---

"For if the trumpet makes an uncertain sound, who will prepare for battle?”  (1 Corinthians 14:8 NKJ Version)
“Oir ma bheir a’ ghall-tromp fuaim neo-chinnteach uaipe, cò a dh’ullaicheas e fhèin a-chum a’ chatha?”  (1 Corintianaich 14:8 Am Bìoball Gàidhlig)[Scottish]
"Agus má thugann an stoc uaidh glór éiginnte, cé a ullmhóidh é féin chun catha?" (1 Corantaigh 14:8  An Bíobla Naofa) [Irish]

Contemporary science has a fiercely defended operational "regime", or working procedure, commonly known as "methodological naturalism". It is perplexing to me that Christians involved in science are as often as not among the stoutest sword-wavers and shield-thumpers on behalf of this approach. Many other Christians in fact have the deepest reservations regarding "methodological naturalism". In my opinion such reservations are well founded. Though the following short essay may not be in the Louis Armstrong league of trumpet-blowing (or in the John Knox league of polemic) it is nevertheless humbly intended as a vigorous "blare" against "methodological naturalism", as well as a battlefield call to support the growing Christian resistance.

  1. The Dispute is Territorial

The dispute is territorial: is God to be allowed to traverse this land or not? Is He to be allowed to speak here or not? Is He indeed to be allowed to reign as the rightful sovereign of this kingdom? And in the latter context, how can it be that we hear so many Christian voices crying so vehemently among the seried scientific ranks that, at least as far as the field of Science is concerned, "We will not have this Man to reign over us!" Clearly there are elemental differences of perception, and consequently of loyalty, dividing Christians on this issue. How can this be? A major factor, I would think, is that we are reaping the results of decades of evangelical anti-intellectualism. So often over the years have I heard evangelical speakers champion "heart-knowledge" over "head-knowledge" (in effect, "emotion" over "cognition"). A generation of Christians has arisen, by and large, via an ecclesiastical culture of "Spirit-leading" rather than of the "Spirit-of-a-sound-mind". In worst cases, the impression has been given that "thinking" (or at least "premeditation") is almost sinful, hindering the "spontaneity" of the Holy Spirit. Hopefully, those who have grown up in a more Reformed tradition will have largely escaped this, and have been trained to think more deeply. Perhaps they have. Yet no matter how deeply you think, if you base your thinking on the wrong premises, you simply dig a deeper and deeper hole for yourself. So has the next generation been taught to think with the correct premises? Alarmingly, it is fairly clear that many young science graduates who are members of churches within the Reformed tradition are avowed and articulate advocates of the premise (we might call it the "dogma") of "scientific neutrality". So how can any area of life, particularly one so inestimably influential as that of scientific methodology, be plausibly declared "neutral" regarding God? And that by Christians? Well, it has, for instance, been insisted to me that "methodological naturalism" (which is apparently good) must be distinguished from "philosophical naturalism" (which is admittedly bad). This article is based on my endeavours to respond to this.

The crux of the matter to me is that "methodological naturalism" is surely (despite all protests to the contrary) but "philosophical naturalism" with its lab-coat on, and "methodological atheism" by a subtler name. "Methodological naturalism" essentially requires scientists to discount God a priori in their explicit research, or cease to be considered as valid scientists. It is my contention that this is absolutely not the Reformed and Biblical worldview, but is more in keeping with the medieval "nature-grace" dichotomy of Thomas Aquinus, whereby Man is considered capable in principle of comprehending Nature (understood as "material" reality) by his autonomous reason, and essentially requires God's input only regarding the putative realm of "Grace", being the domain of the "soul", "heaven" etc (or "spiritual" reality). The location of this latter realm is consequently deemed to be somewhere beyond or above Nature (hence the term "supernatural"). Thus has been bequeathed to Western society, and especially to Western academia, a concept of a "God" who, as Science relentlessy extends its "footprint" over our universe and over our existence per se, is increasingly viewed as a redundant "hypothesis". This dispossessed deity presents as a wraith haunting the margins of our cosmos and of our consciousness. A forlorn, metaphysical asylum-seeker, furtively and fretfully squatting where He can, pending His inevitable expulsion when, sooner or later, the scientific bulldozers move in to develop his latest bolt-hole for human habitation. God-on-the-run. A serial evictee. A derelict. A transient. An ontological hobo. Hors de combat.

How do Reformed Christians involved in science deal with this remorseless rout (as it would appear) of the Divine? Well, there is one sense (a sense which has disturbed me enough to attempt this essay against it) in which many actually see no problem. They see no problem because, as was noted in the first paragraph above, they not only accept as PREMISE that science is not "God-territory", they vigorously argue on behalf of such a premise. These intellectually-engaged Christians are convinced that material reality CAN be comprehended without God, and indeed, scientifically speaking, MUST be. This is self-evident to them. They do not see this by any means as a capitulation of the Christian worldview. Rather, to them, it IS the authentic Christian worldview. My "No-Room-For-God" qualms (previous paragraph) would no doubt be summarily rejected as a typical "fundamentalist" misapprehension - uninformed, unsophisticated, professionally embarrassing, an impediment to the conversion of scientific colleagues. So OK, if no problem is seen in my sense, is there some other sense in which one might be envisaged? Well, yes there is. That would be whenever science suggests that material reality is all there is. At this point our compromised Reformed scientists will proceed to, as it were, "out-Aquinus" Aquinus [*But see fresh note]. They will valiantly defend the existence of a higher "spiritual reality" - a realm "beyond" that with which science is competent to engage. And thus discussions or debates with colleagues will slip into the ubiquitous (iniquitous!) format of "Science versus Faith", or even worse, "Reason versus Faith". Formats which ensure that the atheist has in principle annihilated the Christian before a word is spoken or a shot fired. This lethal trap is not glimpsed by the Christian because the "nature-versus-grace" dichotomy has become so internalized and legitimized that he/she is now blithely oblivious to the blindingly obvious. That logic presupposes the Logos. That science presupposes faith. That there IS no neutral ground. That ALL ground is "battle" ground. The so-called "Church/State" delineation argument is another arena where the nature-versus-grace divide is manifest. The State is not to be subservient to the Church, nor the Church to the State. That, it may surprise some, is the Reformed view. But it is also the Reformed view that both must be subservient to our Creator. No detail of human existence is exempt from the grace of God. Nothing has meaning in itself. Neither science, nor politics, nor the arts, nor playing football. There is no neutrality. If a secular society is indeed 'neutral', why are humanists so passionate about achieving it? The dispute is territorial.

