Why Creationism’s more natural than Naturalism, according to a Naturalist

Atheists vs theists are at it again, debating the resurgent topic of miracles on Substack and whether miracles prove the existence of God. You can get a sample of just how broad the conversation has grown by checking out A Tier List of Arguments for God by Peter Bartholomew, or checking out this post by Joe James, who takes the skeptical/naturalist position. Here, the #9 top-earning Substacker Scott Alexander has thus far garnered over 400 likes by explaining how he won’t be joining the debate… by doing a fairly good job of portraying the skeptical position on miracles as well. That’s not to say Alexander is equivocating or prevaricating; rather, he’s such a thorough writer, even an attempt to disengage from him will end up remarkably comprehensive and thoughtful.

In this post, I’d also like to join the debate while avoiding the debate proper, while also playing the part of an atheist paradoxically defending God. Why? Because I like to give God His fair shake, and there’s a position on God and miracles that I believe is heavily under-discussed:

• Pro-God
• Anti-miracles
• Pro-singular-miracle

I’m guessing that’s a pretty niche position, but I think it’s the best way to keep the debate going—because the way I see it, given the debate in its current form and its current focus, the skeptics basically have it right and Both Sides Brigade should have the final word on the matter. (More on that in a bit.) It’s only by zooming out and focusing on the verymost primal, foundational miracle—rather than specific, localized miracles like the Fatima Sun Miracle—that I believe theists can gain surer footing and skeptics lose their best counters.

So this is my attempt to nudge the debate in a different direction and lead to a place where the scoreboard between theists and skeptics will change:

When we shift focus to the “foundational” miracle, I think both sides end up exactly equal in a rational/logical sense. However, I also think that for many people, theism gains an edge when it comes to an emotional/gut sense—hence the title of this post. Why is it that God having a hand in the machine can so often seem psychologically more satisfying, even assuming that we agree on naturalism being no more and no less plausible than theism?

But first, let’s start with the reason I’d like to move on from the debate in its current form, best expressed by the aforementioned Both Sides Brigade:

Every Moment, an Anti-FatimaAll of this should only take you about six minutes to read, maybe even one or two less if you’re skimming things. Six minutes isn’t very long. I would imagine that, day to day, six-minute chunks of your life come and go without much notice. Six minutes cleaning up your kitchen counters after dinner…Read more4 days ago · 149 likes · 70 comments · Both Sides Brigade

I recommend reading at least the first two paragraphs. It’s vivid and harrowing and for good reason, because it reminds us of the reality we’re all aware of yet so often ignore: that we live in a world full of evil and suffering. If the number of “anti-miracles” in the world rivals the number of possible miracles, surely nobody could take miracles as proof of a benevolent God. This observation of anti-miracles—more commonly referred to as the problem of evil—attacks not only the idea of miracles, but also the idea of God Himself.

Thus: Atheism is undeniably correct and God is dead. Right?

Not quite. I count not one but four major theistic possibilities that survive this attack.

Consider: If a grand Creator exists, (1) She may be maximally benevolent, yet heavily constrained. Or (2) He might be maximally powerful, yet not all that benevolent. Or (3) something in between those two poles.

Each of those options (and the fourth I’ll reference later) could probably spawn entire fields of study or new religions, far more detailed possibilities than can be explored in a single essay. Under such gods, we might expect miracles to be more or less likely, pain more or less prevalent. No matter the case, I don’t think my perspective on Fatima-like miracles would change—but with these looser options, there is exactly one miracle I find myself unable to deny. It’s one of those things I don’t believe can ever be explained, either by science or religion or anything else:

The miracle of reality itself.

The ineffability of our existence

Why does anything exist?

As far as I’m aware, theism offers only a circular explanation: Why do things exist? Because God wills it so. Why does God will it so? Because that is His will.

Naturalism (to my knowledge) also offers a circular explanation, but with more steps. Max Tegmark’s mathematical universe hypothesis (MUH) proposes that reality is just an expression of math. Anything that is mathematically possible must be somewhere and somewhen instantiated within the whole of reality. It’s a tempting theory, since “everything exists” can be thought of as equally parsimonious as “nothing exists”, which makes the MUH feel sort of maximally fundamental.

Under the MUH, the answer to “Why does our universe exist?” becomes “Because everything exists”.

Except this doesn’t much help to explain the equally confounding question of “Why am I me, right here and right now?”

Arguably, this is a bad question. The “I” and “me” in “Why am I me?” are pointers to the same entity. You may as well ask, “Why is blue blue?” or “Why is the sixth element carbon?” or “Why is that particular rock over there that particular rock?”

But I don’t think it’s a bad question. Consider how some naturalists describe consciousness as the universe experiencing itself subjectively. If that’s the case, then why is the universe experiencing the me-portion of itself right now? Maybe that’s no different then asking why any given rock is that rock, but we can wonder about that too, and to do so will send us in circles:

1. Why is that rock that rock?
   1. Because things exist.
2. Why do things exist?
   1. Because everything exists, as per the MUH.
3. Okay but if everything exists, then why are we experiencing this particular slice of existence right now, which happens to contain that rock?
   1. Because things exist; go back to (2).

Compare this to theism:

1. Why is that rock that rock?
   1. Because God wills it.
2. Why does God will it?
   1. Because God wills it.

It’s circular either way, but theists can handwave at the awe-inspiring figure of God and say that, circular or not, it all bottoms out with His Numinous Everything-ness. Contrast with naturalism, which can only loop in its two-step cycle; theism’s one-step cycle feels simpler and more to the point. Imagine a theory that required a five- or six- step cycle. That’s a lot more for anyone’s brain to handle and would therefore feel more confusing—even though its logic is equally circular, and its explanatory power still the same (exactly zero).

True or not, naturalism (in its current state) just feels slightly less satisfying.

I mentioned there were 4 major possibilities, but only listed 3. What was the other? It’s an idea that I strongly disbelieve, but I find interesting to discuss regardless: That with enough trickery, creativity, and p-zombies, maybe a mostly-benevolent and omnipotent God could shape the universe to look like ours, on its illusory surface: