Share This Article:

Naturalistic vs Supernatural Explanations: “Charting” a Course away from a Belief in God by Utilizing Inference to the Best Explanation

Abstract Full-Text HTML XML Download Download as PDF (Size:1214KB) PP. 281-302
DOI: 10.4236/ojpp.2014.43034    3,127 Downloads   3,875 Views  

ABSTRACT

The article critiques the seven major arguments supporting a belief in God. The arguments are presented as Inferences to the Best Explanation with the use of charts. The charts graphically demonstrate that naturalistic explanations are being ignored by the theist, who favors inherently unverifiable supernatural explanations over naturalistic ones. The paper also discusses why metaphysical beliefs should not be trusted, and how such beliefs differ from scientific beliefs. The paper concludes that the arguments for the existence of God fail because the naturalistic explanations are the best explanations and should be accepted over the supernatural explanation of God. To the extent that the charting of all seven arguments is new, it should be a helpful explanatory tool, especially for students.

Cite this paper

Firestone, R. (2014) Naturalistic vs Supernatural Explanations: “Charting” a Course away from a Belief in God by Utilizing Inference to the Best Explanation. Open Journal of Philosophy, 4, 281-302. doi: 10.4236/ojpp.2014.43034.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1] Ayer, A. J. (1936). Language, Truth and Logic. In L. Pojman (Ed.), Ch. 40. Classics of Philosophy, Volume II: Modern and Contemporary (pp. 1218-1225). New York: Oxford University Press.
[2] Colless, B. E. (2013). The Empire of Sargon.
[3] Dawkins, R. (1986). The Blind Watchmaker. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
[4] Dawkins, R. (2006). The God Delusion. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company.
[5] Drange, T. (1998). Nonbelief and Evil: Two Arguments for the Nonexistence of God (pp. 378-386). Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.
[6] Drange, T. (2000). Response to Parrish on the Fine-Tuning Argument. Philosophia Christi, 2, 61-67.
[7] Draper, P. (2010). Cumulative Cases. In C. Taliaferro, P. Paul Draper, & P. Quinn (Eds.), Ch. 49. A Companion to Philosophy of Religion (2nd ed.). West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell Publishing.
[8] Ehrman, B. (2011). Forged: Writing in the Name of God—Why the Bible’s Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are. New York: HarperOne Harper Collins.
[9] Finkelstein, I., & Silberman, N. (2001). The Bible Unearthed (p. 60). New York: Free Press.
[10] Flew, A., & MacIntyre, A. (1955). New Essays in Philosophical Theology. In L. Pojman (Ed.), Philosophy of Religion: An Anthology (4th ed., pp. 339-340). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Division of Thomson Learning.
[11] Gannon, M. (2013). 6 Miracle Birth Stories beyond Jesus. Live Science, December 23.
[12] Hawking, S., & Mlodinow, L. (2010). The Grand Design. New York: Bantom Books.
[13] Holman Bible Publishers (2001). New Testament, Holman Christian Standard Bible.
[14] Holt, J. (2012). Why Does the World Exist? New York: Liveright Publishing Corporation, Division of W.W. Norton & Co.
[15] Hume, D. (1777). An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Section X, Part II. Hackett Publishing Company.
[16] Hume, D. (1779). Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Part II. New York: Barnes & Noble.
[17] Kant, I. (1783). Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics. In L. Pojman (Ed.), Ch. 24. Classics of Philosophy, Volume II: Modern and Contemporary. New York: Oxford University Press.
[18] Katz, S. (1978). Language, Epistemology and Mysticism. In S. Katz (Ed.), Mysticism and Philosophical Analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.
[19] Kitcher, P. (2007). Living with Darwin: Evolution, Design, and the Future of Faith. In P. Peterson, W. Hasker, B. Reichenbach, & D. Basinger (Eds.), Philosophy of Religion (4th ed., pp. 542-550). New York: Oxford University Press.
[20] Murray, M. (2010). The Atheist’s Primer. Chapter 20: Non-Falsifiability (pp. 168-179). Ontario: Broadview Press.
[21] Nadis, S. (2013). Starting Point. Discover, September, 36-41.
[22] Nielsen, K. (2010). Naturalistic Explanations of Theistic Belief. In C. Taliaferro, P. Draper, & P. Quinn (Eds.), Ch. 61. A Companion to Philosophy of Religion (2nd ed., pp. 519-525). West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell Publishing.
[23] Paley, W. (1802). Natural Theology, or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Diety Collected from the Apearances of Nature. In L. Pojman (Ed.), Ch. 22. Classics of Philosophy, Volume II: Modern and Contemporary (pp. 667-669). New York: Oxford University Press.
[24] Parfit, D. (1998). Why Anything? Why This? The London Review of Books, 24-27 (Part 1), 22-25 (Part 2).
[25] Paul, G. (2009). Theodicy’s Problem: A Statistical Look at the Holocaust of the Children, and the Implications of Natural Evil for the Free Will and Best of All Worlds Hypotheses. Philosophy & Theology, 19, 125-149.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5840/philtheol2007191/27
[26] Plaut, W. (1981). The Torah: A Modern Commentary. New York: Union of American Hebrew Congregations.
[27] Rene Descartes, R. (1640). The Philosophical Writings of Descartes (Vol. II). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[28] Schick Jr., T., & Vaughn, L. (2011). How to Think about Weird Things: Critical Thinking for a New Age (6th ed., pp. 161-181). New York: McGraw Hill.
[29] Shermer, M. (2006). The Political Brain. Scientific American, 295, 36.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican0706-36
[30] Spinoza, B. (1677). Ethic, Prop. XV. In L. Pojman (Ed.), Ch. 18. Classics of Philosophy, Volume II: Modern and Contemporary (pp. 533-577). New York: Oxford University Press.
[31] Spotts, P. (2010). Moses Parting of the Red Sea: Is There a Physical Explanation? Christian Science Monitor, September 21.
[32] Steinhardt, P., & Turok, N. (2002). A Cyclic Model of the Universe. Science, 296, 1436-1439.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_habitability
http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1070462

  
comments powered by Disqus

Copyright © 2020 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.