Through the Lens: Evolution, "What About Transitional Forms?

[bippy123]

I think repeatability - the possibility for phenomena to be independently verified - is fundamental to science.

That's where we disagree and that's where I believe that methodological naturalism has taken a philosophical foothold into science. Science is just the search for knowledge and by narrowing science down to repeatability it limits science. Science has to eventually change and be allowed to be broadened back to its original meaning.

When my grandfather was saved from being murdered by an angel from 7 men intending to bury him alive, my dad wasnt there, no one else was there but my grandfather and the 7 men that ran away scared, but my dad still believed his testimony. Why? Because he know my grandfather wasnt the kind of man to tell tall tales.
This story can't be proven by science but I still believe it happened.

That doesn't mean that an event which is by its very nature a one-time-only thing can't be verified through science, or that only events which can be independently verified can be considered to be true. I know you've only dropped into this thread recently, but I've said that multiple times that I don't believe the scientific method is a sound way for determining all possible kinds of truth, I even said as much in the very post you have quoted here ("I don't believe empiricism is the only means to derive truth, just that it is a good means to derive certain kinds of truth"). If I experienced Christ in a supernatural way for myself, then it very possibly would not be amenable to scientific investigation, but it would not in any way be less true.

I'm ok with that Perci.

Edit: Speaking of a second-coming scenario, I think it is likely that you as a Christian would be as cautious as a non-theist in accepting the supposed Christ figure as genuine. Surely you would demand a very high standard of evidence - either empirical or subjective - to make damn sure that it really was Jesus as opposed to a human charlatan or a demonic manifestation?

That would depend on what you mean by evidence perci. I would actually demand the normal evidence for Jesus, and do not forget when you do make up your mind to get on Jesus's side you also have the supernatural conviction of the Holy Spirit on your side , if you take that leap of faith as Jesus asks of us.

[Kurieuo]

I think repeatability - the possibility for phenomena to be independently verified - is fundamental to science.

That's where we disagree and that's where I believe that methodological naturalism has taken a philosophical foothold into science.

Yes, I think this is to case too now after delving more into it in this thread.

It seems over the years I've been mixed over how to consider MN, whether it is a statement of one philosophical ideology over another, or it is indeed neutral. I believe it is clearly the former.

That said, it is entirely neutral to investigate how something naturally works, whether or not one believes the world to be designed by God. This however, doesn't need to have the sophistication of Methodological Naturalism laid out. The only reason that MN is proposed is out of an absurd and irrational fear by Atheists (or "Naturalists" if preferred) that God will be injected as an explanation in each step.

In stark contrast to this belief, it is my opinion that one's belief in God can carry them to do science in a more passionate and honest manner. Yes, I believe Theists would make the better scientists. Of course such an assertion is hard to prove, so it is more of a personal statement. But, like many Christians passionately give up their lives to perform charity work out of their love for God and others -- so too it stands to reason a Christian who is a scientist may be driven out of their passion for God to understand His creation and do better science.

Certainly, Copernicus saw it as a form of worship and didn't feel any need to hang a hat anywhere when he said:

• To know the mighty works of God, to comprehend His wisdom and majesty and power; to appreciate, in degree, the wonderful workings of His laws, surely all this must be a pleasing and acceptable mode of worship to the Most High, to whom ignorance cannot be more grateful than knowledge.

So to reiterate my position, MN only needs to be stated because of a dead wrong fear of those who do not believe in God. It is really smuggling Philosophical Naturalism into science, when science takes no stances on ideologies.

I no longer even believe that Methodological Naturalism is really a method of doing science. One doesn't need to say what is already obvious to science (physical sciences) which is an investigation into how something naturally works. It is tautologous to invoke "Methodological Naturalism", and therefore ultimately MN is revealed as purely and simply a philosophical statement of an Atheistic ideology [mis]directed at Theism. It simply wants to highlight an often accepted but stupid belief that there is some schism, an incompatibility, between "Science" and "Belief in God".

Copernicus did not need to be told to keep to Methodological Naturalism, when in his own words, science was one mode wherein he worshiped God. He also is not alone, and there are many other prominent scientists who also believed God existed.

