(January 26, 2015 at 11:52 am)whateverist Wrote: Yeah, as an equivocation of the two, the argument doesn't work at all. But as a criticism of a blind faith that science and reason will unlock all secrets, I think it works just fine.
Think of the kinds of questions we banter over around here all the time: determinism vs free will; cosmology; origins; purpose; values; ontology. In every case, reason is more useful than theology hands down. But often enough I hear one or the other of us opine how such and such just doesn't make sense and I think, should it? Making sense in terms of what else we know is a valid point. But assuming we know enough about the big picture to say unequivocally what is and isn't possible? Probably an over reach.
That doesn't mean I should throw out my preference for natural over supernatural answers. But what really can I say to another human being that should persuade them to adopt the same bias? Probably no more than they can offer as to why it is I should join them in acknowledging a god. Both are biases but I like to think all useful advances have depended on people who shared my outlook.
But in the end there just isn't any reason I can offer to a theist why naturalism is better. Hell, most of them accept naturalism everyday. They just like to think there's a magic genie holding the natural order together.
The key is understanding the limits of reason and logic. Neither reason nor logic can explain things like emotions (though they may help), creativity, or whim.
