"An evidential case for naturalism and against theism" debunked

By ‘naturalism’ I mean the hypothesis that a physical reality exists and that any mental reality is ultimately explained by this physical reality. If naturalism is true, then there are no purely mental beings which can exist apart from a physical body and so there is no God or any person or being much like God. By ‘supernaturalism’ I mean the hypothesis that a mental reality exists and that any physical reality is ultimately explained by this mental reality. If supernaturalism is true, then there is no purely physical matter which can exist without some sort of ultimate mental creator. By ‘theism’ I mean the hypothesis that there is an all-powerful, all-knowing, and perfectly moral person who created the universe for a purpose and is worthy of our worship. I’m using the term ‘hypothesis’ to refer to a proposition for which we do not know for certain whether it is true or false via rational intuition alone.

THE MASTER ARGUMENT

1) Naturalism is an intrinsically more probable hypothesis than theism.
2) With respect to the total evidence, naturalism is a more accurate explanatory hypothesis than theism.
3) With respect to the total evidence, any overall advantage in accuracy that theism has over naturalism is relatively small.
4) Any other epistemic advantage that theism has over naturalism is relatively small.
5) Therefore theism is very probably false all things considered.

IN DEFENSE OF THE FIRST PREMISE OF THE MASTER ARGUMENT:

The intrinsic probability of a hypothesis is its probability prior to examining any evidence and is determined by modesty, coherence, and nothing else. Naturalism and supernaturalism have equal intrinsic probabilities as they are symmetrical claims, so prior to examining any evidence, both hypotheses are equally likely to be true. Theism entails supernaturalism and makes additional claims:

"An evidential case for naturalism and against theism V_4"	My reply
By ‘naturalism’ I mean the hypothesis that a physical reality exists and that any mental reality is ultimately explained by this physical reality. If naturalism is true, then there are no purely mental beings which can exist apart from a physical body and so there is no God or any person or being much like God. By ‘supernaturalism’ I mean the hypothesis that a mental reality exists and that any physical reality is ultimately explained by this mental reality. If supernaturalism is true, then there is no purely physical matter which can exist without some sort of ultimate mental creator. By ‘theism’ I mean the hypothesis that there is an all-powerful, all-knowing, and perfectly moral person who created the universe for a purpose and is worthy of our worship. I’m using the term ‘hypothesis’ to refer to a proposition for which we do not know for certain whether it is true or false via rational intuition alone. THE MASTER ARGUMENT 1) Naturalism is an intrinsically more probable hypothesis than theism. 2) With respect to the total evidence, naturalism is a more accurate explanatory hypothesis than theism. 3) With respect to the total evidence, any overall advantage in accuracy that theism has over naturalism is relatively small. 4) Any other epistemic advantage that theism has over naturalism is relatively small. 5) Therefore theism is very probably false all things considered. IN DEFENSE OF THE FIRST PREMISE OF THE MASTER ARGUMENT: The intrinsic probability of a hypothesis is its probability prior to examining any evidence and is determined by modesty, coherence, and nothing else. Naturalism and supernaturalism have equal intrinsic probabilities as they are symmetrical claims, so prior to examining any evidence, both hypotheses are equally likely to be true. Theism entails supernaturalism and makes additional claims:	By "prior to examining any evidence" do you consider to even ignore any logical (purely conceptual) argument or not ? Because I do see major purely conceptual arguments in favor of supernaturalism, namely that it is nonsensical to expect mind to emerge from matter while there is a coherent way for matter to emerge from mind, namely : as a part of the mathematical world which is distinguished by the event of being consciously perceived.
