Why naturalism is irrational (page 6)

Shining One

Jgnat,
Naturalism, by its very definition, assumes there is no supernatural. That's why you are on the wrong side when you assume their presuppositions are correct.
Rex

Shining One

Jgnat,
No, I am not quoting a authority. I am endorsing an argument by Henry Morris.
Rex

Caedes

Shining one said

That was a personal testimony, nitwit.

Still balderdash.

jgnat

Ummm, Rex. When you quote someone else instead of your own thoughts, you are "quoting an authority".

Rex, I have not denied the supernatural, either. You are the one who labelled me a naturalist. Now I've given you two instances where my beliefs differ from a naturalist's. Here's the definition of a naturalist from an authority you have already dissed.

Methodological naturalism vs. ontological naturalism

By their definition, I am definitely not an ontological naturalist, as I do believe there is a place for faith in our lives. Here's the danger in labelling people. You cannot know what I believe until you ask.

Terry

Except for the origin of the universe itself, the most difficult development would have to be the origin of life. Just how could non-living chemicals on the primeval earth transmute themselves into some kind of living and replicating cell?

Everything
is composed of the same atomic elements in varying arrangements. If that cannot be fully grasped; then, naturally you're going to have a big problem understanding "developments".

Notice the above statement in the box? It is impenetrably hard-headed in framing the issue a certain way.

The use of the word "transmute" is particularly telling.

What evolution provides for the mind that asks the question (in the box) is an explanation of the "how".

What religious people resent is that the "how" isn't to their taste.

That is it in a nutshell.

The religious explanation for things is
no honest explanation.

It is a postponement of the problem of "how".

If explaining how non-living became living is a problem for people of faith, it sort of makes you wonder how the even more extraordinary explanation of how this "God" just IS is so palatable because the remarkable existence of a transcendant being is perfectly acceptable as a "given" to the religious mind.

No, this issue is not handled with intellectual honesty.

OldSoul

Within the constraints of the Scientific Method, which explores ONLY physical reality, naturalism is entirely rational and logical. The answers to questions derived through the Scientific Method can be logically true, per the rules of the method, and can be completely honest.

Respectfully,
OLdSoul

Terry

the Scientific Method, which explores ONLY physical reality

It cannot be demonstrated (except through metaphor) that there is any such thing as NON-PHYSICAL "reality".

So, the issue is purely illusory in the first place.

1.You start with a premise that is entirely undemonstrable

2.You proceed to use metaphorical illusions (by contorting the abstract nature of language) to support the non-argument

3.You take the metaphorical results of the non-argument and use it to disqualify the only reality that exists.

Now that is quite an accomplishment!

There was an excuse in pre Medieval times for the unenlightened peasants to cling tenaciously to ghosts, witches, magic, devils and religious notions of how the universe might be. However, there is no honest reason to continue in that magic-thinking today. Why?

Because we have Science.

Only a purposely ignorant person would turn back the clock to unenlightened thinking and insist it was superior to actual factual data.

I am afraid such an attitude is quite repugnant to me. Especially since it is what I was spoon-fed by the Jehovah's Witness mentality when I was a serf in their feudal system!

OldSoul

Terry,

You are welcome to your repugnance, but groundless disrespect of others is repugnant to me. I do not reject Science. I simply recognize the constraint it has placed on iteslf. I stated the constraint clearly, and demonstrated a possible effect allegorically.

Do you agree that the Scientific Method can ONLY explore physical reality? If so, why do you seem to take umbrage at my stating that fact? Is it because you don't like thinking of the Scientific Method in terms of its real limitations?

Only a purposely ignorant person would turn back the clock to unenlightened thinking and insist it was superior to actual factual data.

I agree. Completely. But, in my opinion, only an enlightened person would recognize the possibility that the actual factual data may not represent all of reality.

Can you demonstrate the existence of respect, in any way, except through metaphor? How about love? But these are real, whether you can prove their existence in a laboratory or not. Your aggressive assertion of your point of view is very reminiscent of the bOrg you claim to detest. Let me demonstrate:

Only a purposely ignorant person (w)ould turn back the clock to unenlightened thinking and insist it was superior to actual factual data.

Now, let's take the highlights and underlines out:

Only a _____________ (w)ould _______________________ and ______________.

Look familiar? It should:

Only a heart of stone would not be moved at the spectacle of youth [showing] complete trust and faith in their God, Jehovah.

Only a real God could inspire such prophecies and see to their fulfillment.

Only a man of [John's] integrity could be entrusted with the assignment to pen the thrilling vision of Revelation.

Only a fool [would] "disrespect the discipline of his father."

Only a living, true God could wield such influence over an international group of people.

It is called "sophistry." The objective of what you wrote is obvious. You want to emotionally repel anyone who reads what you wrote away from something that you have personally determined is criteria defining a "purposely ignorant person." No one wants to viewed as a "purposely ignorant person" so the alternative you provide is viewing things the way you view them.

That is called coersion and is the IDENTICAL tactic used by the Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses. They present a set of circumstances in an absolute construct, the stated or implied effect of rejecting their desired result is always a feeling of foolishness. The stated or implied reward is always a feeling of having chosen the correct way to view things. Their way is always the correct way.

You have learned well at their feet, Terry. I hope it was unintentional.

OldSoul

LittleToe

He's nailed your feet to the floor, with that one, Terry

Why naturalism is irrational

Share this