Nope, completely on-target. What's wrong with you, pal?
"Anther false accusation, and I'll explain why: pal, when you write stuff which is flat wrong, you leave me wondering, is that because you are too stupid to know the truth, or because you are lying? Well, when you use fancy foreign words, that tends to eliminate the argument of simple stupidity, and adds weight to the argument for lying. That's why I highly recommend the KISS rule: Keep It Simple Stupid."
Nope, what you don't understand you refer to as 'fancy foreign words'. Those 'fancy foreign words' are simple concepts. I kept it simple for you and you still didn't get it.
"Well, look at that: an actual argument, what do you know?"
So, after denying that you personify science you now admit it. Good for you.
"And to your argument there's a simple answer. Does Christianity teach us anything? Or is it only some people claiming to be Christians who make statements regarding their religious beliefs? Or, indeed, does the Bible teach us anything? Or are there only certain people who claim to have read the Bible as the basis for their own religious teachings? And how do we even know for sure if those people and their supposed ideas are even real? What if they are not?"
So, after admitting that you personify science after having denied it you present a rant. Is that how you handle being called on poor thinking skills?
"It's stupid questions like this which caused me to introduce you to our 2:00 AM philosophical sophomores, whose chemically enhanced perceptions lead them to conclude that all of reality is just illusion and deception."
Personifying science is where the lack of critical-thinking skills shows most clearly. You consistently make this mistake and deny it as well. Just before admitting it and going on another rant.
"In fact, that's all just nonsense. In ordinary usage and simple language, we do speak of Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, science, biology, physics, etc., etc., as teaching us certain doctrines, principles, laws, facts, and so on."
Trying to justify your mistake of personifying science now? After having denied that you do it you now try to justify it?
"The doctrines of science include methodological naturalism, which you insist on calling "philosophical naturalism," though you refuse to define either term, or explain the difference, all the while falsely accusing me of not knowing or misrepresenting them."
Nope, you simply show that you fail to understand the problem while personifying science, then denying that you do so, then admitting that you do so, then justifying doing so...
"I do know the difference, I know that science is fundamentally based on methodological naturalism. and that your claim of "philosophical naturalism" is just another false accusation."
Nope. People use the claim of 'methodological naturalism' to cover for the foundation of philosophical naturalism that they use to filter their interpretations of evidence gained through methodological naturalism. That's how philosophically-natural theories are formed.. Were there any theories not based on philosophical naturalism, you would present them. They don't exist. It's not an 'accusation', it just a factual statement. You just characterize a factual statement as an 'accusation' so that you have grounds for rejecting it in your own mind. That's weak thinking.
"In fact, there is such a thing as "science," which does have committees, in the same sense as there is Christianity, or Conservatism, Liberalism, Communism, and so on. More to the point: what is your particular problem with this? You seem seriously hung up on it. I'm telling you, you sound like a bunch of 2:00 AM sophomores on this. Why?"
No, 'science' has no committees. Organizations of people have committees. You personify science again. Science is not a person. It does not 'have' anything.
"Sorry, now I'm out of time. I will come back and finish up later."
No need to apologize. I haven't placed a time-constraint on you.
From the beginning, when you first raised the charge of "personifying science," I've responded the same way: science is legitimately "personified" in the same sense as any other broad idea-set, like Christianity, conservatism, theology, philosophy, Marxism, libertarianism, etc., etc.
Now from your persistent criticism and mocking of me on this, I gather that destroying the very word "science" is critical to your own theology/philosophy.
But since you refuse to directly answer my response, I conclude your argument is probably false.
"So, after admitting that you personify science after having denied it you present a rant. Is that how you handle being called on poor thinking skills?"
You obviously think very highly of your own "thinking skills." I'm less impressed with them, and even less with your pretense of intellectual honesty. I am most impressed with how quickly you misrepresent my arguments and how flatly you refuse to honestly answer them.
"Nope, you simply show that you fail to understand the problem while personifying science, then denying that you do so, then admitting that you do so, then justifying doing so... "
Another false accusation. I've said the same thing from the beginning. You just don't like my answer, so you misrepresent it and mock me for it.
"People use the claim of 'methodological naturalism' to cover for the foundation of philosophical naturalism that they use to filter their interpretations of evidence gained through methodological naturalism. That's how philosophically-natural theories are formed.. Were there any theories not based on philosophical naturalism, you would present them. They don't exist. It's not an 'accusation', it just a factual statement. You just characterize a factual statement as an 'accusation' so that you have grounds for rejecting it in your own mind. That's weak thinking."
Here is the fact: people who work in scientific fields say their work is based on "methodological naturalism," meaning, they assume natural causes for natural occurrences. Some, but not all, also believe in what you call "philosophical naturalism," meaning they claim there is no supernatural reality beyond the "natural world."
But few that I know of would further assert that your "philosophical naturalism" is a NECESSARY foundation for methodological naturalism.
My opinion on this is, "methodological naturalism" should be more than adequate explain every scientific theory I know of. I see no need to ever sink down to the level of "philosophical naturalism."
So your charge of "philosophical naturalism" is not self-evidently true, and therefore should require you to provide some proof, demonstration or evidence for it.