Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: SteveMcKing
"Melodramatic bull---. There is no theological premise in any scientific paper being published today. You have to be a romantic old scientist suffering severe dementia to believe otherwise."

Sorry, but you're wrong.

The assumption of naturalism as the ultimate arbiter of truth *is* a 'theological premise'.

Think about it...

10 posted on 07/16/2007 3:16:23 PM PDT by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]


To: GourmetDan
The assumption of naturalism as the ultimate arbiter of truth *is* a ‘theological premise’.

Agree, and generally accepted without any serious thought as to alternative explanations.

My Christianity affords great support to the belief in an understandable Universe, by accepting an"mind" that gives the Universe structure and meaning.

Naturalism gives no such support because it assumes that that Reason is also a natural process, in which case the very thing used by naturalists to explain the Universe, Reason, is itself a part of the Universe, invoking irrevocable, circular logic, as a thing can not be used to explain itself

Only by accepting that Reason is "Meaningful" can one then accept the construct of Reason which is Science. This begs the question of what gives Reason "Meaning".

12 posted on 07/16/2007 3:31:48 PM PDT by HangnJudge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson