Brian Greene is quickly becoming one of my favorite “science writers.”
Consider the brief summary of his book “The Fabric of the Cosmos”:
Space and time form the very fabric of the cosmos. Yet they remain among the most mysterious of concepts. Is space an entity? Why does time have a direction? Could the universe exist without space and time? Can we travel to the past? From Newton’s unchanging realm in which space and time are absolute, to Einstein’s fluid conception of spacetime, to quantum mechanics’ entangled arena where vastly distant objects can instantaneously coordinate their behavior, Greene takes us all, regardless of our scientific backgrounds, on an irresistible and revelatory journey to the new layers of reality that modern physics has discovered lying just beneath the surface of our everyday world.
Greene surveys the various secular conceptions of reality, and paints for us all a very entertaining and informative picture of what modern scientist generally agree is the “Fabric of the Cosmos”… at least for the moment.
He says this in his preface:
…on the perplexing question of whether completely empty space is, like a blank canvas, a real entity or merely an abstract idea, we follow the pendulum of scientific opinion as it swings between Isaac Newton’s seventeenth-century declaration that space is real, Ernst Mach’s conclusion in the nineteenth century that it isn’t, and Einstein’s twentieth-century dramatic reformulation of the question itself, in which he merged space and time, and largely refuted Mach. We then encounter subsequent discoveries that transformed the question once again by redefining the meaning of “empty,” envisioning that space is unavoidably suffused with what are called quantum fields of possibility a diffuse uniform energy called a cosmological constant…
We can see that in the secular realm, there have been various different conceptions of the nature of reality over the years.
I’d like to point out that most likely (at least in my experience) the Non-Christian Google Scholar will fall into two categories, the more interesting of which, will hold to some view of reality as briefly hinted at by Brian Greene in the above survey. The other, less interesting NCGS is usually the zealous Muslim apologist, who’s favorite polemic tends to be a constant barrage of attacks against the sufficiency and infallibility of Christian scripture.
Thus, for the remainder of my post (at least here in Vol II) I’ll be discussing that NCGS, ranging between the ages of 15 to latter twenties (and beyond, as is the case with Mr. PaineFull Truth…who inspired the title of my series of articles) who approaches a critique of the Biblical text with a presupposed metaphysic of the like Mr. Greene describes.
Among these varying secular views, it is very unusual to find a laymen of the NCGS type who has a specific preference among the nuances of thought. They usually just affirm the truth of the most up-to-date thought on the matter, and allude to it as gospel truth. (Again, this is speaking from experience.)
Given the above, it’s possible for me to highlight a few similarities that these NCGS will have in their view of reality, and point out how these similarities, if presupposed and applied consistently, would make any sort of reasoning impossible, (let alone speculation about biblical texts.)
While I take issue with C.S. Lewis on some things, I find the following quote to be a great introduction into my point here:
“Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should have never found out that it has no meaning.”
A random universe, suffused with order at key points is the ultimate presupposition of the NCGS, and thus, the material realm (whatever it may consist of) is all that exists and all that exist can only be interpreted and predicated by the NCGS. When he approaches the Biblical text, it is with this naturalistic presupposition firmly in place.
Therefore, when the Biblical text claims to reveal a truth from beyond this natural realm, or when it posits events that are outside the realm of normal operations within this natural realm, the NCGS is naturally inclined to be skeptical. Also, contrary to the God taught in scripture, the NCGS does not believe that God is consistent. Since God is not consistent, His words are not necessarily able to be harmonized, and thus any attempt to do so is neglected at the outset.
When viewed by the NCGS, the text becomes rife with contradictions, and inconsistencies.
However, as I’ve claimed…the very universe the NCGS presupposes leads to his downfall. In such a universe, knowledge and rational speculation about texts is impossible. Before the Bible can be read, the NCGS must first prove the legitimacy of his own empirical observations, as well as the validity of past observations in future predictions. (Humes problem of induction.) Also, the age old philosophical problem of the “One and the Many” must be surmounted.
It is only by dropping this naturalistic view of reality and accepting a Christian metaphysic (which presupposes the Triune God of scripture) that the above problems can be surmounted in a way that will allow for discussion of the scriptures in the first place.
I suspect that our resulting conversation will expose the truth of my above case…unless you guys would just like to take my word for it…