Assumptions of Science
This is a research paper submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the course DR37001, Science and Origins at Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary (Kansas City, MO) on May 18th, 2024.
The majority of modern scientists unapologetically champion a worldview in which they claim to perform scientific experimentation without the influence of preconceived notions, religious ideology, or philosophical views.[1] This worldview is termed naturalism and carries the connotation of being a methodology of science that is only empirical and rejects supernaturalism.[2] However, despite the claim of naturalism being only empirical and free from the influence of preconceived notions, religious ideology, or philosophical views, there are several presuppositions that are assumed by naturalistic scientists and are needed for naturalists to do any sort of scientific endeavor; and these presuppositions essentially constitute a semblance of faith. Because of the presuppositions associated with naturalism, it is better to treat naturalism not as an objective science, but rather as a worldview through which science is done. Naturalism is simply another worldview, which influences the scientific endeavors that an adherent participates in, just like any other worldview.
Philosophical Assumptions of Science
When dealing with scientific endeavors, naturalistic scientists assume their methodology is based on only empiricism, but even in making the assumption that their methodology is based on only empiricism requires making epistemological assertions that cannot be proven empirically. For instance, the naturalist assumes that it is possible to obtain knowledge empirically or through human senses and experiences.[3] The issue is that this assumption cannot be proven through any empirical or naturalistic means, but rather relies on the presupposition that humans can obtain knowledge through empirical means or through human senses and experiences. Logically, the argument is nonsensical—science relies on empirical and naturalistic assumptions proven through experience; however, there’s no empirical or naturalistic way of proving the validity of human experience for knowledge.
Likewise, while making the assumption that naturalism is the proper worldview for science there is a correlating assumption that every human sense or experience is completely reliable for the purpose of gaining knowledge.[4] Just like the primary assumption of empiricism being sufficient for the gaining of knowledge through experience or human sense, the assumption that human senses and experiences are reliable cannot be empirically or even philosophically proven. Even when considering a survey of western philosophical ideas, it is evident that the reliability of human senses has been doubted throughout its history,[5] which makes the foundations of naturalistic science suspect. If the validity of human senses and empirical knowledge is in and of itself unreliable or questionable then anything derived exclusively from empirical study is logically just as unreliable or questionable.
Ontologically, naturalism makes an assumption dealing with the nature of being that ties in with naturalism’s epistemological assertions, particularly in the area of theories concerning origins. Naturalism assumes that matter has always been the way that it is experienced today. All naturalists assume that the general nature of being today is how matter and life has always been, but since there is a lack of empirical evidence to support this claim it again casts doubt on the naturalistic worldview, which emphasizes the ability to make determinations based on empirical methodology or human senses. In addition, from an ontological perspective, naturalism assumes and asserts the independence of the universe that essentially exists for no teleological purpose.[6] Not only does naturalism assume that the matter of all being is consistent from before recorded history, but all matter in a naturalistic worldview gives the appearance of the surrounding universe existing without any sort of force or being holding all things together.[7]
An Evaluation of Naturalism’s Assumptions
With some understanding of the presuppositions and assumptions used by naturalistic scientists, it is clear that the naturalistic worldview is not consistent within itself. A naturalist cannot assert to believe in a worldview in which only particles and energy exist and then make the epistemological and ontological claims that a naturalistic worldview needs in and of itself to exist. The moment that the naturalistic worldview appeals to the ability to trust human senses or to make determinations based on human reason is the moment that the naturalist steps away from being purely empirical to placing their trust in faith or a faith-like substance. The moment that naturalism makes assumptions based on assertions not visible or able to be sensed empirically, it loses to ability to state that it is a worldview that seeks knowledge only in what is sensed.
In addition, naturalists lose the ability to make statements concerning ontological issues because of the inability to empirically prove or validate the statements at hand. Since the ability to observe matter over significant amounts of time is impossible, it is impossible to assert with confidence that matter has stayed the same since before recorded history. Likewise, there is no empirical way to determine whether all matter is held together simply on its own volition or if matter is held together through a different means, or by a different means. Both ideas require a faith-like substance if it does not constitute faith in and of itself.
While the inconsistency of the naturalistic worldview is not an argument to completely disregard naturalism, it does provide sufficient proof as to naturalism’s inability to be completely objective in matters of scientific discovery. Since naturalism asserts its ability to be objective as its primary reason for its usage in scientific discovery, the fact that it does rely on faith or some faith-like substance calls into question the objectivity of anyone who adheres to or affirms naturalism as their primary worldview.
From a biblical worldview perspective, the philosophical presuppositions or assumptions of naturalism inherently contradict Scripture. Concerning naturalistic epistemology, the Bible as special revelation from an unseen being who interacts with the seen world is already contrary to a purely naturalistic and empirical worldview. Likewise, the ability to gain wisdom from a God who gives generously to anyone who asks assumes the ability to gain knowledge beyond the means of human means or reason (Jas 1:5). In addition, concerning the clear teaching of the depravity of man throughout Scripture and common experience concerning the unreliability of human senses, it seems to reason that the empirical senses of man could be tricked into thinking or feeling something that simply is not true. Concerning naturalistic ontology, the Bible is clear that everything became something from nothing by the very Word of God (Gen 1-2), which clearly contradicts the most common naturalistic theory for the origin of all things—the evolutionary theory.[8] The creation of all matter ex nihilo shows that matter has not always been in the same manner of existence as it is now, nor has it existed in and of itself.
Conclusion
Considering the clear contrasts between a naturalistic worldview and the Christian worldview, one would be hard-pressed to see any legitimate reasons to combine both worldviews. Rather, the clear differences ought to cause a Christian to be wary of naturalism’s clearly anti-Christian ideology while still being able to interact with the theories of naturalism in an intellectual manner. The reality is that many unbelievers and some Christians are already so influenced by naturalism and its assertion to be only empirical despite the clear faith needed to believe naturalistic ideas, which makes naturalism no more than another mere worldview, which influences scientific endeavors and other issues concerning epistemology and ontology.
[1] William B. Drees, Religion, Science, and Naturalism (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 237-238.
[2] Michael W. Taylor, “Herbert Spencer and The Metaphysical Roots of Evolutionary Naturalism,” in The Age of Scientific Naturalism: Tyndall and His Contemporaries, ed. Bernard Lightman and Michael S. Reidy (New York, NY: Routledge, 2016), 71.
[3] Anil Gupta, Empiricism and Experience (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2006), 3-5.
[4] Nigel Brush, The Limitations of Scientific Truth: Why Science Can’t Answer Life’s Ultimate Questions (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2005), 264-267.
[5] Consider Plato’s analogy of the cave or Descartes’ Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting the Reason, and Seeking Truth in the Sciences. Both of which argue the unreliability of human senses and experiences. Even in modern philosophical ideology, simulation theory also known as the Matrix theory shows that the issue of the reliability of human senses is an ongoing philosophical dilemma.
[6] Mariano Artigas, “Assumptions and Implications of Scientific Progress,” Scripta Theologica 30 (1998): 205-225.
[7] Aristotle believed a similar concept concerning the timelessness of the universe, which clearly rejects the creation account in Genesis and even Colossians 1:17.
[8] Richard DeWitt, Worldviews: An Introduction to the History and Philosophy of Science (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2018), 325.
