(quote from RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_2_-_Scientia.pdf)

Abduction as a Way of Knowing

“I’m looking for explanations of the creation of the world as we know it based on what I’m going to call ‘science.’ Not historical science—not observational science—science! Things that each of us can do akin to what we do; we’re trying to out-guess the characters on murder mystery shows, on crime scene investigation especially.” ~ Bill Nye

We might think Bill is out of touch when he implies science is akin to guessing, but many scientists agree. They just put it into different words. Consider the following quote from a science professor acquaintance:

“Science uses a specific form of Peirce’s abductive schema and can be given a rigorous justification in terms of Bayes’ theorem.”

Doesn’t this statement sound impressive? Those words do give the illusion of sanity. However, we run into terrible problems with this thinking. For instance, we run into the Sherlock-Holmes fallacy. While the fictional character, Sherlock Holmes, falsely called his thinking “deduction,” it was abduction.

What is Peirce’s abductive schema?

Peirce said abduction is like guessing, and that’s what it is. Guessing!

Abduction brings us back to the main problem to overcome when thinking since guessing is a form of making up stuff. If we don’t know, we just guess. If we don’t know, we just make up something. Abduction makes up a story about the “most likely” cause of something we observe. It does that by guessing.

As a result, abduction doesn’t use logic. Nor does it try to be rational, so we can immediately see the problems. When faced with two or more feasible causes, human beings can’t determine the “most likely” cause. Nor can they know they’ve isolated all the possible causes to evaluate. If we claim we’ve isolated all the possible causes, we’re asserting a universal negative. Only God can rationally assert a universal negative. The problem is more severe than that. Without divine anointing, humans can’t keep their worldviews or biases from deceiving them. They can’t keep the groupthink body of knowledge of the establishment from deceiving them. They can’t keep groupthink confirmation bias in the form of peer review from deceiving them. The natural human mind can’t avoid foolishness because it’s deceitful and desperately wicked. Therefore, no one can know anything using Pierce’s abductive schema.

(end quote)

(quote from RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_2_-_Scientia.pdf)
We’ve shown that all three proposed methods to power apriorism fail. Reason fails, what is self-evident fails, and common sense fails. Looking into common sense showed us common sense doesn’t exist, but it also showed us common science exists. However, common science isn’t a priori thinking. It’s a posteriori thinking as God reveals through observation, testing, and experimentation.

Apriorism creates the illusion of rational thought. When we fall into this mode of thinking, we pull presuppositions from our worldviews and rationalize them into abstract principles. We then label these abstract principles as facts and use them for two purposes. We use them to filter and interpret our observations and experiences, and we use them as premises for our conclusions. Apriorism is just one more system of making up stuff and calling the made-up stuff “true.” Put simply; apriorism is made-up stuff masquerading as reality. Someone just changed the name.
(end quote)

(quote from RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_2_-_Scientia.pdf)

Here’s the point. God reveals reality through the science you do every day. Listen to His voice. Give Him the glory. God reveals reality to you through common science just as God reveals reality through organized science. Exactly how does God reveal what He wants you to know? Naturalists would explain it without God of course, but they just make up their answer. Common science is an example of what God says as He speaks through the first chapter of Romans in the Bible. While this chapter tells us God reveals Himself to humanity through His creation, God reveals much more than Himself through His creation. He reveals a lot about many aspects of reality through His creation. However, this revelation isn’t a priori thinking. And while common science may be part of the way God reveals, it’s not the only way. God sometimes just reveals parts of reality to us directly. You hear God telling you the Bible is His utterance without error, and the Holy Spirit confirms this truth to you. He may speak a word into your heart, impart His peace and stability, or give you a vision in a moment. As He does this, you sense He’s confirming the truth.

(end quote)

(quote from RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_2_-_Scientia.pdf)

Dr. Axe gives an example of his Oracle Soup test in which he tells someone about this new product called “Oracle Soup,” a product that can produce knowledge. He picks a person to test with this story and tells this person about how you simply put some water on the stove and sprinkle in a little Oracle Soup. Then, when you pull the cover off the kettle, the Oracle Soup has letters that will form themselves into a description of a discovery you can patent. You just have to write down whatever it spells out, and then you can put the cover back on the kettle, wait a little while, and pop the cover off again. The Oracle Soup will spell out another patentable discovery. Dr. Axe has found that people intuitively know this story is false. They’ll let him talk about it for a while, but they’ll quickly catch on to the gag. They know there’s no such soup.

