The Limits of Scientism: A Critique of Atheistic Epistemology

Atheists often argue that miracles and supernatural events are unscientific and therefore cannot be considered evidence for the existence of God or a higher power. However, this dismissal raises important questions about the nature of science, knowledge, and reality.

The Problem of Methodological Naturalism

Methodological naturalism, the idea that science can only study natural phenomena and exclude supernatural explanations, is often seen as a cornerstone of scientific inquiry. However, this approach has been criticized for being overly restrictive and potentially limiting our understanding of reality.

As philosopher Alvin Plantinga argues, “methodological naturalism is not itself a scientific or empirical claim, but rather a philosophical or metaphysical assumption” (Plantinga, 1997). By excluding supernatural explanations a priori, methodological naturalism may be prematurely closing off avenues of inquiry that could lead to a deeper understanding of reality.

The Limits of Empiricism

Atheists often appeal to empiricism, the idea that knowledge comes from sense experience and observation, as the foundation for their rejection of miracles and supernatural events. However, this approach has its own limitations.

As philosopher William Lane Craig notes, “empiricism is a self-refuting philosophy, for it cannot be empirically verified” (Craig, 2008). In other words, the principle of empiricism itself cannot be proven through sense experience or observation, yet it is often presented as a fundamental axiom of scientific inquiry.

The Role of Metaphysics in Science

Atheists often neglect to acknowledge the role of metaphysics in shaping our understanding of science and reality. Metaphysical assumptions about the nature of reality, such as the existence or non-existence of God, can influence how we interpret scientific data and evidence.

As philosopher Thomas Nagel argues, “science is not a self-contained system, but rather one part of a larger intellectual and cultural enterprise” (Nagel, 2012). By recognizing the metaphysical underpinnings of science, we can see that atheism’s rejection of miracles and supernatural events may be motivated by prior philosophical commitments rather than purely empirical considerations.

The Implications of an Intervening Deity

If we acknowledge the possibility of an intervening deity, we must reexamine our understanding of causality, probability, and the nature of reality. The concept of a sovereign God who can intervene in the natural world challenges atheism’s assumption that the universe is a closed system governed solely by natural laws.

As philosopher Richard Swinburne argues, “if there is a God, it is likely that he will sometimes intervene in the course of human history” (Swinburne, 2004). By considering the possibility of divine intervention, we may gain a deeper understanding of the complexity and richness of reality.

Conclusion

Atheism’s dismissal of miracles and supernatural events as unscientific is a convenient way to sidestep the implications of an intervening, sovereign deity. However, this approach relies on a narrow and restrictive view of science, knowledge, and reality. By recognizing the limits of empiricism, the role of metaphysics in science, and the implications of an intervening deity, we can see that atheism’s rejection of miracles and supernatural events may be motivated by prior philosophical commitments rather than purely empirical considerations.

References

Craig, W. L. (2008). Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books.

Nagel, T. (2012). Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False. Oxford University Press.

Plantinga, A. (1997). God, Freedom, and Evil. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Swinburne, R. (2004). The Existence of God. Oxford University Press.