Atheistic Naturalism is Paganism
“An
irreligious society cannot endure the truth of the human
condition. It
prefers a lie, no matter how idiotic it may be.”
― Nicolás Gómez Dávila
― Nicolás Gómez Dávila
Most Atheistic Naturalists offer as scientific fact
the idea that the universe emerged from “nothingness”. In this
worldview, energy-without any origin- erupted or exploded, causing a
“big bang” (according to one theory), which then allowed this
same residual energy to come into contact with the resultant organic
matter of the prebiotic earth, resulting in the proverbial
“primordial soup” from which life emerged. Under this hypothesis,
that energy catalyzed chemical reactions that, in the span of
hundreds of millions of years, produced self replicating molecules.
But does this scientific theory presented as fact meet the criteria
of the Scientific Method?
Nothing
New
The
materialistic theory of the origin of the universe and of life is
nothing new.
“Ancient
Greek philosophers were perhaps the first to clearly formulate a
materialistic evolutionary concept of origins. It must be emphasized
that these Greek philosophers were neither scientists nor
experimentalists; rather they speculated on the origin of the
universe in a way consistent with their religious and philosophical
beliefs. Although many of the earliest Greek philosophers considered
their gods to be creators, this began to change with the influence of
Thales of Miletus. Thales (who lived at the time of Nebuchadnezzar’s
destruction of Jerusalem in 586 BC) founded the Milesian school of
natural philosophy. One of the primary assumptions of this school of
thought was that the origin of everything in nature could be
explained in terms of its own material composition. Thus, they sought
to explain the origin of everything by a process of self-assembly
from
some underlying material element. Thales believed that water
was
that basic element from which all things evolved.”1
In
fact, the Church Fathers encountered this very same ideology as it
developed in the paganism of the ancient Roman and Greek influenced
cultures they lived in.
For
example, we find the following in their writings.
“I
cannot understand how so many distinguished men have been of the
opinion that matter...was uncreated. That is, it was not formed by
God Himself, who is the Creator of all things. Rather, they say its
nature and power were the result of chance...thinking that so great a
work as the universe could exist without an architect or overseer.” -
Origen
“Who
can bear it to be said that this mighty habitation, which is composed
of heaven and earth and is called the cosmos, was established in all
its order and beauty by those atoms that hold their course-devoid of
order and beauty? Or that this same state of disorder has grown into
this true cosmos of order?" - Dionysius of Alexandria
“I
cannot omit here that some erring philosophers say that men and other
animals arose from the earth without any Maker.”- Lactantius
“Still
others (philosophers) would construct the entire fabric of the
universe by chance accidents and by random collision of atoms.”-
Arnobius
There
are many more quotes of this nature which tell us that, not only is
Atheistic Naturalism not new, but that its roots are founded in pagan
philosophy, not
science.
Defining
the Argument
It
is essential that we define our argument as believers in a created
universe as opposed to Atheistic Naturalism. We are not in any sense
denying the reality of micro-evolution. We freely admit to the fact
of micro-evolution in the universe. Science can and has demonstrated
it as a fact. What we are, however, refuting is the fallacious notion
that macro-evolution meets the criteria of the Scientific Method.
That is, macro-evolution is neither observable nor repeatable. It
must be taken as a matter of faith, as there is no scientific
evidence for the notion whatsoever.
“...macroevolution
is not observable, repeatable, or refutable and thus does not qualify
as either a scientific fact or theory. Evolution must be accepted
with faith by its believers, many of whom deny the existence, or at
least the power, of the Creator. Similarly, the Biblical account of
creation is not observable, repeatable or refutable by man. Special
creation is accepted with faith by those who believe that the Bible
is the revelation of an omnipotent and omniscient Creator whose Word
is more reliable than the speculations of men."2
“There
is, in fact, no known relationship between so-called microevolution
and macroevolution. Most evolutionists are quite aware of this
(although you would never guess it from the explanations of evolution
in the media, textbooks, and in the classroom).”3
Even dating methods used by Atheistic Naturalists
are based on presuppositions or assumptions taken from this very same
pagan faith.
“Scientists
use observational science to measure the amount of a daughter element
within a rock sample and to determine the present observable decay
rate of the parent element. Dating methods must also rely on another
kind of science called historical science. Historical science cannot
be observed. Determining the conditions present when a rock first
formed can only be studied through historical science. Determining
how the environment might have affected a rock also falls under
historical science. Neither condition is directly observable. Since
radioisotope dating uses both types of science, we can’t directly
measure the age of something. We can use scientific techniques in the
present, combined with assumptions about historical events, to
estimate the age. Therefore, there are several assumptions that must
be made in radioisotope dating. Three critical assumptions can affect
the results during radioisotope dating:
- The initial conditions of the rock sample are accurately known.
- The amount of parent or daughter elements in a sample has not been altered by processes other than radioactive decay.
- The decay rate (or half-life) of the parent isotope has remained constant since the rock was formed.”4
Thus, if one starts out with an assumption
regarding these things, the resultant data will be skewed toward that
assumption.
Being
from Non-Being?
The
fact of the matter is, science has no evidence for being arising from
non-being. The truth is, all evidence points to the contrary, even
down to the origin of the universe. The Kalam Cosmological Argument
assists us in establishing this very logical and
scientific fact.
Anything
that begins to exist has a cause.
The
universe began to exist.
Therefore,
the universe has a cause.
Taken on its own this may not solidly establish
that the cause is God, but it does establish that something cannot
come from nothing, which itself is a refutation of the Atheistic
Naturalist pagan philosophy. We must, however, proceed from there to
another argument; the teleological. This argument basically states
that the conditions for life are so precise, and need be so accurate,
the fact that conditions on earth meet such precise criteria argues
for a purposeful cause. Of course, there can be no purposeful cause,
nor precision design, without a Person behind it.
“If
nothing can be done or produced without design, it is plain that
there is divine providence, to which that which is called “design”
peculiarly belongs.”- Lactantius
“It
is more believable that matter was made by God (because He is
All-Powerful) than to believe that the world was not made by God. For
nothing can be made without mind, intelligence, and
design.”-Lactantius
Paganism
versus God
What we are really witnessing in the debate between
Atheistic Naturalism and Christianity is not truly one of science.
Science is wholly on the side of the Christian worldview. The debate
is essentially a religious one; an ongoing debate between ancient
paganism in new dress, and the revelation of the one God of Creation.
In writing of Jerry Coyne, a well known Atheistic Naturalist, a USA
Today article states:
“For
atheist Coyne, things are looking good. “Science nibbles [away] at
religion” while “America’s fastest-growing brand of belief is
non-belief,”5
The irony is that Coyne's “non-belief” turns
out to be a pagan belief system, however much he would wish to deny
it. He and his fellow atheists have simply found a dogma they prefer
to supernatural revelation- the dogma of self.
“Modern
man does not love, but seeks refuge in love; does not hope, but seeks
refuge in hope; does not believe, but seeks refuge in a dogma.”-Nicolás
Gómez Dávila
3Ibid.
Comments
Post a Comment