Supernatural beliefs about mind, morality and the self are losing plausibility as naturalistic explanations gain traction. In response, supernaturalists argue that gaps in these explanations are evidence for the failure of naturalism. But the success of science and the potential for ongoing research and conceptual development to close such gaps suggest otherwise. Moreover, since supernatural explanations bypass the evidential and methodological constraints governing secular scientific inquiry, they end up facile, unsupported and empty.

Theologian John F. Haught argues that science isn't our best and most reliable means of knowing ultimate reality; rather, there are other means involving subjective experience which put us directly in touch with God. But why should we trust such experience? Haught's says this trust is justified because God exists, but this presumes what needs to be proved. His brand of theological cognition violates some basic epistemic norms that should constrain any description of the world which aims for objectivity. His concept of God seems vague, contradictory, and is clearly driven by human psychological needs.

Talk and Q & A with Daniel Dennett at the Harvard Science Center.