Parallel Between Theism and Naturalism?

[Mudhammam]

I took these statements from @SecularOutpost (on Twitter). I figured some of ya'll might have interesting things to say about them.

"Many arguments against theism have the form "Why would God do/allow X?" A common answer is "There's an unknown purpose.

Many arguments against naturalism have the form "How could X be possible without God?" Common answer: "There's an unknown explanation.

naturalism --> unknown explanations
theism --> unknown purposes"

[The Grand Nudger]

So long as we don't know everything, -any- "ism" will have to deal with it. There's simply no way of avoiding the unknown in either case. To propose otherwise puts the burden of complete knowledge on any given proposition.

[Mudhammam]

There's simply no way of avoiding the unknown in either case.

That was my first thought too.

[The Grand Nudger]

-that being said.....I don't find that to be a very common argument given to some question of how "x" is possible without god. The folks who ask those questions seem easily impressed by fairly explicable things......

[Anomalocaris]

The difference is naturalism has provided many direct and verifiable explanations with unique and powerfully accurate and precise predictive powers, thus leaving no doubt it is capable of uniquely sound explanations.

The only doubt is whether it is capable of providing sound explanations in cases where it has not yet done so. There is evidence suggesting it can, no evidence suggesting it can't.

Theism has never provided any direct and verifiable explanations with any unique or accurate, or precise predictive powers. Thus providing no evidence at all that it is even in principle capable of providing any uniquely sound explanation whatsoever under any circumstances.

So with theism, there is no credibility to any excuse. With naturality, there is credibility lent by long track record to a temporary pledge for patience.

[genkaus]

I took these statements from @SecularOutpost (on Twitter). I figured some of ya'll might have interesting things to say about them.

"Many arguments against theism have the form "Why would God do/allow X?" A common answer is "There's an unknown purpose.

Many arguments against naturalism have the form "How could X be possible without God?" Common answer: "There's an unknown explanation.

naturalism --> unknown explanations
theism --> unknown purposes"

The difference is that the point of saying "unknown purpose" is - "have faith, it'll be revealed eventually by someone else if he wants to" and the point of saying "unknown explanation" is - "keep looking for answers and feel free to figure it out yourself".

[Alex K]

I think it's an ok comparison. To echo Rhythm, it's the rejection of the argument from incredulity in either 1. a materialistic or 2. a theistic paradigm. I have no problem with either, I never found that class of arguments ("why would god allow X") to be all that convincing anyways as arguments against theism in general.

It does however work against the notion that we can know good from evil by following God. You can't claim that god's ways are unfathomable (i.e. it is not knowable from our perspective why any particular of god's actions is good) and at the same time say that we have to follow God's principles in our actions to be good. Of course, one might say that there are God's rules and God's actions, and that they are not the same. But I think it can be easily shown that God's rules are too few, too vague and too contradictory to give precise guidance, and interpreting them requires an arbitrary input from the reader, or looking at God's actions.
To summarize my argument: bla bla Euthyphro bla bla intelligibility bla bla god's nature bla bla. I'll fill in the details later. After all, just because you don't know exactly how it goes, don't mean that it's wrong

[Chas]

I took these statements from @SecularOutpost (on Twitter). I figured some of ya'll might have interesting things to say about them.

"Many arguments against theism have the form "Why would God do/allow X?" A common answer is "There's an unknown purpose.

Many arguments against naturalism have the form "How could X be possible without God?" Common answer: "There's an unknown explanation.

naturalism --> unknown explanations
theism --> unknown purposes"

Science leads us to explanations; it has been doing so for centuries.

Theism, not so much.