Tag: Naturalism

On the Existence of the Soul

ONE OF THE MOST prolific questions mankind has asked throughout history is whether human beings (hereafter, “persons”) have a “soul.” This topic is critical to understanding the concept of free moral agency, as this applies to conscious decision-making regarding right and wrong; and, whether man survives the death of the body in the afterlife. Except for those holding a religious view of the world, most scientists deny the existence of the soul.

Immortality is the indefinite existence of a person after death, when the soul leaves the body and continues to exist. The substance that survives death of the body is an immaterial soul. Beyond the Platonic concept that immortality implies survival of the soul, only Christianity, Judaism, and Islam teach immortality as the persistence of the soul and resurrection of the physical body. To achieve this, the spiritual realm must provide for an intermediate state in which the soul exists until reunited with its body. It is my argument that the soul exists despite scientific argument to the contrary; that it consists of the persistent and vital part of persons; and, that the soul survives physical death by its very nature. 

The concept of Dualism faces a troubling question: how the mind and body interact. Immaterial souls have no mass and do not occupy space. Locke and Hume argue that persons are nothing more than a bundle of psychological dispositions, beliefs, and memories. Materialism makes the claim that everything that exists is material; nothing exists beyond particles, molecules, planets, stars, and galaxies. It further claims that we can only attain an understanding of reality from what science says about it. Naturalism goes in a different direction, denying the existence of a supernatural or metaphysical aspect to reality. Broadly speaking, Dualism is the division of life into two overarching spheres or principles, generally antithetical to one another. Likely, the earliest concept of Dualism in Christian thought was Gnosticism, which posited two gods: the “good god” of the mind and spirit and the “evil god” of nature and materiality.

The Argument

First, philosophers who argue from the position of Dualism espouse a critical difference between properties of body and soul. Each survive death differently and can exist apart from one another if only for a short time. Humans are comprised of a material body (substance) and an essence (soul). “Substance” in this instance bears the physical properties of humans; “soul” bears the metaphysical properties—mind, will, and “person.” The concepts of first-person perspective (“I taste something sweet.”) and intentionality (“I desire to teach and intend to earn a PhD.”) are unique to persons. J.P. Moreland says, “Human persons are identical to immaterial substances, namely, to souls.”1 Further, persons are capable of metacognition (the ability to know they are thinking, and the ability to think about what they are thinking); and, they possess a sense of “oughtness” and “responsibility” (e.g., a code of moral conduct).

J.P. Moreland has noted that “self” has replaced the soul in contemporary psychology. This is unfortunate as psychologists tend to identify self as “psyche.” These terms are not necessarily identical. Self has often been viewed as having an existence of its own, possessing “identity,” a sense of continuity over time, and the capacity to instigate and evaluate action. These attributes mirror the philosophical/theological concept of soul. It has been said that a man or woman is still the same person even if he or she lost a leg or an arm, or had a kidney excised by a surgeon. However, J. K. Howard claims that although this is true regarding the body, the same cannot be said of the soul as no part can exist independently of the whole.2

Second, the continued existence of “person” over time is evidence for the existence of the soul. If self were to be considered the mere relational aspect of persons, there would be no allowance for personal moral agency. Instead, self would be the victim of events of random cause and concern. Truly personal actions require time and a unified self that result from the dynamics of personal agency and history of behaviors. C.S. Lewis believed if mental processes are determined solely by the motions of atoms in the human brain, then we have no reason to suppose our beliefs are true.3 “Essence” is always separated from actual, physical, reality. For example, the “sweetness” of an apple is separate from the physical existence of an apple. For Kant, it is the self that provides transcendental unity regarding thoughts and perceptions. Locke said the mind, in all its thoughts and reasoning, has no other immediate object by its own ideas, which it alone can contemplate.4 These two issues involve having an awareness of self beyond existence of a physical body.

A person can be five-foot-eleven at age 29 but measure only five-foot-eight at age 89, yet he or she remains essentially the same person. Physical changes in the human body over time do not impact the persistence of “person.” If material changes do not alter the essence of persons, and death is a material change, then death cannot alter the essence of persons. Analytically, it is proper to say, “a tall man is a man,” but the comment “Abraham Lincoln was a great president” is a synthetic proposition.

