Lux Lucet

The Root of the Problem 

It’s not uncommon to read articles against the lockdowns that argue in the following way:  The lockdowns may have made some sense early on, but now that we know the original predictions of massive death and destruction were inaccurate, there’s no reason to continue the lockdown policies.

Now, I for one, appreciate anyone willing to stand up and call for the end of the lockdown madness.  Some of people who have argues this way have done so at great risk to the professional reputation.  But for all that, their argument misses the mark.

The most basic problem with their reasoning is that it assumes science furnishes us with knowledge.  They compare the death predictions that were put out in early 2020 with what actually happened and conclude that we now know the original predictions were wrong. 

And while I agree that the actual deaths from the pandemic appear to be far less than what was originally predicted, one vulnerability of this sort of reasoning is that it opens the door for the lockdowners to come back and say, “yes, there weren’t nearly as many deaths from Covid as their might have been precisely because we locked everyone down. Further, we must continue the lockdowns to ensure that things don’t get far worse.”

In arguments of this sort, both the lockdowners and anti-lockdowners share in common the view that science furnishes with knowledge.

But science, at its best, can furnish us only with opinion.

Why is this?  Because the scientific method is built on a logical fallacy called asserting the consequent.

Consider the following line of reasoning:  If my battery is dead, my car won’t start; my car won’t start, therefore, my battery is dead.

Now anyone with even a little experience as a mechanic can spot the fallacy here.  While it’s true that a dead battery will prevent you car from starting, there are any number of other possible reasons why your car won’t start that have nothing to do with the battery being dead.  A dead battery is merely one possible reason your car won’t start.

The above in as example of the logical fallacy previously mentioned, asserting the consequent.

Now, let’s try the same thing with the lockdown argument.  It runs like this:  If we impose lockdowns, we’ll have fewer deaths from Covid than the scientific models predicted; as it turns out, we do, in fact, have fewer deaths from Covid than the models predicted, therefore we can credit lockdowns with saving lives.   

So what’s the problem here?  The same as it was in the dead battery example above.  It’s logically possible that lockdowns resulted in fewer deaths than would have happened otherwise, but, just like there are many reasons why a car won’t start other than a dead battery, so too are there many possible reasons that deaths from Covid are lower than the original computer models.

One of those alternate reasons for the lack of a black plague level death count is that the threat of Covid was blown way out of proportion by the authorities as an honest mistake.

Another possible reason for the lack of deaths is that Covid was blown way out of proportion by the authorities, not as an honest mistake, but as a means of imposing controls on people they never could have any other way than by scaring them into submission.

Other explanations for the lower death rate are possible. 

The big takeaway here is that the both the lockdowners and the anti-lockdowners, although they reach different conclusions, share the same basic assumptions about the way we supposedly can know things.  But in both cases, they rest their arguments on the logical fallacy that lies at the heart of the scientific method, which cannot furnish us with knowledge, but, rather, opinion only.

A second problem with applying the scientific method to public policy decisions is that of timing. 

When confronted with a possible pandemic, civil magistrates didn’t have the luxury of waiting for a year to go by until scientists are able to collect the data and to produce the reports showing the real death rates from Covid were nowhere near what was being predicted.  Those in office needed the information to make the correct decisions at that time. 

This is the timing problem with the scientific method.  Even if it were able to furnish us with knowledge, it would not be able to do so until after the fact, not before the fact when the crucial decisions had to be made. 

How Dare You Criticize Science!

Now it’s at this point that a lot of people, even Christian people, start to get a bit uncomfortable.  “Are you saying that all of science is false and useless?” they may ask.  To which I would answer “yes” and “no.”  Yes to the question that I’m saying all scientific laws are false.  But no to the question that science is useless. 

Science is very useful, even if it is untrue. 

The reason for this is that false scientific ideas, while untrue, nevertheless can work and are, therefore, useful.

