>
> What do you mean by point 1 above?
>
Point 1 was: that "scientific materialism-naturalism" is not "a 'hollow and
deceptive philosophy'".
>
> I haven't been following all of your discussions with Steve, but
"scientific
> materialism-naturalism" seems dangerously ambiguous.
>
That's Stephen's term, and I believe he means it to be "dangerously
ambiguous" for the reasons you cite later.
>
> It could mean, and in the minds of atheists often does, "metaphysical
> naturalism", that nature is all there is -- no supernatural, no God, etc..
> Obviously this is mutually exclusive wrt Christianity.
>
True, but that still doesn't mean it is "a 'hollow and deceptive philosophy'"
as Stephen claims.
>
> Or it could mean, as I'm sure you're meaning, mere "methodological
> naturalism", i.e., for pragmatic reasons (though atheists will deem it more
> than pragmatic) natural science employs only natural forces and objects in
> its theoretical explanations -- anything else is beyond the reach of
science
> as a technique, but not necessarily (so far as science is concerned,
anyway)
> irrational or unreal.
>
Exactly.
>
> I think Steve is using the term "scientific materialism-naturalism" in the
> first sense, while you're using it in the second.
>
I agree with this assessment.
>
> (Indeed, I suspect Steve
> thinks there ISN'T a second sense that is in any deep way distinct from the
> first, which IMHO is one of his most frustrating conceptual mistakes.)
>
I agree with this assessment as well, only I would suggest that many of his
"frustrating conceptual mistakes" are in fact deliberate. In this case, he
pretends that there is no second sense when in fact he knows very well that
there is. He then pretends to be dense while making dogmatic statements in
the hope that his opponent will become frustrated enough to lash out angerly
(thus re-enforcing his claim that he or she has been "taken 'captive by a
hollow and deceptive philosophy...' namely scientific
materialism-naturalism") or abandon the debate (leaving him as default
victor).
>
> This
> could result in an even more-than-usually entertaining discussion if the
> different uses of the term aren't distinguished.
>
True, which is another reason why I believe his whole position, from
arguments to beliefs to claims and even to his "mistakes" is far more
deliberately contrived than most of us realize.
Kevin L. O'Brien