Searching for GOD...

[Stranger]

But the source of this interaction cannot come from advanced material based species because any such action would just be deterministic reaction to natural events.  Any intelligently controlled interaction must come from a source which is not controlled by the deterministic cause and effect scenario of material based entities.

Back to this self-contradictory nonsense.     

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Yes, but they can express their opinions on the quality of the arguments and evidence some make for the historical resurrection. When the religious try to use these things it’s the equivalent of the cartoon with “miracle happens here” in the middle of it. A historian would say, “you need to explain your working here” – which is why the resurrection isn’t taught in history classes.

No, an historian doesn't teach that more working needs to be done, just that the claim won't be findable using naturalist assumptions. We agree that it cannot be demonstrated using solely the methods of history but that doesn't mean that the lack of it being taught in history classes is of any relevance.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

No, an historian doesn't teach that more working needs to be done, just that the claim won't be findable using naturalist assumptions. We agree that it cannot be demonstrated using solely the methods of history but that doesn't mean that the lack of it being taught in history classes is of any relevance.

That’s not what I meant by “you need to explain your working here”. If someone tries the tools of academic history, drops “miracle here” into the middle of it and continues with the tools of history the historian’s response of “explain your working here” means, “explain your working using the same tools of history”. Similarly, when it happens with claims of scientific validity the scientist will respond, “explain your working here using the same tools of science”. 

When neither type of working is forthcoming then historian and scientist alike are indifferent to the claim. My comment was that that indifference is respected for various other claims, but still the religious will often insist that their claims are historically or scientifically true – they know better than historians and scientists – which seems paradoxical to me. It’s what happens when you play on other people’s turf when you’re not equipped to do so.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

That’s not what I meant by “you need to explain your working here”. If someone tries the tools of academic history, drops “miracle here” into the middle of it and continues with the tools of history the historian’s response of “explain your working here” means, “explain your working using the same tools of history”. Similarly, when it happens with claims of scientific validity the scientist will respond, “explain your working here using the same tools of science”. 

When neither type of working is forthcoming then historian and scientist alike are indifferent to the claim. My comment was that that indifference is respected for various other claims, but still the religious will often insist that their claims are historically or scientifically true – they know better than historians and scientists – which seems paradoxical to me. It’s what happens when you play on other people’s turf when you’re not equipped to do so.

And yet if course there are many historians and scientists who will be theists, some of which might claim that they can demonstrate god by such a methodology. I find talking about historians and scientists and indeed the religious as an abstract fairly useless. It's a bit like Sassy and her singular scientists. It's not what some or most of a group say here, it's the methodology. If you accept that history as a study is methodologically naturalistic, and that there is a supernatural claim being made then extra working is required. If you don't then the fact that most historians disagree with you doesn't matter.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

And yet if course there are many historians and scientists who will be theists…

Well, “many” is ambiguous (in total or proportionately?) but by and large as I understand it they generally don’t rely on the tools of their professions to validate their beliefs (“non-overlapping magisteria” and all that).

…, some of which might claim that they can demonstrate god by such a methodology.

Some might – Michael Behe comes to mind here – but I’m not aware of any such claims that withstand scrutiny.

I find talking about historians and scientists and indeed the religious as an abstract fairly useless. It's a bit like Sassy and her singular scientists. It's not what some or most of a group say here, it's the methodology.

I agree.

If you accept that history as a study is methodologically naturalistic, and that there is a supernatural claim being made then extra working is required. If you don't then the fact that most historians disagree with you doesn't matter.

Well yes, but the point rather was some will trust the indifference of those who work in the field in respect of some claims that are not history/science methodologies apt, but will think them to be wrong in respect of their own claims that are also not history/science methodologies apt.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Well, “many” is ambiguous (in total or proportionately?) but by and large as I understand it they generally don’t rely on the tools of their professions to validate their beliefs (“non-overlapping magisteria” and all that).

Some might – Michael Behe comes to mind here – but I’m not aware of any such claims that withstand scrutiny.

I agree.

Well yes, but the point rather was some will trust the indifference of those who work in the field in respect of some claims that are not history/science methodologies apt, but will think them to be wrong in respect of their own claims that are also not history/science methodologies apt.

