An interesting essay

[jonkon]

Naturalism is a misapplication of the injunction against post hoc explanations, stemming from the ancients' propensity to invent gods to account for various natural phenomena. Post hoc explanations are intellectual dead ends, reducing to nothing more than a description of the phenomena to be explained. Naturalism itself utterly fails as an explanation for the existence and origin of physical objects and systems, since it runs contrary to the readily observed fact that physical objects and systems cannot simultaneously exist and not exist, the physical basis for Parmenides's logical Law of Excluded Middle. The existence of physical objects and systems therefore requires an agent that ultimately must be supernatural in nature, otherwise as pointed out by Parmenides, change becomes impossible in the physical universe.

[dannym]

Aug 18, 2011 8:42:48 GMT elephantchang51 said:

Aug 15, 2011 9:45:18 GMT dannym said:

I hope I am undogmatic about all subjects, I wouldn't say I had faith in my worldview as I would happily accept I was wrong if the evidence pointed there. As for consciousness as far as I know nothing explains it.

Naturalism is a worldview like any other and requires faith.

The Christian worldview can provide the rational foundations for consciousness. Naturalism cannot.

[ignorantianescia]

Aug 4, 2011 11:34:36 GMT humphreyclarke said:

It's not much of a war so far one has to say. As far as I can see so called 'anti-accommodationism' is largely confined to Jerry Coyne and his occasionally interesting 'Why Evolution is True' blog, his mates like Sean Carroll and his militant acolytes like the Butterflies and Wheels crowd.

And if one can call it a war, then there is no denying they are inflicting quite a lot of collateral damage on the teaching of evolution.

'And let there be no mistake, the positions we take on science and religion do have major political and social implications. The right-wing politicians now running my state of Florida just love to hear that scientists think that evolution is incompatible with the religious beliefs of their constituents. It gives them a perfect cover when, as is happening once again right now, they introduce bills to get Intelligent Design Theory taught in biology classes in the public schools of the state.

Up to now, the courts have turned back such efforts on the grounds that they violate the separation of Church and State as mandated by the First Amendment to the Constitution. But, given the present composition of the Supreme Court, who knows what might happen the next time such a law comes before them? I just hope that in five years time I don’t find myself saying: “I told you so.”'

- Michael Ruse.

It is also fun that Singham's take on the Scopes Trial is typically positivist.

Such solicitousness for the sensitivities of so-called religious moderates is not new. During the run-up to the Scopes trial, in 1925, the accommodationists of that era were similarly uneasy about Clarence Darrow's defending John T. Scopes because they felt that his openly expressed scorn for religious beliefs might alienate potential religious allies. But Darrow's performance in that trial is now viewed as one of the high points in opposing the imposition of religious indoctrination in public schools. "Few Americans have ever done so much for their country in a whole lifetime as Darrow did in two hours," H.L. Mencken wrote after Darrow's withering questioning of William Jennings Bryan.