Dawkins used the word "intuition," which would be the thoughts that automatically come to you. Intuition alone isn't going to figure out how reality works. You need more than that, you need a methodology like science.
Apparently you require intuition to even comprehend the methodology of science Rationality comes first before intuition, you need to be able to reason so that you can apply your intuition and then test whether or not your intuition is true an example of that is hypothesis and theories both require intuition, the capability of being able to reason helps a person to establish his/her intuition with the use of rationality aka trying to reason out why his/her intuition is true and that's what we call science cause methodology aka process aka science alone is already established but the only thing left is that you need a person to be able to think intuitively so that the person may lay out the foundations based on his/her own understanding what his/her has found out about nature
I still think it would be rational to hold naturalism as true even if all the "randomness" of the particles directly determine what a person believes in. I think that even if everything is already determined, that still leaves room for truth to come out of that. Untruthful statements, observations, or beliefs do not typically provide any kind of benefit to us as a society, and thus those ideas and observations are written off as "not true" or maybe "not yet knowable". Thus, those ideas are discarded in place for ideas that more closely align with the truth of reality. Flat Earth is a great example of this. What discarding these untruthful ideas does is create a sort of bell curve, with most people in the middle accepting that the earth is spherical, however there are still those that think the earth is flat. This behavior is predicted by naturalism because we would expect to see people hold "irrational" beliefs even when presented with evidence to the contrary. Now, I will say that on an individual level, yes it becomes extremely difficult to know if what you are believing is true (but then this just turns into the problem of solipsism). But as long as your beliefs aligns with our current observations of the world, then I think that holding naturalism as true can be rational because the naturalist is doing the best they can with the available information. Thoughts?
@@ianmcmullen1979 I lead biblical evidence tours through two of the most important museums in the world, the British Museum and the Natural History Museum in London. You can follow the historical narrative of the Bible from Genesis to Revelation while in a large part using hostile witness accounts on display in the BM. In the NHM Darwin’s theory is destroyed by what the museum itself displays. The three icons of evolution that are used in the museum are easily disproved by the proponents of them, which I show in the museum. Therefore we have one book, the Bible where the supernatural author claims what He did from the very beginning, until now and on into the future, which we can verify! How do you respond? On my playlists you can take the Joel Kramer Israel Bible tour I filmed in 2019 and see the archaeological evidence for yourself! How do you respond? 🤔
@@biblicaltours3541 Isn't Darwin's theory destroyed because Darwin's theory is decades old and much better and detailed explanations of the evolution process that contain SOME of Darwin's idea and refuse others have emerged through our newer understanding of the world and the newer technologies? Evolution stopped being Darwin's own theory decades ago and became much more. And the "which we can verify!" is extremely questionable, I have yet to see any convincing evidence of any supernatural event in the bible being true, but lots of evidence of many of the claims in the bible being false, and no, I do not accept the "for the bible tells me so" argument.
@@biblicaltours3541 given that you believe in pseudoscience, I see no reason to continue the conversation. You didn't even address what I was talking about, because I didn't mention evolution once. "Arguing with an idiot is like playing chess with a pigeon. Never play chess with a pigeon. The pigeon just knocks all the pieces over. Then shits all over the board. Then struts around like it won."
@@ianmcmullen1979 naturalism and evolution are the same thing, sadly according to Darwin and Dawkins the brain of the evolved man cannot comprehend ideas other than the hunter, gatherer! 👍😊
@@biblicaltours3541 You can be a naturalist without thinking that evolution is true. It would just take a separate process for life to propagate like we see. Whether or not you accept evolution is separate from whether or not you accept naturalism. Evolution is a subset of belief/knowledge of naturalism because you need to first assume naturalism before you can even test or hypothesize if evolution is true. Naturalism - "A theory that relates scientific methods to philosophy by affirming that all beings and events in the universe are natural." Evolution - "The process by which populations of living organisms change over time through changes in the genome." So no, they are not the same thing.
This is the error in David Wood's reasoning - Just because molecules aren't rational doesn't mean that there can't be rational processes involving molecules. The rationality is an emergent process involving the molecules. Molecules don't have a sense of humour but humans, made of molecules, can have one. Molecules aren't wet but water, made of molecules, is wet. It's a fallacy of composition. His whole argument collapses after that.
@@markh1011 it’s Dawkins and Darwin who proclaim that those who believe in naturalism have a lower animal brain and cannot comprehend ideas that include physics!
@@biblicaltours3541 That's not what they are saying at all. In fact Darwin never said anything like that. The point Dawkins is trying to make, and it's valid, is that physics may seem counterintuitive for us because our brains didn't evolve to understand complex physics or the nature of reality. They evolved to survive on the African savannah. Things like atomic theory or quantum theory, or even a spherical earth spinning in space, may not seem intuitively logical to us. Our intuition is good for many things, but understanding the very nature of reality, not necessarily.
@@markh1011your starting point is wrong! Take Sir Isaac Newton, he believed in God so expected that he would find design and order to everything because a mind was behind it and it was designed. The God who claimed to have been the creator in Isaiah asks the reader to come reason with him, this indicates that our mind is fully developed to understand, investigate and reason! Newton wrote commentaries on the Bible and made incredible scientific discoveries because he understood that the creator wanted him to understand. Man loves investigation, enquiry, exploration and invention because our mind is designed to do so by our creator God!
