Why the “Faith in Naturalism” Argument is So Ridiculous

NaturalismI got this earlier on Twitter, a theist claiming that “materialism/naturalism is held together by as many assumptions as any religion”.  So I asked him to present any evidence for anything outside of materialism/naturalism and he promptly turned tail and ran away without another word. This is pretty typical and it betrays the stupidity of holding such a position, it’s simply not defensible in any way.

See, science didn’t pick naturalism out of the blue and decide it would reject every other option, materialism is the only option that we have for which there is evidence.  In fact, every shred of evidence we have points to materialism as it’s source.  It’s not a random choice by scientists who seek to deny other equally valid options, it’s the only option that we actually know exists.

I often ask theists who demand that the supernatural be given “equal time” where their evidence for the supernatural is.  After all, if they are convinced that it is actually real, they ought to have been convinced of it rationally, right?  That takes evidence.  Where is it?  They never have an answer. They certainly claim that the supernatural is real but how do they know?  Not believe, know.  The answer is, they don’t know, they have no basis whatsoever for making that claim of knowledge and if all they have is blind faith, how is their belief in the supernatural any more reasonable than someone who believes in Harry Potter-style magic?  All both sides have to do is define their beliefs as beyond validation and both “win”, right?  No, of course not, you can’t just define things however you like and expect people to take you at your word.  I’ve talked about that before, if you’re going to assign characteristics to a thing, you have to have some means of determining if that thing actually has those characteristics.  The only exception are things that are wholly made up, literary characters, etc.  If that’s what they want to admit their gods are, I’m fine, invent whatever characteristics you like for them but stop claiming they are actually real.

We can, of course, turn this around on the theists.  When they claim that science is wrongly rejecting claims of the supernatural because it has no evidence, we can ask them why they wrongly reject claims for the existence of thousands of gods because they have no evidence.  A Christian should not deny the existence of Krishna, just because they can find no reason for Krishna to exist.  In fact, they can’t even use their belief in God to do so, that’s an artificial bias.  This is really where religion falls apart and I think it’s ironic that so many theists are making false  accusations against both other religions and against science when all of it strikes them directly on the forehead if they were honest about it.  The level of hypocrisy that I see among the religious is just ridiculous but no matter how many times you explain it to them, they refuse to see it because it makes them uncomfortable.

It’s really why debating the theist is becoming more and more pointless, not only are they unaware of their own shortcomings, they insist on projecting them onto others.  Where do we find rational, intelligent theists again?

1 thought on “Why the “Faith in Naturalism” Argument is So Ridiculous

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Optionally add an image (JPG only)