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]

The history of holy relics is, we would all have to agree, rife with fraud.

As is the history of fossils. (Piltdown man, anybidy?) Got men? Got frauds.

[Thatguy]

The history of holy relics is, we would all have to agree, rife with fraud.

As is the history of fossils. (Piltdown man, anybidy?) Got men? Got frauds.

Indeed there have been many fossil frauds. As fossils get more valuable, there will be many more. Fortunately for good ol' science (God bless her) there are many mechanisms for examining and testing and measuring and otherwise technically kicking the tires of proposed evidence. It's not like there's some central authority restricting access to the evidence and granting access on extremely rare occasions to only hand selected testers. If, in science, three or four different scientists claim to have the exact same bone from the exact same specimen, natural inquiry is triggered because it is recognized that this cannot be. If, on the other hand, the same saint's coccyx is claimed to be held by four different churches, that only increases the miraculous mystery of the marvels.

[pax]

The history of holy relics is, we would all have to agree, rife with fraud.

As is the history of fossils. (Piltdown man, anybidy?) Got men? Got frauds.

Indeed there have been many fossil frauds. As fossils get more valuable, there will be many more. Fortunately for good ol' science (God bless her) there are many mechanisms for examining and testing and measuring and otherwise technically kicking the tires of proposed evidence. It's not like there's some central authority restricting access to the evidence and granting access on extremely rare occasions to only hand selected testers. If, in science, three or four different scientists claim to have the exact same bone from the exact same specimen, natural inquiry is triggered because it is recognized that this cannot be. If, on the other hand, the same saint's coccyx is claimed to be held by four different churches, that only increases the miraculous mystery of the marvels.

Well, there just ain't that much flesh and blood there to give every skeptic a piece to examine.

Besides, anybody can jump on a plane and fly to Italy and go and look at the flesh and blood. It is on perpetual display. While you are there you can read all the tetimonials from scientists throughout the millenium.

And in closing, think about what it is you are wanting the Vatican to do! It was hard enough to give over a few pieces of the burial cloth of Christ to experiment on. What do you imagine it is like for the Vicar of Christ to surrender the actual body and blood of Christ for experimentation?

[Jayhawker Soule]

This is excellent ...

[Janx]

Hi Haven,

Thank you for asking this question. After reading this I was shocked to find myself unable to express a key component of my worldview and this reply has lead to much introspection and growth.

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

Naturalism is not a truth position but one of many paths to discovering truth and in my opinion a very safe place to start.

Truth is the proximation of an idea to our worldview. Our worldviews are internally coherent webs of knowledge and experience. Something is true when supported by our worldview and false when contradicting our worldview.

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

Yes but it can't be avoided because we all have to start somewhere.

Naturalism is a worldview component shared by every human being because it's foundation is experience. No matter how superstitious a person may be the majority of their knowledge and experience will be of the natural world. We can't help it; five of our senses belong to the natural world and our conscious point of view resides in our body.

That is not to say that naturalism is always the best road to truth. I do not look to naturalism when creating art, reading poetry or connecting with human beings. Yet it's always there.

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?

I don't think this is possible.

The supernatural requires its own worldview component that is completely detached from the naturalistic worldview. Some supernatural claims attempt to mold themselves as closely as possible to the natural ("science fictions" is an example) but all along the boundary you will find a gap that requires a leap of faith.

This means that something can be true in the supernatural worldview while being false in the natural. You'll find that most supernatural proponents avoid this paradox by sticking to gaps in our natural world knowledge and experience.

Notice that there are no supernaturalists. There are only people who accept certain supernatural claims. A supernaturalist would accept all claims and that's a quick road to insanity. Thus people with supernatural wouldviews must distinguish themselves. This poses a problem as the only shared worldview (naturalism) cannot assist them in such endeavors. From a naturalist perspective a supernatural claim is indistinguishable from fiction.

Yet I've found several methods that supernatural proponents use to validate their claims:

1) Developing internal volume and logic of their claims - "my supernatural has more than your supernatural." This is surprisingly effective. A vast worldview will exhaust most opponents.

2) Making up false links to the naturalistic world - "science proves my supernatural (lie)." Another surprisingly effective tactic. The gap rather than the actual worldview is being challenged. Even if the lie is exposed the worldview remains completely intact because it doesn’t depend on any links.

3) Attack naturalism - "all worldviews are equal�. The last one is most curious as it must require serious cognitive dissonance. I've often observed supernatural proponents both attack and defend naturalism to support their worldview and attack alternative supernatural positions respectively. The problem with attacking naturalism is that without some baseline all worldviews become equal pathways to truth. Hence the guy who believe in an authoritarian magic sandwich that drowns the world in mustard on 2020 gets equal truth value as anyone else. Not to mention no one really gives up on naturalism - they just say so for long enough to shut people up.



Cheers mate.

