Chapter 7: The Explanatory Emptiness of Naturalism, by David Wood
This is going to be a relatively brief chapter since the author’s arguments have been responded to at great length by those who are much more knowledgeable than I am. I will, however, personally address the second half of his arguments.
David Wood appears to be working under the assumption that these arguments have yet to be dealt with since he does not even try to address counter-arguments from any skeptics.
David Wood believes that science requires a number of “preconditions” that must be met before any form of scientific investigation can begin. These “preconditions” have to be explained by naturalism. If this cannot be done, he argues, naturalism must necessarily be false. (74) He continues to argue that “Supernaturalism” is the best explanation for our world. He says that if “Naturalism” were true science would be able to account for the following things: the origin of the universe, the fine-tuning of the universe, the “diverse biological complexity,” consciousness, reason, logic, the “problem of natural uniformity,” and finally, objective values. (74-82) He argues it cannot, therefore naturalism is false and “Supernaturalism” is true.
Wood’s first four examples have been extensively addressed by various scientists, particularly the issue of “biological design.” I’m shocked there are still Christians who trot out this long discredited argument since it’s been dismantled so many times, even by other Christians. The same goes for the alleged “fine-tuning” of the universe. Books I would recommend to Mr. Wood and for anyone else interested in these topics are as follows:
Origin of the Universe & Fine-Tuning of the Universe:
A Universe from Nothing: Why There is Something Rather Than Nothing, by Lawrence M. Krauss, Free Press, 2012
The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning: Why the Universe is Not Designed for Us, by Victor J. Stenger, Prometheus Books, 2011
The Design Argument:
The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design, by Richard Dawkins, W.W. Norton & Co., 1996 (Tom Gilson might want to take another look at this book too since he didn’t seem to grasp any of it as revealed in the first chapter.)
The Greatest Show On Earth: The Evidence for Evolution, by Richard Dawkins, Free Press, 2009
The Science of Evolution and the Myth of Creationism: Knowing What’s Real and Why It Matters, by Ardea Skybreak, Insight Press, 2006
Consciousness:
Consciousness Explained, by Daniel C. Dennett, Back Bay Books, 1991
This leaves reason, logic, the “problem of natural uniformity,” and objective values.
There are a number of issues with this line of argumentation, but at its core each of these arguments are merely a fallacy: argumentum ad ignorantiam, or the appeal to ignorance. Because Mr. Wood cannot fathom how these things can be accounted for by natural processes, he wants to ascribe them to his god. This is classic “god of the gaps” reasoning. Second, even if it came to a point in the future and it turns out naturalism couldn’t account for these things, then that does not automatically make theism (or supernaturalism) true. While fallacies do not have to be responded to, since they are after all fallacious arguments to begin with, for the sake of being thorough I will address these four issues.
Regarding reason Wood writes,
According to naturalists, our ability to reason is the product of natural selection acting on random mutation. Natural selection, of course, favors traits that help organisms survive and reproduce. So if human reasoning evolved naturally, it’s because it helped human beings survive and reproduce. Does this give us any basis for trusting our reasoning ability when it comes to questions of cosmology, or quantum mechanics, or neuroscience? Not at all. At best, our cognitive faculties would be reliable when it comes to finding berries or using a spear […] We wouldn’t trust the traits of animals to lead us to the truth, because they weren’t developed for that purpose. Why, then, would we trust our own convictions, which are the result of the same evolutionary process? (79-80)
This does not make any sense. Reason is merely the “stepwise deployment of rules for arriving at useful conclusions.” [1] This same process that was used to find “berries” is precisely the same one used to calculate the mass of a neutron star. Just because one cognitive task is more complex does not mean that the solution that is calculated by our reason for the more complex task is rendered untrustworthy. As Wood noted, evolution favors traits that aided in survival and clearly the ability to figure out problems was a very successful adaptation. This is precisely why it should be trusted. It works, and we know it works or else it wouldn’t have helped human beings to survive. Now, I will be the first to admit that humans’ capacity to reason is not infallible but this is where the scientific method can aid in fact-checking our cognitive skills via independent, objective experiment. [2]
Computers are also capable of similar kinds of “reasoning,” or the processing of information, and there is nothing magical or supernatural about that. The human brain is simply an advanced form of computer (and please do not try to insert any pointless “design” arguments here…).
