Replies

reasonisfaith: "It seems like you’re speaking of naturalism as defined in lay terms.
But the presumption of lay naturalism is generally consistent with the view of metaphysical naturalism, which says that all of reality is reducible to natural explanation."

Seriously, you need to recognize that statement -- stripped of it's qualifiers -- as not just a lie, but a d*mned lie.
You must comprehend that the scientific enterprise is not, and certainly was not, based on your "metaphysical naturalism", which denies all reality outside the natural realm, but rather on methodological naturalism, which simply sets aside all super-natural processes and explanations, for the purpose of scientific investigations.

That the "public mind" is totally confused on this subject is certainly the result of very aggressive atheists blurring the distinctions, and true Believers cowering in the face of "politically correct" onslaughts.

Indeed, it seems to me that some "fundamentalists" encourage the confusion, as a way of more sharply dividing their own faith from, let us call it: "worldly science".

“but a d*mned lie.” There, there little scientist... unless you can reference a higher order (then test that higher order reality to prove its existence) in which to judge between lies and ‘damned’ lies you run the risk of being run out of the scientist club.

You might think I’m being facetious but actually what I’ve said gets to the heart of what reasonisfaith is saying.

A statement can be proven true or false or judged a tautology by the strictest of scientific reasoning but a lie is a deliberate falsification of truth forbidden by religious moral codes, the sources of which , the scientific method would deem “untestable”.

You don’t say his statement is false or suggest that he is misinformed, you accuse him of a religious moral failing “by lying” or telling “a damned lie” there bye referring to a “fundamentalist” religious frame of reference you seem to scorn.

I think you have missed your calling. You should become a Sunday school teacher! A “fundamentalist” one at that!

All I’m trying to say to you is that scientific naturalism presumes to explain all things in terms of natural science.

But the most clear headed and honest of scholars will admit there is no natural explanation for consciousness or self.