Debating Roger's ideas


(Roger A. Sawtelle) #1

Second, scientism is not methodological naturalism; nor is it the scientific method. - See more at: http://biologos.org/blogs/ted-davis-reading-the-book-of-nature/scientism-and-the-new-atheists#sthash.XMsYNK9B.dpuf

Agreed that Scientism is not methodological naturalism, nor is it the scientific method, but there i8s a problem when we agree that methodological naturalism is basic to the scientific method.

Methodological naturalism is the assumption that Nature is purely physical. That assumption is clearly false while Nature cannot think, it is rational, meaning that it is rationally structured so it can be rationally understood.

Therefore Nature is not purely physical, but also rational (and spiritual.) There are three ways we can address this falsehood. The first way is to pretend that it is not false or say that methodological naturalism indicates that nature is purely physical, while acting as if it does not. This means that atheists are living the lie that there is no God, no Spiritual. That means Christians who accept the lie that Nature is purely physical, are forced to accept the lie that Reality is dualistic, divided between the Natural and the Metaphysical.

The second response is to resolve the issue in favor of purely physical and say that Nature and Reality are not Rational. This is the position of the New Atheists. They following Dawkins say that Nature is not rational and therefore has no meani8ng and purpose. Everything is random. The only meaning and purpose in life is purely subjective. Philosophically this is false.

The third response is the one I have advocated, but have found little or no response. We need to recognize the truth that Nature is not purely physical, but also rational and spiritual. This would save us from much confusion and misunderstanding, but of course is it easier in the short run to live with a lie, that to try to find the truth.


Scientism and the New Atheists
(Matthew Pevarnik) #2

What do you mean that nature is ‘spiritual?’

Methodological naturalism just looks for natural causes and natural laws. What benefit has ever come out of proposing spiritual causes in nature? (Besides $$$ through selling all these ID books). I readily affirm methodological naturalism is how science has been done for the past 500 years and got us where we are today.

And as many would likely affirm, finding natural causes does not exclude the spiritual world. I.e. God is no less involved when we can now explain the fusion that takes place in stars than when we couldn’t find a natural explanation for hundreds of years.

I still don’t understand your idea that nature is rational which presumably you get from the fact that we can find patterns and order. This part of your argument sounds like it borders on the whole specified complexity thing. Does it come from that type of argument? You see such order and rationality which you use as the foundation for your argument that nature is spiritual and thus methodological naturalism makes Christians deceived by this terrible lie. If you have time, could you clarify your points a bit as I don’t think they are correct.


(Roger A. Sawtelle) #3

@pevaquark

Thank you for your questions. Let me put one thing to rest. I am not ID, so that view is not my problem with Darwinism.

First question: How is nature spiritual? In my understanding Christianity is about Love, so Love is spiritual. Darwin said evolution is about survival of the fittest which is about struggle and conflict, which is not spiritual, except in a negative way.

Which view about the nature of reality is more nearly correct? Opposed to Darwinism is ecology which is based on symbiosis, meaning “living together cooperatively.” If ecology is a better understanding of how nature works than Darwinism, then Nature is spiritual, as well as rational, and physical. In my well considered opinion ecology is what life is all about, not Darwinism. Therefore Nature is spiritual and good.

I still don’t understand your idea that nature is rational which presumably you get from the fact that we can find patterns and order.

Science is based on “patterns and order.” Science, like biology, as based on patterns and order in Nature or logos. This is a philosophical concept which means that Reality including Nature is rational. Christianity affirms this dynamic order by saying that Jesus Christ is the Logos by Whom, in Whom, and through Whom all things are created. John 1:1-3.

I would say that methodological naturalism false which makes it a lie. I really doubt Christians are fooled by this falsehood. More likely atheists are fooled by it. The problem is that it is false and lover of truth need to correct this as well as other falsehoods like YEC.


(Matthew Pevarnik) #4

Hmm, I have to disagree from the start about your argument for the spiritual by which you mean love appearing in nature = spiritual. And then to write off science by something Darwin said as if he is the ultimate authority on evolution which is a little silly given how much more science has figured out since then. As for evolution producing love, here is a nice little article that highlights how love arises via purely natural processes (which God can be involved with): https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/cooperation-conflict-and-the-evolution-of-complex-13236526

I still disagree with everything you said about methodological naturalism which has revealed the rationality of nature as you put it. It wasn’t until people stopped proposing God as the hypothesis for natural phenomena and began seeking non-spiritual causes that led to an explosion of knowledge. Sure, I agree with you generally speaking that this rational order is consistent with an omnipotent Creator, but that doesn’t make methodological naturalism a lie as it has a very impressive track record. To go even farther, I think that scientism has a decent reason to make some of its claims, especially as you point out many Christians still say the ‘proof of God’ lies in the unknowns of science yet don’t even really understand or are ignorant of what science even teaches.