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

The presumption of naturalism; is it rational?

Perfectly rational.

One only needs the supernatural when they can't explain how something has occurred.

[Mithrae]

From the OP:

The presumption of naturalism; is it rational?

Perfectly rational.

One only needs the supernatural when they can't explain how something has occurred.

Like the universe?

It almost sounds as if you're implying by contrast that 'natural' just means anything and everything we think we can explain, yes? (Or, perhaps, speculate on and hope that oneday soon we can explain, like the origin of life.) If not, could you provide an objective definition for this term 'natural'?

[Goat]

The history of holy relics is, we would all have to agree, rife with fraud.

As is the history of fossils. (Piltdown man, anybidy?) Got men? Got frauds.

Of course, that is why science has continual testing, and skepticism.. to filter out fraud. It wasn't the religious folks that found that fraud, it was scientists. The pilt down man was pretty much ignored anyway, because it did not fit into any of the other data found.

[Mithrae]

I wrote this up as an addition to my latest post in Haven's Alleged Resurrection of Jesus thread, but I think it fits in better here.



Edit2:
It seems to me that a lot of non-theist debaters are content merely with pointing out the shortcomings, inconsistencies and shortfall of evidence with regards to traditional religious claims. 'course, since we're all here primarily to enjoy ourselves that's all fine and dandy if that's what floats your boat. But for my part I also enjoy finding opportunities to expand my horizons of speculation about possibility and reality - or put differently, to question non-theistic positions as much as I do traditional religion.

Is it possible that there's a God? The Christian omni- traits of God are questionable to my mind, omni-benevolence most notably being both incoherent and hindered by the problem of 'evil'; but given that, it seems to me that the fundamental nature and reason for reality might just as likely be personal and volitional as impersonal and causal. Given the limits on human knowledge, for all intents and purposes it may as well be 50/50 odds, as outlined briefly in this post.

But are we constrained to think or talk about theism solely in the terms defined by religious conservatives? Because their claims of perfect and complete divine revelation to a single culture seem lacking at best, should we presume 'til further notice that our coin has landed on the impersonal/causal side? Seems a pretty short-sighted view, in my opinion. If there were a 'god' (and if it were in any way interested in the doings of the moving water-bags on this little rock), surely after ruling out specific and detailed revelation to a single culture we should consider that a more broad-minded approach to comparative religion might yield results more consistent with our expectations?

In other words, whilst acknowledging cultural expression and development, deliberate fraud or fantastic hyperbole and other sources of 'factual' error and absurdities in religious traditions, wouldn't it make sense to remain open to the possibility that in their differing approaches to knowledge and truth our forebears might at times have preserved genuine insights and experiences of a most fundamental aspect of reality which science, by its very nature, can never encounter?

As I've posted elsewhere, seems to me that the reliability of knowledge is upheld by the restrictions and safeguards which we impose on it, in science most obviously. So if one believes that it's possible for humans to arrive at reliable knowledge regarding the most unanswerable questions about the origins and fundamental nature of our world, then to an extent it makes sense to limit our enquiries on those issues to a semi-scientific approach grounded in empiricism. But since I very much doubt that we can acquire that knowledge in any sense even remotely approaching scientific reliability, I don't think it makes sense to limit our thinking in those areas to such a drastic degree.

Long and short, open-ended comparative speculation with sceptical reference to known facts obviously doesn't serve our purposes in seeking knowledge about history, psychology, political science and so on. But applying to religious enquiries - questions ultimatley about the very nature and cause of reality - the same semi-scientific empiricist restrictions as we apply in those fields only makes sense if we believe that similarly reliable conclusions might be reached on the matter. Otherwise, it's just a self-imposed limit on whatever conceptions and evaluations of the possibilities we might have gleaned and quite rationally incorporated into our wider worldview.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 27:

One only needs the supernatural when they can't explain how something has occurred.

Like the universe?

I make no claims regarding the origins of the universe. I do note many folks'll say a god did it. What I never see those folks do is offer any means, beyond the incredulous, by which such a claim can be confirmed.

It almost sounds as if you're implying by contrast that 'natural' just means anything and everything we think we can explain, yes?

Not so much as I'm saying that in my observations, the supernatural may be invoked when one can't explain something through naturalistic means. This position doesn't deny the supernatural.

(Or, perhaps, speculate on and hope that one day soon we can explain, like the origin of life.)

I consider that issue essentially settled.

If not, could you provide an objective definition for this term 'natural'?

Definitions are kinda subjective, where what is "cool" might even be "hot", so I won't refer, like I normally do, to Merriam-Webster, or other dictionaries on this'n. Some consider a god to be an otherwise "natural" part of nature / the universe / whatever. I don't.

The observer is asked to consider what they deem natural, and if my use of the term fits their understanding.

Of course Mithrae would be perfectly within his rights to offer a definition for us all to consider.