What makes people irrational thinkers?

[Belacqua]

He gets to make assertions without evidence and nobody else does?

On the contrary. Everyone should support their assertions. 

Can you point to any assertions Hart makes in the book that lack any support? (Note that metaphysical arguments are supported with argument, not with empirical evidence. If there were empirical evidence that would be science, not metaphysics.) 

So far you have made a number of assertions concerning the book without providing any evidence. You take generalized potshots, but don't tell us what argument Hart has made. Normally in reading and analyzing a book one has to explicate arguments that the writer has actually made, show that one understands them, and then explain why they are unpersuasive. You have yet to do this at all. 

As for whether physicalist investigations can resolve all of the issues, all I can say is that we need to continue to do the investigations. 

Hart's explanation of why naturalistic science can't explain why nature exists to begin with is on page 95. It's a very standard argument, which should be easy for actual polymaths to deal with. Would you like to engage with something that he's actually said?

You know that physicalist investigations can potentially answer all issues concerning the physical world, but not in the field of metaphysics, right? That would be a category error. 

Your own metaphysical belief, for example, that there is no truth outside of science, is not provable by science. 

As for his overly simple view being fatal to his argument, if the physical is a sufficient 'support for existence' his whole argument for God falls apart. he never justifies that cannot be the case.

His description of why many people from many different traditions think that the physical world requires a divine non-physical support constitutes pages 99 through 149. 

(Please note that if the interaction of matter is more active than Hart thinks it is, that fact will have no bearing at all on these arguments, which are metaphysical. The fact that you bring up an alleged error of Hart's understanding of physics is a red herring. Even if science demonstrates all possible interactions of matter, the metaphysical arguments are untouched.)

Have you read these pages? Do you have any articulable logical argument as to why all of these theories must be untrue? 

Again, the generalized potshots will be sufficient for people who assume from the outset that Hart must be wrong, but if you want to do more than make unsupported assertions then you'll have to engage with actual pages from the book. 

Earlier you indicated that you wanted to read the book and engage with its arguments. But getting you to quote anything from the book, examine it and rebut it, is like pulling teeth. 

Anyway, I doubt your sincerity. I think you knew exactly what you were going to conclude before you picked up the book, and this (you think) gives you license to ignore what Hart actually said. At least that's the impression you give. 

I'm not going to twist your arm any more to try to make you do a competent analysis. You should have gotten these textual analytic skills as an undergrad.

Winter break is here and I have things to do.