(Roger A. Sawtelle) #5

Organisms are inherently competitive, yet cooperation is widespread.

@pevaquark,

In case you do not recognize the above sentence, it is the first sentence in the article you referred me to on the web.

The first question you need to ask is, Where did this concept come from?

The answer is, Charles Darwin.

The next question you need to ask is, Has this concept been scientifically tested and verified? Have experiments or closely monitored field studies been run to prove whether this is true?

Why not start from the premise, Organisms are inherently cooperative, yet competition is widespread? This is what E. O. Wilson has said in his latest books. He has come to the ecological point of view.

Your article takes the position of Dawkins’ Selfish Gene even to using Hamilton’s kinship principle that he used. The reason it is mistaken is because it begins with a false premise.

The reason Methodological Naturalism is problematic is not because it does not work, although it could work better, but because it is not “naturalistic” as it says it is. It works as well as it does because exactly because it is rational. If Nature were solely physical and not rational, Methodological Naturalism would not work Period


(Matthew Pevarnik) #6

I don’t really know how to respond. I know how the article begins… I think both of the starting points (competition vs. EO Wilson’s cooperation) are not contradictory and perhaps bringing in the article was misleading. Both of them are really built on Darwin’s actual idea of natural selection of particular traits. Some of the traits that are selected for bring about this cooperation (as many organisms rely on others in a group to survive and the survival of the group is more favorable than a particular individual). And others of the traits result from who is ‘best fit’ to thrive in an often changing environment (and competition in this sense is the other half of the coin-this is not competition in the sense of how we typically think where you want others to lose and only you win but with finite resources/predators/etc. certain organisms have a ‘competitive edge’).

Anyways, there is no starting premise of competition or cooperation, both arise from the same natural mechanism of natural selection. My point was that to use ‘love/empathy/cooperation’ as a basis for saying that nature is spiritual when such things can easily be explained from natural selection is not a very convincing or powerful argument.

I still don’t see how Methodological Naturalism can ‘work better.’ I guess my disagreement/confusion is related to ‘rational’ vs. ‘physical.’ I do not see how the fact that the physical world is ‘in accordance with reason/logic’ means that it is metaphysical. Obviously, if nature (and again you keep capitalizing ‘nature’ as if it implies some deity) was not understandable, we couldn’t understand it and methodological naturalism wouldn’t work.

Though we wouldn’t even be having this discussion as we’d both likely be dead since modern science would not have developed without a working methodological naturalism and the average life expectancy would still be in the mid to low 20s. We also wouldn’t be communicating via the internet on computers which are based upon natural laws of quantum mechanics and electromagnetism- which all came about as scientists sought to understand the world through natural means via methodological naturalism.


(Roger A. Sawtelle) #7

@pevaquark,

Thank you for your response. No I will take it apart.

Let me first say that I do not know you. It seems that you do not know me. (I say that because if you had done some research you could find information on the web, since I use my real name, and on this website where my views are well spelled out.) Thus nothing I say here is personal.

I don’t really know how to respond. I know how the article begins… I think both of the starting points (competition vs. EO Wilson’s cooperation) are not contradictory and perhaps bringing in the article was misleading.

If you know the article you cite to back up your position contradicts your position, why did you cite it? You think that both starting points are not contradictory, but Where is your EVIDENCE? The scientific method is based on evidence, not opinion.

I cited two opposing scientific views expressed by two acknowledged experts and gave my reasons for favoring one of them. You gave me an opinion based on no evidence and no reputable science as far as I can tell, and as far as you are able to document.

Both of them are really built on Darwin’s actual idea of natural selection of particular traits. Some of the traits that are selected for bring about this cooperation (as many organisms rely on others in a group to survive and the survival of the group is more favorable than a particular individual). And others of the traits result from who is ‘best fit’ to thrive in an often changing environment (and competition in this sense is the other half of the coin-this is not competition in the sense of how we typically think where you want others to lose and only you win but with finite resources/predators/etc. certain organisms have a ‘competitive edge’).

