Ghost of the Australian Realists

@AndrewJRParker I actually met Prof. Harris earlier this year and talked about this article and he said that this aimed towards more Philosophers of Science, as opposed to Oppy, Mackie, Atheistic types of Naturalism in the philosophy of religion.

Is Naturalism an Ideology? Yes, if it excludes from the outset certain kinds of reality. Naturalism should be radically open. renovatio.zaytuna.edu/article/is-nat…

"The failure of soul-making theodicy" by G. Stanley Kane is a classic in the philosophy of religion and a foundational critique of soul-making style theodicies, check it out below: philarchive.org/rec/KANTFO

@s_r_constantin I think you could probably fit this all in one page.

so, fwiw: i am job hunting... with a pretty wide range of possibilities, given that i've had an unusually varied career thus far. (Palantir, running a small nonprofit, various data science/ML things, wearing all manner of business hats at an AI for manufacturing company, grantmaking). resume here: docs.google.com/document/d/1Tl…

@LesSzklanny This is why I don't do twitter discussions. First you complain that Baras is not a scientist, I address that, then you strawman his argument, I address that as well, it feels like I'm going around in circles and just getting more dumber as this conversation goes along.

@analyticatheism I already addressed that this is an argument from ignorance.

In his book: "Calling for Explanation," Dan Baras offers a decisive Humean objection to fine-tuning arguments, in that they require us to make inferences that our background knowledge ultimately can't support. Check it out below:

@LesSzklanny I already addressed this: x.com/analyticatheis… The vast majority of the defenders of the FTA are Philosophers as well, so not sure why any of this is relevant.

@analyticatheism Baras is a philosopher, not a scientist. No major scientist has directly used Baras’ specific argument (his book is recent, 2022, and quite philosophical in focus).

@AndrewJRParker @RealAtheology 22/ My final point is simple: the danger is not that Oppy ignores the “epistemological heart” of theism. The danger is using that heart to shield theism from the very comparison Oppy is asking both sides to undergo. Feel free to have the last word on this.

A comment on Graham Oppy's naturalism. @RealAtheology In relying on current science to guide his naturalism, Oppy restricts his view to empirical, externally measurable truth-seeking. Although he refers to an "ideal" science, this is unreachable, and clearly he takes empirical science as the best model and guide. This excludes from the outset any possibility that there could be an interior way to reliable knowledge of reality, that can reveal things beyond empirical science. Because he assumes minds are only "late and local", they cannot have interior ontological depth beyond the physical structure that Oppy assumes must give rise to mind. But this becomes rather circular: minds are "late and local" > no interior depth disclosing truths > external empirical science is the only reliable way to truth > reality = natural = only what (empirical) science discloses. The mystical interior (contemplative) life is excluded from the outset.

@AndrewJRParker @RealAtheology 20/ Oppy’s framework can include mystical reports, contemplative practices, conversion narratives, and claims of divine disclosure. It does not exclude them by fiat. It asks which total worldview best explains them with the fewest costs.

@AndrewJRParker @RealAtheology 19/ So I do not deny that interior transformation is possible as sociological data. I deny that it can be used to suspend comparative evaluation and theory choice. It is a substantive theological claim, and like every other part of the worldview, it has to earn its keep.