Third, so-called near-death experiences (NDEs) may provide evidence for the existence of the soul. Plato recorded a near-death experience, the “Myth of Er,” in the 4th century BC at the end of The Republic. Plato related the story of a soldier named Er who seemingly died on the battlefield only to awaken twelve days later. Er was able to provide details about the soul’s immortality and its progress after death. According to a 1991 Gallup Poll estimate, 13 million Americans, 5% of the population, have reported that they have had a near-death experience. Research has demonstrated that near death experiences are no more likely to affect the devoutly religious than the agnostic or atheist. Near-death experiences can be experienced by anyone,5 and they can occur at a time when the person is so physically compromised that they are typically unconscious, comatose, or clinically dead. Considering NDEs from both a medical perspective and logically, it should not be possible for unconscious people to often report highly lucid experiences that are clear and logically structured. Most people who experience NDEs report super-normal consciousness at the time of their experience.6  

A. Rousseau, L. Dams, Q. Massart, et al. recently conducted a medical analysis of reported NDEs among ICU patients. During the first 7 days after discharge, all eligible patients were assessed in a face-to-face interview for NDEs using the Greyson NDE scale, dissociative experiences using the Dissociative Experience Scale, and spirituality beliefs. Out of the 126 included patients, 19 patients (15%) reported having experienced a NDE as identified by the Greyson NDE scale. In conclusion, Rousseau and colleagues wrote, “The recall of NDE is not so rare in the ICU. In our cohort, cognitive and spiritual factors outweighed medical parameters as predictors of the emergence of NDE.”7

NDEs are reported by about 17% of those who nearly die.8 They have been reported by children, adults, scientists, physicians, priests, ministers, among the religious and the skeptics, and from countries throughout the world. While no two NDEs are the same, there are characteristic features that are commonly observed: a perception of seeing and hearing apart from the physical body; passing into or through a tunnel; encountering a mystical light; intense and generally positive emotions; a review of part or all prior life experiences; encountering deceased loved ones; and a choice to return to earthly life.9 Michael Potts wrote, “I… argue that the present NDEs [near death experiences] do offer persuasive evidence for life after death.”10 He said the phenomena reported by individuals who were resuscitated from cardiac arrest included viewing one’s body, observing resuscitation, moving in a tunnel toward a light, visions of dead relatives, and visions of Jesus Christ.

Robert Martone prepared a rebuttal to recent studies whose authors argued bodily sensations in NDEs involving vivid memories might merely be a strong impression of being real, rather than being true events, adding they might reflect something more fundamental than religious or cultural expectations. For example, mere reflection in changes of brain function as death approaches. NDEs famously include one’s life “flashing before the eyes;” the sensation of leaving the body (often seeing one’s own face and body, blissfully traveling through a tunnel toward a light); and, feeling “at one” with something akin to “God.”11 Martone believes these contrary arguments show significant weaknesses because they are based purely on subjective reports—some taken decades after the event.

Christianity has been accused of providing nothing more than a very elementary argument for life after death, especially how a dead, decomposed, cremated, or obliterated body can possibly be resurrected. However, these defeaters are not convincing because they fail to address metaphysical forces. Dualism answers these claims by positing that the human brain is not the same as the human “mind.” The Bible says man is made up of body, mind, and spirit (1 Thes. 5:23). Man was created as a tripartite being in the image of God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Gen. 1:26-27). Jesus told the disciples, “And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell” (Matt. 10:28). Paul wrote, “For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord” (1 Thes. 4:16-17).

Conclusion

Dualism allows for a critical difference between properties of body and soul. Humans are comprised of a material body (substance) and an essence (soul). The concepts of first-person perspective and intentionality support the dual nature of persons. Continued existence of “person” over time, and the perpetual notion of moral agency further suggest the existence of the soul. If the human brain were composed merely of atoms, persons would have no basis for religious and other beliefs. Near-death experiences have been accounted for as early in human history as Plato. The universality of experience, and the lack of scientific explanation for cognitive experience during cessation of physical life, establishes the likely existence of the soul. It is therefore my conclusion that persons are comprised of physical properties and metaphysical properties; that human persons have both a body and a soul.