[bippy123]

I think repeatability - the possibility for phenomena to be independently verified - is fundamental to science.

That's where we disagree and that's where I believe that methodological naturalism has taken a philosophical foothold into science.

Yes, I think this is to case too now after delving more into it in this thread.

It seems over the years I've been mixed over how to consider MN, whether it is a statement of one philosophical ideology over another, or it is indeed neutral. I believe it is clearly the former.

That said, it is entirely neutral to investigate how something naturally works, whether or not one believes the world to be designed by God. This however, doesn't need to have the sophistication of Methodological Naturalism laid out. The only reason that MN is proposed is out of an absurd and irrational fear by Atheists (or "Naturalists" if preferred) that God will be injected as an explanation in each step.

In stark contrast to this belief, it is my opinion that one's belief in God can carry them to do science in a more passionate and honest manner. Yes, I believe Theists would make the better scientists. Of course such an assertion is hard to prove, so it is more of a personal statement. But, like many Christians passionately give up their lives to perform charity work out of their love for God and others -- so too it stands to reason a Christian who is a scientist may be driven out of their passion for God to understand His creation and do better science.

Certainly, Copernicus saw it as a form of worship and didn't feel any need to hang a hat anywhere when he said:

• To know the mighty works of God, to comprehend His wisdom and majesty and power; to appreciate, in degree, the wonderful workings of His laws, surely all this must be a pleasing and acceptable mode of worship to the Most High, to whom ignorance cannot be more grateful than knowledge.

So to reiterate my position, MN only needs to be stated because of a dead wrong fear of those who do not believe in God. It is really smuggling Philosophical Naturalism into science, when science takes no stances on ideologies.

I no longer even believe that Methodological Naturalism is really a method of doing science. One doesn't need to say what is already obvious to science (physical sciences) which is an investigation into how something naturally works. It is tautologous to invoke "Methodological Naturalism", and therefore ultimately MN is revealed as purely and simply a philosophical statement of an Atheistic ideology [mis]directed at Theism. It simply wants to highlight an often accepted but stupid belief that there is some schism, an incompatibility, between "Science" and "Belief in God".

Copernicus did not need to be told to keep to Methodological Naturalism, when in his own words, science was one mode wherein he worshiped God. He also is not alone, and there are many other prominent scientists who also believed God existed.

Total agreement Kurieuo
and this supposed belief that there is a schism between science and God is a recent philosophical phenomena. When Antony Flew was asked why he changed his mind and left atheism for belief in a creator (deism) he simply stated that he honestly followed the SCIENTIFIC evidence to where it lead him in typical socratic fashion.

If you want to see someone willing to make a complete fool out of themselves to keep God out of the equation, just look at richard dawkins and lawrence krauss define nothing here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v34QjYPuiEA

I just watched this a few days ago and I couldnt stop laughing , and laughter is bad for me right now since my throat is killing me

[PerciFlage]

I think repeatability - the possibility for phenomena to be independently verified - is fundamental to science.

That's where we disagree and that's where I believe that methodological naturalism has taken a philosophical foothold into science. Science is just the search for knowledge and by narrowing science down to repeatability it limits science. Science has to eventually change and be allowed to be broadened back to its original meaning.

When my grandfather was saved from being murdered by an angel from 7 men intending to bury him alive, my dad wasnt there, no one else was there but my grandfather and the 7 men that ran away scared, but my dad still believed his testimony. Why? Because he know my grandfather wasnt the kind of man to tell tall tales.
This story can't be proven by science but I still believe it happened.

Regarding the bolded bit, science isn't just the search for knowledge, but the study of certain kinds of testable knowledge. Epistemology is the area of philosophy which concerns knowledge more broadly than just that which can be tested, and which also defines the limitations of science, including the criteria that scientific knowledge must come from testable, repeatable, objective hypotheses.

It seems over the years I've been mixed over how to consider MN, whether it is a statement of one philosophical ideology over another, or it is indeed neutral. I believe it is clearly the former.

That said, it is entirely neutral to investigate how something naturally works, whether or not one believes the world to be designed by God. This however, doesn't need to have the sophistication of Methodological Naturalism laid out. The only reason that MN is proposed is out of an absurd and irrational fear by Atheists (or "Naturalists" if preferred) that God will be injected as an explanation in each step.

