W W W W World Wide Web Witness Inc. Home Page Contents Page for Volume What is New
SUMS, SUMMITS and IN SUM
Adding Things Up, and Getting Things Down
Shall we sum something up then ? With what ? With summation. What is that ? It is an arithmetic combination, that is the logic of mathematics, with a conceptual aggregation, an ideational synthesis, a composition of elements, taking into account a constraining perspective gained from what actually happens, and its verifiable implications, and not from never observed dreams, allied to a ludicrous logic which is continuously breached.
In doing this, what should we use ? It is concepts, connotations, denotations, structure of disciplined thought, causal exploration, comparison, analysis, all of which are disciplines in themselves, able to work jointly in an issue which is testable with empirical fact. That too is composed of characterisable entities, which have orderly attributes verbally asserted of them, as observationally assessable, so that these match the orderly qualities they display. Thus they both may be so described, and act as to evoke such description.
In all the verbal, conceptual, directly logical, causative and semantic action, if we are to sum anything up, there must be the threefold synthesis: the logic of the presentation, the logic of the object, series or system, the systems in view, and the logic of their correlation. The common denominator is the logic, the active dynamic is conceptualisation, and the objective frame of reference is conceptualisability, which comes from order and coherence in a causal framework, so that the verbal image and the vital action may cohere. The world without and the world within are of the same family, though as diverse as poetry and earthenware.
Back of this, for any summing up, we need to have a power and a desire to use logic in the overview, perspective, mode of probe, so that our exposition of it is just, and in accord with the rational investigability of the objects of research. For this, we need to have will, in order to designate the task, and opt to put our spirits back into it, so that our verbal facilities might be activated, and our judicial assessment actions might be applied. For this, we need a judicious spirit, a disciplined mind and an accurate perception. ALL of these things are necessary to make a summation, a summary and to put a thing in sum as it is. They are generically necessary for any to engage rationally in it. If irrationally, however, the other and alien option, then that is the world of dreams, fodder for psychiatry, byway for the blind.
'Dreams' are of two types: visions from a reliable source, denoting vision and perspective in a round-about sort of way; and these are metaphorical mismatches with the other kind, which are simply a substitute for reality and a blinding grinding for truth, when used in its pursuit. Irrationality, in short, this second kind of dream will provide a reason for nothing, and itself is a subject of just reasoning for its genesis and products. Politically, these can slay millions, renegades from reality, aspirations of folly. To this, then, we do not turn.
Trace then what is here, in terms of the way in which both it and we operate, as also co-operate, effectively, so that its deducible powers become available to us in terms of laws and sustained characteristics, concerning which our criteria are made to act systematically with logical cohesion, to which they are susceptible, being on the same mould: and what do we find ? It is, even in the generic sense, a spirit that wills, the mind that drills, a perception that covers, a logic that uncovers, a thrust that challenges observation by sensory and perceptive construction, and a causal operation which both sustains the characteristics of the external world, to us, and impels our own internal world. Both of these are discovered to work in perfect harmony, when discipline is applied, both to keep to the point, avoiding the intrusion of imaginations extraneous to the case, and contrary to it, to save face or make faces (cf. LIGHT DWELLS WITH THE LORD'S CHRIST, WHO ANSWERS RIDDLES AND WHERE HE IS, DARKNESS DEPARTS).
All this may now be compared with nothing, that delight of the nihilists, which requires no cause, not being anything. Each layer and level of internal and external existence, that which is constrained without internal will, and that which within, is so constrained, must have a cause, other than nothing, itself a causeless base, with no possibility of being cause for anything, or substitute for anything, since that would be something, whereas it is defined to be nothing.
There are here, however, serially and in sum, mental causes, spiritual causes, physical causes of interactive procedures on display, confirmable and verifiable, and there is to each one of these layers in discernible existence, a cause for it*1, and to all of them, a cause for that as well, for co-existence is not the same as collaboration, nor for that matter, collaboration as intensively significant productive correlation!
