[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, given the current state of human knowledge, I consider all non-naturalistic claims to be nonrational. Of course I am completely open to changing that position if future observation invalidates methodological naturalism.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am sure that I'm having difficulty understanding the nature(no pun intended) of the debate. When one talks of NATURALISTIC OBSERVATIONS as you're presenting I'd like to know if you are only relating to external nature as that which is perceived by the senses(blue sky, sun, moon,wind)?

I'd like to know if concepts like prudence, justice, envy, sloth,hatred,irony and love are observable realities and included in NATURE. Do they fit into the catagories of rational or irrational?

My perception is that they are all OBSERVABLE and within nature. Not only are they observable but they are experiential in the sense that I can experience "prudence". I can also experience "hatred" as a distinct entity.

The fact that 2 men are able to experience and observe "hate" shows that it can be treated rationally and in fact we(2 men) can come to the same conclusions(judgment) about this observation. One can say that neither of us need authority to recognize "hate" and therefore it can be an object of logical understanding without the use of our supposed external senses which perceive the supposed external world of scientific perceptions. In fact we can scientifically study "hate" through our thinking which is the basis of all scientific work.

If one states that one must be able to weigh and measure an entity to be scientific it is putting the methodology which is scientific into the trash can.

Another way of saying this is that NATURE is not only External but Internal to Man and it stands within the realm of rationality and logic.