Conflating The Two Naturalisms – Why Science Doesn’t Lead to Atheism

The fourth final assumption behind the assertion that science leads to atheism, which is based on philosophical naturalism, and methodological naturalism, let's discuss this assumption. So, people believe that science leads to atheism. They really hold a non scientific assumption. What is that non scientific assumption? It's the philosophical worldview of philosophical naturalism. It's not scientific. What's philosophical naturalism. philosophical naturalism is based on three things. Number one, the belief that there is no divine the assertion that there's no divine. Number two, the assertion that

all physical phenomena can be explained, all phenomena can be explained by physical processes. And number three, there is no afterlife, which is similar to the idea that there's no divine. So what's philosophical naturalism? There's no divine no hereafter. And all phenomena in the universe can be explained by physical processes. Now, what's the problem with that? If these are the lenses that you put on your eyes to see the world? Then what are you going to see? You're just going to see the denial of the Divine, because these are your lenses. Right? So you go to optometrist, and you buy some glasses, Calvin Klein, the atheist edition, you put it on your face, what are you gonna see,

you're gonna see got nowhere, you see no divine power. Right.

That's it.

And that's what you have the likes of many scientists that we know will respect for the scientific endeavors. But frankly, you know, they had the wrong lenses on. And they were, they had non scientific assumptions on their faces as lenses, which was Calvin Klein is edition.

Right.

And so if you adopt that force with us of assumption that basically is literally based on blind faith in my view, then all you're going to see is the denial of the Divine because you started with that premise, you put those lenses on, and even the atheist himself, Professor Mike Roos, a very honest atheist philosopher, he says, if you want to concession, I've always said that naturalism, philosophical naturalism is an act of faith, faith. And that's why when you discuss with people don't discuss the site, discuss the assumptions that people are holding, and you have a more fruitful discussion.

The next part of this assumption is methodological naturalism. Now, this is not a problem for theists, especially the Islamic tradition. Now, what's methodological naturalism? It's basically the assertion that for any scientific conclusion of theory to be scientific, it cannot refer to the divine power of creativity. That's all it's saying. It doesn't say good doesn't exist. It's just it just says, for your science to be science, for your conclusion, to be scientific, for your theory, to be scientific, just don't refer to God's power, or divine wisdom or creativity. And this is not a problem for the Muslim because the Muslim believes that the whole universe is made up of physical

causes. And these are as bad in Arabic. These are causes that God has used to manifest His Divine Will. That's not a problem for the Muslim. But what some people do is they conflate methodological naturalism, and they think it means for the soft, good naturalism. No, because you could be a methodological naturalist. And when you do science, you don't refer to God's divine power, creativity, but you can still be a theist that believes in God.

Of course, you can there's no contradiction because your philosophy could be well, those physical causes are a manifestation of the Divine Will no problem.

So they conflate methodological naturalism, with

with philosophical naturalism, and that's why evolutionary biologist Scott see Todd, he said, of course, the scientist as an individual is free to embrace a reality that transcends naturalism, methodological naturalism in this case