Our limited friend

Many times science is pitted against the existence of God, as if you need to accept one or the other.  Is science in direct opposition to God?  Many who are naturalist would agree that the two fields of science and theology have nothing to do with one another.  For the naturalistic scientist, science trumps all arguments as the only reasonable avenue for ultimate truth.

Those who hold a naturalistic view do so with the assumption that the material universe is all there is.  Evolutionary scientist, Richard Dickerson has this to say about science, "Science, fundamentally, is a game. It is a game with one overriding and defining rule. Rule No. 1: Let us see how far and to what extent we can explain the behavior of the physical and material universe in terms of purely physical and material causes, without invoking the supernatural."[1] Niles Eldridge adds,  “If there is one rule, one criterion that makes an idea scientific, it is that it must invoke naturalistic explanations for phenomena … it’s simply a matter of definition—of what is science, and what is not.”[2]  But, can all reality be explained on a purely naturalistic level?

On a naturalistic level, all truth is determined by scientific investigation, but can this view take us to an ultimate truth as to how things really are?  What if a supernatural realm exists?  Obviously, if this is the case, then science only offers a limited view of truth.  Science writer, Kitty Ferguson, states, "if the supernatural world exists, and if it is inherently beyond testing by the scientific method, then there is truth beyond the range of scientific explanation."[3]

Science, although helpful in many ways, is itself limited.  There are a multitude of questions that science will never be able answer.  Where did the universe come from?  Surely, no credible scientist would say it came to be from nothing?  Why do we have the freedom of thought?  Will the naturalist say that we are simply programed machines?  And, if that is the case, why should anyone be held responsible for their actions?  How does one explain history on a naturalist scheme?  What formula can be offered to account for the resurrection of Jesus?  How about philosophical knowledge; is logic testable by way of the scientific method?  Do moral values open themselves up to the realm of science?

Scientific naturalism seems to be severely limited.  In fact,  scientific naturalism assumes that we can only think in one direction.  Richard Lewontin makes this point by saying, "We have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations…that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”[4]  But again, if truth is ultimately what is important, naturalism fails to answer in a comprehensive way.

What exactly is naturalism?  It is a one way, limited pursuit, as to what can be known in the material universe.  Naturalism can never answer the ultimate truth question, because of its limitations.  Not only does scientific naturalism turn out to be limited, but it presents itself as a philosophy in which to view the world.  Philip Johnson sums up naturalistic science, stating, "Evolutionary naturalism takes the inherent limitations of science and turns them into a devastating philosophical weapon: because science is our only real way of knowing anything, what science cannot know cannot be real."


 [1]  Dickerson, Richard, The Game of Science:Perspectives on Science and Faith (Vol. 44, June 1992), p. 137
[2]  Eldridge, Niles, The Monkey Business: A Scientist Looks at Creationism, Washington Square Press, 1982
[3]  Ferguson, Kitty, The Fire in the Equations, p. 82-83
[4]  Lewontin, Richard, Billions and Billions of Demons, p. 28

The mysterious mind

There are many arguments for the existence of God, but perhaps the strongest argument for God's existence is the argument from mind or consciousness.  Listening to a debate between J.P. Moreland and Clancy Martin, Martin who was arguing against the existence of God made the point that the mind is puzzling to explain on a purely naturalist level.

Looking at the mind, there are two opposing worldviews as to how the mind developed.  One view explains the emergence of mind without the need for God.  Many who take this view see the mind as a by product of Darwinian evolution.  In other words, everything can be explained by materialist means.  A big problem arises when trying to explain the mind on a purely naturalist level.  Think about your first person awareness, how is this to be explained by way of science?  So, the mind causes problems for naturalism, if this is how we are to view the world.

Some say the rescuer of the materialistic development of the mind is physicalism. Physicalism is defined as, "everything that exists is nothing but a single spatio-temporal system which can be completely described in terms of some ideal form of physics." [1]  A simpler way to express this idea is that the physical is all that exists, there is no such thing as God or the soul; no non-physical entities exist.  Is physicalism true?  Can physicalism/naturalism explain the existence of the mind?

The primary way by which physicalism tries to explain the mind is that the mind supervenes the brain.  On this view, the mind is the result of the brain, like smoke is the result of fire.  All things of the mind are triggered by the brain.  If this is the case, then God is not necessary.

