The Failures of Naturalism

by Timothy Fox

Welcome to the latest installment of Weighing Worldviews! Last time we looked at how naturalism answers our key worldview questions and revealed a few underlying problems with it. This article will show how naturalism is ultimately a bankrupt system by examining three critical topics: morality, meaning, and rationality.


No objective morality

As I mentioned in my last article, there is no objective morality in naturalism. Good and evil, right and wrong are just personal preferences or social constructs. What’s right for you is right for you and what’s right for me is right for me, otherwise known as moral relativism. But does this really match reality? Do you honestly think that the wrongness of murder and rape are just cultural conventions? That the Holocaust wasn’t really, truly, objectively wrong? Because that’s what the consistent relativist must say. The Nazis believed the Holocaust was good and so it was really a good thing for them. ISIS thinks it is okay to behead their enemies and imprison women as sex slaves. And we have no right to judge them. Do you honestly think this is correct? I doubt it.

Everyone knows deep down that certain actions are really right and others are really wrong. That love and justice are good and rape and murder are evil. But there is no room for objective morality in naturalism. If you believe that morality is objective and real (as you should), then you cannot be a naturalist. Or a consistent one, anyway.

No moral responsibility

Now, let’s go further. As I also noted in my last article, free will is an illusion. Everything you do is predetermined by your genetic makeup or social conditioning…


The Failures of Naturalism | The Apologers