@MarkD @Mervin_Bitikofer @bluebird
The comment was simply meant to remind bluebird of this commitment of the forum, and make it clear that I thought his remark was not living up to it. He has apologized and that is the end of it.
As for the rest of the complaints by Mervin I hope I can summarize it up best by responding to the following:
Science is the best access to the objective and the strictest standards for doing so, BUT its methodology restricts its applicability rather severely. (I have said this in different words above quite a few times.) It cannot be most objective on all fronts because it simply doesn’t have something to say on all fronts. Now the metaphysical naturalist may to choose to believe science defines the limits of reality, but that is not something science can tell us and thus there is no objectivity in that choice and belief whatsoever.
So as MarkD has caught on quite well, the point is that the objectivity of science gives us a basis for expecting agreement from other people. Written procedures which anyone can follow to get the same result guarantee this. What I would have loved to hear from the creationists and deniers of the biological sciences was a challenge to show them what these written procedures are in the case of evolution. The fact that they did not do so just goes to show that they really are not interested in any kind of scientific inquiry into the origin of the species. I think they resent the fact that science would even ask such questions rather than simply accept what they declare to be the case.
So, the frank truth is that when science has nothing to say, then we are left with the subjective reasons and personal experiences and thus a diversity of opinion and there is no way around this. And that means I see no objective means for handling the issues of religion – NONE! Which is why I make a committed defense not only of religious liberty but also the rationality of atheism .
Yes, a secular state keeps its nose out of religious issues. BUT when religion tramples on the liberties and well being of people, then it is no longer acceptable to treat this as a religious issue. The plain fact is that not all religions are compatible with a free society. The human sacrifice religions of the Mayans and Aztecs are a particularly extreme example of this.
CORRECT! It would be an complete misunderstanding of me to think that I have a greater commitment to science than Christianity and then there is my own metaphysical theory as well. I am simply vigorously honest about the fact that I cannot prove these things or that have one shred of objective evidence. It may shock other Christians but I frankly think this means my beliefs in those things don’t deserve any more regard than the beliefs people may have in ghost, faeries, psychics and UFOs (actually perhaps I even relish that shock LOL). OR… perhaps I should turn around to say that I don’t think those who do believe such things should have any LESS respect. AND… to spread this around evenly… this includes atheism too.
I guess the Christians are have a hard time seeing how I can grant epistemological superiority to science while still taking Christianity seriously. It is probably because they haven’t seen me arguing with the aggressive atheists. In those arguments it is all about my insistence that life requires subjective participation and my conviction that there is a irreducibly subjective aspect to reality as well as an objective aspect. And then there is that popular rhetoric which defines atheism as a lack of a believe in God so that babies are born atheists. I will get rather fierce in my refutation of that one. Where the aggressive atheist is likely to challenge me is on whether there is such a thing as subjective evidence, because they try to convince themselves that everything they believe is totally objective, which I will argue is delusional because it is an impossibility.