All worldviews start with assumptions. Secular materialism relies on circular arguments as much as Christianity, they just explain less (see Orthodoxy by G.K. Chesterton). The only difference is that materialists often refuse to admit their assumptions - which is why, as a Christian, I admire nihilists - they're not afraid to admit their axioms and follow them to their logical conclusions.
Really, only the last paragraph of that post are relevant here. Secular materialism and Christianits share reason in common. The difference between the two is their explanation of why it works, where it came from, and why it matters. That's where circularity starts to happen.
No. This is what a circular argument sounds like: "The Bible is the Word of God, and we know this because it says so in the Bible." There is nothing like that in secular materialism. Secular materialism is a conclusion based on evidence. It might be wrong but it is not circular.
And, BTW, if secular materialism is wrong, then the way to demonstrate that is to show evidence that it is wrong. And if you want to claim that secular materialism is circular then the way to show that is to show how it is circular (which you won't be able to do because it isn't) rather than just to say that it is with no supporting argument.
> Secular materialism is a conclusion based on evidence.
No, its not. Secular materialism is an epistemology in which conclusions based on externally-verifiable empirical evidence are held to be the only justified claims of knowledge.
> And, BTW, if secular materialism is wrong, then the way to demonstrate that is to show evidence that it is wrong.
This rests itself on the assumption that secular materialism is correct (that is, it assumes tthat conclusions based on externally-verifiable empirical evidence are the only justified claims of knowledge.)
> And if you want to claim that secular materialism is circular then the way to show that is to show how it is circular
Secular materialism itself is not circular.
The claim that secular materialism is true because it is not shown to be wrong within the epistemological framework which secular materialism defines is, OTOH, circular.
"Secular materialism relies on circular arguments as much as Christianity,"
> Secular materialism is an epistemology
No, it isn't. Secular materialism is "the theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena." (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Secular+materialism) It is a falsifiable scientific theory.
> The claim that secular materialism is true because it is not shown to be wrong within the epistemological framework which secular materialism defines is, OTOH, circular.
But that's a straw man. You're right, that would be a circular argument, but that is not the claim that secular materialism makes.
You are confusing secular materialism with science. These are not the same thing. Science is a set of assumptions, including the assumption that any theory that is at odds with evidence must be wrong. Secular materialism is a conclusion that follows from those assumptions plus the currently available evidence. There is no circularity. Science does not assume secular materialism. Science readily takes on board the possibility that dualism might be correct, that deities might exist, even that Jesus may have died on the cross to save us from everlasting torment in the afterlife. All of these theories are rejected not because they contradict scientific assumptions (which would be circular) but because they are at odds with the evidence.
BTW, science does not claim that secular materialism is true. No scientific theory is ever true, merely the best available explanation at any point in time. Scientific theories are always subject to revision based on new evidence or better arguments. That's one of the big differences between science and religion: in science, the discovery and correction of mistakes is considered progress. In religion, it's heresy.
No, its not. There's no conceivable empirical test that could refute it, even in principal.
> You are confusing secular materialism with science.
No, I'm not. Secular materialism and science are closely related but different. Science is a method for justifying knowledge, secular materialism is the belief that that method is the exclusive method for justifying knowledge.
> There's no conceivable empirical test that could refute it, even in principal.
Of course there is. Communication from the afterlife conferring information that could not otherwise have been acquired. Greater efficacy of prayer to one deity versus a different deity. The Second Coming.
> secular materialism is the belief that that method is the exclusive method for justifying knowledge.
Then you are using the term "secular materialism" to mean something different than what the dictionary says. I refer you to the following passage from Tom Stoppard:
> Communication from the afterlife conferring information that could not otherwise have been acquired.
Any such communication (and any such afterlife from which communication was possible) would itself be explainable as physical processes. (Obviously, it would require new understanding of what the laws of physics are, but that's not unusual.)
Any phenomenon that involves an observed and predictable relationship between an observable action and an observable result can be explained physically (though it may require new physics.) Any phenomenon that does not is rationalized within a secular materialist viewpoint as either (1) random, or (2) an effect of some as-yet-unknown cause.
Nothing observable can falsify secular materialism.
But that is exactly what falsification means. When you "require new physics" you have falsified the old physics.
> an effect of some as-yet-unknown cause
Sure, but that as-yet-unknown cause could be (say) a deity. Science does not rule out that possibility a priori.
BTW, here is an example of an unfalsifiable theory: God is real, but He will not reveal Himself to you unless you believe in Him. If He has not revealed Himself, then you just don't have enough faith.
> When you "require new physics" you have falsified the old physics.
Sure, there lots of things that could falsify our current understanding of physics (and elements of that understanding are falsified all the time without any negative impact on Secular Materialism).
But all that says is that the current models of physics are falsifiable, which wasn't in question. Falsifying them, however, doesn't falsify Secular Materialism.
> Sure, but that as-yet-unknown cause could be (say) a deity.
Not in any non-physical sense.
> Science does not rule out that possibility a priori.
Science does not admit any entity that cannot be reduced to physical mechanism, nor does it need to admit any such entity since its framework allows explaining any predictable relation between observable cause and observable effect as such a mechanism, and it doesn't concern itself with anything other than such relationships.
(Whether this is all there is "in truth" is a question that goes beyond science -- secular materialism is the affirmative answer to that question -- and which is irrelevant to science.)
> Falsifying them, however, doesn't falsify Secular Materialism.
That depends on how they are falsified. If your "new physics" is just a minor tweak to the Standard Model -- a new particle, say -- then you're right. But if you can demonstrate something observable that isn't made of matter then that would falsify secular materialism.
Dark matter and dark energy could potentially do this. Notwithstanding that we're calling them "matter" and "energy" the truth is we have no freakin' clue what they are.
> > Sure, but that as-yet-unknown cause could be (say) a deity.
> Not in any non-physical sense.
Sorry, I have no idea what that means.
> Science does not admit any entity that cannot be reduced to physical mechanism
Not true. It just happens to be the case that everything we observe appears to be reducible to a physical mechanism. But that's not an a priori assumption, it is an a posteriori observation. And it's also a pretty recent development. For example, whether or not life could be reduced to a physical mechanism was an open question until Darwin. Whether altruism could be reduced to a physical mechanism was an open question until Dawkins and Axelrod. The jury is still out on abiogenesis, but again, I'll give you long odds that that, too, will turn out to be physical.
> it doesn't concern itself with anything other than such [predictable] relationships
Again, not true. A phenomenon does not have to be predictable to be amenable to scientific inquiry. There are hard limits on our ability to predict, say, the weather. That does not mean that weather is beyond the reach of scientific inquiry. Quite the contrary, it is because of science that we know that there are fundamental limits on our ability to predict the weather.
BTW, weather presents the perfect example of how secular materialism could be falsified: if tornadoes, all else being equal (i.e. controlling for things like geographic location and construction quality), selectively destroyed the houses of worship of one denomination over another.
