Skip to main content

Naturalism of the gaps

The naturalistic presupposition is uniformitarianism (I.e., natural laws are equally applicable across all places and times) and it is flawed on a cosmological scale. All naturalistic “empirical evidence” is based on it. It is an article of faith. 

I have no problem accepting the laws of physics as a general operating rule but I presuppose the laws have not always been uniform in the past, nor will they necessarily be for all times and places. A simple google search can confirm my presupposition. As an example, the naturalistic proposition that “energy is *always* conserved” is neither rational nor scientific as it applies cosmologically. 

Naturalists have faith that science will somehow develop a naturalistic explanation given enough time and information and they grasp onto every fuzzy theoretical construct (e.g., dark matter and energy, multiverses, string theory, etc.) that supports it - “naturalism of the gaps”.

Here is a great article that illustrates this approach: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-the-multiverse-may-be-the-most-dangerous-idea-in-physics/

I love this quote, in particular:

“we need an open mind, though not too open”

It doesn’t take a degree in physics to figure out that naturalism is not a trustworthy source on which to base a disregard of the plain reading of Scripture. There is too much fuzziness. The more science digs into cosmological scales, the more mysterious the universe becomes. 


Now, let’s make sure and be clear - “naturalism” does not equal “science”, although for most practical purposes, they have become close to synonymous. I am a systems engineer/architect by trade, so I leverage logic and science everyday. That being said, I trust the Word of God over all logic and science, because “the wisdom of man is foolishness to God” and there is no practical reason for me to adopt the naturalistic views of deep time and other constructs they have used to ridicule faith in God and in the plain reading of His Word.


1 Thess 5:21 says to “test everything, keep the good” - that is the question you have to ask yourself. Is it good to adopt scientific naturalism’s perspective when it contradicts the plain Word? Or is it better to assume that they have a flawed paradigm and work to recontextualize the “fuzzy edges” to meet a more Scriptural framework?


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Eckhart Tolle - Christian Response

Unbelievable! ...The extent man not founded upon Christ will go and follow in their quest and pursuit of self and attempts to explain away reality and sin. Here's Oprah's spiritual sage... Response: 1. He resurrects errors of the past which deny reality by seeking to replace it with forms. 2. By reducing the past to forms (or photo albums) he not only denies the reality of the past but the extent of it's connectedness and relationship to the present. This error he also translates in regard to the future. 3. He establishes a false premise that one can separate the reality of the present ("now") from reality itself, which he vests in onesself (though he inconsistently goes on to suggest that life is found in abandoning oneself) 4. He has no grounds or basis for assuming reality is found in self (and apart from everything else, or only what one want's to allow) 5. By denying the truth of God, he falsely asserts that the future is no longer problematic...
73 comments
Read more

Eckhart Tolle Christianity (Understanding Eckhart Tolle - Comparison / Difference with Christianity)

I believe it important that both believers and unbelievers understand the difference between the teaching of Eckhart Tolle and Christianity. Here's a brief post to introduce you to a few of the significant differences. (Note, I've just been exposed to Tolle, but it doesn't seem to take long to discern the differences) Context (the problem)Taken from here .: Despite Oprah and Eckhart's reduction of Christianity to but one "way" amongst many other equally legitimate ways to God, and their calling Christ a "revolutionary" who has been misunderstood by the Church, and who simply came to manifest "Christ-consciousness", a quick search through the internet reveals that many Christians are following Oprah in attempting to fuse together the teachings of Eckhart, and the doctrines of the historical Christian church. Great website to gain quick summary of Eckhart's beliefs/teachings: Ripples on the Surface of Being Key Responses by Eckhart To...
71 comments
Read more

Supernaturalism Isn’t the Problem—It’s the Foundation

Introduction  Modern skeptics often claim that supernaturalism fails the test of epistemic utility. That is, it doesn’t “do” anything. It doesn’t build rockets, cure diseases, or power search engines. In contrast, science and mathematics are praised for their productivity. So the challenge goes: “If you want your worldview taken seriously, bring something useful to the table.” Let’s take this challenge seriously—but let’s also hold the challenger to the same standard. Because the problem isn’t that supernaturalism brings nothing . The problem is that most critics ignore the fact that it brings everything they depend on. 1. Truth Is Not the Same as Usefulness The argument that “only useful ideas matter” confuses epistemology with engineering. Some lies are useful. Some truths are inconvenient. Utility can point to truth—but it’s not the same thing. We don’t abandon questions of meaning, morality, or metaphysics just because we can’t turn them into an app. They’re deeper than u...
Post a Comment
Read more

Search This Blog