Your last paragraph is  unclear to me.  It seems to suggest that there are some religious people who think that because it is generally not taught in history that Zeus threw thunderbolts that means it isn't true, but that it's just some lack of confidence in the methods of history that then stops the resurrection being taught as true? I don't recognise as any position I've seen so I might be getting it wrong.

 

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Your last paragraph is  unclear to me.  It seems to suggest that there are some religious people who think that because it is generally not taught in history that Zeus threw thunderbolts that means it isn't true, but that it's just some lack of confidence in the methods of history that then stops the resurrection being taught as true? I don't recognise as any position I've seen so I might be getting it wrong.

Perhaps I should have worded it more clearly. It seems to me that some theists (several here for for example) trust historians and scientists to decide when some propositions are and are not appropriate to engage with the tools of their professions. Yet at the same time they don't trust their judgment about the religious propositions they think to be historically or scientifically accurate - somehow the judgment of the professionals must be faulty, and if only they'd see the error they too would accept the historical and scientific accuracy of the claims.

Why else would those theists persist in trying to play on the turfs of science and history if not to try to win that argument, rather than give up the effort and try something else entirely?

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Perhaps I should have worded it more clearly. It seems to me that some theists (several here for for example) trust historians and scientists to decide when some propositions are and are not appropriate to engage with the tools of their professions. Yet at the same time they don't trust their judgment about the religious propositions they think to be historically or scientifically accurate - somehow the judgment of the professionals must be faulty, and if only they'd see the error they too would accept the historical and scientific accuracy of the claims.

Why else would those theists persist in trying to play on the turfs of science and history if not to try to win that argument, rather than give up the effort and try something else entirely?

I don't think I see this position on here at all. I've often had to clarify the concept of history as a study, and history as a set of events. Obviously history in its simplest is whatever happened, so at base there is no methodology in that definition of history. Therefore it makes no difference to what has happened, as to how that is studied. So in that case it isn't that they see that the professionals' judgement is faulty but that as it is neutral, it is irrelevant to their claims.

The same as with science, I don't see any on here arguing that scientists' judgement is faulty as such within science but that science is insufficient. Again as we both agree, there is something missing to get to any conclusion of the supernatural but I don't see the lack of the resurrection in history classes as very relevant to any arguments on here, other than illustrating the need for that missing bit

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

A good point but then I believe people do cite arguments from.

From what, and you specifically do not do that.

Where your post is lacking is when say an invitation is given for somebody to give their version of a carefully crafted argument and what they think it means when it is more appropriate for the original argument to be read.

Then you need to cite the original rather than try a blanket, “refute Feser then” or similar. 

When this invitation is given to me I suspect I am being asked to paint a MIchaelangelo to be judged by somebody who says Michaelangelo is crap and think it proved because they can hold up my miserable scribblings as an example of how bad Michaelangelo is!!!!

Then you suspect wrongly. All you’re being asked to do is to tell us specifically what you think the compelling argument to be. If you did that, then others could consider it on its merits – ie, whether or not it’s logically cogent. If you still can’t do that though, at least cite the reference to the specific argument you think to be relevant.

I don't think I even need to mention who I am alluding to here.

Why not?

Sometimes you have to go back to the source material.

Which isn’t possible when you can’t identify the source material to which you refer. Refuting a body of work (which is essentially what you ask for when you say, “refute Nagel” etc) would require books of counter-argument to address each and every point. That presumably is why you do it – so when there’s no response you claim your “victory” (“Ha! So you can’t refute Feser than eh?” etc).

It’s just dishonest behaviour. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Which isn’t possible when you can’t identify the source material to which you refer. Refuting a body of work (which is essentially what you ask for when you say, “refute Nagel” etc) would require books of counter-argument to address each and every point. That presumably is why you do it – so when there’s no response you claim your “victory” (“Ha! So you can’t refute Feser than eh?” etc).

People are linking to you tubes all the time. There isn't problem with it. Did you go to the youtube I put for Feser? or do you still want my impression of it?

I am not asking you to go to Feser's complete corpus. I trust you can do that yourself. Not even I go with all of his output.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

I don't think I see this position on here at all. I've often had to clarify the concept of history as a study, and history as a set of events. Obviously history in its simplest is whatever happened, so at base there is no methodology in that definition of history.

Just as a secondary matter, I’m not sure that “what happened” is as straightforward as that. How do we know what happened? How much weight should we give to different types of evidence, especially when they conflict etc? If history is to be done by Historians rather than treated as a sort of giant tape recorder, it seems to me that there have to be methodologies involved.