Steven Barto, BS Psy, ThM

Unless otherwise indicated, all Scripture reference are taken from the English Standard Version (ESV).

Bibliography

1 J.P. Moreland and Scott Rae, Body and Soul: Human Nature and the Crisis in Ethics (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2000), 121.
2 J.K. Howard, “The Concept of Soul in Psychology and Religion,” in Faith & Thought, No. 98 (1970), 63-84.
3 C.S. Lewis, Miracles (New York: Touchstone, 1975), 24.
4 Bertrand Russell, The History of Western Philosophy (New York: Touchstone, 1945), 702.
5 David San Filippo PhD, “An Overview of the Near-Death Experience Phenomenon,” National Louis University Digital Commons (Dec. 2006), https://digitalcommons.nl.edu/faculty_publications/27
6 Jeffrey Long, MD, “Near Death Experiences: Evidence for Their Reality,” NCBI (2014 Sep-Oct.) 111(5), 372-380.
7 A. Rousseau, L. Dams, Q. Massart, et al., “Incidents of Near-Death Experiences in Patients Surviving a Prolonged Critical Illness and Their Long-Term Impact: A Prospective Observational Study,” Critical Care (Feb. 27, 2023), https://ccforum.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13054-023-04348-2
8 Zingrone and Alvarado, “Western Adult Near-Death Experiences: Features, Circumstances, and Incidence,” in The Handbook of Near-Death Experiences: Thirty Years of Investigation (Santa Barbara: Praeger/ABC-CLIO, 2009), 17–40.
9 A.R. Moody, Life After Life (Covington: Mockingbird Books; 1975).
10 Michael Potts, PhD, “The Evidential Value of Near-Death Experiences for Belief in Life After Death,” Journal of Near-Death Studies (Summer 2002), https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc799266/ , University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu
11 Robert Martone, “New Clues Found in Understanding Near-Death Experiences,” Scientific American Journal (Sept. 10, 2019). https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/new-clues-found-in-understanding-near-death-experiences/.

“Counter-Intuitive Biblical Claims?”

Written by Steven Barto, B.S. Psy., M.T.S.

John C. Lennox is a mathematician, bioethicist, Christian apologist, and author. He has written many books on religion and ethics and engaged in numerous public debates with atheists including Richard Dawkins. I have a copy of Can Science Explain Everything? wherein Lennox writes, “There is what we might call, for convenience, the ‘science’ side. They view themselves as the voice of reason. They believe they are working to roll back the tide of ignorance and superstition that has enslaved mankind since we crawled out of the primeval slime” (1). Lennox provides a summary of what these empiricists believe: Science is an unstoppable force for human development that will deliver answers to our many questions about the universe, and solve many if not all, of our human problems: disease, energy, pollution, poverty. At some stage in the future, science will be able to explain everything, and answer all our needs” (2).

Lennox states that the other extreme, the so-called “God side,” believes that God is behind everything there is and everything we are. They discount heredity, micro-evolution, weather, culture, education, and individual discoveries, focusing only on a wonderful mind behind literally everything in our beautiful world. To a large extent, this viewpoint muddies the water regarding evil and happenstance. (Please see my blog post “Why Can’t God Stop Evil?”) These two dichotomies have led to centuries of fighting and name-calling, papers, counter papers, debate, editorial license, and shortcuts. It also leads to harsh rhetoric, like what Physics Nobel Prize winner Stephen Weinberg said: “The world needs to wake up from the long nightmare of religion. Anything we scientists can do to weaken the hold of religion should be done, and may in fact be our greatest contribution to civilisation [sic]” (3).

