It has certainly been a while since my last blog post! This paper was one of my latest projects for my leadership degree. It is a very relevant paper for anyone wondering about a Christian response to the worldview of naturalism. I hope that you enjoy it!
Paper outline:
1. Introduction and thesis
“The goal of this paper is to demonstrate the superimposition of metaphysical naturalism upon science and religion by Richard Dawkins, as well as to provide a Christian response.”
2. An exposit of the thesis
3. Define important terms
a. Metaphysical naturalism
b. Metaphysics
4. Explore Dawkins’ popularity and views of science and religion
5. Assess the basis of Dawkins’ metaphysical naturalism to substantiate his views of science and religion
a. From naturalistic evolution
i. Organisms are geared for survival, not obtaining truth
ii. There is an impasse between metaphysical naturalism and science
b. From scientific method as the only criterion for truth
i. Humanity can only observe reality in motion and give an interpretation
ii. Our interpretations of observations are often contingent upon personal presuppositions of meaning, origins, purpose, and worldview
iii. Metaphysical claims about morality, the supernatural, purpose, origins, and meaning cannot be substantiated by scientific method
iv. Scientific method cannot be used to demonstrate that only the physical exists, but rather, it needs external validation to be substantiated
6. A Christian response from the Bible
a. God’s existence is self-evident and nonbelievers are without excuse
b. The false premise of God’s nonexistence leads to a ripple-effect in the mind of nonbelievers
c. The basis for objective morals and duties are in God’s nature
d. The importance of apologetics in Christian leadership
7. Conclusion
The goal of this paper is to demonstrate the superimposition of metaphysical naturalism upon science and religion by Richard Dawkins, as well as to provide a Christian response. This will be done, regarding Dawkins, by first elaborating on the breadth and application of the thesis, defining key terms, getting an overview of Dawkins’ views, assessing the explanatory range of scientific method, and giving a Christian response.
When we look at the thesis statement, we find that the word “the” connotes a singular and specific imposition “by” Richard Dawkins. As such, the words “metaphysical naturalism” are not used statically, but are instead used to connote Dawkins’ specific use of that view to impose upon science and religion. This imposition would include Dawkins’ particularly aggressive application of metaphysics upon scientific method and religion. Therefore, as based on the thesis, the range of scientific method will be explored, as well as Dawkins’ metaphysical naturalism, by its own criteria. As such, this paper is not trying to “refute” metaphysical naturalism, but seeks to demonstrate how Dawkins’ own worldview cannot substantiate his claims about the non-physical. A Christian answer will also be posited, which has the intended explanatory power in coherence with, and beyond that of scientific method. Yet, the latter point cannot be explored in great detail, given the scope of this paper.
Before continuing, it is necessary that metaphysical naturalism and metaphysics are defined. Metaphysical naturalism refers to “a philosophy which maintains that nature encompasses all that exists throughout space and time. Nature (the universe or cosmos) consists only of natural elements, that is, of spatiotemporal physical substance—mass–energy. … The supernatural does not exist, which is to say, only nature is real” (Academic Room, 2013). In other words, by this view, scientific method is the only criterion for truth, only physical matter exists, all thoughts in the brain are physical, and no nonphysical entities exist, and thus, only natural causes for the cosmos. Metaphysics is defined as “A priori [or, before experienced,] speculation upon questions that are unanswerable to scientific observation, analysis, or experiment” (The Free Dictionary, 2009). This includes discussing morality, the supernatural, meaning, origins, nature of reality, and purpose. Dawkins’ use of metaphysics will help us to assess his use of scientific method.
Although other prominent atheists could have been chosen, Dawkins was specifically chosen because of his popularity in western culture today above the others. Dawkins is considered to be among the top ten atheists in the world, is widely regarded as the “most influential living atheist” (The Best Schools, 2011), and, as of 2010, has sold more than two million copies of The God Delusion (Friendly Atheist, 2010). William Lane Craig goes as far as to say that Dawkins is an “icon in pop culture” (July 7, 2013).
Richard Dawkins’ views are consistent with the views of metaphysical naturalism, yet, his particular application of the view is likely what gives him his popular flare. Alister McGrath, a theology professor at Oxford, says that Dawkins’ book, The God Delusion, “has established Dawkins as the world’s most high-profile atheist polemicist, who directs a withering criticism against every form of religion” (McGrath, 2007, p. 7). According to McGrath, Dawkins views the natural sciences as “an intellectual superhighway to atheism,” (p. 9) and views faith as a “process of non-thinking” associated with “indefensible” religious creeds (p. 17, 64). By this view, Christians are seen as people who have lost touch with reality, and are “delusional” (p. 18). Dawkins, according to McGrath, also views raising children in a religious tradition is a form of child abuse (p. 21), violence as a “necessary feature of religion” (p. 76) and sees religion and science as “locked into a battle to the death” (p. 46). He views God as “a petty, unjust, unforgiving control freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully,” (Dawkins, 2006, p. 31) yet no Christian would agree with this (McGrath, p. 75).
