Naturalism as an unsound and invalid worldview

The challenge from Sapient:

Now, you have said on numerous occasions that NP, which IS Logic, is the evaluator of worldviews...have you run this by NP / Logic? Would you be willing to do so? Just the worldview parts that influence how you view all the rest?

Let me invited you to start a new thread with your worldview statement, the truth statements that you accept and upon which your logic is based...and lets put them to the NP/Logic test. This will give you a great opportunity to plead your case, defunct mine, which is exactly the opposite...hey, who could ask for more.

Now, since you insist that NP and Logic are the same, I am going to use Logic, science, etc to evaluate your worldview...you can call it NP if you like. Fair enough?

So, I invite you to go for it. Make sure and deal with your view on the laws of the natural world such as the law of contingency, 2nd law of thermodynamics, origins, etc...ie cause and effect, necessary and sufficient causes, decay, and creation v evolution, information theory.

Naturalism deals with all of those so i am assuming you considered them, and the evidence available, in order to make a rational decision--right?

If you need me to send the precepts of naturalism to you I will. But, I hesitate in this regard as I don't want you to think I am setting you up for the fall that is coming.

I look forward to it, and thanks in advance for the forum.

It was not my intention to challenge your worldview. Something about "freedom of religion" comes to mind. However, I am entirely willing to defend my worldview as valid and logical. Since we cannot agree on the definition of NP, let's agree not to use it.

Starting with the definition of naturalism from Merriam-Webster:

 2: a theory denying that an event or object has a supernatural significance; specifically : the doctrine that scientific laws are adequate to account for all phenomena —http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/naturalism

Fist, a note on theories and the scientific method. The scientific does not prove anything to be "true" or "absolute." If the theory explains existing phenomena then it is a useful theory. If at some point the theory is shown to be incorrect then it will have to be modified or discarded. I purport that naturalism is a useful theory. I welcome anyone to disprove that naturalism is a valid theory in that sense.

Have fun!

Neutral principle defined

Purveyor is busy writing his next column where, I trust, he will address some of your concerns. I'm pretty sure he is tired of explaining, "neutral principle" (NP) over and over again. While we wait, as Purvy's neutral principle disciple, I'm here to explain and defend NP. As the last thread has become a gun toting, boot kicking, weapons, orgasm fest, I've started a new post. Purvy's own words from previous conversations:

Neutral Principle is a philosophy, an applied philosophy! When I was an undergraduate I was so dissatisfied with the way philosophy was taught, I organized my own 3 credit course, whereby WE, the group/students read the great philosophers and related those lessons to current political and legal events. It was the most fulfilling class ever and I went on to teach seminars based on that format. NP urges the adherent, so to speak, to practice in their personal lives what they promote in their political and legal lives: "I will not lie, cheat nor steal."

Curiously, those demands can be found in Poly-theism, Christianity, Judaism, etc. NP starts with the reasoned, the ethical and coincidentally, serves the religious, emotional and moral inclination.

NP is PROCESS! The consistent and honest application of process. [removed] NP is NOT a catch all for every problem, particularly international problems, maybe someday, but not now as moral and ethical considerations very widely across international boundaries. Furthermore, moral and ethical values are all to often used as a ruse, a surreptitious, deceitful way for one nation/society to get what it wants, morality and ethics be damned?

And:

...one of my favorite analogies...

Back in 1990, a Court case "Colorado v. Hill" determined that a woman entering a health clinic has a right to "bubble or zone of protection." The principle being that a protester in close proximity, (10 or so feet) can arguably be threatening. Furthermore, free speech is coincidentally protected as the protester(s) can still be heard and/or display any placards or signs from "10 or so feet," or across the street. Effectively, there are two competing rights at issue and sans moral relativism, how does society deal with such?

Judge St Joan, applied principle in her decision, NOT her own moral predilection, rather she protected both the individual as well as the abstraction of free speech?

Now, "the other shoe drops"... What about a "scab" crossing a picket line? Shouldn't a strike breaker be accorded the same principles--a ten foot "zone of protection" just like the woman entering a clinic? Again, coincidentally the striker's freedom of speech is protected, HENCE, principle, "neutral principle" is the basis for legal reason?

OUCH! I have presented this dilemma to many people and depending on one's moral-political inclination, can cause dissonance! But, that's NP! Moreover, the phrase "pro-choice" is not only about abortion, it's about a philosophy! For millennia, the "Divine Right of Kings," made our choices for us, then came the "enlightenment" and the "American Experiment." Somewhere along the way Karl Marx made the scene, while at the same time America began to lose her principles? We need to find those lost "principles?

I firmly believe that NP is what the Founders envisioned, but not necessarily by those words?

Summary:

I see neutral principle as a set of principles or philosophy derived from first principles in a logical and consistent manner. In the US, those first principles would be our Constitution. It's the "logical and consistent manner" that is so lacking in today's mainstream parties. Each party has it's platform and then contorts the Constitution and the rule of law to justify its position.

Any questions, boys and girls?