He says we know some things just by living life and practicing common science, and he’s right. He mentions children as young as four years old have some ability to formulate causes for effects based on this common science. Scientists did some research on this effect in children. They found young children intuitively know a butterfly didn’t come into being by unguided processes. They know an intelligent deity created it. Even children who’ve been raised to believe in atheism know. Of course, ungodly thinkers are concerned about this awareness of God through His creation. They work on programs to brainwash children into believing molecules-to-humanity stories. They want children to believe these wonderful creations result from mindless processes even though children can see God created them. They teach children to ignore the observations and pay attention to the made-up stories.

(end quote)

(quote from RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_2_-_Scientia.pdf)

But wait a minute. Dr. Douglas Axe of Biologic Institute speaks of something he calls “common science” as a way of knowing. He relates common science to intuition. It’s common science rather than common sense. What is this thing Dr. Axe calls “common science?” Common science is the science everyone does every day using the scientific method of observation, testing, and experimenting plus intuition to discover new things that work. And though we don’t keep meticulous notes or have any required reporting, common science is one of the ways God reveals reality to us. We keep mental notes of methods, products, and materials that work and others that don’t work.

(end quote)

(quote from RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_2_-_Scientia.pdf)

Apriorism as a Way of Knowing

Some people defend apriorism. The logical fallacy of apriorism bases reasoning on a priori thinking. Google defines a priori thinking as follows:

knowledge independent of all particular experiences, as opposed to a posteriori knowledge, which derives from experience.

Merriam Webster puts it this way:

the doctrine that knowledge rests upon principles self-evident to reason or are presupposed by experience in general.

So if you base your thinking on an axiom or presupposition, you’re reasoning by a priori thinking. You’re not proving your points using observation or experience and rational thinking. You can compare a priori thinking to a posteriori thinking. A posteriori is thinking based on experience and observation. Some philosophers teach that apriorism makes sense, and in their defense of apriorism, they assume knowledge comes out of three things:

• Reason
• What’s self-evident
• common sense

Let’s examine each of these three quickly here.

Reason: Reason must be sound, or it doesn’t result in knowledge. Sound reasoning requires a true premise and sound deductive form. A priori reasoning doesn’t have any of that, so it can’t lead to knowledge.

What’s self-evident: Who thinks it’s self-evident? What’s self-evident to one person isn’t self-evident to everyone else. Instead, whatever matches a person’s inner worldview seems self-evident to that person even if it’s false. In the same way, whatever doesn’t match a person’s inner worldview seems crazy to that person even if it’s true. Therefore, just declaring something to be self-evident doesn’t make it true. Rather, we must prove it to be true, or it’s a priori thinking.

Common sense: The term “common sense” gives the illusion of a set of commonly held beliefs. But commonly held beliefs don’t determine truth, and to imply they do is an appeal-to-common-belief fallacy.

We need to go a step further since the common sense of one person isn’t likely to be the common sense of everyone else. For instance, political liberals and political conservatives are going to have different opinions about common sense on many issues. So whose common sense are we supposed to use? Common sense is a subjective judgment. And most people determine common sense based on what matches their worldviews. What matches your worldview seems, to you, to make sense. Whatever conflicts with your worldview seems like nonsense.

And it’s not just worldviews. Peer pressure gives the illusion of universal truth since those who disagree keep quiet when they think they’re in the minority. Humans form worldviews largely under the influence of peer pressure, but worldviews are not reality. Worldviews are mere concepts of reality. Worldviews consist of made-up stuff about reality, and while they usually contain some reality and some fantasy, worldviews don’t distinguish between reality and fantasy. Worldviews make it more difficult to distinguish between reality and fantasy. For these reasons, common sense isn’t a rational basis to justify a priori thinking.

(end quote)

(quote from RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_2_-_Scientia.pdf)

Debate as a way of knowing

Some people say debate improves critical thinking, enhances collaboration, and helps debaters identify problems with their own viewpoints. That’s the theory. Even if that were true, none of these benefits can lead us to the truth. However, it’s not true. What really happens in debate doesn’t even meet the expectations of the theory of debate. Debaters concern themselves with winning. They don’t concern themselves with truth. If we watch political debates, hot debates on news programs, or debates on Internet discussion groups, we find these debates are almost always filled with every sort of fallacy. The debaters use fallacies to fool their audiences. Debates quickly degenerate into contests of who has the most skill in blowing smoke up the noses of others.

(end quote)

(quote from RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_2_-_Scientia.pdf)

ANSWERING AD IGNORANTIAM QUESTION FALLACIES

I’m not saying you shouldn’t answer ad ignorantiam questions. Often, you’ll know the answer, and God will lead you to answer the question. Many Christian groups do an excellent job answering the ad ignorantiam question fallacies. Answers in Genesis is a great example. Mostly, you can assure yourself that ad ignorantiam questions prove nothing.  You don’t have to be frustrated when you realize hardened skeptics aren’t interested in the truth. You can know all ad ignorantiam questions about Christ or the Bible have answers even if you don’t know the answer. The ad ignorantiam question is a rhetorical question meant to make a statement rather than ask a question. When the statement is against the Bible or Christ, you know the statement has no truth to back it up.

