(December 16, 2010 at 3:42 pm)Chuck Wrote:(December 16, 2010 at 2:16 pm)rjh4 Wrote:(December 16, 2010 at 4:34 am)theVOID Wrote: Natural epistemologies like scientific/methodological naturalism have already been shown without doubt to be the single most effective epistemology for establishing truth claims and getting results.
Void,
Unless I am missing something, that statement in itself is a truth claim.
So please explain for all of us how scientific/methodological naturalism (or any other natural epistemology) establishes the truthfulness of your statement (without your argument being circular, of course).
If you look around your medicine cabinate, the computer you type on, the car you drive, the plane you flew in, and the answer to what you ask is still not clear to you, then you are too stupid to ever enjoy real clarity. The bible is probably the best pretense at clarity that will ever be in your limited reach. So go back to it for you have no alternatives.
What you said clearly touches on the "and get results" part, but if fails to address the main part of what I was getting at. I was wondering how scientific/methodological naturalism could be used to establish the truthfulness of a claim that scientific/methodological naturalism is the single most effective epistimology for establishing truth claims, which is, essentially, what Void was claiming. So, Chuck, maybe you can address my real point.
And by the way, I don't have a problem with the idea that scientific/methodological naturalism is fine for establishing the some truth claims and I think it is great at getting results like the ones you mentioned, i.e., those things relating to operational science. Such things are not contrary to a Biblical epistimology. However, I don't think it is useful for establishing all truth claims as Void suggests. For example, can scientific/methodological naturalism establish the truth of either of the following truth claims?
"God exists."
"God does not exist."
I don't think so. If it could establish the truth of the first, you wouldn't be an atheist. If it could establish the truth of the second, there would be no need for most of the atheists here to consider themselves "agnostic atheists".
I hope this clarifies things for you, Chuck.
