Does some materialists either not know what religion is or are trying to argue a strawman?

Hey guys, quick important note before you read: When I speak of 'materialism' here I am not referring to consumerism, vices, shallow consumer culture, etc. I am referring to materialism as being synonymous with physicalism, which is the perspective that only the physical world exists. For example Chalmers and Papineau are both physicalists/materialists.<br><br>The reason I bring this up is because I find it very confusing how a some materialists will argue their perspective using arguments and logic that only really apply to religious perspectives. For example, religious perspectives, by their nature, carry a certain burden of proof in that they are making positive truth claims. "My religion's holy book says that this is how the universe was formed." Okay, well then it is your job to prove that that holy book is accurate and that the information in it is true. "If you can't see it, then it doesn't exist." Okay, well then it is your job to prove that it does exist. "Science has not proven the existence of this thing." Okay, well then it is your job to prove that it exists. <br><br>It's pretty straight forward, right? If you claim that some truth is true, then it is your job to prove that it is. <br><br>My question is, why do some materialists think that their perspective should get a free pass from this? "You can't prove that other forms of consciousness don't exist, therefore you can't say that only the physical world exists." Yeah, actually you're the one making the positive claim that other forms of consciousness do exist. It's your job to prove it. <br><br>For example, Chalmers is vocally critical of what he calls "the tradition" which is his name for the tradition of thinking in science and philosophy that the mind should be considered part of the natural world, which he rejects. However, when he makes these claims, he presents them as if they somehow refute Papineau's naturalistic perspective. <br><br>Chalmers will repeatedly say things like "Well, you can't prove that there isn't a form of consciousness that can't be measured by empirical evidence. You can't prove that everything can be reduced to purely physical processes. You can't prove that there isn't something beyond the natural world." Yeah, actually, you're the one that's making claims that there are forms of consciousness that exist outside of the natural world. It's your job to prove it. It's not my job to prove that they don't. <br><br>I think a good example of this is the interaction between Sam Harris and Dan Dennett. Now, I am sympathetic to Dennett's side of the debate. However, either way you look at it, it seems pretty clear that Sam Harris just simply doesn't actually know what Dennett's perspective actually is. Sam will say things like, "You can't measure this." "You can't explain that." "You can't prove this or that." And Dan is over there going, "I know I can't measure your subjective experience. I know I can't explain why your consciousness exists. I know I can't prove that there isn't another realm beyond the natural world. But that's not the point. My point is that I can explain why your body reacts to certain stimuli. I can explain why your brain reacts to certain things. I can explain why you behave certain ways given certain information. And I can do all of that within the realm of the natural world. So, I don't really care if I can explain subjective experience. Subjective experience is important, but that's not what science is."<br><br>And Sam is saying, "You can't measure subjective experience" and Dan is saying, "I don't need to. And it's your job to prove that subjective experience actually exists beyond some sort of illusion that our brains create." And Sam just either is or is pretending to be oblivious to that. <br><br>Anyway, what are people's thoughts on that?