Therefore it makes no difference to what has happened, as to how that is studied. So in that case it isn't that they see that the professionals' judgement is faulty but that as it is neutral, it is irrelevant to their claims.

Not sure I follow this. “History” as practised (as opposed to ”everything that happened”) involves choices. A theist might say for example, “look you accept the evidence about Henry VIII and so consider it true that he married six times, so why won’t you accept my evidence for a resurrection”?

When that same theist is certain he’s right, for him there can only be two answers: either the historians are applying the methods of academic history wrongly (the faulty judgment point), or there are (one or more) different methods entirely that also produce historic truths, only whatever they are isn’t revealed. What happens in practice is that they try the former (by citing witness statements etc) and so presumably think that historians are mis-applying their own methodology to reject their assertions.   

The same as with science, I don't see any on here arguing that scientists' judgement is faulty as such within science but that science is insufficient. Again as we both agree, there is something missing to get to any conclusion of the supernatural but I don't see the lack of the resurrection in history classes as very relevant to any arguments on here, other than illustrating the need for that missing bit

But it’s the same thing with science. Creationism for example will attack the scientific consensus by claiming that it’s got its own methods wrong – radio carbon dating isn’t accurate etc. That is, the creationist will try to play on science’s turf by attacking its application of its own methods, but will leave well alone when, say, science explains thunder but the Thor-ist disagrees.

That was my point: the argument is essentially, “If only you historians/scientists would apply your methods correctly, then you’d agree the truth of my claims” while at the same time, “I’m happy to accept that you historians/scientists do apply your methods correctly in respect of matters with which my faith beliefs do not conflict”. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

People are linking to you tubes all the time. There isn't problem with it. Did you go to the youtube I put for Feser? or do you still want my impression of it?

First, you posted several times “rebut Feser”, “rebut Nagel” etc. If you meant by that, “rebut the arguments in a YouTube video I linked to a while ago” then you should say so.

Second, you ask too much of your interlocutor this way in any case. For all I know you’ve given the video only a cursory glance – I have no means of telling how much of it has sunk in, how much you agree and disagree with, what your interpretation of it might be etc. There’s far too much leeway for me to say, “Feser is wrong because” only for you to reply with a, “but that’s not my take on what he’s saying” or some such. Frankly I don’t care much who makes the initial argument – if you think you agree with it, then it’s for you to tell us what it is you’re agreeing with so that that version can be considered.

I am not asking you to go to Feser's complete corpus. I trust you can do that yourself. Not even I go with all of his output.

Then be specific, and tell us what you think the argument that interests you to be.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Just as a secondary matter, I’m not sure that “what happened” is as straightforward as that. How do we know what happened? How much weight should we give to different types of evidence, especially when they conflict etc? If history is to be done by Historians rather than treated as a sort of giant tape recorder, it seems to me that there have to be methodologies involved.


Not sure I follow this. “History” as practised (as opposed to ”everything that happened”) involves choices. A theist might say for example, “look you accept the evidence about Henry VIII and so consider it true that he married six times, so why won’t you accept my evidence for a resurrection”?

This seems entirely to miss the point. If someone is talking about history as the thing that happened they are not using a methodology. They are, in that case, pointing out that if the resurrection happened and it was supernatural in origin, then the study of history being naturalistic won't be relevant to the actuality.
Again I think you cannot remove processes from the theist simply because they are also used in naturalists methods.

When that same theist is certain he’s right, for him there can only be two answers: either the historians are applying the methods of academic history wrongly (the faulty judgment point), or there are (one or more) different methods entirely that also produce historic truths, only whatever they are isn’t revealed. What happens in practice is that they try the former (by citing witness statements etc) and so presumably think that historians are mis-applying their own methodology to reject their assertions.   

We are back at some mythical theist and a generalisation of historians. This us essentially a caricature of any position I have seen on here, and again seems to imply that historians are never theists by setting up a false dichotomy.

But it’s the same thing with science. Creationism for example will attack the scientific consensus by claiming that it’s got its own methods wrong – radio carbon dating isn’t accurate etc. That is, the creationist will try to play on science’s turf by attacking its application of its own methods, but will leave well alone when, say, science explains thunder but the Thor-ist disagrees.

