LIBERTY UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF DIVINITY
Science or Truth?
A Research Essay for
Apologetical Scientific Naturalism
Submitted to Dr. Douglas Blount,
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the completion of
APOL 500
Introduction to Apologetics
by
Bishop W. Christopher King
June 8, 2024
Introduction
Attending to everyday life, every believer will encounter someone who has a varying
worldview. It is critical for the believer to have a foundation to offer a suitable argument for their
beliefs. There are, however, some strong oppositions which have been a nuisance to the
existence of Christianity, such as Scientific Naturalism. Scientific Naturalism is the belief of
science providing the ultimate answers to existence based solely on what can be physically
touched, seen, or experienced as a test of the natural world allowing zero grounds for the
miraculous or a supernatural being creating or ruling the universe. Through an analysis and
critical comparison of Scientific Naturalism and Christianity, the reader will discover the errancy
of this worldview and instead will find Christianity enduring as a cornerstone of truth.
Analysis of Scientific Naturalism
Scientific naturalism is an ideology which undermines the existence of all that is godly.
Dr. Michael Shermer illustrates this by stating “the principle that the world is governed by
natural laws and forces that can be understood, and that all phenomena are part of nature and can
be explained by natural causes, including human cognitive, moral and social phenomena.”1
Notice the explanation used alleviates the need for the existence of a Creator for this
interpretation. These are some of the claims presented by scientific naturalists:
Claim 1: Scientific Naturalism is the only reliable way of reaching truth.2 3
Claim 2: All phenomena can be explained by experimental method4
Claim 3: It is believed that by applying science to human affairs, peace,
1 Michael Shermer. "Scientific Naturalism: A Manifesto for Enlightenment Humanism." Theology and
Science 15, no. 3 (2017): 221.
2Sidney Hook."A Naturalistic View of Mind." In Naturalism and the Human Spirit. New York: Columbia
University Press, 1944. 43-45.
3 O. K. Bouwsma. "Naturalism." The Journal of Philosophy 45, no. 1 (January 1948): 12.
2
prosperity, and freedom can be brought to the world. 5
Claim 4: Scientific naturalists provide the answers for existence, the basis on
which we understand medicine, and the political answers which solve the
problems of the world.6
Claim 1: The Only Reliable Way
Scientific Naturalist Sidney Hook makes the claim: “scientific method [is] the only
reliable way of reaching truths about the world of nature, society, and man.”7 Dr. Hook proposes
that everything must be able to have a scientific understanding and that if it cannot somehow be
replicated, it is not a claim that is true. Scientific Naturalist Dr. Yervant Krikorian claims there is
a universal applicability of the scientific method to everything.8 If scientific outcomes were the
only reliable truth, then why would evidence exist outside of science regarding Christianity?
Claim 2: Explained by the Scientific Method
Scientific Naturalist William Dennes claims that all phenomena can be explained by
experimental method.9 This view expresses the need for the scientific method to be introduced
into everything accomplished by a human being. The scientific method is relatable to things
which can be replicated under controlled testing, which then produces the question of why one
would think they need to reproduce Creation or the death, burial, and moreover, the resurrection
4 William R. Dennes. "The Categories of Naturalism." In Naturalism and the Human Spirit. New York:
Columbia University Press, 1944. 289.
5 Steven Pinker. The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined. New York: Penguin, 2011.
6 Carl Sagan. The Demon- Haunted World; Science as a Candle in the Dark. London: Headline, 1996. 396.
7 Hook. 43.
8 Yervant H. Krikorian. "A Naturalistic View of Mind." In Naturalism and the Human Spirit. New York:
Columbia University Press, 1944. 242.
9 Dennes. 289.
3
of Christ to refute Christianity.
Claim 3: World Improvement?
Scientific Naturalism claims the necessity for applying science to human affairs. Dr.
Steven Pinker and Dr. Michael Shermer claim founding fathers Thomas Jefferson, Thomas
Paine, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison and John Adams were scientists (or trained in science
in some fashion) and believed science was able to govern the society in which they functioned.
Because they understood the scientific method, they based the development of a government
around society being a trial-and-error scientific experiment. This claim is one in which science
solves the problems for society which also furthers the moral arguments of right and wrong. The
questions posed then become “on what do we base morals” and “how can science correct those
morals?” This becomes then a philosophical argument of morality which begins to raise
questions on why, if this were true, would there not be peace, freedom, healing, or hope to our
world?
Claim 4: Provides the Answers?
