![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Atheist Meme: Supernatural Explanations Have Never Replaced Natural Explanations
Today's Atheist Meme of the Day:
In human history, supernatural explanations of phenomena have been replaced by natural explanations thousands upon thousands of times. Natural explanations have been replaced by supernatural ones exactly never. So why would we assume that any given unexplained phenomenon is probably supernatural? Pass it on: if we say it enough times to enough people, it may get across.
What else is there really to say here that hasn't already been said a million times? Every single time a supernatural explanation is proposed for a phenomenon, as soon as we develop the technology to look into it, a natural explanation is revealed. Every single time without fail. Ockham's Razor, the Null Hypothesis, even the "better safe than sorry" method of the opposition, all suggest that, when we don't have an answer, instead of saying "god did it", we should just assume "no god did it" until proven otherwise. Maybe when god actually *does* do something, I might be more willing to entertain the possibility that something supernatural was the cause in the absence of any other data. Until then, it's so unlikely that I can reasonably behave as though it is untrue.
In human history, supernatural explanations of phenomena have been replaced by natural explanations thousands upon thousands of times. Natural explanations have been replaced by supernatural ones exactly never. So why would we assume that any given unexplained phenomenon is probably supernatural? Pass it on: if we say it enough times to enough people, it may get across.
What else is there really to say here that hasn't already been said a million times? Every single time a supernatural explanation is proposed for a phenomenon, as soon as we develop the technology to look into it, a natural explanation is revealed. Every single time without fail. Ockham's Razor, the Null Hypothesis, even the "better safe than sorry" method of the opposition, all suggest that, when we don't have an answer, instead of saying "god did it", we should just assume "no god did it" until proven otherwise. Maybe when god actually *does* do something, I might be more willing to entertain the possibility that something supernatural was the cause in the absence of any other data. Until then, it's so unlikely that I can reasonably behave as though it is untrue.