That was my point: the argument is essentially, “If only you historians/scientists would apply your methods correctly, then you’d agree the truth of my claims” while at the same time, “I’m happy to accept that you historians/scientists do apply your methods correctly in respect of matters with which my faith beliefs do not conflict”.

In the question of creationism, I think you are correct except, I would suggest, that many creationists see science as a specifically anti Christian approach and the cavilling at specific things such as dating is not to use science to disprove certain claims but to expose science as a conspiracy  to disprove theism by an amount of contradictory claims.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

This seems entirely to miss the point. If someone is talking about history as the thing that happened they are not using a methodology.

How would you talk about “the thing that happened” if you had no means of knowing whether that thing happened at all? The moment you want to “do” history then choices have to be made. How?

They are, in that case, pointing out that if the resurrection happened and it was supernatural in origin, then the study of history being naturalistic won't be relevant to the actuality.

Yes they are. So what they’re saying to those who would attempt the methods of academic history to demonstrate the claim is, “these methods cannot be applied to claims of the supernatural”. The theist who’s attempting them though – by citing witness statements for example – would presumably disagree, otherwise why bother with the effort?

Again I think you cannot remove processes from the theist simply because they are also used in naturalists methods.

I wasn’t. So far, I’m just saying that (some) theists attempt to play by the rules of academic history. 

We are back at some mythical theist and a generalisation of historians. This us essentially a caricature of any position I have seen on here, and again seems to imply that historians are never theists by setting up a false dichotomy.

No it isn’t. Look back at this thread – the theists who talk about witness statements, corroborative evidence, “epistolary” evidence etc are all precisely trying to use the very methods on which academic history rests. If they said instead something like, “the seaweed hanging in my kitchen turned brown this morning, therefore the resurrection was real” then you’d have a point. That’s not what they do though – instead they try to use the same methods and tools used by historians, so presumably they think that it’s the historians who aren’t applying these things correctly. 

In the question of creationism, I think you are correct except, I would suggest, that many creationists see science as a specifically anti Christian approach and the cavilling at specific things such as dating is not to use science to disprove certain claims but to expose science as a conspiracy  to disprove theism by an amount of contradictory claims.

Well yes – Vlad often referring to “antitheists” when all he means is “atheists” is an example of that. The same point applies though – creationists think they’re engaged in a sort of peer review (a basic method of science) to identify where the methods of science have been misapplied, whereas had they been applied correctly…albeit that the absence of evidence for their beliefs is generally ignored.

The point I was making was that, while those with faith beliefs sometimes will attempt the tools of academic disciplines to discredit the practice of those disciplines when it’s relevant to their beliefs, they’ll leave well alone when it isn’t.     

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

How would you talk about “the thing that happened” if you had no means of knowing whether that thing happened at all? The moment you want to “do” history then choices have to be made. How?

Yes they are. So what they’re saying to those who would attempt the methods of academic history to demonstrate the claim is, “these methods cannot be applied to claims of the supernatural”. The theist who’s attempting them though – by citing witness statements for example – would presumably disagree, otherwise why bother with the effort?

I wasn’t. So far, I’m just saying that (some) theists attempt to play by the rules of academic history. 

The three paragraphs above seem very confusing. You accept that some theists when they are arguing are taking the position that history as a study is naturalistic, that they are using methods which they are entitled to use but even when they are arguing that what actually happens might not be constrained by naturalism, then have to be 'playing by the rules of academic history'. This seems contradictory and a strawman. You need an example that actually backs you up here.

No it isn’t. Look back at this thread – the theists who talk about witness statements, corroborative evidence, “epistolary” evidence etc are all precisely trying to use the very methods on which academic history rests. If they said instead something like, “the seaweed hanging in my kitchen turned brown this morning, therefore the resurrection was real” then you’d have a point. That’s not what they do though – instead they try to use the same methods and tools used by historians, so presumably they think that it’s the historians who aren’t applying these things correctly. 

Well yes – Vlad often referring to “antitheists” when all he means is “atheists” is an example of that. The same point applies though – creationists think they’re engaged in a sort of peer review (a basic method of science) to identify where the methods of science have been misapplied, whereas had they been applied correctly…albeit that the absence of evidence for their beliefs is generally ignored.

The point I was making was that, while those with faith beliefs sometimes will attempt the tools of academic disciplines to discredit the practice of those disciplines when it’s relevant to their beliefs, they’ll leave well alone when it isn’t.   