In fact, from nothing comes nothing; but for this, in each case so categorically distinct and distinctive in its mode of operation and co-operation with our minds, and for the whole LOGOS-penetrated totality, there is cause, since otherwise it would be causeless*1. In fact, its overall character is much the most striking feature that it possesses; for if each part is a marvel of cause-and-effect characterisability and coherence in operation, investigable and dynamic, how much more the content container, the evocation of the whole in its arching curve of mutual containment and co-operation, what demands a cause.
Departing from the self-contradictory illusion of nothing as the basis for each layer, and moving rationally to what is adequate for its production, and again, in everything, for its effectual coherence, we find the minimal cause is intelligence, conceptual capacity, creative power to create what conceives (which we are, though we did not make any of the layers, at most being participant in some), and this with a mathematical magnificence and logical brilliance of a deftness that dazzles, and an assertiveness that sanitises the erratic thoughts, to bring them back to fact, where the mind of man, in such endeavours, is not for long apt to stay.
However, stay it must, unless in ineffectual romances without reason, it desires to inhabit dreamy worlds, asserting knowledge that this is so while removing the very notion of grounds for such phantasmal visions, and so much more, actual ones. To the ditch of pitch, we consign the escapist erraticisms which use what they deny, and rest on what has no rest, no, nor any foundation, a mass of the ephemeral, nugatory, the nubilous, to reason what vomit is to the stomach.
What then of the escapist perspective, which in effect refuses to reason, and insists on telling as if truth, what that model denies even to exist ? What of the inhabitant of such a realm as that ? Rather, he would either simply beg the question as such (a thing much more acceptable where the begging is in accord with erratic culture) and have nothing make each layer, or else have it make this or that layer, or even make this synthesis of acutely manufactured concepts and activation powers, constraints and disciplines, so that each and all is to come by 'arising', from the non-existent well of nothing; and the logos pervasive imprint to come literally from nowhere, and have time which comes from nowhere likewise, to somehow find creativity within itself, and power, and logical force and all the rest. In this way, a virtual 'god' is constructed, which has only dishonesty for its name, and systematic deception for its existence. It is often called 'nature', though this is irrelevant deception, since the point is not what it does, but where it came from.
What it does, is not produce what it is. Thus, the study of consequential operations is not the same as research into their cause. What makes an entity, this is not what it does; it is what was done for and to it in the first place, in order to make it not a posit for existence, but an existent thing. Confusion of these simple realities is basic to much modern philosophy, and all organic evolution.
What it is, does not produce the sort of thing that it is. Money is not financial operations, but their result in various causal settings. Sculpture is not made by rocks, or stones, but by man; stones are used by man to make it. Operational results are not rational grounds for their being there to operate. What is there requires the mastery of input which the otherwise insoluble mystery of daily operations demands. What it does is not to create itself, for it lacks means, visible as such or operationally visible from such. To be, in this world, is not to act, to have operational continuity; but to be enabled to act, to have institutional sufficiency. To become a babe, one does not need to consider babeness, and attribute powers to it. One has to go back to the ingredients of cellular structure, their formation and information, the modes of growth embryonically, the womb for it, the diverse mechanisms associated, such as a change of oxygen imbibing, as it moves from mother's blood to sudden use of otherwise unused and useless lungs, and so on. A babe does not, any more than the rest, come from a babe, or a generic quality of babeness, wandering isolate, around. It comes from what is sufficient to create it.
For that matter, neither do our minds make minds, but thoughts. It is necessary to mind the evidence if the matter is to be rationally summed. Neither in observable fact nor in defensible theory does what is, arrive either from nothing or from itself before it is there for the job. This is so in the micro- and the macro- case, for the principles do not vary on which all depends, and which reason requires, unless dismissed, the contestant quits defeated.
This, then, is the evidence empirically, just as logic and the total overall operation of LOGOS, in the comprehensive Greek sense (John 1), is the matching exhibit. As to what now is, the existent cosmoi, worlds within worlds in which we have a place: Apart from inventive intelligence such as man has, it produces varieties in terms of information already to hand, but not upgrades. It produces mutative losses and informational disturbence in degenerating genes*1A, but not available creations beyond. Its texture of thought is coercive, not creative, imparted, not impartative.
