Re: Any strong challenges to Naturalistic Sufficiency?

From: Huxter4441@aol.com
Date: Wed Jan 19 2000 - 11:13:54 EST

  • Next message: Stephen E. Jones: "Re: Jane Fonda has become a Christian!"

    In a message dated 1/19/00 12:33:49 AM Eastern Standard Time,
    MikeBGene@aol.com writes:

    << >[quoting Chris]Johnson is guilty of superstition not mainly because of
    the theistic aspect
    >of his metaphysics, but because of his rejection of basic rules of rational
    >thought. One example is his attempt to pretend that naturalism and
    >non-naturalism are on the same *epistemological* level.
     
     Of course, Chris merely believes Johnson is pretending in this fashion.
     But Chris does not know this is the case. Oh, he has his arguments
     to support his position, and they may *seem* correct, but no
     one really knows if they are. >>

    Johnson claims that 'Darwinists' are working under the philosophical tenets
    of 'Naturalistic Materialism', does he not? Does he *know* this? Oh, he has
    his arguments to support his position (so I've heard, anyway) and they may
    *seem* correct, but no one really knows if they are.. And Johnson does not
    know this is the case. Yet he continues to assert this.



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jan 19 2000 - 11:14:33 EST