Yes, I Assume Naturalism
September 20, 2013 at 10:16 am
(This post was last modified: September 20, 2013 at 10:17 am by DeistPaladin.)
I'm sure everyone has heard at one time an accusation that we have a bias toward naturalism or against miracles. Why should miracles be considered an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence?
Because the natural universe is all I have ever experienced.
Because the claims by other people to have experienced or witnessed the supernatural have all either not been proven true or proven not to be true.
Because every mystery about our universe we've ever solved has discredited any previously proposed supernatural explanations and replaced them with natural causes.
Because this is how everyone who is sane treats extraordinary claims that are not part of his/her favorite religion.
On that last point, if I told you I had lunch with my wife yesterday, my testimony would be sufficient. If I told you I had lunch with the President of the United States, even though such a thing could happen, you'd require evidence to believe it. If I told you I had lunch with my father yesterday, a man deceased 10 years and his cremated body has reconstituted itself, even with eye-witness accounts, video footage and media coverage, you'd be well within the bounds of reason to suspect a hoax. Our skepticism of claims scales with the nature of how extraordinary the claim is. The religious just make a special exception for their favorite supernatural beliefs.
That's why I assume naturalism and I'm quite comfortable defending that position.
Because the natural universe is all I have ever experienced.
Because the claims by other people to have experienced or witnessed the supernatural have all either not been proven true or proven not to be true.
Because every mystery about our universe we've ever solved has discredited any previously proposed supernatural explanations and replaced them with natural causes.
Because this is how everyone who is sane treats extraordinary claims that are not part of his/her favorite religion.
On that last point, if I told you I had lunch with my wife yesterday, my testimony would be sufficient. If I told you I had lunch with the President of the United States, even though such a thing could happen, you'd require evidence to believe it. If I told you I had lunch with my father yesterday, a man deceased 10 years and his cremated body has reconstituted itself, even with eye-witness accounts, video footage and media coverage, you'd be well within the bounds of reason to suspect a hoax. Our skepticism of claims scales with the nature of how extraordinary the claim is. The religious just make a special exception for their favorite supernatural beliefs.
That's why I assume naturalism and I'm quite comfortable defending that position.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
