Reply to comment

Very good Anne, I did run a risk in making that assumption. And now the misunderstanding is corrected. I repent of my error.

Please do notice that this was possible between us because of the fact that the words we are using have an objective meaning that we have both conformed to.

However if I were to reject the authority of the word and general authorship, I could interpret your words just as easily to have meant that "you are Paul, and I am you, and we are altogether... Koo-coo-kachoo"!

I firmly believe that most misunderstandings arise not from misunderstandings per se, but from concealed personal bias (concsiously or unconsciously). 'Lucy, or pie in the Sky' declarations of ignorance are not nearly as powerful a debating tool as some believe. Often, it's not that we 'don't know', it's that we don't 'want' to know.

Many people intentionally supress the truth so as to keep the implications as far from the conscious mind as possible. But deep down we know. The gospel of John and Pauls letter to the Romans makes it clear that God has given all men lihgt, and that we supress the truth. It is our nature...

If we let it out, it will grow, and try to lead us further down a road we don't want to go.

There are some conclusions that if we accept them as true, will lead us elsewhere in our lives that we stongly reject regardless of the kind face we may wear on the surface.

Misunderstandings also arise from disagreements as to the definition of the words and concepts we are using. The definition of science is a good example. Again, they are not true misunderstandings in this instance either. It is bias once again.

Our current definition of science (the accepted convention) is called 'Methodological Naturaism'. It says simply that if evidence and theory is to be considered 'scientific', then it must deal exclusively with material (or natural) cause and effect.

The interesting thing, is that MN does not explicitely exclude God or the supernatural as an explanation like 'Ontological Naturalism would'; but; it effectively does so, by presupposing (philosophically) that only material cause and effect is valid.

I mention that it does so 'philosophically', because that definition itself is arrived at, not by emperical or material observation and testing, but by a philosophical bias known as materialism.

Therefore, our current convention of science (methodological naturalism) is not 'scientific' within it's own definition. It is a philosophical worldview; ie. a religious or theological system of metaphysics attempting to impose acceptable parameters for defining reality.

Do you understand what I am saying?

If so, perhaps you disagree?

If not, perhaps you can formulate some questions for me so that, whether we agree or disagree, you will at least understand my position.