No. You can be an atheist without being a naturalist. That makes naturalism a specific type of atheism. Naturalism entails atheism. Atheism does not entail naturalism.
You can be an atheist and believe in ghosts. You can be an atheist and be a substance dualist. You can’t do those things on metaphysical naturalism. You need to start defending all your assertions. And the fact that you said one of the greatest living philosophers of religion went immediately off the rails is so far beyond disrespectful I don’t know how to describe it.
One can be an atheist and reject naturalism. Such a person might believe in supernatural beings like ghosts, but not in any gods.
And one can believe in a god that is a natural entity, so the converse is also true: One can hold to naturalism and still be a theist. I believe pantheism could be argued to fall into this category.
No you can’t. Atheism presupposes naturalism. I think you will find objectors right here on this forum who claim naturalism but not atheism. They have argued with me personally saying, “We don’t know whether God exists or not”. That means they are not atheists.
Incorrect. Even the arch-fiend Richard Dawkins allows there to be some doubt on the existence of gods. I was an atheist from as long as I remember, never thinking the stories I was told were anything but stories, long before I learnt anything about science.
The problem with the Christian god, to take the obvious example, is that there are no testable attributes.
And @Faizal_Ali is wrong because he is defining theism wrong because a natural entity falls under his definition. And no one has ever defined theism that way. He’s wrong. You’re wrong. And if you are once again, not going to define your terms, we are done here. If you want to continue this conversation.
You need to define theism and naturalism.
It’s when Draper draws up his subtext 5 and attempts to assign hierarchies and mathematical probabilities that his argument becomes subjective in nature and thus highly debatable.
Here, I rewrite his subtext 5 in a more proper manner. Though still debatable which group is a subset of another, I have at least removed the subjective probabilities that Draper assigned.
5a. Theism is a very specific version of supernaturalism and so may be less probable or equally as probable as supernaturalism.
b. Naturalism is a specific version of atheism and so may be less probable or equally as probable as atheism.
c. Thus, since naturalism and supernaturalism are equally probable intrinsically, it follows that atheism may or may not be more probable intrinsically than theism.
d. Therefore, all than can be logically and legitimately stated is that theists and atheists both bear the burden of proof equally.
This means that Draper would have done well to stop at 4d where he concluded much the same thing:
4d. So both naturalists and supernaturalists bear a burden of proof and that burden is equal.
[5a and b have been edited above. They used to read:
a. Theism is a very specific version of supernaturalism and so may be less probable but at least is equally as probable as supernaturalism.
b. Naturalism is a specific version of atheism and so may be less probable but at least is equally as probable as atheism.]
“If everything is filtered through methodological naturalism then all possible supernatural causes are presumed false without trial, without consideration, without being allowed even into the courtroom. To render a verdict on that basis is a miscarriage of justice.”
Umm. My case for metaphysical naturalism and the case of pretty much every naturalist philosopher of religion I’ve ever read, doesn’t depend on methodological naturalism. Like at all. I mean my case against the resurrection assumes God exists!
I did not start this thread and am not really invested in an interest in keeping it going. Someone made the comment to me that Creationism was circular and I simply responded back saying that Naturalism is likewise circular. THE END.
