Naturalism versus Christianity
One of the strongest opposing
philosophical views to Christianity is naturalism. Webster defines naturalism
as “a theory denying that an event or object has a supernatural significance; specifically: the doctrine that scientific laws are adequate to account for all
phenomena.”[i] This belief is what Friedrich Nietzsche meant
in the statement, “God is dead,” in his book, Die fröhliche Wissenschaft, first published in 1882. He believed that science had developed to the
point that we don’t need God to explain things that we previously didn’t
understand. He specifically believed
this in reference to the God and supernaturalism of Christianity.
To determine if science
adequately accounts for all phenomena, one must consider the logic upon which
science depends. Deductive logic
validates the consistency of ideas and concepts. Both systematic theology and science depend
on deductive logic, but the truth of a valid deductive argument, whether
science or theology, depends on the premises.
To develop premises, science depends on inductive logic. However, inductive logic only applies to what
we can generalize. (See “Why is there a conflict between special revelation and
science?”) For naturalism to claim
that science explains all phenomena, it must claim that generalizations explain
all phenomena, or that nothing is truly unique.
Two issues that the
naturalist faces are how the universe began and how to explain the human
mind. The beginning of the universe is a
unique event. Concerning the mind, if
logical cause and effect can explain all phenomena, then even our thoughts are
the product of previous causes. Our
decisions result from previous causes.
Naturalistic cause and effect leaves no room for free choice, but rather
a cold impersonal determinism.
Statistics relates to both
problems, the beginning of the universe and the mind. We use statistics because all the details are
too great for us to track. However, if
statistical chance exists independent of cause, then maybe there is room for
free choice. Some try to reference the
Heisenberg uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics as justification of
this. But, the uncertainty in quantum
mechanics is extremely small, much smaller than experimental error. One also has to ask, does chance make
decisions any more responsible than cause and effect. People feel responsible for the decision they
make, but decisions that chance determines are still deterministic.
The statistical problem with
the Big Bang theory for the beginning of the universe is the extremely low
statistical probability of the universe turning out the way it did. In particular, turning out with the ability
to support life. (See “Why is God invisible?”) One way to explain the improbability of our
universe is the multiverse theory. The
larger the number of multiverses, the more probable the existence of our
universe.
If one expands the
multiverses to even larger numbers, then one could have a universe for every
possible decision one could make. This
is a way to explain the minds decision making.
However, this pushes the number of universes in the multiverse toward
infinity.
A multiverse eliminates the
uniqueness of the beginning of the universe.
However, it creates problems. How
does one substantiate the existence of multiple independent isolated universes? The inability to substantiate scientifically
is one of naturalism’s primary criticisms of religion.
Naturalistic evolution, as
opposed to either theistic or pantheistic evolution, also has a problem with
the human mind. An evolution based
solely on survival of the fittest leaves no room for the human mind to develop
an understanding of truth or reality.
(See “Can a naturalistic view of evolution
explain human cognition?”) Charles
Darwin published On the Origin of Species
in 1859, when Friedrich Nietzsche was fifteen years old. While Nietzsche saw the driving force of
evolution as the desire for power rather than the desire to survive, his
philosophy devoid of God came to the same conclusion called nihilism, in which
not only is truth itself lacking, but life has no meaning or purpose.
The naturalist struggles with
questions such as, “Why do people inherently think there is a God?,” and “Why
do we think we make our own decisions and are responsible for our
actions?” Many naturalists explain the
inherent belief in God as an unfortunate byproduct of evolution. (http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=god-may-work-in-mysterious-waysbut-2011-01-27) Along the same line, strict naturalism
suggests that responsible decisions as well as free thought are illusion.
Many naturalists aren’t so
quick to abandon human volition and responsibility. Some propose extravagant theories to make
these consistent with science. But, one
has to ask, are these extravagant theories easier to believe than in God.
Christianity answers how the
universe began with God, who created the universe with purpose. Christianity explains the human mind with God
creating humans in His image. The human
mind is a lesser expression of who God is.
While the human mind is no comparison to God’s infinite wisdom, God does
relate to humans with redemptive purpose.
We cannot find God through our knowledge, but, by becoming one of us,
God revealed Himself to us in a way we can relate.
©2011 Perry Vernon Webb. You may
quote this page in part or the whole as long as you
1) do not alter the wording and
2) reference this Internet page as the
source of the quote.
How to receive a new life in Christ.
Click 
next to Bible references to open Logos Bible Software Series
X directly to the passage. Learn more about linking directly to Logos and find other
web sites that support integrated Bible study.
Back to "Answers
to Some Philosophical Questions".
Email: [email protected]