If only that were true. If only one could wish one’s toothache to belong to some utter non-self vanishing into a mist somewhere. Now, that’d be the day.
In a post-modern environment, people can say whatever and compel others to accept it because that is the closest substitute for truth for a nihilistic society.
But doesn’t that mean giving up on any modern version of naturalism?
Come to think of it, why do so many secularist causes today seem to depend on magic?
Which Christian academic institutions to support: How clearly do they understand naturalism? Are they surrendering by degrees or fighting on the EVIDENCE?
Jonathan Bartlett: The discussion of intelligent design [at Real Clear Science], while not terrible, has a few significant flaws.
Critic: Where there should be clarity, there is obscurantism. Where a modicum of professorial disinterest should prevail, political and religious passions run amok.
Chemical cross-reactions, including the Maillard reaction, would have prevented a purely naturalistic origin of life.
If I had no other reason for thinking Darwinian naturalism a decaying idea – as an idea – articles like this would confirm the suspicion.
One show described as “a veritable showcase for systematic bias, is consistently anti-science and anti-technology”
Both come off looking like clunkers.
If you need to debunk the claim that materialism or naturalism (claimed to be “science”) should rule.
Sometimes sounds that way. Gonna be ugly.
The field, as presently constituted, exists to keep out serious analysis, not further it. That won’t change any time soon.
We have it on good authority that some naturalist atheists have abandoned their principles and are abjectly praying to the Retirement Fairy. 😉