Your Brother Daniel
For more great blogs as
this one go to Daniel’s blog site at: www.Mannsword.blogspot.com
The Logical Case against Naturalism
Science has been
hijacked by philosophical naturalism – the belief that everything originated
naturally, operates naturally, and is sustained naturally apart from a
Designer. Consequently, any scientist who offers a supernatural (ID) rather
than a natural explanation risks both job and reputation.
However, there is not
one stitch of evidence to support naturalism. Yes, we all agree that there are
laws and that they operate predictably. However, there is no evidence that these laws operate naturally. Instead, there are numerous considerations that would
lead us to conclude that God created and sustains everything.
Here are some logical
reasons I offered to an atheist:
1. There is no evidence that natural, unintelligent
forces exist. Although we all agree that objects are subject to laws and
respond in formulaic and predictable ways, there is no evidence whatsoever that
these laws are natural, unintelligent in origin and independent of one another.
Besides, natural causation cannot be invoked to explain them, since the natural
hadn’t been in existence to cause the “natural” laws. It is more likely that they
find their origin and unity in the single Mind of God.
2. Reason, logic, and the laws that govern this
universe are unchanging. In an ever expanding universe of molecules-in-motion,
naturalism can’t account for them. Only an omnipotent, immutable God can!
3. Reason, logic, and the laws of science are
uniform, wherever we look and in whatever historical period. However, for a
force or law to be natural, it must have a location from which it exerts its
influence. (At least, that’s our experience with the “natural.”) The sun
attracts the earth because it is in proximity to the earth. We find that this
gravitational influence diminishes as the distance increases. Likewise, I’ve
found that I can’t pick up the WQXR radio signals, which beam from NYC, when
I’m in Pennsylvania. However, the laws of science seem to operate uniformly and
universally, transcending the material constraints of location, matter and
energy. Naturalism can’t explain this, but supernaturalism can.
4. The laws require an adequate cause. Naturalism
is unable to postulate such a cause. And there are so many other things that
naturalism can’t adequately explain (life, DNA, fine-tuning of the universe,
freewill, consciousness, moral absolutes, the unchanging physical laws). In
order to theorize about the origins of these things, naturalism must make many
wild theoretical leaps into multiverses, co-option, and the emergent properties
of matter. This violates simplicity and Occam’s razor. In contrast, ID need
only postulate the Creator to explain all.
5. Our experience with causal agents informs us
that the cause is always greater than the effect. If the effect was greater
than the cause, it would suggest that some aspect(s) of the effect is uncaused
- a scientific impossibility! However, the Creator is certainly greater than
His creation.
6. Naturalism cannot account to the elegance of the
laws of science. However, ID can!
In response to this, the
atheist will point to the body of “natural” explanations we have for all forms
of scientific phenomena, and they’ll say:
·
Look at all of the
understanding that naturalism has produced. Therefore, naturalism is clearly
supported by this evidence.
However, this claim can
only be made by slight-of-hand. The explanations do not provide any support for
naturalism, even though we call them “natural” explanations. Instead, they are
explanations that invoke the various laws of science, without consideration of
whether they are natural or supernatural. Therefore, calling them “natural”
explanations is highly misleading. Instead, it would be better to call them
something neutral like “scientific” explanations.
No comments:
Post a Comment