Why Naturalism Must Fail.

Howard Taylor.

Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of …. , the lack of evidence. (Richard Dawkins)

Naturalism is the philosophical view point which holds that everything that exists has a natural cause in the material universe, because there is nothing else.  It denies the existence of anything supernatural or spiritual or transcendent. Specifically, it denies the existence of God. According to naturalism, moral values and aesthetic values can be nothing more than a state of mind, which is itself a physical brain/nervous system state. Absolute objective goodness, if it exists at all, must be grounded in the physical world because there is nothing else for it to be grounded in. According to Naturalism all moral values (such as the value of human life); all beauty (such as Mozart’s music or the appearance of a rose, or mountain grandeur), can be reduced to the movement or arrangement of the observer’s or listener’s atoms and molecules – real goodness and real beauty being products of the human imagination, which itself is a state of the physical brain and/or nervous system.

That is not to say that belief in God or any god is necessary for people to be really good or to really appreciate beauty, but that such concepts can have no rational ground apart from the reality of God.

It is quite reasonable to believe that the ‘light’ of God ‘shines’ through all creation so that most people intuitively value goodness and beauty whatever their theoretical world view.

There is no evidence and could be no evidence to prove that the physical is self-explanatory or that it alone exists, but it is still propagated as if it were definitely true.

If it is generally believed to be true, or if the God of love and goodness is replaced by an unpleasant god, then dire consequences will eventually envelop humanity.[1]

How could the physical sciences demonstrate that the non-physical does not exist? Some people may choose to believe that it does not exist, but that is what it is – a personal choice. They may claim that they are not convinced by the evidence that there is something beyond or outside the physical world which nevertheless impinging upon us, but that does not mean that the evidence does not exist. Naturalism is a belief which is a matter of personal choice: it is no more than that. And it is a rather dismal choice, too, demeaning to human beings and the wonderful universe we inhabit.

If I say: ‘there has been an insect in this room’ I am stating that I have noticed evidence of a particular insect in one place in the room. You might, by looking where I am looking, dispute that claim and we could have an investigation and discussion. However if I said ‘there is no insect in this room’ I would be making a different kind of claim. I would be claiming that I had searched the whole room – under the cupboards and behind the curtains for example – and I have reached the conclusion that there is no possibility that an insect, however tiny, could have escaped my notice.

If I say there is no God, I am implying that I have searched the whole universe and all other potential unseen aspects of reality – and that would seem impossible. If I made the claim that, God may exist, but have no effect on the physical world with which I am familiar, then I am claiming that I understand all effects and causes in the physical world. I could only be confident of this if I knew that physical science had finished, or nearly finished, its work, of exploring the physical world in terms of purely physical causes. Not only has science got nowhere near that position, it is exposing more, not less, mystery the farther it advances. The more we learn the more we realise how much more there is that we do not understand. Claims have been made in the past that we are close to knowing all that there is to know – and they have been proved false.

For example in 1900 Lord Kelvin, one of the great scientists of his day, said: "There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement". Then soon came Relativity Theory and then Quantum Mechanics, both of which were to explode outmoded ways of scientific thinking.  Some like the late Karl Popper believed the latter is a great challenge to a materialist understanding of matter itself [2].

There were many distinguished scientists, who around Lord Kelvin’s time took a similar view as his.

If it really were true that our human lives are simply the result of physical processes then there could be no overarching purpose for our existence. That is because purely physical things don’t initiate purposes. A bridge, for example, has a purpose that we have given it. It does not, itself, initiate any purposes. If there is no overarching purpose, can we believe that human life has any value? Something without purpose (either useful or aesthetic or perhaps having sales value) is soon discarded.

Hence the denial of absolute purpose is bound to lead to a sense of loss of value and therefore a loss of reverence for one another. It won’t happen immediately because vestiges of respect and value will remain for a few generations after the sense of purpose has gone. However I doubt whether they will last for more than a few generations. It could be argued that ‘natural selection’ and evolution explain our will to live, because without such a will our species would die out. However, even if this theory be true, once we had realised that the value we put on human life was only a survival strategy of our genes and other aspects of our physical nature - as alleged by evolutionary theories, there being no intrinsic value to human life, we would certainly lose our respect for one another – there being no reason to reverence one another.

