uth is often confined to the w orld of ideas. Now ideashave a w ay of titi l lating th e in tellect because the m ind isdesigned to r evel in speculativ e im aginati on. M uch of theprogress in science and philosophy has come about bythe creative int erplay of i deas and hyp oth eses. But w henone deals with questions of ul t imate truth to which thehum an race is expected to r espond , it w ill have to be

conceded that additional dimensions beside the purelycerebral have to be al low ed for. The m ind that w epossess is just one part of our total personality. Thesear ch for t r ut h needs to engage every part of our beingand that which satiates the longing of the human soulhas to be necessarily comprehensive and multi-dim ensional. The veracit y of thi s statem ent is not far t oseek. From the moment of entry into this space-t imew orld, our understandin g stands defined not m entally

alone but by relat ionships - w ith ourselves, w ith othersand w ith the w orld around us .1 0

9 L.T. Jeyachandran, Jesus as Truth, Just Thinking , RZIM10 Ibid.


24/62

VIDefin in g M et h ods of

Verif icat ionhe fi r st basic r equir em ent for a bel ief in or der t o be

tested is that i t should be open to verif icat i on; for i fi t i s not , ther e is no w ay of establ ishin g i tst r uth fulness. W e sim ply cant b egin or pr oceed.

A. H istor ical1 . Or igins.The or igins and sour ce of th e ph ilosophi calor belief-system is to b e tr aced, th e reason and sett ingof i ts origins examined, and i ts significance at thatpar t icular t im e noted.2. Development . With advance in scient i f icknowledge, or compromise with other ideologies, orrise of questions, sometimes philosophical and beliefsystems develop or change. The stabil i ty orsuscept ibi l i t y t o change or t he system is to be not ed.3. Conflicts.Confli cts, if any, w ith in t he system are tobe examined; the cause of the conflict , theirconsequences and im plicat ion s und er stood .

B. Philosophical1. Internal Consistency. Al l proof must begin wi thcertain assumptions. This is true in science,phi losophy or re l igion. Some ideas or facts must beaccepted as postulates that is, must be taken forgranted. These fun dam ent al law s of th ought or logic ,such as the principles of ident i ty (al l A=A), non-


25/62


19

contradict ion (not both A and not-A), and excludedmiddle (e i ther A or not -A) ; these a re commonly

spoken of the self-evidence.11 Let me emphasize twoof the fund am ent al law s of logic:

( a) The Law of Non-Contradict ion. This lawaff i rm s that no tw o cont r adic tory sta tem ent s canbe both t rue and false a t the same t ime, in thesam e sense. To d eny t he law of non -cont r adi ct i on is only t o aff i r m i t , for t o say t hat

the law of non-cont radic t ion i s not t rue i s toassum e that t he deni al is t r ue and th e law is not .But that is pr ecisely w hat the law says that t hecontradictory sta tements cannot both be t rue.There is no w ay t o get aroun d t his .12

To test the t ruth of a bel ief or phi losophicalproposi t ion we would ask the quest ions, Is i t

self-cont r adi ctor y? D oes i t vi olate i tself? Is i tin ter nally consistent ?

( b) The Law of Rational Inference. By t ha t wemean that inference can be made from what isknow n to w hat i s unkn ow n. No one cou ld p r oveany point w i thout the law of Rat ional Infer ence.There are conclusions that may be legi t imately

drawn when s ta tements a re t rue and thear gum ent cont aini ng th e sta tem ent is val id.13

11 Titus, Smith, and Nolan, Living Issues in Philosophy , 8 th edn.(Wadsworth, Inc, 1986), p.24212 Ravi Zacharias, The Inextinguishable Light13 Colin Chapman, The Case for Christianity (1981), p.11


26/62

M etho ds of Verification

20

Ask t he quest i ons, Is the ar gum ent val id? Ar ethe premises t rue? This decides the internal

consistency of the pr oposi t ion.

2 . T he T est of Cor r espon dence,i .e. Cor r esp on d en cew i th r eal i ty. Does it cor r espond w i th w hat w e know ofthe real w or ld?

3. The Pragmat ic Tes t ,i .e . Does this proposit ion fi tthe fact of our experiences bet ter than any other

pr oposi t ion? Does i t r eal ly w or k in pr act i ce?

Because the theories supplement other than directlycontradict each other, they can be combined in adefinit ion of tr uth: Tr uth is the fai thful adherence of our judgm en ts and ideas to the fact s of exper ien ce or t o thew orl d as it i s; but because w e cannot alw ays com pareour judgm ents w ith the actual si tuations, w e test themby their consistency with outer judgments that we

believe are valid and tr ue, or w e test th em by t heiruseful ness and pr actical consequences.1 4

C. Scien ti fic1. Coherence with Undeniable Scientif icPostulates, Laws, and Theories. If the belief orphi losophy contradicts scient i f ic t ruth, i t i sscient ifi cally d isp r oven , is false.

All the above tests are not intended to funct ionsol i tar i ly but com plem ent ar i ly or suppor t ive ly like thespok es of a w heel . In th e fol low in g pages, w hen thedifferent t r uth claim s w il l be in vest igated, they w il l be

14 Ibid


27/62


21

verif ied by the above t ruth tests according to thenatur e of the claim s.

2. Exper iment Tes t . Just as the scientist mustconduct the necessary experiments to test a l l thepossible th eories, and t o elim in ate false th eories so,in th e sam e w ay, w e can t est t hese r iv al beliefs by th er est of fact ; i .e. by obser vin g w hat happens w hen oneliv es consistent ly on th e basis of on e or ot her of thesebeliefs.15

Bew are of false pr ophets, w ho com e to you in sheep'sclothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You wil lknow them by th eir frui ts. Are grapes gathered fr omthor ns, or figs from th istles? So, every sound tr ee bear sgood fru it , but the bad tr ee bear s evil fr uit . A sound t r eecannot bear evil fr uit , nor can a bad tr ee bear good fru it.Every tr ee that does not bear good fr uit is cut d ow n andthrow n in to the fi re . Thus you w il l know them by thei r

f ru i ts .1 6

15 Titus, Smith, and Nolan, Living Issues.16 Matthew 7:15-20 (RSV).


28/62

PART B

THE JOURNEY


29/62

I

Agnosticism

gnost ic ism (From Gr eekagnostos,u n k n o w n ,a -no t +gnostos,k n o w n )

Defin i t ion:1. (Philosop hy) The doctr in es of th e agnost ics,holding that certa inty about f i rst pr inciples or absolutetr uth is un at t ain able and th at only perceptu al ph enom enaar e objects of exact k now ledge.

