This is a logical fallacy. Lets say.<p><i>A) Scientists believing in the supernatural should not be hired</i>.<p>This statement could be correct or not.<p><i>B) supernatural events can not be explained with the laws of physics. There is not any experimental evidence of any supernatural event.</i><p>This is true.<p><i>C) &quot;natural rights&quot; can not be explained with the laws of physics. There is not any experimental evidence of any &quot;natural right&quot; inside a human body. If you cut someone open you can&#x27;t find any &quot;natural rights&quot; in there.</i><p>This seems true, but is false in fact *<p><i>D) Thus, we conclude that people believing in natural rights should not be hired.</i><p>Not. This is a fallacy because C is not related at all with neither A, nor B. Thus your example can not teach us about if A is false. Is not a proof of anything.<p>To suggest that <i>people &quot;believe&quot; in a paper with something written on it</i> is equivalent to <i>people &quot;believe&quot; in god</i> is wrong. You can sacrifice a chicken and them put its corpse in a fridge, but you are not trying to make the fridge happier or less angry. Is not a god. Fridges, as laws, are just created by humans to improve the life inside human societies. A law is just a pact, a paper with something written on it its origin and creation can be explained perfectly without to breaking any natural rule. Laws can seem esotheric, but this is not remotely equivalent to such thing as &quot;a supernatural event&quot;.<p>* Yes, C is false. If you cut someone open that believe in natural rights you could find some copies of those &quot;natural rights&quot; of course, as chemical traces saved in the cells that hold the memory and culture of this people. At least for a while.