I sometimes ask my students: “If I were to come into this classroom and say that I did not believe that human life had any value”, what argument would you use against me?

If they simply say we ‘feel’ that human life is valuable, I would say in return, that there have been many people in history who have not believed in the value of human life. They were relying on their feelings too! So how do you show that our feelings are more in tune with reality than their feelings?

The results of this militant fundamentalist[3] secular faith are evident around us as we see the collapse of ethics and morals throughout society. If we wish to hold on to morality but without belief in ultimate purpose[4], what are our reasons for so doing? There is no point advocating moral living unless goodness is real and human life is itself of value and how can these values be based on nothing more than the physical properties of the universe? How can moral values be proved by the physical sciences? Physical processes have not purposes of their own. They just exist. This is true of combinations of physical processes. If human life has no purpose (other than our own personal preferences) the belief in its value will have no basis in reason. We may find that that it is in our interest to behave well towards others but that is not the same as developing and applying our moral sense. The individual may value his/her own life but he would be unable to give a reason why other lives (human or animal) should be valued other than the belief that there is a good chance that his/her life would be valued by others in return. In other words my respect for other human life would come from self-interest alone. That cannot last long as a basis for morality. Academics may be able to believe it and remain respectable civilised human beings. However such ideas have a way of filtering down to the general public.

Sometimes the words ‘Physicalism’ or ‘Materialism’ are used as synonyms (or almost synonyms) for ‘naturalism’. It is a belief that dominates many of the Western World’s education systems[5] where the ‘scientific world-view’ is considered to be based on the belief that all physical phenomena must have physical causes. Influential people routinely ridicule alternatives such as belief in God or the reality of the human mind (as distinct from the physical brain), soul or spirit.

To recap secularism is a philosophy for which, in principle, there can be no evidence. Yet it is harmful. This is because, without a reason for living beyond one’s own preferences, there is a danger that moral values may not survive for long. So secularism’s dominance of our culture may lead to a continuing erosion of the belief in a real goodness that exists independently of our personal opinions – private or collective. This means that the objectivity of moral values is lost and such concepts as ‘progress’ in society become meaningless because there is no definite point to or from which society is moving. Consequently we see ethical confusion and the break down of right behaviour in all levels of society. Surely intelligent people who promulgate secularism must realise this. If that is the case, they bear enormous guilt for the consequent suffering of young people in our Western society as all that could give them love and security – for example marriage and the family – breaks down. No wonder the Muslims in our society are angry! I believe theirs is a mistaken creed, but nevertheless their frustration at the dishonest arguments used to support Western secularism – with its tragic consequences - is more than understandable.

However it is beyond dispute that much goodness remains in many ordinary people. My own conviction is that this is because the goodness and beauty of God (whether it is recognised it or not), pervading the world, means that ordinary people in all countries do recognise goodness and beauty when they see them and hope for them in their own lives. This will be true unless their sense of goodness and beauty has been negated by selfishness or fear[6] (for example) or an evil ideology that has taken over their lives – be it religious or non-religious.

‘Naturalism.org’ is the Web site of prominent people who actually hold to the secular view. Its advisory board includes such influential names as Susan Blackmore, Nicholas Humphrey, and Daniel Dennett.

It introduces itself with the words in italics quoted below. I have interspersed my brief comments in ordinary text in some of the quotes.

Naturalism is the understanding that there is a single, natural world as shown by science, and that we are completely included in it.  

What evidence could there be that only things examined by physical science exist and that science is the only way of knowing anything? To recap, physical science examines physical things. It therefore cannot tell you that non-physical entities don't exist. Actually there is a mass of contrary evidence.

Naturalism holds that everything we are and do is connected to the rest of the world and derived from conditions that precede us and surround us. (Again what is the evidence for this conviction?)  Each of us is an unfolding natural process, and every aspect of that process is caused, and is a cause itself.   So we are fully caused creatures, and seeing just how we are caused gives us power and control, while encouraging compassion and humility. 

This contradicts itself. For if everything we do and think is caused by the previous distribution of particles/energies in nature, then we would have no power to decide to do or to be anything including the power to make ourselves humble or compassionate. We would be the slaves of the impersonal laws of physics.