...

Copernicus did not need to be told to keep to Methodological Naturalism, when in his own words, science was one mode wherein he worshiped God. He also is not alone, and there are many other prominent scientists who also believed God existed.

Copernicus probably never used the term methodological naturalism, but it certainly describes his approach to science. His model of the universe/solar system was rooted in observation, as opposed to the earlier models of Ptolemy and Brahe et al which included a horrendous number of fudges to square with the arbitrary idea of a centrally located Earth.

I don't think that "the only reason that MN is proposed is out of an absurd and irrational fear by Atheists (or "Naturalists" if preferred) that God will be injected as an explanation in each step", it's just one of the many formalised descriptions which come through disciplines such as epistemology and state how science should be done. Things that most people - theists included - currently regard as being supernatural cannot be used as explanations in science because they are not testable. They are certainly things about which hypotheses in science can be drawn though - the psi phenomena bippy and I were discussing a few posts ago would be considered supernatural by just about anyone, but that hasn't stopped scientists coming up with ways that those supernatural phenomena might be tested. ID falls into this camp as well, as it attempts to use testable hypotheses to demonstrate that there are natural things for which there is absolutely no legitimate natural explanation.

I can see why you would balk at the term methodological naturalism as it includes the word "naturalism", but every working scientist be they atheist, Christian, spiritualist, whatever, holds by its tenets while doing their work. I think all of us on this thread share the same understanding as to what the limitations of science are, and appreciate that there are forms of truth and reality which are not accessible to science, so it's probably best to not get too hung up on the definition of a term which in effect just formalises what we already know about science.

[hughfarey]

"Science is just the search for knowledge."
I don't think we can let this statement get by without elucidation. Science is a lot more than a search. It's the discovery at the end of the search, and, perhaps most importantly, the confirmation and dissemination of that knowledge. The insistence on repeatability is not a whim, it is often a crucial part of establishing that what has been searched for has in fact been found. Bippy123's description, that repeatability is "the possibility for phenomena to be independently verified" is not an add-on to science, it is fundamental. Any individual may have (often does have) firm convictions about all sorts of things, which may affect that individual profoundly, but that doesn't make those convictions either 'knowledge' or 'science.' It becomes science when other people test that conviction and confirm it.

[Kurieuo]

Perci, I re-refer you to what I wrote as it seems some pennies didn't drop.

But, then you may call me balking if you prefer. Whatever pleases you, or makes you feel comfortable.

While it didn't seem this way to me initially in the exchanges, Morny seems clearly more honest with its meaning and helped things click (thanks Morny, even if you're not sure what you did).

MN is clearly tautologous, unless wishing to highlight some sort of obscure slant against belief in God. Copernicus did science without needing to understand MN, because certain methods that MN claims to provide are actually implicit to Science. Only Copernicus did his science without basing his enquiry in Philosophical Naturalism (like MN), but rather based upon a fully-fledged Theism, specifically Christianity.

If you don't get that, then that's ok. Seems others like bippy got it.

[PerciFlage]

K,

I understand what you said in your previous post, I just don't agree that methodological naturalism is a cunning way of sneaking in philosophical naturalism by the back door^*. I can see why coming from your position (and having no doubt encountered the worst, most militant kind of atheists and anti-theists) you would feel that one wouldn't postulate MN "unless wishing to highlight some sort of obscure slant against belief in God". It just seemed to me - because we both otherwise agree on the process and limitations of science - that you were balking at the term itself rather than what the term encompasses. Apologies if that isn't the case.

* This no doubt reflects my background and biases. I'm definitely not a philosophical naturalist, but I definitely do hold by methodological naturalism because it just states what is necessary to science. That's why I have no problem with the term per se.

[Morny]

Reason? Reason has nothing to do with the Golden Rule.

Here's a "golden rule" that I see as reasonable, and which most people tend to follow in their everydays lives. And it's one that makes logical sense:

Look after yourself first, and then anyone else thereafter as much as it profits you.

After it's your life. You won't be around after it. So live it your way. ("your" intended as third person, not you specifically)

Care to offer a logical alternative?

Do you really have such a low ignorant view of non-theists we're discussing?