2. (T heology) A t heor y t hat does not deny Godbut d enies the possib i l i ty of k now ing Him .17

Th e agnostic says, W e dont k now if God exists, and w ecant possibly know to certain . No matter how hard wetry to f ind the truth through reason or the heart , wecannot h ope to f ind i t . Our m inds are f ini te , and w ecannot solve the m ysteries of th e uni verse. W e m ust becontent to r ecognize the lim it s of the know ledge and nothope to know anything beyond these l im its .1 8

17 The American Heritage Dictionary18 Colin Chapman, op.cit , p.192


30/62

Agnosticism

24

H istor ical Enq uir y: Phil osoph ical and Scientific T ests

The Theor y

I t was Thomas Henry Huxley (1825-95) , a Br i t i shnatura l i st and agnost ic , w ho in t r oduced the w ordagnostic in 18 69. I t l i ter al ly m eans no kn ow ledge. Though the w ordat the beginning im pl ied the for m , I d ont kn ow , i t l ate rend ed u p in the for m , I cann ot k now .

This ideology and at t i tude has i ts roots mainly in theph ilosophi es of Hu m e and K ant . David H um e, th e Scott ishphi losopher and his tor ian (1711-76) , who could wel l bedescr ibed as the fath er of m odern skept ic ism , quest i onednot only t radi t ional Christ ian bel iefs (for example,miracles) but a lso basic assumptions which most of ustake for gr ant ed (for exam ple, th e pr inciple of cause andeffect).19 He mainta ined tha t we cannot hope to know

any th in g beyond w hat our senses tel l us, and argued th ati t w as not r eason bu t custom w hich is th e guide of l i fe.Im m anuel Kant , a Ger m an p r ofessor of phi losoph y ( 1724 -1804) , made a d is t inc t ion be tween ways of knowing:knowledge has to do wi thphenomenon (ever ythin g tha tcan be seen) and fai th has to d o w ithnoumena ( t r u t h sbeyond space and t ime). Thenoumena is reali ty as i t is;t he phenomenon , r ealit y as p erceived by t he sen ses.

Thus bui l t up the atmosphere of uncerta inty, ignoranceand , later, an at t i tu de of abandon ing t he sear ch for t r ut hwith the prevalence of ideas such as Absolute t ruthcann ot be know n, God cannot be kn ow n , Themysteries of the universe cannot be solved. Agnosticism,historically speaking, is an att i tude gradually developed

19 Ibid, p.164


31/62


25

due to instabi l i ty of knowledge (actual ly bel iefs) andvariances and confl ic ts betw een phi losophers i n the f ie ld

of ep i st em ology (H ow do w e know ? How do w e know thatour kn ow ledge is val id? Etc) .

I ts Con sequ ences

The at t i t ude of agnost ic ism has had and can st i l l fur therhave devastatin g influ ence in t he l ives of people.20

1 . I t leads to a fr ightening w orld in w hich ther e ar eno cer t ain ti es. Nov elists, playw r ights and ar t istsar e m or e helpful than p hi losoph er s in enabl ing usto see w here agnosti cism leads. They d epi ct th ew or ld of un cer ta int ies, conv ey the feel ing ofabsurdity and meaninglessness of l ife, andconfusion prevai l s wi th the inabi l i ty todiscr im inate the real f rom the i l lusionar y.

2 .

Professional philosophers abandon their searchfor t r ut h. Tr adi t ion al phi losophy has alw ays beenconcerned wi th the pursui t of the t ru th . Now,how ever , ph ilosopher s gener ally have abandon edthe search for t ruth in the older sense, and havebeen freed to l imit the f ie ld of their enquir ies to,for exam ple, th e stud y of concept s and th e stud y ofth e m eanin g of w or ds. The real aim and pur pose of

ph i losophy is lost and th e ph i losopher has becom e job less. A cl er k w ho loses h is fai t h ab an d on s h i scall in g; a philosoph er w ho loses his, r edefines hissubject ( Ern est Gellner ) .

3 . I t affects the w ay w e thi nk about science. In th eear ly per iod of m odern science, i t w as confid ent ly

20 The following have been adopted from Colin Chapmans TheCase for Christianity (Lion Publishing, 1982), pp.193-195


32/62

Agnosticism

26

believed t hat th e scient ist w as inv olved in th epursui t of the t ruth about the universe . By

observat ion and experiment , he bel ieved that hew ould event ually be able to for m ulate r e l iabletheor ies about how the universe works . But wi ththe removal of the base by the introduct ion ofun cer taint y, scient i f ic t r ut hs have becom e m er elyrelat ive

It is evid ent th at agnost ic ism is a claim of f inal p ostu late

by w hich i t r aises i tself above science by und er m ini ng i tspurpose and function. The postulate: Truth, in i tself , isun k now able. T hus, i t seem s to b e shielded again st theattack of science. Its policy and strategy is equal to thisDisar m our y our enemy and he w ouldnt at t ack y ou.

In ter nal Consistency

Postulate:2 1 Tr ut h, in the un kn ow able sense, isunknowable .Refutat ion:

( 1 ) I f t ru th i s unknowable , how does one know tha tthe postulate Tr uth i s unkn ow able i s t r ue? I t i sself-defeatin g, self-cont r adictor y.

( 2 ) By c la iming Truth i s unknowable the agnost ic

im pl ies tha t he kn ow s som ethin g about th e t r u th th at i t i s unkn ow able. How then can he say th at i ti s unk now able?

( 3) The agnostic conclusion is based on theassumptions of Kant that reali ty, as i t is, is

21 The postulates are postulates of the latter form of agnosticism.The former one just states, I dont know which is not at allproblematic.


