The Basic Case Against Supernaturalism

Another essay from 18 year old freethinker: Eric Stockhausen. This time he briefly examines the perils of supernaturalism and naturalism in the preferred alternative.

D’Souza claimed, in a debate against Dan Barker at Harvard, that science has an atheistic agenda or bias. Because of his view that science explains phenomena with natural causes, he rightly concludes that science, on principle, eliminates supernatural causes. The thing is that there is no conclusive evidence that any supernatural agent exists, so D’Souza’s clinging to Catholicism is still unjustified. One commonly used example used show how naturalists could consider a supernatural agent is: if an amputee had his or her missing limb regenerate in thin air, it would merit a supernatural explanation. The fact that naturalists can consider supernatural agents, given evidence, is proof that there is not an atheistic agenda in science.

Some supernatural beliefs are pretty harmless if they are not thought about too seriously, but any type of supernaturalism is dangerous to epistemology. Philosophically, it is possible that a supernatural agent is behind any phenomena. It is also possible that the world started just now. If the world did start just now, I can discount all my memories. That means I must in a single moment relearn to see patterns because I cannot trust my memories. It would be like everything is a photograph, but I cannot tell the differences in depth and direction. Basically, I know nothing and am just experiencing something I do not understand.

The reason I bring this up is because if any supernatural cause is acceptable as an equal alternative then I know nothing about everything. In this scenario, I have a view that sees the universe as almost unreal. Many eastern religious philosophies speak about letting go of the world. In some Hindu sects, that elders are expected to become ascetic and starve to death in the wilderness in order meet their spiritual needs. But how does it aid our understanding of the world?

A naturalistic world view has given us many new inventions and medicines that have increased the well-being of humanity. As shown by Phil Zuckerman in Society Without God: What the Least Religious Nations Can Tell Us About Contentment; secular, naturalistic society’s are often the most happy and have admirable system of social welfare. So far, naturalism, devoid of any ‘supernatural’ influence, has aided our society. There is no reason to suggest that naturalism will not be a driving force in continual betterment of the human condition.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Young Freethought's editors.