I never asked you to prove that naturalism is
true because you’re right it is unreasonable to think that you could prove that
it is true to all rational people. What I asked you is why you think that the probability
that naturalism is true is nearly 100% (although I’m also asking you think why
it’s even plausible). This arose out of our conversation three posts back where
I responded to your argument that the probability that God exists is zero
almost surely by creating an inference to the best explanation argument where I
showed that, “Given our background knowledge about the state of the world, God
is the best explanation for motion in the universe; the finely tuned universe
and everything in it; the existence of objective morals and duties; and
consciousness.” The argument showed that theism is highly probable while
naturalism is implausible to highly implausible, and you didn’t even try to
refute the argument. That would have been fine if it ended there, but you’re
still acting like God’s probability is essentially zero while the probability
of naturalism is essentially 100% without defending the extraordinary high
probability you place on naturalism.
I think that you are a conflating the
concepts of atheism and naturalism. I think that the definition of naturalism that
you presented is pretty good, but you don’t seem to realize that naturalism is
a positive world view that needs to be argued for just like Christianity, Islam
and pantheism. Naturalism is not a negative view like atheism which says that
God doesn’t exist. Naturalism makes the very bold claim that the universe and
everything in it arose from naturalistic causes. So, when I ask you to defend
why you think that naturalism is very highly probable or even just plausible I’m
not asking you to prove that supernaturalism is false, I’m asking you why you
why any rational person should think that it is likely that the universe and
everything in can be explained through naturalistic causes.
The Implausibility of Naturalism:
To help you see why a theist (or really anyone
who follows where reason leads them) finds naturalism so implausible I’ve
created a dialogue between Bob and Dan to illustrate my point:
Bob: “I have some amazing news. Some experts
have told me that my great^20 grandfather was not born; he just existed as a
brute fact. So, the beginning of my family began with my great^20 grandfather
who fathered my great^19 grandfather and eventually my father fathered me.”
Dan: “Wait a minute, Bob, what you’re saying
doesn’t make any sense. We all know that people don’t just exist as brute facts—people
are caused to come into being by their parents. Why should I believe your
story? Why is your great^20 grandfather existence just a brute fact while everyone
is born from their parents?”
Bob: “Well, my great grandfather is an
exception. It’s the only way that the experts could think of to explaining how my
family came to be, so the existence of my great^20 grandfather has to be a
brute fact.”
Dan: “Hmm, it sounds like you’re engaging in
special pleading.”
Bob: “Oh no, just because we see that things in
the universe have a cause doesn’t mean that everything has a cause. I mean look
at subatomic particles they’re popping into and out of existence all the time.”
Dan: “That’s not really true, just because we can’t KNOW with exact
certainty where a given subatomic particle will be at any point it doesn’t
follow that the particle is popping into existence uncaused out of nothing.
David Albert wrote, ‘Relativistic-quantum-field-theoretical vacuum states — no
less than giraffes or refrigerators or solar systems — are particular
arrangements of elementary physical stuff. The true
relativistic-quantum-field-theoretical equivalent to there not being any
physical stuff at all isn’t this or that particular arrangement of the fields —
what it is (obviously, and ineluctably, and on the contrary) is the simple absence
of the fields! The fact that some arrangements of fields happen to correspond
to the existence of particles and some don’t is not a whit more mysterious than
the fact that some of the possible arrangements of my fingers happen to
correspond to the existence of a fist and some don’t. And the fact that
particles can pop in and out of existence, over time, as those fields rearrange
themselves, is not a whit more mysterious than the fact that fists can pop in
and out of existence, over time, as my fingers rearrange themselves. And none
of these poppings — if you look at them aright — amount to anything even
remotely in the neighborhood of a creation from nothing.’ So, subatomic
particles are not an exception to the rule that physical things like your great
grandfather have a cause. Do you actually have any scientific proof that your
great grandfather existed as a brute fact?”
Bob: “No, but look at the success of science, scientists will one
day explain how my great grandfather was not born and yet is the cause of my
family.”
Dan: “Just because science has successfully explained many things it
doesn’t mean that it will explain how your grandfather was not born. Besides, I
thought that you said the uncaused existence of your great grandfather was just
a brute fact. Brute facts have no explanation.”
Bob: “See, there it is! My great grandfather just exists as a brute
fact. Just wait someday science will prove me right.”
Dan: “Well, Bob, that may be so, but I find your story to be wildly
improbable.”
So, whether it is the universe itself or subatomic particles and the
natural laws I think we should regard the claim that any of these objects exist
as brute facts as implausible. There is nothing in the nature of these things
that are necessary—all could very conceivably not exist. We also know that
everything we see around us has a cause of its existence—even the elements did
not exist prior to the big bang.
Add to that the fact that as Alexander Vilenkin
has said, "All the evidence we have says that the universe
had a beginning." This means that either a) the universe popped into
existence uncaused out nothing which is a ridiculous notion, b) contingent
objects such as subatomic particles, which just exist as brute facts, are the
cause of the universe or c) a necessarily existent, uncaused, immaterial agent
caused the universe to come into being. I think that c is by far the most
plausible scenario.