33/62


27

un perceivable. The statem ent is im possible for bystating that reali ty is unperceivable, one implies

th e claim to kn ow the differ ence betw een r eal i tyand t he sense per cept ions, w hich is im possibleunless one kn ow s w hat r eal i ty i s.

Postulate: God is unk now able.Refutat ion: The proposi t ion is self-contradictory for bystat ing God is un kn ow able t he agnost i c imp lies that he

kn ow s w ho God is (for how can on e say som eth ing aboutsomeone w i thou t know ing about h im) and w i th the sam ebr eath d enies any possible know ledge of Him .

Postulate: W hether God exist s or not i s unkn ow able.Refutat ion: This is a fallacious statement. The agnosticposits an absolute n egation by sayin g th at Gods existenceis unk now able, w hich is im possible w ithout a possession

of in f ini t e, un iversal , t r anscend ent kn ow ledge. But herethe case is different. The basis of agnosticism is the ideathat absolute kn ow ledge is im possible because our m in dsar e finit e. Thu s, i t is self-cont r adicti on.

Conclusion

Agnosticism is self-contradictory and self-defeatinglogically, confusing rationally, and has devastatingin fluence in bot h p sychological and p r acti cal areas of l ife.Tr ut h cann ot b e know n, exact ly is i t s tenet ; ther efore , i tcannot lead to t ruth. And, i f i t cannot lead to t ruth, i tcann ot be t r ue; for on ly t r ue w ays lead t o t r ue dest in at i on.


34/62

I I

Atheism

Defini t ionhis word i s der ived f rom the Greekatheos, whi c hmeans godless. It can be segmented asa- wi t hou tan d theos -god. Atheism is the belief that God does

not exist .

Ath eism has m any variant form s (e.g. Jain ism, Hum anism ,Marxism, Existentialism, etc), but i ts basic tenet is thedeni al of th e existence of God.

I ts Con sequ ences

1 . With the non-existence of God, the concept oftruth as an absolute category vanishes. Truthbecom es r elativ e, w it h t he absence of an absolut es tandard to de termine i t s immutabi l i ty. So then,w hat seem s app r opr iate and sat isfactor y t o aperson i s w hat m at t er s.

2 . With the non-existence of God, the concept ofabsolut e m or al values becom es non -existent . Thi sis clear ly seen i n t he w r i t ings of m any ath eist icphilosophers. Moral values become relative andun iversal ly inv al id. There is no one to w hom youshould be obl igatori ly responsible but to the


35/62


29

Govern m ent or law of your local i ty (e .g. The NaziLaw , etc). Justice as a un iv er sal r equi r em ent is

absurd.3 . There is no solut ion to the quest ion of l i fe af ter

death. There is no l ife after death.22 And whe nfaced w ith the r eal i ty of death , the atheist m eetsdeep psychological di stur bances (especially w henhe had been in c lose r ela t ionship w ith t hedeceased on e) . Ther e is no answ er; only m em or iesl inger.

4 . There is no hop e for t he futu r e. The w or ld isheadi ng for decay. St r uggle for existence w illcont inu e and perh aps end up in painful ext inct ion.

5 . Life becomes meaningless. Questions l ike Whoam I? Where have I come f rom? Why am Ihere? W here am I going? are left unansw er ed.There are on ly speculat ions and r elat iv e answ er s.If l i fe is painful and death an anni hi la t ion, w hat is

th e m eani ng of l ife? I t is al l vani ty , a chasin g afterthe w ind.

The consequences of atheism are devastating; no God,th en no m or als, no ju stice, no answ ers.

In ter nal Consistency

Postulate: Ther e is no Godor God does not exist .Refutat ion:( 1 ) W e kn ow th ings exist by obser vat ion and

experimentat ion. How does one know that Goddoes not exist? Secondly, just because a SupremeBeing has not been perceived by observationdoesnt p r ove His non-existence. I t w ould p er haps

22 Exceptions: atheistic religions like Jainism.


36/62

Agnosticism

30

be less fallacious to sup pose that t he star s did notexist during the day just because one didnt see

them dur ing the day.( 2 ) By sayi ng t hat God doesnt exist , the atheist posit s

an absolute negati on. One cant do t hat u nless onepossesses infi nit e and un iv ersal kn ow ledge, w hichis im possible w hen kn ow ledge i t self is beingassumed.

Argument :( 1 ) God, bein g God, can n ever allow evil .

( 2 ) Ther e i s evident ly m uch evi l in the w or ld .( 3 ) Ther efore, God doesnt exist .Contr a Argum ent :

( 1 ) God , bein g God , m ust be good.( 2 ) Ther e i s evident ly m uch good in the w or ld .( 3 ) Th erefor e, God exists.

Conclusion

Atheism is logically fallacious, existentially meaningless,psychologically disturbing, and consequentiallydetr im ent al . Therefore , ath eism is inval id and un tr ue.


37/62

I I I

Evolut ionismDefin i t ion:Evolut ion m eans ord er ly developm ent .

hen w e speak of the theory of evolution i n am or e general sense w e are thi nk ing of thebiological theory w hich, it is claim ed, accounts

for t he developm ent of a l l l iv ing things from the am oebato m an.2 3

The theory of organic evolut ion involves three mainideas:24

( 1 ) Living things change from generat ion togenerat ion, producing descendents with thecharacterist ics.

( 2 ) Thi s pr ocess has been going on so lon g that i t h asproduced al l the groups and kinds of things nowliv in g, as w ell as oth ers th at l iv ed long ago andhave now becom e ext in ct .

( 3 ) These different l iving things are related to each

other, and so are the families or larger groups ofw hich these various l ivin g ani m als or p lant s ar emembers .

23 Colin Chapman, op. cit, pp. 128,12924 The World Book Encyclopedia , 1980.


38/62

Evolutionism

32

T he Evidence of Evolut ion

The chief bases on w hich the w hole th eory of evolut ionnow r ests ar e:

( 1 ) Varia t ion and Change.Variation and change isseen in all l ivin g th ings. Som e ar e called acqui r edcharacterist ics, and are caused by outsidecond it ion s the env ir onm ent , cl im ate , food k ind s,etc. Th eses, as w e kn ow , can n ot be passed on t oposter i ty.

