By Emmett Smith

Why do you think the philosophy known as naturalism is so prevalent? What’s that you say? You didn’t major in philosophy? Well, neither did I, but it is an interesting study sometimes. And the philosophy of naturalism is simply (some might say oversimply) summed up in this one prominent belief. That belief is that any and all things must be examined and explained within a certain absolute restriction – that there is no such thing as the supernatural, or if there is, it, whatever it is, is completely irrelevant to human concerns and experiences.

That being said, the naturalist chooses to restrict himself to only natural explanations of any and all phenomena. Regardless of how well the concept of an “intelligent designer” may fit available facts, such a belief is absolutely off-limits to the adherent of naturalism. It’s simply unacceptable that such things can be. Therefore, Biblical accounts of predictive prophecy and miracles must somehow be explained within a naturalistic framework or laughed off as ignorant superstition. So naturalism, by its very nature, is antagonistic to Christianity. Unfortunately, many “Christians” have bought into this philosophy, with disastrous consequences.

It’s not at all a stretch to assert that a significant portion of our society’s influential people adhere to naturalism. A simple look around us will bear that out on a daily basis. The big issues these days are driven by this philosophy. Don’t teach young people sexual abstinence, they’ll do it anyway. It’s ok to abort a “fetus”, it’s only a lump of tissue. It’s ok to divorce your spouse, that vow doesn’t really mean anything. There’s no one to answer to ultimately anyway! Don’t dare teach any explanation of human origin that involves a personally interested and involved creator God! That’s not scientific! Of course, that’s only true if science, by definition, excludes God. It depends on what the meaning of “is” is.

Being a native Arkansan, I reserve the right to cite a fellow Arkansan’s irresponsibility as an example. But I submit that God knows what the meaning of “is” is. And so do we, when we’ll accept responsibility for our actions. That’s really what I believe is so attractive about the philosophy of naturalism. If we deny God’s existence by definition, if we’re simply the result of random chance, then we don’t have to accept responsibility. We don’t really prefer to do that anyway, do we?

Adam denied his responsibility for having eaten the forbidden fruit – he said “...she gave me of the tree, and I did eat” – in other words, “it really wasn’t my fault”. That’s a human tendency that has existed since Adam. But it’s not one that God accepts. Uncomfortably for us, He demands that we accept responsibility for our wrongs! He demands that we choose whom we will serve. As Joshua expressed it in Joshua 24:15 “choose you this day whom ye will serve... but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord”.

Note the contrast in David’s attitude as recorded in the 51st Psalm. When God, through the prophet Nathan, indicted David of adultery and murder, David didn’t hesitate to accept responsibility. In the first 4 verses, and again in verse 9, he accepts responsibility for his “sin(s), “iniquity”, or “transgression(s)”. He humbled himself before God and prayed “Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me”, (v. 10). Don’t you think that’s one reason David was a man after God’s own heart? He was far from perfect, but he acknowledged God’s supremacy, and humbled himself.

It’s common in our society to deny personal responsibility. Drunkenness, the sin, becomes alcoholism, the disease. I wouldn’t have lied if someone else hadn’t pressed me. I’m the victim of my own desires. I’ll sue the person or company that supplied me with my particular health-destroying substance. It was their fault, not mine! It’s not fair! We may even succeed in getting some court of law to agree with us. But what about the only truly “righteous judge”? Will he uphold the verdict on appeal? Think about it.