To be sure, there is provision in the highly complex, triple cording*2, arrangement of causative codes in DNA, and its allies, for various operational variations by ingenious methods, rather like, in simple terms, the availability of the sports convertible car roof, to come down or open to the sun, with various aerial dynamics implied. It is not however a new car which is created by these means, but what is before us is an empowered capacity to vary on a theme. Darwin mistook this, contrary, and admittedly contrary to the geological evidence (cf. *4), not to mention relevant and constraining observational fact, for a mandate for nothing creation, directly or in stages, God omitted or made like a Conservative in a radical party, not really involved; and all this foolish, variable postulation for preference, was of course wrong. Darwin's anti-evidential guessing game, sans logic, sans confirmation, culturally impelled, ludicrously formulated, showed him the greatest dunce in the lore of logic, perhaps, among all creative scientists that have been. It is not only a question of making the tractor go uphill without an engine in it, but plough as it goes, with geometric precision, and throwing in the hill and the earth and applied force at the same time, together with a world for them to be in.
Certainly, in this he was on a low-level, superstitious, though nominally hard-headed par with those ancient Greeks*3 who grabbed at nothing, at anything, and gave it names, in seeking to account for things. Some would have a fire basis, some a changelessness as the ultimate criterion, some change, some water, some air, some atoms, in wild guess-work, romanced as philosophy, suggestive as science, calamitous childishness, without reason, grounds or basis; and in this, theirs was the very essence of the essential contribution type, of Darwin. In their day, it was folly; in our own, it is cumulative folly as if the Captain of the Titanic, in an icy region, ordered full-steam ahead, idle romancing, perhaps laced with ambition, a burden of death.
This rampant error of Darwin, it was no accident, but a fault in method. By seeing ONE TYPE of thing, he guessed another, variation becoming creation, which is not the demonstrable case at all, nothing to the point being its only accompaniment in observation. By seeing power to vary about a norm, he did not scientifically look at variable possibilities, and then choose what best conformed to the evidence, which in fact would completely exclude any such ideas in due course; but confessedly he clung to a concept which did not to his own mind, show confirmation in the geological record*4. Professor W. R. Thompson in his introduction to the Everyman edition of Darwin's famed thesis, noted how in such approaches, fragile towers are built of towers, in thought, to make a merely facile and unstable creation from the fanciful mind of man, contrary to the facts of nature. So was evoked a thrusting irrelevance in the whole arena of evolutionary fantasy*5.
'Nature' is indeed just the name for what is in our world, and visually observable universe, and to make this what is the basis for its coming to be, is doing it too much honour. My car, however versatile in responding to environment, is emphatically and obviously NOT the cause of my car, being a product of care, not car. Now, it COULD BE, if it contained, along with its operational means for BEING active as a car, also sufficient creative powers of thought and logical and dynamic organisational and dispositional powers, equal to the task of its own genesis. It could have these powers within, and operate as a team of men may do. It could be set up to make new cars; but this double function we do not find, either in our cars or in ourselves, at the level beneath our intelligence.
This, however, this we do not find, nor its evidence, nor results, episodic or cumulative of any such operation. Without being remarkably astute, we dismiss such an hypothesis! for the car neither evidences the structure for such powers, nor the use of them. The empirical material does not, and does never either logically or empirically, manage to do a work of thought; except where thought is its donated nature, in the form of mind, of productive intelligence, equipped with imagination and purpose, so that, within its bounds even for this, it then simply applies itself. This it does, not in constructing itself that it might be, but in operating as something that now is. Genesis from what is not there, does not have what is to be there or the means, assumed in a system that now is, is merely a way of avoiding the issue, begging the question, the worst of that egregious school-boy howler type of folly, when a student asked for the chemical basis of something, declares simply that it 'arises'. There is no reason to give Darwin or his ilk marks for doing much the same thing. Methods of keeping the best do not of course make anything to choose from, and using frogs for maths does not help, let alone matter, or else nothing at all, the available basis for incompetent theorisation.