Som e var ia t ions, how ever, go m uch fur th er . In1849, for example, a wild grape vine suddenlyproduced big sweet grapes which were namedConcord. Other sports or mutations, as suchvariations are called, have produced hornlesscatt le, shor t-legged sheep, d oub le flow ers andnew var ieties of seed.

A different sort of varia t ion t akes place w hen tw ospecies (k ind s) cr oss and pr oduce a new one.

( 2 ) Fossils. Fossils are the r em ains or t r aces of th in gsthat l ived ages ago. They are preserved in rocklayers cal led st r ata w hich l ie one upon anot her,m uch l ike board s in a pi le. An invest igat i on of th e

fossil i n each str ata r eveals var iation s and signs ofdevelopment .

( 3 ) Embryology.The stud y of t he developm ent of theem br yo gives evolut ioni sts the idea of evolut ion ofliving things. For example, facts from fossils, plusother da ta , have shown tha t mammals form thelast stage in a long evolutionary series of


39/62


33

developm ent. Thi s series began w it h a l i t t le sea-dw ell ing cr eatu r e w hich has gr ist ly r od, next gets a

back bon e of car t i lage, and t hen tu r ns the car ti lageinto bones. While this is being done, the embryodevelops gil ls l ike a fish, loses them and thenbui lds up two lungs. At the same t ime, the dogsheart develops through fish, amphibian, andrept i l ian stages unt i l i t becomes the fourchambered organ which pumps blood soeff icient ly t hat the anim al can k eep w ar m .

Thi s show s th at characterist ics long lost ar e st i l linheri ted. This means that there is realre la t ionship be tween modern and ear l ies t formsof ani m als.

( 4 ) Comparat ive Anatomy.The bod ies of plant s andanimals provide facts deal ing with both

r elat ion ships and changes w hen di ffer entst r uctur es of their bodies ar e com pared. Amethod which expla ins the te rmcompara t ive an a to my .

( 5 ) Geographic Distr ibution. Plants and animalsliving on far, isolated islands are studied, thevariations, species noted and compared. The

th eory of evolut ion i s app l ied t o the data and t husvar iances ar e exp lain ed.


40/62

Evolutionism

34

H istor y of Evolut ion

Modern explanat ion of evolut ion da tes f rom 1859 whenCharles Dar w in , the gr and son of Er asm us Darw in ,publ ishedTh e Or igi n of Species .

Da r w ins Th eor y Pr ofessor W .R. Thom pson, in t he Intr oduct ion to t he 1965Everyman edi t ion ofThe Origin of Species,summarizesDarwins theory of evolut ion and the v iew of most

r epr esent at ive m oder n Darw inians in th is w ay:

Natu ral selecti on, leadi ng to t he sur viv al of the fit test, inpopu lations of ind ivid uals of varyi ng characteri stics andcompeting among themselves, has produced in thecourse of geological time, gradual transformationsleading from the sim ple pr im itive to the highest form ofl ife, w ithout the intervention of any dir ective agency orforce. Purposeless and undirected evolution, says J.S.

Hu xley, event ually p r oduced in m an, a being capable ofpur pose and of dir ecti ng evolut ionar y change.

At the t im e Darw in w rote , no one knew about the na tureof vari ations or heredit y. He described such variation s asConcord grape. He did not distinguish these variationsfrom acquir ed characters m entioned by his grandfatherand by Buffon. According to Charles Darwin, allvariations belonged to one general class and might beinheri ted.

Later stud ies show ed that his w as not tr ue. M utati ons, orsports, and many other characters are inherited but som ost acqui r ed character s ar e not change prod uced b ygenes are passed on, but th ose caused on ly b y ou tsid econdit ions are not .2 5

25 Colin Chapman, op. cit, p.129


41/62


35

Un solved Prob lem s of Evolut ion

( 1 ) T he Cause of Var iat ions.Exper im ent s, in w hichgenes are changed by chemicals and radiationssuch as X-rays, are ar t ifi cial. A gr eat d eal stil l m ustbe lear ned abou t t he cause or causes of var iation sin n atu r e, w here hum an beings cann ot int er fer e.

( 2 ) Guiding Forces of Evolution.Some authori t iesthink that natural select ion guides a l l evolut ion.

But these author i t ies need m uch m ore kn ow ledgeon how select ion w ork s. ( 3 ) M issing Evolut iona r y Link s.M any l in ks betw een

group s ar e st i l l l ivin g. Oth er s ar e kn ow n fr omfossils. Yet, there st i l l are numerous gaps in theser ies, especially betw een gr oup s th at evolvedver y l ong ago. Besid es th ese, th er e ar e hun dr eds ofsmal le r problems tha t dea l wi th the evolut ion of

special groups, their re la t ionship to theirsurroundings, and the length of t ime needed forone gr oup or anot her t o change.26

Accor di ng to atheist ic evol ut ion , t i m e, m att er , and chancecreated l ife. There is no divine intell igence involved. Lifespr ang up spont aneously f rom sim ple m at t er due to m er echance and gradu ally d evelop ed, by chance, in to com plex

organisms.Som e View s against Evolut ionism2 7

1. Dr . Edw in Conk lin, biologist , Pr in ceton Univ er sity ,in Read ers Dig est , January 1963: The probabili ty

26 The World Book , Vol.6, pp. 339, 33427 Edward Blick, Correlation of the Bible and Science , 1976, p.14


42/62

Evolutionism

36

of l i fe originat ing from accident is comparable tothe probabi l i ty of the unabr idged dic t ionary

r esul t i ng from an explosion in a pr int ing shop.2. Dr. Erwin Chartaff , Columbia Universi ty, (on

evolut ion) : Our t im e i s pr obably the f i rst in w hichm yt hology h as penetr ated t o th e molecular level .

3 . Pr esident Leavi t t of Lehigh Universi ty : Autop lasmevolvin g a uni verse is a sup er st i t ion m or e pi t iableth an pagani sm .

