| |
Because I recently got into an extremely brief discussion with a good friend on
Twitter (Hi Lar++), I've paused to consider my 'beliefs' (for lack of a better
term).
Starting here, oh so many years ago, I've had to re-evaluate my conceptions and
perceptions of reality, the universe, beliefs, etc.
So thanks to ALL the debates on this very message board, I've been 'looking'
into things and re-evaluating.
I'm finding myself, more and more, becoming, well, not more 'skeptical' (though
I am definitely more skeptical than I was when I first started posting here, but
I think that's inherent in just getting older :) ), but more leaning towards
'methodological naturalism'.
Not the Spock answer from ST4 'nothing real exists' when being quizzed, and
that's more of a 'philosophical naturalism'.
I'm more of a 'I'll take into consideration a 'supernatural theory' (or
non-natural theory) to update my conception and perception of the universe ONLY
when the supernatural theory can be demonstrable.
It doesn't have to be demonstrable as physical evidence (again my
understanding), for if there is physical evidence of an event, happening, action
or whatever, then it's not supernatural--it affected 'nature', therefore it's
natural.
I also have an issue with bad argumentation. I'm not on par with Dillahunty or
others that can spot logical fallacies immediately, or people arguing
dishonestly, but I'm getting better. When someone makes a claim, I try to see
if it holds up--whether it adheres to what we understand about the universe.
I blame y'all for that.
As well, with this, when I come across a claim that has been discussed 'ad
nauseum' over centuries by smarter people than me, with no clear distinct and
clear resolution, I err on the side of Occam's Razor or put a hold on the claim
if it conflicts with (my understanding of) methodological naturalism.
Philosophical debates are awesome, and I love listening to them. However, when
some of the claims in these debates are applied to reality, do these claims make
a whit of difference? Do they hold up for our daily doings? Is there a natural
understanding, or something based on our understanding of the universe that can
answer the claim?
I don't know how life started on this planet. Religions say a god started it
all. That has been debated and discussed through the ages.
ABio-genesis is a scientific explanation that appears to answer the question,
and there is scientific studies and actual evidence that the 'building blocks'
of life can come about naturally. Then evolution (again, a natural explanation
that comports to the evidence we find on this planet) got us to where we are
today.
I'm not stating that this is the actual case, but, as there is no clear 'winner'
to is there a god or not who started everything, that discussion can be left
because we have an explanation that comports to methodological naturalism. So
now I'll wait until someone can make the case of the claim that 'God' or 'No
God' started life with proof and evidence.
Anyway, I've done some studying, and some thought, and listened to lots of
podcasts since my first post here, so again, this is all on YOU.
:)
Dave K
|
|
1 Message in This Thread:
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
