And because this universe is "all there is" there is no external standard by which to measure or establish truth. How then can any naturalist believe they see more truth than anyone else when they themselves are just as subject to the pervasive natural delusion factor of the universe as anyone else. Observational Acuity? Right! A few decades ago dinosaurs were tail dragging, cold-blooded lizards. My how they've evolved in 40 years.
That view morphed as science and study evolved on the subject, and 40 years from now the view on Dinosaurs will likely evolve some more. But, rigid theists, who follow a more literal interpretation of their specific deity, book, myths and legends will not evolve. Dinosaurs will never be added to the Old Testament, for example. Some will try to rationalize an explanation, and some will say demons put those fossils in the ground to test the faith of man (without bothering to prove that demons exist).
Nor is the universe solely a result of natural processes, but includes an inherent ability to recognize the Source, the Creator, should creatures have a desire. The Source uses the process of Revelation to reestablish contact with creatures in the universe and to establish a standard for observing the universe. Creatures who dismiss the possibility of contact with the Creator are left to devise a world-view that has no external standard for truth.
I don't recall god actually, personally visiting any external truth on the people. Moses has his 10 Commandments, but I guess we have to take his word that he didn't just write them up himself. I don't recall too many mass revelations, witnessed by hundreds or thousands of people. Sure, there were natural events claimed as acts of god, but no real personal contact beyond individual holy men. So it's really hard to say that those are actually external truths, and not just a replay of human views on truth dating from the Bronze Age that people try to make relevant today to suit their own agendas.
That is the difference, and that is why the naturalist, even with curious stories of primitive development into more complex, can never claim a hold on truth. The universe the naturalist postulates locks them in a delusionary world from which there is no escape. And in effect, the naturalist today unwittingly rides the back of a Theistic world-view based on an immutable external standard of truth, even though he ridicules and denies it.
Those "curious stories" can be touched, examined and analyzed. We don't have to accept on faith that they existed, like we have to accept on faith that Jesus was the Son of God and not just a carpenter with a wonderful life view. We have to accept on faith the human transcriptions of the prophet’s private talks with god, in many cases written tens or hundreds of years after the events were claimed to take place. We have to ignore obvious literal falsehoods, like Noah’s ark. It would make a lot more sense, frankly, if it was claimed god made it for Noah than having Noah make it himself, and that it housed large populations of animals that would actually survive to repopulate the species. Walking down the plank on Mount Ararat, oops, a lion just ate the female zebra. And boy, those polar bears sure look warm, I hope they make it to the Arctic circle in good shape... Scientific Method or blind faith -- which has the greater potential for delusion? You can prove delusion using science, and you can easily cover up delusion with faith.
Personally, I don't dismiss the ultimate possibility of a creator. It’s hard to grasp how the secular, scientific universe first started out of “nothing” just like it’s hard to grasp how god was created out of nothing, what he was doing before he created Earth, and where she has been ever since. I think the we are a long way from answering these questions, and may never answer them with our current brain power. But, the current organized religions do nothing to convince me that their creator models are likely, and not just popular mythology that has survived the ages better than some competing mythologies..
Charon
