My Argument against Darwinism from Philosophy
Because naturalists have eliminated the possibility of miracles from their thinking, it is not effective to argue against this system based upon God’s revelation. It is more effective to address them apologetically by challenging the bases for their belief(s). Therefore, in this section, I will defend the position that the worldview philosophical naturalism, which flows from methodological naturalism, is self-refuting and incoherent, as it cannot provide a sufficient ground for reason. I will also attempt to display that philosophical naturalism cannot ground morality and that it leads to moral poverty, if it is honestly followed by its adherents.
Philosophical Naturalism Cannot Provide a Ground for Reason. When speaking of “reason,” I am referring to statements, thoughts, or arguments that pertain to the laws of logic; or that which uses inductive or deductive logic. Reason is that which makes possible knowledge. Unless one is speaking of a personal taste (I like the color blue better than the color red, etc.) or mere opinion, everyone uses reason, even if their reasoning involves logical fallacies, throughout their day-to-day lives. Nash defines reason as a test for logical consistency and refers to the law of noncontradiction, which is one of the cornerstone laws of logic.[1] A simple definition of the law of noncontradiction is: ‘A’ cannot be both ‘B’ and ‘non-B’ at the same time and in the same sense.[2] The law of noncontradiction is inescapable when one is attempting to discuss metaphysics (the nature of reality); all things in the cosmos must answer to it. To display that a system, ideology, or worldview violates the law of noncontradiction is the easiest method to display the incoherence and falsehood of that system, ideology, or worldview.
Naturalism holds that everything, whether it be a physical object or process, can be explained by that which is contained within nature.[3] Put another way, things are what they are, or do what they do, because of something else within the system.[4] The naturalist’s view of the universe can be summarized like a game of billiards. When the cue strikes the cue ball, the cue ball moves; when the cue ball strikes the eight ball, the eight ball moves away from its previous position and the cue ball changes its direction, etc. In other words, everything is locked in a deterministic system of cause and effect relationships. To the naturalist, everything that has existed, does exist, or will exist is trapped within the universe.
The scientific method[5] can be described as the method in which scientists use to gain knowledge. It always begins with an observation, using one or more of the five physical senses, of a natural phenomenon. From there, the scientist uses inductive reasoning to develop a hypothesis, which is a possible explanation that must be tested. The hypothesis is usually tested by using various groups – control group and the independent variable group. A conclusion is derived by comparing the results of the test from both of the aforementioned groups with each other.[6] Throughout this process, the scientist uses his powers of reason and the laws of logic to understand his initial observation(s); to develop his hypothesis; to design a relevant experiment; and to derive conclusions from the experiment. Without the use of reason, knowledge, of any kind, especially in the realm of science, is not possible.
According to Nash, “All that is required for naturalism to be false is the discovery of one thing that cannot be explained in the naturalistic way,”[7] and this is where it gets serious for the naturalist. For, unless the powers of human reason are true then arguments against Christianity cannot be given by the naturalist. So the question becomes: can Naturalism account for reason and the laws of logic? Nash contends that the laws of logic are necessary and, therefore, must exist beyond the bounds of the physical realm.[8] Naturalism cannot explain or account for this as it can only attempt to explain that which is within the bounds of the physical universe. If this is true then Naturalism is a self-referentially defeating hypothesis.
The problem for naturalists is that they must assume that their cognitive faculties are reliable. But if everything in the universe is a product of chance, how can they? Either their cognitive faculties are not reliable, in which case, Naturalism would not be reliable, for reason (a cognitive faculty) is used to defend Naturalism; or, reason exists beyond the bounds of the physical universe, which would make our cognitive faculties reliable. However, this would also make Naturalism unreliable and defeated, for, again, per Nash, “All that is required for naturalism to be false is the discovery of one thing that cannot be explained in a naturalistic way.” Reason cannot be explained in a naturalistic way, because it exists beyond the bounds of the physical universe – naturalism can only be used to explain that which is physical. Therefore, naturalism cannot provide an adequate ground for reason.
Philosophical Naturalism cannot provide an Adequate Ground for Morality/Ethics. Because philosophical naturalism arose out of the methodological variety, early naturalists paid little attention to how ethics and morality applied to their worldview. In general, naturalists, then and now, continue to live by moral and ethical views, at least as they apply to themselves, that are eerily similar to those that are consistent with biblical Christianity. What I mean, here, is that it would be unethical and immoral for someone to impugn against the rights that they carry as living breathing humans. It is also likely that naturalists would be quick to report crimes against themselves and their property to the nearest authority. How can these things be unless they are following, although at times loosely (extra-marital affairs, abortion, euthanasia, etc), the ethical and moral code that accompanies Christianity?
