Why Scientific Naturalism is False

Introduction

Everyone has a worldview that shapes their perspective of the world, influencing what is valued and how people behave, underscoring the importance of holding the right worldview. One commonly held worldview is scientific naturalism, which posits that the universe and everything in it can be explained by natural causes using empirical means such as the scientific method. Scientific naturalism is false because it is based on flawed presuppositions, overlooking crucial aspects of reality such as morality, meaning, and human reasoning, which the Christian worldview more suitably addresses.

Analysis of Scientific Naturalism

Scientific naturalism is a worldview that proclaims the laws of nature as the exclusive governing entities of the universe and all its constituents; it also asserts that everything is composed of purely physical matter, and the scientific method is the sole avenue to attain a rational understanding of anything. Consequently, this worldview dismisses the possibility of the supernatural, such as miracles and God.

This anti-supernaturalist perspective can be traced back to approximately the 6th century B.C.[1] It was not until the era following the Scientific Revolution, around the Enlightenment, that scientific naturalism began to gain traction and popularity.[2] The laws of nature, believed by many naturalistic philosophers throughout history, are immutable, and miracles violate such laws, making them impossible.[3] Those who lived before the scientific revolution were inclined to rely on divine intervention due to a lack of scientific advancement.[4] In other words, scientific naturalism claims to offer “freedom” from enslavement by being forced to rely on divine intervention to explain how the world is. This worldview also teaches all that is still unknown need not be explained by the supernatural but will eventually be explained through empirical means.[5] 

The main reason behind this stance against miracles and such a fixed view of the laws of nature is that scientific naturalism presupposes that all phenomena (both known and unknown) are to be explained by natural causes and understood empirically using modern science. This includes critical aspects of reality, such as objective morality, the meaning of life, and the reliability of human reasoning. Darwinian evolution is presupposed in this worldview, which is the process of species changing over time into new species due to random genetic mutations. Therefore, human reasoning comes from evolving from pre-existent organisms. The reliability of such faculties stems from natural selection, namely, the survival of the fittest.[6] Therefore, on scientific naturalism, the reliability of the reasoning faculties of human beings is the result of Darwinian evolution.

Using such reasoning, humans have also created and implemented objective moral standards by which they ought to live.[7] Some scientific naturalists recognize objective morality and accredit it to Darwinian evolution.[8] While others believe it is merely an illusion and morality either does not exist or is just subjective. It is also believed that libertarian free will is an illusion and that the actions of human beings are predetermined by naturalistic factors (such as genes).[9] Ultimately, scientific naturalists ground morality in naturalistic causes, as with everything else. Lastly, scientific naturalism claims that objective meaning can be had. As with morality, some scientific naturalists differ on this position. However, Dan Weijers, a naturalist philosopher, roots the meaning of life in what he calls “Optimistic Naturalism,” which is the view that “infinite” meaning can be found through scientific and technological advancement.[10] 

Objective morality, the meaning of life, and human reasoning are three critical aspects of reality that scientific naturalism presupposes. The entire worldview and its claims should be doubted if such presuppositions are shown to be flawed or overlooked. A comprehensive critique of the explanations for these components of reality shows them to be flawed, thus undermining the truth of scientific naturalism.  

Critique

Scientific naturalism is false because it is based on flawed presuppositions that are critical to reality. Namely, the worldview either insufficiently teaches or overlooks objective morality, the meaning of life, and the reliability of human reasoning. Space does not allow for a full critique of scientific naturalism, as analyzed above. Nonetheless, by showing that this worldview does not account for these critical aspects of reality, it can be shown that scientific naturalism and its claims (such as the impossibility of miracles) are false.

