I consider a "meaty" issue finding a methodology that will satisfy the complaints about materialism, and still provide an objective framework for scientists of dissimilar religious beliefs to collaborate effectively. That seems a pivotal matter in the entire debate, but I can't seem to find anyone who's willing to address it in concrete terms.
I have been speaking to that very issue, dear tacticalogic! In my view, the objective framework is for scientists to approach their investigations more like the mathematicians and declare the axioms/postulates applicable to the investigation at hand, upfront and clearly.
If it's not relevant, it's not on the table in the first place. That gets the bias out whether theistic or atheistic.
In my view, the objective framework is for scientists to approach their investigations more like the mathematicians and declare the axioms/postulates applicable to the investigation at hand, upfront and clearly.If it's not relevant, it's not on the table in the first place. That gets the bias out whether theistic or atheistic.
How do you approach a debate if a theory holds it to be axiomatic that a cause can be arbitrary and undetectable empirically?