Your claim has been that the "rational" worldview that we espouse results in misinterpretations when compared to the "rational"-faithful worldview that you espouse. Let's call them Rational-A (RA) and Rational-F (RF)
It seems we will need to define "rational" as it applies to thought processes as one part of this. I'll get to that later. It maybe that we can see how close RA and RF can be brought.
Your claim is that the conclusions that use RA are misinterpretations. However, as has been pointed out to you a number of times, about 40% of practicing scientists are
not atheists. Thus the thought processes they bring to bare are not atheistic. Is there a third class of thought? Since they arrive at the same conclusions as the atheists you claim that the thought processes are wrong
because they are atheistic is wrong.
You have yet to show the workings of the 'correct' method of rational thinking (RF) as applied to existing evidence and how, step by step, it arrives at a different conclusion. That will be necessary to show that there is a better way.
Let me have a go at making my own statment about what I think a rational way of coming to a conclusion is:
1) It uses evidence that I have some chance of knowing is not a mistake, delusion or fraud. I do this be expecting others to check out what I think I am seeing or measuring. And redoing the examination if necessary.
2) It considers as much evidence as is possible and is likely to help me arrive at the conclusion. This means that while I do not look at literally
everything I try to be careful about leaving things out which do or may have an influence on the conclusion.
3) I make each step of the logic connecting the evidence to the conclusion as clear as I possibly can. I do this to allow others to check what I am doing.
4) (optional?) If I expect others to accept my conclusions without reproducing the entire set of work I subject everything I have done to a careful and, perhaps preferably, somewhat hostile review to see if others without my emotional attachment to the result can find a flaw.
That's my first cut. Others can tune it up or add if they see a need.
Now, WillowTree, it is your turn to explain what your form of rational thought processes are.
You have seen plenty of examples of the one I just gave being applied. Once you have defined yours I'd like an example of it being applied.
Atheo-evos would have everyone believe that they are exempt from bias.
As noted above this is the method used by firmly believing Christians too. And the majority of Christians accept it as a way of finding things out about the
material world while rejecting it as a way of finding things out about the immaterial world of their God.
Atheo-evos use something like the method that I described above because they know full-well that they are
not exempt from bias. That is why the data and logic are spelled out so carefully so others can check. And why they subject their own work to their own critism before making it widely available.
The individual humans involved in science be they believers or not are all biased in some way. The
process used is the best that we have devised for avoiding the worst mistakes of that bias. It is the best we have for examining that which can be examined. That is the natural world but not more than that.
This message has been edited by NosyNed, 10-13-2004 09:17 PM