The Dilemma of the Naturalist

Those who believe in a natura;listic universe claim that everything came into being without the activity of an external, supernatural first cause. Naturalists believe that random combinations of atoms just happened to bump into each other and stick together to form everything that exists. For naturalists, this view is the only possible explanation for the existence of the universe. Such a view cannot validate reason because when things collide and combine at random, the results must be considered irrational, meaning without reason. Therefore, a universe that grew accidentally out of random forces is by definition a universe without reason. According to this model of origins, the human brain – the only reasoning organ we know of – is a product of nothing more than a chance cluster of molecules thrown together by the random movements of irrational forces.

So how can naturalists trust such a mind to reach rational conclusions about reality? Their affirmation of reason is highly suspect because irrational causes cannot be trusted to produce rational results. Rational thinking forces us to conclude that the universe cannot produce anything greater than the sum total of all that exists within it. In other words, if reason did not exist in the universe at the outset, it cannot magically poof itself into existence in the course of the universe’s development. To claim otherwise is to put oneself in the position of medieval alchemists who thought they could turn lead into gold. An irrational universe does not contain the kind of stuff reason is made of, so how can we assume that it could produce a mind capable of rendering a rational explanation about reality and truth? We can’t. We can no more expect a mind produced by a mindless universe to explain reality and truth than we can expect stirring a bowl of alphabet soup to produce a Shakespearean sonnet or even a sentence from a first-grade reader.

Many naturalists with a postmodern bent have accepted this conclusion – that the universe is rirrational and all our thinking is undependable. Others are still trying to have their cake and eat it too. They believe that the universe manifests order, reason, and objective reality in spite of its random and accidental origins. But as we have shown above, such a view is self-contradictory. People can hold it only if they have not though out the problem to its obvious conclusion.They are like the cartoon character who unwittingly walks off a cliff into thin air but does not fall until he looks down and realizes he is not supported. Naturalists who think reason is rational in spite of its random origins have walked off a cliff into irrationality, but they don’t realise it. They think they are walking on the solid ground of reason, but there is nothing but air beneath them. If they continue to apply reason in defending their beliefs, the inconsistency of it will sooner ot later break the surface. At that point they will either admit the inadequacy of their position and change it, or they will deny reason in order to maintain it.

A naturalistic universe simply cannot supply from within itself a validation for the dependability of reason. Such a universe and everything in it must be considered accidental, random, and irrational, continually in a state of flux, change, and unpredictability. In such a universe there is no bedrock, no solid footing to support human reason. Unless the lever of reason rests solidly on a fulcrum that is firm and unmoving, we cannot use reason to pry the lid off of truth and find certainty. Reason must have its origins in a rational absolute that exists outside and above the natural universe or our claim to be rational creature is not credible.

— from the book “In Search of Certainity” by Josh McDowell and Thomas Williams. Tyndale House Publishing 2003. pages 38-40