Lennox explains a valuable lesson he learned about a dark side to academia: “There are some scientists who set out with preconceived ideas, do not really wish to discuss evidence, and appear to be fixated not on the pursuit of truth but on propagating the notions that science and God do not mix and that those who believe in God are simply ignorant” (4). The history of modern science includes great Christian and theist pioneers like Galileo, Kepler, Pascal, Boyle, Newton, Faraday and George Mendel. C.S. Lewis wrote, “Men became scientific because they expected Law in Nature, and they expected Law in Nature because they believed in a Legislator” (5). Thomas Nagel made it known that his atheism arose from a personal dislike of the idea of God. He said, “It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God, and, naturally, hope that I am right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that” (6) [italics mine].

Lewis’s apologetic approach looks at a common human observation or experience that fits naturally within a Christian viewpoint. He said Christianity provides us with a bigger picture of reality that is intellectually sound. This stance certainly riles science. Alvin Plantinga, however, echoes Lewis in contending “…if there is deep concord between science and Christian or theistic belief, but deep conflict between science and naturalism then there is a science/religion (or science/quasi-religion) conflict, all right, but it isn’t between science and theistic religion; it’s between science and naturalism” (7). J.P. Moreland responds to this dilemma as follows: “Scientism says that the hard sciences alone have the intellectual authority to give us knowledge of reality. Everything else, especially ethics, theology, and philosophy is, at least according to scientism, based on private emotions, blind faith, or cultural upbringing” (8). It is important to note that science is not represented through scientism, and that scientism is philosophy, not science. (Please see my blog post “More on Scientism.”)

You may have heard it said that Western civilization has become a post-Christian culture. Alister McGrath takes it one step further: “…we live in a post-truth world in which we just make up our beliefs… we decide what we would like to be true, then live as if it were true” (9). His post-truth comment is a reference to moral relativism: the view that moral judgments are true or false only relative to some particular standpoint (for instance, that of a culture or a historical period) and that no standpoint is uniquely privileged over all others. Relativism, secularism, and pluralism have attempted to take a bite out of Christian theology and theism.

McGrath quotes Bertrand Russell: “In the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt” (10). Russell believes people should study philosophy because it teaches us “how to live without certainty, and yet without being paralysed [sic] by hesitation” (11). The apologetic approach of C.S. Lewis serves to identify the common human experience, and then show how it fits, naturally and plausibly, within a Christian way of looking at things. Lewis believes the human sense of longing for something that is really real, truly significant, yet proves frustratingly difficult to satisfy, is a clue to humanity’s true fulfillment lying with God. I have heard this longing identified as “a hole in our soul.”

Lewis asks us to look into the Christian way of seeing things and to explore how things look when seen from its standpoint; as if to say try seeing things this way. Granted, worldviews and metanarratives (with all their preconceptions, biases, and presuppositions) can be compared to lenses. Lewis recommends finding out which view brings things into sharpest focus. Further, he notes in Mere Christianity that many people know a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, leading to emptiness and lack of fulfillment. I might add that this “God hunger” is worldwide regardless of culture or religion. For Lewis, there is a third viewpoint that sees earthly longings as a kind of copy, echo, or foreshadowing of our true homeland.

It is truly appropriate for science to be established through an evidence-based approach to theories. In order for these theories to stand, science must identify the evidence that needs to be interpreted, and then try (through the scientific method) to work out which theories are best able to explain empirical phenomena. Imagine the difficulty Einstein faced when proving his theoretical understanding of the photoelectric effect. He set out to establish whether light is made of particles or waves. This is a highly significant concept. Dawkins is rather suspicious of religious beliefs because they seem to involve a retreat from critical thinking and disengagement from evidence-based reasoning (12). Not surprisingly, Dawkins considers religious faith to be “…blind trust, in the absence of evidence, even in the teeth of evidence” (12). Faith is not blind trust, for that would make it illogical.

How is apologetics a part of all this? Groothuis refers to Huntington in Christian Apologetics, who said, “What means the most to [people] is, in the final analysis, their worldview: that complex of concepts that explains and gives meaning to reality from where they stand: given their diverse ancestries, histories, institutions and religions” (13). James Sire defines worldview as “…a commitment, a fundamental orientation of the heart, that can be expressed as a story or in a set of presuppositions (assumptions which may be true, partially true or entirely false) that we hold (consciously or unconsciously, consistently or inconsistently) about the basic constitution of reality, and that provides the foundation on which we live and move and have our being” (14).