In a public secular rally, when talking about Christians, Dawkins said: “Mock them, ridicule them in public” (King, 2012). By making this statement, Dawkins is labelling himself as a polemicist, someone who spreads hateful propaganda, in a way that defies empirical reason (explained later). As a polemicist, much of Dawkins’ influence on society has been a negative one. Rather than appealing to science and reason, Dawkins instills biases against non-metaphysical naturalists. His views seek to condition the layman against rationally considering Christianity, and selectively dismisses evidence counter to his own beliefs (McGrath, p. 11). According to my experience, Dawkins generally appeals to those disenfranchised with the church, angry at God, afraid of religion and surrender to Christ. Ironically however, Dawkins public contempt for Christianity is helping to usher people into a Christian renaissance in philosophy and apologetics (Craig, June 9, 2013).
The problem with Dawkins’ views of religion and God is that they cannot be substantiated by his belief in natural causes or scientific method. Yet, Dawkins claims objectivity in scientific method, regarding his metaphysical claims (McGrath p. 41). The bastion of metaphysical naturalism is evolution, which Dawkins believes is substantiated by scientific method. However, even if evolution is true, all it could demonstrate innately is that humanity could not obtain “truth” naturally, but instead, incline towards survival. Regarding evolution, Timothy Keller states that, “The laws of reason would have to make sense to us only because they help us to survive, not because they tell the truth” (2008, p. 142). In other words, according to naturalistic evolution, the reason why we reason is to help us survive. This was originally meant to be applied to just religion: that religion would help us to survive. This however, is not only against religion. In essence, it also applies to all of our rational functions, science not exempt, because of the belief placed in the interpreted meaning of observations. Therefore, in evolutionary biology, reason is not a reliable tool to uncover truth, but rather, a tool to further the species. Therefore, according to Dawkins’ metaphysical naturalism, all we can be certain of is not the truth of our statements, but our inclination to survive. As such, by his view, his musings about science and religion can be dismissed as an attempt at survival. The conflict, therefore, according to Alvin Plantinga, “is not between science and belief in God but rather, science and naturalism” (2007, p. 24).
In regards to the explanatory scope of scientific method, in our human limitation, all we can possibly do to discover how reality works is observe. Scientists observe and try to replicate what they observed. At the end of the day, all they can do is give an interpretation of what they observed. By this method, they cannot justifiably say “this is definitively reality” because humanity is not in a position that can transcend its existence. Peter Hitchens, a former staunch atheist, realized this when he said, “the ‘laws’ in science are all accounts of what did happen, rather than rules of what should happen” (2010). Since scientists have to give an interpretation of observations, it is impossible to maintain in that interpretation the uninterrupted realities of the cosmos, as it was before it was interpreted, without imposing an outside worldview on the observations. This is especially true regarding purpose, meaning and origins. As such, our observations are contingent upon our interpretation, which is always subjective and grounded in the presumptions of our worldview. Therefore, when Dawkins makes metaphysical claims regarding the supernatural, meaning, morality, religion, or origins, on the basis of “scientific method,” he is only highlighting his personal interpretations, and is not maintaining objectivity, since morality, for example, cannot be derived from observing the collision of two atomic particles. This realization seriously calls into question the metaphysical naturalist’s use of scientific method as the sole criterion of truth. Also, this point becomes even more questionable when we remember that metaphysical naturalists can only affirm the inclination to survive, and not an inclination towards obtaining truth.
When the belief of scientific method as the sole criterion of truth is analyzed more closely, we find more complications. We find that viewing scientific method as the only criterion of truth cannot be substantiated from scientific method. Eric Ling used this example, “we cannot validate a piece of software using a tool that belongs to the same piece of software being validated. We need a separate test tool, which is logically and physically independent from that piece of software, in order to validate it” (2013). Therefore, scientific method cannot itself prove that only the physical world exists. Such a statement would require an infinite knowledge of the cosmos and beyond. In order to remain consistent with what scientific method can attest, Dawkins would have to avoid making any philosophical claims about purpose, meaning or metaphysics, which includes claiming that only physical reality exists (Noebel, 2001, p. 56). Yet, Dawkins does go beyond the scope of scientific method because metaphysical naturalism is a belief system that is “distinct from scientific practice” (Bishop, 2009, p. 109). Therefore, since metaphysical naturalism cannot be substantiated by scientific method, neither can claims from religion regarding the supernatural be assessed by that medium (McGrath, p. 67). Metaphysical issues are simply beyond the scope and explanatory power of scientific method.
The greatest objection that metaphysical naturalism has with Christianity is that Christians believe in a supernatural God who created the cosmos (Genesis 1:1). If God exists, then there were not naturalistic causes, and therefore, entities exist who transcend physical matter. The Bible also says that people who deny God’s existence are without excuse. Romans 1:20-22 says that, “the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse … and became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.” Therefore, according to the Bible, metaphysical naturalists have sufficient resources to know that God exists. They become “vain in their imaginations” because their worldview is based on a false premise: that God does not exist. All of their vain imaginations stem from that mistake, like Richard Dawkins.
