Why haven't those who are atheists content to demy that science does keel haul the supernatural? Yes, there are those atheists who deplore we new atheists going at the jugular of supernaturalism by proclaiming that science itself renders belief in the supernatural irrational? Thes naturalist defenders of the supernatural go out of their way not to exhume the irrationality of the supernatural by objurgating us new atheists-naturalists as mocking the supernaturalists sensibilites such that even the errantists- nonfundamentalists- would become like the fundamentalists in decrying science, yet they never supply evidence, because none exists for that silly position!
The supernaturalists themselves who embrace all of science themselves with cognitive dissonance- compartamentalization- see God's directivity behind natural causes. One form of this is occasionalism, mainly associated with Nicholas Malebranche, that teaches that natural causes are impotent,but He is the actual cause. When we strike the eight ball, He makes it go! Thus Malebranche himself reduces God the Sustaine to the absurd!
Before science weighed in with finding no teleology- divine or otherwise, Thales himself dismissed the god's directivity. He was using Ockham's Razor in effect. The weight of evidence per Lamberth's atelic or teleonomic argument is that natural causes are teleonomic- without planned outcomes rather than teleological - with planned outcomes such that to posit the latter as directing the former contradicts science such that evolutionary creationism and creation evolution both obfuscate-oxymoronic.
The people of the Enlightenment and the Age of Reason and others commit the rationalist fallacy- that of thinking that with education, less superstition would ensue, but alas, no1 Why the brightest of people just obfuscate more so ! Observe such as John Polkinghorne and Alister Earl McGrath who know their science but ever insist on obfuscating and objurgating us who call their attention to that obfuscation. They put their thoughts into finery, but those thoughts rank with those of the paranormalists! One supernaturalist prattles that why, we have that finery whilst they don't, but woo is woo! Kenneth Miller can bleat that he can be Catholic and an evolutionist; why, yes, he can from the side of religion as a married person can be an adulterer, but from the side of science, he merely obfuscatesClinton Richard. Dawkings is right that such people aren't being consistent whilst Massimo Pigliuscci errs in saying no to that.
To consistently follow Thales's rule, leave the supernatural out of everything! We have no need of it for our purposes. That Existence has no purpose does not make for the non sequitur that we have no purposes or that they need ultimate justification, for as Inquiring Lynn states:" Life is its own validation and reward and ultimate purpose."
That counters the evolutionist Francisco Jose Ayal who contends that we need Him in order to overcome dread and have a purpose. No, counseling helps to overcome dread, and our own purposes, human love and this one life suffice; the future state could not validate this one life and so forth. Divine love and purpose and the future state are not needs as Albert Ellis in " The Myth of Self-Esteen" would note as howling at the moon!
And no divine power owns us nor can one call us to worship it; were there one, it would have the one-way street of having put us into a better environment in the first place per the problem of Heaven.
The arguments from angst and happiness-purpose then fail. Augustine notwithstanding, no evidence intrudes to justify that we are restless unless in His bosom and as noted, we make our own purposes, and one of them is to be happy.
Dr. Paul Kurtz calls the twin superstitions of the paranormal and the supernatural ,'The Transcendental Temptation."
Viewers how might we enlighten the superstitous, or do you dispute any of the above?