by Scientific naturalism asserts that everything can be understood through empirical science alone. This includes the origin of the universe, human morality, and all human life. This worldview fails to account for deeper philosophical questions on consciousness, morality, and the existence of the universe. The Orthodox Christian worldview is superior to the worldview of scientific naturalism as it provides a comprehensive understanding rooted in a divine Creator. There are several gaps in scientific naturalism that will be addressed in the following sections with explanations why Christianity is superior.
Analysis of Scientific Naturalism
There are several arguments for scientific naturalism as it appeals to the modern mind that seeks tangible evidence. It presents itself as a comprehensive worldview that answers all of life’s questions through empirical investigation alone. Some of the advocates center on the idea that science can fully explain the complexity of life, others argue for a naturalistic basis for morality where science can determine objective moral values based in human well-being. Others state that the universe could have arisen spontaneously from quantum fluctuations. All of these are attempts to explain that there is no God and that there are scientific answers to creation, human life, morality, and purpose.
Dawkins advocates that, “Evolutionary biology and natural selection are sufficient to understand the world without divine intervention.”[1] The position is that natural selection should raise a person’s consciousness enough to have them be convinced that there is no intelligent designer. The concepts are easy to understand and the illustrations of a man coming from a monkey look convincing. The explanation is that natural selection is a cumulative process and in small pieces, it makes the improbable happen through accumulation.[2] This process would be like a badly designed lock that gave hints to a bank robber when he was getting “warm” with the combination. With enough time and hints, the locksmith can “guess” the combination and open it eventually.[3]
There is a naturalistic basis where morality and science can determine moral values based on human well-being and not divine intervention. Harris advocates that questions about values, meaning, morality, and life’s larger purpose, are really questions about the well-being of conscious creatures.[4] The premise is that values are facts that can be scientifically understood regarding positive and negative social emotions, impulses, the effects of specific laws, social institutions on human relationships, neurophysiology of happiness, and can transcend through different cultures.[5] There is a correlation between how much a person understands themselves at the level of the brain, and how well a person can see right and wrong answers to questions of human values. This is where human well-being entirely depends on events in the world and on the states of the human brain. As these truths are better understood, they force people to identify clear distinctions between different ways of living in society with one another, judging which are better or worse, and which are more or less ethical.[6] All this combined, will help to improve the quality of human life as it can answer the how to spend the next billion dollars if asked to spend it on eradicating racism or malaria.
Using principles from quantum physics and cosmology, the universe came from nothing without any divine intervention. Krauss advocates that over the last one hundred years, there has been significant advancements in science to understand how the universe evolves, and that religion and theology have been irrelevant.[7] He explains that science proves that miracles do not exist. They are only something that is yet to be discovered through science.[8] Science is based on three key principles. The first is to follow the evidence, the second is that all theories need to be attempted to be proven and disproven. Third, the ultimate arbiter of truth is proven through repeatable experiments.[9] He has spent three decades researching and provides a conclusion that most of the energy in the universe resides in some mysterious, inexplicable form permeating all the empty space.[10]
Each of these arguments are specific to a piece of the worldview of scientific naturalism. Each of these arguments have only enough evidence to bring someone to doubt divine intervention and each of them attempts to discredit miracles because of the advances and explanations with science. They fall short of explaining the full scope of reality. The evidence for the worldview of scientific naturalism has several gaps and misunderstandings that will be addressed in the next section.
Critique of Scientific Naturalism
While scientific naturalism has some popularity and publicity, each assertion is not able to be viewed as superior to Christianity. Scientific naturalism, when examined with a critical lens, has several shortcomings. The major issue with each argument is the lack rationality, livability, and comprehensiveness. Rationality refers to the ability of a worldview to coherently explain material and non-material realities such as morality and consciousness. Livability refers to how well the worldview aligns with the human experience with purpose and meaning. Comprehensiveness refers to the involvement of addressing both material and non-material aspects of reality. There are also flaws in the arguments themselves that have been explained by equally qualified scientists.
