A naturalistic understanding of our world and ourselves involves the principle known as Occam’s Razor which suggests that if something can be accounted for with a less complicated explanation, there is usually no need to assume a more complicated one. American neurologist and skeptic, Steven Novella, expresses Occam’s Razor this way —
“When considering multiple possible explanations the one that introduces the fewest new assumptions is to be preferred.”
When a less complicated explanation fails to explain what is being observed then a more complicated explanation may have to be considered, but when it comes to understanding what causes us to behave as we do we do not need to look beyond our genes and our environment and the way they interact. Why should we assume that human behavior is the result of anything else when that assumption alone provides an effective explanation?
To argue that humans are exceptions to the causal nature of our universe is an extraordinary claim. And in naturalism, extraordinary claims require exceptional evidence. The belief that humans can act contrary to cause is not widespread because there is good evidence for it — its ubiquity results from the fear that to not believe it would be perilous. Although this idea is mistaken, it is not hard to understand. It can be frightening to consider that our thoughts and feelings, the words we say, the things we do, and the choices we make do not emanate with us, but are a consequence of determinants which we do not control.