Darwin and his kind become idols, or idol makers; and yet as in Amos 4, men still ask, But why! why the trouble, why do you not send rain (or in some cases send too much), or Why do you not accept your unpopularity and leave us alone! Alas, being left alone is one of the worst possible things when you are in a crash situation and reject the whole idea of an ambulance to save you, while cursing or detesting or rejecting any form of aid from the source required. To expect reality to co-operate with its own denial is seeking the life of a lie, to come from appeal. Lies, however, merely make a verbal request for more power when collision with fact, as must then occur, eventually comes! To use 'science' for such tasks is merely evidence of the grossest of abuses known to man, and it degrades him below beast, to the domain of devil; nor must it be assumed that he realises this, as he refuses to realise what his eyes behold and reason declares.
Science*5A is just a name for a sort of thought and checking which Darwin in this area, being moved by various ideas about survival and power and dominance, did not follow. He imagined things. In this, he was a bad philosopher and his fame is in direct proportion to his defamation of reality. In philosophy, he neither reasoned with due care, not had grounds for his sequences, but grabbing them like any other novelist from the skies of thought, he instituted them and made much of them; and since people in masses, love to be irresponsible without paying, his novel was popular, and he called it The Origin of Species, which tended to become the origin of anything at all, or of life, or of all living things, as the mood took him, and the daring of meaningless dissertation thrust itself into his heated thought.
All those who have followed, in organic evolution, have merely developed (not evolved, they used thought in this), their various ludicrous grabbings of bits of nature of this kind or that, to make it mother, or father things, as if a pen could talk, grabbing creative thought for it or its equivalent, intruding designing power, without acknowledgement, into whatever they wanted to call 'nature' or its counterpart. So they have created more novels. Why in science's name, they have to give this to serious students: this is one of the things at judgment day, which will require great shame, where it is not repented of; and the name of it is spiritual seduction. Ogres may assault children, but who assaults their minds ? Assailants in that field are frequently their mentors.
A child might look at a vast fun arena, filled with lights and stars and displays and skills, and say, Look Mummy, look what invented itself! But, his mother might reply, Dear Johnnie, be sure my dear, that in this world, things do not invent themselves, and that where you see what needs intelligence, it has been supplied, where erection, it has been erected, where artistic prodigies, they have been created. You really must not export your fairy tales into real life, my dear, or you will find yourself confused, and fail to see what you too have to do, to achieve anything. You are a big boy now, and must exclude fantasy when you seriously look at the things that are there.
But Mummy, he might say, feeling obstinate, look at our Christmas tree that Santa filled with gifts.
Why, my dear ? I think it is time you realised that there is no Santa, that other people thought about the gifts, bought them, that others had to make them, so that they would exist at all, and that someone had to transport them to the tree, and another or someone find the tree, and make it the right size, and then drape it with the products themselves, which did not arrive, post-paid from nowhere.
But Mummy, we are told in school this year, that what they call nature' made itself, just from anything at all, it came because I suppose it wanted to, or ... they never really explain*6 Mother.
Of course, they don't dear, for they are telling fairy stories without fairies, and using fairies of the mind, to make everything up.
Could I go to a Christian school, then Mother ?
Some of these are little better, but I might be able to find one, dear.
But Mother, will the Government make us have exams when we are older, and mark them on the fairy or nothing ideas ?
Yes dear, they well may.
How can any sane person pass it then ?
Perhaps it is better not to take those subjects, or to pray for a School or Government that does not make up silly stories, fine for kindy, and place them immorally, within serious subjects.
Why do they, Mother ?
My dear, it is because they are blinded by sin! that is what the Bible says in Romans 1
Could we pray that some at least will have their eyes opened, Mother ?
Yes, my dear; for however evil are these actions, however foolish their opinions, however unscientific their methods in these affairs, hell is not good; and that is where rejection of the light of Christ leads.