Dawkin’s scientific reductionism does not provide a framework for living a meaningful life as it does not provide intrinsic purpose beyond survival and reproduction. He does not provide an account for the origin of the universe nor address the deeper philosophical issues such as consciousness and morality.[11] Dawkin’s arguments rely heavily on Darwinian evolution and that the meaning, or purpose, of life is to only survive and reproduce. Dawkin’s asserts that if you believe in evolution as a biological mechanism, you must also believe in philosophical naturalism, the view that everything has a natural cause and that organic life is solely the product of random forces guided by no one.[12] This is not the case as Francis Collins, a research scientist and head of the Human Genome Project who converted from atheism to Christianity, believes in evolutionary science and that the fine-tuning, beauty, and order of nature points to a Divine Creator. [13]
Harris’ naturalistic approach does not explain why humans should prioritize the well-being of others in a world that is of natural selection with no inherent moral structure. Scientists, academics, and journalists believe that there is no such thing as moral truth, just moral preference, moral opinion, and emotional reactions.[14] His arguments are weak as they are strawman exercises on comparing his model better than the Catholic’s double standards of not excommunicating male priests for raping children and committing genocide while they do excommunicate women as priests and doctors who perform emergency and life threatening abortions of nine year old girls. Those like Harris, who are trying to construct a scientific ethics must pay more attention on traditional moral philosophy than assuming the debate is between a scientific ethics and a “supernatural” ethics provided by religion.[15]
Turek states that there is another problem, “The problem with Harris’s approach is that he is addressing the wrong question. The question is not what method should we use to discover what is moral, but what makes something moral? Why does a moral law exist at all, and why does it have authority over us?”[16] Harris has no answer for these questions because objective morality can only exist because of God. Harris attempts to criticize religion, “starting from a scientific view that accepts only natural sciences as the only criterion. This attitude, which is far from a philosophical basis, sociological studies, and scientific data, is shallow and not convincing because it consists of limited evaluations.”[17]
Krauss’ argument hinges on a misunderstanding of “nothing” as his explanation does not address the fundamental question of why there is something rather than nothing. His version of “nothing” includes quantum fields and energy, which are not nothing. While Krauss’ works were published in the early twenty-first century, his scientific arguments were based on science that was superseded and did not apply to his constraints. Two examples include the revised Quantum Mechanics and general relativity as both now have no connection with naturalism or evolution. This removes the support, if there was any, between science and naturalism.[18] Because these newer findings support probabilities instead of a closed-system universe, there are now possibilities of miracles when there is Divine intervention.
Each of the lines of reasoning do not provide a holistic answer and none of them have sufficient supporting evidence. While convincing at first, each of the arguments fall apart upon further inspection as they expose inherent limitations and a lack of providing a meaningful framework for life’s deeper questions. The gaps provide further evidence in weakening its claim to be a superior worldview. Fortunately, Christianity provides a superior worldview compared to scientific naturalism.
Defense of Christianity
In response to each argument, Christianity answers the questions scientific naturalism cannot, it offers a comprehensive framework for understanding reality, both material and the immaterial aspects of life. Scientific naturalism is limited to material causes and effects that are known. Christianity goes beyond this with explanations for non-material causes such as consciousness, morality, and purpose. These answer the questions that scientific naturalism cannot. Examples include, “Why is there something rather than nothing? Where does morality come from?”
Christianity provides a rational basis by theorizing a God who is the source of the universe, consciousness, and moral law. He answers all the questions scientific naturalism cannot regarding cosmological, teleological, and moral arguments because He is the rational result. The rational intelligibility of the universe points to the existence of a Mind that is responsible for the universe and the minds of humans that can do science and discover mathematical structures.[19]
Christianity explains why humans have an inherent sense of right and wrong. It offers a livable framework by providing meaning, purpose, and belief that there is more to the existence of the physical body and world. There is a divine plan where humans are made in His image and that joy can be found even in the harshest circumstances. This means that there is a Mind behind the universe, a Mind that intended humans to exist. Since humans have minds, it is logical that one of the major reasons to be given minds is to be able to explore the fascinating universe called home and be able to understand the Mind that has given it.[20] “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen. 1:1, New King James Version).
Christianity grounds morality in the nature and character of God, explaining why humans have inherent worth and why moral laws are binding and universal. Divine Command Theory (DCT) is superior to other theories because it takes God to be the paradigm of moral goodness, and it rejects normative ethics, grounding moral duties in God’s commands which provides a better explanation of the objectivity of moral values and duties.[21] DCT asserts that moral laws are grounded in God who is unchanging. This makes them objective, universal, and binding. They do not vary by culture or individual preference.[22] “He has shown you, O man, what is good; And what does the Lord require of you But to do justly, To love mercy, And to walk humbly with your God” (Micah 6:8)?
Christianity offers a more rational explanation of God as the uncaused cause and answers the question of why anything exists at all. Christianity explains why there is something from nothing, it embraces the full complexity of the universe. Miracles are also possible as they do not break the laws of nature. They come from beyond nature and obey all natural laws once they come into nature.[23] These miraculous events do not suspend the pattern of nature for exceedingly long but immediately upon entering nature feeds new events into the natural pattern. Because of this, nature is an excellent host for miracles. Examples include miraculous conceptions that cause pregnancies, reversal of cancer that is unexplainable because of no scientific reason, and people coming back to life with no scientific explanation.[24] “For You formed my inward parts; You covered me in my mother’s womb. I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Marvelous are Your works, And that my soul knows very well” (Psalm 139:14-15).
