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?

[Thatguy]

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?

I'd say nope, it is no begging the question. If we said that the claimed supernatural event could not have happened because only natural events happen then we'd be begging the question. Instead we are just applying normal procedures for evaluating claims.

In every case we know of and have good evidence for, death wasn't reversed. So if we hear of a case where a person truly died and had been dead for a few days and then popped back to life, we have mountains of evidence that says that that's not the way things usually happen. To contradict this mountain of evidence, we would expect to see extraordinary evidence. Otherwise, the most likely explanation is that the person wasn't dead or, if the person was dead, the person stayed dead.

There have been many, many claims of extraordinary, supernatural seeming events happening. In the ones that have been investigated the results have either been that the event was natural or that the results of the investigation are inconclusive. We've seen a long history of fraud. We've seen lots of cases of incorrect perception. We've seen errors in communication. But I'm aware of no cases where the event was shown to have violated the laws of nature.

Let's take an example that isn't tied to a particular religion that people are loyal to. Let's say i told you I had a conversation yesterday with a dog who spoke to me in perfect English. Would you think that the odds were that this were true because i had no reason to lie to you? It would not be more reasonable to accept what i said at face value because what I said went so firmly against your lifetime of experience, biology, all the cases you've ever heard of, etc. It may seem unfair somehow to put a huge burden on me to prove my case, but given the weight of evidence about my claim, ordinary evidence would not suffice. Even if I told you that a hundred people saw it, you wouldn't believe that the dog was talking. If I showed you a video of it, you'd still not believe it. Skepticism is the most rational response because of how much evidence opposes the supernatural seeming claim.

If we are to toss out lifetimes of experience and decades of research every time a supernatural claim is made, what standard of evidence would we use to decide that the supernatural happened?

[pax]

In conclusion, it may be said that Science, when called upon to testify, has given a certain and thorough response as regards the authenticity of the Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano.

http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst ... ciano.html

There is enough evidence here to scientifically establish a miracle.

Of course, if one just automatically assumes Naturalism to be true, the admission of such evidence that can scientifically establish a miracle is anathema.

I would say that in itself is more than enough evidence to establish an answer to your OP.

No. The automatic dogmatic presumption of Naturalism is not only not rational, but it is extremely harmful to scientific investigation, to academic freedom, to the scientific community and to society in general.

[Thatguy]

In conclusion, it may be said that Science, when called upon to testify, has given a certain and thorough response as regards the authenticity of the Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano.

http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst ... ciano.html

There is enough evidence here to scientifically establish a miracle.

Of course, if one just automatically assumes Naturalism to be true, the admission of such evidence that can scientifically establish a miracle is anathema.

I would say that in itself is more than enough evidence to establish an answer to your OP.

No. The automatic dogmatic presumption of Naturalism is not only not rational, but it is extremely harmful to scientific investigation, to academic freedom, to the scientific community and to society in general.

And yet... How did eminent professor Odoardo Linoli determine that the heart and blood he found were originally bread and wine?
How many independent scientists have confirmed the findings?
Who selected eminent professor Odoardo Linoli to do these tests? Why?
I'm finding no references to this eminent professor, other than sites discussing this alleged miracle. I did find this reference to the eminent Italian anatomist by that name: http://books.google.com/books?id=NAVNQw ... CEAQ6AEwAg but for all I know it's a common name among Italian anatomy professors. Or inherited by the one who did the tests in the late 20th Century.
It's not that it takes a determined cynic to doubt that this evidence proves a miracle happened, it would take a determined believer to think that this evidence would convince skeptical observers that the miracle took place.

[pax]

In conclusion, it may be said that Science, when called upon to testify, has given a certain and thorough response as regards the authenticity of the Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano.

http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst ... ciano.html

There is enough evidence here to scientifically establish a miracle.

Of course, if one just automatically assumes Naturalism to be true, the admission of such evidence that can scientifically establish a miracle is anathema.

