Here’s a thought I had recently (although I’m sure other, more erudite brains have already considered it long ago):
Doesn’t the fact that we only have a small number of physical senses, which consistently detect only that which is empirically real (e.g., vision, hearing, touch, etc.), suggest the non-existence–or perhaps at least the non-interference–of anything supernatural?
Here’s my argument, reduced to a kind of syllogism:
P1. We are evolved creatures.
P2. Our physical senses evolved in order for us to be able to respond appropriately (however that is defined) to external stimuli.
P3. We appear to lack any apparatus that can consistently and unambiguously detect anything beyond what exists in our known, physical world.
C: Therefore, even if something supernatural* does exist, there is no evolutionary evidence that it has ever regularly engaged us in the course of our evolution.
*Here I make exceptions for those things that are metaphysical (ideas, dreams, desires, etc.) and those human traits that are epigenetic (culture, personality, etc.), but which are still arguably physically natural, being supervenient upon physical processes and causal circumtances. My definition of “supernatural” is largely that of a materialist, with this one nuance.
Put as simply as possible, my argument is this:
Because we didn’t evolve any way to respond to the supernatural, most likely the supernatural doesn’t really exist, or at least doesn’t concern itself with us very often.
Anyone want to argue against this?
I’m sure someone will offer the objection that “we DO have a way to respond to the supernatural: our sense of wonder, spirituality,” or whatever. But let me preemptively respond that this “sense” is ambiguous and ill-defined, at best, and the objects of its perception can be many, many different things. Further, its existence can be adequately explained at least in theory by psychology.