Naturalism Isn’t Natural… It’s BiasAugust 8, 2008
Some have said, “you can’t just say God did everything. There’s no explanation in that.” OK. let’s just say “nature” does everything. Now we’ve come to some “superior” explanation! Sarcasm aside, saying God is the cause of all phenomenon does not preclude a scientific understanding of that phenomenon! Let’s have a scientific understanding of everything. But in the end, are we going to attribute the cause to “nature” or God? Which is our God, “nature” or God?
On top of that, so many so called “scientists” marry science to Naturalism. More specifically, they limit their scientific hypothesis’ to only natural explanations! Why they do this, I don’t know! Maybe it’s because they hate God. Just my hypothesis.
The funny thing is that no one even knows what the “natural” ultimately is!!! Not even Naturalists! Not even they can tell you what the fundamental substance is that everything is made up of. “Well everything is just atoms and electromagnetism at its bare core.” OK… that is until we begin to discover what that is made up of, and then what that is made up of, and so forth, an so forth, and on and on and on… What is “the natural”? Yet scientists, Evolutionists, and “Naturalists” throw this word around as though it were actually a solidified thing.
I can use the same line of reasoning as the Naturalist and say “God is a Naturalist”. Meaning, it’s perfectly natural for God to create, uphold, and allow all that is. This in no way, shape, or form negates scientific explanations. It only posits God as our ultimate reality, rather then whatever is believed to be “natural”.
(My argument of course is that the supernatural is more natural than the “natural”. That’s because I believe only an eternal, personal, all-good, triune being can account for logic and morality.)
But what do you think? When you question “naturalism” this way, doesn’t it go to show you that we have so many assumptions about what is considered “natural”? I believe it does.