Changes

== Materialist apologetics ==

== Materialist apologetics ==

Materialist apologetics encompasses arguments for strong atheism based on the assertions that materialism is necessary to reason, that theism necessarily contradicts materialism, and that because theism contradicts something that is necessary for reason, reason must reject theism.

Materialist apologetics supports strong atheism with arguments like the following:

* Science necessarily presupposes that matter and energy are all that exists;

* Theism asserts that more than matter and energy exist;

* Therefore, since theism rejects a necessary presupposition of science, science must reject theism.

For example, strong Atheist Michael Martin wrote:

 

For another example, strong atheist Michael Martin wrote:

:"Consider science. It presupposes the uniformity of nature: that natural laws govern the world and that there are no violations of such laws. However, Christianity presupposes that there are miracles in which natural laws are violated. Since to make sense of science one must assume that there are no miracles, one must further assume that Christianity is false. To put this in a different way: Miracles by definition are violations of laws of nature that can only be explained by God's intervention. Yet science assumes that insofar as an event as an explanation at all, it has a scientific explanation--one that does not presuppose God [2]. Thus, doing, science assumes that the Christian world view is false."  Michael Martin, ''The Transcendental Argument for the Nonexistence of God'', New Zealand Rationalist & Humanist, Autumn 1996.

:"Consider science. It presupposes the uniformity of nature: that natural laws govern the world and that there are no violations of such laws. However, Christianity presupposes that there are miracles in which natural laws are violated. Since to make sense of science one must assume that there are no miracles, one must further assume that Christianity is false. To put this in a different way: Miracles by definition are violations of laws of nature that can only be explained by God's intervention. Yet science assumes that insofar as an event as an explanation at all, it has a scientific explanation--one that does not presuppose God [2]. Thus, doing, science assumes that the Christian world view is false."  Michael Martin, ''The Transcendental Argument for the Nonexistence of God'', New Zealand Rationalist & Humanist, Autumn 1996.

A theist might respond by challenging Mr. Martin's definitions of "the world" (or more properly, "the universe,") "science," and "miracle."  

A theist could respond by challenging his assumption that miracles must be seen as ''violations'' of the laws of nature.  A theist might just as easily see them as ''interactions within'' the laws of nature.  Just as a human's ability to drive a car may appear miraculous to a monkey, God's ability to cause virgin births may appear miraculous to a human.  Yet in neither case was there necessarily a ''violation'' of the laws of nature.  Perhaps God simply understands the laws to such a degree that he is able to manipulate them in ways we cannot grasp. Our knowledge of the laws of nature is far to limited for us to make the bold claim that events in the universe that defy our explanation are violations of the laws of nature.  If they occur, they are best understood as reflecting laws of nature we do not yet understand. It would be the duty of science, then, not to exclude these miraculous events as impossible, but rather to acknowledge their occurence, and seek to understand them.

 

First, since the word "universe" means "everything," then the universe must be defined to include ''both'' God ''and'' God's creation, include to include the "everything" included in the term.  To say that God is outside "the universe" is to say, by definition, that he is outside "everything that exists," and therefore does not exist.

 

Second, since miracles are events caused by God and God is necessarily part of the "universe," then miracles should not be seen as violations of the laws of nature, but rather interactions with them by their creator.

 

Finally, since science is the human effort to study the universe, it must be defined broadly enough to account for all events that occur within the universe, even those commonly described as "miracles."  If miracles occur, then science should study them.  If they do not occur, then they are no different than any other false assertion about reality.  But it is illogical to hold that science precludes the possibility of miracles, when what we define as miracles may be fully consistent with the laws of nature as understood by their Creator.

 

The theist might conclude that since Mr. Martin's argument rests on such inadequate definitions of the universe, science, and miracles, they do not even begin to challenge a robust theism.