Dogmatic Naturalism?!?

“You’ll never see the truth as long as you adhere to your dogmatic naturalism!”

This, or something very similar I’m sure nearly every atheist, or naturalist, has heard at one point or another and it gets more and more annoying every time I hear it. It seems many theists shout this once they’ve realized their fairy tale beliefs have been shot down by science and evidence and have nothing left to offer in the way of rational, evidence-based argumentation.

The fact is that atheists are not “dogmatic” in accepting a purely naturalistic world view; it simply has to do with the lack of evidence proving the supernatural. Unfortunately, no matter how many times we tell theists that it’s all about the evidence they whine about the effects of prayer and other alleged miracles, even though there have been no confirmed miraculous events in history and many have since been solved, like out of body experiences as one example. Others are claims of the supernatural that are currently unresolved but simply have no solid evidence going for them and are rightfully rejected. As I think Christopher Hitchens rightfully says, “What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.”

Let’s analyze this and see if there is any justification for the theist to say such a thing. First, we must start by defining our words.

Dogmatic: “Expressing or adhering to strong beliefs.” - Microsoft Encarta Dictionary (2006)

Usually when a theist says this it’s with disdain and implies that no amount of evidence will change your mind.

Naturalism: “In art or literature, a movement or school advocating realistic description.” - Ibid. (emphasis mine)

Clearly a “dogmatic naturalist” is someone who very strongly adheres to a naturalistic view (meaning no supernatural elements in this case) of the world.

Now, the next question is why?

Well, it’s very simple, and I’ve already mentioned it above: it’s because of the lack of evidence for such things! Atheists are not being “dogmatic” but will surely change their minds should any evidence come to light of a man actually being raised from the dead (and I’m not talking about taking contradictory, ancient, and likely corrupted passages as a form of evidence, either) as one example, or if there is any proof of an immaterial realm. Thus far, all claims of such a realm have failed, such as the argument for mind-brain dualism, which the laws of physics rule out as an argument.

Atheists have written about this for hundreds of years; science is confirming more and more the naturalistic nature of our universe, and the “gaps” for god to hide in are closing at an alarming rate. What’s more to be said about this? Nothing much, I don’t think.

Atheists and other rationalists adhere to a naturalistic worldview because that’s where the evidence points and that’s that. Every attempt to prove the supernatural has thus far met with failure. The way I see it the only ones who are being dogmatic are theists, who will blindly accept faulty arguments and illogical premises as the basis for their conclusions. Even after being shown evidence as to why they’re wrong, they cling to their belief of an immaterial realm. Anyone who does this is purely fooling themselves and is the one who is being dogmatic.