The Presumption of Naturalism: Is it Rational?

[Haven]

Over on the "alleged resurrection of Jesus" thread, I posted this:

This post won't be popular here among my fellow atheists, but I think the Christians have a very valid point on one matter -- the circularity of atheists'/skeptics' arguments against the resurrection.

Almost every atheist I've talked to on [the subject of the resurrection of Jesus] (at least the ones who do not accept the Christ myth theory) uses circular logic to argue against the resurrection. We assume a priori that naturalism is true, and from there we reason that the resurrection did not occur, even when the evidence seems to go against our claim. This, of course, is fallacious, committing the logical fallacy of begging the question, but atheists -- nearly without exception -- use this method of argumentation against the resurrection. We won't even consider the evidence in favor of the resurrection, which, when approached from a truly unbiased perspective, is at least somewhat substantial, we simply handwavingly dismiss the possibility that a "magic zombie Jesus" is possible . . .

Debate question: Should one presume naturalism is true when evaluating a given proposition? Is it rational to automatically dismiss supernatural claims and/or explanations, or should such claims be seriously evaluated on their merits and the evidence for/against them? Is a presumption of naturalism a form of begging the question?

[pax]

Pax, do you have a secular, peer-reviewed source for your miracle claim?

Ah! The presumption of Naturalism.

So holding your proposed empirical proof to empirical standards is an unfair burden?

No. But why the qualification of "secular"? Do you ask for the opinions or findings of Christian scientists when secular scientists talk about secular things?

Oh. I forgot. Christian scientists when talking about Christian things are always subjective, but secular scientists when talking about secular things are always objective

[Bust Nak]

Should one presume naturalism is true when evaluating a given proposition?

One cannot help but presume naturalism when evaluating a proposition. It's is the default position, even for those who think there is such a thing as the supernatural. When a door slams unexpectedly, people, naturalist or otherwise, automatically look an naturalistic explainaion, an open window etc.

Is it rational to automatically dismiss supernatural claims and/or explanations, or should such claims be seriously evaluated on their merits and the evidence for/against them?

We take shortcuts some times but ideally all claims should be seriously evaluated on their merits. The problem with supernatual claims are they are designed in such a way as to stop people from evaluating them seriosuly.

Is a presumption of naturalism a form of begging the question?

Well it depends on how the argument goes exactly. "The resurrection didn't happen because naturalism says it cannot have happened" is definitely beggining the question. "The resurrection didn't happen because thses such and such naturalistic alternatives exist" is not question begging.

[Thatguy]

Pax, do you have a secular, peer-reviewed source for your miracle claim?

Ah! The presumption of Naturalism.

So holding your proposed empirical proof to empirical standards is an unfair burden?

No. But why the qualification of "secular"? Do you ask for the opinions or findings of Christian scientists when secular scientists talk about secular things?

Oh. I forgot. Christian scientists when talking about Christian things are always subjective, but secular scientists when talking about secular things are always objective

Everyone has subjective views. When the only person permitted to do a test is someone who shares the views of the people who are trying to prove a point and then the results aren't published in a peer reviewed publication so that the assumptions and methods can be held to professional standards, the results are suspect.
A secular source in this case would not mean a source with no Christians. If the results appeared in a prestigious journal, even if the editors and the peer reviewers were all Christian, few would question the results based on the religion of the researchers and editors and consulted experts. Much of the work done in secular journals is done by scientists who have religious views.

In the case of your cited proof, though, we don't seem to have the basic confirmation of the results being mentioned in any source other than sources seeking to prove that miracles are real (or sites responding to those sources.)

Some of the most convincing sources of information are those where experts truly skeptical of a claim set out to show that the claim is false but, after doing reputable tests, conclude that the claim is true. It is less credible, though not automatically discredited, when someone who is convinced a claim is true does tests which confirm to that tester that the claim is true. It increases the chances of observational bias. This is true not only in science but in history, too. When the only witnesses to a claim are partisans of that claim and there's no confirmation from those who disagree or are neutral, the evidence is less reliable.

[His Name Is John]

I don't think the supernatural should be dismissed, but it shouldn't be the fist thing we jump to. We shouldn't have the super-natural-of-the-gaps so to speak, but neither the naturalism-of-the-gaps. We should follow the evidence.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

We assume a priori that naturalism is true, and from there we reason that the resurrection did not occur, even when the evidence seems to go against our claim.

