Every worldview necessarily has presuppositions that can only be accepted by presuppositions canonical to that worldview. Jenny believes God exists because she believes the authority of Scripture and testimony of others; she believes those witnesses are trustworthy because they exalt the name of God. George believes god does not exist because he believes certain philosophers’ words on the matter; he believes those philosophers because they don’t posit anything as ridiculous as a god. These are facile examples but I really think all reasoning and argument is ultimately circular.
Naturalism itself is a kind of religion. It has…
A myth of origin: evolutionary, non-Big-Bang theory science
A definition of the human “problem”: insufficient knowledge, superstition, ignorance
A salvific event: the Enlightenment
A church: the secular academy
Prophets: the philosophes, e.g. Voltaire; other philosophers; Darwin and other scientists
A means of redemption: rejection of theism, superstition, and ignorance
A trajectory: death after life but hopefully progress and prosperity for future generations
As a skeptic, I cannot even accept a system like Naturalism except as another form of religion.
And unfortunately, skepticism has its own problematic presupposition: that nothing can be known for certain, which is self-defeating, because if nothing can be known for certain, then we can’t know for certain that nothing can be known for certain and thus that presupposition is nonsense.
What I must accept is that life is mystery. In fact, no one knows very much. And little to nothing for certain. So I’m no less able to know what the hell is going on than anyone else. And that’s OK. At least, I need to try to be okay with that ambiguity.