By understanding consciousness, choice, and even our highest capacities as materially based, naturalism re-enchants the physical world, allowing us to be at home in the universe.

This comment makes the assumption that we know how consciousness arose. But up to the present day there is no theory of how consciousness emerged from the biology of vegetation. Karl Popper is widely recognised as one of the twentieth Century's greatest philosophers of science. He has said: The emergence of all consciousness, capable of self reflection, is indeed one of the greatest of miracles.[7] There has been no progress in understanding how consciousness ‘emerged’ since Popper’s time. However it certainly is discussed. "No metaphysical problem is discussed today more vigorously than that of mind and body."[8] One of the most significant problems of the understanding of the mind is how its consciousness arose.[9]

Also there could be no ‘choice’ if everything I do and think is materially caused. If physical law caused all my thinking, how could I, by thinking decide that your thought was more or less correct than another thought? So if all thinking was materially caused how could I ‘understand’ anything? There would be no way to weigh up the relative merits of one thought and another thought – certainly not by thinking, since that too would be materially caused. If naturalism were true we could not know it was true – in fact we could not know anything at all! 

Nietzsche, who grasped this last point, realising its significance, rejoiced in the contradiction it contained. He wrote:

"As for the superstitions of the logicians, I shall never tire of underlining a concise little fact which these superstitious people are loath to admit - namely that a thought comes when it wants, not when `I' want; so that it is a falsification of the facts to say: the subject `I' is the condition of the predicate `think'."[10]

In other words in an age of dramatic scientific discoveries we decide that we know nothing!

To the obvious question: `How can it be true that there is no truth?' Nietzsche provides no answer. He cannot. Instead he enjoys the irony that the rationality that made science possible has been destroyed by science.

It is not simply that we are no longer sure that the presuppositions of logic are justified, but that science has made them impossible to justify.

So we have the Nietzschean circle[11]:

¨      Science provides the given - a self understanding we must live with

¨      This has made our normal understanding of scientific truth unintelligible.

The only way out of this irony is to acknowledge what most people have instinctively known, namely that physical nature is not the whole story and that Naturalism cannot be true!

Perhaps science could tell us that all physical effects have physical causes. That would be a lesser goal than proving that non-physical entities don't exist, but nevertheless it would be relevant to this discussion. I have mentioned it briefly above. There could be no evidence for even this lesser view unless we could show that the physical universe is a closed system of cause and effect - nothing non-physical affecting what goes on in it - such as a non-physical human mind or thought. If physics provided us with a TOE (Theory of Everything) it would have gone along way to reaching that goal. However there are problems with this view:

1. The further science advances the greater mystery is discovered.

For example the discovery of the DNA double helix was a great leap forward in understanding the biology of life. But it left the mystery of how such an information rich molecule got started in the first place. It was the discovery of the nature of the simplest form of life or self-replicating molecule (before the alleged process of evolution could get started) that forced the famous atheist Anthony Flew to give up his atheism and embrace the old argument from 'design'. He says:

It seems to me that Richard Dawkins constantly overlooks the fact that Darwin himself, in the fourteenth chapter of The Origin of Species, pointed out that his whole argument began with a being which already possessed reproductive powers. This is the creature the evolution of which a truly comprehensive theory of evolution must give some account. Darwin himself was well aware that he had not produced such an account. It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.[12]

Commenting on Flew's change of mind, Dr. Jonathan Witt writing to the Times (22nd December 2004) says:

"Peering into the world of even the simplest functional, self-reproducing cell — the thing Darwinism needs before it can even begin to work — Flew finds a world of intricate circuits, miniaturised motors and enough digital code to fill an encyclopaedia. Natural selection can’t build this bit by bit. It needs life first. Nor can the natural outworking of the laws of nature. Flew and the rest of us are waiting for a detailed, credible description of how such complexity occurred without design. Bold assertions, prestigious degrees and hand-waving don’t count."

A recent edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica says:

A critical and unsolved problem in the origin of life is the origin of the genetic code. The molecular apparatus supporting the operation of the code the activating enzymes, adapter RNAs, messenger RNAs, and so on are themselves each produced according to instructions contained within the code. At the time of the origin of the code such an elaborate molecular apparatus was of course absent.

So, as noted above, an advance in knowledge (in this case the discovery of DNA) leads to more mystery not less.

