Last week, the teacher of our 4-6th graders sat in on my class because their teacher was out of town, so rather than make these younger kids’ heads explode with my epistemological musings, I decided to switch gears and do something that would be a little more their speed. So, I presented “Did God Use the Big Bang?” which, in its most recent form, uses a host of well-known animated movie characters to make the presentation more fun for kids (and adults, too, honestly). Unfortunately, I don’t have an updated recording of that presentation on hand, so I’m not going to bother to link to it here.

Let’s dive into this week’s lesson.

What We’ve Learned So Far

Truth is that which corresponds to the mind of God.
- Jesus is the Word (John 1:1–14)
- Jesus is the truth (John 14:6)
- If it’s something God would say, it’s true; otherwise, it’s not. (1 John 1:5, 2:21)
Knowledge is true, justified belief.
- The fear of Yahweh is the beginning of knowledge (Proverbs 1:7)
- All the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden in Christ (Colossians 2:3)
Science comes from the Latin word scientia which means “knowledge.”
In order for the scientific method to be applicable, the subject of our study must be:
- observable
- testable
- repeatable
Observation requires the use of our five senses.
Testability and repeatability require consistency and predictability in nature.

Remember all of this? If not, go back and read the previous three lesson reviews:

Are you starting to see where I’m going with all this talk of knowledge, truth, and science?

No? Hang in there…we’ll tie it all together presently, but first we need to talk about naturalism.

Naturalism

Nearly all professing atheists subscribe to what is called “naturalism.” Like any other “-ism,” naturalism is a belief system (communism, socialism, atheism, agnosticism, and racism are other “isms” that come readily to mind) in which the natural, physical world is all there is. Big bang cosmology is an attempt to explain the origin of the universe in naturalistic terms (i.e., no God needed). Likewise, Darwin attempted to explain the “origin of species” and the “descent of man” without invoking the supernatural.

A natural consequence of this notion of “the natural is all that there is” is that the entire universe is nothing more than an accident of cosmic proportions, that life happened by chance, and that mankind is the results of multiplied millions of years of random, undirected, happy mutations, some of which had some “survival value.” Put in simpler terms, you and I are little more than sentient bags of meat, and our thoughts and emotions are merely the result of chemical reactions in our respective brains. Just as CO2 and a frothy mess are the natural byproducts of mixing sodium bicarbonate and vinegar, your thinking is the way it is because your brain “fizzes” that way; you can’t help yourself, really.

Remember that scientists rely on two things to do what they do:

The basic reliability of the senses, and
The consistency and predictability of nature.

Remember also that in order to have scientia (knowledge), we have to have “justified, true belief.”

So, can naturalism account for these two aspects of science?

Basic Reliability of the Senses

What justification does the atheistic scientist have on his worldview for the basic reliability of his senses? If we think the way we do because our brain “fizzes” in a particular way, what justification would we have for thinking that our “fizz” is the “right fizz” and that our “fizz” corresponds in any meaningful way to anyone' else’s “fizz”? And why should we think that the way we “fizz” tomorrow is not going to be fundamentally different than the way we “fizz” today? How would we know that we’re not just living in a fizzy Matrix and all that we see is an illusion (“maya,” if you’re a Hindu).

It’s irrational to expect our senses to be basically reliable on a naturalistic worldview…they’re simply the result of random chance and chemistry.

Consistency and Predictability of Nature

Naturalists scoff at the idea of the supernatural, saying that “If miracles could happen, that would destroy our ability to do science!” But if all matter and energy can spring into existence from nothing, why should we not expect things to spontaneously come into existence out of that which is already here? What justification would we have for thinking that the laws of physics and logic are universal and consistent? Why would we expect an experiment conducted tomorrow to give the same results as it does today (assuming identical conditions)?

“Because that’s what we’ve always observed!” Might come the answer.

But this answer only begs the question of the basic reliability of our sense perception and memory! How do you know that’s the way it’s always been?

It also answers the wrong question. The question is not what happened in the past, but rather why should we expect it to be the same way in the future? If all we see is the result of random, undirected, chance events in the cosmos, then how can we possibly expect to understand and predict future outcomes based upon physical and logical laws which, at best, we can only have faith that they won’t change tomorrow?

Naturalism cannot justify its expectation of consistency or predictability of nature.

The Bible

The truth of the Bible makes knowledge possible because it justifies the basic reliability of the senses:

God is not a God of confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33)
We are made in the image of God to exercise dominion over the earth (Genesis 1:26, 27)
Since we are created in His image, we have the ability to reason (Isaiah 1:18)
God has created our ears and eyes (Proverbs 20:12) and God fully expects them to be used to proclaim what He has said and done (Luke 7:22, John 3:11, Acts 4:20, 1 John 1:1-3)
We’re instructed to observe nature using our senses (Job 12:7–10; Psalm 19:1; Proverbs 6:6; Romans 1:20)

Likewise, the Bible shows us our justification for the consistency and predictability of nature in verses such as Genesis 8:22; Ecclesiastes 1:4–7, 10; and Amos 9:6. While there are certainly times when God intervenes to apparently defy the laws of nature (Genesis 7–9; Joshua 10:13; 2 Kings 6:5–7; 2 Kings 20:8–11), these are not the norm…they’re miraculous events and are rare by definition).

Let’s also not forget that the fear of Yahweh is the beginning of knowledge (Proverbs 1:7), and that all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden in Christ Jesus (Colossians 2:3).

But the atheist denies this, so knowledge is impossible for him, right? No, that’s not what I’m saying at all. There are myriad scientists who are professing atheists who know way more than I do; I have no delusions of being the smartest man on the planet…far from it. What I am saying is that on his own professed worldview, knowledge is impossible for the atheist because he cannot justify the basic concepts that make knowledge possible in the first place (the “preconditions of intelligibility,” as the guys with the Ph.Ds call it). The only way for the atheist to have knowledge is for him to violate his own professed belief system—he has to live like the Bible is true, even while insisting that it isn’t. Is it any surprise, then, that the Holy Spirit says:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, both His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the likeness of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. — Romans 1:18–23

If wisdom is the proper, timely application of knowledge, then foolishness is having knowledge and failing to use or recognize it. Atheists are fools because the truth is plain to them, but they willfully suppresses that truth in unrighteousness. The only reason that atheists can know anything is because God reveals Himself to all men, and He provides the justification for those “preconditions of iltelligibility” that we all need to function on a day-to-day basis, and especially in the realm of scientific inquiry.

I got a chance to meet and spend about an hour talking with Dr. Lisle last spring. He’s the short guy on the right.

Put another way, it’s only because the atheist’s worldview is wrong that he’s able to know anything.

If you’d like to learn more about biblical epistemology, check out the following articles on Jason Lisle’s blog. Dr. Lisle is by far my favorite Christian apologist, as he has a knack for “putting the cookies on the bottom shelf” as Dr. J. Vernon McGee used to say.

I also strongly recommend his book The Ultimate Proof of Creation (affiliate link).

Homework

Armed with this rudimentary understanding of truth, knowledge, and science, the temptation is very real to go off “half cocked” into the world and try to philosophize with anyone you meet who claims to be an atheist. Before you do that, though, I think we’d better spend some time studying the scriptures to see what it is we’re expected to do. So, to prepare for next week, I leave you with this assignment:

According to the Bible, what is apologetics?

How Can Atheists be Scientists? (Part 2)