In his book, Scaling the Secular City, philosopher J.P. Moreland points out the problems with physicalism.  First, physicalism is self-refuting.  If physicalism is true then so is determinism.  In other words, we are just programed machines of Darwinian evolution.  Philosopher Michael Ruse has said, " Free will as traditionally conceived...simply does not exist.  There is no way the evolutionary process as currently conceived can produce a being that is truly free to make choices." [2]  If all is determined on a naturalistic/physicalist view then we have no free will, but this does not seem to be the case with our mind.  If physicalism is true, then so is determinism.  J.R. Lucas says, "Determinism, therefore, cannot be true, because if it was, we should not take the determinists' arguments as being really arguments, but as being only conditioned reflexes." [3]

A second problem exists in that humans are rational beings.  Where does this sense of rationality come from?  J.P. Moreland makes several points to show that we are rational, and therefore, physicalism is the incorrect view.  First, we have intentionality or thoughts about the world.  Second, reason, propositions, morality, laws of logic and truth seem to stand against physicalism. Third, we have an agent view of the world.  An agent view means we can, deliberate, have free will, and be an agent to act on our free will.

A third problem with physicalim/naturalism is that scientific knowledge cannot explain the mind.  How will science ever be able to test a person's first person awareness?  How is love, hate, laws of logic, morality and the like measured by way of the scientific method? The mind is a tremendous problem for the physicalist/naturalist as stated by physicalist D.M. Armstrong, "It is quiet a different matter to hold that the nervous system should have the power to create something else, of a quiet different nature from itself, and create it out of no materials." [4]

The mysterious mind is a difficult explanation on a naturalistic or physicalistic view.  Perhaps the best explanation for mind is that there exists a Master Mind from which the mind originated.  There does seem to exist in all humans both mind and body.  We seem to be more than just blobs of matter that accidently arose. This is exactly the view of Scripture when it says, "So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them (Genesis 1:27)."  John Calvin the famous reformer once said, "the endowments which we possess cannot possibly be from ourselves.  They point to the Ultimate Mind and ground of rationality himself." [5]

[1]  Moreland, J.P., Scaling the Secular City, p. 80

[2]  Michael Ruse as quoted in J.P. Moreland's, Kingdom Triangle, p. 49

[3]  Lucas, J.R., Freedom of the Will, p. 114-15

[4]  Armstrong, D.M., A Materialist Theory of the Mind, p. 30

[5]  John Calvin as quoted in J.P. Moreland's, Scaling the Secular City, p. 103

The quest for a chance beginning

According to recent findings, scientist's have found bacteria that feeds on arsenic for the purpose of photosynthesis. This represents a breakthrough discovery, because if this can occur on earth, why not on Titan, which is a moon of Saturn, or other places in the universe? The conclusion of this recent finding is that life is no longer unique to earth. For those who espouse a naturalistic view of science the implication is, life can evolve by chance processes alone. One of the angles that the naturalist would take is that God is not necessary anymore, for life will find a way.

One of the big illusions of naturalism is its handicapping of possible truth. If supernaturalism is ruled out a priori, then the possibility of truth may be lost if anything is supernaturally caused. In this case with the discovery of bacteria, it must be assumed by naturalistic science that it came to be by a chance creative process. Another problem arises when the naturalist takes the position that life comes into being by a chance process, but how does he know this? What evidence can be given to show this is the most logical view? How does he know this bacteria was not created supernaturally in the past? When naturalism jumps to this conclusion, the the jump is merely a jump of faith.

Further problems exist when the assumption is made that because bacterial life can possibly form outside of earth, Darwinian evolution must be true. Several questions need to be addressed for life to even start and evolve. For example, How did something come from nothing? If you have chance creation of the universe, then how did the living arise from non-living material? How did the first DNA chains arise by chance? These questions have to be addressed first, but naturalistic science assumes not just chance evolution, but that conscious beings can evolve by a random chance processes.

What the naturalist does not want to address is explaining these fundamental questions to chance life beginnings. The reason why these questions are not addressed is because there is no way to show that life arose by chance. Science can never test this, but that doesn't not seem to slow the advocates of a purely naturalistic ideology. If naturalistic science claims that this discovery proves Darwinian evolution, they are swimming in the water of preconceived, philosophical, pseudoscience. If naturalism is crowned the champion of truth based upon this discovery, then the science of the gaps is inserted and real truth has been deleted.

• Article of NASA's findings
  

Who are you? Who are you... really?

Clint Eastwood star's in the movie Pale Rider which is about a cowboy who drifts mysteriously into a small mining town. In his new found home the people discover Eastwood is a man of the cloth and affectionately refer to him as, "preacher." As the movie proceeds, they discover some interesting characteristics about the preacher causing his friend, Sarah Wheeler to finally ask him, "Who are you? Who are you... really?" So, who are we as Homo Sapiens? Does the answer to the question have anything to do with how we live our lives?

Two paths can be taken concerning who man is: one is to see man as an accidental product of the universe, while the other is to see man as uniquely created in the image of God. Taking the first path is the reason given by the naturalist. A naturalist would see the entire cosmos as an accidental product by which man was created. Paul Churchland has stated, "The important point about the standard evolutionary story is that the human species and all of its features are the wholly physical outcome of a purely physical process....We are creatures of matter and we should learn to live with that fact."[1] On a naturalistic view as stated by Churchland, humans are purely pieces of matter that happened to develop a conscious life.