In utter contrast to the scholastic, Aristotle-derived, Aquinus-based view outlined and rejected above, our Reformed heritage has made available to us the radical Biblical insight that no coherent thought whatsoever can be accounted for without the premise of the Triune God of Scripture, in Whom "unity" and "diversity" are equally ultimate. Neither rationality nor science can proceed without the bringing together of universals and particulars. Science is largely about recognizing unity in diversity, and formulating laws to describe such. But, vitally, Christians must grasp that universals (scientific laws) and particulars (disparate data) are only logically relatable to each other because of Who God is, and because the cosmos declares His glory. The atheist scientist makes progress, yes. But this is despite his/her faulty premises and not because of them. One of the most influential Christian thinkers on these issues has been Cornelius Van Til. Here are a few pertinent quotes from his book "The Defense of the Faith" -

 

  "The argument between Christians and non-Christians involves every fact in the universe. If it does not involve every fact it does not involve any fact. If one fact can be interpreted correctly on the assumption of human autonomy then all facts can. If the Christian is to be able to show the non-Christian objectively that Christianity is true and that those who reject it do so because they hold to that which is false, this must be done everywhere or else it is not really done anywhere." (p 171)

 

  "Believers can objectively show to unbelievers that unity of science can be obtained only on the Christian theistic basis. It is the idea of God's controlling whatsoever comes to pass that forms the foundation of science. And no-one can or does believe that idea unless by the sovereign grace of God through Christ he has repented of his sin.Thus it is Christianity that furnishes the basis of the structure of science. If men will not repent and accept Christianity then they will still contribute to the structure of science. But then their contributions will be in spite of themselves as ethically responsible beings" (p 175)

 

 

And Phillip E. Johnson's book "REASON in the BALANCE: The Case Against NATURALISM in Science, Law & Education" is also worth reading on the demerits of methodological naturalism. A few quotes from him -

 

  "The power of scientific naturalism in the academic world is so intimidating, however, that hardly anyone is willing to challenge it. Theologians (or theistic scientists) survive in academia not by challenging naturalism with a rival interpretation of reality but by trying to find a place for theology within the picture of reality defined by scientific naturalists" (p 97)

 

"If the atheists make the rules, the atheists are surely going to win the game, regardless of what is true. The rules limit science to naturalistic theories and provide that the best available naturalistic theory can be considered successful even when it rests on unverifiable assumptions and conflicts with some of the evidence. If those are the rules of the game, then it is indeed futile for theists to try to play - but why should theists accept such rules, except that they lack the courage to challenge them?" (p 100)

 

  "The key element in the cultural authority of the scientific naturalists is their power to set the standards by which theories are evaluated. That power explains why theists are so paralyzed by the fear of the 'God of the gaps' fallacy. Darwinism became unchallengeable scientific orthodoxy not because the creative power of the mutation/selection mechanism was experimentally demonstrated, but because the scientific community adopted standards of evaluation that made something very much like Darwinism inevitable. Naturalistic rules require that theories employ only two kinds of forces - chance and necessity, random variation and impersonal law. The only debate is over details like the relative importance of chance (mutation) and necessity (natural selection), or the mechanism of heredity. The rules also provide that a theory retains its authority even in the teeth of a great deal of nonconforming evidence unless critics can provide a better theory.

 

(REASON in the BALANCE: The Case Against NATURALISM in Science, Law & Education, Phillip E. Johnson, InterVarsity Press, Illinois, 1995, ISBN 0-8308-19209-0)    

Johnson sees the link between “methodological naturalism” and Darwinism. I very much agree. Thus another book I would thoroughly recommend is Jonathan Sarfati's "Refuting Compromise". This is from Doug Kelly's foreword -

 

        "The reign of evolution/long-age theory was a major factor in turning Western culture from Christianity to naturalistic humanism in the first half of the 20th century. Most of the churches did not really escape this evolutionary world view. 'Higher critical' theories of Scripture assumed evolutionary development and negated supernatural revelation, shredding the normal understanding of biblical truth-claims. Because so many ministers and priests were educated in Christian institutions that nearly always (in the event of conflict) accomodated the Bible to current 'scientific' claims, rather than such claims to the Bible, the church was enfeebled. And it was largely unable to offer a viable alternative to the evolutionary humanism which eviscerated traditional Christianity at its Genesis roots. (Part of my own higher education was in one such institution).

     But we have seen substantial changes since the birth of the modern creationist movement in the early 1960s. Hundreds of professional scientists in many different fields have 'come on board' over the last 40 years, and the numbers who accept the Genesis paradigm of creation, as opposed to evolution/long ages, show no sign of abatement. Such a scientist is Dr. Jonathan Sarfati...

     Dr Sarfati calls on Christian scholars to work gladly within a framework that presupposes the truth of God's written Word, to use their reason ministerially, and to know carefully the difference between empirical facts of operational science and the speculative claims of origins science."

(Refuting Compromise, Jonathan Sarfati, Master Books, 2004)

 

2. Christians Must Challenge Validity

So my position is that Christians must challenge the validity of "methodological naturalism" if by this term science is perceived as a field of human endeavour which is religiously or philosophically neutral. Such a science cannot but be fraught. Since the Triune God is the precondition of all intelligibility, a science which presumes itself neutral in regard to Him will at the very least be unable to adequately account for the rationality it employs, and it will also become increasingly riven by inner tensions. Such an ostensibly "neutral" science is of course that which is is proposed by humanists. The Reformed philosopher Herman Dooyeweerd analyses the inner crisis of such thinking. The medieval "Nature/Grace" dichotomy of Aquinus, inherited from the "Matter/Form" dichotomy of Plato and Aristotle, has now become the modern "Nature/Freedom" dichotomy of humanism:

 

Unlike that of the Greeks and the scholastic thinkers, the inner dialectic of the Humanistic ground-motive is not born out of a conflict between two different religions. The deepest root of its dialectical character lies in the ambiguity of the Humanistic freedom-motive. The latter is the central driving force of the modern religion of human personality. And from its own depths it calls forth the motive to dominate nature, and thus leads to a religion of autonomous objective science in which there is no room for the free personality. Nevertheless, the religious self-surrender to autonomous science is, in the last analysis, nothing but the religion of autonomous human personality itself, which splits itself up into two opposite directions, not to be reconciled in a really critical Humanistic self-reflection. This is the result of the Humanistic secularization of the Christian motives of creation and freedom in Jesus Christ. By this secularization the insight into the religious radical unity of human personality is entirely lost.

 

In its motive of freedom, Humanism requires absolute autonomy for human personality. This implies a rejection of all faith in authority and of any conception according to which man is subject to a law not imposed by his own reason. However, this secularized freedom-motive displayed various tendencies which came into conflict with one another.

 

Modern man wished to have his destiny in his own hands, and therefore he wished to free himself from all faith in "supernatural" powers. Humanism applied the Copernican revolution in astronomy to the sphere of religion. The latter must concentrate on man and his religious needs. It must no longer require man to surrender completely to a Sovereign Creator and Redeemer, it could no longer be based upon a "heteronomous" (ie "subject to a different law") Divine Revelation.

 

***

The Humanistic science-ideal has led philosophy into a maze of antinomies. Every time philosophical thought tried to surpass the modal boundaries of the different aspects (numerical, spatial, physical, psychical (feeling), logical, historical, linguistical, social, economic, juridical, ethical, pistical) by means of a mathematical or mechanistic method, it punished itself by becoming involved in antinomies.

 

At this stage we only wish to point out that the consistent following out of the naturalistic ideal of science must reveal a fundamental antinomy in the basic structure of the Humanistic transcendental ground-Idea. This science-ideal, evoked by the ideal of personality, acknowledged no limits to the application of the new natural scientific method. Had not scientific thought been emancipated from the cosmic order and declared "unconditionally" sovereign?

 

But the moment must come when personality, the new sovereign in the Humanistic ground-motive, which had glorified itself in its absolute freedom, must itself fall a prey to this ideal of science. Personality had been absolutized in its temporal functions of reason. The physical and biological functions had been subjected to the domination of the mathematical and mechanical method of thought. The postulate of logical continuity implied that the psychical, logical, historical, linguistical, social, economic, juridical, ethical, and faith functions of personality must also be subjected to the naturalistic science-ideal. Thereby, the latter dealt a death blow to the sovereignty of the ideal of personality! "Die ich rief, die Geister, Werde ich nun nicht los!"