Do you mean then Mother, that all these people will go to hell ?
The outlook when you teach evil things to God's children is not good, as you see in Matthew 18; but of course if they repent and return to the Lord, that is different. God is a forgiving God and He always seeks if there is any way to save, but the fact is always there: hate the light and inherit darkness. It all turns on Jesus, and HE, He can be turned neither to the right nor to the left. You see something of that in Matthew 21:44. Insist on conflict, and in the end, when His mercy is ignored, He crushes to powder. In fact, many turn others who might find Him, away, and for that ... why it is almost like murder. That is what you find in Matthew 18.
Is Jesus coming back soon then Mother ?
Yes, my son; for He said that Jerusalem would be in the hands of people who were not Israel, whose land it was by His appointment, for a long while, and these are called 'Gentiles', which just means 'the nations'. However, He also showed that in the end the Jewish people would get back the land He had given them, and from which He would take them because of their sins. Come back ? They have done this in stages, in 1948, 1967, 1973, and then in their law, in 1980. This, He said with much else on this topic, would show that His return is near.
I hope it will be very near, Mother.
A good hope, my son; but in the meantime, we must be faithful to truth, love the Lord, follow His word and be happy in His holiness. It is like an operation. If you have to have it, then wait for it; but in this case, it is a good operation, and we wait for Him with joy and expectancy; for just as He made nature, so He made nurture, you know, caring, and He cares for His children, and seek for all, if by any means, any may be added to His blessed and holy family.
I love fairy stories, Mother, but I love truth more; so I can never listen to the fairy stories they tell as if they were true, while they reject the One who IS the truth, who came to show it, lived as a message both of reality and of love, and who has shown it in everything He said and did, foretold and bore.
It is good to have a Rock, my son. This world is rocked to and fro now, because it refuses the Rock. There is no other. That's the sum of it.
See: Causes, SMR Ch. 5, Ch. 3, and Presdestination and Freewill Section IV, Christ Incomparable Ch. 2, Ch. l above.
From Waiting for Wonder Appendix, we find this remarkable attestation by Dr John Sanford of Cornell. It is here placed in some of the context, in which it is placed, below.
Williams is especially interested in meta-information, which is information about information, such as any student, whether over long years or shorter ones, needs to understand in order to be semantically functional. You have to know language in order to convey it, how it works, where it goes and does not, and to be really effective, why! *T1
Thus, from Williams, we have further data (p. 115, op. cit.).
Not only is this meta-information case what is found, he declares, but in the regions yet to be more fully investigated, there appears to be a situation where all or almost all of this type of DNA is engaged in the work of gene regulation. This is an arena of current thrust in investigation. Rearrangements and circuits, orders, need some device to protect and to inject, and this meta-information seems full of it. Brilliant devices to use massive information structures to gain specialised variations on them, come with that fluency of mobility in the fixity of underlying structure which allows generic specifications to be adroitly adapted, like Mark I and Mark II automobiles, for example, as people await with expectation what variation on their desired make will be forthcoming. The mobile genetic units called transposons are one such device, which in one aspect, almost seem to resemble working mechanics, hands-on.
Williams moves (op.cit. p. 116), to note the work of Dr John Sanford of Cornell University, citing the latter's Entropy & Mystery of the Genome. Here, the mutative exercise considered in the genome, which as with most designs exposed to the elements, involves deterioration, not progress. This is what could be called the Gould phenomenon: things in terms of design KINDS or types, are going down, not up (cf. Wake Up World! Your Creator is Coming Ch. 6). This is in part the Werner Gitt phenomenon: information does NOT arise without intelligence. There are laws, and these need to be known and applied*T1 (Journal of Creation 2009, 23(2), pp. 96-109).
In other words, these are areas of a kind relative to humankind, the way they go at the physical and physiological level, in overview.
