Naturalism and the undertaker; a tale of a hundred moons

I want to make a few comments that were provoked by reading a review of a book by John Lennox. (God's Undertaker; has science buried God?)

Quotes and comments;

1. ''The standard atheist or materialist position is that nature, the cosmos, or the physical world, is all there is. If nature is all there is (the philosophy of naturalism4), then science is the ultimate source of knowledge (a doctrine that has been called scientism). [1.]

- If nature is all there is, it should be possible to demonstrate how matter, plus physics, plus time can bring about the 'emergence' of living organisms and the eventual flowering of planet earth. The project so far, in my hopefully humble opinion, has been an utter failure. All we've been given is SF style speculation.... (without the humor or the drama.)

If naturalism were correct you would think people could point to some law that would bring living forms out of the void of inert matter... but I see no such law. Physical laws aren't creative; they're reactive. (We might be better off speaking of physical reactions rather than physical laws.) The reactions of matter aren't creative in the sense that they do the same thing every time; e.g. A+B = C (every time) The question materialists are struggling with is how do you get something new out of this? how do you get new answers (information) out of the same old equations? Aren't two and two always going to be four? I don't see any way matter can do any more than give you matter. Matter plus matter = matter. Matter times matter = matter. Matter divided by matter = matter.
Information isn't material, but yet it's what matter needs to create. The materialist is committed to the idea matter can provide information. I don't see it. Matter is a dull witted sort of fellow; he has no tricks up his sleeve... certainly nothing as grand as the specified complexity of genetic code.

2. ''He points out that “the statement that only science can lead to truth is not itself deduced from science” (p. 42), which means that as a matter of logic, scientism has to be false in order to be true.

3. 'It was the deification of nature itself that had the most detrimental effects on science, and it was the Hebraic, biblical doctrine of creation that de-deified nature and made real science possible (pp. 47–50). But, in a sense, nature is being deified again by the claims that the natural world is all there is, and this is again destructive.'

- To say that 'nature' is all there is, is to make nature the most important thing in the universe. It's to make living organisms the most important things in the universe, and ultimately it's to make man the most important (smartest, most powerful, etc.) entity in the universe. Naturalism therefore is a glorification of man. It actually transforms man into God. (ie. since man is the most important being, his views and desires are the ultimate authority in the universe... and that sounds nearly identical to what scripture tells us of God.)

To say there is no god is to say man is god. (No wonder so many people find naturalism attractive.) There are profound theological implications of adopting naturalism as a worldview. It's the most arrogant view that it's possible for a human being to take. To say nature is all there is, is to say all that matters (in the universe) is what man thinks.

I see evidence that some people are troubled by the implications of naturalism in the search for extraterrestrial intelligence. Materialists are seeking an Other as a way of discouraging the hubris inherent in naturalism. (Man wants to be god, but yet finds the prospect troubling.) The biblical view is that man needs God a lot more than he needs aliens. (I don't think human kind needs aliens at all.) Even if aliens were found they could not be the 'significant Other' that man needs. Humanity doesn't need a friend (or a foe) it needs a source of Truth.

4. 'Why are we able to understand and study the universe? Why does mathematics relate to the physical world?
“It is very striking that the most abstract mathematical concepts that seem to be pure inventions of the human mind can turn out to be of vital importance for branches of science, with a vast range of practical applications” (p. 60).

- The biblical answer to this question (why mathematics relates to the physical universe) is basic; the universe was created with man in mind. The universe and man were made to be a perfect fit for each other. (I don't believe that man's physical size is an accident, nor do I think the size of man's mind is an accident. Man's mind is 'big' enough to deal with a universe as large as the one we find ourselves in. Man was made capable of dealing with universe. (I wish I could be as eloquent as my subject, but find myself babbling.) Man was created to have (to be capable of) dominion over the creation. That is why there is a fit between the mathematics man 'invents' and the physical universe.

5. ''The naturalist worldview can provide, in the words of Eugene Wigner, “no rational explanation” for the intelligibility of the universe (p. 60). But the Christian theist has an explanation: “the intelligibility of the universe is grounded in the nature of the ultimate rationality of God” (p. 61).

- The biblical view is that man can understand the universe because he was created to be able to understand it. i.e. he can't have dominion over it unless he understands it (or; the better he understands it the more capable he is of having godly dominion over it.) There is no explanation from Darwinists that adequately accounts for man's intellectual abilities. Evolutionists like to brag about how often E. correctly predicts things; but evolutionary theory does not predict human intelligence, (this is rarely admitted.) nor anything even approximating it.

