As you say, science has “has no method for addressing the phenomenon of soul”. That’s because science makes no claim that it exists. A soul (or consciousness as an entity) is a religious creation. Now that this religious invention is incompatible with the natural world, it’s supposedly evidence that Objectivist epistemology is misguided and that God must exists? Come on, a slight of had like that should be taken to Vegas.
The evidence that self awareness is naturally possible is that it exists in nature. Even some animals have self awareness The burden of proof that it’s a creation of the supernatural lies with those making the claim.
“And consciousness is a natural attribute of certain living entities, their natural power, their specific mode of action--not an unaccountable element in a mechanistic universe, to be explained away somehow in terms of inanimate matter, nor a mystic miracle incompatible with physical reality, to be attributed to some occult source in another dimension.” – Rand’s review of Herman Randall's book Aristotle.
The key word there is consciousness as an “attribute” rather than an entity.
The “transitions” I referred to was between components of nature, not between natural components and Christians, although I didn’t mean to leave them out. I’m sure you guys transition too ;^)
I’d post some theist rips on atheism in response to atheists’ mistreatment of Christianity if that would ease your pain, but do we really want to go there?
Also it cannot make any claim that the soul does not exist — that can be corroborated by the scientific method. Nor can you demonstrate that it is a mere "religious invention." What actual evidence do you have for this?
I am very well aware that the lower animals have a form of self-awareness. I've been fascinated by some of the studies I've been reading involving the "remembering" and "learning capabilities" of the amoeba, and other unicellular life forms.
But to argue that all living beings possess some form of sentience, or awareness, or consciousness in some degree (as I hazard to do) is proof of a naturalistic origin of consciousness is a complete non sequitur. You say this, but you can't show this. If consciousness is universal in living systems, all the more reason to doubt it has a naturalistic cause. For finite things do not constitute universal things.
I disagree that consciousness is an "attribute." Philosophy generally regards attributes as accidental, rather than substantial qualities. Substantial qualities inhere in the very nature or essence of a thing, or what defines it as being what it is. For example, WRT a rectangular solid, its extension, susceptibility to gravity, and like considerations are its substantial properties. (I.e., it cannot lose these properties and still be a rectangular solid.) Accidental properties of the solid might be things like its color, or its surface texture — things that could go missing without detracting away from the idea of a rectangular solid.
My own view is that consciousness is a substantial, not an accidental property of living systems. For the very idea of a living system predicates consciousness.
You wrote, "I’d post some theist rips on atheism in response to atheists’ mistreatment of Christianity if that would ease your pain, but do we really want to go there?"
I didn't come here for a food fight, elfman2. I came here for a rational debate. And I am not in pain.