Sword,
Firstly, try analysing evidence without one! Whatever worldview is employed makes assumptions about that which is being investigated.
Yes – logic. Any other “world view” is just incoherent.
A classic example of this is a court case. The prosecution has a worldview that assumes the defendant is guilty and tries to demonstrate so, the defence has a worldview that the defendant is innocent and tries to demonstrate so, the jury have a worldview that is open to either conclusion, will see what is presented and then attempt to reach a conclusion.
No. Both counsels seek to use reason and evidence and logic – they share the
same “world view”, albeit that they hope it leads them to different conclusions.
If the claim is that fantastic claims require fantastic evidence then those making such a claim should be able to cite what they would consider as fantastic evidence. It is not an unreasonable request.
Yes it is because you’re shifting the burden of proof. If you think common-or-garden evidence is fine though, then you have to allow any other belief with the bar set at the same level. Qualitatively under your schema a pint left on my doorstep and a 50p left under my pillow are equally evidence for the milkman and for the Tooth Fairy respectively. If you want to posit a supernatural entity though, then it’s for you to tell us what type of evidence you'd accept for
any supernatural entity.
If those doing investigations into e.g. how did life on earth start can start by assuming natural causes and explanations and then come up with their hypotheses with the evidence that they think supports them, why when arguing against religious beliefs does the same not apply?
Because naturalism entails a method to sort its hypotheses between the probably true and the probably not true. Claims of the supernatural on the other hand begin and end with the claim.
From my perspective, I see the approach taken by the more evangelical materialists here to be pretty much identical to my faith, which is why I find glaring inconsistencies.
Then you’re not looking hard enough. See above.
What they do in their faith in materialism is objected to when religious believers do the same.
That’s not true because the religious don’t do the same at all. Materialists say, “this is what’s probably true and here’s why”; the theists say, “this is what’s true because that’s my faith”. Epistemically, they’re very different.
Furthermore…
You can’t have a “furthermore” when your opening arguments have collapsed.
…in some cases what is said/done doesn’t live up to its own scientific standards and it’s one reason why in the case of some posters, there is an always learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth. (2 Timothy 3 v 7, for my Christian brethren). Their whole approach violates properties of truth and the fact that the barrel is well and truly being scraped by referring to certain posters as lying shows how desperate things have become.
If you think some people break “scientific” (or at least logical) standards all you have to do is to demonstrate that rather then just assert it, and so far at least accusations of lying have been made in response to people lying. If you don’t like the accusation, either refute the charge or stop lying.