Christianity is superior in many ways to scientific naturalism as it fully addresses the complexities of the universe, human consciousness, and morality. It answers the question why humans have a moral compass with a life that holds inherent meaning and value. When morals and ethics are considered, there are substantial reasons for Christianity.[25] God is both transcendent and immanent which provides and understanding for miracles, morality, and divine influence. Regarding miracles and intervention, “But Jesus looked at them and said to them, “With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible” (Matt. 19:26).
Conclusion
Scientific naturalism is incomplete and falls short of offering a livable and comprehensive worldview. It does provide some rational arguments and reasons for the existence of some things, but it has several gaps. The Orthodox Christian worldview fills the gaps of life, morality, and the universe by offering rational answers to the questions of existence, purpose, and ethics. The superiority of Christianity lies in its ability to address the flaws in naturalism and that it makes a more compelling worldview as it contains both material and immaterial realities.
Note from Professor: Very good work overall, Shawn. Thank you! Well presented and documented. Good intro, argument, and conclusion. Moving forward, as you learn more about making formal arguments like this, keep focusing on improving the force of the sub-arguments themselves in context of the larger argument. Perfecting this skill is the difference between gold and silver medals among the best writers. Hope this helps.
Bibliography
Baggett, David, and Jerry L Walls. Good God: The Theistic Foundations of Morality. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2011.
Craig, William Lane, and Erik J. Wielenberg. A Debate on God and Morality: What is the Best Account of Objective Moral Values and Duties?. New York, NY: Routledge, 2020.
Dawkins, Richard. The God Delusion. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Trade & Reference Publishers, 2006.
GÜNDOĞAN, Saim. “Objections to Sam Harris’ Critic of Religion.” İlahiyat Studies: A Journal on Islamic and Religious Studies. 14, no. 2 (2023): 439–67. https://doi.org/10.12730/is.1257476.
Harris, Sam. The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values. New York, NY: Free Press, 2010.
Kaufman, Whitley R. “Can Science Determine Moral Values? A Reply to Sam Harris.” Neuroethics 5, no. 1 (04, 2012): 55-65, DOI:10.1007/s12152-010-9096-y.
Keller, Timothy. The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism. New York: Penguin Publishing Group, 2008. ProQuest Ebook Central.
Krauss, Lawrence Maxwell. A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing. New York, NY: Atria, 2013.
Lennox, John C. God’s Undertaker: Has Science Buried God?. La Vergne: Lion Hudson PLC, 2007. ProQuest Ebook Central.
Miethe, Terry L. C. S. Lewis’ Miracles. Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group, 2000. ProQuest Ebook Central.
Plantinga, Alvin. Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism. New York, NY: Oxford Academic, 2011.
Turek, Frank. Stealing from God: Why Atheists Need God to Make Their Case. Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress Publishing Group, 2015. ProQuest Ebook Central.
[1] Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Trade & Reference Publishers, 2006), 52.
[2] Dawkins, The God Delusion, 147.
[3] Ibid., 148.
[4] Sam Harris, The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values (New York, NY: Free Press, 2010), 47.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid., 59.
[7] Lawrence Maxwell Krauss, A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing (New York, NY: Atria, 2013), 129.
[8] Ibid., 183.
[9] Ibid., 254.
[10] Ibid., 159.
[11] Timothy Keller, The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism (New York, NY: Penguin Publishing Group, 2008), 98, ProQuest Ebook Central.
[12] Ibid., 95.
[13] Keller, The Reason for God, 98.
[14] Harris, The Moral Landscape, 477.
[15] Whitley R. Kaufman, “Can Science Determine Moral Values? A Reply to Sam Harris,” Neuroethics 5, no. 1 (04, 2012): 55-65, DOI:10.1007/s12152-010-9096-y.
[16] Frank Turek, Stealing from God: Why Atheists Need God to Make Their Case (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress Publishing Group, 2015), 94. ProQuest Ebook Central.
[17] Saim GÜNDOĞAN, “Objections to Sam Harris’ Critic of Religion,” İlahiyat Studies: A Journal on Islamic and Religious Studies 14, no. 2 (2023): 463. DOI:10.12730/is.1257476.
[18] Alvin Plantinga, Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism (New York, NY: Oxford Academic, 2011), 122.
[19] John C. Lennox, God’s Undertaker: Has Science Buried God? (La Vergne: Lion Hudson PLC, 2007), 207. ProQuest Ebook Central
[20] Ibid., 208.
[21] William Lane Craig and Erik J. Wielenberg, A Debate on God and Morality: What is the Best Account of Objective Moral Values and Duties? (New York, NY: Routledge, 2020), 187.
[22] Ibid., 191.
[23] Terry L. Miethe, C. S. Lewis’ Miracles (Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group, 2000), 41. ProQuest Ebook Central.
[24] Ibid., 42.
[25] David Baggett and Jerry L Walls, Good God: The Theistic Foundations of Morality (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2011), 4.