To what might we compare the debate between the Christian and
Naturalist worldviews? We can liken it to a tractor-trailer driver
delivering to Georgia Pacific in Big Island.
As Debbie,
our driver, descended southward down route 501, something on a nearby
mountainside caught her attention. Approaching the plant, Debbie
recognized the mountainside diversion as a series of large rocks
arranged to read, “WELCOME TO BIG ISLAND.”
Debbie
thought to herself, “There are really only two hypotheses that can
account for how those rocks obtained their arrangement on the
mountainside. Either they came to rest in that position by means of
purely impersonal, non-purposeful natural causes; or the rocks are the
result of a personal, purposeful agent who works according to a good
plan.”
Setting the bigger question aside for a
moment, Debbie knew that whatever their cause, the rocks confirmed that
she had finally reached her destination.
While being unloaded, Debbie met Greg, another driver. Soon their conversation turned to the rocks.
“You
know,” Greg started, “before I drove a truck, I was in the construction
business, and anyone who has the ability pull off something like that
has my greatest respect. I know people might say, ‘Big deal, it’s just a
bunch of rocks,’ but something like that requires intelligence and
skill that very few have.”
“Greg,” Debbie interrupted,
“I don’t mean to contradict, but before I started driving, I went to
grad school and minored in geology. If you think that something like
that overgrown rock garden can’t exist but for personal design, then you
just need to go to the library a little more. There are many things in
nature much more complex than that rock-pile that are caused by purely
natural means.” She concluded, “A naturalistic explanation is quite
possible.”
“In theory, I suppose the natural
explanation might be possible,” Greg concurred. “Nevertheless, simply
because something is theoretically possible, it certainly doesn’t follow
that the theory is true. Whether either of us is willing to admit it
or not,” Greg continued, “we’re assuming the truth of our respective
hypotheses, even when arguing for them. You actually start with the
non-purposeful, impersonal conclusion you’re supposed to argue for; and I
begin assuming the truth of the personal, purposeful explanation that
I’m to argue for. It would seem therefore that neither will convince
the other of their position.”
“Well, then,” Debbie
said with resolution, “I guess we’ve reached an impasse. You believe
the rocks are the result of some imaginary person; and I think that we
needn’t venture beyond the ‘fact’ of the rocks, looking for some
mysterious purpose or person. The naturalist view tells us all we need
to know about the rocks!”
Optimistically, Greg pressed a
bit. “Debbie, I think we can resolve our disagreement. Well, at least
resolve which hypothesis is the rational one.”
Debbie, seeming a bit skeptical, agreed to consider the solution. “I’m all ears, Greg.”
“One
question is all that’s needed to determine which hypothesis is
rational. So let me ask you, Debbie: When you finally arrived here, did
you think that the arrangement of stones communicated something
independent of themselves?”
“I don’t follow your logic, Greg.”
“Put
simply, if you hold that the rock arrangement is merely the result of
natural causes, without any intelligent, personal plan behind it; but
then, when you saw the rocks you believed that they communicated an
intelligible, reliable message—that you were in fact entering Big
Island—then your belief in the naturalistic hypothesis is silly, in a
word, irrational. Is that better?”
“Interesting,” Debbie said, “well, look, we’re both unloaded…It’s been nice talking, Greg.”
So
it is also with the debate between atheistic Naturalism and Christian
theism. Both worldviews come to the ‘facts’ of experience interpreting
them through their respective pre-commitments. The former, Naturalism,
argues that the universe is ultimately impersonal, non-purposeful and
random. The latter, Christianity, begins with its fundamental
commitment to the absolute-personal Creator-Controller-Redeemer God.
Both argue that their worldview fits the facts of human experience, not
least, the fact that our sensory organs give us true and intelligible
information about the world of experience (independent of themselves),
and that our reasoning ability provides a reliable means of ciphering
and systemizing that information, that message (which we believe exists
independent of our minds).
However, without even
skirting the questions, Naturalists simply presume these things and then
go on to use them (rationalism) to build a worldview that makes them
impossible (irrationalism). For if Naturalism’s the case, then human
sense perception and reason are simply part of an infinite series of
non-purposeful, impersonal, unguided accidents. But if that’s so, there
is quite literally no reasonable grounds for believing that our senses
and reason provide any meaningful information about anything.
Therefore, as Greg said in other terms, atheistic Naturalism is simply irrational.
No comments:
Post a Comment