 

Herman Dooyeweerd, New Critique of Theoretical Thought (pp 190, 191, 204, 205)

 

We can see then that there are tests of a philosophical or logical kind which can and ought to be applied by Christians (and by everyone else) to science or art or any other form of human culture. Indeed, Cornelius Van Til argues that no detail of human culture can claim immunity from such scrutiny:

 

"The Christian, as did Tertullian, must contest the very principles of his opponent's position. The only "proof" of the Christian position is that unless its truth is presupposed there is no possibility of "proving" anything at all. The actual state of affairs as preached by Christianity is the necessary foundation of "proof" itself."

http://www.reformed.org/apologetics/My_Credo_van_til.html

 

Thus it is clear that neither Dooyeweerd nor Van Til see science as religiously or philosophically neutral.

 

It also seems clear from Scripture that to approach nature with the overt intent to systematically understand it without reference to the Creator is a perilous enterprise:

 

"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge." (Psalm 19:1,2)
"Cuiridh na nèamhan an cèill glòir Dhè, agus nochdaidh na speuran gnìomh A làmh. Tha là a' dèanamh sgeòil do là, agus oidhche a' foillseachadh eòlais do oidhche." (Salm 19:1,2 Am Bìoball Gàidhlig) [Scottish]
"Fógraíonn na spéartha glóir Dé agus foilsíonn an fhirmimint saothar a lámh. Insíonn na laethanta an scéal dá chéile agus tugann na hoícheannta an t-eolas dá chéile." (Salm 19:1,2 An Bíobla Naofa) [Irish]

"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."  (Romans 1:20) 

"Oir riamh o chruthachadh an t-saoghail tha a nithean-san nach faodar fhaicinn, eadhon a chumhachd sìorraidh agus a Dhiadhachd, air am faicinn gu soilleir, air dhaibh a bhith so-thuigsinn o na nithean a rinneadh; a-chum gum biodh iad gun leisgeul aca." (Ròmanaich 1:20) [Scottish]
"Mar ó chruthú an domhain i leith tá a thréithe do-fheicthe – a chumhacht shíoraí agus a dhiagacht – le haithint agus le feiceáil sna nithe atá déanta. Más ea, níl aon leithscéal acu" (Rómhánaigh 1:20 An Bíobla Naofa) [Irish]

 "We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ." (2 Cor 10:5)
"A' tilgeadh sìos reusonachaidh, agus gach nì àrd a dh'àrdaicheas e fhèin an aghaidh eòlas Dhè, agus a' toirt ann am braighdeanas gach smuain a-chum ùmhlachd Chrìosd." (2 Corintianaich 10:5 Am Bìoball Gàidhlig) [Scottish]
"Leagaimid ar lár leo argóintí agus gach sórt móiréise a sheasann in aghaidh eolas Dé, agus déanaimid cime de gach smaoineamh d’fhonn é a chur faoi réir Chríost." (2 Corantaigh 10:5 An Bíobla Naofa) [Irish]

 

Now, for the Christian of course, and certainly for the Reformed Christian, the Scripture is our highest authority. We do not believe it only if and when science endorses it (which would mean that science was our highest authority). Nevertheless, we readily grant the proviso that if our interpretation of nature is fallible, so also is our interpretation of Scripture. If, say, there is a clash between the apparent findings of archeology, anthropology, geology etc and the apparent teaching of Scripture, we must of course do our best to confirm that our interpretation of Scripture on the matter is sound. Christians would surely see this as self-evident. What Christians are far less clued up on, however, is that interpretations on the scientific side are invariably based on assumptions, and it may be of interest to discover these. In cosmology, for example, the "Big Bang" model arbitrarily assumes an unbounded, and therefore a centreless, universe.

 

The notion of methodological naturalism obscures the degree of philosophical baggage (the power of the prevailing paradigm, for instance) and implies a level of objectivity which is unattainable. It also in the name of "objectivity" offers science exemption from the claims of God's Word, which actually is our main handle on the nature of objective reality. This is not to put science under the authority of the "Church". Scientists are responsible to God directly in their own field and should personally seek the wisdom of God's Word, as should artists, lawyers, financiers etc in theirs. So to this extent, Scripture has a significant role to play as a test (and tutor) for scientific findings, as it is a test (and tutor) for all human thinking -

Here are pertinent quotes from two proponents of methodological naturalism who are well aware of their premises:

 

Scott Todd, immunologist, Kansas State University wrote to Nature magazine:

 

"Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic."

Todd, S.C., correspondence to Nature 401(6752):423, 30 Sept. 1999.

 

Professor Richard Lewontin, geneticist, one of the world’s leaders in evolutionary biology,  -

 

"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."

 

Richard Lewontin, Billions and billions of demons, The New York Review, p. 31, 9 January 1997.

 

Accepting "methodological naturalism" seems tantamount to accepting the late Stephen Jay Gould's idea of "non-overlapping magisteria" or "NOMA". Jonathan Sarfati critiques Gould's view as follows -

 

"(Gould’s NOMA) is based on the philosophically fallacious fact-value distinction, and is really an anti-Christian claim. For example, the Resurrection of Christ is an essential part of the Christian faith (1 Corinthians 15:12–19), but it is also a matter of history; it passed the ‘testable’ claim that the tomb would be empty on the third day, and impinges on science because it demonstrated the power of God over so-called ‘natural laws’ that dead bodies decay, they do not return to life...This NOMA distinction really teaches that religion is just in one’s head, which seems to dull the senses of many Christians more than an overt declaration that Christianity is false. So this is even more dangerous."

  CMI’s response to PBS-TV series Evolution/ Episode 1: Darwin’s Dangerous Idea 

 

For Gould, science deals with the objective world while religion deals with the subjective world (ethics, values, morals etc). The two can get on just fine if they stick to their own domains, like the shark and the tiger. "Don't step over my fence, and I won't step over yours". Neat. But of course Christ steps over all our fences and defences, and the objective world is where He lives and reigns, and it can only be properly understood with reference to Him, as Van Til argues  -

 

True human knowledge corresponds to the knowledge which God has of Himself and His world. Suppose that I am a scientist investigating the life and ways of a cow. What is this cow? I say it is an animal. But that only pushes the question back. What is an animal? To answer that question I must know what life is. But again, to know what life is I must know how it is related to the inorganic world. And so I may and must continue till I reach the borders of the universe. And even when I have reached the borders of the universe, I do not yet know what the cow is. Complete knowledge of what a cow is can be had only by an absolute intelligence, i.e., by one who has, so to speak, the blueprint of the whole universe. But it does not follow from this that the knowledge of the cow that I have is not true as far as it goes. It is true if it corresponds to the knowledge that God has of the cow.

Cornelius Van Til, A Survey of Christian Epistemology (being In Defense of the Faith Volume 2), den Dulk Christian Foundation,1969. (Second quote from Chapter 1 online)

And, moreover, we can also see how Dooyeweerd's analysis has a powerful bearing on Gould's "non-overlapping magisteria" as a modus operandi. Dooyeweerd uncovers the religious idolatry inherent in any declaration of independence of the logical function, even if legitimacy is ostensibly granted to other ways of engaging with the cosmos:

"By this (rationalistic) original choice of position, the attempt is made to detach the logical function of theoretical thought...and to treat it as independent... It is a religious act, just because it contains a choice of position in the concentration-point of our existence in the face of the Origin of meaning. In the choice of the immanence-standpoint in the manner described above, I myself elevate philosophic thought, whether in the transcendental-logical or the metaphysical-logical sense, to the status of arché of the cosmos. This arché stands as origin, beyond which nothing meaningful may be further asked...It exists in and through itself. This choice of a position in the face of the arché transcends philosophical thought, though in the nature of the case it does not occur apart from it. It possesses the fulness of the central selfhood, the fulness of the heart...It is a religious choice of position in an idolatrous sense. The proclamation of the self-sufficiency of philosophic thought, even with the addition of 'in its own field', is an absolutizing of meaning. Nothing of its idolatrous character is lost by reason of the thinker's readiness to recognize that the absolutizing...which he performs in the theoretical field is by no means the only claimant, but that philosophy should allow the religious, aesthetic or moral man the full freedom to serve other gods, outside the theoretical realm. The philosopher who allows this freedom to the non-theoretician is, so to speak, theoretically a polytheist. He fights shy of proclaiming the theoretical God to be the only true god. But, within the temple of this God, no others shall be worshipped!...In truth the selfhood as the religious root of existence is the hidden performer on the instrument of philosophic thought. Only, it is invisible on the basis of the immanence-standpoint."

