B (10:27)

Well, that's just.

A (10:29)

Are you getting frustrated? Do you know that we can exhaust anybody's knowledge with eight questions? It's the same question each time. Why? Because why? Just keeps pushing us backwards, further and further and further. Or we might say deeper and deeper and deeper into our quest. Nobody can go beyond the eighth why and still be speaking intelligently. You finally say after seven times, you get to the eighth time, you go, I don't know why you throw your hands up. Because the why question pushes us to the question of ultimate reality. We can talk about this rug as approximate reality, but even as we speak, we know that this rug is not as it appears to be, that there's no such thing as blueness residing or inhering in this rug. Don't we? We know that colors come from light. And whatever light is reflected from this rug as the spectrum is separated and the light waves are separated, then the blue shade or the blue tone is reflected and it strikes the iris of my eye and so on, and I perceive blueness. But without light, there's no color in that rug. In fact, when I'm on the golf course and I'm stymied by a tree and I have no shot, you know, some nut always says to me, go ahead and hit. I see trees are 90% air. They don't look like 90% air. And every golfer that's tried to hit a shot through him knows that he's not going to get through it 90% of the time. But when somebody says that to me, that that tree is 90% air, I really have an urge to correct him. Say, it's a lot more than 90%. I said, what do you mean? I said, well, that tree's made up of molecules, and the molecules are made up of atoms, and the atoms are made up of subatomic particles. And he realized that between the nucleus of an atom and the subatomic particles, the neutrons and protons and so on, they're supposed to be flying around outside it. There's space. What's the proportionate ratio between the nucleus, the stuff, the essence of it, and that's space. Well, the best analogy I've heard on this is if you would go to downtown Los Angeles, to the city of Los Angeles, and put a Volkswagen in the exact center of Los Angeles and then drive to the extreme edge of the city limits of Los Angeles. You would get an idea of the space ratio that exists between the nucleus and the particles of an atom. All that area, from the Volkswagen out to the perimeter would be empty space. Now, why doesn't my golf ball go through there with ease if it's so much space? When we're talking about atomic theory and so on, we're trying to get beyond what we perceive physically and get down to the ultimate source and stuff of reality. Now, the science of metaphysics, maybe that's what he's thinking about. He's sitting there thinking, why am I doing this? Why am I sitting like this trying to figure. Maybe he's asking questions about why he is at all. Maybe he's asking questions about the meaning of his existence, which is one of the most important questions anybody can ever ask as they're constructing their worldview. The question, why am I here? Well, let's again go back to this concept of metaphysics. In the sphere of metaphysics, we can talk about subheadings under metaphysics that philosophers have been concerned with historically. One I've already alluded to is the science of ontology. Another aspect is the science of teleology. Let me just take those two for a moment as important aspects of our study of metaphysics. The science of ontology. How many of you, let's be honest, don't know what that term means? It's a new term to you, ontology. That's fine, that's good. There's nothing to be embarrassed about there. This is language peculiar to a particular discipline. Ontology is the science or the study of being. Ontos is a participial form of the verb to be. And so it just simply means being. And ontology is the study of being. We have all different kinds of being. We have human beings, divine beings. Well, the philosopher who's engaged in metaphysics is asking the question of ultimate being. It's an ontological question. Let me give you an example of this. I've used this example before, and I hope I'm not boring you with repetition, but I had a conversation with a professor of Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, a professor of physics, and I was about to give an address that night on the adequacy of human language to speak about God. And this gentleman, was there something as a skeptic and was being cynical. And we had dinner beforehand, and he said to me, I don't envy your task. And he said, what's that? He says, having to get up there and talk about God. He said, because you can't say anything meaningful about God because God is beyond the scope of science and beyond the scope of real language and so on. He said, it's a tough thing to do, isn't it? And I said, well, yes. I said, but surely you can understand my dilemma. And he said, why? I said, well, because you have the same problem with categories that you guys use in physics. He says, like what? And I said, well, like energy. And he said, what do you mean? I said, well, what is energy? And he said, well, everybody has an energy. I said, well, what is it? He says, the ability to do work. I said, I don't want to know what it can do. I don't want to know its function. I want to know what it is. Because you people keep telling me that ultimately the world is made up of energy. You speak of energy in terms of amounts. So what is it? And he said, energy MC squared. I said, I don't hear its mathematical equivalency. I want to know what it is. It's isness. See, what I was pushing for was an ontological definition of energy and calling my friend the task and the fact that people ascribe being to energy