Many people, both Christians and unbelievers, are confused on this point and hold this idea that one cannot, at the same time, be a Christian and find anything good to say about science.

This seemed to be Bill Nye’s approach a few years ago when he debated Ken Ham on the question “Is Creation a Viable Model of Origins?”  It’s been a few years since I listened to the debate, but if memory serves me, Bill Nye’s basic argument was that, if you’re a Christian you have rejected science and are, therefore, a stupid and dangerous person.  And if you rear your children as Christians, you’re guilty of making them stupid and dangerous also. 

This is nonsense, of course.  It’s entirely possible to be both a Christian and a sound scientist or simply one who appreciates what science can do to help man carry out the cultural mandate of subduing the Earth. 

The key is understanding two things.  First, that science, while useful, does not furnish us with truth.  Second, that there is a place where we can find truth, but it’s not found where most people think to look.

A Better Approach Is Needed

The two problems with science as a tool for making political decisions – science furnished us with opinion only, not knowledge, and the opinions it does provide come too late to be useful – are solved quite easily when we understand that knowledge is found in one source and one source only:  the 66 books of the Bible.  Put another way, the Bible has a systematic monopoly on truth.

The Scriptures not only furnish civil magistrates with the knowledge they need to make good decisions, but gives it to them in advance, so they don’t, like a bad typist trying to find the right key, have to hunt and peck for the right solution to whatever crisis they are facing at the moment. 

In his essay “Truth and Foreign Policy,” John Robbins explained this principle.  He wrote,

The Christian response to the failure of secular philosophy to answer the epistemological question is the axiom of revelation. Scripture not only explains how we know, it gives us all the information we need for living on Earth and in Heaven; it gives us that information before we act, not after, so that there is no need to act blindly; and it explains the failure of non-Christian philosophies. It may not tell us all we would like to know, but it tells us all we need to know (emphasis, mine).

Unfortunately, looking to the Scriptures is considered foolishness by our political leaders.  As a result, many of them have, with their responses to Covid, steered their nations and states and cities into a dead end from which further lockdowns will not rescue them.  Lockdowns never were the solution and our political leaders should have known this before imposing their destructive policies on their people. 

What Do the Scriptures Teach about Lockdowns?  

“So, what do the Scriptures teach about lockdowns,” someone may ask. 

Good question. 

In fact, that’s the best question anyone could ask about the lockdowns.  One may even say it’s the beginning of wisdom when it comes to making sound decisions about how to deal with Covid. 

Here’s the answer: the Bible opposes lockdowns but does allow for targeted quarantines of infected people.

How do we know this?  Read the Leviticus 13.  This chapter goes into detail about the diagnostic process to be used on a man who is suspected of having leprosy.  Only after a possible leper has gone through the examination process and is found to be leprous is he removed from the camp and forced to live outside of normal society.  There was no Levitical law that allowed the priests to declare a general lockdown of Israel to prevent the spread of leprosy.  Rather, they had to follow the leprosy protocol laid down in the Word of God, and this gave them the power to quarantine affected individuals only, not lockdown healthy people along with the sick “to stop the spread.” 

Jesus told his hearers to “seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness.”  If they did so, he told them, they would have the food and clothing that they sought, for God would provide. 

The West prospered precisely because Western civilization was created by the widespread preaching of, and belief in, the Gospel of Justification by Belief Alone. 

But Christian ideas long ago began to disappear from the West.  As a result, the people of the West and their leaders have become like the blind leading the blind.  Both have fallen into a ditch. 

In this case, that ditch is disastrous Covid lockdowns that almost certainly have cost trillions of dollars already, and, assuming they will come to an end at some point, likely will cost trillions of dollars more before they do so. 

Of course, it’s entirely possible they never will come to an end.  Listening to public heath officials certainly can leave you with the impression that interested parties have no intention of ever letting go of the Covid restrictions they’ve put in place.    

Pages: 1 2