Originally posted by Wulebgr
Philosophical naturalists also make assumptions that they necessarily accept on faith. All naturalists agree there is no supernatural. "This point," says Young, "is emphasized by the naturalists themselves without seeing that that is an emotional rather than a logical conclusion.”
In addition to the neologism, ultimacy, I count four spelling errors: "practise descrimination," "arn't," and "emphasised". Two of these may be legitimate spellings in Britain, although not in America, leaving but two. Because all of ...[text shortened]... expending more than the usual degree of effort on his plagiarisms.
1. Somebody seems to be confusing assumptions and conclusions here—and it's not the accused naturalists...
2. I have noticed on here that people seem to disagree about what “faith” means—or at least about the particular usage in question. So—
faith (fath), n. 1. confidence or trust in a person or
thing: faith in another's ability. 2. belief that is not
based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would
be substantiated by fact. 3. belief in God or in the doc-
trines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pil-
grims. 4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, stand-
ards of merit, etc.: to be of (he same faith with someone
concerning honesty. 5. a system of religious belief: the
Christian faith; the Jewish faith. 6. the obligation of
loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.:
failure to appear would be breaking faith. 7. the ob-
servance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise,
oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his
faith during Our recent troubles. 8. Christian Theol.
the trust in God and in His promises as made through
Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified
or saved. 9. in faith, in truth; indeed: /n faith, he is a
fine lad. [1200-50; ME feith < AF fed, OF feid, feit <
L fidem, ace. of fides trust, akin to fidere to trust. See
—Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary.
And, in fairness, St. Paul: Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. (KJV Hebrews 11:1)
3. Now, it seems to me that if the naturalist puts confidence in “things seen”—i.e. the natural order—that is vastly different from a faith that puts confidence in “things not seen”—i.e. the supernatural. To paraphrase Laplace: The naturalist simply has no need of the assumption.
EDIT: Sorry, Wulebgr: this was in reply to dj2.