Since the logical conclusion from naturalistic evolution is that all genetics can try to do is survive, there is no allocating for objective moral values and duties. Furthermore, humanity would have to transcend human subjectivity in order to find justification for objective morals and duties. Christians, however, find justification for objective truth in the unchanging nature of God (Malachi 3:6). Much of this objective truth is revealed in Scripture, where moral commands are given to humanity (Deuteronomy 10:4), and God is identified as the “Lord God of truth” (Psalm 31:5). God identified His nature with His commands when he said in 1 John 5:3, “For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments,” and solidified their objectivity in His nature when He said, “For I am the Lord, I change not” (Malachi 3:6). By equating immutability with “the Lord,” God was declaring His nature to be transcendently objective. Dr. Greg Bahnsen summarizes the metaphysical naturalist’s predicament and the Christian solution well, when he said,
“The transcendental argument for existence of God … is that without the existence of God, it is impossible to prove anything. And that's because in the [world of metaphysical naturalism] you cannot justify and cannot account for laws in general, laws of thought in particular, laws of nature, cannot account for the human line, the fact that it is more than electrochemical complexes and events, and cannot give us moral absolutes. … You would have to say they are just something that happens inside the brain” (Bahnsen, & Stein, 1985, p. 31).
Therefore, a better justification for absolutes, morality, and rational intelligibility is in the Christian worldview. As Kai Nelson, a prominent Canadian atheist said, “Pure practical reason, even with a good knowledge of the facts, will not take you to morality” (Nelson, 1984, p. 90).
It is very important that Christian leaders get acquainted with the beliefs of Richard Dawkins, and know how to answer them from a rationally coherent Christian worldview. Young adults and teens, especially when they go to university, often have their Christian beliefs challenged in a similar manner, if not by Dawkins’ materials. The Bible calls Christian leaders (and all Christians) to “always be ready” to give an answer for our faith (1 Peter 3:15) in grace and love (Colossians 4:6; Matthew 5:44).
In conclusion, Richard Dawkins’ metaphysical naturalistic worldview is ill-equipped to substantiate the metaphysical claims he made about God, the nature of reality, morality, science and religion. Dawkins, while popular in western culture, has been ineffectual in light of his foundation both in scientific method as the only source of truth and naturalistic evolution. Only in God do people have a stable foundation for objectivity. As such, the Christian worldview contains more explanatory power and gives external validation to its claims. The resources are out there. As leaders, it is necessary that we learn and teach these resources to the next generation.
References:
Academic Room. (2013). Metaphysical naturalism. Retrieved from: http://www.academicroom.com/topics/metaphysical-naturalism/
Bahnsen, G., & Stein, G. (1985). The great debate: Does God exist? Retrieved from http://cdn.theresurgence.com/files/2012/01/13/The_Great_Debate.pdf/
The Best Schools. (2011). 50 top atheists in the world today. Retrieved from: http://www.thebestschools.org/blog/2011/12/01/50-top-atheists-in-the-world-today/
Bishop, R. (2009). What is this naturalism stuff all about? Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 29, 108-113. doi: 10.1037/a0016967/
Craig, W. L. (2013, June 9, July 7). The unbeliever’s movie part 2 & the NEW new atheism [Audio podcast]. Reasonable Faith Podcast.
Dawkins, R. (2006). The God delusion. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Co.
The Free Dictionary. (2009). Metaphysics. Retrieved from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/metaphysics/
Friendly Atheist. (2010). How many copies of the God delusion have been sold? Retrieved from http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2010/02/03/how-many-copies-of-the-god-delusion-have-been-sold/
Hitchens, P. (2010). The rage against God: How atheism led me to the faith. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
Keller, T. (2008). The reason for God: Belief in an age of scepticism. London, England: Hodder.
King, B. (2012). Interview: Richard Dawkins celebrates reason, ridicules faith. Retrieved from: http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2012/03/26/149310560/atheist-firebrand-richard-dawkins-unrepentant-for-harsh-words-targeting-faith/
Ling, E. (2013). In Richard Dawkins and metaphysical naturalism [comment]. Retrieved from: https://courses.mytwu.ca/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=118519&parent=465977/
McGrath, A. & McGrath, J. (2007). The Dawkins delusion: Atheist fundamentalism and the denial of the divine. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press.
Nelson, K. (1984). Why should I be moral? American Philosophical Quarterly, 21, 81-91.
Noebel, D. (2001). The battle for truth: Defending the Christian Worldview in the marketplace of ideas. Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers.
Plantinga, A. (2007). The Dawkins confusion: Naturalism ‘ad absurdum [Review of the bookThe God delusion, by R. Dawkins]. Retrieved from http://www.booksandculture.com/articles/2007/marapr/1.21.html?paging=off/
No comments:
Post a Comment