For those who would blame God (or Christianity, or Islam) for the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Gene Edward Veith, Jr. penned the following: “[Thomas C.] Oden saw postmodernism in a different light than I did. He saw it as a reversion to the sensibility of premodern times, marking the end of theological liberalism and making possible a return to Christian orthodoxy” (15). Veith said, “But immediately after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, I thought I was witnessing another of Oden’s milestones, a building’s demolition that marked the end of an era and the beginning of something new. Postmodernists believe that reality is a construction (of the mind, of the will, of the culture) rather than an objective truth. But those planes flying into those skyscrapers, taking everyone by surprise, were no mental constructions” (16). Veith notes that even as the dust was settling over lower Manhattan that fateful morning, he heard television broadcasts, readings in the press, and dozens of conversations that were decidedly non-postmodern. In considering the terrorists, their background and their ideology, no one sounded like a relativist. What the terrorists did was evil, people were saying. Veith remarked that not all cultures are equally valid after all. In fact, not all religions are equally beneficent.

Dawkins believes there is no room for faith in science. Evidence supposedly compels the drawing of a valid conclusion. “Science” resulting from the scientific method is decidedly true. Dawkins asks what is faith? He asks his readers if it is a state of mind that leads (“pushes” as he would argue) people to believe something (whatever it may be) regardless of a total lack of supporting evidence. McGrath, however, says, “The issue is that Dawkins here fails to make the critically important distinction between the total absence of supporting evidence” (17). McGrath argues that Dawkins seems to make an erroneous logical transition from “this cannot be proved” to “this is false.” Lack of empirical proof does not ipso facto conclude that something is untrue. Of course, science has established its reputation worldwide as an effective way of making sense of the universe for many reasons, including its skepticism about establishing truths beyond what can be observed. Otherwise, science would be a “faith” or religion.

Of course, as a Christian and a theology student, I do not see God as a physical object within the universe. This does not fit in with systematic theology. God is not a part of creation; rather, He has providence over creation. He is the originator, foundation, and grand cause of all things. Romans 4:17 says God called into existence the things that did not exist. Hebrews 11:3 states, “By faith we understand that the world was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was made out of things which do not appear.” What this signifies is that God did not use any previously existing materials when He created the universe. There were such existing materials. God created the universe ex nihilo (out of nothing).

McGrath suggests that Christians think of God not as part of a painting or diagram, but rather as the canvas on which the picture is painted, or the frame in which it is set. This concept seems to me to miss the point. Instead, I see God as the painter (the “Grand Artist”), not the canvas. God is identified as Creator in the OT (Isa. 40:28; 42:5; 45:18) and NT (Mark 13:19; Rev. 10:6). Creation occurs by God’s Word (Gen. 1:3; John 1:1-3). Since God as Creator is the explanation for the existence of the world and humans, creation establishes our deepest, most essential relation to God (18). Creation speaks of God’s great power and wisdom, for He alone established energy, substance, movement, gravity, and all that mankind has discovered and categorized. Hebrews 1:3 tells us that Christ is “…upholding the universe by his word of power.”

Footnotes

(1) John C. Lennox, Can Science Explain Everything? (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2019), 9.
(2) Lennox, Ibid., 9-10.
(3) Weinberg, in Lennox, Ibid., 14.
(4) Lennox, Ibid., 16.
(5) C.S. Lewis, Miracles (New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, 1996), 140.
(6) Thomas Nagel, The Last Word (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1997), 130.
(7) Alvin Plantinga, Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion & Naturalism (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2011), x.
(8) J.P. Moreland, Scientism and Secularism: Learning to Respond to a Dangerous Ideology (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2018), 23.
(9) Alister McGrath, Richard Dawkins, C.S. Lewis and the Meaning of Life (London, UK: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 2019), 16.
(10) McGrath, Ibid., 17.
(11) Bertrand Russell, A History of Western Philosophy (London, UK: Allen & Unwin, 1946), xiv.
(12) Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene, 2d ed. (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1989), 198.
(13) Samuel Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations (New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, 1996), 21.
(14) James Sire, The Universe Next Door, 5th ed. (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2009), 20.
(15) Gene Edward Veith, Jr., Post Christian: A Guide to Contemporary Thought and Culture (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2020), 14.
(16) Veith, Ibid.
(17) McGrath, Ibid., 23.
(18) D.K. McKim, “Creation,” in the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2017), 216.