What then of this finding of Sanford of Cornell ? That is the correlative both of the Second Law of Thermodynamics and of the basics of information science. His contribution is reported as showing that "deleterious mutations are accumulating at an alarming rate in the human population and that both natural selection and even the worst possible nightmare scenario of eugenics is powerless to stop it." This results from the enormous synthesis of variables, in holistic accords, weak points arising after several thousands of years, in hidden and varied ways. What there is to select from is being impaired, and the old chestnut, that to remove the worst creates the best is seen in its practical drabness. The best is going down.
As a matter of cultural interest, one may note this: As to such decline, you see it in schools too, where declining standards make the best more and more what used to be nearer to the middle: and this is so in English in particular, where there has been some sort of ecstasy, it might seem, in reckless ignorance as if creativity were some kind of squirming of the psyche, and needed no expertise. To be sure creativity is great and wonderful; but the power to create well is itself not without discipline. In fact our liberty and our due use of it to implement it well, both are needed; there is simply no point in rushing to extremes, ignoring this or that facet or feature of humankind, or its construction.
That however is a cultural aside, where will is involved, as also a wearisome wander streak, as man becomes more bombastic about the accomplishments of his race, and less concerned about what it can be in his own life and spirit, its source and responsibilities. In the language of the Song of Solomon, he is learning to neglect his own vineyard, where tractors are often to be seen rooting up some of the best vines. They did it by the million in the World Wars. Let us however return to the physiological side.
Williams proceeds to the genetic point that "everyone is a mutant, many times over." Suppression can help eliminate some of the defections from the pre-derangement situation, but it does not remove others, hidden in the forest of myriads of data in various bundles. The rate of deterioration being immense, there is therefore an increasing basis for more degradation, and since control genes have a magnified aperture for action, this moves things yet more adroitly off the sensitively poised course. Inhibitive editing programs for gene copying, pure marvels of wisdom, tend to delay the inevitable (except for divine action), but they do not eliminate it; and if miracle is in view for our race in its current mode, it is alas not in receptive mode.
The due results of ignoring reality, reason, certified revelation, the word of the living God in the Bible and as Jesus Christ, these accrue; and as in many physical processes, so in this spiritual one, once the decline starts, its forces can interact and quicken the consequences, as when a bus sliding a little, then tilts and tips down a decline.
Renewal is certainly not directed at the world itself, which fails inwardly and outwardly simultaneously. Nor is that accidental; for God moves with finesse both morally and materially. The renewal which is available, now as always, is at the individual and Church level, where God is plighted to His people in this same Jesus Christ, and revives, renews, blesses, refreshes, give understanding and resolution, rescue and strength (cf. Acts 3:19ff., Colossians 1:9ff., I Peter 1:3ff.). This is the spiritual opportunity made by the God who made man, and it is for man by faith, through which, in full accord with reason, he reaches the Lord of life, and learns to work with and for Him, before His salvation complete, He comes to judge, to rule, and to complete the work for this universe of His: for as to Him, to create a universe, or a new heavens and new earth, it is as for an author to write a book.
But what of the world ? Life is not really a grand and gory tea-party in which you slay what is unfit, and so become better. All deteriorate rather rapidly, the opposite to evolutionary progress, and fully in line with Gould's famous apostrophe to the heavens, as he looked at the so-named Cambrian era material in the Burgess deposits. HOW are we to explain progress when in terms of major design types, we have regress! that was the core of his almost cantankerous response to his findings (cf. Wake Up World! Ch. 6). Without God, man plods.
See Waiting for Wonder Appendix.
See for example, Spiritual Refreshings ... Ch. 13.
Darwin's admission of the empirical fossil failure to conform to the dictates of his theory is often cited. It may be found for example in The Origin of Species, 6th. Edition of 1872, and is as follows:
Why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links. Geology surely does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory.
In fact, it is merely one of a
crowd (see *5 below, and the set of volumes, The gods
of naturalism have no go!).
