Naturalists Use Faith to Argue Against God and Creationism

Monday, March 31, 2008 | Labels: , , | |

Given the philosophical anti-God arguments established by the theory of Evolution, and its controversy, it would be unwise for a Christian not to take the time to look into this theory in great detail. The philosophies that embrace science today are vastly different than they once were. Science has been hijacked by one philosophy in particular by individuals that are known as 'naturalists'. In the first of this series, I will be simplifying this separation of science and philosophy.

Naturalists are individuals who look at the scientific method as the primary, if not the only, test of reality. As one may already know, the scientific method is "based on gathering observable empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observations and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypothesis." (, emphasis mine)

When one argues that there is no God, and that Evolution is the primary source of the origin of man, and that mankind is a product of mathematical chance they fall under the category of a naturalistic atheist. One may wonder why this explanation is necessary, it is to establish a backdrop for the analysis of this epistemology (which is defined as a theory of knowledge).

On it's own, this theory of knowledge cannot survive as a philosophy. Naturalism may have within its own means the capacity to determine the truth or falsity of knowledge, but beyond its own tests it must make assumptions, and those assumptions must be made upon the natural origins. In other words, if something is unexplainable by the scientific method, the naturalist must assume that which is unexplainable has a natural explanation to it that the scientific method simply cannot yet test.

To word it in a much more controversial way, the naturalist must have faith that there is a natural explanation to the unexplainable and have faith that the scientific method will one day offer those explanations. This is what is described as metaphysical naturalism or "[the] view [that] nature is all there is, and all things supernatural (which stipulatively includes spirits and souls and non-natural values) do not exist." (

For example, the origins of the "Big Bang" of the universe cannot yet be explained, however, the individual who embraces this philosophy which is the combination of existential naturalism with metaphysical naturalism argues that there must be a natural explanation. This explanation, however, is rooted in faith, because the scientific method does not have the capacity to explain how it is theoretically possible to happen by natural means.

We have, in a round-a-bout way now come to a point where a conclusion can be made. Creationists are often accused of making a "god of the gaps" argument which is best defined, once again, at wikipedia:

"The God of the gaps refers to a view of God deriving from a theistic position in which anything that can be explained by human knowledge is not in the domain of God, so the role of God is therefore confined to the 'gaps' in scientific explanations of nature."

Naturalists argue that theists conveniently place God in that which cannot yet be explained by the scientific method, and in doing so are simply taking it on faith that God is the explanation, and therefore their argument is invalid. Now we finally arrive at a contradiction in the argument of the naturalist. It is a logical contradiction to claim that the assumption made by those who place God within the gaps of scientific explanations is false because it is made on faith, when those very gaps are replace by faith in the scientific method by those claiming the falsity.

In other words, the ones who argue God is an invalid placement within the gaps are placing their own form of God within the gaps themselves. This God is the faith in science being able to offer a natural explanation to the gaps. So now there is clarity in the assumptions of the naturalist over the creationist. The creationist assumes God and the atheistic naturalist assumes not-God. Their conclusions then correlate with those assumptions, but both make that assumption on faith, because the gap is not yet testable or explainable by the scientific method.

There is a fine line between science and philosophy, these naturalistic atheists are hijacking the scientific method to justify their pre-disposed philosophy of metaphysical naturalism. The pre-disposition is they want to believe there is a natural explanation to everything so there their is no supernatural. If there is no supernatural, then there is no moral lawgiver. If there is no moral lawgiver then there is no moral law. If there is no moral law they cannot be subject to it.

There are thousands of world renouned scientists who embrace the ideas of creation. Some of the greatest minds in history could not deny the existence of an ultimate intelligence that created nature because of its beauty and sophistication including Albert Einstein, Arthur Compton, Johann Kepler, Lord Kelvin, Sir Isaac Newton and Louis Pasteur. Although they all disagreed on who this God was, they believe this God created the natural order of the universe in all its beauty and magnificence.

Craig Chamberlin