But that's because they don't accept the assumption of naturalism. You don't e to in order to use the techniques to show inconsistencies. Essentially you are indulging in a tu quoque.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

The three paragraphs above seem very confusing. You accept that some theists when they are arguing are taking the position that history as a study is naturalistic…

Yes to the second sentence.

that they are using methods which they are entitled to use…

NOOOOOO! I don’t think they’re entitled to use them at all in respect of their supernatural beliefs! Fact is though, they do it anyway. 

…but even when they are arguing that what actually happens might not be constrained by naturalism, then have to be 'playing by the rules of academic history'.

If they want to use the methods and tools of academic history (albeit entirely inappropriately), then yes. Citing witness statement and the like are methods of academic history. Either you think that a witness statement is evidence (albeit naturalistic evidence) or you don't. 

This seems contradictory and a strawman. You need an example that actually backs you up here.

It’s contradictory inasmuch as it makes no sense, I agree. It’s no straw man though – every post here that talks about witness statements, corroborative beliefs, epistolary evidence etc are attempting it. It’s basically the stuff on the blackboard each side of, “miracle happens here”.   

But that's because they don't accept the assumption of naturalism. You don't e to in order to use the techniques to show inconsistencies. Essentially you are indulging in a tu quoque.

No. If they don’t accept the assumptions of naturalism they have no business attempting its methods. As they do though attempt them though, then the only reason must be that they think those methods are appropriate for their claims (otherwise by bother?), only they’re being wrongly not applied by the professionals in the field. 

It would only be a tu quoque if, say, I was saying that academics use naturalistic methods for claims of the supernatural, but so do theists. That’s not it at all though: academics don’t use their methods for claims of the supernatural because they don’t fit. Theists on the other hand will sometimes do so because they think the judgment of the academics about them not fitting is wrong.

Furthermore, some do this only selectively. They’re quite happy to ignore academics of whatever field being indifferent to claims in which they have no interest, but when those claims are their religious beliefs (resurrection etc) then they will try to jemmy then into the naturalistic methods of history and science so as to argue that the academics in the field are wrong not to apply their naturalistic methods to them.

Example? Gravity = fine; evolution = not fine.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Do you even know what the term “circular reasoning” means? Your opening claim and your conclusion are mutually dependent.

You may claim it to be circular reasoning, but to me it is perfectly logical.  The alternative logic is to assume that we are just biological robots driven entirely by the uncontrollable forces of nature, and that every apparent conscious choice we make is just an illusion.

[BeRational]

You may claim it to be circular reasoning, but to me it is perfectly logical.  The alternative logic is to assume that we are just biological robots driven entirely by the uncontrollable forces of nature, and that every apparent conscious choice we make is just an illusion.

It's not just a claim, it is circular. You know that logicy thing that you never understand, and yet you claim you worked with computer software.

Unbelievable!

[Stranger]

You may claim it to be circular reasoning, but to me it is perfectly logical.

If it were logical, you'd be able to list your premises, articulate your reasoning and state your conclusion. If you tried to do that, you would soon see that you are either assuming your conclusion in your premises or using nothing but incredulity.

The alternative logic is to assume that we are just biological robots driven entirely by the uncontrollable forces of nature, and that every apparent conscious choice we make is just an illusion.

Ignoring to emotive language, you have not presented an argument against us being deterministic biological beings...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

 

No. If they don’t accept the assumptions of naturalism they have no business attempting its methods.

Naturalism ''has'' methods or naturalism is a method?
Or Naturalism has methods and assumptions? You are in danger of giving Naturalism a philosophical entailment here.

Also you have not addressed the issues of a resurrected person being subject to possible observation or that resurrection could be just an improbable natural event.

I wasn't going to get involved since Nearly Sane had identified Caricature and confusion and an assessment of your arguments is better coming from him than me, but that phrase was just crying out to be challenged since it smacks of intellectual totalitarianism.

Just another point.

The origin of the universe is something not susceptible to science and yet you are insisting that this is something that can be eventually elucidated by science. Why are you now specially pleading that a resurrection can not be? I refer you to the materialist position which treats life as a product of the arrangement of matter energy.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Naturalism ''has'' methods or naturalism is a method?

Or Naturalism has methods and assumptions? You are in danger of giving Naturalism a philosophical entailment here.

