What is it about?
C. S. Lewis and many other philosophers and theologians have tried to argue that the doctrine of naturalism leads to the absurd conclusion that human reasoning is not reasonable. Therefore, they argue, naturalism must be false and supernaturalism must be true. But this argument is ineffective because of the ambiguous uses of the terms "reason," "rational," and "explanation." The various possible meanings of these terms makes it impossible to prove that naturalism is either true or false. Thus, naturalism must be understood as either a mandate that atheists have agreed to follow, or as a kind of guiding story that they use for their lives--a myth.
Featured Image
Why is it important?
The philosophical debate between atheists and theists is perennial and apparently irresolvable. Arguments abound on either side, with each side claiming to be more reasonable and having the better arguments. And yet, people on both sides are unmoved by the debate. None of the arguments on either side work as "proofs." In this article, I show why these so-called proofs are not really proofs, and why we continue to think they are. I also suggest that what naturalists (and supernaturalists) are really doing when they state their view is either proclaiming a policy that they have decided to strictly follow, or telling a story that somehow provides coherence and comfort for how they have lived (and are living) their lives. That is, it's either a mandate or a myth. Understanding the debate in these terms should lead us away from contentious arguments, and more towards an unthreatened and sympathetic understanding of naturalists. Since no "proof" is to be found for either side, we can now share our respective stories and talk about which story is more coherent and comforting; which is more fulfilling, uplifting, and beautiful.
Perspectives
For much of my intellectual life, I was in the ranks of those who sought to give some unassailable proof of the truth of Christian doctrine. I wanted an argument that would force atheists to admit that they were irrational. But what I saw was the some old arguments--on both sides--being rehearsed over and over again, with a little tweak here and a minor correction there, but no resolution, no definitive and decisive proof. I looked to my favorite author, C.S. Lewis, who seemed to have the best arguments for Christian theism. But I found that even his best argument--the argument from reason--was problematic, as revealed by Elizabeth Anscombe's analysis. Then I discovered the writings of Kierkegaard and Wittgenstein, and of O.K. Bouwsma--a student of Wittgenstein and a great reader of Kierkegaard. All of these thinkers opened up a new and better way to understand the debate; a way that allowed me to escape both the intellectual frustrations if finding a "proof" for Christianity and the contentiousness of the debates between atheists and theists, a contentiousness that seemed contrary to the spirit of peace that Christ gives and calls us to.
David Rozema
University of Nebraska System
Read the Original
This page is a summary of: Naturalism, Theology Today, October 2018, SAGE Publications,
DOI: 10.1177/0040573618791731.
You can read the full text:
Contributors
The following have contributed to this page
