Metaphysical Naturalism – the belief that the natural world is all that exists.

The idea that science can account for everything we know or will ever know has become more than a respected theory, it has become a dogmatic commitment on the part of those who believe. And contrary to their banner of “tolerance,” naturalist scientists are intolerant of any person professing Jesus Christ as Savior. How has this been accomplished?

In his book, “Reason in the Balance,” Phillip E. Johnson states, “One of the most important stereotypes in naturalistic thinking is that “religion” is based on faith rather than reason, and that persons who believe in God are inherently unwilling to follow the truth wherever it may lead because that path leads to naturalism.” 1

Johnson also discusses how this stereotype marginalizes religious viewpoints. We are living in a society that believes only the naturalistic explanation is worthy of “serious” consideration. When someone approaches anything from a religious perspective, you are relegated to the land of Ned Flanders and his “fiddle dee dee” religious approach on the Simpsons! This is a serious problem considering that naturalism cannot account for everything we know.

A commitment to metaphysical naturalism would deny the life of the mind, an afterlife, and any knowledge of an origin of the universe. The life of the mind might be thought to be explained away by chemical reactions in the brain, but these cannot account for the mind’s awareness of itself, or consciousness. I believe consciousness is yet unexplainable through a naturalistic means. Near-death experiences are not conclusively accepted as evidence yet, but are being investigated through medical practices. If, as being journaled, it can be proven that there is something, rather than nothing, after death, we will have quite a dilemma with naturalism being the “way things really are.” Also, we can never know the cause of the origin of the universe unless we are able to investigate or speculate on that which is “not the way things currently are.” If the universe had a beginning, this would suggest creation by something other than what currently is; the effect cannot be it’s own cause.

In fact, the statement, “science can explain everything in the universe,” cannot itself be proven scientifically. So what we are dealing with is a philosophical commitment and not a scientifically proven commitment, and by those grounds, religious viewpoints are credible.

1 Johnson, Phillip E. Reason in the Balance: The Case Against Naturalism in Science, Law, and Education. InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove: 1995. pg.198.