Scientific Naturalist Carl Sagan claims “The methods of science—with all its
imperfections—can be used to improve social, political and economic systems.”10 This claim is
based on the discussion of how the government and society are constantly changing. It presents
the argument there is no absolute in government and there is only trial and error. Dr. Sagan
explores how the scientific method produces the answers to social deviances and answers to
complex ideologies. This explanation is further developed by discussion using the Constitution
10 Sagan. 396.
4
and its amendments. His argument produces the further claim of science, then, allowing people
to change their minds as evidence changes.11 This information produces questions on the
underlying reason of science existing in response against God.
Summary
Each of the claims above are from notable naturalists. Each of these arguments present a
unique discussion which could take hours of debate and there are numerous other bullets points
which could be discussed. However, when each are challenged individually, the only argument
which becomes feasible is that Jesus truly is “the way, the truth, and the life” (Jn. 14:6) for
understanding all things.
Critique of Scientific Naturalism
Again, there are many claims which Scientific Naturalism produces which Christianity
can refute. However, the four which were chosen for this argument have produced questions in
Christianity produces answers. Some of these are presented here for each of the claims
mentioned above.
Refuting Claim 1: The Only Reliable Way
As stated earlier, the scientific method is relatable to things which can be replicated under
controlled testing. However, this leaves questions raised in the mind of a believer. The claim of
Jesus being “the way, the truth, and the life” is the basis of answering this claim. Every place one
looks, the truth of Jesus is seen. Yes, science corroborates this claim and yes archaeological
11 Shermer. 224.
5
discoveries have proven that stories of the Bible have taken place. In John 10:30, Jesus claims
He “and the Father are one.” Again, another scripture in the Gospels tells of the statements
“Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.” (Jn. 8:58,
KJV). This along with six additional statements, Jesus claims Himself to be the “I AM.” This
name was attributed to God the Father in Exodus 3. But, why does this comment of being THE
Way really matter.
For this, the reader needs to understand the atonement. For sake of this essay, we will
dispense with the great detail of the atonement.12 But, the generic principle is the atonement
supplied a way for forgiveness of sin (missing the mark of complete holiness). This temporary
atonement was accomplished yearly, providing a semi-clear record. However, those sins were
never fully removed until Jesus fixed this. At His death and resurrection, which has been
corroborated by eye-witness accounts, historical documentation, and even tangible evidence of
biblical events, Jesus fully paid and removed the sin of the converted believer’s past. Jesus then,
as God, is able to fully make the claim that a person is forgiven and He is the only way one can
one be saved.
Understanding truth does not change because we refuse to accept it, that Jesus is
unchangeable, and comprehending His claims mentioned earlier, the truth as explained is found
in the only One that is unchangeable. Nothing stays the same except for Jesus. (Heb. 13:8, ESV).
Jesus is the only way simply because He was the only one who could provide solution to the
formula. Therefore, a relationship with Jesus is the only way to understand truth. If one does not
know what truth is, how can they measure truth to begin with?
12 For more on atonement, please check my essay “The Power of Tetélestai.” The link is included in the
references page.
6
Refuting Claim 2: Explained by the Scientific Method
Making assumptions about the beginning of the world does not substantiate evolutionary
existence, a premise for success of medicinal understanding, or a basis to claim political
methodological success. This discussion is further questioned in the premise of creation. If there
were a scientific replication of creation, how can time not be restarted? The basis of the eternal
universe presented in The Oxford Handbook of Atheism produces argument of no beginning or
end. Yet, according to Dennes, science as a basis for explanation would be able to replicate
starting time or even creation, if it were real.
The Big Bang Theory is one assumption which cannot be replicated yet is generally
accepted by most in the scientific community. The understanding of physics and the space- time
continuum produces circumstances in which conditions cannot be replicated yet, the theory is
accepted. The scriptures tell us that “God created the heavens and the earth.” (Gen. 1:1, KJV).
This does not give any explanation of how, but says it was created. Yet, a process begins of
something which is not visible (Hebrews 11:3). Nuclear Physics call these protons and neutrons.
As they are heated and cooled in a matter of mere moments, this produces an expansion so rapid
it begins to emit radiation which created the elements needed for life. Physicist Dr. Steven Ball
brings the core argument of radiation circumstantially causing creation to happen stating:
The earth received just the right amount of radiation from its star, our Sun, to warm
temperatures to the range of liquid water. It was joined with a Moon of sufficient size to
stabilize the spin-axis of the earth against chaotic motion. It developed a thin, transparent
atmosphere, which nonetheless serves as a shield against harmful ultraviolet radiation and
provides sufficient greenhouse warming. The oxygen level of the atmosphere was
boosted to a level capable of supporting land life following a vast period dominated by
photosynthetic marine algae. These and many other specific characteristics of planet
7
Earth appear to be fine-tuned to make our existence possible.13
This one discussion refutes the premise that we can solely recreate this circumstance and
yet, this is a core truth in cosmology. How, then, can this be explained merely by the scientific
method? The answer is: “it can’t.” It does, however, produce other grounds on which the theory
does illustrate a definite beginning of the universe. Fundamentally, “if something has a
beginning to existence, it has a cause of which it exists”14 as contended by William Lane Craig.
