Problems with Naturalism
Many naturalists will tell you that creationists have not met the burden of proof for the existence of God, and therefore, there is no need for belief in God. While many will admit that they have not proved the non-existence of God, creationists have failed to prove anything to the contrary. But this is sheer nonsense. The burden of proof for God was met one second after the universe began, because after all, if there is no God, why does anything exists at all? The fact that there is a universe, precise laws that govern it, and unspeakable complexity in the solar system and biological systems is overwhelming evidence for a creator God. The language latent in DNA, an undeniable moral law, and human consciousness makes a conclusive case for the existence of God.
The most evident flaw in the naturalist's worldview is that they presuppose the laws of nature when making their case. These laws such as gravity, the strong and weak nuclear force, electromagnetism and so forth are powerful and precise and more importantly work in harmony, with incredible precision. While these laws standing alone would make a decisive argument for the existence of God, naturalists cannot explain why they exists, how they began, and simply presuppose them. Following are several other grave problems with naturalistic philosophy.
A Rational Universe
The rationality of the universe is astonishing to contemplate. The laws of nature not only implore unthinkable precision, but they work together with amazing balance and harmony. For example, protons are the positively charged subatomic particles which (along with neutrons) form the nucleus of an atom (around which negatively charged electrons orbit). Protons just happen to be 1,836 times larger than electrons. If they were a little bigger or a little smaller, we would not exist (because atoms could not form the molecules we require). So how did protons end up being 1,836 times larger than electrons? Why not 100 times larger or 100,000 times? Why not smaller? Of all the possible variables, how did protons end up being just the right size? Protons carry a positive electrical charge equal to that of the negatively charged electrons. If protons did not balance electrons and vice versa, we would not exist. They are not comparable in size, yet they are perfectly balanced. Did nature just stumble upon such an exact relationship, or did God create it for our sake? www.gotquestions.org/anthropic-principle.html
A two percent increase on the strong force relative to the electromagnetic force leaves the universe with no hydrogen and no water. If the electromagnetic force relative to the gravitational force had been weaker, stars would contain a billion times less mass and would burn a million times faster. We can go on with examples but the point is that the universe displays rationality in the way the laws that govern the universe work together.
The universe displays rationality in that many of the laws that govern life systems and the universe itself are written in a specific language. In the case of the laws of nature, they are written in the language of mathematics. From the laws of motion, to the law of gravity, to general relativity, they can be explained with one simple equation. Furthermore, DNA molecules follow a language written in a four letter alphabet with complex words directing the production of very specific amino acids, which follow a 22 letter alphabetic language of their own, combining to make very specific proteins with very specific tasks. The various combinations of amino acids form proteins with different functions, such as the lens of an eye, finger nails, butterfly wings, kidney tissue, blood cells and so forth. All of these follow a written complex language.
Finally, the fact that the human mind is capable of apprehending and understanding these laws speaks of a universe that is synchronized with our rational minds. Put another way, the fact that the universe is rationally governed by laws and that these laws are capable of being understood by rational minds supports the idea that the universe was the creative act of a rational being (God) rather the product of a chaotic cosmic accident.
While naturalists like to claim that we have a higher burden of proof in supporting the existence of God, the opposite is true. The burden of proof should be on them to explain how a chaotic, unguided, undirected event like the existence of this universe could have happened without a rational being guiding it. Or put another way, is this what we would expect to see without the existence of a creative rational being? Or more simply, if I drove up in a shiny new Ford Mustang, it is already assumed that it is the product of an intelligent designer and manufacturer; the Ford Motor Company. To suddenly make the claim that it is the product of and explosion in a steel factory is an extraordinary claim that would require an extraordinary explanation.
Can Chance and Smashing Molecules Arrive at Truth?
Imagine riding in a train on your way to Alabama. While looking out the window you spot a beautiful arrangement of rocks that reads: Alabama Ten Miles Ahead. You ask the attendant about your location who goes on to say that that sign was the result of a mudslide which caused the rocks to fall in that arrangement. At that point, do you still trust that Alabama is ten miles ahead?
Much like the mudslide, naturalists believe our minds are just the product of smashing atoms and molecules, the product of random chance. But can a chaotic chance occurrence produce something as structured and orderly as logic and subsequently arrive at truth? Can one set of smashing atoms be more likely to arrive at truth than any other? Therefore, how could a naturalist even depend on reason and logic? Of course, they will make their case by using logic and reason, which is circular reasoning.
Can a Monkey be Trusted to Arrive at Truth?
