52 denying the existence of God can only have intelligible meaning so long as God exists; thus, he must rationally rely on God in order to reason against God, thereby proving the existence of God even in his rebellion! In short, the unbeliever “lives and moves” within an intellectual framework — stolen from Christianity — yet employed against the very One who makes logic, reason, and morality possible. In order to demonstrate the irrational consequence of the secular worldview, let us examine the logical outcome of human rational autonomy and its dire significance for doing history. If finite man defies God, insisting that the fragmented perspective of the creature is the historical measure of the totality of all things, then there can be no objective “facts” of history because the historian’s experiences are always in the present. The facts of history cannot speak for themselves but, instead, require an interpreter who will assign meaning to them. Ignoring God’s Word as the transcendent frame of reference, man is now “free” to assign his own meaning to history, based on his limited understanding of life. But there are no “neutral” historians. One either approaches the historical facts of God’s universe as a Christian or as a non-Christian; no other option is available. For the unbeliever, then, history is not objectively “discovered” so much as it is subjectively “constructed.” Uninformed by God’s Word, historical interpretation is hopelessly personal and slanted — a slave to the beliefs and values of the moment (historicism) as each generation of historians provide its own meaning to the events of the past — determining on its own authority and limited understanding what has “permanent value” in the flux of nature and human experience. Seeking objective unity to his fleeting existence, the secular historian will turn to natural causation for an objective, scientific foundation to his discipline. But human experience of cause-and-effect relationships via the scientific method can never rationally prove the uniform regularity of the natural order; this is because the reliability of scientific method first requires that all natural events exhibit a uniform pattern at the very outset; causal sequences in nature and the scientific method that uncovers them can be true only if nature already operates uniformly over time. Thus, one cannot scientifically prove the uniformity of nature because one must first presuppose that uniformity in order for the scientific method to be a valid means of acquiring truth. Furthermore, it is logically impossible to prove the uniformity of all natural occurrences only by our limited experiences of cause and effect relationships because no one has ever experienced all past sequences nor can anyone experience future
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM4ODY=