The answer comes from understanding that God did not have a beginning, but time and space
did. Scripture tells us: “TheMLORDMis the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth.”
(Isa. 40:28, NIV) and “Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever you had formed the
earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God.” (Psa. 90:2, NIV). In the finite
minds of humanity, eternal existence cannot be comprehended. Yet, this does not negate the
truth. Therefore, “In short, naturalism is on hard times in cosmology; the deeper you get into it,
the harder it is to get rid of the God hypothesis. Taken together, the Big Bang and general
relativity provide a scientific description of what Christians call creatio ex nihilo—creation out
of nothing.”15 The understanding, then, is that science does not have all the explanations and it is
surely not solely residing in the scientific method.
Refuting Claim 3: Societal Improvement
The claim presented earlier does not quell the need for deeper understanding of founding
13 Steven Ball. A Christian Physicist Examines the Big Bang Theory. Longview: LeTourneau University,
2003. 21.
14 Paul M. Gould, Travis Dickinson, and R. Keith Loftin. Stand Firm; Apologetics and the Brillance of the
Gospel. Nashville: B&H Academics, 2018. 39.
15 Lee Strobel. The Case for a Creator. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing, 2004. 77.
8
fathers. Yes, many of the ones named had a background in science; however, those same named
were also noted as giving credit to God. Yet, these arguments are often left out.
Thomas Jefferson: “Almighty God hath created the mind free.”
Thomas Paine: “I believe in one God, and no more..” and “The Word of God is
the Creation we behold: And it is in this word, which no human invention can
counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man.”
Benjamin Franklin: “I believe in one God, the Creator of the Universe. That He
governs it by His Providence. That He ought to be worshipped. That the most
acceptable service we render to Him is in doing good to His other Children.”
James Madison: “The belief in a God All Powerful wise and good, is so essential
to the moral order of the world and to the happiness of man, that arguments which
enforce it cannot be drawn from too many sources nor adapted with too much
solicitude to the different characters and capacities impressed with it.”
John Adams: “We Recognize No Sovereign but God, and no King but Jesus!”
Clearly understood, science does not provide all the answers to moral dilemmas.
Otherwise, trial and error would not be necessary to fix society. Science has given trends and
fads which have dissipated over time and have yet to bring peace to war (Psalm 46:9), freedom
to slaves (Isaiah 61), true healing and restoration to sickness (Psalm 103:3) and pestilence, or
hope to a troubled mind (Jeremiah 29:11, Romans 15:13, Micah 7:7).
Moral problems stem from not measuring “goodness” the right way. Morality finds its
foundation in God. What person believes internally that it is right to take something, to kill
someone, or to be hateful to another person? Yet, science claims to have the answer to solve this.
No, the answer is a divine encounter and accepting salvation in Jesus.
Refuting Claim 4: Provides the Answers
The claim of science providing answers to societal troubles is one based on inaccuracies.
Some of the underlying presentations are more philosophical rather than evidence based. Dr.
Sagan refutes his own claim stating:
9
Scientists are usually careful to characterize the veridical status of their attempts to
understand the world – ranging from conjectures and hypotheses, which are highly
tentative, all the way up to laws of Nature which are repeatedly and systematically
confirmed through many interrogations of how the world works. But even laws of
Nature are not absolutely certain.16
Looking at the claim poised above, the government is constantly changing. They are making
laws which either inhibit, prohibit, or authorize people to commit an action which some would
deem morally wrong. Yet, science promotes inclusivity into things and the approach of religious
institutions are dogmatic and deemed inappropriate by science based on how someone feels
society should function. However, this is never based referenced on Biblical principles which
have remained unchanged for centuries.
Additionally, the defense rests that science indeed does not provide all the answers as noted
in The Oxford Handbook of Atheism. Naturalist Dr. Alison Stone states: “science, too, rests on a
faith.”17 Yet, if they provide all answers and they propose that truth is solid and fundamental,
therefore it must be replicated, how then is the defense of science over Christianity even
fundamentally based?