The first flawed presupposition of scientific naturalism is that it assumes the reliability of human reasoning. This worldview presupposes that mankind (and their ability to reason) is an accidental by-product of the random process of Darwinian evolution. Though, this origin provides no justification for trusting in human reasoning, as C.S. Lewis put it in his book Miracles:

"Thus, strict materialism refutes itself for the reason given long ago by Professor Haldane: ‘If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true…and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms.’…[Naturalism] discredits our processes of reasoning or at least reduces their credit to such a humble level that it can no longer support Naturalism itself."[11]

Just as a laptop should not be relied on if the various pieces were spread out on the ground and somehow randomly came together without guidance, nor should human reasoning be trusted if it came about from random molecules taking form. This is because it takes programming by an intelligent programmer to code certain functions for the laptop to perform reliably, and the same is true of human reasoning. Therefore, there would be no justifiable reason to trust the capabilities of a randomly put-together laptop (or human reason) because, since its origin, there was no goal in mind. Charles Darwin wrestled with this phenomenon himself.[12] Therefore, human reasoning is unreliable on this worldview, undermining the ability to trust that scientific naturalism is true in the first place.

For a worldview to be taken seriously, it must address critical aspects of the reality experienced, such as objective morality. Objective morality is independent of human opinion, while the opposite, subjective morality, is dependent on human opinion.

Some have argued for the truth of subjective morality, but objective morality is more accurate to reality. For instance, moral reformers throughout history would be wrong if morality were subjective. Specific people have challenged the unethical standards that were part of their society (such as slavery), which deserves much praise. However, if morality is merely subjective, then it would be immoral for those people to demand such ethical changes.[13] 

Some argue that objective morality is a by-product of Darwinian evolution. Yet, at best, Darwinian evolution can only produce subjective morality. As atheist philosopher Michael Ruse has said, “Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction…And any deeper meaning is illusory.”[14] Therefore, objective morality is not something that exists—it is just a by-product of humans being tricked into thinking it is real by evolution. To be consistent, one must be prepared then to admit that the Holocaust was not really wrong, but just something we are tricked into thinking was wrong. This is similar to how the scientific naturalist explains libertarian free will—that it is a mere illusion. If this is the case, there is no reason why humans should be held accountable for doing morally horrific actions if they are predetermined to do so by their genes. This seems to go against human intuition.  

Also, as Darwin himself admitted, if we were to rewind the evolutionary clock, starting the random process over again, we would likely get an entirely different set of morals.[15] This makes evolution subjective to the current time in the evolutionary process. Therefore, scientific naturalism cannot adequately address objective morality.

Another aspect of reality that worldviews must account for is an objective meaning of life. The search for such meaning has been evident despite the varying cultural and religious backgrounds throughout history. If a worldview is to be seriously considered, it must provide a purpose for living each day or else it is not livable. On scientific naturalism, there is no objective meaning, as Dawkins has said, “The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.”[16]

However, it does not seem one can live consistently with this belief. People live daily as if their life has meaning. For instance, Dawkins has dedicated his life to science and writing against religion to show his worldview (atheism) to be true. Why go through all this trouble if all is meaningless? Scientific naturalism also cannot provide an objective meaning of life because it does not correlate with the findings of modern science. The Second Law of Thermodynamics describes what will happen to the universe and everything in it—inevitable extinction.[17]

Some, such as Weijers, think this worldview can still provide infinite meaning. Yet, no matter what is done on this earth, everything will eventually come to an end. Even worse, the outcome after death for every living organism will be the same—vanishment into nothing. This means those who do as much good as Mother Teresa and those who do as much evil as Hitler will both experience the same outcome. This makes scientific naturalism unlivable and, thus, false. For in a universe without God, the only meaning that can be had is illusory and subjective, making objective meaning impossible. On the other hand, the Christian worldview better addresses the objective meaning of life, as well as the reliability of human reasoning and objective morality.

Defense

The Christian worldview is superior to scientific naturalism because it better addresses reality. While scientific naturalism carries many flawed presuppositions, the Christian worldview is not dependent on such a weak foundation. Therefore, not only can a case be made against the truth of scientific naturalism, but it can also be shown that the Christian worldview is more accurate to reality.

There is no basis for trusting human reasoning if scientific naturalism is true. As C.S. Lewis said, “Unless I believe in God, I can’t believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God.”[17] On the Christian worldview, human reasoning can be trusted because humans were created by a rational God and were made in His image (Gen. 1:27). Referring to the laptop illustration above, God is the Programmer. He is the Intelligent Designer who designed each part to function with a purpose, which includes human reasoning and logic in the real world.  

