One reason I don't believe is the inverse relationship between supernatural claims and epistemic accountability. In developing countries and anywhere there's no standard of credibility to meet (tabloids, YouTube, parapsychology, etc.), supernatural claims flourish. But they completely vanish once you apply some standards for discerning between spurious and credible claims.
The really damming indictment of supernaturalism is that this does not happen with regard to claims that are consistent with naturalism. Through disciplines like science, modern history and responsible journalism we've verified countless natural claims.
And absolutely no supernatural claims. Not a single one. The probability that any form of supernaturalism (which is not plausibly weakly observable) is true should thus asymptote at zero.
Which leads to attempts to make supernaturalism weakly observable with ad hoc postulates like Christian cessationism. Cute, and hardly plausible.
Another reason I don't believe is that the last two hundred years of scientific progress have given us compelling evidence that we live in a universe in which phenomena like biological complexity and the fine-tuning of the solar system are explained by teleonomic processes and selection effects, which is what we expect to find if naturalism is true. The only putative evidence for theism--e.g. first cause arguments and Boltzmann brain arguments against a multiverse--is so tentative that it's of trivial value when one assesses the probability of naturalism vs. theism.
The really damming indictment of supernaturalism is that this does not happen with regard to claims that are consistent with naturalism. Through disciplines like science, modern history and responsible journalism we've verified countless natural claims.
And absolutely no supernatural claims. Not a single one. The probability that any form of supernaturalism (which is not plausibly weakly observable) is true should thus asymptote at zero.
Which leads to attempts to make supernaturalism weakly observable with ad hoc postulates like Christian cessationism. Cute, and hardly plausible.
Another reason I don't believe is that the last two hundred years of scientific progress have given us compelling evidence that we live in a universe in which phenomena like biological complexity and the fine-tuning of the solar system are explained by teleonomic processes and selection effects, which is what we expect to find if naturalism is true. The only putative evidence for theism--e.g. first cause arguments and Boltzmann brain arguments against a multiverse--is so tentative that it's of trivial value when one assesses the probability of naturalism vs. theism.