The wiseacres of the Age, crowding around the trough of untruth, continue when filled, to to attempt flight in a vacuum, crashing at every arising, predictably and for this world, with increasingly catastrophic consequences, as now Hitler, now Marx, now increasingly subversive elements of truth, righteousness and morality, evcen in Western nations, spill the swill of anti-evidential, contra-empirical confusion into a world increasing embarrassed, large at it is, by their attentions. Now they lynch the truth, in many of its contenders; just as when it mattered most, they crucified Him, when He came personally. Yet many still wonder why world trembles in increasing pangs and pain! Crucify truth and enlarge on the action in false churches, nations, hearts, and then cry, Oh why! Is it possible!
For this, see SMR pp. 199 -200. His overview was fascinating in its competence. Speaking of the Darwinian fabrications, this former Director of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological Research, acknowledged also in his F.R.S., had this to say of such Darwinian style inventions:
To invoke the continuity required by theory, historical arguments are invoked,
even though historical evidence is lacking. Thus are engendered those fragile towers
of hypothesis based on hypothesis, where fact and fiction
intermingle in inextricable confusion."
See also SMR pp. 160ff., and Downfall from Defamation Ch. 1. See further, Beauty for Ashes Ch. 3, including that below.
in SMR pp. 422B:
Even when there is some element of spontaneity (and we men in part have a measure of it via our enduement with creative personality), there is need of a cause of the structure for this: which operates at its own level, all duly contrived, produced, conceived and constructed. No consideration of different ways of working removes in the slightest degree, the need, the necessity of causing what works. Nor does it remove the contradiction of imagining 'grounds' of the concept of causation, if not objective: a mere sophistry for begging the question. Calling into being on adequate grounds is, after all, causation. You can account for nothing by demolishing accounting: and scarcely speed its demise by assuming it. (Cf. pp. 332E-G supra.)
Objective causation, as we have seen, leads only to the transcendent, Almighty God who, in different domains and dimensions, has provided for a creation and a creative component, called man, indeed one both discrete and frequently indiscreet, whose insolvent insolencies include even this: that what is not there spontaneously produces what is; or this, that man caused causation; or even this - that a causeless base is the real cause, of what happens happening. Truly man is remarkable, when in full flight from God, for the works of pure fancy, fantasy and folly which he self-contradictorily dreams. That indeed, is what the Bible calls them - dreams (Jeremiah 23), the hallucinations of unholiness.
And the cause of all this hullabaloo, so often repeated as men seek a magic mirage to support their insupportable contentions, whether mythical or physical or whatever might be the current mode: it is a rebellion which try though it will, can never unmast the tower of reason from the ship of thought.3
Thus in physics we find this erratic passion, as also in biology and psychology: this irrational lust for result without reason. Just as in primitive iridescence of splendour, biology invents life by academic fiat, saying, Let there be Life, and there is not life, not even with man as mouthpiece, rather than matter; and just as psychology invents goodness, saying, Let there be goodness, and behold, from all this, no goodness arises, but merely a reductionism in thought which is only too aptly mirrored by the reduced morals of contemporary observation: so physics now has its turn. The universe must now likewise 'arise', with no causative interface, naked of ground, free of basis; deprived of observation: nor is law found for it; neither is means, nor basis for any of it. Frustration becomes the father of the universe!
The hilarity of it all is the more pointed for this: we are told the 'truth' of these magical potions from magical potentates who invent irrational 'reasons' while despising the integrity of reason; who tell us 'truth' while imagining scenarios not only necessarily deprived of truth, but in a system where it necessarily could not exist (cf. Ch. 3; pp. 30-41, 284-289, 299-316G, 321, 383-385 supra; 698, 934-936, 1014-1017 infra); who give reasons for unreason (cf. pp. 1-10, 30, 264-266, 284-310 supra, 999-1002A, Chs. 5, 10 infra) and grounds for groundlessness; who use what they abuse, and affirm what they dismiss in the very interstices of their thought. Self-contradiction always however has this delightsome result: contradict yourself, and others need not bother.
See Secular Myths and Sacred Truth, and
SCIENTIFIC METHOD, SATANIC METHOD
AND THE MODEL OF SALVATION.
*6 See Sparkling Life ... Ch. 8.