However, being made in His image does not mean that human reasoning is perfect. In addition to an image never fully resembling the actual entity, mankind rebelled against God, which brought sin into the world and resulted in a curse over all creation (Gen. 3). This led to the distortion of the image they were created in (although, it was not erased completely) which has been the cause of much pain and suffering to this day (Rom. 5:12). Since the beginning, the rebellious actions of human beings were not due to predeterministic causes, rather, it was due to the free-will God gave humans—making each person accountable for their wrongdoings. Therefore, the Christian worldview provides the best explanation for why the reasoning faculties of human beings can be trusted and for the free-will experienced.

The Christian worldview provides the best explanation for objective morality. Namely, it is grounded in the nature of a perfectly good God. Being made in His image, human beings universally recognize such a transcendent moral standard (Rom. 2:14-15)—independent of whether one believes in God. This can be formulated as a logical argument for the existence of God in the following structure: (1) If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist, (2) Objective moral values and duties do exist, (3) Therefore, God exists.[20]

The Christian worldview teaches that the standard of objective morality is outside of human opinion—making it unchanging because it is grounded in the perfectly good nature of God (James 1:17, Mark 10:18, Ps. 100:5). The closer human beings act according to His nature, the more morally righteous their actions are. Alternatively, the more their actions are distant from or in contrast with His nature, the more morally evil those actions are.

Objective morality being grounded in God shows that God exists but does not specifically show that Christianity is true. However, the implications of this can lead to the gospel message. Human beings, having been made in the image of God, universally recognize the objective moral standard. Yet, despite their best efforts, humans have constantly fallen short of meeting such standard, leaving a gap between what is done and what ought to be done. Therefore, forgiveness is required to bridge the gap, but it can only be had with divine grace received through Jesus.[21]

Lastly, scientific naturalism does not offer a significant meaning of life. On the other hand, the Christian worldview teaches that life does not end at the grave. Instead, the lives of humans on earth will spill over into eternity (Luke 23:43, 2 Pet. 3:13, Rev. 21:1). The purpose and meaning of life is to know and revere God (Eccles. 12:13-14, Col. 1:16), which brings ultimate fulfillment and joy like no other (John 10:10, Matt. 16:24-25).

Scientific naturalism teaches that meaning and purpose can only be had in the things of this world, but this only leads to despair. King Solomon was wealthy beyond measure and incredibly wise. Nevertheless, in writing Ecclesiastes, he explained how everything was meaningless despite all he had accomplished (Eccles. 1:2). This void left deep in the souls of human beings, which material things cannot fill, is God-shaped and designed for eternity (Eccles. 3:11). All material things will eventually pass away, as will the universe and everything in it. Thus, hope in the things of the world only goes so far as they have not yet vanished. Jesus referred to these treasures on earth and explained how they all have an expiration date, while the treasures of heaven (i.e., placing hope in God) are eternal (Matt. 6:19-21).

As William Lane Craig has stated, “Biblical Christianity therefore provides the two conditions necessary for a meaningful, valuable, and purposeful life: God and immortality. Because of this, we can live consistently and happily within the framework of our worldview. Thus, biblical Christianity succeeds precisely where atheism breaks down.”[21] Therefore, Christianity accounts for the objective meaning of life humans universally strive for, while scientific naturalism does not.

Conclusion

For a worldview to be sound, it must be rational, livable, and comprehensive. Scientific naturalism fails to meet such requirements because it overlooks crucial aspects of reality, such as objective morality, the meaning of life, and human reasoning. On the other hand, the Christian worldview offers a more comprehensive and balanced perspective. Therefore, Christianity is evidently more accurate to reality than scientific naturalism.

Footnotes

[1] David Ray Griffin, “Scientific Naturalism: a Great Truth that got Distorted,” Theology and Science 2, no. 1 (2004): 12, https://www.doi.org/10.1080/1474670042000196603

[2] Michael Shermer, “Scientific Naturalism: A Manifesto for Enlightenment Humanism,” Theology and Science 15, no. 3 (2017): 222, https://doi.org/10.1080/14746700.2017.1335060

[3] Khaldoun A. Sweis and Chad V. Meister, Christian Apologetics: An Anthology of Primary Sources (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2012), 318-320.