Are Science and Christianity at Odds?

Descent of the Modernists.png

This question has been the fuel for countless discussions, arguments, and debates for centuries. I spend several hours a week viewing YouTube documentaries on apologetics, postmodernism, Israeli-Palestinian relations, Islam, creationism, evolution, and atheism. Having undertaken a systematic study of worldviews, I’m reminded that nearly no one simply creates his or her own worldview. We inherit a great deal of our worldview from our parents, primary caregivers, school, and church. I must always keep my own worldview in mind—including biases, prejudices, presuppositions, and misconceptions. This is critical. Not only do we interpret information according to our worldview, it is our worldview that filters what we see or what we deem relevant.

“The conflict between religion and science is unavoidable. The success of science often comes at the expense of religious dogma; the maintenance of religious dogma always comes at the expense of science” (Sam Harris).

ORIGINS OF A CONFLICT

Science-fish

Science is at war with religion. This conflict can be traced back to the Dark Ages during which the church quite vigorously forced its dogma and control on church members. Anyone who questioned church authority was summarily punished. Some of science’s forefathers—Galileo, Copernicus, and Bruno—were persecuted. What we miss, however, if we hold this “abridged” history of science versus religion are the numerous examples of Christianity and science getting along just fine, answering the many questions we have about us, our planet, and our universe.

If we refuse to have at least an open mind about a different paradigm or worldview, we’ll never have the opportunity to think for ourselves. Education is extremely important, but just how important is public education? Public schools teach that science and education are incompatible. Period. This wild and unverified conclusion is reckless. Christopher Hitchens (1949-2011) said, “All attempts to reconcile faith with science and reason are consigned to failure and ridicule.” Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion, wrote, “I am hostile to fundamentalist religion because it actively debauches the scientific enterprise… It subverts science and saps the intellect.”

Many believe science and Christianity are at odds, but the opposite is actually true. There is no underlying conflict between Christianity (currently the world’s largest religion at 2.4 billion believers) and science. Naturally, this does not mean that religious antagonism to science does not exist. Believers often take on science with a vengeance. But science history shows that such claims of antagonism are often exaggerated or unsubstantiated. Let’s remember that science (as a sustained and organized movement) emerged in Christian Europe. During the sixteenth century, people from every culture studied the natural world, and yet modern science appeared first in Europe among a civilization primarily shaped by the Judeo-Christian worldview. To be blunt, Christianity provided the philosophical foundation and spiritual motivation for doing science. The Christian worldview—with its insistence on the orderliness of the universe, its emphasis on human reason, and its teaching that God is glorified as we seek to understand His creation—laid the foundation for the modern scientific revolution.

MOST SCIENTIFIC PIONEERS BELIEVED IN GOD

Most scientific pioneers were theists, including prominent figures such as Copernicus, Newton, Pascal, Kepler, Pasteur, and Planck. Many of these individuals intently pursued science because of their belief in the Christian God. Francis Bacon believed the natural world was full of mysteries that God means for us to explore. This is often referred to as God’s general revelation. Kepler wrote, “The chief aim of all investigations of the external world should be to discover the rational order which has been imposed on it by God, and which He revealed to us in the language of mathematics.” Newton believed his scientific discoveries offered convincing evidence for the existence and creativity of God. He said, “This most beautiful system of sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being.”

hubble-ultraviolet-survey-2

This argument is lost on atheists like Christopher Hitchens, who discounts the religious convictions of these scientific giants. He said belief in God was the only option for a scientist at that time in history. But this puts Hitchens in a pickle. If religious believers get no credit for their positive contributions to society (e.g., shaping modern science) simply because “everyone was religious,” then why should their mistakes be used to discredit them? This is truly a double-standard. To make the case that religion “poisons everything,” Hitchens has to ignore much evidence to the contrary. Dawkins accepts that some early scientific pioneers may have been Christians, but he believes Christian scientists today are a rarity. He said, “Great scientists who profess religion become harder to find throughout the twentieth century.”