If humans are solely matter creatures then our evolutionary path has determined who we are. One of the characteristic features of this view is that humans are determined creatures by way of chance evolution. Researchers have recently discovered what they call the liberal gene. This liberal gene would control a person's view on how he/she sees the world. Obviously if a liberal gene exists, then a conservative gene must also direct an individual's actions and views. Philosopher Daniel Dennett takes the view that both alcoholics and child abusers are "determined to act as they do by forces outside their control."[2] On a naturalist view, humans are nothing more that robotic pieces of meat that act out their evolutionary determined direction. In fact, William Provine says, "Free will as traditionally conceived...simply does not exist. There is no way the evolutionary process as currently conceived can produce a being that is truly free to make choices."[3]

On a purely naturalistic view as defined by Provine, people cannot help themselves. If we are programed by evolution then morality does not exist. If morality does not exist then individuals should not be held accountable. For if morals do not exist, there is no right and wrong. How then are decisions made? Decisions are made by those in power. The naturalistic worldview paints a scary picture of reality if this is the way things really are. Taken literally, individuals can never be blamed for actions such as, lying, cheating, stealing, raping, or killing, for individuals are solely acting on their pre-programed information. No one can be called good or evil on this view, because there is no such thing as good and evil, or anything by which to measure such concepts. As Fyodor Dostoevsky said, "If God does not exist, everything is permissible." Ultimately, how we live our lives does not matter on a naturalistic view.

How we live our lives on a naturalistic view is truly frightening, but a different path can be presented. What if humans are the creation on a loving God who is intimately involved in the affairs of his people? On a Christian view, humans have free-will and are therefore responsible for what they do. God, as the possessor of all good becomes the measuring stick for what is right and wrong. A moral universe exist on the Christian worldview. We can know the right thing to do both intuitively and through God's revealed message to mankind. On the Christian worldview, humans are intrinsically important and have eternal worth. On the Christian worldview, God cared so much for his creation that he was willing to send his only son that whoever shall believe in him will not perish, but have eternal life.

Who we are makes a big difference on how this life can be viewed and lived. On the naturalist view, we are forced to live an irrational life while trying to make sense out of everyday struggles. "Atheism is a theoretical formulation of the discouraged life," according to Harry Emerson Fosdick. However, on the Christian worldview it makes a tremendous difference in knowing who we are. The Christian worldview provides a hope, even given the difficult struggles we daily face. The naturalist has to look at life with all the disappointments as the absolute best he will experience, where the Christian can view life with all its joys as the absolute worst he will ever experience. Who you are really matters in how you see this life.

[1] As quoted in J.P. Moreland's Kingdom Triangel, p. 47

[2] Moreland, J.P., Kingdom Triangle, p. 49

[3] As quoted in J.P. Moreland's Kingdom Triangel, p. 49

Fighting with both hands tied

Naturalism is the philosophical belief that the universe is the product of a purely naturalistic accident and that everything should be explained by naturalistic means. Naturalist would discount any Supernatural explanation. If a scientist has a naturalistic view, then all explanations are explained without reference to Supernaturalism. Carl Sagan once stated, "the Cosmos is all that was, is, or ever will be."[1] Nature is all there is on a naturalistic worldview.

What would happen if the Supernatural realm exist? Well, for starters, truth cannot be obtained if one holds a naturalistic viewpoint. Philosopher of science Del Ratzsch said, "If part of reality lies beyond the natural realm, then science cannot get at the truth without abandoning the naturalism it presently follows as a methodological rule of thumb." In other words, truth can never be obtained because naturalism can only answer so much. The truth of the matter is, naturalism is a religion in and of itself, for it makes statements of how we should perceive reality.

In 1912, Charles Darwin discovered a so called missing link between man and apes called "Piltdown man." It was discovered some 40 years later that the cranial bones were stained with a red dye to give the appearance of age, and the jaw bone was actually from an orangutan, with a cranium that was human. Now, this is not to say that science does not contribute greatly to our understanding of the world, but the point is, as Darwin was trying to manipulate the evidence for a preconceived purpose or idea, likewise, naturalism also has a preconceived idea that prevents the faith of naturalism from gathering all the evidence of truth. Journal editor, Alexander Kohn rightly stated, " Scientists, contrary to lay belief, do not work by collecting only hard facts and fitting together information based on them. Scientific investigation is also motivated by pursuit of recognition and fame, by hope and prejudice. Dubious evidence is strengthened by strong hope: anomalies are fitted into a coherent picture with the help of cultural bias."

Again, science has offered much and continues to do so, but a purely naturalist view mixed with a preconceived scientific view can only partially answer the big questions of life. Naturalism is a religious view that is akin to a boxer fighting with both hands tied behind his back. If truth is important, then we should consider the evidence wherever it leads irregardless of the positions we hold so dear.

[1] Sagan, Carl, Cosmos