#apologetics #christianity #worldview
1. The Scope of the Tool Is Narrow
Methodological naturalism is the operating assumption of modern science: it limits investigation to natural causes. That’s fine when you're studying combustion engines or bacterial infections. But it’s not a philosophy of truth—it’s a restriction. MN says, “Even if supernatural causes exist, we will act as though they don’t.” That may help in a chemistry lab. It collapses entirely when asking where laws of logic, morality, or the universe itself come from.
Using MN to study metaphysics is like using a metal detector to search for love—it simply can’t detect what it refuses to consider.
2. It Silently Smuggles in Metaphysics
Naturalistic science pretends to be neutral. It’s not. It assumes that only material causes are valid. But that’s not a scientific conclusion—it’s a metaphysical stance. Ask: What test confirmed that only physical things exist? None. It’s a belief baked into the method, not a discovery of it.
When scientists claim that consciousness, logic, or morality must be explained in terms of particles and fields, they’ve stepped outside of science and into philosophy. But they never told you they were changing the rules mid-game.
3. It Undermines the Tools It Uses
Science depends on logic, mathematics, and reliable cognition. But none of these are physical. You can’t find “the law of non-contradiction” under a microscope. You can’t locate “2+2=4” in the bloodstream. If methodological naturalism were universally true, these non-physical realities would be illusions.
Yet science can’t function without them.
This is the fatal contradiction: MN needs non-material tools to function, while denying the validity of non-material realities. It’s sawing off the branch it’s sitting on.
4. It Can’t Justify Trust in Reason
If human reason is the byproduct of mindless evolutionary processes, there’s no reason to trust it as a reliable guide to truth—only to survival. Your brain isn’t built for truth under that system. It’s built for winning, breeding, and avoiding danger. So why trust it to answer questions about existence, meaning, or purpose?
C.S. Lewis put it this way: “If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision... why should we believe [our thoughts] to be true?”
An atheist has no reason to trust his reason. So why would you trust his reasoning?
5. It Offers No Anchor for Morality, Meaning, or Personhood
Ask methodological naturalism to explain why rape is evil, why truth matters, or why human beings have dignity, and it stutters. The best it can offer is utilitarianism, social contract theory, or evolutionary psychology. None of these make evil truly evil. They just describe preferences, habits, or behaviors. Objective morality, intrinsic value, and real meaning collapse under MN.
A worldview that reduces love to dopamine and justice to herd instinct has forfeited the right to speak on moral matters.
6. It Doesn’t Explain Origins—It Evades Them
Ask a naturalist where the laws of nature came from, and you’ll get stories, not science. Ask where logic came from, or why something exists rather than nothing, and you’ll get shrugs or metaphors. But these are foundational questions—everything else depends on them. MN can’t answer them because it refuses to consider causes outside of nature.
That’s not a strength. That’s a confession of blindness.
Bottom Line
Methodological naturalism is like a calculator: excellent for solving what it's built for, but meaningless when asked why numbers exist or what makes a solution beautiful.
It’s a method. Not a worldview.
And when it tries to play philosopher, theologian, or metaphysician, it doesn’t just overreach—it disqualifies itself. Truth requires a foundation. Logic demands a source. Morality requires an authority. And ultimate questions need ultimate causes.
That’s why we don’t trust MN outside the lab. Because truth isn’t limited to test tubes.
Comments
Post a Comment