Evidence. Can't go there due to a prior committment

[Fred]

[quote='Fred' pid='176368' dateline='1315516261']
Well, I'll take the long answer then.
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."

That part in bold is a great misrepresentation of why science doesn't use god to explain things....but I digress.

Digression or not, that is not what he is saying. A foot in the door and the whole thing goes down and he knows it as well as anyone else. That's the corner you guys have painted yourselves into with this absolute stance you've taken.

God as you guys are used to dealing with is not what I am interested in here. So there's no suspicions lurking out there. I'm not one of them, and you aren't going to hear me say anything that has anything to do with their views unless you put it in. The stuff you usually argue about is not on my radar at all.

That quote is just a more eloquent restating of what you've already said. Without facts to back this up, it is just an opinion. What I want are the reasons, such as facts or examples, that point to it being an a priori conclusion. Could you give me something along those lines.

You are looking for examples of materialism being an a priori conclusion? They are littered all over this board and any other board where the topic comes up. It's a given that "there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever for __," whether the blank is God, mind being non-reducible to brain function, or anything that isn't in line with the materialist view. That's an a priori stance right there, and the only interest anyone seems to have in any evidence is to see how quickly it can be dismissed. "No, that's no good, give me more" is the only club you guys have in the bag.

Hell, look at the way I get responded to just by positing the thesis that the evidence claim is unsound. Instead of just letting me lay out my case so you can knock it down or not of it's own weight, its been a blizzard of obfuscation and bitching that I'm not getting to the point. That I'm not is true, but the reason I'm not is because you guys won't let me. Minds are made up and challenges to that notion are summarily rejected as a starting point and then it's on to ad hominem and stir.

I haven't been able to get to your other post where you started to pick up the trail nicely, so I'm hoping at least you and a few others might drop the a priori bit and actually investigate what I have to say instead of merely castigate it out of hand. That smacks of fear to have one's views challenged on their merit.