4. Dr. T.N. Tahmisian, physiologist , Atomic Energy

Com m ission , U.S.: Scient ists w ho go aboutteachin g that evolut ion is a fact ar e gr eat con m en,and th e story th ey are te l l ing m ay b e the gr eatesthoax ever . In explainin g evolut ion w e do n ot haveon e iot a of fact .

5 . Dr. Louis Bounoure, Director of Research at theNational Center of Scientific Research in France.Evolut i onism is a fair y ta le for gr ow n up s. This

theory has helped nothing in the progress ofscien ce. I t is u seless.6 . Herb ei t Nilssen, Dir ector of Botany Inst i t ut e, Lun d

Universi ty, inSYNTHETISCHE Art Building , Vol.I&II , 1985 ( t ransla t ion) . My a t tempt todemonst ra te evolut ion by an exper iment carr iedon for more than two years, has completelyfailed It is not even p ossible to m ak e a car icatu r e

of an evolution out of paleobiological facts. Thefossil m ater ial is now so com plet e th at t he lackof t r ansit ion al series cannot be exp lained as du e tothe scarcity of the material . The deficiencies arer eal , th e w ill n ever be fi l led. The id ea of anevolut ion r ests on p ur e belief.


43/62


37

The above quotes clearly indicate that these scientistsconsider evolut ionism not a science, but a myth or mere

belief. They do n ot consider i t t o be the t r ut h. I t is just aset of assum pt ion s and speculation of event s past , w hichare impossible to be repeated in the present . And whatcannot be repeated in the present cannot be verif iedthr ough exper im ent at ion, w hat i s not exper im enta l i s notscience. Th e evo lut ion ist s claim is false.

Does Evolut ionism Correspond with Scientif ic Laws

and Requ ir em ents

In h i s book,Cor r elat ion of t he Bible and Science,Edw ard F.Bl ick put for th four cr i si s confron t ing evolut ion of p r esent .They are: (a) The Second Law of Thermodynamics (b)Fossi ls gaps; (c) No k now n m echani sm ; and ( d) M ount ingevi dence for a you ng eart h. Let us discuss th em b elow :

( a) The Second Law of Thermodynamics, simplystated m eans The univ er se is run nin g dow n.There is a decrease of usable energy, a greaterr and om ness and disord er l iness in the system anda pr ocession tow ar ds delay.

Evolut ion, on the other hand, supposes that theuniverse is cl imbing up; there is an increase in

usable energy, developed and increased in order,evolut ion f rom the s imple mat te r to the h ighercom plex form of l i fe.

Evolut ion stands in direct contradict ion of thisbasic scient ific law , and th erefore i t cann ot beapp r oved by scient i f ic ver i f icat ion .


44/62

Evolutionism

38

( b) Fossil Gaps. This has already been discussedbefore under Unsolved Problem of Evolut ion.

No.3

( c) Lack of Mechanism for Evolut ion.T he t womechanisms for change are natural varia t ions(w hich fo l low the M end el ian law s of her edi t y) andmuta t ions .

Natural varia t ion can produce al l the varie t ies of

m oder n day horses fr om just one pai r of hor ses.These var ia t ions have alw ays been w ith in w el ldefined l im its w ithi n a kin d or species. Cats neverchange int o d ogs, nei ther r abbi t s int o r ats .Mutat ions are the only observable things in theenvi ronment which affec t the heredi ta ry por t ionof the l ife cell . Radiation, mustard chemical, andperh aps LSD w il l change the DNA or codin g

str uctur es. H ow ever , th e change is alw ays anin jur y. The resul t i ng or gani sm is alw ays w eakerand unable to compete or survive, and i f lef t tona tur e, w i l l rever t t o i t s or ig inal form i f i t sur vives.

Thus, w e see th at t here is no k now n m echanism ;for evolut ion is unproven and, therefore , is not agen ui n e science.

( d) Young Ear th .Youn g m eans any age th at is lessthan 500 mill ion years. Of course, this is anext r em ely long t im e but sm al l w hen com pared toevolut ionary age est imate of f ive to six bi l l ionyear s. Edw ard l ists eight y p r ocesses in his table,w hich indi cates th e ear th i s youn g. W e w il ldi scuss four of them .


45/62


39

( i ) Car bon 14.The d ecay of C-14 in Pre-Cam br ian

w ood ( accor din g to evolut ion ists, about 4bil l i on y ear s back ) i nd icates th e age of eart h t obe about 4,000 year s old.

( i i ) Th e pr ocess of d ecay of ear th s m agneti c fieldindicates the age of earth to be about 10,000years.

( i i i ) The pr ocess of the eff lux of Hel ium -4 int o th eatmosphere indicates the age of earth to

1,75 0-1,75 ,00 0 y ear s.( iv) Meteori t ic Dust .The ear th would haveaccumulated a layer of dust 265 f t thick,ext remely r ich in Nickel and I ron, f rom thedisintegrat ion of meteors as they burn up inthe earths a tmosphere, during f ive bi l l ionyear s. Th er e is no appar ent evidence of such alayer , w hich allow s one to conclude the ear th

is far less t han fiv e bil l i on y ear s old .

The possibi l i ty of evolut ion in a young earth by just am er e play of chance is only a dr eam , a fant asy; th ere canbe no fact i n i t . Com plex for m s of l ife, ar t i st ically d esigned,ar e im possible w it hout the funct ion of perfect i nt el l igence.

In ter nal Consistency and T est of Cor r espond ence

1 . The Argum ent f rom Em bryo logy

Prem ise 1 : Fossi l r ecord s show tha t m am m als form ed t helast stage in t he evolu ti onar y ser ies of developm ent.Premise 2 : The unborn mammal, today, undergoes thesame developmental process, i .e. fish to amphibians, tor ept i l ian stage to m am m al.


46/62

Evolutionism

40

Conclusion: Ther efore , m am m als developed f rom low erform s of l i fe.

Verificat ion:The conclusion i s based on t he sup posit ionsthat Premise 2 explains and proves Premise 1. Thear gum ent is inval id, sin ce the tw o pr em ises ar e i rr elat i ve.The first is a long evolutionary process; the second, ashor t d evelopm ent pr ocess of an em br yo.