Natural selection is driven entirely by the will to survive. It selects the strongest and fittest, not the most sophisticated intellect. Yet logic and reason far surpasses the need to survive in a primitive world. Mathematics, philosophy, and scientific inquiry are not necessary for survival, and therefore there is no reason to think they would have emerged or that they are reliable to attain truth, because truth is not a quality necessary for survival. So how could the naturalist account for logic or use it as a mechanism for acquiring truth. For the creationist, logic and reason are the extension of a logical and reasonable God.
“But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would anyone trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?” Charles Darwin Down, Letter to Beckenham, Kent. July 3rd. 1881
Natural selection selects for survivability, not truth ability. Therefore, can our minds be reliable for arriving at truth as nothing in natural selection “selects” for reasoning or acquiring truth? “Our cognitive faculties are selected for their survival value, not their truth value.” Alvin Platinga, Analytical Philosopher, University of Notre Dame
Does Naturalism Require Faith and a Belief in Miracles?
“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” – This is a statement of faith. Because we cannot go back in time, we cannot know with certainty; therefore it requires the element of faith. “The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be.” – In the same way this is a statement of faith. Because we cannot go back in time, we cannot know with certainty; therefore once again the element of faith.
A miracle can be defined as an event that is so improbable it cannot be explained as an ordinary natural event. For example, suppose a six is required from the roll of the dice to win at the black jack table. If you were to roll a six, this would be a natural event. On the other hand, if you kept rolling the dice and you got 10 sixes in a row, people would begin to think someone tampered with the dice. If you rolled 1,000 straight sixes, this would no longer be chance, but a miracle as it is so vastly improbable. The degree of improbability involved in the development of an eye, kidney, solar system, atmosphere, bacteria, etc. is such that it could only be classified as a miracle because it would be compatible to winning the lottery millions of times in a row by mere chance. Coincidence, chance, or natural events could not explain this.
The Universality of Religion
The fact that 90% of Americans have had a religious experience puts a heavy burden on Atheists. www.gallup.com Their response is that religious people are hallucinating or it’s a neurological response to what we believe, or we are just plain lying about it. Many have made the claim that it is a survival mechanism due to millions of years of evolution.
But suppose one day you went to a small village of 100 people and you asked them all if they knew someone named Josh McIntosh. About 90 people said they know Josh and had a relationship with him. Five people said they never met Josh, and the other five said the 90 people you spoke to were hallucinating about Josh, he is fictional. Who do you believe, the 90 people who met Josh or the 10 who hadn't met Josh? This is a hard obstacle for the atheist to overcome. For me, I have always found it fascinating how an atheist can say for example, that miracles do not exist, yet right down the street at his local church, you have miracles breaking out every weekend. It's astonishing.
Near Death Experiences
Many naturalists claim that science has disproved God. But this of course is a complete misunderstanding of science and God. Science only tests natural causes, like hurricanes, supernovas, tides, molecules, etc. Science does not test for the supernatural. A few weeks ago, there was a shooting at a local commission meeting. The video shows the gunman pointing the gun right at the mayor and opening fire from five feet away. The bullets never hit the mayor. When asked about the incident, the mayor claimed God protected him. Well at that point the scientific community did not dispatch a group of scientist to research his claim. Science does not test for the metaphysical. So when someone claims they believe in science rather than God, this is out of ignorance.
Yet for those atheists who believe that science is the best source of knowledge, there is a group of scientific studies that support theism. Scientific research into near-death-experience (NDE) has been going on since the 70s with the work of Dr. Raymond Moody Jr. Investigations have now documented thousands of cases of out-of-body experiences. One of the leading researchers, Dr. Atwater records the events of over 3,000 adults and 277 children who have had NDE. Dr. Pim van Lommel conducted the most impressive clinical study, which covered 12 hospitals and 300 people. The conclusions are startling. “Every single skeptical theory or argument put forward to explain NDEs has been disproved and discredited by clinical research.” Lommel’s findings were published in the highly respected international medical journal, The Lancet, where he concludes, “Our results show that medical factors alone cannot account for the occurrences of NDE.” Countless cases reveal information about events the subjects could not have otherwise known while they were lying in the hospital bed. Legally blind subjects report accounts which could not have otherwise been reported had they not been able to see during the event. Some described the roof of the hospital accurately, other describe family events happening in a different state. Once again, this does not prove the existence of an all powerful God, but it does disprove any possibility for the atheist.