Reason has everything to do with the Golden Rule. A random group of non-theists, who roughly agree on reasonable well-known variations of the Golden Rule, can easily agree on a set of concrete ethical rules, some of which will look surprisingly like the last 7 Commandments. Those ethical rules will look nothing like what you sarcastically describe above.

In contrast, a random sampling of Christians won't even agree on necessary and sufficient conditions for entry into heaven. (Yes, I know, if someone disagrees with your conditions, then they're not really Christians ...)

Certainly, Copernicus saw it as a form of worship and didn't feel any need to hang a hat anywhere when he said:

• To know the mighty works of God, to comprehend His wisdom and majesty and power; to appreciate, in degree, the wonderful workings of His laws, surely all this must be a pleasing and acceptable mode of worship to the Most High, to whom ignorance cannot be more grateful than knowledge.

Ironically, you don't seem to realize that Copernicus is arguing for MN. His reference to "ignorance" relates to Galileo's Simplicio character, which also relates (in the opposite way) to the very religious Pasteur, when he hung God's hat on his coat rack, before doing his ground-breaking science. You also still don't seem to understand that worshiping God can be and is independent of MN.

And for no extra cost on this Science Shopping Network, I'll give a 4th classic example of the power of MN. Even Newton, when his gravitational theory seemed to predict unstable planetary orbits, explained that God tweaks the orbits to keep the solar system stable. Newton abandoned MN. Big mistake. Because then Laplace comes along to lay the pathway showing how the solar system is stable without periodic supernatural diddling.

I no longer even believe that Methodological Naturalism is really a method of doing science.

Arguing against 400 years worth of examples of MN's hyper-spectacular success. The mind boggles.

[Kurieuo]

Perci, read the RationalWiki definition, and then re-tell me if MN really is neutral. Unless one adds in "it is based upon assumptions of Philosophical Naturalism" it is tautologous. That is, adds nothing since Science obviously only works with the world we experience to understand how it works. So what is the reason for the, "Oh, but it needs to be based upon PN"? (as many like in wikis want to define it)

Morny, seems some feathers have been ruffled.

I prefer to just say "400 year of successes in Science" and not "Methodological Naturalism". How is saying "scientists used the tools and methods of Science" different from "scientists use the tools and methods of Methodological Naturalism"? What are you reacting to here -- that I disagree with assuming Philosophical Naturalism?

You yourself pointed out to me that MN is grounded in PN and that this is even alluded to in the Wikipedia definition. If this is the case, how is it Science? The only way it is Science, is if you retreat into the meaning that MN really isn't grounded on PN but is simply a way of examining nature. If you do this, then it seems to me you're simply trying to place your feet on both sides and choosing one as it suits you.

To be clear, I have no qualms with MN if it is simply seen as examining the world in its natural state. This is neutral, however as we have seen even with yourself in your earlier posts, it is not acceptable enough to state MN is such simplistic terms. There is some want for MN to be based PN, rather than accept MN as simply a position that seeks out non-interventionist explanations in nature (whether human, alien or divine). Such "want" to base MN upon PN obviously appears to be some desire for secular ideology to be injected into science that is unfriendly to Theism.

And obviously, any Theist ought to reject something unfriendly to Theism. A Theist might redefine MN without basing it upon any philosophical assumption though (as I earlier attempted to your dismay). While one might redefine MN in this manner, then isn't this in no fancy terms what we really call doing "Science"? So I now just choose to adopt the simpler term "Science" which has no presupposed ideological baggage.

[Kurieuo]

Reason? Reason has nothing to do with the Golden Rule.

Here's a "golden rule" that I see as reasonable, and which most people tend to follow in their everydays lives. And it's one that makes logical sense:

Look after yourself first, and then anyone else thereafter as much as it profits you.

After it's your life. You won't be around after it. So live it your way. ("your" intended as third person, not you specifically)

Care to offer a logical alternative?

Do you really have such a low ignorant view of non-theists we're discussing?

Actually, yes, I believe I have very little ignorance of non-theists.

Reason has everything to do with the Golden Rule. A random group of non-theists, who roughly agree on reasonable well-known variations of the Golden Rule, can easily agree on a set of concrete ethical rules, some of which will look surprisingly like the last 7 Commandments. Those ethical rules will look nothing like what you sarcastically describe above.