This statement is manifestly untrue. Darwin, based on the population theories of Malthus, believed that struggle between individuals for scarce natural resources is the basis for natural selection. If you can prove otherwise, please do so. To be sure Darwin was mistaken, which you point out after you say he was right.

Then you say that many organism use symbiosis as their survival strategy, while others us competition, but this type of competition is not selfish. When Dawkins came up with the Selfish Gene, he was trying to be faithful to Darwin understanding of how Natural selection works, and I think he was. You are providing with no evidence that he is not. So again you are saying that natural selection is not based on the struggle for survival as Darwin and Dawkins claimed, but on symbiosis as Lynn Margulis said.

Now we know that an organism does not sit around and think of ways to out compete others or adapt to its environment, so how does this happen? Well, every offspring represents a new allele or a new possible adaption, but it is not the organism which chooses which allele will survive and flourish, but the environment or ecology determines this. Thus it is the ecology which selects. Since it is God Who created the environment and gives it form, purpose, and direction, it is God Who uses natural selection to create Nature and humans.

I still don’t see how Methodological Naturalism can ‘work better.’ I guess my disagreement/confusion is related to ‘rational’ vs. ‘physical.’ I do not see how the fact that the physical world is ‘in accordance with reason/logic’ means that it is metaphysical. Obviously, if nature (and again you keep capitalizing ‘nature’ as if it implies some deity) was not understandable, we couldn’t understand it and methodological naturalism wouldn’t work.

We live in the intellectual world of “Western dualism,” which means the Natural and the Metaphysical. Methodological Naturalism is part of this dualistic view, but it claims that Nature is not rational. Thus theoretically it does not work as you claim it does.

Western dualism is good because it has brought science a long way, but it is not perfect. It is now time to move beyond Western dualism or risk failure. The world does not stand still, and yet we are afraid to change because we know that change can be dangerous also. We need to be willing to move from the good to the better.

Though we wouldn’t even be having this discussion as we’d both likely be dead since modern science would not have developed without a working methodological naturalism and the average life expectancy would still be in the mid to low 20s.

This is a bogus argument which places science against Christianity. Modern science grew out of Christianity, so there is no inherent conflict. If you want to use bogus arguments to justify the status quo, that is your right, but it comes with a very high price.


(Matthew Pevarnik) #8

Ok. I typically don’t google everyone’s names and find out everything about them though I did find two books on Amazon and academia.edu lists you as studying metaphysics, systematic theology and the philosophy of time. I also learned that you posted one time on science and religion today’s website.

I do apologize for any sloppiness of how I described general ideas of evolutionary biology misattributing what Darwin himself thought as I haven’t bothered to read his works very much given that there is 150 years worth of research in between.

I guess what we are really getting down to is how does God direct evolution? How involved is he? You propose the following…

This is pseudoscience. Nothing is gained by proposing such a hypothesis that cannot be tested. I might even agree with you, but this can even done in the traditional random mutations + natural selection method without EO Wilson’s ideas.

I still cannot see what science has to gain by replacing methodological naturalism. How are we going to fail? I must confess, I lean pretty hard on this principle as our best form of epistemology. Even more so than systematic theology. Many times I almost feel like Mormon Founder Joseph Smith fed up at Christians who ‘know absolute truth’ based upon their exegetical work of the Scriptures. Maybe you can teach me something here, but I am not inclined to trust metaphysical claims of the Scriptures as readily.

Partially agreed and we owe much to Christians who (even like Tertullian wanted to separate not Christianity from science, but science from the gods behind natural phenomena–I certainly also do not associate the Dark Ages with the rise of Christianity as some New Atheists do-- I also agree that there is not an inherent conflict between Christianity and Science). But this foundation of science was done by Christians separating the metaphysical from the physical. Without that, we are nowhere which was my point in bringing in modern medicine. Modern medicine exists because we pursued only physical causes/effects and nothing would be gained by medical researchers abandoning methodological naturalism. If you actually have some reason this is good, then by all means enlighten me.


#9

You seem to start out on the wrong foot.

Methodological naturalism does not state that the spiritual does not exist. All it does is say that you are limited to empirical facts when doing science. It’s a bit like the rules of a sport. In my day to day life I don’t have to dribble a ball without travelling if I don’t want to. However, if I am playing basketball I am expected to follow the rules. The same for science. If you are on the court of science then you are expected to follow the rules.