I would say that in itself is more than enough evidence to establish an answer to your OP.

No. The automatic dogmatic presumption of Naturalism is not only not rational, but it is extremely harmful to scientific investigation, to academic freedom, to the scientific community and to society in general.

And yet... How did eminent professor Odoardo Linoli determine that the heart and blood he found were originally bread and wine?
How many independent scientists have confirmed the findings?
Who selected eminent professor Odoardo Linoli to do these tests? Why?
I'm finding no references to this eminent professor, other than sites discussing this alleged miracle. I did find this reference to the eminent Italian anatomist by that name: http://books.google.com/books?id=NAVNQw ... CEAQ6AEwAg but for all I know it's a common name among Italian anatomy professors. Or inherited by the one who did the tests in the late 20th Century.
It's not that it takes a determined cynic to doubt that this evidence proves a miracle happened, it would take a determined believer to think that this evidence would convince skeptical observers that the miracle took place.

And there you have it, and the old saw is proved once again to be true:

For those who believe no evidence is necessary, but for those who refuse to believe no evidence will suffice.

[Haven]

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

[pax]

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

Ah! The presumption of Naturalism.

[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?
I'd say that the proof offered and the defense of it has provided a good answer to the original question Haven posed. When skeptics hold proposed proofs of the supernatural up to a standard of evaluation that is difficult to overcome we are accused of having pre-determined the answer. At the same time, we are told that the proof is, indeed, ample and sufficient to demonstrate that the supernatural did really happen. Again and again those proofs turn out to be wholly insufficient. But instead of providing sufficient object evidence to overcome the accumulated evidence that the world behaves in a natural manner, the supernaturalist accuses the skeptic of deliberately disregarding the awesome probative value of their evidence. This will happen no matter how weak the evidence because the supernaturalist is, as Pax says, eager to believe without evidence so any request for evidence is seen as closed minded begging of the question.

[Mithrae]

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?

A good thread - I got a bit side-tracked with Christian-specific thinking while responding to your initial post on this, but more broadly I think it's a fundamental issue which many folk seem to just skim over.

The bold above is a somewhat loaded question, as I'm sure you know. It's an interesting re-statement of Is skepticism the rational default position?, and my brief answer remains the same: We all evaluate new information with reference to existing 'knowledge' (whatever that 'knowledge' may be), which is perfectly rational, and it has to be acknowledged that our own and others' common experience of the world is among the most fundamental forms of knowledge available. It's true that 'exceptional claims' require 'exceptional evidence,' but we should recognise that neither of those is an objective term.

In a little more depth - trying to summarise some thoughts over the months - I think my own questioning of 'naturalism' can be put into three categories:

What is 'natural'?
As I've posted elsewhere, there are numerous ideas - like most of my body's volume consisting of nothing; or the emergence of life, consciousness and ultimately abstract thought from inorganic matter; or the interchangeability of energy and matter - which on face value do seem 'exceptional' and to our forebears would have been classed alongside vampires or Santa Claus, if not even more improbable. My own working definition of 'supernatural' is simply things sufficiently outside the range of common human experience to be widely questionable, which would include the likes of bigfoot, alien visitations or Atlantis - but in fairness could probably include some of the above also, which we simply trust scientists to correctly inform us on. Beyond that, and since our knowledge of the universe is still quite limited, I have yet to see any satisfactory definition or understanding of the 'natural' by which we can adequately classify anything as super-natural per se. We dignify our common observations of how the universe behaves with the term 'laws of nature,' but unless I've missed something there's no evidence that these so-called laws actually exist as things constraining behaviour, rather than just how things generally behave.



Logical possibility and equal probability
It's probably not an original thought, but for my part I was quite amused to come up with this view in an earlier thread discussing the resurrection:

• Mithrae wrote:
  It occurs to me that aside from that which implies a logical contradiction, anything is possible. It's possible that I am a lone human mind bombarded with innumerable false perceptions, the plaything of Descartes' evil demon. . . .
  But the things which don't imply a logical contradiction are infinite. Even causation is debatable as a logical principle, rather than a by-product of observation. . . .
  
