Apologists for a naturalistic worldview try to occupy paradigm high ground by insisting that their view of things is based only on science and fact, not faith and speculation - you know, like the Christian worldview.

So it's good for them to be reminded from time to time of just how untrue that claim is. And it's especially good when the reminder comes from within their own camp. Writing in the December 13, 2010 issue of The New Yorker, Jonah Lehrer reports on a problem which is becoming increasingly common in science circles - the problem of nonreplicability of scientific results, called the "decline effect" ("The Truth Wears Off").

It seems that, across a good many scientific disciplines, what were once understood to be "proven facts" are now turning out to be, well, not so much. Scientists are finding that they are unable to reproduce supportive outcomes for a variety of scientific claims, ranging from the efficacy of certain psychotic drugs to the mating habits of swallows.

The explanation hinges not on facts and data, but on perspectives and presuppositions. As it turns out, scientists - like everybody else - reason in a circle. They start from a conclusion then search out data to support it, selecting only the data which supports their view, and sometimes skewing data in order to make it fit their hyposthesis. Being confronted about this is "a very sensitive issue for scientists." As one scientist explained, "You know, we're supposed to be dealing with hard facts, the stuff that's supposed to stand the test of time. But when you see these trends you become a little more skeptical of things." Another scientist sighed, "We cannot escape the troubling conclusion that some - perhaps many - cherished generalities are at best exaggerated in their biological significance and at worst a collective illusion nurtured by strong a-priori beliefs often repeated."

A "collective illusion"?

As Lehrer explains concerning the practice of scientific research, "Our beliefs are a form of blindness." Scientists tend to find what they want to in research. Taken to the macro scale, naturalistic scientists will continue to report "facts" that support their materialistic worldview. But might this not also be a "collective illusion" amounting to little more than a form of secular religion?

Lehrer states that these difficulties "demonstrate the slipperiness of empiricism." Quite. "Although many scientific ideas generate conflicting results and suffer from falling effect sizes, they continue to get cited in the textbooks and drive standard medical practice. Why? Because these ideas seem to be true. Because they make sense. Because we can't bear to let them go."  Lehrer concludes, "We like to pretend that our experiments define the truth for us. But that's often not the case. Just because an idea is true doesn't mean it can be proved. And just because an idea can be proved doesn't mean it's true. When the experiments are done, we still have to choose what we believe."

I'm not alone in having argued this point for years. The scientific worldview is as much a matter of belief, faith, and desired outcomes as anything naturalists charge Christians with believing. The only reason science has been so successful over the past centuries is because researchers deny their own "cherished generalities" in practice and borrow on the Christian worldview to make their paradigm work. One example: If chance really is the final driving force of the cosmos, then we can't know anything for certain, since chance is unknowable, unpredictable, and uncontrollable. Does science proceed as though this is true? Not in the least. Scientists act as if the cosmos is knowable, orderly, and capable of manipulation for good or ill, and these are "cherished generalities" borrowed from the Christian worldview.

Christians, at least, admit that our worldview is based on faith. We ought not to pretend otherwise. It would make for much more fruitful discussion, I believe, if our naturalistic interlocutors could allow themselves to be equally honest about the strong faith component of their own worldview. The whole "just the facts, ma'am" facade of naturalistic science is bluster behind a screen.

Let's hope that, sooner than later, some members of that community will begin to face up to the reality of their own faith convictions. For, if they will face that reality, it will be much easier to help them see the inadequacy of their worldview for the work of scientific endeavor, and for everything else in life as well.

Additional related texts: 2 Peter 3.3-7; Proverbs 26.4, 5; Acts 17.22-29

A conversation starter: "You know, the scientific worldview is as much a matter of beliefs and convictions as the Christian worldview. Don't you wish, though, that the defenders of naturalism as a worldview would try to be a little more consistent in their practice?"