The Jack and Jill of unbelief

Naturalism and Atheism

    Naturalism and atheism are the Jack and Jill of unbelief[1].  Naturalism is the world view and ideology which teaches that nature is all there is and rejects all spiritual or supernatural explanations of the world[2].  On the other hand, atheism is simply a non-belief in the existence of God.  However, when someone is challenged to prove their atheism they usually turn to naturalism, which is a belief and a world view.

Now, naturalism assumes that its explanation of reality is true, but its explanation is based upon s the fundamental assumption that there is no God and nothing, other than nature, exists.  In order for any of their explanations to be true,  they must first prove their fundamental assumption within their own world view, but unlike atheism they have a belief to prove.  Furthermore, their basic assumption cannot be proven by science because the question of the existence of God is outside of the realm of science[3].

So, the naturalist explains everything, as though there is no God and then they say that their explanation is proof that there is no God.  But, if their explanation does not come from science, where does it come from?  Could it be their imagination?  And is not their claim just circular reasoning?  They say that their explanation proves their assumption, and that their assumption proves their explanation.  Their whole argument is based on faith in their assumption that there is no God.  Since when does simply having an alternative view ascertain that view as the truth?

Their explanation, which I call the ‘tall tale’, does not in itself  prove it is rational or true. It is simply a human construct that offers an alternative view to theism[4].  A naturalist is different from an atheist in that the atheist denies the existence of God; the naturalist has a world view or a belief which does not include God and it assumes that he does not exist.  Then they use their assumption that there is no God to prove their naturalistic explanation of everything and then they use their explanation to prove their assumption.  Remember that an  explanation and an interpretation are not the same as evidence or reality. The interpretation is not the reality. The map is not the territory.

Atheism is a denial of God’s existence and it is a non-belief.  However, atheism is seldom alone and it needs materialism and naturalism to support its non-belief.  As soon as the atheist commences to explain the world though naturalism, they become a believer and begin to live by faith within the naturalistic explanation and assumptions.  When this happens the burden of proof is as much on them as it is on the theist.  Of course, they have no proof but only the explanation and assumptions of materialism and naturalism.  Their so-called evidence and proof all hang on their tall tale, most of which come from their fertile imagination.

What we have in naturalism is a series of assumptions (1). All that exists is nature and she is the whole show.  There is nothing outside of her to intervene in her course (non-provable assumption).  (2). That reason alone can figure her out (non-provable assumption).  (3) That she is controlled by certain laws, that allow reason to work.  Of course this raises the question, how  can mindless nature create the laws of nature?[5]  (4). Reason then assumes that she (nature) is irrational and chaotic, no design and direction, which contradicts number two (reason cannot figure out chaos).  (5) Based on reason (physics) nature had a begin and an end. This seems to indicate that there is something outside of her that brought her into existence.  However, this contradicts  assumption number one, that there is nothing outside of  nature.  Is the idea of something coming from nothing reasonable, or is this an unreasonable faith which comes out of an atheistic necessity?

[1] Like Jack and Jill naturalism and atheism stands or falls together.

[2] Seeing that we only have a limited knowledge of what makes up the universe, it takes a great deal of faith to believe that nature is the whole show or the only thing that exists.  My word, we cannot even define nature.

[3] The US National Academy of Sciences has gone on record with the following statement: ‘Science is a way of knowing about the natural world. It is limited to explaining the natural world through natural causes.  Science can say nothing about the supernatural.  Whether God exists or not is a question about which science is neutral.”  Taken from “Who made God? Searching For a Theory Of Everything” by Edgar Andrews.

[4] Both naturalism and theism have a story to tell.

[5] The naturalist usually responds by shrugging their shoulders and saying they were always there. You can have eternal laws but you cannot have any eternal lawgiver.