I had to preach this morning at a church in another state. I drove there as it’s not too far a drive, but I didn’t sleep much. Thus, when I got back home, I was kind of worn out. I listened to a Ron Nash lecture on MP3 online for awhile, but then I realized I needed to take a short nap before church.
<> It was one of those strange times where I went to rest and when I woke up, immediately I had grasped something I hadn’t realized entirely before.
In logic, we have four types of propositions. In each type, S stands for the subject and P for the predicate.
<> A: All S is P. (All horses are four-legged animals.)
E: No S is P. (No horses are four-legged animals.
I:Some S is P. (Some horses are four-legged animals.
O:Some S is not P. (Some horses are not four-legged animals.)
In the first type of statement, you have to know all horses to know they are all four-legged animals. Why is this important? Let’s look at an unspoken presupposition of naturalism that I believe is absolutely essential to the worldview.
All truth is explainable within a naturalistic worldview.
This is an A statement. Now in order to know this though, you must know all truth. If you do not know all truth, you do not know if it is explainable in a naturalistic worldview. If you do know all truth, you are omniscient and if you are omniscient, well, you are God then.
Now does this prove naturalism is false? No. It could be all truth is explainable within a naturalistic worldview. I don’t think it is, but it could be. However, this does mean that a naturalist has to act on his idea of “faith” as much as he accuses the Christian.
<> Thus, I as a Christian feel no obligation to have to accept that premise. I would also say that this would apply to all truth being verified empirically.How do you verify empirically that someone loves you or that you love someone else for instance? How do you verify empirically that all truth is verifiable empirically?
Friends. Don’t let yourselves get pulled into these assumptions. Could it be truth that all truth is explainable in naturalistic terms? Yeah. I doubt it, but if naturalism is true, then it is. There’s no reason to accept such a premise though.