Message 19 of 74 (150364)
10-16-2004 8:56 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by NosyNed
10-13-2004 10:12 PM
|Your claim has been that the "rational" worldview that we espouse|
By placing quote marks around 'rational' equates to the FIRST time "you guys" have not asserted/insisted/assumed that rational was your natural born-with birthright.
I am very pleased to see your post begin this way as the guts of my complaint centers on the fact that the self-description of rationality is subjective - a philosophic argument.
|results in misinterpretations when compared to the "rational"-faithful worldview that you espouse. Let's call them Rational-A (RA) and Rational-F (RF)|
Here is the remainder of your sentence.
How quickly things degenerate.
This last half of the sentence now secretly removes the quote marks off of 'rational' by a subtle distiction found in the attempted naming of a worldview to be based on "faith"ful. IOW, you have just subjectively asserted superiority by implying my worldview is based upon faith.
It is not.
We claim the faith to be based upon facts - just like yours.
EVERYONE has faith - the only issue is the object.
Scientific methodologies are the object of faith of naturalists.
Theistic methodology is the object of faith for supernaturalists.
We declare our methodology is superior based on the fact that God IS, and IF He is, then this is the basis of our superiority claim.
Scientific methodologies (SM) EXCLUDE the supernatural as untestable/irrational.
Theistic methodology (TM) fully supports SM except in their Divine exclusions.
TM/its source the Bible clearly explains WHY SM exclude the Divine, that this exclusion (which SM calls neutrality) is maintained because God has incapacitated their ability to embrace Him as a penalty for summarily rejecting Him.
TM only wars with SM when it is perceived that SM interprets and concludes evidence to disprove Biblical claims.
When this happens TM simply points out that rational is subjective to ones worldview.
Each methodology and its claim to rationality is whats called an invulnerable claim - a claim which cannot be falsified because no matter what is argued the other can simply dismiss it as irrational.
But TM, in my subjective opinion, trumps SM because of its terminally defective component of excluding the Divine under the pretense of neutrality.
Now listen close: IF God IS, (and He is based upon the evidence) THEN His subjective beliefs/word as found in the Bible BECOMES objective truth of which everything else becomes inferior and subordinate especially if they (SM) assert a silly objective/superiority that doesn't exist.
TM/we tolerate eveything and everyone EXCEPT when everything and everyone brands TM to be irrational, THEN the TM explanation of God sense removal/punishment applies.
Science and their methodologies are wonderful, EXCEPT when they intrude into faith and by faith, contrary to their methodology, subjectively assert superiority over a methodology (TM) which bases its entire methodology on the objective eternal truths as revealed by the eternal God in His word/the Bible.
|Your claim is that the conclusions that use RA are misinterpretations|
They are philosophic conclusions IF they are perceived to be disproving RF/TM.
If RF/TM is not affected then there is no quarrel.
My argument is the deceptive nature of RA to operate under the disguise of being entirely based upon scientific evidence while worldview philosophy plays no part in the interpretation of the evidence.
|However, as has been pointed out to you a number of times, about 40% of practicing scientists are not atheists. |
I will accept your claim as fact.
|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.|
What conclusions are these ?
Is RF/TM affected ?
|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.|
There is no better way than RA/SM pertaining to science.
Big problems arise when RA/SM assert that RA/SM is the ONLY way to determine truth which is implying that RF/TM is inferior/irrational.
IOW, RA/SM should stick to science and not intrude into TM. When this trespass occurrs we then must put you in your place and point out that RA/SM at its foundation relies on a subjective definition of rational just like RF/TM, only we admit it and you do not.
No matter how you slice it philosophy is king and not science and RF/TM explains atheism to be a penalty from God.
|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.
I completely agree with your blue box above - well said.
|Now, WillowTree, it is your turn to explain what your form of rational thought processes are. |
I did so at the very beginning of this response.
BUT, according to my worldview, it is irrational to exclude God. To snub Him risks His wrath of which manifests itself by removing desire for Him. This state leaves the violator terminally defective and incapable of making correct conclusions concerning the most important issues of life.
Every God-damn fundamentalist be damned - GOD ONLY REQUIRES GENUINE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AS THE CREATOR AND A WORD OF THANKS - these TWO requirements make a person ineligible to receive the punishment of God-sense removal.
The irony is that it is Darwinism/atheism which have militantly refused to grant Him those TWO things, hence the punishment of God-sense removal which forever finalizes their decision to deny Him those two things. This paragraph SEEMS circular but it is not if you sequencially follow the argument.
But, according to the Bible, even God-sense removal can be revoked if one embraces the gospel/way of faith which results in a factual reality experience with God.
|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.|
With all due respect your post does not contain a single example of evidence being interpreted under God-sense removal and with God-sense.
A specific example would be like human evolution, or how does any physical evidence disprove the claim that God is the ultimate Creator ? None of this was mentioned or anything like it.
Maybe I am misunderstanding your comment.
|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.|
I think I said this too in my own way.
The only issue is the reverse so to speak.
Materialists asserting RA/SM to be capable of determining the validity of RF/TM and their nasty ridiculous habit of routinely claiming a rationality with the sole intent of saying everyone else is not.
|Atheo-evos use something like the method that I described above because they know full-well that they are not exempt from bias.|
Rarely admitted to in general.
|The individual humans involved in science be they believers or not are all biased in some way.|
That is a objective fact.
|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.|
But when individual members of RA/SM assert that RA/SM trumps RF/TM then this is a philosophical argument usually done under the guise of an objectivity that does not exist.
|This message is a reply to:|
| ||Message 3 by NosyNed, posted 10-13-2004 10:12 PM|| ||NosyNed has responded|
|Replies to this message:|
| ||Message 20 by NosyNed, posted 10-16-2004 9:18 PM|| ||Cold Foreign Object has responded|
| ||Message 21 by RAZD, posted 10-17-2004 11:29 AM|| ||Cold Foreign Object has responded|
| ||Message 22 by Loudmouth, posted 10-18-2004 2:53 PM|| ||Cold Foreign Object has responded|