Can Religion tell us anything important? (part 4)...

In this series I’ve attempted to contrast the way science looks at the world, via the worldview of Methodological / Philosophical Naturalism (M/PN), with how Christianity looks at the world. By, the world, I am referring to ultimate reality – that which comprises our total existence. The premise of my argument has been that M/PN is not able to sufficiently address the issues of ultimate reality to the same degree that Christianity does. From the book, Faith and Reason, by Ron Nash, I listed some of the major elements of a worldview. These elements include: Theology, Metaphysics, Epistemology, Ethics and Anthropology. How well a worldview addresses questions within these disciplines helps to illustrate how well the worldview describes reality. In the previous post on this series I briefly addressed how the aspect of Theology is addressed by M/PN and Christianity. I’d like to address the other worldview elements in this posting. (note – the italicized definitions indicates text from Nash that I’ve paraphrased) Metaphysics - A worldview also includes beliefs about ultimate reality, a subject often discussed under the label of metaphysics. Is there purpose in the universe? What is the ultimate nature of the universe? Is the universe a self-enclosed system in the sense that everything that happens is caused by other events within the system, or can a supernatural reality act causally within nature? The Christian Worldview posits that there is purpose in the universe and that such purpose is based on the major premise that God exists. Interestingly enough, simply asking whether there is purpose, or not, seems to imply that purpose exists. C. S. Lewis said something along the lines of, would a fish, that had spent its whole life in the water, know it was wet? Christianity also argues that the universe is not a self-enclosed system, that God created, and is in control of, the universe, and that God can act from within and outside of the universe. This line of thinking has major implications with regards to whether the universe had a beginning or not. If our purpose is to worship God, then whether God exists or not certainly has implications to how the Christian Worldview addresses metaphysics. M/PN posits that the universe is a self-enclosed system with no intervention from so-called supernatural activity. One problem for this worldview is, given a self-enclosed system, how is it possible for it to have a beginning? A bigger problem for M/PN, though, is that of purpose in the universe. Again, given a self-enclosed system, how is it that an abstract reality, such as a sense of purpose, is generated? Does this sense of purpose really exist? If not, then why do we experience a longing for it? If yes, then how do natural acts result in the abstract? While some naturalists will claim to find purpose and meaning in the natural world itself, they evade the real question of how such an abstract reality could in theory be produced by said natural world. Denying the existence of God, in the M/PN Worldview, also has logical implications with regards to any so-called purpose mere human animals might have. Epistemology - A theory of knowledge. Is knowledge about the world possible? Can we trust our senses? Is truth relative, or must truth be the same for all rational beings? Is the scientific method the only method of knowledge? Is knowledge about God possible? How? The Christian Worldview posits that knowledge of the world is possible but, with the constraint of an assumption. Augustine said that before you can know anything you must believe something. How we come to believe anything is a concept well worth addressing. Many Christian thinkers posit that our cognitive faculties have built in them a capacity to believe, whether it is the belief that one had breakfast this morning or the belief that God exists. Consider the act of having breakfast this morning. In reflecting upon this event I do not decide to believe that it occurred, I simply believe that it happened. If one were to not believe he had breakfast, when in fact he had, we would conclude that his cognitive faculties were impaired to a certain extent. The Christian Worldview argues that sin has impaired our cognitive faculties with regards to belief in God. Yet, although impaired, we still have been input with the belief that God exists. In this sense Paul can state in Romans, with regards to knowledge about God, that no one is without excuse. The First Commandment, as J. Budziszewski tells us in What We Can’t Not Know, presumes that all humans know of God’s existence (and the worship He deserves – but that relies on another concept we can’t not know; that of obligation). It is this Reformed epistemology that Alvin Plantinga used to argue that belief in God is a properly basic belief, without the need of evidentialist support. Although certainly not a “proof” for God, it falls along the same lines as the properly basic belief that other minds exist, despite the fact that said belief is not provable. The worldview of M/PN