Naturalism in a Biblical Worldview
by Kirsten Birkett
“You,” your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules. . . . [A] modern neurobiologist sees no need for the religious concept of a soul to explain the behavior of humans and other animals.1
I am attacking God, all gods, anything and everything supernatural, wherever and whenever they have been or will be invented.2
Whatever knowledge is attainable, must be attained by scientific methods; and what science cannot discover, mankind cannot know.3
I am a secular humanist. I think existence is what we make of it as individuals. There is no guarantee of life after death, and heaven and hell are what we created for ourselves, on this planet. There is no other home. Humanity originated here by evolution from lower forms over millions of years. And yes, I will speak plain, our ancestors were apelike animals. The human species has adapted physically and mentally to life on Earth and no place else. Ethics is the code of behavior we share on the basis of reason, law, honor, and an inborn sense of decency.4
One of the most common beliefs currently expounded in public literature is naturalism. Naturalism is a belief that only natural laws and forces work in the world. The supernatural (anything beyond the natural world, whether spiritual, magical or otherwise) does not exist. The physical universe is all that exists. Moreover, the only way to explain anything within the universe is in terms of entirely natural events and forces within the universe.5
Other terms that overlap with naturalism include materialism (the view that there is only matter, not souls, spirits, or deities) and atheism (the view that there is no God). Naturalism is not a new view. Indeed, some ancient Greek writings contain theories that matter is all that exists. Nonetheless, until very recently in history, it was a view that had very little widespread popularity. It is only in the last century or so that there has been a dramatic shift in public discourse, so that in most of the Western world today public literature generally assumes naturalism rather than otherwise. It is an even more recent phenomenon that atheism is fought for with a thoroughly religious fervor.6
Defenders of naturalism generally point to the successes of science to back up their worldview. Naturalism also assumes that the successes of science will eventually be absolute, that given enough time and effort, humans will be able to discover essentially everything about how the universe works. We are promised that in the near future there will probably be a Theory of Everything—not, despite its name, actually a theory of everything, but at least a theory that unifies all the fundamental forces of the universe. It is a grand claim, and the fact that such success in scientific discovery is indeed plausible is usually taken as support for naturalism rather than otherwise.7
However, despite its popularity, naturalism is a belief system with certain premises that must be assumed. It is not self-evident, nor is it a belief that convinced most people until recent times. How, then, have we come to this stage in history, when it is simply assumed true, without defense, in all sorts of publications? We need to understand a little of the history of ideas to understand how the present situation came about.8
Part 1: History
As mentioned above, some of the ideas of naturalism go back to the ancient world, but we will pick up the story in the seventeenth century, where modern science has its roots. It was recognized at the time that explanations come in different types. We might ask, “Why does water boil?” One level of explanation would be that fire underneath the kettle makes the water hot. Another level would be that someone wanted to cook dinner. Both explanations give real causes for the boiling of the water, but the causes are of different types. This issue of understanding different levels of causation was very important in the early days of experimental science.9
Francis Bacon
Francis Bacon (1561–1626) was a philosopher. He was also a solicitor and politician who came to be Lord Chancellor of England, but it is his philosophical views that interest us here. One of his most important achievements was arguing that the best way to gain knowledge of the world was by the empirical method—that is, by making observations through experimentation. Bacon insisted that experimental science, or natural philosophy as it was called at the time, was the way forward. Not only did he advocate this as a philosophy, but he had very practical suggestions to make about the enterprise of science, including government-funded research, international communication through scientific journals, and collaboration in experimentation. Bacon was highly influential in starting what is now known as the Scientific Revolution in England.
Among other concerns, Bacon also wanted to reassure anyone who might have doubts that studying the natural world in no way suggested that God was being forgotten. God, he argued, was the first cause of everything. He is the ultimate reason that anything happens. God makes things happen, however, in certain natural ways. He makes flowers grow, for instance, by providing sunlight and rain. These mechanisms can be regarded as the secondary cause, the way in which God goes about doing things. By separating out first and second causes, Bacon was able to discuss the value of studying second causes while contemplating the first one.
For certain it is that God worketh nothing in nature but by second causes: and if they would have it otherwise believed, it is mere imposture, as it were in favor towards God; and nothing else but to offer to the author of truth the unclean sacrifice of a lie. But further, it is an assured truth, and a conclusion of experience, that a little or superficial knowledge of philosophy may incline the mind of man to atheism, but a further proceeding therein doth bring the mind back again to religion. For in the entrance of philosophy, when the second causes, which are next unto the senses, do offer themselves to the mind of man, if it dwell and stay there it may induce some oblivion of the highest cause; but when a man passeth on further, and seeth the dependence of causes, and the works of Providence, then, according to the allegory of the poets, he will easily believe that the highest link of nature’s chain just needs be tied to the foot of Jupiter’s chair. To conclude therefore, let no man upon a weak conceit of sobriety or an ill-applied moderation think or maintain, that a man can search too far, or be too well studied in the book of God’s word, or in the book of God’s works, divinity or philosophy; but rather let men endeavor an endless progress or proficience in both; only let men beware that they apply both to charity, and not to swelling; to use, and not to ostentation; and again, that they do not unwisely mingle or confound these learnings together.10
Science was to be a study of God’s creation. In no way was it meant to replace belief in God. Bacon would have thought that ludicrous. Indeed, as we can see from the above quotation, he expected those who studied God’s world to be equally well studied in God’s word. The study of second causes was just that: a study of second causes, not a study of the only causes.
Francis Bacon turned out to be highly influential in the way that science came to be organized as a modern activity. When the Royal Society of London was founded (still one of the leading scientific institutions in the world), its members consciously modeled their new society on Bacon’s ideas. They took seriously his recommendations for establishing experimental, systematic science in order to expand human understanding and benefit humankind. They also took on his philosophical and theological background.