Next, Wood claims naturalism cannot solve the origin of logic. Wood writes, “Human reason would be even less reliable if it weren’t governed by certain logical truths, e.g., the Law of Non-Contradiction […]” (80)
This makes no sense. Reason is by definition the act of using methods of deduction.
Wood continues by arguing that “[l]ogical laws are abstract and conceptual. They’re concepts, which means that they only exist in the mind. However, logical laws don’t depend on human minds. The Law of Non-Contradiction was true before there were any human beings, and if all human beings were to die tomorrow, it would still be true. […] So the laws of logic transcend time, space, matter, and all human minds. […] But according to Naturalism, the natural world is all that exists, which entails that there are no transcendent logical laws.” (81)
On the contrary, the laws of logic exist because humans exist to create them. They are simply tools for problem solving. The only laws that would exist should human beings suddenly perish from the universe are the laws of physics.
The third issue brought up by Wood is what he calls “the problem of natural uniformity.” Wood essentially argues that via naturalism science is left “perpetually ungrounded” because a scientist is forced to “assume” that the universe will obey the same laws in the future. He writes, “It turns out, then, that you have no basis for believing that the results of your scientific investigation tell us how we should expect the world to behave.” (81-82)
This is simply nonsensical. Science does not presuppose that these laws are uniform and never change. This is simply an observation. It is not a presupposition. Certainly, without these regularities of nature science would be impossible. I’m sure if some day things began falling up scientists would have to go back to the drawing board to figure out what in the world is going on, but up to this point this has not ever happened to our knowledge. Based upon all observation gravity will not reverse itself. Finally, it is only through naturalism that we can do science at all. If a god were tweaking the laws of nature on a continuous basis there would be no way to make accurate predictions, rendering science obsolete, which is why this entire argument makes no sense.
The final issue are values. Wood writes that the very value of science under naturalism withers away because there is no explanation for our persistent pursuit of knowledge for knowledge’s sake. (82-83) He writes, “While scientific investigation often has a practical goal (e.g. curing a disease), we also pursue knowledge for its own sake. That is, we try to understand our universe because we believe that it is good to understand our universe, even if the knowledge we gain has no practical value […] Yet, if naturalism is true, then no objective values.” (82)
Once again, as with the previous responses, Wood is missing the forest for the trees. Yes, humans often pursue knowledge simply for the sake of gaining knowledge but this is yet another natural extension of humans’ inquisitive nature. For millennia humans have been seeking answers to the questions of why it rains, why their family members all of a sudden “sleep” and never wake. This need to know is simply man’s desire to learn about the world in which we live. This was once the job of religion. Now it is the job of science. There is no mystery here. We are simply applying this desire to need to know to bigger and more magnificent things as our knowledge of the world expands. Why do we do it? I would argue that it’s an outgrowth of our need to figure out how to best survive, which we have applied to other, more mundane subjects. This can certainly be explained by naturalism.
On the flip side, how does a god make any of this more meaningful? Because a god wills it so? Because he inserted this desire into our psyche? How would this be any different from natural selection creating this desire? Would the outcome be any different? The same desire would still drive us to pursue more and more knowledge. If a theist responded to this question, what might he say? How would his/her god be any more satisfactory of an answer? Could a theist even explain the reason why a god might have implanted this desire within us? Perhaps a believer might respond: “Because god wanted us to marvel at his creation.” Alright, but why? This does not answer the question. For what purpose does god want us to marvel at his creation? Because he has an ego problem? Or maybe he feels insecure about what he has created so he forces humans to marvel at his (oftentimes cruel and unjust) creation? How would this possibly supply any more meaning to the question? If you turn the questions back around at the theist their entire argument breaks down and they must resort to ad hoc justifications for their opinions. Furthermore, these theistic responses have much less explanatory power because at least science can point us to some tentative answers regarding these why questions, while religion cannot. Finally, evoking god to answer this question is just another from of the “god of the gap” argument.
1. Sense & Goodness Without God: A Defense of Metaphysical Naturalism, by Richard Carrier, AuthorHouse, 2005; 178
2. For an excellent discussion about the various cognitive biases that effect human reason and how to best solve this problem I’d recommend Michael Shermer’s The Believing Brain. (2011)