As to atheism, we atheists just haven’t seen any evidence for the spiritual which is why we doubt in its existence. It isn’t up to atheists to disprove the existence of the spiritual. Rather, the burden of proof lies with the theists who claim that the spiritual exists. You can’t simply assert that “the spiritual exists because I say so”, which appears to be the argument you are using.


(Roger A. Sawtelle) #10

The question again is What is the nature or structure of reality? Is it One, either Physical or Rational? or is it Dual, Physical and Metaphysical? or Is it Three, physical, rational, and spiritual?

Another way to look at this is through the Mind/Body question. Is reality based in the Body or in the Mind, or is there some come sort of combination of the two. My view is that humans are not just mind and body, but mind, body, and spirit.

The scientific method separates the divine from the world, which is the same thing that Creation does. Christianity believes that God is separate from the Creation. God and Creation are not the same as pantheism maintains.

On the other hand the practice of medicine is more of an art than a science. A doctor must treat the whole person, not just the body, but the body mind and spirit. You cannot have the operation to be a success and lose the patient. Doctors use science, but they do not base their practice on methodological naturism, but holistic concerns.

Many scientists have rejected mechanistic, linear reductionism, which is the hallmark of methodological naturalism and Darwinism. Ecology exemplifies this movement. It is holistic and non linear. This is why Dawkins rejected the ideas of Lovelock and Margulis, but now ecology is mainstream and our hope for the future, while evolution is passe.

@T_aquaticus

Yes indeed we must follow the rules, or suffer the consequences. Part of my amusement with this statement is that there are not only laws and rules that govern the physical universe, but also laws and rules that govern the moral universe and the spiritual universe. Atheists are strong on the first aspect, but not the others.

These laws themselves are not natural in that they are not physical, but rational. They are not physical things, but rational constructs.

Scientific atheists like Dawkins claim that all that happens is not based on scientific law, which is not physical, but is random, which is not rational, but physical. They are consistent in their beliefs and ideology, but wrong in their cosmology.

Time and space are not “natural” in that they are not physical, but metaphysical, and yet they are part of M.N. , so there are serious epistemological issues here. I do not mind “proving” the spiritual and the rational, because life is empty without them and science is nothing without them. It is not rational to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

.


(Matthew Pevarnik) #11

Okay, I give up. It’s clear that nothing I say will change your mind, and I still have a problem that I feel you haven’t adequately addressed about methodogical naturalism. It seems your latest attempt is citing the short comings of reductionism, to which you bring up holistic medicine and presumably by your definition meteroeology or climate models or biophysics (which depend on large numbers of complex variables, some of which we do not yet understand and others which provide computational challenges). However, what goes into such holistic models are natural phenomena… you have absolutely nothing to gain by proposing God as a hypothesis.

I think it is an interesting question if we truly could be successful with reductionist science… Obviously everyone knows there are shortcomings to such an idea, but given how things have gone so far it isn’t too far-fetched to believe that such methods will ultimately provide fruitful in the future.

The last thing I’ll say is related to ecology versus evolution. They are not mutually exclusive, and evolution is mainly driven by ecology… I hope that you were not among the Christians falling into the camp where ecology is where you find God in the evolutionary process given that no model or theory can ever say quite how He acts within the natural world. Also, nobody really uses the word Darwinism (in scientific papers). The word is most commonly used by Christians who don’t like it or don’t understand it.

And what can we say then for moral or spiritual laws? Given that they are only testable if they have ramifications or something measurable in the physical world, but the physical world cannot prove anything about those worlds it is highly subjective and personal. And the only way that most Christians argue for absolute truth in those rooms is through the Scriptures, but even then are prone to argue about what they mean.


(Roger A. Sawtelle) #12

You still do not understand my argument, which is based on the nature or structure of Reality. Do we live in one physical reality or in a multidimensional reality, which is physical, rational, and spiritual?

I believe and science affirms that we live in a multidimensional reality, rather than the Reality of Western dualism of Nature and Metaphysics. However there is not an absolute difference between 2 and 3, esp. when our faith is based on the holistic point of view.

The West has come from a monistic view where Reality is one, when it was basically spiritual. Greek philosophy buttressed by Christian theology separated the spiritual from the physical as you said with good results in science.