Herman Dooyeweerd, New Critique of Theoretical Thought (pp 20,21)

Philosophical "polytheism". The proponent of logical self-sufficiency grants God squatting rights beyond the frontiers of the logical. How magnanimous. How spurious. Dooyeweerd's censure is as just as it is percipient. Yet Dooyeweerd's verdict is surely even more applicable to those who travel the opposite direction. Who piously affirm that "The earth is the LORD's, and the fulness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein", yet slam the door in God's face on entering the cosmos-claiming precincts of Science, not reluctantly but ardently donning the mandatory robe of "methodological naturalism".    

 

3. Keeping God Outside the Door

As an avowed philosophical materialist, Professor Richard Lewontin states at the end of the quote given above (in red), "We cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door". His consistency to that extent is clear. However, I'm still asking myself why so many Christians have become such adamant advocates of keeping God outside the door of the workplace. And particularly outside the workplace of science, the influence of which on human consciousness is now inestimable, arguably paradigmatic (ie enjoying the status of being "The Big Explanation" of existence). One reason given to me for this advocacy of "methodological naturalism" even by Christians is essentially that "it works". Let's consider this more closely. Firstly, let's revisit the question: What is "methodological naturalism"? And secondly, What are we to make of the degree to which "it works"?

 

Firstly: What is "Methodological Naturalism"?

"Methodological Naturalism" is a specific mode of confronting physical reality with human logic in order to elucidate and employ natural laws. God is excluded by definition from the process, since otherwise science is considered to be compromised, and indeed precluded.

 

To any Christian who thinks he/she has been able to successfully think and work within the above framework, I would say the following: Though you are a Christian who believes that every thought should be taken captive to obey Christ, I respectfully suggest that you have, as it were, partitioned the "hard-drive" in your head so that you simultaneously believe with equal commitment that scientific thought must under no circumstances be taken captive to obey Christ. In denying to yourself that “methodological naturalism" has anything to do with “philosophical atheism", you seem to be allowing, if not inviting, the conclusion that it has more affinity with "philosophical theism". But that is not your position at all, is it? It can't be, or most methodological naturalists would tell you where to go. What you are actually saying is that "methodological naturalism" is neither "atheist" nor "theist", but "NEUTRAL". Yet, as we have attempted to establish above, the notion of a philosophically neutral method is pure make-believe. We could usefully revisit at this point Aristotle and Aquinus, the "Nature/Grace" dichotomy, and Gould's "non-overlapping magisteria" (and we might even throw in for good measure Kant's "phenomenal" & "noumenal" categories) because the Nature/Grace split is precisely what you appear to be articulating. Namely, that life consists of two discreet realms:

 

Realm 1: the material domain (ie the cosmos!) which man's autonomous objective rationality can potentially analyze exhaustively (but only if God is factored out first).

 

Realm 2: the spiritual domain of (non-scientific-therefore-non-verifiable-therefore-irrationally-dogmatic) theology.

 

All the above, however, does not make clear WHY you feel you must keep God out of science, and precisely what damage you envisage Him perpetrating if He is allowed in. But I think the answer is beginning to dawn on me. You feel that God would be an arbitrary or capricious or unverifiable "gap-filling" postulate in scientific calculations. At least, that's the humanist basis for "methodological naturalism", is it not? That God's infamous habit of "moving in mysterious ways" could be invoked willy-nilly, thus short-circuiting any serious scientific investigation whatsoever. Miracles could be invoked at the drop of a calculator to explain anything and everything. Real science clearly couldn't get off the ground with such a cosmic "gremlin" on board (and invisible with it!). Attempts at "methodology" would be a farce. But wait a minute, I don't recognize this irksome entity from the “Other Side" as the Biblical God, do you? We are told explicitly that "God is NOT a God of disorder" (I Cor 14:23). Indeed God's orderliness, so evident in His creation, is what makes scientific investigation possible -

Can we not surely say then that God is a God of "method"? In fact can we not go further and say that ALL methodology presupposes the methodicalness of God, and is itself ultimately arbitrary without that acknowledgement? And likewise, what of "naturalism"? Is the Creator of Nature to be excluded from the scientific study of Nature because He is much too fickle (or "fictitious") a variable? Yet whence the laws of Nature but from God the Law-giver and the Judge of all the earth? Can this God do NO right in our eyes? Is He to be spurned both as Law-Maker and as Law-Breaker? -

If humans are to give account on the Day of Judgement for "every careless word we utter" (Matt 12:36), can we imagine for a moment that those of us who are scientists, who peer into God's Creation perhaps closer than any, will have our carefully premeditated and perennial words of "neutrality" excused?

 

Secondly: What are we to make of the degree to which "it works"?

The answer to the two words "it works", is simply another two words, ie "Common Grace" . Consider the following passage from Calvin's Institutes -

 

Therefore, in reading profane authors, the admirable light of truth displayed in them should remind us, that the human mind, however much fallen and perverted from its original integrity, is still adorned and invested with admirable gifts from its Creator. If we reflect that the Spirit of God is the only fountain of truth, we will be careful, as we would avoid offering insult to him, not to reject or condemn truth wherever it appears. In despising the gifts, we insult the giver. How then can we deny that truth must have beamed on those ancient lawgivers who arranged civil order and discipline with so much equity? Shall we say that the philosophers, in their exquisite researches and skilful description of nature, were blind? Shall we deny the possession of intellect to those who drew up rules of discourse, and taught us to speak in accordance with reason? Shall we say that those who, by the cultivation of the medical art, expended their industry on our behalf were only raving? What shall we say of the mathematical sciences? Shall we deem them to be the dreams of madmen? Nay, we cannot read the writings of the ancients on these subjects without the highest admiration; an admiration which their excellence will not allow us to withhold. But shall we deem anything to be noble and praiseworthy, without tracing it to the hand of God? Far from us be such ingratitude; an ingratitude not chargeable even on heathen poets, who acknowledged that philosophy and laws, and all useful arts were the inventions of the gods. Therefore, since it is manifest that men whom the Scriptures term ‘carnal’ are so acute and clear-sighted in the investigation of inferior things, their example should teach us how many gifts the Lord has left in possession of human nature, notwithstanding its having been despoiled of the true good....

