Without evidence, supernaturalists maintain that unless one is in the bosom of God as Augustine puts it, one will be restless. So goes their argument from angst,which they supplement with the argument for happiness-purpose, that in Him people will find true happiness and He’ll give them purpose,again without any evidence. Thereby, supernaturalists themselves, and no genetic fallacy, make an argument why they seek supernatural solace, thus supporting the naturalist position that they are depending on  a placebo or crutch. They would respond that is a necessary one for everyone, but no, the evidence comes forth that many others find solace elsewhere and make their own purposes.

        No, John Hick , no one needs the supernatural to overcome self-centeredness as most people have the evolved moral sense; they can learn to empathise with others and refine that sense. Lo, he well knows that no religion can make those who don’t want to use to refine that empathy to include others  than just  their love ones.

       Paul Kurtz, that indefatigable and indomitable humanist, in ” Forbidden Fruit,” notes the common decencies that make for a good morality.

       To prattle that without the supernatural, we are forlorn, and it’s every person for herself is just balderdash!

       No divine intent makes for that evolved moral sense, which does its part in helping us be moral. Lo, all that evil done in the name of the supernatural would exceed that of the communists had those supernaturalists of yore the means to  do evil themselves!

      Reason, instead of faith, makes for that more abundant life!

     Lamberth’s argument from pareidlia notes how people use the pareidolias of intent and design instead of what science finds teleonomy- no directed outcomes and patterns just as people find the one of Yeshua in a tortilla. This is no example of the genetic fallacy as again, ti’s the supernaturalists themselves  as noted prove that note!