[Tares]

You know, the whole "is reality real" thing was decent for picking up girls in college (it made them think you were deep), but it doesn't cut the mustard in the real world.

It isn't a matter of "is reality real". It's a matter of ones standard of evidence in the quest for knowledge. Naturalists need to demonstrate that empiricism alone is somehow more "objective" than divine revelation. What empirical evidence can a naturalist put forth in support of the contention that there are observers in the universe other than oneself? Without it, naturalism cuts the mustard in exactly the same way as every other belief system: by faith.

[Junior]

Empiricism (actual observation) is more objective than divine revelation; how am I to know that you're actually in communication with the Almighty? You might simply be blowing sunshine up my posterior. Now, if I were able to independently verify your experience, that would be empirical, wouldn't it?

[js1138]

Naturalists need to demonstrate that empiricism alone is somehow more "objective" than divine revelation.

LOL. I know you won't accept this as evidence, but withing science, the older a theory, the easier it is to find consensus about its status. Such, I believe, is not the case among theologians in dealing with the historical assertions of various religions.

I am aware that truth isn't decided by vote or by consensus, but "objectivity" has little practical meaning outside its implication of consensus.

There are always factions at the cutting edge of any scientific theory, but try and find any substantive division among scientists about theories and findings that are more that 20 years old. Try and find the scientific equivalent of Hindus, Buddhists, Christians, Muslims, Mormons, Adventists.