Saw a good-faith religious person on another person’s stream wondering aloud how one could possibly defend naturalism/materialism as a position from which to discuss politics/law/etc.

Here’s the basic explanation for why it is an exemplary epistemic position for the purposes of law and science:

In matters of dispute, one may appeal to ground-facts and human values in order to make one’s point, and the reasoning is accessible to all in the conversation.

When one invokes the will of God/gods, one does nothing but rally one’s own troops, because nobody agrees on what the God/gods want, and scriptures are ambiguous enough to support thousands of sects within each major religion. Appealing to God gets you nowhere.

Whether God or the spiritual realm exists or not is an entirely separate question.