How can fundamentalists not wake up?

[watchamadoodle]

Sure you weren't indoctrinated at college and told the truth during childhood? Do you think that your college is impartial, or your professors, or the ones deciding their wages and the curriculem? What do you ground that belief on?

I went to a science and engineering college, so the professors weren't a factor at all. I didn't take any electives in philosophy and I don't think we even had electives in religion.

I remember one day the issue of God came up with some friends. In the course of the conversation, my friends were aghast that I still believed the Bible somewhat literally. So I gradually reexamined and discarded those beliefs, and eventually I discarded my belief in God (for the most part). In retrospect I should have finished-off God right there, but I just gave him a few kicks and walked off. That was a mistake, because he came back to cause trouble for me 20 years later. Now I think he's really dead. *kick him one more time to be sure* - yeah.

---

Willie Wonka said; "A little nonsense is relished by the wisest man."

good quote.

---

Of course, going to college tends to have little effect on the faith of liberal Christians, who weren't taught that evolution is a lie and science is a conspiracy to perpetuate that lie and everything in the Bible actually happened exactly as portrayed. A certain comfort level with ambiguity is a strong defense against new facts breaking your faith.

That's a good point. I was an Episcopalian. Giving up a literal understanding of the Bible didn't kill my faith. I lost faith, because I wanted God to do something to show me he existed (such the born again experiences, spiritual gifts, etc.). I never could make any of that work, so I lost faith. Unfortunately, I didn't become a gnostic non-Christian. I didn't learn all the reasons why Christianity can't be true. That was unfortunate in hindsight.

---

We don't operate under the premise that "nothing other than naturalism can exist, period, end of story", we operate under the premise that "as of yet, there is no reason to believe anything supernatural does exist, and until the existence of the supernatural can be proven, there's no justification of operating under that assumption."

I'm not sure methodological naturalism even goes that far? I think it just says that supernatural is rare enough that we can ignore it when we do science? Same difference though I suppose.