William James wrote, “A rule of thinking which would absolutely prevent
me from acknowledging certain kinds of truth, if those kinds of truth were
really there, would be an irrational rule.” I believe this is true. It would
follow, then, that a worldview which contains presuppositions preventing one
from discovering reality would itself be irrational.
This is one of the serious problems with naturalism.
Naturalism, which underlies this view of science, balks at the notion that
there is a God or that God could have anything meaningful to do with the
universe. The assumption is that if “science” (which, based upon
presuppositions, necessarily excludes the supernatural) cannot validate
something, then that something must not be true or part of anyone’s knowledge
base. One must not suggest anything miraculous for creation. The supernatural
is part of religion (mere belief), not knowledge (science). That, they think,
is opposed to science.
What they don’t realize is that kind of thinking is
quite irrational. Why? Let’s just say for a moment that there really is a God
who created the universe (if you are a naturalist, humor me a moment).
Naturalism has set itself up so that proponents of it are absolutely prevented
from discovering this. They have ruled out the idea of the supernatural a priori, and nothing can convince them
otherwise because of how they think at a foundational level. If the biblical
God is part of reality, they have shut themselves out of the possibility of
discovering Him. Naturalism is a closed system of thinking; it is irrational
because it cannot discover if the supernatural is real.
Contrary to the basic assumptions of naturalists, naturalism
is a matter of one’s belief. To argue, for instance, that ‘there is no God’ or
that ‘the material universe is all that there is’ are statements that cannot
possibly be empirically verified; science is not equipped to discover that
nature is all there is or ever will be. So, contrary to their own rules of
thinking regarding science, they make statements that are far beyond the realm
of testable science. Their views and methodology are self-contradictory.
Science is a valid discipline, but it is far too
limited to give us all knowledge. It can deal with “instrumental” knowledge. It
can test certain aspects of the material universe; but it cannot tell us about
ultimate purpose or provide knowledge about how people ought to act. It cannot
even prove that humans are rational beings, for to prove it, you must first
assume it.
Naturalism’s claims go far beyond the authority of
science. They cannot validate their naturalistic claims by science, because
those claims are not testable by any experiment. Any concept regarding origins
is going to be based upon a belief system. Creationists believe that the
evidence points to a Creator; and this Creator gives us knowledge of ultimate
purpose. Naturalists think that God can have no relevant meaning to the universe
or life, but let them develop a test for this. They cannot do it.
Of course, if God exists, then He would not be amenable to natural law or testable by a method that automatically excludes the supernatural. Yet, the naturalist’s methods inherently prevent the discovery or knowledge of the reality of God. Again, this is irrational from its inception.
Evolutionism is a story based on naturalism. It is a
major tenet of naturalism’s church. This is one reason why attempting to
harmonize theism with the claims of evolutionism is not very productive. They
are at opposite poles on the most basic level. Contrary to what some think,
creationists are not opposed to science—true science that is. In fact, proper
science is based upon having an intelligent Creator that makes studying the
material universe a valid possibility. How else can we be sure that we can even
properly perceive the world? If God didn’t create, and we are the result of
mindless chance, what guarantee do we have that we are really able to reason
and think logically? What guarantee is there that the world will act
consistently enough to actually test it?
Naturalists pride themselves on being rational, but
they sorely miss the boat on that. If they can possibly admit that
“maybe” there is a God, then they are at least on their way to having
an open mind. When they start ruling out God a priori, they have bought fully into an irrational rule.