Err, how does reason have everything to do with the Golden Rule?

I was not using sarcasm at all. I am dead serious. I've see it. I've even been there and considered it.

I'm born into this world. This is my life. I do not experience the life of someone else, just my life. I want the best for my life. Therefore, I come first in life and everyone else where I see they fit into creating the best world for myself.

Now that is a logical argument. You might reject it, but it is one based on logical reasoning. So to reject it, you need to logically refute one of the premises rather than just rejecting the conclusion outright as you have done.

I'd also be interested in hearing an alternative logical argument that supports the Golden Rule? The only reason I can see, is not logical, but rather emotional. And if emotions evolved to keep humanity more social, why we ought to discard them for ourselves when they don't really suit us.

[PerciFlage]

Perci, read the RationalWiki definition, and then re-tell me if MN really is neutral. Unless one adds in "it is based upon assumptions of Philosophical Naturalism" it is tautologous. That is, adds nothing since Science obviously only works with the world we experience to understand how it works. So what is the reason for the, "Oh, but it needs to be based upon PN"? (as many like in wikis want to define it)

K, I'm sure the definition given on a website which devotes much of its server space to offering rebuttals of theist claims is likely to be biased, and very probably written by people who are philosophical as well as methodological naturalists. That doesn't mean that the term itself is necessarily rooted in and yoked to philosophical naturalism.

Like many terms in science and philosophy, it is a tautologous but succinct way of capturing a broad range of pre-existing ideas. The same can be said of Intelligent Design - the basic teleological concepts it encapsulated are both obvious and at least as old as Paley, but the term itself is much newer.

Interestingly the term methodological naturalism seems to have been coined by a Christian scholar in the 1980s, see here: http://www.thinkingchristian.net/posts/ ... aturalism/

I imagine your objections to the term are similar to those laid out by that article's author under the concluding "Psychological impact of the Term" heading:

The argument I’m making here is admittedly neither philosophical nor logical; rather it is psychological. Pennock’s statement about MN’s implying nothing about the true nature of reality would be true and trustworthy in every way, if only MN did not have the psychological effect of biasing the mind toward naturalism, and of giving cover to some writers’ false (and non-scientific) contentions that to be scientific requires one to be atheistic.

I do appreciate that stance, and I can see why as a Christian the term jars with you. I just don't agree with the stance myself because, as I said earlier, I hold to methodological naturalism whilst definitely not being a philosophical naturalist.

[Kurieuo]

Thanks Perci,

Took a glimpse at the link and the author puts forward some ideas I'm interested to read. Will save that for when I have more time. Certainly your quote about the psychological impact, perhaps contributes to obscurity I see with Methodological Naturalism falling on the side of Philosophical Naturalism. Certainly, I do see that element to it.

Re: the RationalWiki definition, if you pay close attention to the Wikipedia definition it is more neutral but still strongly insinuates a methodology based upon philosophical naturalism. I do not fault those definitions though, the term itself lends itself to misunderstanding... and who am I to argue these definitions are wrong if that is what most understand them to be?

Consider two different ways of looking at the term "Methodological Naturalism":

1) People look at "Methodological" and think methods one uses. Fine. Then they look at "Naturalism" and automatically assume this is philosophical naturalism -- hence "Methods used with the assumption of Naturalism." Makes sense. And I'm leaning towards this is the obvious definition and how many would understand it. Certainly, Morny appears to prefer this definition.

2) On the other hand, one can take a conjoined looked at the fuller term "Methodological Naturalism" to simply mean a more neutral method of examining the natural order of things without any sort of intelligent intervention. For example, plants might randomly grow in no particular pattern out in the wild -- this is the natural order of things. However, to see them lined up perfectly in rows according to their own kind and particular colours -- without any natural explanation this is likely the result of an unnatural arrangement (e.g., produced by a gardener).

Now we saw with my CSI question, that this second neutral definition seems at the end of the day not good enough for you and Morny. Rather you guys desired to push out MN to borrow assumptions of Philosophical Naturalism so that it could encapsulate "intelligence we are familiar with" and incorporate that into the natural order of things.