Defense of Christianity
One of the foundational scriptures of the Christian faith is “Now, faith is the substanceMof
things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” (Hebrews 11;1, KJV). This is a vague
comment to some. But, to others it makes full sense. “When key scientists, especially in the
eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, gave up their belief in God and began to interpret the
scientific data on materialistic and naturalistic assumptions, they found that it was possible to
16 Sagan. 30.
17 Stephen, Bullivant and Michael Ruse. The Oxford Handbook of Atheism. Oxford, United Kingdom:
Oxford University Press, 2013. 241.
10
construct a fairly comprehensive interpretation of the data in that way.”18 But, an interpretation
of truth does not make truth change. “A fact is an objective feature of the world. It is simply the
way the world is, no matter what anybody thinks or believes or claims.”19 Something which is
already true does not merely change simply based on what someone chooses to accept or reject.
The naturalist then places themself in a predicament. As C.S. Lewis points out: “Holding
a philosophy which excludes humanity, they yet remain human. At the sight of injustice they
throw all their Naturalism to the winds and speak like men and like men of genius.”20 Do they
reject their own defense to accept a moral judgment of right and wrong or standby and die on
that hill? “Some philosophers call this violation a “performative self-contradiction,” because the
very performance of affirming the proposition contradicts its content.”21 The answer therein lies
that Christianity is the only way, substantiated by science, reputed by archaeology, and proven
by God, Himself.
Christianity has been a hallmark of societal stability for millennia. Scientific discoveries
are just now beginning to catch up with what God, through inspiration of the Holy Spirit, moved
among the prophets of old to write. Archaeological discoveries have further substantiated the
validity of Scripture, established the historical record, and further illuminated the need for
Christianity to be something humanity clings to rather than rejects.
18 L. Russ Bush. The Advancement: Keeping Faith in an Evolutionary Age. Nashville: B&H Academic,
2023.23.
19 Gould, et al. 19.
20 C. S. Lewis. Miracles. London: The Centenary Press, 1947.46.
21 David Ray Griffin. "Scientific Naturalism: a Great Truth that got Distorted." Theology and Science 2, no.
1 (2004): 25.
11
Conclusion
The preponderance of evidence only strengthens the fact that only Jesus has answers to
help humanity. Only by thoroughly understanding the evidence of Christianity can one have a
foundation to rest on that gives them hope. By refuting claims of scientific naturalism, Christ sets
on the witness stand adjudicated as truth and foundational for world change.
12
Bibliography
Ball, Steven. A Christian Physicist Examines the Big Bang Theory. Longview, Texas:
LeTourneau University, 2003.
Bouwsma, O. K. "Naturalism." The Journal of Philosophy 45, no. 1 (January 1948): 12-
22.
Bullivant, Stephen, and Michael Ruse, . The Oxford Handbook of Atheism. Oxford,
United Kingdom: Oxford University Press, 2013.
Bush, L. Russ. The Advancement: Keeping Faith in an Evolutionary Age. Nashville,
Tennessee: B&H Academic, 2023.
Dennes, William R. "The Categories of Naturalism." In Naturalism and the Human Spirit,
edited by Yervant H. Krikorian, 270-294. New York: Columbia University Press,
1944.
Gould, Paul M., Travis Dickinson, and R. Keith Loftin. Stand Firm; Apologetics and the
Brillance of the Gospel. Nashville, Tennessee: B&H Academics, 2018.
Griffin, David Ray. "Scientific Naturalism: a Great Truth that got Distorted." Theology
and Science 2, no. 1 (2004): 9-30.
Hook, Sidney. "Naturalism and Democracy." In Naturalism and the Human Spirit, edited
by Yervant H. Krikorian, 40-64. New York: Columbia University Press, 1944.
King, W. Christopher. "The Power of Tetélestai." Conquer Ministries. June 19, 2020.
https://conquerministriescogintl.wordpress.com/2023/07/01/the-power-of-tetelestai/.
Krikorian, Yervant H. "A Naturalistic View of Mind." In Naturalism and the Human
Spirit, edited by Yervant H. Krikorian, 242-269. New York: Columbia University
Press, 1944.
Lewis, C. S. Miracles. London: The Centenary Press, 1947.
Pinker, Steven. The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined. New
York: Penguin, 2011.
Sagan, Carl. The Demon- Haunted World; Science as a Candle in the Dark. London:
Headline, 1996.
Shermer, Michael. "Scientific Naturalism: A Manifesto for Enlightenment Humanism."
Theology and Science 15, no. 3 (2017): 220-230.
Strobel, Lee. The Case for Christ. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2016.
13