Now we are coming to the limits of that dualistic model. Scientism in the person of Dawkins and the New Atheism wants to go back to a monist all physical model of Reality, which undoes all the separation accomplished by the scientific model. The Trinitarian model does not. It adds a third factor which separates and unites the other two.

And what can we say then for moral or spiritual laws? Given that they are only testable if they have ramifications or something measurable in the physical world,

Are you saying that hate has no ramifications in the physical world? Hate creates murder and war. What can be clearer than that?

You seem to agree that humans do live in a spiritual and moral world, but say that these worlds are “highly subjective and personal” to be evaluated. So why do we have any laws is morality is subjective. Mr. Trump is a great example as to why spirituality is not relative.

What I am saying is that humans live in one Reality, which is real, and not several realities where the physical is real while morality and spirituality is not. Just because we do not seem to have a clear picture of how this works does not make it true or a reason it should be rejected out of hand.

And the only way that most Christians argue for absolute truth in those rooms is through the Scriptures, but even then are prone to argue about what they mean.

First you say most Christians and not all and I am not part of the most. The Bible does not say that it contains Absolute Truth. The Bible says that Jesus Christ is the “Logos,” “the Way, the Truth, and the Life.” If you think that Jesus Christ is not the Logos, the Way, the Truth, and the Life, you are free to argue this, however just because Christians disagree theologically does not mean that Christainty is not true.

God is not a hypothesis. God is a conclusion that explains why there is goodness even in the midst of the sin of this world. Evil does not disprove God, but the fact that love exists in the midst of the forces of this world that promote uncaring selfishness.

You admit the serious shortcomings of methodological naturalism. That implies we need a scientific revolution to go beyond this view. Please do not reject this possibility or even probability because of some ideological, cosmological predilections.


#13

The vast majority of people in the world are not scientists. What consequences are you saying they are suffering?[quote=“Relates, post:10, topic:36058”]
Part of my amusement with this statement is that there are not only laws and rules that govern the physical universe, but also laws and rules that govern the moral universe and the spiritual universe.
[/quote]

Part of my amusement is that you think something becomes true by simply uttering it. Where is the evidence that a spiritual universe even exists?

Also, all scientists agree that our theories and models are not reality itself. The difference is that we gather independent and verifiable evidence from the world around us to test our theories and models, something that doesn’t appear to happen with spiritual claims.

That would be an Argument from Consequences, which is a logical fallacy.


(Roger A. Sawtelle) #14

@T_aquaticus

One does not have to be a scientist to understand that one cannot defy the laws of gravity without falling down.

Part of my amusement is that you think something becomes true by simply uttering it. Where is the evidence that a spiritual universe even exists?

What is the evidence that Love exists? What is the evidence that peace and beauty exist? Uttering does not make these exist, but sharing our experience of these values is evidence that the spiritual exists as valid as a scientific experiment and more since we know it personally in our own lives.

The difference is that we gather independent and verifiable evidence from the world around us to test our theories and models, something that doesn’t appear to happen with spiritual claims.

First of all I have been asking all the time for your proof that Reality is only physical. You have not provided any evidence that this is true. I have given you and @pevaquark evidence that Reality is not only physical, but also rational, contrary to the model of reality that you have been advocating. Where is your evidence?

Second, Christians are giving evidence all the time that God is real. You might not agree with this evidence, but do not say that it does not exist. Spiritual claims demand spiritual evidence, just as scientific claims demand scientific evidence and philosophical claim demand philosophical evidence. The problems seems to be that some people only recognizes one kind of claim so they accept only one kind of evidence, which is bogus.

That would be an Argument from Consequences, which is a logical fallacy.

I suppose that to say 2 + 2 = 4 is true because math done using 2 + 2 = 4 is accurate, while 2 + 2 = 5 is not, is an a logical fallacy, rather than a true fact. Science is based on experience and evidence for the fact that love is real and importance is found in both experience and logic, science and philosophy.


#15

It only proves that those emotions exist. You are going way beyond that and claiming that some supernatural realm exists.[quote=“Relates, post:14, topic:36058”]
First of all I have been asking all the time for your proof that Reality is only physical.
[/quote]

Since I don’t claim that reality is only physical I don’t need to prove anything. You are the one claiming that there is a spiritual realm, so the burden of proof lies with you to supply evidence for this spiritual realm. Lacking such evidence, I see no reason to believe that one exists.[quote=“Relates, post:14, topic:36058”]
Second, Christians are giving evidence all the time that God is real.
[/quote]

Such as?