Well now this is starting to take on the first definition above... isn't it? Some sort of extended subjective definition of what "Natural" really means, rather than a plain definition of looking at the natural working of something. You called the definition of "Naturalism" circular, since the spiritual world could very well be apart of the natural order -- yet we're excluding them because of??? Because they're not "natural" (their conclusion is already presumed). This is circular, and philosophical bias whether theistic or atheistic can affect good science.

So therefore, I'll even add this injection of Philosophical Naturalism which seems to weed its way in via MN... may even stunt scientific investigation. Because one is presuming ahead of time what is or isn't natural and therefore avoiding certain conclusion which may in fact not just be true, but true of nature.

Now perhaps this could be resolved if one simply understands as you appear to want to advocate, that MN is simply a manner of investigation that uncovers the way things naturally work. It makes no assumptions. It draws no conclusions. We just do the observing. Like an archaeologist's hammer, chisel and brush, MN just helps to uncover patterns of information that we can observe and even see repeated. Then, when a scientist draws logical conclusions from these observations and/or natural experiments, this extends out of MN into more of the theoretical side of science that is based upon logical reasoning and whatever subjective philosophical assumptions one brings to the table.

So for MN to remain neutral it needs to avoid conclusions, and just be a method of examination on the natural order of things in our universe. As such, it is a category mistake to say that MN assumes only Natural explanations (i.e., philosophical naturalism) -- because MN doesn't provide any explanations but rather scientists providing theories based upon the data revealed via MN do.

I'd be satisfied with that definition. Sadly, I just don't know whether MN ought to be defined in that limited sense. Since the majority of people believe that in following MN one ought to hang their "God" hat at the door... and that just doesn't make sense if MN truly is neutral.

Interested in your thoughts. Hopefully you agree with some of the above?? While finding this philosophising of science interesting, I'd like to agree and move on.

[Kurieuo]

And, this is just like Christians who claim to have experiences of God, or even a clear spiritual perception of God's obvious existence in the world. But, obviously such experiences aren't going to serve well as an objective argument like those made via logic, reason and common experience. And I've never argued such a thing, but much the opposite.

As for this Poindexter person, you are presuming or implying to know the reality of things if you write it off instantly without due consideration. To do so, means you would not be agnostic about such matters, not even weak agnostic... Further, there is no logical inconsistency with saying both are true. Poindexter's experience of an abduction of some sort by no means nullifies my own spiritual experiences or vice-versa.

I think we're very much in agreement here. I feel you're slightly missing the point of the Poindexter person, though. It might clarify if we add a third person into the mix:

Poindexter: "I have experienced abduction".

Kurieuo: "I have experienced God".

Bob: "I have experienced Krishna".

The question is whether, regardless of the fact that experience of those things are not universal, is there a way of assessing objectively whether or not those experiences are genuine in the same way that a blind person can with vision? Better still, is there a standard of evidence that validates some of those experiences whilst ruling out others? You've mentioned widely shared and broadly similar experience as one possible line of evidence, and I agree that this is plausible. I'd be interested to know whether you think there is a reliable means by which an outside observer can distinguish between the similar experiences of different Hindus on the one hand, and of different Christians on the other (in the way that we can distinguish between people who be able to determine objects at a distance through vision, and those who claim to be able to do it psychically). It's fine if you don't think such a method exists, I'm not saying that would be proof that your experiences are inauthentic - absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and all that.

Out of interest, what is your take - if you have one - on the spiritual claims of members of other faiths? I'll take as read that you don't believe Krishna exists, so would I be correct in thinking that you believe claims of experiencing him fall into one of the below categories?

[1]- Hindus who claim experience of Krishna are having authentic experiences, but they are really experiencing something from God of the Bible and wrongly attributing it to Krishna.
[2]- Hindus are having authentic experiences, but they are Satanic/demonic in nature.
[3]- Hindus are not having genuine spiritual experiences, and any similarities between the claims of different Hindus is explained by different reasons than similarities between different Christians' experiences of God.

I offer up my ignorance to Krishna as I have not looked into him much, or understand his origins, any authentic elements to his story, etc.

However, the fact they embrace many deities places Hinduism in a box of contradictions. Still there are similarities with Christianity, in particular "sin" and needing to be cleansed of it. And like Christianity, one in order to go to heaven/be with God must be fully righteous and without sin. However, unlike Christianity, Hinduism believes one can live a fully righteous life which clearly contradicts Christianity and Judaism. Consider Isaiah 64:6 that says, "All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags." (Isaiah 64:6) There is always going to be some stain on our life, no matter how good we try to be -- such that our works are like blood stained rags from a woman's menstruation to God. For God to accept any sin makes Him culpable, even makes God anti-God since Christianity believes righteousness is essential to God's nature or who God is.

The solution Christianity offers is through Christ alone who satisfied the righteous requirements. Being associated with us in human form, He fulfilled the law thus becoming the way by which others apart of humanity could be redeemed (very much akin to Israel's "kinsmen redeemer" concept). And so, while we are covered in sin, God can now directly forgive us through Christ. And through Christ we are justified such that we can now be saved from God's "righteous wrath". This is the Christian theological underpinning of what it means to be saved. Being saved isn't going to heaven, but being saved from God's righteous wrath.

Ok, so you've got enough foundation there for my Christian beliefs right? Hindu doesn't really offer a solution that seriously deals with our sin. As I understand it, one can live a fully righteous life, and if one doesn't then they may opt to "please the gods" through worship and supplication. But, how can something sinful still please the gods if the gods truly care about righteousness. Sin therefore isn't ever really dealt with, and Hinduism becomes more of a serenading or stroking the gods egos in order to find favour. The gods are therefore not completely righteous and holy, but culpable themselves.

So here, on the coherency factor alone, Christian is +1 maybe +10 and Hinduism is -10. Hinduism sure sounds romantic and the like, even reading over it has a certain artistic flair and poetry to it if you will, but it doesn't seem to stack up when it comes to accounting for the real problem of our sin and even justice. Not to mention the many contradictions that come through embracing thousands of different "gods" including Christ who claimed to be the only way to the Father, that the way was narrow and few find it but the path to destruction was wide.

Therefore it seems to me I'm on solid grounds to reject Hinduism since it fails to be logically coherent internally within itself. To those who don't think religious beliefs need to be coherent, then feel free to embrace Hinduism. But I want my beliefs to be of logical substance, not just some empty spiritualism.

Now, we come to the claimed experiences of Krishna.

It is internally coherent within Christian beliefs to accept #2, that what they experience are deceiving spirits. This finds solid foundations within Scripture and Christian theology. However, I also do not rule out the possibility of a more natural explanation also, such as the ecstasy that can be induced whether through drugs or some socially induced euphoria.

For example, many feelings Christians experience within Pentecostal Christian churches I believe can be attributed to spiritual and uplifting music, eyes shut closing out to the world, while praying and fully opened heart with hands out stretched, adding in some tongues which can be quite spiritually soothing -- and then feelings of ecstasy quite naturally follow and are strongly felt. So this I believe even within Christian circles -- you need not necessarily ask about Hindua experiences. While largely self-induced, I still do believe this is authentic worship since obviously I deem them to be correctly placing their worship towards the one true God. And therefore, it would not surprise me if God also did personally reach out and spiritually touch them during their worship.

Consider also from a skeptical perspective, one may lump all religious or spiritual experiences together as just the same spiritual experience. However, the qualia felt between each may be very different -- like "vision" gives a different qualitative experience than say "smell". Since I have not experienced "Krishna" or felt the burning of the heart that many in Islam claim to have felt, I cannot comment.

I can only consider my own spiritual experiences, some of which have also been soft spoken words that ends up being authenticated. But, also, I know Christians who aren't very spiritual, and a lot of my own spiritual feelings have diminished over time though I still heavily believe in God and do have moments, but things have been rather spiritually dry for me the last few years. My spiritual perception however, and ability to see God in the world seems higher than ever such that for me to not believe in God would be as delusional as not believing the Sun exists.