I must disagree with this assessment of the situation. What evidence is there in favour of the resurrection? A small collection of anonymous hearsay from 2000 years ago. We "assume" naturalism is true because otherwise we have no way of evaluating claims. The alternative requires us accepting the truth of countless mythical and otherwise fantastic claims similarly supported by unimpressive evidence. Naturalism is what allows us to put history and science in one category and bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster, psychic powers and resurrected Jesus in another. Without this assumption, anything goes. Try to come up with a working historical method that assumes all supernatural explanations to be as plausible as natural ones, and see what it looks like.

I haven't seen the resurrection dismissed based on circular reasoning quite so often. I've seen the resurrection dismissed because there is only a tiny amount of weak evidence in favour of it, hardly enough to rule out mundane explanations, and not nearly enough to proclaim it as anything close to true.

To consider the supernatural we need facts that defy all other explanation (and by this I don't mean the "facts" that are arrived at by assuming the truth of bible accounts).

[pax]

Pax, do you have a secular, peer-reviewed source for your miracle claim?

Ah! The presumption of Naturalism.

So holding your proposed empirical proof to empirical standards is an unfair burden?

No. But why the qualification of "secular"? Do you ask for the opinions or findings of Christian scientists when secular scientists talk about secular things?

Oh. I forgot. Christian scientists when talking about Christian things are always subjective, but secular scientists when talking about secular things are always objective

Everyone has subjective views. When the only person permitted to do a test is someone who shares the views of the people who are trying to prove a point and then the results aren't published in a peer reviewed publication so that the assumptions and methods can be held to professional standards, the results are suspect.
A secular source in this case would not mean a source with no Christians. If the results appeared in a prestigious journal, even if the editors and the peer reviewers were all Christian, few would question the results based on the religion of the researchers and editors and consulted experts. Much of the work done in secular journals is done by scientists who have religious views.

In the case of your cited proof, though, we don't seem to have the basic confirmation of the results being mentioned in any source other than sources seeking to prove that miracles are real (or sites responding to those sources.)

Some of the most convincing sources of information are those where experts truly skeptical of a claim set out to show that the claim is false but, after doing reputable tests, conclude that the claim is true. It is less credible, though not automatically discredited, when someone who is convinced a claim is true does tests which confirm to that tester that the claim is true. It increases the chances of observational bias. This is true not only in science but in history, too. When the only witnesses to a claim are partisans of that claim and there's no confirmation from those who disagree or are neutral, the evidence is less reliable.

The results of the investigation by Prof. Odoardo Linoli and Prof. Ruggero Bertelli were published in the periodocal Quaderni Sclavo di Diagnostica Clinica e di Laboratorio in 1973.

Here is a link to the periodical: http://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/ ... aboratorio

But I cannot find the article.

[Thatguy]

The results of the investigation by Prof. Odoardo Linoli and Prof. Ruggero Bertelli were published in the periodocal Quaderni Sclavo di Diagnostica Clinica e di Laboratorio in 1973.

Here is a link to the periodical: http://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/ ... aboratorio

But I cannot find the article.

Ok, so you made me look deeper. The article does, in fact, exist. It was 1971, not 1973. I don't have access to the article itself. So my skepticism as to the existence of the article has been satisfied. That the article exists was an ordinary claim, ordinary evidence satisfies me and I have no real doubt it's there.

So the professor, who has a number of other publications of scientific research in peer reviewed journals, most likely did conclude that this was a human heart and blood. More ordinary claims and I am sure that his conclusions that these were human body parts is valid. The problem then is having that research lead to the conclusion that these substances came from the sacramental wine and bread and not, say, from a human being who was, at least at the time the professor tested the material, dead.

Will the Vatican let others test it? In 1971 we didn't have mad DNA skilz. It would be of some mild interest to know what the DNA of God contains.

[pax]

The results of the investigation by Prof. Odoardo Linoli and Prof. Ruggero Bertelli were published in the periodocal Quaderni Sclavo di Diagnostica Clinica e di Laboratorio in 1973.

Here is a link to the periodical: http://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/ ... aboratorio

But I cannot find the article.

Ok, so you made me look deeper. The article does, in fact, exist. It was 1971, not 1973. I don't have access to the article itself. So my skepticism as to the existence of the article has been satisfied. That the article exists was an ordinary claim, ordinary evidence satisfies me and I have no real doubt it's there.