 

Calvin's point is that no-one can discover truth anywhere, without it deriving ultimately from God ("the only fountain of truth"). Take, for example, this passage from Isaiah on the everyday science of agricultural husbandry in old Israel -

 

So ALL truth, including scientific truth, is God's truth. Satan for his part was from the beginning but a liar and a murderer (John 8:44). Therefore a methodology which discovers truth but at the same time insists that it is discovering this truth successfully by the systematic exclusion of God from all its thoughts surely is afflicted with a fatal internal conflict. As Paul so memorably states in his famous passage in Romans 1 -

By inexcusably suppressing the key truth that created things testify to the Creator, and have meaning only in relation to the Creator, methodological naturalism hideously skews the truth it does find. It resolutely snubs the glorious immortal God our Creator, and insists with Darwin that whatever meaning "mortal man" has is to be found only in the study of "birds and animals and reptiles", with these conceived of as creatures of pure blind chance. Methodological naturalism has thus exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and, by recognizing no authority but raw human rationality confronting brute reality, it is guilty of worshipping and serving created things rather than the Creator. Moreover, by means of its Big Lie it metaphysically "murders" every creature which falls into its clutches, interpreting it away from God, instead of unto God, as Adam was charged to do. Thus creatures whose meaning is infinite in Christ are obscenely reduced to gene-driven robots. God forgive us for bringing such a curse on the earth. 

 

The measure of how much truth the Pharisees had grasped from the Old Testament was evident in their response to the Christ of Whom it spoke, when He stood before them. Likewise, the measure of truth methodological naturalists have found will be evident in their response to Him of Whom all their studied creatures speak, when He stands before them.

In a sense we might even say that, in the context of meteorological observations, Christ actually addressed the Pharisees as "methodological naturalists" -

He does not deny the accuracy of their findings to an extent. On the contrary, He rather argues that, having grasped such everyday "mechanistic" truths makes them all the more culpable in their refusal to bow to the One to Whom all such "signs" point. The One standing before them now with, as it were, "clouded brow".

 

The Pharisees had knowledge, but when they heard the voice of God "walking in the Garden" they hid their hearts from Him, and plotted to nail Him to a tree. What is the response of methodological naturalists when they hear the voice of the Creator walking in the Garden of zoology, of botany, of anthropology, of geology, of cosmology? Do they fall before Him in delight at finding the Author of Life, the meaning of all things? Do they run to grasp His hand, to walk with Him in animated discussion of each animal and tree and flower, laughing with delight like little children at a sudden butterfly, or in silent awe at the mighty beasts, and in even greater awe at the galaxies beyond galaxies above? I think not. Rather they would seem more likely to wave their clipboards at Him and shout, "Hey! Excuse us, but didn't you notice that sign we posted on that tree you just passed? This is a site of  "Special Scientific Interest", we'll have you know! We really cannot have "gods" wandering in and interfering with experiments and observations. We really must ask you to leave forthwith. And please, as you go - do try not to step on the flowers or frighten the animals - we still haven't even catalogued some of them. And no offense, by the way! It's not that we are all card-carrying "philosophical atheists" around here. In fact we are quite a "broad church", as it were! Some of us are even quite the little "theists" - when we take our lab-coats off, that is. But we are professionals, after all, and naturally (if you’ll pardon the pun) we don't allow any intrusion of such subjective and potentially divisive matters into our work-practices. It would make a mockery of scientific objectivity! Now mind yourself on those thorns & thistles - they could give you a nasty gash...." 

A pertinent quote from JM Spier in his book on Dooyeweerd's philosophy -

JM Spier, An Introduction to Christian Philosophy, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1954, p 24

Dooyeweerd himself credits Abraham Kuper in this regard:

Van Til comments -

"Men must therefore be asked to repent for the way they have carried on their scientific enterprises, no less than for the way they have worshiped idols."

Cornelius Van Til, A Christian Theory of Knowledge, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, Nutley, New Jersey, 1977, p 39

4. Exchange with Christian Proponent of Methodological Naturalism

 

Context: Christian proponent of methodological naturalism is of the view that scientific thinking cannot but be exempt from Paul's words in Romans 1 -

Proponent: You think that because the Scientific Method states that we can't detect the supernatural empirically, this means that it declares that there is no supernatural. It does not. Science merely reveals to us God's methods of creating, it cannot displace Him. The Scientific Method is saying if there is evidence for God it cannot detect it. Unless you are willing to say that God is a natural cause and not a supernatural one.

 

Response: It seems to me your defining error is in evidence here in your last statement. You err due to your internalization of the pre-Reformation "autonomous nature v religious grace" dichotomy. When you use the word "natural" or "naturalism" you apparently mean a sphere of investigation and knowledge (ie Science) which does not operationally require God. In fact it requires His absence. Or at least it requires that He should stand quietly in a corner and not touch anything. Because anything He touches immediately becomes "supernatural" and thus "unscientific", right? Humanists have not the slightest problem with your position, because you effectively hand them the physical cosmos on a plate. "Were the whole realm of nature mine, that were an offering far too small" ? I put it to you that your standpoint offers "the whole realm of nature" to the pagans and, what is worse, it actually makes common cause with them against God. The late Carl Sagan famously said that the cosmos is all there is or ever was or ever will be. You would disagree with him, of course. You would say, "But there's also the God who made the cosmos, Carl". And he would say, "How do you know that, kid?" And you would answer - I don't really know what you would answer - I guess it would be something more than to sing him a snatch of "You ask me how I know He lives, He lives within my heart..." . Maybe you would say, "I know it by faith " And he might say "By faith in what?" At which point you are in a bit of a bind, because if you say to him "Well you see, Carl, science reveals to us God's methods of creating" he will frown at you for abandoning "methodological naturalism". Of course you can recover from your faux pas and regain his smile if you follow up with a good humanist profession such as "Though on the other hand, if there is evidence for God, science cannot detect it". But then maybe he decides to press you. He comes back, "You hold that science cannot detect God, yet you subscribe to God, eh? So you believe in something which is scientifically irrelevant. Something which logic does not require." Thus by putting God in a corner, it is you who ends up in the corner. On the basis of Romans 1 (and Scripture in general) we must be ready to courageously assert that no science whatsoever is possible without God. No thought whatsoever. No breath whatsoever. That the laws of nature utterly testify to God. That the laws of thought utterly testify to God. That there is no hiding place for unbelief. No excuse. We must not be found warming our hands in the courtyard of humanism, but be ready to say when necessary:


As Herman Dooyeweerd comments in his magnum opus "A New Critique of Theoretical Thought":

 

"At this point, many a reader who has taken the trouble to follow our argument will perhaps turn away annoyed. He will ask: Must epistemology end in a Christian sermon or in a dogmatic statement? I can only answer by means of the question as to whether the dogmatic statement with which the supposed autonomous epistemology opens, viz. the proclamation of the self-sufficiency of the human cognitive functions, has a better claim to our confidence as far as epistemology is concerned.

 

But let us be encouraged, for Dooyeweerd tells us elsewhere:

 

"Calvin also passed through an early Humanistic period during which he wrote his well-known commentary on Seneca's De Clementia. But when he reached the turning-point of his life, he broke radically with the nominalistic dualism that more or less continued to flourish within Luther's world of thought and that was dominated by the scholastic ground-motive of nature and grace.

    In Calvin's Biblical viewpoint this scholastic motive is eliminated. He maintained that the true nature of man cannot be opposed to grace. Nature is in its root corrupted by the fall, and is only restored or (as Calvin more pregnantly states) "renewed" by God's grace in Jesus Christ. This was also Augustine's conception. The Bible does not permit any view of nature, in distinction to grace, in which human reason in its apostasy from God, becomes the mainstay of a 'naturalistic philosophy and theology' ( philosophia et theologia naturalis ). It does not sanction any view in which the nous tes sarkos (that is to say, the intellect which is apostate from Christ in the sense of thinking according to the 'flesh') is declared to be sovereign.