2 . Postu late: Tim e, m atter , and chance created t he hum an

bra in .Refutat ion: If t ime, matter, and chance has created thehum an br ain, then t r uth as an absolute categor y n o longerexists . For, for t r ut h t o be t r ue, i t m ust be un chan ging; i tm ust b e tr ue on Sund ays, t r ue on M ond ays Tu esdays.But with the f lux and f luctuat ion of t ime, matter, andchance (for t ime, matter, and chance all change) truth asan absolut e ceases to exist . But , if t r ut h d oesnt exist h ow

can i t be said that the postulation Time, matter, andchance has cr eated t he hum an br ain is t r ue?28

3 . Postula te:The br ain is a r and om col locat i on of atom s.Refutat ion: If th e br ain i s a r and om col locat ion of atom s,reason becomes unreasonable, and undependable. For,then r eason w ould be th e pr oduct p ur ely accid ent al juxt ap osi t ion of at om s an d m olecules an d by var ious b io-

chemi cal pr ocesses in t he br ain , in other w or ds, by pur elynon-rational means.2 9 How then can i t be known forcerta in that the brain is a random col locat ion of a toms,and th at t his is th e most r easonable theory ?

28 Ravi Zacharias, Questions of a Man in Agony , Audio Sermon29 L.T. Jeyachandran, Does God Exist, Truth for Times, RZIM


47/62


41

4 . Argum ent :(a) A ll science is t r ut h.

( b) Evolut ion is a science.(c) T herefor e, evolut ion i s t r ue.

Verificat ion:(T hr ough the test of corr espon dence)Both t he pr em ises (a) and (b ) cann ot b e pr oved t r ue. So,science is alw ays changing. W hat w as accept ed a cent ur yago as a scientific truth is today discarded as sneerignorance. What is accepted today as a valid theory maybe deem ed in val id tom or r ow . Evid ent ly a l l sc ience is not

the t ru th ; for t r u th m ust n ot change.

All scient ific theor ies m ust be open t o falsificat ion . If th er eis no w ay t o test t he theor y and possibly p r ove i t fa lse, i t i snot a theor y of science. I t is really a p hi losophy or r el igion(Kar l Popper in theLogic of Scientific Discovery ). Notheory about the beginning of the wor ld or the or ig in oflife can be t ested exper im entally. Thi s is because nob ody

obser ved or can r epeat w hat happened in th e ancient pasthistory of the earth. They are not open to fa lsi f icat ion.30 Therefore , the theory of evolut ion is not a scient i f ictheory.

Conclusion

There are many more facts that refute the theory ofevolut ion that space doesnt al low to i nclud e her e. I t isreally amazing that people can believe that the geneticcode has or igin ated by m ere play of chance.

30 Robert E. Kopahl, Handy Dandy Evolution Refuters , (Creation-Science Research Center, 1977), pp.13-16


48/62

Evolutionism

42

Evolut ion is mythical , hypothet ical (and closed tofalsification), logically fallacious, and in the long run an

impossible belief. I ts evidences are inadequate. It isscientifically unprovable, and is, for sure, an inadequateexplanat ion of l i fe . I t says that the brain happened bychance w hich i s changing and asser ts by t he sam e br ainthat i ts hypothesis is unchanging and credible. Thus, i tcontr adicts i t self , i t defeats i t self .


49/62

IV

Pantheismhe w ord pan the i sm i s der ived f rom the root w ordpan meaning al l ,theos meaning god andism m eanin g a doct r in e or theor y .

H istor ical Back gr ound

The idea of panth eism is evid ent ly a t i ts peak in Hind uism .This re l igion is one of the oldest and with the bel ief ofpolythe ism and m onism im bibes the bel ief of pantheism ini ts doctr in es.

Ther e is th e belief th at every th in g is God, t he belief thatGod is to nature as soul is to body, that God is inevery thi ng and is everyt hing.

Baruch Spinoza (1632-77) introduced pantheist ic ideasinto Western Phi losophy in the seventeenth century.Accor di ng to h im God i s All and All is God All t hat is, isin God, and nothing can be, or be conceived apart fromGod.31

31 Colin Chapman, The Case for Christianity , p.203


50/62

Pantheism

44

Recent ly, th e belief has foun d i ts w ay in to Chr ist i anthi nk ing th r ough the w ri t in gs of Paul Ti l l ich and Tei lhard

De Chard in .

I ts Con sequ en ces

M ost p eople pr act ical ly ar e re luctant t o l ive out t his w ayof belief; for t o believe oneself to be God i n on e hand andsense the l im it at ion s of self , pow er , and abi l i t y on th eother i s d i fficul t t o go w i th .

Others t r ied to develop and solve i t with the concept ionthat m an m ust r eal ize th e Godn ess in h im self . Thi s too ispractically impossible. The outcome of such trials is justfeelings and imaginative beliefs; man is st i l l l imited andim perfect . The doctr in e is pr act i cal ly un r el iable .

Verificat ion

( 1 ) I t has m isin t er pr eted and u nderm ined the m anin gof the w or d God. I t is an assaul t on m ur der of t hemeaning of God. The word God i tself impliesgreater th an m an, d ist inct fr om cosm os, aboveth e cosmos. But w ith th e ident i f icat i on of thecosm os w it h God, th e concept of God is ann ulled.

( 2 ) It is m ean in gless. If m an is God , d og is God, cat isGod , and ston e is God; t hen, m an i s dog, d og is cat,

cat is man; stone is cat and evil and good is thesam e; jam is but ter , m ango is banana and so on. Itis m eani ngless and assault on per cept ion , a denialof per cept ion and und er standin g.

( 3 ) I t is self-cont r adictor y. By d eny ing t he aut hent ic i tyof per cept ion, i t has no b asis to p ostulate th at i t spercept ion of the w or ld as being God is aut hent icei ther.


51/62


45

( 4) It leads to n ow her e. If every th in g is God, th eneverything and God are synonymous, they

mean the same thing. I t is l ike saying then,every th in g is ever yt hin g, God i s God. I t d oesntdefine anything. The sta tements lend nound er standing. W hat w ould anyone understand i fI were to say But te r i s br i s wi thout expla in ingw hat b r is is? But , say, b r is is exp lained and i tcomes out to mean but ter . There is no point inuttering the sentence. To say stone is God

impl ies tha t the person l i s tening knows thedi fference betw een st one and God.