A Cause Must be Sufficient to Account for the Effect
Let's continue to demonstrate how irrational atheism can be. Suppose you walked into my house one day and you saw a beautiful painting of a sunset hanging on the wall. You noticed it was signed, so you asked me who is the artist. Suppose I told you that one day I had left some canvas and some paint outside, and the next morning I found this painting completed, and next to it was a frog with the brush in his hand finishing the job. So I concluded that the frog painted the sunset. You would think I was crazy because frogs are not sufficient to account for beautiful paintings. Put another way, everything that exists must have an adequate and appropriate explanation. Example:
- Paintings imply a painter
- A book implies an author
- A computer program implies a programmer
- A building implies a builder
- The universe implies a creator
When an atheist speaks of the universe appearing from nothing, our solar system coming together by chance, an eye, butterfly or kidney coming together by natural selection, we have to conclude that the cause is not nearly sufficient to account for the effect, as there is an unimaginable amount of precision, information, and purpose behind all of them. It is more likely that a rabbit wrote the Encyclopedia Britannica.
Consciousness is the quality or state of being aware of an external object or something within oneself. It has been defined as: subjectivity, awareness, sentience, the ability to experience or to feel, wakefulness, having a sense of selfhood, and the executive control system of the mind. Wikipedia
In 2004, eight neuroscientists felt it was too soon for a definition. They were quoted in the publication, Human Brain Function, "We have no idea how consciousness emerges from the physical activity of the brain and we do not know whether consciousness can emerge from non-biological systems, such as computers...” The prominent atheist Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene notes, "The evolution of the capacity to simulate seems to have culminated in subjective consciousness. Why this should have happened is, to me, the most profound mystery facing modern biology." This of course begs the question, can non-conscious matter produce human consciousness? New York University Philosopher and atheist Thomas Nagel wrote an entire book on the subject, Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False. Though he remains an atheist, he argues that the Theory of Evolution is inadequate to account for the undeniable reality of human consciousness.
The Cosmological Argument
Often called the First-Cause Argument, or the Cosmological Argument, it dates back to classical Greek philosophy, and later St. Thomas Aquinas who formalized it. Its two premises and conclusion are as follows:
- Everything that begins to exist has causes.
- The universe began to exist;
- Therefore, the universe had a cause.
That cause must be outside the whole universe in order to create it. There cannot be an infinite number of causes; therefore, there must be a first cause. Nothing in the universe can create itself as that would be a contradiction. If it created itself, it must have existed before it was created (to do the creating). This argument is still very effective today when speaking to atheists who have no legitimate counter argument to speak of.
The Teleological Argument
The word teleology comes from telos which means "purpose" or "goal." The idea is that it takes a "purposer" to create something with purpose, and so where we see things obviously intended for a purpose, something had to have caused it for a reason. In other words, design implies a designer. William Paley (1743-1805) provided the most popular version of the teleological argument. The basic premise is that:
- A watch shows that it was put together for an intelligent purpose (to keep time) and it has complexity (springs, glass, wheels, numbers).
- The world shows even greater evidence for design than the watch.
- Therefore, if the existence of a watch implies a watchmaker, the existence of the world implies an even greater intelligent designer (God).
The human eye has purpose (to see) and it has complexity (retina, lens, sensors,etc.). The earth has purpose (to sustain life) and it has complexity (precise distance from the sun, precise rotation, magnetic fields, food source, etc.). This argument can be used on everything we experience in the universe that shows these two qualities; purpose and complexity. The next argument only applies to the universe and solar system.
The Anthropic Principle
Anthropic means “relating to human beings or their existence.” Principle means “law.” The Anthropic Principle is the Law of Human Existence. Most scientists agree that our existence in this universe depends on very specific and precise elements, variables and laws working in harmony. If these factors were different by even the slightest bit, life would not exist in the universe. The extreme improbability that so many factors would have come together by chance has led many to believe the universe and solar system were designed for our existence. This is the Anthropic Principle: that the universe appears to have been fine-tuned for human habitation. Some examples include:
- The composition of the atmosphere
- The expansion rate of the universe
- The location of our moon and Jupiter
- The axis of the earth
- The precision of the laws of physics
The Moral Argument
The moral argument originated with Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) and relies on the human understanding of morality which is universally recognized (that some things are right, and some things are wrong). The idea that some things are right and some things are wrong appeals to the idea of a transcendent moral law that exists outside the human mind. A moral law, like any law requires a moral law giver. The argument is summarized like this:
- Murder is wrong
- Wrong implies right and wrong
- Right and wrong assumes a moral law
- A law requires a lawgiver
Atheism and the Burden of Proof Paul Copan
Near Death Experiences The Lancet
Life After Death Dinesh D'Souza