 

 

Proponent: So, how do we empirically measure or observe God?

 

Response: It must dawn on us once and for all that "measurement" and "observation" per se testify to the Triune God of Scripture. "You do not use a candle to search for the sun" says Cornelius Van Til: "The Protestant doctrine of God requires that it be made foundational to everything else as a principle of explanation. If God is self-sufficient, he alone is self-explanatory. And if he alone is self-explanatory, then he must be the final reference point in all human predication. He is then like the sun from which all lights on earth derive their power of illumination."(A Christian Theory of Knowledge, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1977, p 12). The irony of your question is that empiricism is philosophically incoherent unless God is first assumed by the empiricist. Every accurate measurement testifies only and utterly to the Measurer, the One Who moment-by-moment measures and weighs us. We have been told this "from the beginning". We have understood this "since the earth was founded". All our petulant protests to the contrary are in vain. Unbelief, even in its self-preening (dis)guise of "neutrality", is again unmasked and left with no hiding place. No excuse:

 

Who has measured the waters in the hollow of his hand,

or with the breadth of his hand marked off the heavens?

Who has held the dust of the earth in a basket,

or weighed the mountains on the scales

and the hills in a balance?

Who has understood the mind of the LORD,

or instructed him as his counselor?

Whom did the LORD consult to enlighten him,

and who taught him the right way?

Who was it that taught him knowledge

or showed him the path of understanding?

Do you not know?

Have you not heard?

Has it not been told you from the beginning?

Have you not understood since the earth was founded?

He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth,

and its people are like grasshoppers.

He stretches out the heavens like a canopy,

and spreads them out like a tent to live in.

Lift your eyes and look to the heavens:

Who created all these?

He who brings out the starry host one by one,

and calls them each by name.

Because of his great power and mighty strength,

not one of them is missing. (Isaiah 40:12-14, 21-22, 26)

("Cò a thomhais na h-uisgeachan an glaic a làimhe; agus a shìn a-mach na nèamhan le rèis; agus a chruinnich duslach na talmhainn ann an soitheach-tomhais; agus a chothromaich na slèibhtean ann an sligean, agus na cnuic ann am meidh-chothroim? Cò a sheòl Spiorad an Tighearna, no mar aon de a chomhairle, a theagaisg E? Cò ris a chuir E a chomhairle, agus cò a theagaisg E, agus a sheòl Dha ceum a' bhreitheanais, agus a dh'ionnsaich Dha eòlas, agus a sheòl Dha slighe na tuigse? Nach d'fhuair sibh fios? Nach cuala sibh sgeul? Nach do chuireadh an cèill dhuibh o thùs? Nach do thuig sibh o leagadh bunaitean na talmhainn? Is Esan a tha na shuidhe air cuairt na talmhainn, agus tha a luchd-àiteachaidh mar fhionnain-fheòir; a tha a' sìneadh a-mach nan nèamhan mar sgàil thana, agus gan sgaoileadh mar bhùth anns an gabhar còmhnaidh; Togaibh ur sùilean an àird, agus feuchaibh, cò a chruthaich iad seo: Esan a bheir a-mach an armailtean air àireamh; a ghairmeas orra uile air an ainm; tro mheud a neirt agus treise a chumhachd, cha bhi aon air chall." - (Isaiah 40:12-14, 21-22, 26 Am Bìoball Gàidhlig) [Scottish]

"Cé a thomhais i gcroí a bhoise uiscí na farraige agus a leag amach na spéartha lena réise? A chruinnigh cré na talún i miosúr, a rinne na sléibhte a mheá sna scálaí agus na cnocáin in ainsiléad? Cé a thabharfadh treoir do spiorad an Tiarna nó cén comhairleoir a thabharfadh teagasc dó? Cé air a d’iarrfadh sé comhairle chun breithiúnas, chun eolas a chur ar bhealach na córach, chun slí na tuisceana a aimsiú? An ea nárbh eol daoibh? An ea nár chuala sibh? An ea nár insíodh daoibh é ón tús? An ea nach bhfuil sé tuigthe agaibh ó bunaíodh an domhan? Tá cónaí air in airde os cionn roth na cruinne, agus a muintir sin ar nós dreoiliní teaspaigh. Leath sé amach na spéartha mar a bheadh brat iontu, spréigh sé amach iad ar nós both chónaithe. Tógaigí bhur súile in airde ansin agus breathnaígí: Cé a chruthaigh na réanna úd murarb é an té a scarann amach in eagar slua iad agus a ghlaonn orthu go léir ina n-ainm? Tá a chumhacht chomh mór sin agus a neart chomh láidir nach bhfuil aon cheann acu a loiceann air." (Íseáia 40:12-14, 21-22, 26 An Bíobla Naofa) [Irish]

 

Implicit in your question is the conviction that, as far as "empirical reality" is concerned, God is entirely undetectable. In which case, of course, unbelief is entirely excusable. Indeed it is arguably the only stance consonant with the presented facts. And yet the Scripture in Romans 1:20 states (and for added clarity let's quote it from the Amplified Bible) "For ever since the creation of the world His invisible nature and attributes, that is, His eternal power and divinity, have been made intelligible and clearly discernible in and through the things that have been made (His handiworks). So [men] are without excuse [altogether without any defense or justification]". You deal with any apparent impasse here by limiting God's self-revelation to the "non-scientific" realm, however that is to be conceived. In a sense you are holding that if there is any inadequacy it is not in the scientists' vision, but in God's revelation. It is certainly not the scientists' "fault" that they cannot see God in what is before them. Indeed, it is the scientists' job to AVOID seeing God in what is before them (particularly if they wish to KEEP their job, I might facetiously add). But what if you are wrong, and Van Til is right (as quoted above), that "since God's face appears in every fact in the universe they oppose God's revelation everywhere. They do not want to see the facts of nature for what they are; they do not want to see themselves for what they are. Therefore they assume the non-createdness of themselves and of the facts and of the laws round about them." Our blindness is culpable. That is the key. We are refusing to see what we do not wish to see. We are not, as we reassure ourselves, victims of frustratingly patchy and inconclusive self-revelation by God. God's self-revelation is inescapable and all-pervasive. We in our unbelief recognize this but suppress it, and so are without excuse. "They are like the prodigal son whose principle requires him to deny that he is a son of his father whom he has left, but who cannot forget his father's voice. God's authoritative word does not speak in a vacuum. It speaks to such as are unable ever to escape the call of his voice.They have to maintain their own principle artificially by building dams anew each day against the overwhelming evidence of the presence of their Creator and Judge." (A Christian Theory of Knowledge, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1977, p64)

And thus, like Haman, in all his measuring the unbelieving measurer but measures his own scaffold:

 

"One of the eunuchs attending the king said, 'A gallows seventy-five feet high stands by Haman's house. He had it made for Mordecai, who spoke up to help the king.' The king said, 'Hang him on it!' So they hanged Haman on the gallows he had prepared for Mordecai. Then the king's fury subsided." (Esther 7:9,10)

"Agus thubhairt Harbonah, aon de na caillteanaich, an làthair an rìgh, Feuch, tha mar an ceudna a' chroich a rinn Hàman do Mhordecai, a labhair math airson an rìgh, na seasamh ann an taigh Hàmain, lethcheud làmh-choille air àirde, agus thubhairt an rìgh, Crochaibh e oirre. Agus chroch iad Hàman air a' chroich a dheasaich e do Mhordecai. Agus thraogh fearg an rìgh." (Ester 7:9,10 Am Bìoball Gàidhlig) [Scottish]