all the time. I want to know what kind of a being it is, if it has being or if it is being. It's difficult really to speak meaningfully about such concepts as it is to speak about God. I think it's far more difficult to speak about energy than it is to speak about God. But in any case, ontology asks the question, what is ultimate reality? And it asks questions like this, why is there something rather than nothing? Did you ever ask that question? Not why am I here, but why is anything here? When the Hubble spacecraft was launched with the hopes of the scientific community that this most sophisticated telescope of all time was going to give us a quantum leap in our knowledge of outer space. I heard one of the newscasters speak on television saying that 15 billion years ago, the universe exploded into being. And he made reference to the Big Bang theory of the origin of the universe. I just want to go right through the television set. I want to grab the guy by the throat and say, what are you talking about? Are you out of your mind? What do you mean that something exploded into being? What was it before it exploded into being, huh? If it wasn't being, what was it? Non being. If it had no being, it was nothing. And nothing doesn't explode, okay? You talk about this singularity that explodes, and you're Talking about a change in the form and in the structures of being, but you're not talking about movement from nothing into being that's so crucial to our understanding of reality. One of the first laws in anybody's worldview should be ex nihilo nihil fit. Out of nothing, nothing comes. That's an ontological law. The second law you should have is that if something exists, if anything participates at all in being, then somewhere, somehow, something or someone must have the power of being within itself, or nothing could possibly be. Ladies and gentlemen, that statement I just made, I'm convinced is epistemologically compelling, that the only way to deny it is to deny reason and to deny science. If something exists, something has the power of being in and of itself. And I know it's not me, and I know it's not the thinker. The thinker may be sitting there saying, hmm, wonder why something is. I wonder if there is anything that is. Why would Descartes, like this man here, be so intent of crawling into his Dutch oven to ask himself all the questions he can muster with all the critical tools he can bring to bear to come to this simple, basic conclusion? Cogito ergo sum. I think, therefore I am. Eureka. I know something for sure. I am. And the grocer down the street says, what's wrong with that guy? You know? I know that I am. I've been aware of that since the first moment of self consciousness. You don't have to be Popeye the sailor man. I am. I am. To be aware of your own existence. Descartes said, hey, I'm not just talking about self awareness. I'm talking about the certainty of my existence. And from there, Descartes says, if I am, then something must have being or I couldn't be. And Descartes went like that to the concept of God based on the compelling logical conclusion derived from his own existence. If I am, Descartes was saying, God must be. That's metaphysics, ladies and gentlemen. Now, the second dimension of metaphysics that the ancient Greeks and modern thinkers are still always concerned with is teleology comes from the Greek word that appears often in the New Testament in various forms, telos. Telos. Telos means end, purpose, or goal. And the science of teleology is the science, purposes and goals. When I was taking freshman biology in college, the teacher told us in the opening day of the lecture, she said, we're going to study biology, but don't anybody ever ask me any questions of teleology. They're out of order. They're beyond the scope of the scientific enterprise. And I wanted to jump up and say then science has become a prostitute and not a means to pursue knowledge. Because what more important knowledge can we discover than the question why we are here? What is the purpose of these things? It's when a nation abandons teleology that its laws become confused to the extent that there's a federal crime to destroy the eggs of fish while the embryos of human beings can be slaughtered. Because people aren't asking why. Metaphysics is not simply for the ivory tower scholar or for the thinker. How we perceive metaphysics, how we perceive being, and how we perceive purpose touches the very heart of our lives, ladies and gentlemen. We need to think about these things, and we need to think deeply, intently pondering.

B (24:33)

That was R.C. sproul, the founder of Ligonier Ministries, on this Tuesday edition of Renewing youg Mind. Today's message was from Dr. Sproul's Series A Blueprint for Thinking, a study of the most basic elements necessary for right thinking. This five message series can be yours when you give a donation of any amount in support of renewing your mind at renewingyourmind.org or when you call us at 800-435-4343 as our way of saying thank you for your generosity. You'll receive lifetime digital access to the series. Plus we'll send you Dr. Sproul's 35 message overview of philosophy. It's called the Consequences of Ideas, and it's on a special edition DVD that also contains the study guide. So make your donation@renewingyourmind.org or by using the link in the podcast Show Notes to receive this resource package on worldviews and the influence of various philosophers. And remember, an entirely digital version of this week's offer is available at renewingyourmind.org for those who'd prefer it, or who live outside the US Or Canada. Tomorrow, RC Sproul will consider the question, who is the truth? Join us then here on Renewing youg Mind.