I came across this quote by eminent philosopher William Hasker today (HT: Victor Reppert):
But science as a total worldview—the idea that science can tell us everything there is to know about what reality consists of, enjoys no such overwhelming support. This worldview, (often termed scientific naturalism) is just one theory amongst others and is no more capable of being “proved to all reasonable people” than are religious belief systems. To claim that the strong support enjoyed by, say, the periodic table of the elements transfers to scientific naturalism as a worldview is highly confused if not deliberately misleading. (Peterson, Basinger, Reichenbach & Hasker, Reason and Religious Belief, 4th edition (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009); p 57.)
If only certain members of our opposition here in New Zealand would pay more attention to what philosophers of religion, who actually know what they’re talking about in this regard, said. Ken Perrott’s recent article ‘Bad science, bad theology’, for example, is a prime example of “highly confused if not deliberately misleading” rhetoric from atheist apologists here in New Zealand.