Do naturalists silently assume a coherence theory of truth?

I recently had a thought about the way a lot of naturalists justify their beliefs. Primarily they use physics to explain away all of the issues with naturalism. The implicit appeal here is that since their model is (debatably) coherent then it must be true. Someone like Krauss, Hawking, or Dr. Blitz all make appeals to obscure and post hoc physics models to come to their conclusions to explain the universe without God. This could also be an unspoken use of coherentist justification, but the appeals are about how things are not what we know.

4 comments