No Evidence for Naturalism?

There is a claim that seems to be favoured by the Christian philosopher William Lane Craig and it goes like this:

“Naturalism is the view that the physical world is all there is and that nothing supernatural exists. However naturalism requires faith just like Christianity, because there is no evidence that the physical world is all there is.”

Now this argument starts off fine. In saying that naturalism is the view that the physical world is all that is, he’s got it pretty well pinned down. However his mistake is in making the claim that naturalism requires evidence for its dismissal of the supernatural. Naturalism, by definition is focussed on phenomena that can be observed by natural sciences. And as far as natural sciences, using natural methods are aware, the evidence points to a natural world that came about without the intervention of a supernatural force. To say that this needs faith is an absurd claim, firstly because we have evidence in the place of faith, and secondly we have no evidence whatsoever that is contrary to the naturalistic view of the universe. With no evidence to the contrary, we reason do we have to suspect a non-naturalistic explanation for the universe?

Dr Craig goes on to say that naturalism cannot be proven and therefore is an internally incoherent belief. I paraphrase him as follows:

“Naturalists claim that we should only believe that which can be scientifically proven. But the claim that the natural world is all there is cannot be scientifically proven and therefore naturalism, which is logically equivalent to atheism, is internally incoherent. Since science only deals with the natural world, science cannot prove naturalism true and therefore requires faith.”

First I repeat that we have no evidence to the contrary of the naturalistic view, therefore no consistent reason to have to prove it anyway. Secondly I am forced to agree with Craig. Science only deals with natural phenomena and so we cannot prove that the supernatural doesn’t exist. Wow, so much for naturalism being internally incoherent. Craig’s own position is just as internally incoherent. You cannot prove a negative claim.

But, you say, the claim that the natural world is all there is, is a positive claim, so you have the onus of proving it!

What an absurdly convoluted rebuttal. Regardless of there being no evidence that suggests a non-naturalistic explanation for the universe, we have the responsibility of proof thrust upon us, in the face of a belief that has no evidence, naturalistic or otherwise.

Craig says that naturalists have to prove that the supernatural does not exist, because we can’t prove that it doesn’t. But theists are free from this burden. What if I were to demand that Craig proves that the natural world isn’t all there is?

This really is a stupid argument. Why is it necessary to prove or disprove something that has no evidence supporting its existence? I repeat for the second time, there is no evidence to suggest that the natural world is not all there is; and there is no evidence at all for the supernatural. I concede that natural science cannot detect the supernatural and therefore scientists shouldn’t say that it doesn’t exist, however we have no scientific reason to believe that it does exist and so we can say that it probably doesn’t.

This does not mean that we should take a 50/50 approach and say maybe the supernatural exists, maybe it doesn’t. There is no reason to believe that anything other than that which can be detected by natural sciences exists, and again there is no evidence to the contrary of the naturalistic view, therefore we can say with confidence that the supernatural most likely doesn’t exist.