The Pros And Cons Of Naturalism
In his book ‘Mere Apologetics’ McGrath writes, ‘the best defence of Christianity is its explanation’ (McGrath, 2012, p.130). If a Christian theist is to defend or commend Christianity to the Naturalist it is best to establish the basic tenets of Christianity, for many people have misconceptions of Christianity. Once this has been achieved and there is still confusion or disregard about Christianity, presenting an argument of the inadequacies of naturalism provides a significant platform that might introduce one to Christianity.
Scientific Inconsistency
According to Taylor, naturalists view the world as “a big, regular, material machine” (Taylor, 2013, p.91) But how do naturalists explain why a material world exist? What caused the world …show more content…
As a result, they conclude that there is no need for God (or Anyone), for every event in the universe can be explained in conditions of the whole universe. However, for the scientific Naturalist who claims they can explain everything through chemical and physical laws encounter a dilemma when they “cannot explain their own scientific theories or laws in terms of mere physical and chemical processes” (Geisler, 2012, p.382). This is because a law or theory about a physical process “is not itself a physical process” (Geisler, 2012, p.382). Thus, for the Naturalist holding the view that “matter is the ultimate reality”, they encounter a problematic question when one asks, what is a scientific theory about matter? (Dyrness, 2002, p.88). Another argument which presents the inconsistency of Naturalism is offered by Haldane, he writes “if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motion of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true…and hence I have no reason to supposing my brain to be composed of atoms” (Lewis, 1947, p.28). Therefore, it is circular reasoning to say that we can know the truth even though our thoughts are the results of chemical processes. “There must be reason, which is not purely a natural physical process” (Geisler, 2012,
Scientific Inconsistency
According to Taylor, naturalists view the world as “a big, regular, material machine” (Taylor, 2013, p.91) But how do naturalists explain why a material world exist? What caused the world …show more content…
As a result, they conclude that there is no need for God (or Anyone), for every event in the universe can be explained in conditions of the whole universe. However, for the scientific Naturalist who claims they can explain everything through chemical and physical laws encounter a dilemma when they “cannot explain their own scientific theories or laws in terms of mere physical and chemical processes” (Geisler, 2012, p.382). This is because a law or theory about a physical process “is not itself a physical process” (Geisler, 2012, p.382). Thus, for the Naturalist holding the view that “matter is the ultimate reality”, they encounter a problematic question when one asks, what is a scientific theory about matter? (Dyrness, 2002, p.88). Another argument which presents the inconsistency of Naturalism is offered by Haldane, he writes “if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motion of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true…and hence I have no reason to supposing my brain to be composed of atoms” (Lewis, 1947, p.28). Therefore, it is circular reasoning to say that we can know the truth even though our thoughts are the results of chemical processes. “There must be reason, which is not purely a natural physical process” (Geisler, 2012,