[4] Michael Shermer, “Scientific Naturalism: A Manifesto for Enlightenment Humanism,” Theology and Science 15, no. 3 (2017): 228, https://doi.org/10.1080/14746700.2017.1335060

[5] Richard Dawkins, Science in the Soul: Selected Writings of a Passionate Rationalist (New York: Penguin Random House LLC., 2017), 230.

[6] Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (New York: W.W. Norton, 1986), 5.

[7] Michael Shermer, “Scientific Naturalism: A Manifesto for Enlightenment Humanism,” Theology and Science 15, no. 3 (2017): 227, https://doi.org/10.1080/14746700.2017.1335060

[8] Sam Harris, The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values (New York: Free Press, 2010), 198

[9] Sam Harris, The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values (New York: Free Press, 2011), 104.

[10] Dan Weijers, “Optimistic Naturalism: Scientific Advancement and the Meaning of Life,” SOPHIA 53, no. 1 (2013): 2, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11841-013-0369-x

[11] C.S. Lewis, Miracles (New York: HarperCollins, 1947), 22.

[12] Charles Darwin, “Letter to William Graham Down,” in The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, vol. 1, ed. Francis Darwin (London: John Murray, 1887), 285.

[13] Paul Gould, Travis Dickinson, and Keith R. Loftin, Stand Firm: Apologetics and the Brilliance of the Gospel (Nashville: B&H Publishers, 2018), loc 43, Logos.

[14] Micahel Ruse, Evolutionary Theory and Christian Ethics (London: Routledge, 1989), 269.

[15] Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex, vol. 1 (London: William Clowes and Sons, Stamford Street, and Charing Cross, 1871), 73.

[16] Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (New York: W.W. Norton, 1986), 133.

[17] P.J. Zwart, About Time (Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1976), 136.

[18] C.S. Lewis, The Case for Christianity (Paris: B&H Publishing Group, 2000), 32.

[19] William Lane Craig, On Guard: Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precision (Colorado Springs, CO: David C. Cook, 2010), 129.

[20] Paul Copan, “The Moral Argument,” in Christian Apologetics: An Anthology of Primary Sources, ed. Khaldoun A. Sweis and Chad V. Meister (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2012), 189.

[21] William Lane Craig, On Guard: Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precision (Colorado Springs, CO: David C. Cook, 2010), 49.

Bibliography

Craig, William Lane. On Guard: Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precision. Colorado Springs, CO: David C. Cook, 2010.

Darwin, Charles. “Letter to William Graham Down.” In The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, vol. 1, ed. Francis Darwin. London: John Murray, 1887.

Darwin, Charles. The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex. Vol. 1. London: William Clowes and Sons, Stamford Street, and Charing Cross, 1871.

Dawkins, Richard. The Blind Watchmaker. New York: W.W. Norton, 1986.

Dawkins, Richard. Science in the Soul: Selected Writings of a Passionate Rationalist. New York: Penguin Random House LLC, 2017.

Gould, Paul, Travis Dickinson, and Keith R. Loftin. Stand Firm: Apologetics and the Brilliance of the Gospel. Nashville: B&H Publishers, 2018. Logos.

Griffin, David Ray. “Scientific Naturalism: a Great Truth that got Distorted.” Theology and Science 2, no. 1 (2004). https://www.doi.org/10.1080/1474670042000196603.

Harris, Sam. The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values. New York: Free Press, 2011.

Lewis, C.S. Miracles. New York: HarperCollins, 1947.

Lewis, C.S. The Case for Christianity. Paris: B&H Publishing Group, 2000.

Ruse, Michael. Evolutionary Theory and Christian Ethics. London: Routledge, 1989.

Shermer, Michael. “Scientific Naturalism: A Manifesto for Enlightenment Humanism.” Theology and Science 15, no. 3 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1080/14746700.2017.1335060.

Sweis, Khaldoun A., and Chad V. Meister. Christian Apologetics: An Anthology of Primary Sources. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2012.

Weijers, Dan. “Optimistic Naturalism: Scientific Advancement and the Meaning of Life.” SOPHIA 53, no 1. (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11841-013-0369-x

Zwart, P.J. About Time. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1976.

49.