Why supernatural explanations aren't reasonable
Posted: Thu Oct 06, 2011 5:10 pm
http://www.atheist-experience.com/archi ... -03-06.mp3
The people at this show make a pretty good argument for why it is unreasonable to posit supernatural explanations for any event, even when the true causes are unknown.
In a nutshell: Suppose you have a friend. There is a hole the size of a swimming pool in her back yard, and the oak tree in her front yard is knocked down. Your friend tells you that a dragon did it. Is that a reasonable explanation?
They divide the universe into things that are known to exist, things that are not known to exist, and things that are known not to exist. The last two don't work as explanations for events with indeterminate causes, because nothing is known about them, and thus they have no explanatory power. If you have mysterious event X, positing Y as its cause when Y is not known to exist/undefined is not an explanation at all. Things that do not exist cannot be the cause of other things. A valid cause must exist. If the existence of something is not known, you can't call it existent yet. Our ability to gauge things that don't exist and things that we don't yet know exist is equal. You can't solve a mystery by appealing to something even more mysterious.
That's a very sloppy summary - I'd recommend listening to the first 15 minutes of the show (skip the first 5 minutes or so).
http://www.atheist-experience.com/archi ... -03-06.mp3
The people at this show make a pretty good argument for why it is unreasonable to posit supernatural explanations for any event, even when the true causes are unknown.
In a nutshell: Suppose you have a friend. There is a hole the size of a swimming pool in her back yard, and the oak tree in her front yard is knocked down. Your friend tells you that a dragon did it. Is that a reasonable explanation?
They divide the universe into things that are known to exist, things that are not known to exist, and things that are known not to exist. The last two don't work as explanations for events with indeterminate causes, because nothing is known about them, and thus they have no explanatory power. If you have mysterious event X, positing Y as its cause when Y is not known to exist/undefined is not an explanation at all. Things that do not exist cannot be the cause of other things. A valid cause must exist. If the existence of something is not known, you can't call it existent yet. Our ability to gauge things that don't exist and things that we don't yet know exist is equal. You can't solve a mystery by appealing to something even more mysterious.
That's a very sloppy summary - I'd recommend listening to the first 15 minutes of the show (skip the first 5 minutes or so).
http://www.atheist-experience.com/archi ... -03-06.mp3