This post is a bit off the cuff, as it’s mainly in response to a Twitter conversation to elaborate on something you can’t put into a series of tweets. This was born of a conversation with Alex and Elijiah, and the topic was meaty enough that I wanted to write about it.
The question is whether or not a-priori Naturalism is “reasonable” or at least “not scary”. That’s basically the starting position in philosophy that: no matter what we observe, we would never accept evidence of something supernatural existing. It’s rejecting the supernatural a-priori.
Personally, I kind of abhor this line of reasoning, or at least I find it terrible to be in a position where I’d say that there can never be evidence of any kind to prove the existence of a god or other supernatural entities.
To me, this reeks of a sort of fundamentalism that I’d normally chastise certain religious people for practicing.