  Compared to infinity, what do my perceptions mean? What do the things I've seen and the knowledge I've managed to acquire mean? Compared with the whole, I know virtually nothing even about the accepted facts of 21st-century Earth to date! Of course, I'm no expert on the matter of 21st-century Earth to date, but I suspect that the experts know virtually nothing about my life, or the lives of my friends (about whom I know little) or the lives of those reading this. How much might we imagine an 'expert' in 21st-century Earth to date actually knows? Is there really a significant difference between my 1-in-a-trillion and their (assuming they exist) 3-in-a-trillion?
  
  It seems to me, and I think this deserves to be emphasised, that for all intents and purposes if anything is possible then everything is equally probable.
  
  A person observes reality like the leaf observes the forest. But since we need the illusion of choice, of decisions, of free will, we need the illusion of knowledge and beliefs on which to base them. Our knowledge and beliefs are based partly on observation, partly on habit, partly on desire, partly on communication - and quite possibly on other things also - but as far as 'absolute conviction' goes, I rather suspect that they will all always fall woefully short in any objective sense of the term. . . .
  
  If we're concerned about the 'supernatural' element involved in the alleged event, on a personal level that's all well and good and to no small extent I would agree. But as far as the thread title and OP go, I do feel obliged to re-state and request disproof of this before such distinctions are again raised as a form of 'debate':
  If anything is possible then everything is equally probable

It's not a valid concept on which to base beliefs of course, since we do require individual perspectives simply to live our lives. But it may well be a valid concept to inconsequentialize the supposed degree of objectivity on which some folk might presume to question beliefs.



Presumption of 'how,' rather than 'if'
To my understanding it's a fundamental concept of science that observation precedes hypotheses - that is, you first ask or test what happens, and then build on theories as to why or how it happens. It seems to me that this process is often (though not always) reversed when it comes to discussion of the 'supernatural'; a basic example being the presumed element of magical predictive prophecy considered a basis on which to date gMark after 70CE, rather than considering it simply an expansion on existing 'prophecies.' The 'how' - a presumed specific knowledge of the temple's destruction - precedes the question of 'if' it was written beforehand. This ties in a lot with the first point regarding what is to be considered 'natural,' but I think that even given an understanding of the 'nature' of the universe, the question of how a remarkable event might have occurred should still be the second question we ask. Predictive prophecy does not in fact violate any laws of nature, for example; and indeed though humans don't currently have the technology for it, regeneration of organic cells at the molecular level is in theory quite possible even after several days of decay. From my earlier thread How unlikely is the supernatural?:

• As far as supernatural claims/events requiring the suspension of established scientific laws, that's only the case if you're including theories about how an event happened alongside your question of whether it happened. It would be akin to disbelieving someone's claim that a feather fell as fast as a lead ball on the basis of our certainty that lead balls fall faster. Once we know the how - that rates of fall are affected by air resistance, and the feather and ball were in a vacuum - we might be more inclined to believe what someone claims they saw. If someone did that little magic trick a few centuries ago, it seems to me that your position would have us believing that it was a lead feather or that our friend was deluded. My position is that if we have reasonable evidence for something - in this case, if our friend is an observant, level-headed and honest person - we should consider it possible (perhaps even probable, depending on the strength of evidence) that the something did happen, even if we don't know how.

Long and short, once again: It's true that 'exceptional claims' require 'exceptional evidence,' but we should recognise that neither of those is an objective term. Not by a long shot, with any genuine concept of objectivity.

[Jayhawker Soule]

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?

1. Absolutely.
2. Tales do not constitute evidence.

Not too long ago I hear a sound and then hear the cat jump to the ground.
I walk into the study and see my wine glass knocked over on my desk with red wine dripping down onto the floor.
It's St. Patrick's day, and Leprachauns are notoriously mischievous.
Therefore ...