Philosophy And Christianity - Why I don't subscribe to naturalism

I have been reading my way through the rather fascinating book, Four Views on Christianity and Philosophy (found here.).

The first view offered is one of conflict, by Graham Oppy, self described as adhering to metaphysical naturalism. To start off with I do understand Oppy's view which is well articulated and respectfully presented (if more atheists were like that, the world would be more pleasant by far) and I understand precisely why it is so compelling. Do not be fooled for one minute. Naturalism is an extremely compelling view and it does offer solutions to the great questions that are (if not emotionally) intellectually quite satisfying.

I have heard these same arguments presented before me much of my life. I understand them, I really do. And I have a respect for them. It has it's roots in rigorousness, repeatably, careful proofs and careful thought. Though many self proclaimed atheists (the type you might find on twitter or facebook for example) are far removed from such an internally consistent system(as far as internal consistency may be possible). When you concentrate your efforts on the attack, it becomes difficult to defend your position well. Oppy is to be commended. Most of naturalism's adherents I have encountered (even if they don't self identify as such), consider philosophy a dead end. Superseded by the physical sciences.

Make no mistake, as far as I, a theist, can enter Oppy's worldview and sympathize with it, it is consistent. This is something other theists would do well to understand. Often, frustrated by our inability to understand this view, it gets attacked blindly. Most attacks on it ultimately fail, since within itself it is quite strong. I ultimately do not find it persuasive, however.

This is where the naturalist philosopher must lose me. I will try by all means to frame my reasoning in a way that might make sense from their point of view, but ultimately what I consider a "good" reason is not going to be agreeable to everyone.

Firstly I must start with personal experience. I have walked as a Christian on this earth for some 26(plus or minus) years now. I have had many experiences with God, seen (and heard first hand) things which I consider miracles, or impossible within the natural order of things.

It must be noted, that people do have confirmation bias, and beyond that when one has invested considerable time and effort (as I have) into a worldview, the natural tendency is to try to prop it up as best one can, since leaving it is equivalent to considering that effort wasted. In essence we argue ourselves into corners that we can't get out of with our pride intact. I contest that this is no less true for theism than for naturalism.

All my experiences can be explained away within the above paragraph. Almost all, anyway, and I would suggest this is true for most theists as well. Save one factor. The above assumes pride.

Christianity, at its core is not about being right. It is about being wrong. For me to continue to be a Christian, I need to come to the understanding that I am wrong. This is quite a weird thing to say and requires quite a bit of explanation.

The 'true'(whatever that may mean) Christian approaches God in the knowledge of his fallen state. I am proud, I am sinful, and I am therefore incorrect about many things. In approaching God, I must in humility seek correction about these things.

Christianity isn't a list of "I must believes" that the investment of time and effort makes hard to let go off, Christianity is a humble approach to a God who corrects us. Slowly, and often painfully, as a result of our pride, it cannot be quick.

What naturalistic objective evidence can I provide for this very personal journey? None that is particularly interesting to a naturalist(yet we must continue to provide this evidence when asked). Let me give an example:

I was in Durban recently doing a FAT(Factory Acceptance Test). My colleague was in Joburg remotely writing the code for the system (remote tech is awesome :) ) I called him because the single line diagram on the HMI(Human machine interface) was incorrect. Now, our client saw both before and after, but did not hear my conversation.

It might not be reasonable to assume the HMI program changed itself, but in the absence of the knowledge of this phone call, the client may well have assumed we configured a delayed change, or the system corrected itself.  The client is not privy to the contents of my conversation with my colleague, but he may observe the results and conclude quite correctly that the conversation did in fact take place. Don't push this analogy too far, it is just that, an analogy.

In the same way, as a Christian, my life is subject to change, and sometimes difficult and tough change, and you out there may not be privy to my conversations with God, but you may (I hope at least) see the results.

This takes us quite far from the empirical evidence naturalism demands from theism. It's a personal thing, but I think the requirement of humility casts doubt on the assertion that I am operating under heavy confirmation bias. It is less "costly" for me to leave Christianity than to stay.

Are there good philosophical arguments for God? Yeah, I think so, though some are badly over-sold. The heart of the matter, though is the human heart.

 There is a lot more to say on this, but I think this is sufficient for the time being. This post has become a bit long. I have other reasons for rejecting naturalism, but this will suffice for now.

As always, comments are to be respectful. If you want to see replies, make sure you check the "notify me" box. If you know how to make that default, let me know.