66  Naturalistic World View
Menu  |  back

With the aid of evolution, primordial soup and the big bang theory, an attempt is made to explain the world in a purely natural manner. However, nature and naturally are very flexible words. At a closer look, it is not possible to distinguish between “natural” and “supernatural.”


Many scientists believe that the term “natural” initially has only one single meaning, which differs when used in practice. Nature is first limited to a universe consisting of particles and forces. This excludes gods, angels and all other superstitious objects. Then, however, they turn around and use concepts for rationality and morals that cannot be reduced to particles and forces.


Let us consider the following non-physical variables used in scientific literature: forces, acting from a distance, singularity, infinite, consciousness, intellect, extraterrestrial intelligence, placebo effect, unobservable phenomena such as the interior of stars, dark material, dark energy, quarks, superstrings, the big bang theory and the origin of life. Some scientists even postulate parallel universes or an infinite multiuniverse. How natural is all this? (1)

Then we work with numerous concepts such as the following: information, mathematics, laws of logic, philosophy, history, reason, the scientific method, rationality, classification, causality, induction, and objectivity. Science itself is a concept.

Other non-physical concepts include the moral categories of truth, honesty, ethics, integrity and justice which are timeless and universal and refer to absolute values. Science is dependent on a number of things that cannot be explained with particles and forces.

The scientific journal Nature wrote that science adheres to truth even when it is uncomfortable or painful. “The belief of most people tends to reinforce their own interests. This morbid fact is the great strength of science” (2).

Mathematician and logician Kurt Gödel was capable of proving that mathematics cannot  verify itself. The physicist David Wolpert recently extended this argument to cover all scientific argumentation. According to the words of physicist Philippe M. Binder, Wolpert was successful in proving that “the entire physical universe cannot be understood completely by one single system of conclusions existing within it” (3). Therefore, the naturalistic worldview is not capable of substantiating itself from itself and within itself contrary to the desire of many of its advocates.



These 67  |  Menu
back

References:

(1) David F. Coppedge, Acts and Facts 38/4, April 2009, page 19.
(2) Nature, Editorial, Humanity and Evolution: Charles Darwin´s thinking about the natural world was profoundly influenced by his revulsion for slavery, Nature 457, 12 February, 2009, pages 763–764.
(3) Philippe M. Binder, Philosophy of science: Theories of almost everything, Nature 455, 16 October, 2008, pages 884–885.
 
Comment this Site!