1) The non-physical mental reality that explains the universe is personal. 2) That person created the universe for a purpose. 3) That person is all-powerful, all-knowing, perfectly moral, and worthy of worship. Christian theism entails supernaturalism and theism, and also makes additional claims: 4) That person has revealed Himself in the person of Jesus Christ. 5) Belief in that person is necessary for salvation. 6) Mankind is in a state of rebellion towards that person. All else being equal, the hypothesis which asserts more is more likely to be asserting something false. Consequently, naturalism is intrinsically more probable than theism, because naturalism is a more modest hypothesis than theism. IN DEFENSE OF THE SECOND PREMISE OF THE MASTER ARGUMENT: The following evidences are antecedently more probable on the assumption that naturalism is true than on the assumption that theism is true: 1) NATURALISM IS THE BEST EXPLANATION FOR PHYSICAL MATTER 1) Physical matter is known to exist. 2) Naturalism entails physical matter, but theism does not entail physical matter. 3) Theism is not more intrinsically probable than naturalism. 4) Therefore the existence of physical matter is prima facie evidence confirming naturalism and disconfirming theism. Premise 1: The Evidence to Be Explained Physical matter exists in our universe, is extended in spacetime, and can causally interact. Premise 2: The Antecedent Reasoning Naturalism entails the existence of physical matter, because that’s just part of what naturalism means. By contrast, Theism does not entail physical matter. If God exists, He could have created physical matter, as part of a plan to create a universe for human beings, but He could have also chosen to create other minds without physical bodies e.g. angels, or He could have chosen to create nothing at all.	"Physical matter is known to exist" : wrong. A physical universe exists following some laws, but objects inside it are only conceptual approximations of the effects of its laws, not things known to absolutely exist in themselves. On the contrary it is known that the laws of physics are in conflict with the assumption of intrinsic reality of objects. "Naturalism entails physical matter" that is too vague a claim. Naturalism entails a material universe with laws like those of classical physics, but has big troubles allowing quantum physics. Supernaturalism, on the contrary, is neutral towards the existence of a material universe, but in case there is one, it entails that these laws may very well look like quantum physics but would have big troubles of compatibility with laws like classical physics (it would require to play with diverging butterfly effects to allow for free will without physical determinations). "Physical matter exists in our universe, is extended in spacetime, and can causally interact." wrong. Particles are known to have no definite location in spacetime. Measured effects obey probabilistic laws, so that when different possibilities have nonzero probability, the actual result has no physically understandable cause, and there is a known phenomenon of "spooky action at a distance" which is not well understandable in terms of naturalistic causal interactions. "He could have also chosen to create other minds without physical bodies e.g. angels, or He could have chosen to create nothing at all." that is not a problem: the different possibilities are not mutually exclusive. God can have both created some purely mental universes for developing some experiences, and also some material universes for developing other experiences, because eternity is a long time in which God might get bored unless he develops a diversity of experiences. See http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/eddington.2008.essay.pdf (though a few details there are objectionable)
2) NATURALISM IS THE BEST EXPLANATION FOR THE SUCCESS OF SCIENCE 1) The success of science is known to be true. 2) The success of science is more probable on the assumption that naturalism is true than if theism is true. ... Premise 1: The Evidence to Be Explained. Our universe seems intelligible to human persons. In our quest to understand the universe, the physical sciences (i.e. physics, chemistry, geology, and biology) have been extremely successful without making any reference to supernatural causes. In other words, physical science is extremely successful without taking God’s actions into account. There are libraries full of scientific knowledge that never appeal to supernatural explanations, and the history of science contains numerous examples of naturalistic explanations replacing supernatural ones and no examples of supernatural explanations replacing naturalistic ones. Premise 2: The Antecedent Reasoning. Naturalism entails that the universe is causally closed and that any true explanations must be naturalistic rather than supernatural. Consequently, we would expect scientific accounts to never have to appeal to supernatural causes. The success of science without invoking the supernatural does not seem surprising if naturalism is true. By contrast, If theism is true, then God plays an active role in the universe, so we have an antecedent reason to think He would have to act as a causal agent in the history of the universe. Consequently, we would expect scientific accounts of that history to have to take God’s actions into account. In other words, if theism is true, then it should be the case that successful scientific explanations are supernatural explanations. The success of science without invoking the supernatural does seem surprising if theism is true.	You have it wrong for your 2) which is the central point of this argument. Refutations: Wikipedia : The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2353 For details on the amazingly mathematical nature of physical laws see also http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2454 http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2366
3) NATURALISM IS THE BEST EXPLANATION FOR BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION 1) Biological evolution is known to be true. 2) Biological evolution is much more probable on the assumption that naturalism is true than if theism is true. ... Premise 1: The Evidence to Be Explained. Complex, conscious life exists on this planet. There is strong scientific evidence for the hypothesis that complex life, including conscious life, is the gradually modified descendants of relatively simple life. All evolutionary change in populations of complex organisms either is or is the result of trans-generational genetic change. Here are 3 lines of evidence that confirm biological evolution and disconfirm special creation: 1. The Fossil Record The fossil record confirms biological evolution, because we only find simple living things in the lowest layers of the fossil record, and it’s only as we move forward through history that we find fish, then amphibians, then reptiles, and then birds and mammals. The fossil record disconfirms special creationism, because it shows that living things were not simultaneously created. Additionally, the fossil record also contains transitional forms. For example, we now have fossils documenting the evolution of the whale. We know that the ancestors of modern whales had hind legs that could function on the land like seals’ legs. We’ve found whale skeletons with hind legs which were structurally complete but too small to function. 