There are many other examples from science of how its advance in real knowledge has forced us to face greater questions than hitherto could not be imagined. Quantum theory is another example. It has exposed the sub atomic world that is not picturable. This sub-atomic world seems to behave in ways that are counter intuitive. We can describe it by mathematics but we do not know what an electron actually is – is it a little soft or hard thing? It is neither. So what actually is it? We don’t know but everything in the natural world is made of such tiny wave/particles. We are made of trillions and trillions of them.

There seems to be no evidence whatsoever that the advance of science is closing the vast gaps in our knowledge of the physical world. Quite the opposite in fact.

2. Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem [13].

In the 1930s the German mathematician Kurt Gödel showed that there will always be statements in formal systems of mathematics that cannot be shown to be true or false from within those systems. Each system would start with the given axioms (things taken for granted without need for a formal proof) which could - applying fixed procedures of logic - be used to test certain theorems that have arisen from those axioms to decide or prove whether they were true or false. He managed to translate statements about Mathematics into Mathematics itself. He then showed that it was possible to use Mathematics to say something about itself. He managed to number the statements in a formal system of Mathematics in such a way that statement number n said: "Statement number n cannot be proved in the system." We can see that this statement must be true, for if not, statement number n would have a proof, i.e. the system would contain a flat contradiction. The same is true if it could be disproved within the system: the system contains a true statement, which it cannot prove or disprove. From an enlarged system - with more axioms and more procedures - it could be seen that `n' is true or false. But that enlarged system again would itself contain its own undecidable statements, and so on.... So, it is argued, if Mathematics is incomplete so must the universe be - a universe with Mathematics as its foundation. This point and similar points is argued by John Barrow, John Polkinghorne, Roger Penrose and Paul Davies. In the April 2003 'New Scientist' it was reported that Stephen Hawking has now taken a similar view. 

Many have argued that Gödel's theorem proves that the universe can never be understood from within itself. Physicists must give up their quest for a 'Theory of Everything' - it cannot exist. Science will never be complete and that a TOE will always be out of reach[14].

Definite Knowledge.

The famous anti-religious philosopher Bertrand Russell in his History of Western Philosophy writes: “All definite knowledge belongs to science". [15] That sounds like the faith of those holding to naturalism. Why is it illegitimate to make such a statement? The statement itself cannot be proved by any scientific experiment. So if it is true it is not true! It therefore refutes itself and must be false.

There is a real knowledge with which we are all familiar, but it is not scientific.

This is friendship. Friendship leads, to knowledge of other persons - a genuine knowledge of realities. Such knowledge could not be obtained by science. I could never know 'you' by examining your body and brain in a medical laboratory. But I could know the real 'you' - who certainly exists - by friendship with you. You could actually tell me what you are thinking about (a holiday in Switzerland for example) but I could never learn that by examining your neurones. I might see the result in your neurones of your imagining the mountain scenery but I could not 'see' the famous Matterhorne mountain in colour and cloud as you imagine it. My friend in imagining the Matterhorne is not analysing his neurons to ‘see’ it. He may not even know he has neurons.

However if you really are my friend and, with reason, I trust your word (i.e. I have faith in you), then I could learn what is going on in your mind which is something real that has real consequences in the material world. (For example it moves your body - which is at least physical - to the travel agents to book a holiday). Thus we can gain knowledge of a reality by non-scientific means - a knowledge we could not gain by science.

Therefore there is more to reality than can be accessed by science. Naturalism fails!

The Self.

Thus this 'self' that is you cannot have a purely physical make up examinable by physical science. However those who hold to naturalism deny the existence of anything but the physical.  Hence some (or all) of them hold the absurd belief that there is no self. So naturalism.org tells us:

The self: As strictly physical beings, we don’t exist as immaterial selves, either mental or spiritual, that control behaviour. Thought, desires, intentions, feelings, and actions all arise on their own without the benefit of a supervisory self, and they are all the products of a physical system, the brain and the body. The self is constituted by more or less consistent sets of personal characteristics, beliefs, and actions, but it doesn’t exist apart from those complex physical processes that make up the individual. It may strongly seem as if there is a self sitting behind experience, witnessing it, and behind behaviour, controlling it, but this impression is strongly disconfirmed by a scientific understanding of human behaviour.