claims that the scientific method is the best and most reliable method of gaining knowledge about the world. Yet the premise of this claim has no empirical data with which to establish it as true. Claims that the method has historically shown itself to be reliable are self-referential. This is by no means a fatal flaw, but it behooves the naturalist to at least admit that the major cornerstone of his epistemological method must be taken on faith. Once again, though, the major problem for M/PN lies in how poorly it addresses the abstract. Whether or not truth is relative is a question that M/PN cannot convincingly answer. Since the naturalist posits that truth is derived from the natural world (i.e., it is not transcendent), then we have the assertion that truth is relative. Yet what is the answer to the question, “Is the assertion that truth is relative a true assertion?” If one answers “yes,” then truth is not relative. Yet if one answers “no,” what point would there be in further discussion regarding a false assertion? Ethics - Most people are more aware of the ethical component of their worldview than of their metaphysical and epistemological beliefs. It is more than simply making moral judgments though. Ethics is more concerned with the question of why that action is wrong. Are there moral laws that govern human conduct? What are they? Are these moral laws the same for all human beings? Are moral laws discovered (in a way more or less similar to the way we discover that "seven times seven equals forty-nine"), or are they constructed by human beings (in a way more or less similar to what we call human mores)? The Christian Worldview posits that absolute morality exists. Critics will sometimes argue that morality has changed over time but, typically, these arguments are actually about societal rules rather than absolute principles. For instance, while the punishment for murder may vary within history, the act of murder is still known to be wrong. Arguing for absolute moral law supposes that there is an absolute moral lawgiver. It would make no sense to appeal to a standard of morality that was simply a construct of another person. For a standard to be binding upon all humans at all times the standard itself must be distinct from humanity. Where did this standard, if it exists, come from? Within the framework of the Christian Worldview we can now begin to see the weaving together of the theological, metaphysical, epistemological, and ethical elements. If moral laws are discovered, then we should expect them to be true in the same sense that 7 x 7 = 49 is true. M/PN posits that ethics is relative. Natural selection has produced the morality we happen to see today. It was different in the past. It will be different in the future. Taken to its logical conclusion, this worldview results in a world in which nothing is wrong, and everything is right, or vice versa. Anarchy should be the logical result. Yet cacophonic moral principles within various cultures is not what history has shown us… Why? Anthropology - the nature of human beings. Are human beings free, or are they merely pawns of deterministic forces? Are human beings only bodies or material beings? Does physical death end the existence of the human person? The Christian Worldview posits that human beings are free will beings comprised of both body and soul, and that some form of this existence continues beyond mere physical death. Human distinctiveness is due to being imparted with the Image of God and indicates a separate nature than that of the animal kingdom. Expressions of this image are found in such actions as spirit worship, contemplation of death, artistic expression, creativity, etc. Much of the basis for the Christian Worldview in this area stems from the understanding of how an idea relates to a mind. Essentially, an idea is part of an abstract reality that only comes from a mind. If an idea is understood to have always existed, then it must have come from an eternal mind. This concept, when combined with that of the essence of a soul, bolsters the argument that human beings are more than just material beings. (additional ref. The Word of God and The Mind of Man by Ron Nash) One of the most difficult questions for the Christian Worldview to answer in this discipline is: If God is in control, then how can humans truly have free will? M/PN is forced to conclude that humans are not truly free, but merely pawns of deterministic forces that shape the entirety of our existence. Since humans are considered material beings only, any notions of the abstract are mere illusions. Indeed, when we die… we die, and that’s it. It is interesting to note that, while there are many naturalists who logically conclude the meaninglessness of it all, there continues to be many that insist on finding meaning to their existence while acknowledging that humans are exclusively material beings. As can be seen from this series, the abstract realities that all humans know exist equate to a stake through the heart of Methodological / Philosophical Naturalism. to be concluded in part 5...