2. Biogeography Biological Evolution best explains the relationship between geographical barriers and living things. For example, although land mammals can survive in Hawaii they are not native to Hawaii, because they evolved on a continent and couldn’t cross the pacific. Consider the continents of Australia and South America, although apes can survive on either continent, apes evolved after the continents of Australia and South America broke away from earlier land masses. This is why we do not find fossils of early apes in either Australia or South America. 3. Molecular Biology Evolution explains the genetic similarities and differences between different species. For example, the genes of present day humans and chimps are 98% identical. Human beings and chimps even share something called pseudo-genes i.e. genes that are not functional today but apparently served a purpose in the past. The most plausible explanation of these genetic similarities and differences is that all living things share a common ancestor. Taken together, these 3 lines of evidence are much more probable on biological evolution (which says that complex life evolved from simple life through trans-generational genetic change) than it is on special creationism (which says that God created all life virtually simultaneously). Premise 2: The Antecedent Reasoning. If naturalism is true, and complex life exists, then we would expect all living things to be the product of evolution by natural selection. Biological evolution does not seem surprising if naturalism is true. In fact, if naturalism is true, then biological evolution pretty much has to be true. By contrast, Theism gives us no antecedent reason to expect that God would use the process of biological evolution as a means to create complex life. God had an array of more efficient and less cruel means available to Him that would be physically impossible if naturalism were true. Special creation being one such means. Additionally, if theism is true, then the physical world was created by a mind. This is an antecedent reason that would lead us to expect that minds are fundamentally non-physical entities and that conscious life is fundamentally different from nonconscious life. Consequently, this would lead us to expect that conscious life was created independently of nonconscious life i.e. that biological evolution is false and special creation is true. Biological evolution seems surprising if theism is true.	Indeed you have a point here. I only have a couple of nuances to bring. One is that naturalism does not oblige the universe to have such laws of physics with values of physical constants that it would contain habitable planets, and one might even argue that such conditions may be unlikely unless we have many universes with different values of physical constants, but the concept of such a multiverse still needs to be naturalistically accounted for. As for supernaturalism, incarnation is one form of mind-matter interaction but special creation is another. If God created the universe having in plans to let individual minds play with evolving organisms through their incarnations there, this does not directly oblige the presence of both another channel of mind-matter interaction in the form of an ability of special creation (genetic writing), and a spiritual activity of direct theoretical design of biological systems bypassing any trial-error experimentation procedure, though indeed these would have been expectable and desirable. However both of these desirable additional features were only lacking in the past. Now both gaps are about to become filled for the future millions of years on Earth by the presence of humans
4) NATURALISM IS THE BEST EXPLANATION FOR THE PHYSICAL DEPENDENCY OF MINDS. 1) Minds are known to be physically dependent. 2) The physical dependency of minds is much more probable on the assumption that naturalism is true than if theism is true. ... Premise 1: The Evidence to Be Explained. Human persons exist on this planet, and all healthy persons have minds with rich, conscious experiences and personalities. Neuroscientific evidences strongly imply that conscious states and personality are highly dependent on physical processes in the brain. In this context, we know of nothing mental happening without something physical happening. Here are 5 lines of evidence in support of this claim. 1. When an individual's brain is directly stimulated and put into a certain physical state, this causes the person to have a corresponding experience. 2. Certain injuries to the brain make it impossible for a person to have any mental states at all. 3. Other injuries to the brain destroy various mental capacities. Which capacity is destroyed is tied directly to the particular region of the brain that was damaged. 4. When we examine the mental capacities of animals, they become more complex as their brains become more complex. 5. Within any given species, the development of mental capacities is correlated with the development of neurons in the brain. Premise 2: The Antecedent Reasoning. All known mental activity having a physical basis in embodied brains strongly implies that minds cannot exist independent of physical arrangements of matter. Consequently disembodied minds probably do not exist. Naturalism entails that minds are physically dependent and that disembodied minds do not exist, because the physical ultimately explains the mental. The physical dependence of minds does not seem surprising if naturalism is true. By contrast, Theism does not entail that minds would be physically dependent. In fact, theism predicts that we would have immaterial souls, because Theism entails the existence of at least one disembodied mind, namely, God. God’s mind is not in any way dependent on physical arrangements of matter, and we are (presumably) made in God’s image. The physical dependency of minds is surprising if theism is true.	There is no argument here. Supernaturalism entails the existence of disembodied souls that cannot be seen, but the physical universe was created to provide the possibility of embodied life, so that when restricting (by the force of current necessities) our consideration to the behavior of the physically embodied individuals, of course they logically have to be physically dependent. On the other hand, some NDE and related studies bring strong indication that disembodied mind also exist, something which naturalism cannot account for. Moreover, there are aspects of consciousness which naturalism cannot explain in material terms. One example is our strong feeling that we really experienced what we remember to have experienced. From a naturalistic viewpoint, past experiences are dead and no longer exist; we may only have a record of them in memories, but these memories are fallible and it is possible in principle for high-tech experimenters to rewrite them arbitrarily. You may argue that we could have been programmed by natural evolution to trust our memories as faithful and attribute a reality to its content because such a trust, with the concern we feel for our memory of past pleasures or pains, is useful for our survival. But seriously, consider the way you really feel your conviction to the reality of your remembered past experiences : do you really consider that explanation sufficient ? And if on the other hand, it happened for any reason that some specific kinds of false memories writing was selectively useful, such as the memory of the taste of a food which turned out to make you sick, do you think it could indeed result in false convictions as impressive as what you normally feel about some of your clearest memories ?
