"You're a Materialist/Naturalist"

[Ben Davis]

OK, so this seems to be a Christian tactic, claiming materialism/naturalism is a religion which relies on faith. Firstly, I find it strange that a religious person would claim being religious is a bad thing.

What Zen said.

I don't think I am either of these. If there is some phenomenon that cannot yet be explained by science, I leave it at that. I don't then say it must have a supernatural cause. I don't say it cannot have a supernatural cause either.

Then you're tacitly accepting that the 'supernatural' exists when there is, in fact, zero evidence that it does. For me, when there's no evidence, I assume the null hypothesis as the default position. That doesn't mean I'm not open to being shown evidence in the future (and if the evidence is reasonable and supported, I may accept it), it means that until such evidence is put forward, I'll work on the assumption that it doesn't exist. On that basis, I'm a 'materialist/naturalist' because that's all that the evidence has ever shown the existence of; in other words, my empiricism leads me to materialism/naturalism.

My understanding of the supernatural hypothesis is this:

1. There is a natural realm, following laws. This is where we live, and we can test things in it.

2.There is also this supernatural realm that we can only examine when the claim is made that something in the supernatural realm alters things in the natural realm, breaking the laws in it.

Point 3 is actually part of point 2 (see my change above)

This leads me to think - How can I know something has a supernatural cause, and not a natural cause? Surely I'd have to be omniscient to know this?

Nope; firstly you'd have to be able to demonstrate and define the supernatural then secondly, study the interaction to provide evidence that it results from the supernatural. The more rigor with which you can define the supernatural, the more certain you'll be that the interaction is supernatural rather than natural.

However since that methodology falls at the first hurdle...

What is more, every time someone has suggested something has a supernatural cause, it has found to have a natural cause.

Indeed. As there's never been a demonstration of 'supernaturality', the default position is that it doesn't exist. My belief is that a materialist/naturalist universe is the best description of our reality. That belief is justified, true by facts and robust evidence. What do we call a 'justified, true belief'? Knowledge. The opposite of religious 'faith'.

Have I made any assumptions based on faith here? I don't think I have, although my understanding of the supernatural hypothesis may be wrong.

Not 'faith', just the assumption that the supernatural is an option when it's clearly not even on the table.

I think it is just the same as the Theist not understanding the Agnostic Atheist position. I don't claim the supernatural doesn't exist, but I don't think there is any way of gathering evidence it does. To me "Supernatural" has no practical difference to "I don't know".

'Supernatural' is a claim not an 'I don't know'. Until the claim is evidenced, it can be dismissed without consideration. Consequently, I claim (in every useful sense) that the supernatural doesn't exist. That doesn't mean I make claims to 'absolute' non-existence (I would never be so arrogant) but until the evidence is presented to support the claim, I can't discount the null hypothesis (which would be equally arrogant).