NATURALISM VERSUS THEISM

Naturalism is a scientifically oriented worldview that completely denies the existence of God and the soul. Rather, it holds that everything arises from natural properties and causes; supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted. The term seems to have no precise meaning today. Different philosophers over the centuries have proffered myriad definitions. But naturalists have always attempted to align philosophy more closely with science. Adherents to this philosophy assert that natural laws are, well, natural—that they govern the structure and behavior of the natural universe all on their own without input from a Creator or Intelligent Designer.

Theism holds that there is a personal creator and sustainer of the universe who is omnipotent, omniscient, essentially good, omnipresent, and eternal. Christianity believes that the Creator has revealed Himself to humankind in the person of Jesus Christ, a member of the trinity of God, who was resurrected from the dead in confirmation of His deity. Christians believe in the supernatural world, including the One True God, spirit, angels, and miracles. Here’s the deal! Naturalism and theism are at odds with each other, not science and Christianity. Naturalism is intrinsically atheistic because it sees nothing outside of the natural or physical world.

einstein

Have you found yourself asking, Why does the natural world make any sense to begin with? Albert Einstein once remarked that the most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible. Einstein understood a basic truth about science—it relies upon certain philosophical assumptions about the natural world. These assumptions include the existence of an external world that is orderly and rational, and the trustworthiness  of our minds to grasp that world. Science cannot proceed apart from these assumptions, even though they cannot be independently proven. Oxford professor John C. Lennox makes a provocative statement: “At the heart of all science lies the conviction that the universe is orderly.” Without this deep conviction science would not be possible.

In order to further expound on the complexity of explaining the universe, take a look at the following excerpt from Stephen Hawking’s seminal book A Brief History of Time?

When most people believed in an essentially static and unchanging universe, the question of whether or not it had a beginning was really one of metaphysics or theology. One could account for what was observed equally well on the theory that the universe had existed forever or on the theory that it was set in motion at some finite time in such a manner as to look as though it had existed forever. But in 1929, Edwin Hubble made the landmark observation that wherever you look, distant galaxies are moving rapidly away from us. In other words, the universe is expanding. This means that at earlier times objects would have been closer together. In fact, it seemed that there was a time, about ten or twenty thousand million years ago, when they were all at exactly the same place and when, therefore, the density of the universe was infinite. This discovery finally brought the question of the beginning of the universe into the realm of science.

According to British physicist, broadcaster, and educator Paul Davies, the intelligibility of the universe points toward a rational foundation. He says science is based on the assumption that the universe is thoroughly rational and logical at all levels. Every single level! Atheists claim that the laws of nature exist without any basis in reason and that the universe is ultimately absurd. As a scientist, Davies said he found this position hard to accept. He said, “There must be an unchanging rational ground in which the logical, orderly nature of the universe is rooted.”

CONCLUDING REMARKS

This brings us full-circle. It’s not Christianity that is at odds with science—it’s naturalism. Problem is, people like Richard Dawkins believe there is a conflict between science and religion because they think there is a conflict between evolution and theism. However, the conflict is between science and naturalism, not between science and a belief in God. It’s not simply that the order of the universe fits better with God in it. There is a much deeper link. An ordered, rational, logical universe is what we would expect from a God who created us in His image. Forming true beliefs about the world is one way we reflect the image imprinted in us by God.

Science depends on the assumption that the world is orderly and that our minds can access this reality. Even the most secular scientists presume that nature operates in a law-like fashion. This conviction  is best explained by the pioneers of the scientific revolution, who believed the cosmos is orderly because it was designed by the rational Creator of the universe who desires for us, as beings made in His image, to understand, enjoy, and explore His creation.