A recent survey revealed that 39% of those polled believe that Darwinian evolution is true; while only 25% of those polled disagree with the Darwinian position. The rest had no opinion on the matter.[9] Given this information, one would be rational in coming to the inferred conclusion that many people hold to philosophical naturalism. Yet, Christians and naturalists have been able to live side-by-side in relative harmony on ethical issues. The only way that this could be true is if both groups hold to very similar ethical and moral norms. If each group has such a radically different view of reality when compared to the other, which group is being the most inconsistent when it comes to applied ethics? The answer must be the naturalist. For it is logical for the Christian to say that it is wrong to steal, murder, arbitrarily destroy property, rape, etc; because, the Bible prohibits such behavior. In other words, the Christian grounds his morality in God – God is the source of morality, to the Christian. How does the naturalist provide grounds for normative prescriptions on behavior – what is the ground for ethics per naturalism?
Some naturalists have attempted to speak of the moral obligation that one carries to society.[10] The question at this juncture becomes which society? Clark points out that moral demands, under naturalism, must come from the State:
…if morality is a demand of society, one must indicate which society. Is it the demand of the family, the church, the nation, or all humanity? It can hardly be all humanity, for two reasons. There are no demands which are clearly demands of humanity. Humanity, if it speaks at all, speaks in such an indistinct and ambiguous language that no specific obligation can be proved. And second, if society is to take the place of God as the source of sanctions, then obviously humanity cannot be the basis of obligation, for humanity imposes no sanctions. Therefore an ethical theory based on social demand must appeal to family, church, or nation. Of these three the nation is most able to impose sanctions. Hence morality becomes loyalty to the State…[11]
The problem, though, with viewing the State as a ground for moral authority is that things like murder, adultery, and theft become moral obligations when Nazism, Fascism, and Communism which have demanded them of the people (see: Hitler’s Germany, Mussolini’s Italy, and Stalin’s Soviet Union).
Since we’ve learned, through our experiences through World War II and the Cold War, that it is not prudent for one to attempt to use the State as an authoritative ground for morality, naturalists have been forced to look elsewhere. Some have attempted to use personal preference as the ground to morality. Clark argues that this leads one on the path towards a form of utilitarianism called, Bentham’s utilitarianism.[12] This view is easily expressed as such: 1.) All men universally desire pleasure; 2.) Since all men work toward a single universal goal (pleasure), all men are under a universal obligation; 3.) Therefore, notions of right and wrong should be determined purely on the consequence that may follow the act.[13] Therefore, according to Bentham’s utilitarianism, murder, adultery, theft, and assault would lead to pain; this pain would teach the actor that such actions are morally wrong because they lead to pain. However, this view cannot be held universally true, contra Bentham’s formula. I say this, because, Stalin murdered millions of his own people during his rule as the head of the Soviet Union and lived to ripe old age and seemed to enjoy his life free from fear of being immoral.
It should be clear that naturalism fails to provide a sufficient authoritative ground for morality. Morality, under naturalism, is impossible.
[1]Ronald H. Nash, Faith & Reason: Searching for a Rational Faith (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1988), 52.
[2]Ronald H. Nash, Life’s Ultimate Questions: An Introduction to Philosophy (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999), 194.
[3]This view, taken to its logical conclusion, faces the problem of the actual infinite regress. If everything within the universe is explainable with the universe then the universe must be infinite. But this is impossible and absurd. If the universe if infinite then time is as well, since the concept of time is a slave to the fact of the existence of the universe. If time is infinite then it would take an infinite amount of time to move from one day to the next. Thus, we would never arrive at today; which is why this view, that everything in existence can be explained by something within the universe, is absurd.
[4]C. S. Lewis, Miracles (New York: Macmillan, 1960), 6-7.
[5]It should be noted that Darwinian evolutionists use this process, and only this process, to derive their conclusions about the nature of this world; that, in their view, it is a closed system, entirely physical, free from interaction with God.
[6]Mader, Biology, 7th ed., 9-12.
[7]Nash, Life’s Ultimate Questions, 219.
[8]Ibid.
[9]Frank Newport, On Darwin’s Birthday, Only 4 in 10 Believe in Evolution [on-line] Gallup, Inc., accessed 01 November 2011, http://www.gallup.com; Internet.
[10]Gordon H. Clark, “Can Moral Education Be Grounded On Naturalism?” Bulletin of the Evangelical Theological Society 1.4 (Fall 1958), 21.
[11]Ibid. 22.
[12]Ibid.
[13]Clark, “Can Moral Education Be Grounded On Naturalism?” 22-23.