(Roger A. Sawtelle) #16

Now you say that reality is only physical, even though I understood you to say that Nature is only physical, which is the basis of methodological naturalism, and all that exists is physical, which is what most atheists claim.

So do you say that nature is not purely physical? Are you a Western dualist that believes in the metaphysical, but not God?

I never said that I believed in a spiritual realm separate from reality. That is your reading into what I said something that is not there. What I said was the spiritual is part of reality.

Love is a part of Reality and certainly is more than an emotion. Love is a very powerful relationship as are fear and hatred. Reality is not Simple, but it is unified. It is very complex and has many levels. That is the beauty and utility of a physical, rational, spiritual understanding of Reality and what it is time to go beyond Western dualism.

Christians are giving evidence that God is real by testifying that love is stronger than hate, hope is stronger than fear, and life is stronger than death.


#17

I have never said that.[quote=“Relates, post:16, topic:36058”]
So do you say that nature is not purely physical?
[/quote]

I say that I have yet to see any evidence for something non-physical, so I don’t have a positive belief that such things exist. I am NOT saying that the non-physical does not exist. Do you understand the difference between those positions?[quote=“Relates, post:16, topic:36058”]
What I said was the spiritual is part of reality.
[/quote]

I am asking what evidence you have for the spiritual.[quote=“Relates, post:16, topic:36058”]
Love is a part of Reality and certainly is more than an emotion.
[/quote]

Based on what evidence?[quote=“Relates, post:16, topic:36058”]
Christians are giving evidence that God is real by testifying that love is stronger than hate, hope is stronger than fear, and life is stronger than death.
[/quote]

How is this evidence for a deity?


(Roger A. Sawtelle) #18

Not really.

Let me try again. What is something that is physical? Response: Something that is compose of matter/energy.

Is an idea physical? Response: No, because it is not composed of matter/energy. An idea is not physical, but rational. It is a rational thing, not a physical thing.

Is love physical? Response: No, because it is not composed of matter/energy. Nor is love an idea, so it is not rational. Love is spiritual, because God is Love. This is the good news of Jesus Christ that has been affirmed by people ever since His death, resurrection, and Pentecost.

Roger: Christians are giving evidence that God is real by testifying that love is stronger than hate, hope is stronger than fear, and life is stronger than death.

@T_aquaticus How is this evidence for a deity?

The Bible affirms that God is the Creator of order out of chaos. The NT affirms that God is known through Love, Hope, and Joy.

While doubt can be good in that it often leads to a better understanding of meaning and order, as you have indicated, doubt for its own sake leads to chaos, where one is unwilling to posit any theory as to the nature of reality.


#19

Let’s use a murder trial as an example. Let’s say you are on the jury, and the prosecutor doesn’t offer any evidence that the defendant is guilty. You find the defendant “not guilty” because there needs to be evidence behind that type of accusation. At the same time, you are not saying that the defendant is completely guilty. It could be that the defendant really did commit the murder, but you need to see evidence before you are convinced that the defendant is guilty.

The same applies to my position.

That is another assertion without evidence. If you want to claim that it isn’t made of matter/energy then you need to show that this is the case. From what I have seen, ideas are physical as they are the product of a very physical brain. We can even use techniques like functional MRI to understand what a person is thinking and how that physical process works. Neurobiologists are mapping brain cells and how they connect to better understand the physical nature of ideas.[quote=“Relates, post:18, topic:36058”]
Is love physical? Response: No, because it is not composed of matter/energy.
[/quote]

The same applies. Emotions like love are the product of our physical brains.[quote=“Relates, post:18, topic:36058”]
The Bible affirms that God is the Creator of order out of chaos. The NT affirms that God is known through Love, Hope, and Joy.
[/quote]

Those are claims, not evidence.[quote=“Relates, post:18, topic:36058”]
While doubt can be good in that it often leads to a better understanding of meaning and order, as you have indicated, doubt for its own sake leads to chaos, where one is unwilling to posit any theory as to the nature of reality.
[/quote]

Posit all you want. What is important is the evidence that backs a theory.


#20

I meant to say that “you are not saying that the defendant is completely INNOCENT”. Sorry about that.