Informal Statement of the Argument
If there is a single theme unifying the history of science, it is that naturalistic (i.e., non-supernatural) explanations work. The history of science contains numerous examples of naturalistic explanations replacing supernatural ones and no examples of supernatural explanations replacing naturalistic ones. Indeed, naturalistic explanations have been so successful that even most scientific theists concede that supernatural explanations are, in general, implausible, even on the assumption that theism is true. Such explanatory success is antecedently more likely on naturalism–which entails that all supernaturalistic explanations are false–than it is on theism. Thus the history of science is some evidence for metaphysical naturalism and against theism. Since metaphysical naturalism entails that no supernatural beings exist, including God, the history of science is some evidence for atheism.
“Part 1“: a summary and defense of Paul Draper’s explanatory version of AHS, plus some responses to objections
“Part 2: Detailed Reply to Randal Rauser“: a refutation of Rauser’s argument that an auxiliary hypothesis to theism known as “transcendent agent” models of divine action refute AHS.
“Part 3: Reply to Rauser on Defining Metaphysical Naturalism“: a refutation of Rauser’s claim that metaphysical naturalism is compatible with the existence of an interventionist God
“Part 4: Reply to cl“: a point-by-point rebuttal to cl’s reply to AHS.
“Part 5: Reply to RD Miksa“: a rebuttal to Miksa’s reply to AHS.
This article is archived.