Human genius is (from the E. point of view) entirely superfluous. It should not exist. If evolutionists were honest they'd admit that human beings should not exist. If E. (M2M) were correct human beings wouldn't exist, (and wouldn't be writing books claiming god is a delusion and that evolution created all things.) Only biblical creation can give an account for humankind's genius. People who reject the Genesis account are left with no explanation at all.

6. 'Lennox defends Paley’s basic design argument as philosophically sound. Hume had criticized design arguments, suggesting that the only way we could know the world was probably designed was by comparing it to other worlds, designed and not designed.

- I wonder what the atheist's homeboy would have to say if he were alive today. We can make the comparisons he only speculated about. If we compare earth to the other planets we know of we can only conclude it was designed. e.g. if we compare mars and earth which one looks more as if it were designed or 'terraformed' ? Which one looks as if there's been intelligent intervention at some point? (I'm not hot on this argument, but I think it's valid.)

7. 'The method of abduction, or inference to the best explanation, is appropriate, and is entirely untouched by Hume’s criticisms of design. “An argument that does explain a given effect is always better than one that does not” (p. 83). The question, then, is whether Darwinian evolution defeats the design argument by providing a better empirical explanation.

- The materialists have no plausible explanation for how a rock (planet earth) turned into a professor; how inert matter somehow transformed itself into living organisms, including man. All they have are speculations... none of which even convince materialists. The only answer I see is creation. The fact our professors don't like this answer doesn't mean it couldn't be true. There's no logical reason some kind of creation can't be true.

8. 'Lennox writes, the “sheer vehemence” of the defenders of Darwinism “fascinates me”. Why, he asks,
“ … is it only in connection with this area of intellectual endeavour that I have ever heard an eminent scientist (with a Nobel Prize to his name, no less) say in a public lecture in Oxford: ‘You must not question evolution.’” (p. 93).

- I find this intriguing myself. I don't understand it. I once accepted the materialist idea of an 'evolved' universe, but I never had any hatred of creation, creationists or problem with critiques of Darwinism.

'You must not question evolution'... being translated (into honest lingo) means 'you must not question materialism' or 'you must not say there's a god.' Why? Because he hates the very idea of God and creation. Why? Because he's a fallen creature in rebellion against his creator.

9. 'Lennox clearly explains the Shannon definition of information, and then explains the difference between Shannon information and semantic information (a crucial distinction that anti-design writers often fail to appreciate13). Lennox also explains the important concept of specified complexity. Information content that has both complexity (mathematically measurable) and specification (conforming to some meaning existing independently of itself) is inexplicable in terms of chance or natural law.

- Materialism can't explain how matter can stand for something other than itself; how it can be something other than itself; how the physical composition of X is the least important thing about it.

10. 'As he moves into a final chapter on the origin of information itself, Lennox notes that information itself is both invisible and immaterial (even though it is transmitted by physical means). “How could purely material causes account satisfactorily for the immaterial?” (p. 168). In short, the information in biology gives evidence of intelligent design.

- The problem materialists have is that they claim that only material things exist. i.e. they have no explanation for the immaterial, and thus no explanation for information. (Rather a big problem in the Age of Information :=}

11. 'In contrast, Genesis presents us with a Creator God who exists independently of the universe, but speaks into it. The gospel of John informs us that this Creator is the Word, the Word that “became human, to demonstrate fully that the ultimate truth behind the universe is personal” (p. 178).

- The key issue is this; is this a personal universe? or is it an impersonal universe? (If it's impersonal how did it create persons? Apologists for e. like to claim there are no questions can't answer; but I don't see any answers forthcoming for this vital question. An impersonal universe doesn't not predict persons.

Notes;
1. Grand undertaking; A review of God’s Undertaker: Has Science Buried God? by John C. Lennox - reviewed by Lael Weinberger
2. “Aunt Matilda’s cake” serves to explain the limits of the scientific enterprise (pp. 40–42). The finest natural scientists in the world could analyze the cake and tell us much about its chemical makeup, nutritional content, and protein structure, but they could not tell us the purpose for which Aunt Matilda made the cake. [above]
3. The likelihood that naturalism is correct is about the same as your waking up one night, looking out the window and seeing 100 moons in the sky.
- This is apparently what Steve Tibbetts did. Sample his music at YouTube; 100 Moons