In this post, I’ma be droppin’ some science! Now for those of you aren’t friends with that word, hakuna matata, we’re not gonna go that deep. But over the last 20 years, I’ve wandered my way into many conversations concerning antagonism between faith and naturalism, and so much of it seems unnecessary and unfortunate.
On that journey I’ve discovered a few tidbits that have cleared a lot of confusion up for me, and I hope they do so for you too. And they aren’t the same ole arguments you typically hear from others. Shall we?
1. Supernatural can be natural, and natural can be supernatural
First some definitions. A naturalist is someone who believes there are only natural causes. A supernaturalist is someone who believes there can be supernatural causes. The latter is often labelled a theist if the most significant of those causes is a single creator entity/being. One of the most divisive assumptions accepted by both of these mentalities is (ironically) the division of things into natural or supernatural.
Even though such a separation might seem totally necessary, harmless, and even helpful, it historically hasn’t been. This dichotomy has been a problem for supernaturalists because they often label even a deity who has made himself natural (like God as Jesus) as supernatural, disqualifying him as an option for naturalists due to mere semantics. And the dichotomy is a problem for naturalists because myriad things that once could not be naturally observed/evaluated are now unequivocally considered natural and quite believable. For example from this radiologist, X-rays did not convert from being supernatural to natural once we were finally able to observe them and at least partially explain their effects. They always were natural simply because they exist, independent of our ability to even partially observe or explain them.
Why then does the naturalist (encouraged in part by the supernaturalist) likewise define God as supernatural and therefore unbelievable? God himself (at least the Christian one) has given us multiple ways to directly observe him and even experiment on him, especially as the physical person Jesus (e.g. John 20:24-29). He repeatedly and intentionally makes himself “natural” throughout the Bible and will continue to do so into eternity, when those who wish can see his face (Job 33:22-28).
I’m not saying we will ever be able to fully observe or explain everything about him, but neither can the naturalist with X-rays…yet she still believes they exist. So why repeat the X-ray error of the naturalist 150 years ago and believe God can’t likewise be real and at least partially naturally understandable? Especially when naturalists currently believe that 95% of everything that exists is the very religious-sounding dark matter/energy that has never been directly observed by anyone! What truly is natural is simply what truly exists, whether we will ever be able to detect it or not. The supernaturalist/naturalist tendency to arbitrarily label God as supernatural – elevating him to an unbelievable status – only makes him falsely unbelievable to so many. After all, wouldn’t God consider himself perfectly natural?
God making himself as intentionally observable to a doubting Thomas as he possibly could. A naturalist’s dream!
2. We all subjectively believe in a god that requires faith and determines our religion/worldview
No, I’m still not crazy. Think about it! Whenever anyone – secular or not – labels something a “god” (e.g. a celebrity, spiritual entity, football, money, philosophical ideal, etc.), there is really only one thing all those gods have in common: a preeminent, authoritative presence in the life of whoever believes in that god. Yes, we sometimes use “god” to refer to a creator or friend or other things, but the term essentially always implies the idea of an elevated standard worthy of some kind of worship. We all have a standard of truth or authority that is worshiped or considered insubordinate to other standards…whatever “wins” when multiple such standards disagree. So fundamentally, we all have a god. Sometimes our god changes. Always our god requires faith.
By definition, the naturalist’s god is the preeminent standard “Everything has a natural/physical cause”. Each belief, expectation, and action a naturalist has worships this god. And this long-named deity is 100% faith-based, as there is no natural proof that such a god is true (Click to tweet). Other standards like “Some things have supernatural/non-physical causes” must be and are subordinated to this god by the naturalist. Theists, of course, believe by similar faith in the authority/truth of a named god, such as Yahweh. They are also unable to prove such a deity is true.
Whatever conclusions or constructs that necessarily result from either of these gods – or any other god – is a faith-requiring religion or worldview. And whoever gathers together to encourage each other in such a religion – whether in an academic hall or cathedral – is a church. The original Greek word for church merely means “assembly”, after all! Kinda forces one to reconsider all the hypocrisy and discrimination present in the way some use the “separation of church and state” to permeate the state with their secular church while excluding other churches, doesn’t it?
I don’t (and can’t) bring this up as an argument for the innate superiority of one god/religion over another, but that’s my whole point. So much of the assumed conflict between the naturalist and the theist assumes (on both sides) that one approach to truth is innately superior to the other, when both are innately and similarly faith-based religions. It’s true that these religions subjectively choose belief in quite different gods. But it’s a lot easier to meaningfully converse with each other about how and why we arrived at these gods if we’re honest about needing the same first steps of faith on all of our journeys. Evidence and facts are immensely important to a worldview, but they have not proven any of the premises that all of our beliefs are completely dependent on.
3. We all believe in a god of the gaps
Not just those Christians! “God of the gaps” is the notion that people hastily and conveniently explain gaps in their knowledge with God. In our society, it’s typically a “well somehow God did it” response that’s heavily criticized by naturalists and more shyly by other Christians, either for being insensitive to people’s insightful questions or ignorant of things we’ve consistently learned about our world. I’ve always found this amusing, but kind of tragic, as naturalists rely on “god of the gaps” at least as often as those who are being dismissed! Naturalists – again by definition – must and do fill their gaps in knowledge with their faith-based god “Everything has a natural cause”. And the theist – however intellectual – must fill at least some gaps with their faith-based personal deity, or there’s no role for such a god at all in its own creation!
Theists believe a creator God made both this physical universe and created beings within it capable of learning. Thus by necessity, these beings will certainly fill some gaps with non-God explanations while always having gaps that can only be filled by God! So for any theist, “God of the gaps” is not just a perfectly valid notion, it’s inevitable truth! The problem for both the naturalist and the theist is not that they embrace “god of the gaps”. They all do and all must. It’s that they employ “god of the gaps” too quickly and universally. But ironically, the naturalist makes this mistake far more than the theist, since he always faithfully fills his gaps with his god! The theist at least recognizes some gaps do and will have non-God explanations.
Therefore, “God of the gaps” should not divide us. It should unify us, but only by welcoming it appropriately. For all the reasons above and many more, naturalists should seek to fill their gaps with natural explanations, while honestly recognizing that some gaps may need to be filled with (actually pretty natural) “supernatural” explanations, including God. Theists – particularly Christians – should seek to fill their gaps with the glory, eternal power, and divine nature of God that he himself beckons us to explore in this physical world (Psalm 19:1-4, Romans 1:20). And they should proudly (not shyly) maintain that some other gaps can only be filled by him – while being willing to keep learning.
God – certainly not Bill – is the ultimate science guy, because he knows that the responsible and ethical pursuit of physical knowledge will teach us more about him (Click to tweet). When we embrace the wondrous use of science as a tool without assuming that it therefore must be a god, we can all begin to fill our gaps more appropriately and less divisively. Thus, when I drop some science, I’m more picking it up and enjoying it as God intended us all to. Hope you enjoyed it too!
If you’re a ponderer like me and want to explore rational and refreshing solutions to other faith-related questions, check out my free e-book/book series Healing Hereafter, just two clicks away, starting here!
