[normac2]

Interesting take. It's analogous to religious arguments defending the idea of miracles. I don't say that in principle the world must be causally closed and bound by natural laws; only that it seems very likely, as it enough to explain an insanely huge ratio of what we already witness, and the quality of the evidence for other stuff is very low.

I just finished with a quick edit to my post to be more specific, but I suspect your answer would be similar either way.

[zozbot234]

I might agree, except I view it more productively as an argument defending the idea that the physical world can be inherently lawful ("bound by natural laws", in a very real sense) despite the common belief in miracles or magick! You don't have to renounce belief in the reality of physical laws just because you might also practice some ceremonial magick (or religious prayer, for that matter) - indeed, one can make very rigorous claims about just how much physical laws explain already.

[normac2]

Well, I can agree with all that, probably more so than 80%+ of other naturalists. Although naturalists tend to actually be pretty open to the powerful psychological effects that can happen via natural means, as you need that to explain things like alien abduction experiences, near-death experiences, etc. in natural terms, unless those people are literally all lying.