Many are familiar with the popular TV show, “MythBusters.”
In each episode, different ideas and claims are considered and then tested to
determine their validity. Whether they realize it or not, the people on this
show are facing this same question of: “What is truth?”
(John 18:38). It is clear that the cast and crew from “MythBusters” use science
as their standard for discerning fact from fiction. They follow the scientific
method to create tests which will help them evaluate whether or not a claim is
possible/plausible. In many cases, this method is a wonderful tool that
helps us better understand the world in which we live. However, it can only
answer certain types of questions. For example, “MythBusters” can use science
to answer questions like these without any problems:
“Is it possible to swing so fast on a swing set that you do
a 360o over the crossbar?”
“If you microwave a piece of metal, will your
microwave explode?”
“If you drop a penny off a skyscraper, could it kill a
person?”
But what about this question:
“Should I drop pennies on people from the top of a
skyscraper?”
Science can answer “What” questions, but it can’t touch
the “Should” or the “Ought” questions. Science can help us understand the
difference between true and false in a physical sense, but it cannot tell us the
difference between right and wrong in the moral sense. Science can only
describe the world as we observe it. It does not have any power to prescribe ethical
behavior. One can give a recommendation to someone else based upon scientific
observation: “If you put your hand in the fire, it will get burned. I wouldn’t
do it if I were you.” But the suggestion to keep one’s hand out of the fire is
based on personal preference, not an objective standard of right and wrong. Science
provides information and greater power to act, but it doesn’t tell us what we ought
(not) to do with that information or power. Science is not a respecter of
persons: it aids those who wish to help as well as those who wish to hurt. For
centuries, tyrants and thugs have intentionally used fire to torture and kill other
humans beings to get what they want. Their actions are based on the same scientific observation, but motivated by a different personal preference. Who's to say if one personal preference is better than another? Science can
only say "what" will happen to a person’s body if subjected to extreme
heat. It can’t tell us if we "should" or "should not" do such a
thing to other human beings. In fact, science is dependent upon non-physical principles of logic, knowledge, truth, uniformity in nature, induction, etc. and it is governed by a code of ethics which involves honesty and respect for human dignity. Science cannot account for its own preconditions. To answer the questions that move beyond the scope
of "what" can or does happen in the physical universe, we need to use a bigger lens.
Right before Paul warns Timothy about the turning away from truth to myth, he includes this infamous statement about God's Word:
As we tackle different myths this year, we will examine them through the lens of Scripture because it is our source of truth. If an idea does not mesh with what God has revealed in His Word, it is "busted" and will unravel before our eyes. But everything that lines up with God's truth will stand the test of time:
No comments:
Post a Comment