5) NATURALISM IS THE BEST EXPLANATION FOR THE BIOLOGICAL ROLE OF PAIN AND PLEASURE. 1) The biological role of pain and pleasure is known to be true. 2) The biological role of pain and pleasure is very much more probable on the assumption that naturalism is true than if theism is true. ... Premise 1: The Evidence to Be Explained. Complex conscious beings exists. Our experiences of pain and pleasure are systematically connected to the biological goals of survival and reproduction. Consequently, the process of biological evolution is an extremely inefficient and inevitably cruel means for producing complex life. From a moral point of view, the distribution of pain and pleasure in the universe appears random and without a morally fruitful function. Premise 2: The Antecedent Reasoning. If naturalism is true, then there would seem to be no way for complex life to have evolved so that it only felt pain and pleasure when it would aid survival, reproduction, or some morally fruitful function, because naturalism entails that neither the nature nor the condition of complex life on earth is the result of benevolent or malevolent actions performed by disembodied persons. If naturalism is true, then there is not a divine intentionality to guide or fine-tune the process of biological evolution. The biological role of pain and pleasure does not seem surprising if naturalism is true. By contrast, The properties we ascribe to God have implications, and these place constraints on what the world could be like if there were a being with those properties. Theism posits a morally perfect creator and thus implicitly attributes certain prima facie preferences and motives to that creator. If theism is true, then there is antecedent reason to think that God has both the means and the motives to prevent gratuitous suffering. God’s infinite power and moral perfection are antecedent reasons to expect our experiences of pain and pleasure to be “fine-tuned” to only experience them when it served either a biologically useful or morally fruitful function. The biological role of pain and pleasure seems very surprising if theism is true.	This one is redundant with the problem of the absence of special creation, and the reliance on natural selection for evolution. Biological organisms "need" to force their embedded soul to feel concerned and strive for their survival, otherwise they would be wiped out by natural selection. This includes some dose of selfishness among members of the same species in order for natural selection to work inside the specie and thus let this specie thrive as a whole. Moreover you cannot speak for "the distribution of pain and pleasure in the universe", only for the part of it which appears on Earth, and nothing says how significant it is in the whole picture of creation.
7) NATURALISM IS THE BEST EXPLANATION FOR KNOWN FACTS ABOUT TRIUMPH AND TRAGEDY. 1) There are known facts concerning triumph and tragedy. 2) The facts concerning triumph and tragedy are very much more probable on the assumption that naturalism is true than if theism is true. ... Premise 1: The Evidence to Be Explained. Conscious, self-aware beings exist. Our world contains much horrific tragedy and relatively little glorious triumph. Our universe is one where the deepest and the best aspirations of human persons are routinely frustrated by a variety of circumstances beyond their control. In other words, triumph is the exception and tragedy the rule. Additionally, our planet is infused with horrific tragedy i.e. suffering so intense that the victim or perpetrator believes that their life is no longer worth living. Consequently, horrific tragedies often destroy a person (at least psychologically, spiritually, and/or intellectually) making it impossible for them to participate in meaningful, conscious relationships. Examples include both moral evils like genocide, torture, and rape as well as natural evils like death, disease, and disability. Moreover, many people report never feeling God’s comforting presence during tragedies making it difficult (if not impossible) for those people to return God’s love. Premise 2: The Antecedent Reasoning. If naturalism is true, then there is no God, and the universe is indifferent to human triumph and tragedy... Facts concerning triumph and tragedy do not seem surprising if naturalism is true. By contrast, ....Theism posits an all-powerful and morally perfect creator and thus implicitly attributes certain prima facie preferences, motives, and abilities to that creator. If theism is true, then there is antecedent reason to think that God has both the means and the motives to minimize horrific tragedy and to cultivate glorious triumph. God’s perfect goodness and moral perfection are antecedent reasons to expect that God would be responsive to the positive value of triumph and negative value of tragedy. Additionally, if theism is true, then it is surprising that victims of horrific tragedy often report never feeling God’s comforting presence, because God’s unsurpassable love gives us antecedent reason to think He would seek to comfort those that He loved- especially if they were suffering horrendously. Facts concerning triumph and tragedy seem very surprising if theism is true. 8) NATURALISM IS THE BEST EXPLANATION FOR NEUROLOGICAL BASIS OF EMPATHY AND MORAL HANDICAPS. 