Naturalists don’t eschew the supernatural from any bias or a priori but rather , because of lack of evidence and God did it,even as the Primary Cause with natural causes as secondary and the immediate causes.
We gain nothing from this useless redundancy,contrary to Alister Earl McGrath.
Francisco Jose Ayala errs in ” Darwin and Intelligent Design ” in maintaining that people need religion for values and such. No, we ourselves can use ethics for that as Plato’s Euthyphro would note. Ayala whines,elsewhere, that without Him, we have dread and a need for ultimate meaning, but,nay, we ourselves can overcome any dread with counseling and this one life, human love and our own meaning suffice. We need no future state and divine love and meaning.
To find that more abundant life using naturalism, read Albert Ellis’s ” The Myth of Self-Esteem” and Robert Prices ” The Reason-Driven Life!”
” Life is its own validation and reward and ultimate meaning to which neither God nor the future state can further validate.’ Inquiring Lynn
Naturalism just use what we know rather than postulate some divine being as supernaturalists do by adding divine direction to matters. No need exists for that as natural causes and explanations suffice as themselves being the sufficient reason! The presumption of naturalism is that natural causes are not only necessary and efficient but also primary and sufficient. They are themselves, in effect, that Necessary Being rather than God. This neither begs the question nor sandbags supernaturalists but rather the demand for evidence.
Science can move mountains of ignorance whilst the supernatural bases itself on the argument from ignorance. Neither definition, nor postulation nor faith can instantiate the supernatural.
Faith begs the question of its subject. It is the we just say so of credulity. As Sydney Hook notes, science is acquired knowledge whilst faith begs the question of being knowledge.
Supernaturalists ever rely on the arguments from incredulity and from ignorance! They find it incredible that regularity and order and natural laws inhere in Existence and so prefer to use that argument from ignorance that He directs matters when science finds quite otherwise as Lamberth’s the teleonomic argument notes.