So something is clearly going on here, when many Atheists just say I don't see any evidence for God. There is definitely something akin to "spiritual blinders" going on to miss it. And many who come to Christ often have a new-found awareness to God's reality. They see the world more clearly, and Scripture becomes alive to them. Most recently, my sister's husband recounting how things seem so much clear now. Or consider John Newton's Christian hymn, "Amazing Grace, how sweet the sound that saved a wretch like me. I once was lost but now I'm found; was blind but now I see."

I'm not trying to rig the game here between Christians and Atheists. This new sense if you will, new perception of the world, is clearly a real and common trait that Christians at all times have testified to.

However, like Christians might believe that non-Christians are spiritually blinded and need to be born again -- not of the water but the spirit -- Atheists have proposed their own ideas. For example, Freud and Kant who in a quite matter of fact way state we have a delusion or believe in an illusion and this affects our rationality. One side is right, and the other is wrong. I'm obviously on the Christian side so... it's not like I've got the other option.

[Morny]

Reason? Reason has nothing to do with the Golden Rule.

Here's a "golden rule" that I see as reasonable, and which most people tend to follow in their everydays lives. And it's one that makes logical sense:

Look after yourself first, and then anyone else thereafter as much as it profits you.

After it's your life. You won't be around after it. So live it your way. ("your" intended as third person, not you specifically)

Care to offer a logical alternative?

Do you really have such a low ignorant view of non-theists we're discussing?

Actually, yes, I believe I have very little ignorance of non-theists.

You seem to have a typo here. Or is "Actually, yes, ..." directly answering my question, i.e., you do have a low view of non-theists?

Reason has everything to do with the Golden Rule. A random group of non-theists, who roughly agree on reasonable well-known variations of the Golden Rule, can easily agree on a set of concrete ethical rules, some of which will look surprisingly like the last 7 Commandments. Those ethical rules will look nothing like what you sarcastically describe above.

Err, how does reason have everything to do with the Golden Rule?

I was not using sarcasm at all. I am dead serious. I've see it. I've even been there and considered it.

I'm born into this world. This is my life. I do not experience the life of someone else, just my life. I want the best for my life. Therefore, I come first in life and everyone else where I see they fit into creating the best world for myself.

Now that is a logical argument. You might reject it, but it is one based on logical reasoning. So to reject it, you need to logically refute one of the premises rather than just rejecting the conclusion outright as you have done.

I'd also be interested in hearing an alternative logical argument that supports the Golden Rule? The only reason I can see, is not logical, but rather emotional. And if emotions evolved to keep humanity more social, why we ought to discard them for ourselves when they don't really suit us.

You obviously missed my assumption. I said, "... non-theists, who roughly agree on reasonable well-known variations of the Golden Rule, ...". As I said before, such people will not reason to the ethical rules you described, and even you considered. People, who don't want the value that derives from the Golden Rule, can justify just about any selfish thing.

Even the reasoning ability of chimps and dolphins in scientific group behavior studies not only follow variations of the Golden Rule, but also derive them on their own. "I'll share these treats with you, if you do the same for me if you ever have treats. And if you don't share with me later, I won't share with you when I again have the chance."

Must we really rely on supernatural insight to reason that lying, cheating, etc., are counterproductive? Evidently chimps and dolphins don't think so.

[Morny]

MN is clearly tautologous, unless wishing to highlight some sort of obscure slant against belief in God. Copernicus did science without needing to understand MN, because certain methods that MN claims to provide are actually implicit to Science. Only Copernicus did his science without basing his enquiry in Philosophical Naturalism (like MN), but rather based upon a fully-fledged Theism, specifically Christianity.

Now you're just making stuff up.

For MN, I thought you said you prefer the definition in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism ... losophy%29, whose 3rd paragraph says, "In contrast, assuming naturalism in working methods, without necessarily considering naturalism as an absolute truth with philosophical entailments, is called methodological naturalism."

And I've explained why that is what Copernicus implied with the word "ignorance" in his quote, what Galileo understood (by the use of his Simplicio character), what Pasteur explicitly followed (see quote), what Laplace explicitly mentioned in his correction of Newton's violation of MN, and what 95%+ of scientists do.

If you disagree, please give any scientific discovery that used a methodology that a provisional assumption of MN would not have been able to find.

And did you ever give your CSI case solution that violates the provisional assumption of MN? (Be more specific than "MN cannot handle intelligence.")