Chris
>If you believe this, then why go to the extra conceptual clutter of
>non-naturalism? The ONLY sound general reason for accepting non-naturalism
>would be that naturalism *wasn't* viable. If you accept that it a
>materialist philosophy *is* viable, then you accept that non-naturalism has
>no adequate cognitive basis. Or do you mean something much more limited by
>"viable"?
Bertvan:
Hi Chris. To me, non-naturalism is not "clutter", but an important part of
reality. You have written an excellent 5 page argument for materialism. You
obviously sincerely believe matter and physical laws are all of reality.
Nothing else exists. I won't say the "burden of proof" is upon you. It
obviously can not be proved nor disproved.
You state that macro evolution is no different in kind from micro evolution.
This is merely an assertion, apparently based upon nothing more than no one
has yet articulated any difference. This might be a point where even many of
your materialistic colleagues are beginning to disagree.
Chris, I wouldn't dream of trying to counter your arguments. What would it
accomplish? I feel no urge to try to influence the philosophy of any
materialist. The point is a majority of the population are probably not
materialists. As the public realizes how closely science is tied to
materialism, they might begin to feel free to voice open skepticism of
science, including Darwinism. That is my only interest in this debate. The
day when people who do not believe science can explain everything are
treated with the same respect as those who claim materialism CAN explain
everything is the day I'll probably lose interest in the subject.
Bertvan