Fine, declare what tangible evidence you use to presuppose standards of naturalism and I will get back to you. Are you really so dense as not to understand the question?
OK. I declare tangible evidence to be evidence which I can somehow detect. Is this really rocket science to you?
By the way, one does not "presupposition." A presupposition is an "a priori" assumption one brings to the table.
Save the etimology lessons for someone who cares. You knew what I was trying to communicate, and neologism isn't a felony.
One "presupposes" certain things and adopts them usually without critical analysis. It is like a fish being unaware of the medium in which it swims (to quote another). This is why the modern technocrats splutter so angrily when they are challenged on this issue, and continue to recite the same old cant about science dealing with the observable and quantifiable, as if this were a new vantage point that was heretofore unacknowledged. Naturalistic assumptions are not a part of science, but are simply the philosophical a prioris of many modern scientists.
This is pretentious gibberish of an old stripe. People much less wordy than you have been confusing themselves, and others, about the distinction between philosophical naturalism and the choice of science to deal only with tangible evidence, since before you were a gleam in your father's eyes.
You are proposing that there is "evidence" to evaluate in choosing a world view? Indeed??!! How do you assume it is "evidence?" How do you classify that "evidence," since you bring no a priori assumptions to the table? Are you willing to accept the internal confirmation of the Holy Spirit that the Bible is the word of God as one of those "evidences," something that has been attested to by millions over the years from every known culture and language group? Or is there some reason that particular reason why the first person accounts of the resurrection of Jesus should be discounted as "evidences" of the parallel universe that exists alongside, permeates, and in fact drives this empirical universe from the inside out? What reasons do you bring to the table for dismissing this evidence, if indeed you do discount it? Finally, answer why you would feel compelled as a scientist to discount the claim that the universe does not simply bear the appearance of design (just quoting, they ain't my words), but in fact, bears the imprint of its Creator? I did not ask if you believed there WAS such evidence, but simply if "science" declares that such fields of inquiry are outside its scope?
You are correct in your slap re: etymology. It was pissy of me and I apologize.
People much less wordy than you have been confusing ... distinction between philosophical naturalism and the choice of science to deal only with tangible evidence Rather, the choice of science to declare that empiricism is the only final arbiter of true cosmological statements is a common malady among scientists who have confused their own philosophy with science. Carl Sagan's pile of unmitigated horseshit "The Cosmos is all there is and all there ever has been" is a great example of this. It is like some halfwit actor/singer who thnks that because s/he can emote, hit three chords and/or croon.., that this means they have something meaningful to say about the war in Iraq, or poverty in the Seychelles, or can be a prophet to us on the dangers of "tax cuts for the rich." If they should shut up and sing, then "science" should cease the silly posturing as though scientists alone have the ability to define the nature of the cosmos, or whether it bears the marks of a Creator
since before you were a gleam in your father's eyes.
I think the correct phrase is "b4 you were an ache in your father's crotch" but then maybe you were trying to acquiesce to my religious scruples, here. If so, thanks.
At any rate thank you for the exchange