Pantheism is inconsistent, self-contradictory, andunreliable. It is a practical mistake; a practicalimpossibi l i ty. I t is nothing in meaning and leads tonot hin g in r eal i ty . To un derstand i t is to under stand t hatyou had understood i t before you understood i t . I t is

non sensical and, th erefor e, not t r ue.


52/62

V

Th eism (M onoth eism )heism is the doctr ine that there is one God,

transcendent, eternal, true, holy, and just. This Godis al l pow er ful , al l -kn ow in g, and pr esentevery w here. He has no b ound ar ies and n o l im it at i ons. Heis above th e cosm os w hich H e cr eated. It i s also a beliefthat this God is a person, is a loving, compassionate,for givin g, and int erest ed in th e uni ver se ( i .e. tak es car e ofi t ) .

H istor ical Back gr ound

Judaism is the f i r st t o be acknow ledged as a m onot heist icreligion. This God called Abraham some 4000 years agofrom the land of Ur of Chaldea. He becomes the father oft he Jew ish r ace thr ough Isaac, hi s son . An d t hence, begin sa religious p eople, th e people of t he one God.

Tw o t housand year s later , follow er s of Jesus Chr ist , calledChrist ians, explained the doctr ine of Trini ty that therear e thr ee per sons in th e Godh ead; t he Fath er, the Son, andth e Holy Spi r i t ; but , th e thr ee are one, one God.

Around 400 AD, the re l ig ion Is lam emerged wi thM ohamm ed as th e found er . Islam r ejected th e doctr in e ofTr in i t y but adhered to t he one God.


53/62


47

Judaism and Islam , how ever, ar e dist inct in the w ay h owChr ist iani ty is. They ar e w ays to r each God by w or ks and

r it uals, w hile Chr ist iani ty st r esses on t he gr ace of thispersonal God, w ho by Hi s gr ace reached d ow n to m anthrough His Son Jesus Christ and granted forgiveness ofsins.

Ther e are alm ost never any n ew conver ts to Jud aism . Theconversions to Islam have been mainly due to force andcom pu lsion. The conver sions t o Chr ist i ani t y m ainly occur

aft er a realizati on of self-inadequacy, self-ini qui ty , and th eneed for for giveness.

Verificat ion

Monotheism is more reasonable than any other ismbecause

1.

It gives a reasonable account of the origin of theun iverse. The un iverse is cr eated by the Alm ightyCreator God. I t is not just a mere product ofchance.

2 . It satisfies the psychological desires of man; forthe God above him is both rel iable and able topr otect and de liver h im .

3. I t answ er s th e basic quest i ons of m an, W ho am I?

Why am I here? Where have I come f rom?W here am I going?4. It is logically r easonable.

( a) T he Ontological Argum ents:That t he idea of th eBein g, th e gr eater th an w hom cann ot be conceivedn ecessit ates t he existen ce of t hat bein g because ofthe nature of that being. The idea of the yellow


54/62

Theism

48

eleph ant m ay not necessitate i ts existence but th eidea of a Being greater than whom cannot be

conceived n ecessit ates H is exi stence because t her ecan b e no fur th er concept ion fr om here. Th e ideaof in fin ite Gr eater is im possible. Existence is one ofth e basic part s of per fecti on. To conceive of a m ostper fect b eing is to conceiv e him as existi ng or elseth e exist ing w ould b e gr eater t han t he conceptw hich is self-cont r adictor y. Ther efor e, th e gr eat estconceiv able Being m ust exist .

( b) The Cosmological Argument.Everything in thecosmos has a cause; the cosmos must also have acause. There cannot be an infinite regress ofcauses. Therefore, an Uncaused Cause, i.e. Godexists.

( c) The Teleological Argument .The design andor der of the univ er se m akes i t r easonable th at th ecosm os is fashioned by a gr eater designer w ho is

God and has not occur r ed by chance.

Theism is reasonable, logical, and practically reliable. Butsti l l a problem exists: Can this God be known? Can manhope to l ive up to His just s tandard? Can man relate toGod?

The r igid laws and r i tuals of Judaism and Islam render

man unqual i f ied and unprepared to meet his holy, just ,and tr ue God. But , Chr ist i anit y p r ovid es t he answ er : JesusChrist .

1 . Jesus Chr ist is t he r evelation of God. W e can k nowGod thr ough Him .


55/62


49

2. Jesus is the fulfi l lment of the Old Testamentpr oph ecies of th e Jew ish Bible. The M essiah w as

pr om ised: t his w as Jesus.3 . Jesus is th e M ediator betw een God and m an. A

sinn er w ho i s hopeless, an enem y of God, can n owbe r econciled t o God t hr ough Jesus Chr ist t hr oughw hom th er e is forgiveness of sin s, hope for t hefutur e, and fel low ship w i th God.

4 . Jesus continues to help the Christ ian in hisChr ist ian w alk, i f he subm it s to th e guid ance of the

Holy Spir i t and w alks accor di ngly.5 . This has been possible because Jesus, after beingcrucif ied for our sins and being buried, rose upfrom among the dead and is st i l l a l ive today ( theevidences surmount : the empty tomb, thefaithfulness of His disciples even to death, manyeyew it n esses, r ecor d i n h ist or ical bo ok s, e.g.,The Ant iqu it ies of Jew s , th e conti nu in g effect i n t he l ives

of people , the test imony of many modern dayser vants of God w ho w itn essed a m ir aculousconversion of their l ives through a personalvi sit ati on of Jesus, etc., w hat Jesus pr edi ctedconcer nin g Him sel f (M at t hew 16:21) l i ter a lly tookp lace). Th erefor e, Jesus is th e Tr ut h ( John 14 :6) .

Christ ian Theism, above all , is more reliable, more

r easonable, m or e logical and pr acti cal th an any oth er ; as amatter of fact , logic necessitates i ts truthfulness. Thehum an n eed and d esir e for r e lat i onship, r em oval of gui l t ,hope for the future , and meaning for l i fe are provided inJesus Chr ist . Dependi ng on th is r easonable evid ence w hichw e understand, w e can, I bel ieve, now tr ust in God for th ethin gs w e do not unders tand.


56/62

Theism

50

Chr ist iani ty is the t r ut h ( t he t r ue w ay) and i t is , th er efore ,reliable.


57/62

CONCLUSION


58/62

Conclusionhe l imitat ion of human reason and knowledge is afact i nd isput able. The kn ow ledge of m en t akes newshapes and t ur ns thr ough each passing era.

To p ostulate an absolute n egat ion of th e existence of Godor the knowledge of God is contrary to this fact of the

f in i tud e of the hum an m ind , r eason and kn ow ledge.To postulate and asser t an un derstandin g and kn ow ledgeof an historical event in the past based on inadequateevid ences is equal ly un just and im pr act ical .

To postulate an ident i ty of nature with God iscontradictory to the nature of understanding andpercept ion. I t is confusing and m yt hical .

Theism , especially Chri st ianit y, w ith a postu late belief inth e existence of a One t r anscendent God, th e Cr eator andth e Sustainer of th e cosm os, th e possibil i ty of r elat ionshipw it h God, th e Holy , In fin it e, Alm ight y, Benevolent , All-Pow er ful , All-Know ing Per fect One, and the r evelat i on ofthis God in the person of Jesus Christ , and thus hope forthe future is quite reasonable, practical , and logicallysound . I t is sound doctr ine and, th er efore , th e Tru th .

W henever a m an un dert akes a jour ney, he know s th at he,by his own reason and unders tanding cannot make the jour n ey al on e. H e r eali zes t he n eed of an ex t er n al , r el iab leguide (r evelat i on) .


59/62


53

The journey to Truth is impossible on false and self-invented roads. The journey to Truth is possible only on

the w ay or dained by th e etern al Tr uth , th e Sour ce of al lt r uth ; because All t r ut h is Gods t r ut h.

The t rue way i s provided to us by God through ther evelation of Jesus Chr ist w ho i s the W AY, th e TRUTH, andthe LIFE. He is the W ay of Tr ut h t o Life .

Jesus is the m ost r eliable Guid e, being t he em bod im ent of

Truth Himself . Holding the hand of this t rue Guide andfol low ing H is footsteps, w e can t ake th e jour ney along thepath of t ru th towards the Absolute Truth , the Ul t imateTr uth w ho i s God; apar t f rom Him there i s and can be notr ut h. He is the beginn ing and t he end of al l ph i losophicaland religious truth. And so, He must be assumed as theoriginator of reason for the certa inty of reason, andbelieved as th e revealer of k now ledge for the r at ion al i ty ,

pu r posefulness, and t he m eanin gfulness of existence andlife.

The world toi ls on, drags on, and gropes about t rying tofin d a pur pose, a m eanin g for i t s existence. How ever , th iscan never be achieved un less th er e is a r ealizati on of th eexistence of a t r anscend ent and im m anent God w hocr eated the w or ld for and w i th an in te ll igent pur pose.

I must add here, nevertheless, that revelation alonedoesnt suff ice; th er e m ust be an i l lu m in at i on of the t r uthinto the human hear t as wel l : for t ru th tha t i sunconvi ncing and insigni f icant has no signi f icant bear ingon l i fe . The vei l of decept ion must be removed off thehum an m ind and hear t so to let t he l ight of t r u th t o shinein the Tr uth m ust becom e undoubtedly convinc ing and


60/62

Conclusion

54

sat isfying to the hum an hear t and m ind t o be believed i n,r el ied upon , and fol low ed w it h absolute adher ence.

But h ow can t his be possible? Let m e, here , adm it w ith outpr esum pt ion and in al l cand or, that w e can absolut ely donothing about i t . Any at tempt of self- imaginary and self-end eavor by m eans of self- invented m eans w ould befut i le . There must be an encounter with the Divine for at ruthful bel ief and rel iance on the t ruth. And here ,Chr ist iani ty p r ovid es th e answ er : the God of Tr uth and

Love has spok en t o us th r ough Jesus Chr ist in Tr ut h and inGrace He has touched us through the active presence ofthe Holy Spi r i t .

The God of Christ iani ty is both t ranscendent andimmanent as wel l . Man i s no more le f t to the mercy ofreason, natural laws, and environment; but God in Hism er cy has sent us His Holy Spi r i t of Tr uth to guid e us and

lead us int o al l Tr ut h.

This i s a myst ic encounter : the wor ld may deem i t asfoolishness and ir r ati onal, but i t is genu in e, never theless.This is a supernatural , spiri tual , divine encounter; and is,therefore, necessary, rational, and authenticated by thetr ansform ed l ives of m any . Tr uth can only be l ived out andreal ized af ter an encounter with and submission to the

Spir i t of Tr ut h sent to us by God, the Aut hor of Tr ut h, tolead us by embell ishing and i l luminat ing our minds andhear ts w i th t he t ru th w hich i s necessar y for our journeythr ough and to t he etern al ly Absolute Tr ut h G O D .


61/62

BIBLIOGRAPHY


62/62

Conclusion

Books

Blick, Edw ar d F.Correlation of the Bible and Science (1976)

Chapm an, Colin .The Case for Chr ist ian it y (L ion Publ ishing,1981)

Kopahl, Robert E.Handy Dandy Evolut ion Refuter ( Cr eat ion -Science Research Cent er, 197 7)

Kraemer, Hendr ick .Why Chris t iani ty of All Religions? (Lucknow : Luckn ow Publ ishing House, 1966)

M c Dow el l/ Stew ar t Don .Con cise Gu id e t o Tod ays Religion s ( Cam pu s Cr usade for Chr ist , 199 0)

The W or lds Religion s (L ions Publ ishin g, 1982 )

Periodicals

Just Thin kin g , RZIM LIFE FOCUS SOCIETY, Chennai, 1995-1998 .

Back t o Genesis , In st it ut e of Cr eat ion Research, CA, 1 99 8 .

journey to absolute truth

Documents