Although they claim that their conclusion is based on a 'scientific understanding', in fact it is based solely on their naturalist assumption. A truly scientific approach would look at the evidence before making unsubstantiated assumptions.

My physical composition is changing all the time, as some atoms and molecules are discarded and new ones are incorporated into the tissue of my body so there is no real continuing 'me' that once went to pre-school. That was someone else that no longer exists and it wasn't me that robbed a bank ten years ago so I am safe from prosecution! Not only has the actual substance of my body changed but its patterns have too - except for my DNA. Even that is now doubtful because recent research shows that my mental states may switch on and off certain codes within the DNA[16]. Even if this were not the case, could I identify myself with my genes? If I could, I would be 99.9% you, because that is the proportion of my genes I share with other humans! But you and I might be very different! People share 70% of their genes with bananas. Does that mean a banana is 70% a person?

Actually this argument applies to the identity of most things I can think of. For example, if over time, I replace every brick in my house, one by one, it is might still be considered the same house. This little example shows that there is more to identity than purely physical make up. The identity of my house is given to it by me who lives in it and my neighbours who know it. So who or what gives me my identity so I can truly say that I really did go to pre-school?

One of the supporters of Naturalism is Susan Blackmore and she has an internet link to 'Who Am I?'. On her own logic the answer to her question should be 'Well no-one actually' because no self exists. This was/is the view of Buddhism to which Susan Blackmore expresses some allegiance. The belief in 'no self' finds its classic statement in the ancient Buddhist text: The Questions of King Milinda where, in answer to the first question of the king, the monk Nagasena denies that the self exists and therefore he (Nagasena) does not exist! However if one clicks on Susan Blackmore's link 'Who Am I?' one gets a fairly normal description of a person's life and achievements. Susan Blackmore's self certainly seems to exist even though her body, brain and memories are constantly in flux.

So what is the self? Can it have a purely naturalist explanation? Definitely not! Even though the nature of the self and all subjective experience and consciousness remain great mysteries, naturalism certainly must fail to give an explanation and ultimately fail.

The fact that anything exists at all is a great mystery. However we know that we persons exist and our minds exist. Furthermore there must be something that exists that is not finite, upon which everything else which is finite ultimately owes its own existence. All finite things owe their origin to other finite things. Thus they too owe their existence to yet other finite things. Assuming this process is not infinite[17] we must reach the point where we meet Something which itself is not dependent on anything for its existence because it had no beginning and is itself infinite. [18]. Either impersonal particles/energy waves or laws of physics are those ultimate infinite things or there is Something beyond the physical world that is eternal. For reasons that should  become clearer as we go on, I would go as so far as to say that this Eternal ‘thing’ must be Eternal Mind and therefore cannot be spoken of without using a personal pronoun.

It must be reasonable to think that what lies behind all things cannot be less than personal because we personal beings have arisen in the universe. But is there a way of knowing that is appropriate for knowing Mind – a way that is probably different from the all-important reductionism of the natural sciences?

Whatever we believe about ultimate reality we cannot escape mystery.

So who made God? This question is the essence of Richard Dawkins' argument on page 141 of his ‘The Blind Watchmaker’[19]. He says a Creator, in order to make such a thing as the DNA would have to be at least as complex as the DNA. If we have to explain the origin of the DNA's complexity then we must explain the origin of the complexity of God.
What is wrong with this argument? The flaw in this argument is that it assumes that the laws of nature (i.e. cause and effect) apply to that which is beyond nature - a patently false assumption. If God exists then He is, by definition, beyond nature.

 

Dawkins goes on to say:

"You have to say something like 'God was always there', and if you allow yourself that sort of lazy way out, you might as well just say 'DNA was always there', or 'Life was always there'. and be done with it."

Although, no doubt Dawkins means this as a rhetorical sentence, its rhetoric can only be effective if the sentence makes any sense. But it doesn't.
It is beyond dispute that DNA and life were not always there! No one pretends that they were. This is something that is amenable to the usual scientific process of reasoning from the available evidence. We do not know the laws that relate to the Eternal existence of God who is beyond nature, but what we do know is that life has not always existed. [20]
 

Howard Taylor (HowardTaylor1944@yahoo.co.uk)