Naturalism is the working assumption that the natural is all there is that’s consistently accessible, and we investigate it using methods and tools that produce probabilistic truths. If you want to call that a “philosophical entailment” that’s up to you, but your consistent misuse of the terms you attempt suggests that any discussion about that is pointless.

Also you have not addressed the issues of a resurrected person being subject to possible observation or that resurrection could be just an improbable natural event.

Yes I have:

-  a person would be subject to possible observation, but there’s no means to know that a resurrected person had been observed; and

- anything could be an improbable natural event – resurrections and leprechauns included. As I understand it though Christians think the resurrection story to describe a supernatural event. 

I wasn't going to get involved since Nearly Sane had identified Caricature and confusion and an assessment of your arguments is better coming from him than me…

I’ve replied to NS about this already.

…but that phrase was just crying out to be challenged since it smacks of intellectual totalitarianism.

What phrase, and what on earth do you think I’ve ever said that’s “intellectually totalitarian”? As I’ve only ever argued for a probabilistic reality (ie, pretty much the opposite of a totalitarian one) even for you this charge seems especially ludicrous.

Just another point.

Really? Even though your previous ones have collapsed?

Oh well – on your head be it.

The origin of the universe is something not susceptible to science…

Whoa there! Do you mean here, “not ever, even in principle”, or “not using the methods and tools that are currently available to us”? They’re very different things.

The former is something you cannot know to be true. The latter is true, though there are competing hypotheses on that awaiting testing.   

…and yet you are insisting that this is something that can be eventually elucidated by science.

No I haven’t. It could be that science gives us the answer but there’s no way to be certain about that. You’re thinking here of your personal re-definition of “scientism”.

Why are you now specially pleading that a resurrection can not be?

Why are you lying again? I’ve said over and over again that anything could be. Why? Because of the principle of unknown unknowns – maybe there’s some process for a resurrection we don’t know about, and maybe it actually happened in the narrative you believe (and indeed in the narratives before then from which your faith took the story). Who can possibly say?

What can be said that is that – so far at least – everything we know about the way biology works suggests that probabilistically it didn’t happen.   

I refer you to the materialist position which treats life as a product of the arrangement of matter energy.

That is the working assumption yes, because that’s what the evidence suggests. How do you think that helps you?

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

You may claim it to be circular reasoning…

It’s not just a claim. The term “circular reasoning” has a meaning, and your argument matches that meaning. You can try to argue that circular reasoning isn’t logically false (though I’ve no idea how you’d go about that) but you can’t argue that you didn’t do it.

…but to me it is perfectly logical.

And that’s your problem if you want anyone else to take your claims seriously. The “to me” gives you a personal truth no doubt, but you’re not entitled to a personal logic that applies to other people too.   

The alternative logic is to assume that we are just biological robots driven entirely by the uncontrollable forces of nature, and that every apparent conscious choice we make is just an illusion.

It’s a bit more than an "assumption" because that’s what the evidence suggests, but essentially yes. So?

[torridon]

You may claim it to be circular reasoning, but to me it is perfectly logical.  The alternative logic is to assume that we are just biological robots driven entirely by the uncontrollable forces of nature, and that every apparent conscious choice we make is just an illusion.

There's no reason why circular reasoning cannot be logical; within its own terms a chain of reasoning can be both circular and logical.  It is just that such things are limited in value, being circular, there is nothing to expose the self contained truth to a wider context. 

Having said that, your circular beliefs are not even logical within their own narrow context.  They contradict themselves all over the place. For instance, a creator God that is defined as moral and good would not create or tolerate to exist evil, in the shape of the Devil.  Cognitive dissonance, not logic.

[SusanDoris]

AB
I am quite content to bea a deterministic biological being, since all humans have been that since we evolved to be so and have very successfully survived as a species without knowing the scientific facts!!  Being aware of the scientific, biological facts behind our humanity makes it far more exciting to realise what advances we have made and to understand the backward steps that have also been made.

Why is that not enough for you? To know that we, as a species, have done all that we have, whether good or bad, because of our evolved brains plus language is just about the most excellent thing of all to think about. Humans take all the credit and the responsibility; no hiving it off to some other imagined entity.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Naturalism is the working assumption that the natural is all there is that’s consistently accessible, and we investigate it using methods and tools that produce probabilistic truths. If you want to call that a “philosophical entailment” that’s up to you,

No, That's up to what it is.