Sam Harris

The presumption of naturalism holds that natural causes and explanations are efficient, necessary, primary and sufficient. That neither begs the question nor sandbags theists and paranormalists but demanding evidence and is common ground.
  The ignostic-Ockham arguments lead the way to this presumption. It is what scientists use and we all use everyday applied to the supernatural and the parnanormal.
  It would be the fallacy of equivocation to equate supernatural faith with scientific trust. Science is knowledge while as Sydney Hook maintained, one has to first show that theological knowledge is such.
  Through trial and error , we learn to trust reason and know when it fails.This is contrary to Alvin Plaintga’s warrant for faith that we could trust reason if God made it so. Fr.Ewing maintained that one begs the question in averring that evolution helps us trust reason. He himself begs the questin in assiming that God made reason to be trusted.
  Existence, being all there is, can have no super mind behind and beyond it. Existence, to build upon Quentin Smith, is the ultimate cause and explainer[cosmologica, the greatest and necessary being[ontological] and through natural selection the “designer”[ Theists beg the question in assuming design- that God had us in mind when natural selection has no goals.].
  Thus naturalism should prevail!

I don’t see why I must hold to naturalism as some sort of unchangeable dogma.

As long as natural causes seem necessary and sufficient we may dig ourselves deeper into Nature until, possibly, our present method can be proven to be inadequate.

Thus, I adhere to a provisional naturalism; if there is a God out there, science will find him eventually. If they don’t, he can remain hidden for all I care.

Ardino, quite right! Naturalism is falliblistic. We naturalists do not a priori deny the suupernatural but demand evidence for it. That goes with what Hume notes about miracles and does not beg the question.
  Merry Mithras Celebration!

It’s really very simple. It’s about credible and sound epistemology. If you can’t produce any valid evidence for X then the obvious question becomes, how then do you know X? If anyone insists upon presuming they know X without any valid basis for such knowledge then their claims should be dismissed for what they clearly are—presumption.

Byron

Skeptic X, that is the presumption of naturalism alright. However, irrationalists claim the special faculty of faith, the I just say so of credulity!
  Look at Plantinga,Hick and Swinurne!
  Platinga’s warrant for belief is just obfuscation. Hick merely guesses. Swinburne tries but fails.

skeptic griggsy - 10 December 2007 08:17 PM

Skeptic X, that is the presumption of naturalism alright. However, irrationalists claim the special faculty of faith, the I just say so of credulity!

At that point they need to demonstrate their standards of faith and why those standards work for their god(s) and not others.

Epistemology.

Byron

Good point! John Hick feels all religions are valid.

Very unlikely.

John Hick may think he feels all religions are valid, but John Hick needs to deal with some obvious questions, because he has far too many conflicts and contradictions of all sorts to navigate for that position to even begin to make any sense.

But then to say such a thing in the context of such a discussion, John Hick is probably waffling with the term “valid.” If he’s changed his position to one that’s congruous with naturalism (i.e. all religions deserve the same level of respect, or something like that) then he’s no longer on topic.

Byron

And he still needs to deal with the proposition that all religions must offer evidence.He supposes. He is a theologian. He deals in the unfathomable. He deals in mysteries.
  How can one overcome the presumption? How can one aver that theists meet the ignostic and Ockham challenges?