Re: Irrational Naturalism


Kant wrote:
> One of the most disturbing attitudes of most evolutionists is their
> insistence on naturalism as the premise for explaining everything from the
> origin of the cosmos to the origin of the human soul. The fact is that total
> naturalism is quite devoid of real explanatory power for almost anything.

So what's the alternative? Supernaturalism?

The reason why science doesnt use supernatural influences is if they
could be seen, measured and objectively found then it wouldnt be
supernatural.

In effect for something to be real, it cannot be supernatural. I would
go as far to say anything supernatural doesnt exist.

I will add that there are many things that are unexplained and there
are many things we have yet to measure, test etc.

I really can understand what the problem with objectivty is here -
would you prefer we fell back to the subjective where it's just a
matter of who can shout the loudest?

I somehow think you won't answer this like all those who propose there
is somethign wrong with naturalism (if you can understand what is meant
by it in the first place).

Stew Dean

.

Relevant Pages