Replies

I haven't seen it, I might want to check it out! But again, to bang the drum, "science" is supposedly based upon empiricism (except when "science" is discussing evolution, which is an eminently non-empirical speculation). But the problem is that empiricism - essentially knowledge based upon what we derive from the senses - is no better of a means of coming at knowledge than any other, and is indeed worse than some. Empiricism can easily be rendered useless through misinterpretation - then the problem lies with the act of cognition which apperceives the sensory input. This is, at its root, a psychological and philosophical problem, and underlies much of the fallacy of evolutionary argumentation. Essentially, evolutionists attempt to argue from the strictly empirical - bones we dig up, genetics, etc. - to the metaphysical assumption that their interpretation of these empiricals must be correct. But to do so, they have to ditch empiricism and rely strictly on their own metaphysical assumptions. In other words, evolutionary interpretations about "science" - old earth, naturalist evolution, etc. - only become substantiated when you assume those very same interpretations, which is circular reasoning.

The "scientist" seeking to argue for naturalism and against theism on the basis of empiricism always and interminably falls into the same trap that David Hume did (and from which he never successfully extricated himself, I might add), which is that of assuming that sensory perception amounts to the suma tota of existence. If Hume couldn't see, hear, smell, touch, or taste it, then it didn't exist. Problem is - as was argued by his contemporaries - this would give truth value to the obviously absurd conclusion that a tropical prince, having never seen snow, would be entirely reasonable in assuming that you were either lying or out of your gourd if you were to tell him about it. Argumentation from strict logic aside, the fact of the matter remains that snow DOES exist, no matter how "reasonable" it might be for him to assume otherwise. Indeed, in this case, evidence from testimony proves to be SUPERIOR to evidence from empirical observation.

Such it is with the cases we've seen on this thread. Empiricism, "science", is in no way a debunking of arguments either of the historicity of Christianity, nor of the reality of miracles, etc. in the Bible, nor of the reality of personal religious experience. Simply because the non-believer hasn't experienced them doesn't mean they don't exist, and simply because a miraculous event testified to in a document doesn't "fit in" with the laws of science that we know (or think we know), doesn't mean that those events are invalidated.