"Ansin dúirt Harbóna, duine de na coillteáin a bhí i láthair ag freastal ar an rí: “Maith mar a tharla! An chroch leathchead banlámh ar airde a ghléas Hámán do Mhordacaí, an té a thug anam an rí slán lena thuairisc thráthúil tá sí réidh ina theach.” “Croch uirthi sin é,” arsan rí. Chrochadar Hámán dá bhrí sin ar an gcroch a ghléas sé féin do Mhordacaí, agus chuaigh fearg an rí chun suain." ( Eistir 7:9,10 An Bíobla Naofa) [Irish]

Cf. Romans 1:18 -

 

As regards empiricism, the real question to be asked is "What are the necessary preconditions of a sound empiricism?" The answer to this question takes us back again to Romans 1, as the following quote from Greg Bahnsen (re Cornelius Van Til) argues -

 

"Van Til's apologetic is based upon confidence in natural revelation, for Romans 1 teaches that the created order is a conduit of constant, inescapable, pre-interpreted information about God, so that all men already possess an actual knowledge of him at the very outset of their reasoning about anything whatsoever, a knowledge which makes possible their use of evidence and reason....Van Til has recognized that:

(1) all empirical observation is inescapably theory-laden (there are no uninterpreted "brute facts").

(2) The acceptance and interpretation of what one takes as "factual" is not determined by sense perception alone, but in interaction with one's fundamental philosophical convictions (there is no presuppositionless neutrality).

(3) Empirical, inductive study in itself has certain preconditions which can be intelligibly accounted for only on the presupposition of Christianity (so that scientific and historical study wittingly or unwittingly assumes what believers are defending).

(4) What is assumed by the consistently non-Christian understanding of empiricism and induction contradicts biblical teaching as well as rendering empirical, inductive reasoning impossible in philosophical principle.

(5) Unbelievers (like believers) are not at all unbiased, impartial, without motive and goal, completely open-minded, and purely disinterested in where they will be led by their handling of the empirical evidence."

 

(Greg L Bahnsen ("Pressing Toward The Mark: Machen, Van Til, and the Apologetical Tradition of the OPC")

 
See also the very short piece at:

 

http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pa205.htm

 

 

Proponent: Is Paul talking about scientific evidence in Romans 1 & 2? If so, what field of scientific knowledge do you think he is referring to? Do people have to be scientifically literate to be able to see God's hand in creation? Is scientific evidence the only kind of evidence?

 

Response: The tensions in your worldview are in evidence again here. You ask "Do people have to be scientifically literate to be able to see God's hand in creation?"  This obviously invites the answer "No, of course not". Yet you have already informed us above that "if there is evidence for God it (Science) cannot detect it" . It would thus appear that the more scientifically literate we become, the less we can expect to see "God's hand in creation". This is surely absurd. While Paul would seem in the first instance to be talking about everyday solid reality, and while science is, in a sense, "all in the mind", we are yet commanded in the greatest commandment to love the Lord our God with all of our mind. Science consists in the rigorous investigation of discrete facets abstracted from the fullness of reality. Someone once asked Picasso if when he ate a tomato he thought of it in "cubist" terms or whatever. He answered "No, I just eat the tomato". Scientists, like artists, like everybody when it comes down to it, just "eat the tomato". All art and all science flow from the hearts of what are after all everyday "ordinary" people. People who, as the image of God, ought to be taking every thought captive to obey Christ, from Whom and through Whom and to Whom are all things. Thus in answer to your question "what field of scientific knowledge do you think he is referring to?", we say "ALL FIELDS!" All fields of science, of art and of every other human cultural endeavour. Insofar as they reveal truth, they reveal God. Immeasurably! -

"The earth is the Lord's and EVERYTHING in it, the world, and ALL who live in it" (Psalm 24:1)
"Is leis an Tighearna an talamh agus a LÀN, an DOMHAN agus iadsan a tha nan còmhnaidh ann." (Salm 24:1 Am Bìoball Gàidhlig) [Scottish]
"Leis an Tiarna an talamh agus a LÁNmhaire, an domhan AR FAD agus a maireann ann" (Salm 24:1 An Bíobla Naofa)  [Irish]

"For with You is the fountain of life; in Your light we see light" (Psalm 36:9)
"Oir Agadsa tha tobar na beatha; ann ad sholas-sa chì sinne solas." (Salm 36:9 Am Bìoball Gàidhlig) [Scottish]
"Óir is leatsa atá foinse na beatha; agus i do sholas-sa a fheicimid an solas" (Salm 36:10 An Bíobla Naofa) [Irish]

"The heavens are Yours, and Yours also the earth; you founded the world and all that is in it" (Psalm 89:11)
"Is Leatsa na nèamhan; mar an ceudna is Leat an talamh; shuidhich Thusa an cruinne-cè agus a làn." (Salm 89:11 Am Bìoball Gàidhlig) [Scottish]
"Is leat na flaithis, is leat an talamh; is tú a bhunaigh an domhan agus a bhfuil ann" (Salm 89:12 An Bíobla Naofa) [Irish]

"Christ, in Whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge" (Col 2:3)
"Crìosd, anns a bheil uile ionmhasan a' ghliocais agus an eòlais falaichte." (Colòsianaich 2:3 Am Bìoball Gàidhlig) [Scottish]
"Ar Chríost a bhfuil stóir uile na heagna agus an eolais i bhfolach ann" (Colosaigh 2:3 An Bíobla Naofa) [Irish]

The Creation ("Nature") has no other meaning than Christ. Science has no other meaning than Christ. It was the central heinous lie of Eden that Man could be the autonomous arbiter of meaning -

Humanism thinks in a circle. A vicious circle. Firstly, science is defined as a mode of thought which must exclude God. Then, lo and behold, we are told that scientific research cannot detect God. Christians think in a circle too, of course. Or at least they should. A glorious circle in which Christ is Alpha and Omega of all existence -

Science shall also sing that song. Because without Christ, whether acknowledged or unacknowledged, science does not even have the coherence of white noise:


5. In Summary
In the Christian context the contention is between the Reformed view and the Scholastic-come-Gnostic view. The latter still pervades much of evangelical and Reformed thinking. Its roots are deep in the subsoil of early Greek metaphysics (see, for example, the excellent brief survey in the chapter "Philosophy and Theology III"  in Herman Dooyeweerd's book "In the Twilight of Western Thought", The Craig Press, 1968). Essentially it is characterized by a spiritual/material divide. Medieval theology internalized it definitively when Thomas Aquinus synthesized Aristotle and Scripture and this became the governing structure of the Roman Catholic worldview. The Greek disjunction which Aquinus bequeathed is evident in the polarities between which has swung the pendulum of European history, precipitating massive cultural volte-faces. For example, between, on the one hand, the non-material idealist universal absolutes of rationalism/neo-classicism and, on the other, the transient corporeal particulars of ultra-relativistic irrationalism/ empiricism/ romanticism.

