Another thing we see here to often. Quoting from the blog
Even when those so afflicted express comfort, finally, with any ambiguity, it always comes from a framework of certainty: that their religion and its solutions to their worries is certainly true and therefore they can only in that context tolerate ambiguity (you can see a lot of this reasoning across Tetens’ book, where he worries about something, solves it with religion, and reacts as though the problem is then actually solved).
And it continues on to talk about authoritarianism, what some might call the Abrahamic mindset. It’s the dismissal of probability and the embracing of the possible as if it’s real.
I have also encountered many versions of this straw man of naturalism
Tetens’ claim that naturalism thinks “the world of experience” constitutes “the whole of reality.”
To which RC responds
Almost all naturalists—and scientists—consistently agree “the world of experience” is a subjective reconstruction from sensory information of only some of the actual world, and the actual world is quite different from that, but can only be learned about, understood, and explained using that data (often in clever ways). For an example of how far this goes, and how indeed it implicates definite metaphysical conclusions, see my Bayesian Analysis of the Barkasi-Sant’Anna Defense of Naive Memory Realism.