5.6 Science must assume a naturalistic explanation for everything

Published by 1c15 on 14th December 201914th December 2019

Science must assume all events have natural causes. A scientist would affirm that even if there were good evidence that a dead man had been seen later, this would have to be explained in a natural manner. This objection could be dealt with using one or more theories from psychological phenomena or the theories after that. They might allow the occurrence and call this event a freak accident of nature, one of a kind set of occurrences that, in spite of appearances, was really quite natural as the result of an unusual confluence of natural properties we do not yet understand. Or maybe this specific strategy would be proposed “We should expand our concept of nature’s laws to make room for such an event that is otherwise unexplainable in natural terms” or “As long as something occurs in nature, we call it a natural event”. The force of all such strategies is to maintain scientific reasoning in control of the explanation, to avoid the idea of divinity superseding nature. As creative as they are, they have innumerable problems.

1. Although natural causes should be considered first, a supernatural cause may be considered when all naturalistic theories fail, and there is credible evidence in favour of divine intervention

It is true we should be careful not to create a “God of the gaps” solution, where God becomes the default answer whenever we cannot think of something else. Nevertheless, when the facts seem to point strongly to the divine, and all natural explanations appear highly improbable, a supernatural explanation should be strongly considered. We cannot apply the scientific method to a supernatural occurrence if one comes along. This is a limitation on science not our ability to know. 

Atheist Paula Fredriksen of Boston University writes on method and history:

The methods of other fields refresh and challenge our work in our own, and I think this is all to the good. But we need to be sensitive to the utility of the method: and we can never let the method control the evidence. We—the historians—must control both. If we relinquish control, or fail to exercise it, or so enjoy where the method is taking us that we fail to direct our own way, we risk wandering in a past exclusively of our own imagining, distant not only from our own time, but also from the reality of those ancient persons whose lives and worlds we seek to understand. 

Paula Fredriksen, Atheist, scholar of Religion

Molecular Biologist Michael Behe states the dilemma for the scientist:

“Imagine a room in which a body lies crushed, flat as a pancake. A dozen detectives crawl around, examining the floor with magnifying glasses for any clue to the identity of the perpetrator. In the middle of the room, next to the body, stands a large, pink elephant. The detectives carefully avoid bumping into the pachyderms legs as they crawl, and never even glance at it. Over time the detectives get frustrated with their lack of progress but resolutely press on, looking even more closely at the floor. You see, textbooks say detectives must “get their man,” so they never consider the elephants”.

Michael Behe, Molecular Biologist

When it comes to the resurrection, this pink elephant may represent God. The complete inability of the opposing theories to account for the disciples’ beliefs that they had seen the risen Jesus, coupled with supporting evidence favouring the truthfulness of their beliefs, leaves Jesus’ resurrection as the best explanation to accounts for our collection of historical data. Infact, it is the only plausible explanation that accounts for it

2. The laws of nature would be no match for an omnipotent God who chooses to act by superseding those laws

the issue is not whether everything can be explained by the laws of nature, It is whether there is a God who may have superseded nature by superior power. Scientific reliance on natural processes to explain everything does not answer the question of whether all things that happen are controlled only by natural processes. God may have stepped into something nature cannot explain. Furthermore, if we had evidence that such an event occurred, this data would actually be superior to the natural working of nature’s laws, since that would mean that God performed an act for which nature cannot account for. There’s good evidence to point to it, as we know for example, the empty tomb, the conversion of the church persecutor Paul based on the risen Jesus appearing to him, the conversion of the sceptic James based also on the risen Jesus appearing to him, the religio-historical context of Jesus’ claims to divinity, his miracles, and his predictions concerning his resurrection. The result of this critique is that historical evidence might, for a brief time, actually supersede scientific evidence, since it means that, at that very moment, God intervened in nature.

3. Certain miracles have characteristics to show that they actually are interferences with the laws of nature

Philosopher Richard Swinburne suggests that the best case for recognising a miracle would include all of the following:

1. It has never happened before or since.
2. The event definitely cannot be accounted for by a current law of nature.
3. No foreseeable revision of our statement of a law of nature could explain the event in natural terms.

Swinburne Claims the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth meets all these criteria.

Intriguingly, resurrection claims in other religions are not well attested for. Will the naturalist say that dead men do not rise except for Jesus Christ?

4. When a naturalist insists on assuming that all events must be interpreted naturally, or that nature must always be made to allow only for natural events, he is arguing in a circle

He presupposes his naturalistic stance in order to pronounce judgement on other conceptual issues. But how does he know that naturalism is correct, especially when good evidence for a divine miracle exists?

Sources

• Paula Fredriksen — (Paula Fredriksen, “What You See is What You Get: Context and Content in Current Research on the Historical Jesus,” at www.bu.edu/ religion/ faculty/ fredriksen/ context.htm (Jan. 6, 2004), section 97.
• Michael Behe — Michael J. Behe, Darwin’s Black Box (New York: Free Press, 1996), 192.
• Swinburne’s 3 points — Richard Swinburne, “Violation of a Law of Nature,” in Miracles, Richard Swinburne, ed. (New York: Macmillan, 1989), 75–84. See also R.F. Holland, “The Miraculous,” in ibid., 53–69.
• Claims in other religions are not well attested — See Gary R. Habermas, “Resurrection Claims in Non-Christian Religions” in Journal of Religious Studies 25 (1989): 167–77.