The basis of your faith is Jesus Christ. Very few ad ignorantiam questions attack that basis. Some do attack that basis. We base our faith on nothing less than Christ. Our faith comes by hearing the rhema, or utterance, of God. He speaks, and faith comes. We know He exists because we know Him.

A question that goes to the basis of your faith implies you aren’t experiencing what you’re experiencing in Christ. The skeptic means to gaslight you. The skeptic implies you’re crazy or deceived. Here’s an example.

AD IGNORANTIAM QUESTION FALLACY

“How does god talk to you? Specifics please.”

STATEMENT THE SKEPTIC IS MAKING IN THE RHETORICAL QUESTION

“God doesn’t exist. You aren’t experiencing what you’re experiencing.”

ANSWERING THE AD IGNORANTIAM QUESTION FALLACY

“First, let me clarify that I’m talking about the Almighty God rather than “god” as your question is asking. In answer to your question, I have no certainty a god is speaking to me at any time.

Now let me answer the question you should have asked. The Almighty, Triune, Creator God speaks to me in various ways. And divine revelation varies between individuals. I have friends who have experiences I don’t have. I have experiences they don’t have.

Sometimes, God has spoken to me in a vision. Sometimes, He’s spoken to me in a dream. Often, He speaks is a whisper or a normal voice in my spirit. He’ll often speak to me through a brother or sister in Christ. And He lets me know He’s speaking through them. I’ve come to know the voice of Christ.

However, I pray every day that God would soften my heart toward Him. I know how wicked my fallen mind is and how tricky it is. So I pray for discernment and an open mind to God. I pray for a submissive heart that loves justice and righteousness. I pray that the love of God is shed abroad in my heart by the Holy Ghost.

God speaks to you, maybe through me. Then faith comes. You believe what God is saying, but you don’t know why. It’s because He gave you faith. It’s because Jesus Christ, God’s Word, authored that faith in you. And then, your born into God’s family. Satan is no longer your father and has no rights to you.

That’s when the battle starts. That’s when the road to spiritual maturity begins. The fleshly nature wants to do what the fleshly nature wants to do. It’s an enemy of God’s Spirit, so there is conflict. That’s why I pray for a soft heart toward God every day.

If God speaks to you and you harden your heart against Him, faith won’t come to you. The opposite happens. Your mind is darkened. You have less discernment between reality and make-believe.

Let me ask you a hypothetical question. Suppose God spoke to you and you knew for certain it was God. Would you leave all the sinful things you like to do? Would you serve Christ and only do His will and only say His words?”

********

It was no surprise that the skeptic who asked the question wasn’t interested in the answer. The skeptic was just using a debate tactic and pretending to want an answer. The question wasn’t a question. Skeptics pretend to be open-minded, but they are skeptics, so their minds are closed to truth. They harden their hearts whenever God speaks to them. They’re dogmatic against God.

Arguments against Christ are always based purely on made-up stuff. None of them ever have substance.

(end quote)

An Alternative to Answering Ad-Ignorantiam Question Fallacies

(quote from RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_2_-_Scientia.pdf)

An Alternative to Answering

Rather than trying to answer, why not point out the fallacy? Ad-ignorantiam-question fallacies can’t prove anything. They can’t generate truth. They just muddy the water. You can ask whether the skeptic wants the truth. Sometimes, you might get caught in mind games. At those times you can focus on the game rather than answering fools according to their foolishness and becoming a fool like them. Show them the difference. Explain that you know and listen to Christ. Explain that they make up stuff and use smokescreen fallacies but have no path to truth.

(end quote)

(quote from RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_2_-_Scientia.pdf)

Confirmation Bias

Here’s the trouble with dogmatism. Dogmatic skeptics put on a super-skeptical filter whenever they’re confronted with God. They’re super-gullible when examining anything anti-Bible or anti-Christ. They’ll accept just about anything.

So they present a question, but they already know they won’t accept any answer. Their Skeptometer is set on high.

“NO! That makes no sense to me.”

That’s their reaction no matter the answer. If necessary, they change the subject, resort to personal attacks, or try other fallacies. They say something like this:

“Just convince me. Oh! Surprise! You couldn’t convince me. That confirms my bias. It makes my worldview, my fake reality seem more real. My fake reality seems more real to me than real reality. It makes my imaginary world seem more genuine.”

So they walk into even greater darkness and have less ability to tell the difference between reality and make-believe, truth and error, or good and evil.

(end quote)