I think that the above commentary and its fellow commentary probably misunderstands the other author's opinions. I'll try to comment on them soon. What,viewers, do you opine about that author's contentions?
From perusing the article, I note that the author accuses us atheists of promoting child pornography and such, and so, that itself means that he cannot fathom why we declare! He loves He embodies the effect of both superstitions,what Paul Kurtz, calls "The Transcendental Temptation," the supernatural and the paranormal,both which contradict the way of reason. We naturalists don't use scientism- the notion that only science can explain matters but rather of the empirical establishment of evidence from whatever venue of knowledge. To declare that we naturalists avoid out of our presumptions other venues of knowledge as theologian John Haught does begs the question of those other venues. Intuition can err and must become validated and logic is part of the rational way. The author faults Michael Martin for noting the average person's Primary Cause argument that everything requires a cause. Martin evinces why that argument fails but goes onto to describe the ones of philosophers. I'll defend naturalism from his rhapsody in yellow journalism! This is my cursory note. Should I find that he has more than that to offer, I'll so declare. The blogs on the side might interest viewers!
I think that the above commentary and its fellow commentary probably misunderstands the other author's opinions. I'll try to comment on them soon.
ReplyDeleteWhat,viewers, do you opine about that author's contentions?
From perusing the article, I note that the author accuses us atheists of promoting child pornography and such, and so, that itself means that he cannot fathom why we declare! He loves
ReplyDeleteHe embodies the effect of both superstitions,what Paul Kurtz, calls "The Transcendental Temptation," the supernatural and the paranormal,both which contradict the way of reason. We naturalists don't use scientism- the notion that only science can explain matters but rather of the empirical establishment of evidence from whatever venue of knowledge. To declare that we naturalists avoid out of our presumptions other venues of knowledge as theologian John Haught does begs the question of those other venues. Intuition can err and must become validated and logic is part of the rational way.
The author faults Michael Martin for noting the average person's Primary Cause argument that everything requires a cause. Martin evinces why that argument fails but goes onto to describe the ones of philosophers.
I'll defend naturalism from his rhapsody in yellow journalism! This is my cursory note. Should I find that he has more than that to offer, I'll so declare.
The blogs on the side might interest viewers!