Not odd at all, @AllenRhoades , it’s all words here. Our tools for communication, that is. Those abstractions that our marvelous, magnificent, physical brains develop and work with to make sense of the world in ways those brains can process. And which we can then exploit to communicate in symbolic abstractions about our abstract conceptions of what is real.
Additionally it can be all about words used as means of control. Such as altering definitions enough that they are almost right and easier to argue against, which is commonly called “creating a straw man.”
You’ve had outstanding discussion from both atheists and Christians alike in this thread who understand what naturalism is and how a naturalistic grasp of reality includes the human brain’s ability to develop and use abstractions.
Yet you continually attempt to impose your skewed definition of naturalism, which you insist excludes the reality of abstract concepts.
I guess you see it as a tool that helps you argue against what you’d like to “disprove.” Except it hasn’t worked.
You and I are surrounded by a group that lives by “take nobody’s word for it” (your “nullius in verba” translated for us kids of blue-collar, working class parents who saw to our public, government-funded educations, which deliberately lacked a classical component). They are not easily fooled and won’t take (haven’t taken) your or my or each other’s words for anything.
You also redefine “consensus” as “group think on an abstract philosophy,” which is closer to the definition of “conspiracy.” That’s cheating, you know.
This characterization of consensus in science is simply nonsense. Again, you’ve had solid, intelligent replies form real live scientists here. Beautiful logicians who thrive on measurements and test results. < sarcasmfont >But of course, I guess, they couldn’t possibly know what they’re talking about.< /sarcasmfont >
I guess you’re welcome to conceptualize the thinking of people you disagree with in such ways as group-think and inconsistent. But it defeats what you claim repeatedly to be your purpose in this thread: discussion. Certainly defeats edification and learning.
How does this equate? In science, you mean? (Otherwise you’ll need to provide quotes in context with citations of the leaders at Biologos accepting something non-scientific “as true being the scientific consensus”. No one in Biologos is looking for scientific consensus of the Gospel, for example.) It equates in science in that these folks understand how consensus is built in scientific work and how it is always open to revision as past work is retested and built on with new information.
Which is different from your characterization of it.
This is not mysterious.