1) Facts concerning the neurological basis of empathy and moral handicaps are known to be true. 2) The neurological basis of empathy and moral handicaps is very much more probable on the assumption that naturalism is true than if theism is true.... Premise 1: The Evidence to Be Explained. Moral agents exist. Our ability to choose to do morally good actions depends upon our having the properly functioning emotional capacity to identify what someone else is thinking or feeling and to respond to their thoughts and feelings with an appropriate emotion. We know this capacity as empathy. We know that certain brain abnormalities cause people to experience less or even no empathy. There is a consensus in neuroscience that at least ten interconnected brain regions are involved in empathy. Consequently, violent psychopaths may know in some abstract sense that their behavior is morally wrong, but utterly lack the capacity for empathy. Such a moral handicap makes it more likely that such people will harm others. Additionally, such moral handicaps that are not the result of the freely chosen actions of any human person.	This has to be relativized. While it indeed happens for some lives to be so tragic that they are not worth living, this isn't a majority case, as otherwise it would mean that a majority of people would be better off committing suicide, which isn't what we observe. Anyway in most cases, suicide remains an available option to end lives really not worth living.
9) NATURALISM IS THE BEST EXPLANATION FOR NONRESISTANT NONBELIEVERS 1) Nonresistant nonbelievers exist. 2) The existence of nonresistant nonbelievers is very much more probable on the assumption that naturalism is true than if theism is true. 3) Theism is not more intrinsically probable than naturalism. 4) Other evidence held equal, nonresistant nonbelievers are prima facie evidence confirming naturalism and disconfirming theism. Premise 1: The Evidence to Be Explained. Human persons exist on this planet, and a belief that God exists is a necessary condition for human persons to have a meaningful and conscious relationship with Him. However, there are persons who do not believe that there is a God, and, in at least some of these people, the absence of theistic belief is not in any way the result of their own emotional or behavioral opposition towards God, relationship with God, or any of the apparent implications of such a relationship[1]. Let’s call these people nonresistant nonbelievers. Nonresistant nonbelievers are open to having a relationship with God (in fact, they may even desire it), but they are unable to have such a relationship, because they do not believe that God exists. For example, former believers were already on the right religious path, in a relationship with God, and a loss of belief has terminated that relationship. Additionally, lifelong seekers try to find out where they belong and are open to finding (and being found by) a divine parent without ever achieving that goal. And finally, isolated nontheists such as Amazonian tribesmen have never been in a position to resist belief, because they’ve never even had the idea of God. Consequently, isolated nontheists unavoidably live their entire lives within the influence of a fundamentally misleading system of religious meaning. Premise 2: The Antecedent Reasoning. ...The existence of nonresistant nonbelievers does not seem surprising if naturalism true. By contrast, The properties theism ascribes to God have implications, and these place constraints on what the world could be like if there were a being with those properties. Theism posits an all-powerful and perfectly loving divine parent and thus implicitly attributes certain prima facie preferences, motives, and abilities to that divine parent. If theism is true, then there are antecedent reasons to think that God has both the means and the motives to prevent nonresistant nonbelief. God’s perfect goodness and perfect love are antecedent reasons to expect that God would ensure that a meaningful relationship was always available to human persons open to one. Additionally, God’s unsurpassable power gives us antecedent reason to think that God is capable of giving every human person a clear and unmistakable inner awareness of His existence. The existence of nonresistant nonbelievers is very surprising if theism is true.	This is only a problem for religious theism, not for supernaturalism in general. If on the other hand we remove the assumption that religious belief produces any genuine relationship with God nor generally has any special value in God's eyes, replaced by the assumption that our present life has its own value independently of any care for the supernatural realities we left behind for a moment, then there is no difficulty with the presence of nonresistant nonbelievers.

Review of "An evidential case for naturalism and against theism"