Naturalism begins with two premises. First, Nature is all that there is, and second, that life exists. From this, the conclusion is drawn that life results solely from natural processes. The flaw is in the first premise. How can one either prove or disprove that Nature is all that there is?
One can't. First, one can't disprove that Nature is all that exists because confounding evidence is not admitted. If an ardent naturalist sees a supernatural occurence, he will not admit that it is supernatural because (Premise 1) there is nothing beyond Nature. He will say that the event, while not explainable, is never the less, natural. The first premise, therefore, cannot be disproven.
Secondly, one cannot prove that Nature is all that exists. To prove it would require perfect and complete knowledge of all things, especially those things that are outside of the Natural world (see premise 1).
When a scientist confronts a theory that cannot be proven or disproven, he rightly terms it an article of faith, and therefore, in the realm of religion rather than science. So the scientific naturalist has a real problem. His initial premise is an article of faith. Therefore, he must join the ranks of the believers (whatever their creed), and divorce himself from all claims of strict scientific thought at the most basic level of his philosophy.
No comments:
Post a Comment