So the professor, who has a number of other publications of scientific research in peer reviewed journals, most likely did conclude that this was a human heart and blood. More ordinary claims and I am sure that his conclusions that these were human body parts is valid. The problem then is having that research lead to the conclusion that these substances came from the sacramental wine and bread and not, say, from a human being who was, at least at the time the professor tested the material, dead.

Will the Vatican let others test it? In 1971 we didn't have mad DNA skilz. It would be of some mild interest to know what the DNA of God contains.

The fact that the flesh and blood have remained not only in an incorrupt state for over 1000 years should be enough to satisfy the condition of miraculous. But, if you want to question that attested to fact, then consider that the blood was consistent with unspilled blood. Blood exposed to the elements undergoes immediate changes. The blood investigated by the Proffessors showed no such signs. It was outside of a body but showed no signs of being outside of a body. That is also proof enough for a miraculous occurance.

[Thatguy]

The fact that the flesh and blood have remained not only in an incorrupt state for over 1000 years should be enough to satisfy the condition of miraculous. But, if you want to question that attested to fact, then consider that the blood was consistent with unspilled blood. Blood exposed to the elements undergoes immediate changes. The blood investigated by the Proffessors showed no such signs. It was outside of a body but showed no signs of being outside of a body. That is also proof enough for a miraculous occurance.

If the blood was really in the same condition that it would be in if they were still in the body, we'd have a very compelling case for something scientists would have a difficult time understanding using natural explanations. I have looked at a number of websites supporting the miracle, all seem to be drawn from the same source or couple of sources and they differ widely anyway on whether the blood was fresh or not. One said that it remained permanently as if it were 20 minutes old. Others didn't go this far. They describe the blood as ocher in color and red when back lit. This isn't the color of blood in the body. I couldn't find the original article, i know some people here have good access to such things, i'd appreciate the chance to read it. But I'm not an expert by any means and would defer judgment on the meaning to experts.
I did find a reference to a skeptic who claims to have actually read the article. His evaluation is here, under the name David_UH http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?s= ... ostcount=7
If we had the article we might see whether your version, that the blood was fresh as if still in the body, or his, that the "blood" was extremely deteriorated at best, is a better interpretation of what the author actually said.
Until then, it's not enough evidence to begin to doubt a natural explanation. The history of holy relics is, we would all have to agree, rife with fraud.

[Slopeshoulder]

As an agnostic non-cognitivist theist of catholic christian tendencies, I do not favor rationalism, naturalism, positivism, or materialism philosophically. Rather, I favor phenemonelology, existentialism, and post-analytical, fideistic, neo-pragmatic and (serious) mystical strains of thought.

But day to day as a practical matter, of course we favor naturalism, as a fellow theist above said so well regarding slamming doors and open windows. And we are not invested in evidentialism or proving miracles!

When it comes to religion, I've made a decisive move that evidentialism is not the relevant paradigm, neither to defend nor to debunk religious claims. Rather, religion must steer clear of anything more than the most ontologically humble propositional truth claims, and set aside evidentialism entirely. In its place it puts meaning, meta-myths, symbolism, faith, hope, love, and what wittegenstein and paul and the buddha agree is a form of life, a way of being, an orienting lens, and a transformed perspective that feels redemptive and satisfying and tends to reinforce itself for those who stand inside it. If part of this includes an openness to levels of existence beyond our senses and ken, then sure, why not. But an insistenence upon miraculousness and magical thinking posing as evidentialism is an enormous distraction and speaks ill of theists, playing into the hands of the most reductionistic among non-theists. Rather, a miracle is something so wonderful and powerful and meaningful and outside of expected experience, that we choose to call it sacred and locate it in the divine if we are so inclined. My wife is a miracle. I make no claim that God made her or sent her or that God even exists. But whatever divinity may be, I think I get a taste of it with my wife, and it is wholly other, generative, completing, etc. For me, music and comedy are similiar.

Failure to make this move away from evidentialism, is a modern error perpetuated by fundamentalists and people of a literalist and ironically reductive cast of mind, having more on common with their oppoenents than they realize. IMO that is a great tragedy for both reason and religion. And it is an enormous distraction. I'd rather sit down with an athiest like McCulloch and hear him say something like, "the way I think, there's no God." And I'd say "I've got a hunch there is." Then we can put that aside and focus on where we can agree about what is good, beautiful, and worthwhile, and collaborate to make some sort of contribution. Better than arguing about non-starters and distractions.

It's Friday, and that's my elected post for the week.