Its baleful effects on Christians are at least twofold  -

 

a) seducing us into a fatal compliance regarding its non-negotiable dogma of rationalistic, philosophically materialistic, neutrality and autonomy over against God and His Word. This is the heart of the humanist tenet of the "scientific method" (so-called), which seems to have near universal acceptance even among those in the Reformed constituency. Our acquiescence is fatal because in bowing the knee to the humanist idol of "autonomous human rationality" we grievously compromise our allegience to the Triune God of Scripture as the exclusive basis of rationality. We so readily forget that the very Logos became flesh and dwelt amongst us. If we could only hear the cock crow, we would turn aside and weep bitterly at our serial syllogistic betrayals of the Lord of All Sanity. He Who bequeathed to us One like unto Himself, ie the Spirit of Truth (John 16:13), the Spirit of a Sound Mind (2 Tim 1:7), that we might speak coherently on His behalf (Acts 1:8). Thus it is dismaying to encounter in so many intelligent radio discussions the deference of Christians present to the premise that "religion" is "non-rational" by definition, (humanism and science, of course, being vaunted as "rational" by definition). So often we simply roll over and offer up our throats on this issue, don't we? Like pink-bellied pups piddling themselves. We might well consider whether the Apostle James could not be pointedly adapted in this context as "Show me your faith devoid of rationality and I by my rationality will show you my faith" . Certainly Peter enjoins us to be -

 

b) inculcating and incubating in us a view of the Gospel as of relevance only to the "spiritual", to the "soul", and to an ephemeral disembodied hereafter. Thus, to take an example from linguistics, our Reformed churches in Scotland have sadly failed to provide Gaelic-speakers with any Biblical/theological rationale for the support of the Gaelic language. Gaelic is apparently perceived as but a worldly affair and its demise of no Christian consequence. Interest in it may even smack of incipient idolatry. Apart from occasional sniping on a few high-profile moral issues, any notion of stewardship of our culture before God is conspicuously minimal. This smacks of Gnosticism. From which has arisen Pietism. "Is it well with my soul?" is all that matters. Yet Adam's remit was to govern and cultivate the Earth for the Lord. It remains our remit. This "Cultural Commission" is not in opposition to the "Great Commission" of the Gospel. It is part of it. The Gospel is to every creature and to every culture. We are taught to pray -

Christ reconciles all things in heaven and on EARTH by the blood of His cross (Col 1). We are waiting, and the Creation groans with us as we wait, for the redemption of our BODIES (not for ESCAPE from our bodies). 1 Cor 6:13 tells us -

"The Lord for the BODY"! What kind of earthy spirituality is this? And thus we wait for the new heavens and the NEW EARTH in which righteousness dwells. Contrary to the old mission-hall chorus, this world IS our home. We are NOT just passing through. Certainly it must yet undergo some radical and painful refurbishment! But renovations have begun! And heaven will only fully be our home when it has come down to earth as the New Jerusalem. And Christ, the True Man, will walk among us again (Rev 21:1-3). "The Word" says John, "became flesh, and dwelt among us"

He became flesh in order to reconcile all things. To resolve any dichotomy between spiritual and physical, soul and body. To heal the manifold fragmentations to which Adam's disobedience has made us prey (pray, even). So Christians are in a sense the true materialists. Physicality belongs to Christ. So physicality belongs to US (1 Cor 3:22-23). Likewise, rationality belongs to Christ. So rationality belongs to US. Let us claim our inheritance. Let us rise and follow the trumpet blast. Let us not be intimidated by the high walls of Jericho.

 

6. Post Scriptum

 As post scriptum , some further quotes from a) Calvin, b) Van Til, and c) Dooyeweerd -

a) Calvin:
Notice here Calvin's reference to Romans 1 (among other Scriptures), his insistence on an integrated worldview rather than the discrete, polarized realms of "Nature" and "Grace", and his stern warnings that we err in these matters to our own cost  -

b) Cornelius Van Til:
Two relevant quotes from Van Til, both of which make reference to Romans 1 -

 

"The apostle Paul speaks of the natural man as actually possessing the knowledge of God (Rom 1:19-21). The greatness of his sin lies precisely in the fact that 'when they knew God, they glorified him not as God.' No man can escape knowing God. It is indelibly involved in his awareness of anything whatsoever. Man ought, therefore, as Calvin puts it, to recognize God. There is no excuse for him if he does not. The reason for his failure to recognize God lies exclusively within him. It is due to his willful transgression of the very law of his being.

    Neither Romanism nor Protestant evangelicalism (ie as distinct from consistent Reformed thought - FMF) can do full justice to this teaching of Paul. In effect both of them fail to surround man exclusively with God's revelation. Not holding to the counsel of God as all-controlling they cannot teach that man's self-awareness always presupposes awareness of God. According to both Rome and evangelicalism man may have some measure of awareness of objects about him and of himself in relation to them without being aware at the same time of his responsibility to manipulate both of them in relation to God. Thus man's consciousness of objects, of self, of time and of history are not from the outset brought into an exclusive relationship of dependence upon God...

    Romanism and evangelicalism, however, do not attribute this assumption of autonomy or ultimacy on the part of man as due to sin. They hold that man should quite properly think of himself and of his relation to objects in time in this way. Hence they do injustice to Paul's teaching with respect to the effect of sin on the interpretative activity of man. As they virtually deny that originally man not merely had a capacity for truth but was in actual possession of the truth, so also they virtually deny that the natural man suppresses the truth.

    It is not to be wondered that neither Romanism nor Evangelicalism are little interested in challenging the 'philosophers' when these, as Calvin says, interpret man's consciousness without being aware of the tremendous difference in man's attitude toward the truth before and after the fall...

But the one thing which, on this (Romanist, Arminian, - FMF) basis, we cannot admit, is that his claim to be able to interpret at least some area of experience in a way that is essentially correct, is mistaken. We cannot then challenge his most most basic epistemological assumption to the effect that his self-consciousness and time-consciousness are self-explanatory. We cannot challenge his right to interpret all his experience in exclusively immanentistic (ie naturalistic, - FMF) categories. And on this everything hinges. For if we first allow the legitimacy of the natural man's assumption of himself as the ultimate reference point in interpretation in any dimension we cannot deny his right to interpret Christianity itself in naturalistic terms". (Cornelius Van Til, The Defense of the Faith , 92, 93)

 

"...(T)he doctrine of general revelation and of common grace must not be taken as justifying a neutral area between the non-Christian and the Christian. There is no escape from taking it as such unless, with Calvin, appeal is made to the knowledge of God which the natural man inescapably has (Rom. 1:19, 1:20, and 2:14), but which he seeks to, but cannot wholly, suppress (Rom. 1:18).

    As far as the principle of interpretation is concerned, the natural man makes himself the final point of reference. So far, then, as he carries through his principle, he interprets all things without God. In principle he is hostile to God. But he cannot carry through his principle completely. He is restrained by God from doing so. Being restrained by God from doing so, he is enabled to make contributions to the edifice of human knowledge, the forces of creative power implanted in him are to some extent released by God's common grace. He therefore makes positive contributions to science in spite of his principles and because both he and the universe are the exact opposite of what he, by his principles, thinks they are." (Cornelius Van Til , A Christian Theory of Knowledge , pp 21, 22)

c) Herman Dooyeweerd:

And, finally, a superb quote from Dooyeweerd -

 

(Herman Dooyeweerd, "A New Critique of Theoretical Thought" Vol II, p 34)

More on Cornelius Van Til -

www.vantil.info

Hear Cornelius Van Til on AUDIO

Online Books by Cornelius Van Til

You may also be interested in the articles -

"Stringing the Beads": Van Til, Scripture & Rationality  by Fearghas MacFhionnlaigh

   - The Fossils Don't Speak by Michael Butler

**********
Christian advocates of "methodological naturalism" often seem much under the influence of the strongly
anti-creationist "TalkOrigins" website. You may be interested in the rebuttal website "TrueOrigins" at -
http://www.trueorigin.org/

Fearghas MacFhionnlaigh

---

Dhachaigh          Air Ais