Posted on 01/30/2007 11:46:34 PM PST by RunningWolf
No, that's not the approach we use, I for one use the best information I have now available to make a decision. So religion is wrong not because it "must be" but because we lack any evidence that it is the truth.
As for your theological approach, it's seems that you assume that there is a god in the first place and move on from there. Why can't we know everything on our own? Why is it absurb that I believe that I don't have a soul?
The lack of evidence? You mean there's no evidence that the universe exists? ;^)
The fact that everything is here is evidence that it came from somewhere and/or from something. There is an Original Cause, and whatever/whomever it is, I'm grateful.
Are you saying he doesn't?
"The lack of evidence? You mean there's no evidence that the universe exists?"
Where did you get that from?
I was talking about the creation of the universe
(a joke... hence the wink...)
I'm not sure what you mean by "we". I don't think all materialists or atheists use the same approach. But it defiantly seems some use the approach I described.
I for one use the best information I have now available to make a decision. So religion is wrong not because it "must be" but because we lack any evidence that it is the truth.
Information is somewhat self-directed in this life. I really doubt anybody uses all the information that is available. I for one certainly don't have time to do this. There are many things I have accept on authority, and many more things I am not qualified to decide.
Why is it absurb that I believe that I don't have a soul?
Well materialists usually refer to the soul as "self-awareness" or "consciousness" or the like with the shared assumption that our brains and nervous system et al create an illusion of a "self". Such rationalizations are silly because they never address who or what is the observer of such an illusion. Neurologists can at best look at the "user interface" the soul uses. And many seem inspired to go to great lengths to try to do so. To a rational observer this looks like desperation to prove the absurd.
Whereas the exact nature of our "souls" or "spirits" is harder to pin down, the fact that they are supernatural is obvious, as almost everyone has known for all of world history.
No. I'm strongly inclined to the view that everyone has a soul, and deep down everybody knows that they do.
The question was rhetorical humor in that those who don't believe people have souls should not expect a single soul to agree with them.
I never said I use all the information, I said "the best" information. Second, you kind of ducked the statment I made there. I gave a very clear reason why I think religion is wrong and you replied by saying you accept some things on authority.
Is religion one of those things?
As for my self-awareness, I don't see myself as an illision. I don't know about you but all the parts of my brain work together to compromise "me". I think you're still thinking of my as a leftist atheist, I ain't and Freud was a fool.
As for your last point, how is the supernatural nature of our soul "obvious"? As far as I can tell, the only evidence you use to support that assertion is that the majority of people believe it so.
For example, when she comes upon them looking at a waterfall -- something in nature that is amazing -- they're riveted. She's wondering what's going through their minds and if they may be spiritual in some sense. That's a fascinating idea, but that's not my approach. I don't look for things in apes that are religious.
Seek and ye shall find.
You said all the best information available. The "best" seemingly always a self directed choice.
I gave a very clear reason why I think religion is wrong and you replied by saying you accept some things on authority.
Second, you kind of ducked the statement I made there. I gave a very clear reason why I think religion is wrong and you replied by saying you accept some things on authority.
You did not exactly elaborate on what the best evidence was and how it showed religion was wrong. So the only sort of constructive assessment I could make was based on the parts of the arguments you constructed for me. Specifically that you use the best evidence available. I suggested what I thought was wrong with that approach, and used myself as an example to be polite.
Is religion one of those things?
In part. When I form my assessment about large issues I find I must depend on some information I do not have first hand. This is what I mean by accepting things on authority. Obviously one must choose what authorities they find credible (which is one of the reasons "the best" evidence is not always the same for those who want to see things differently).
When evaluating the evidence for evolution for example, I have never personally carbon-dated any fossils. Nor have I ever personally verified that carbon-dating techniques (however they are really done) are as accurate as claimed. However, I accept (for the time being) that others have done this with reasonable diligence and integrity, thus relieving me of the responsibility of doing so myself.
I accept similar assumptions about much of the evidence for Christianity. Although I know almost no Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek, I do for (for the moment) accept the authority of many scholars of such subjects who seem credible to me, as giving me the reasonably accurate translations, cultural analysis, et al.
For me personally, all this evidence is second hand and only confirmation of what I have experienced personally in my walk with God. However for the purpose of public discussion I only mention this to explain what I mean by "in part". I do not think its productive to share my experiences, because if I were still an agnostic, I wouldn't have believed me.
As for your last point, how is the supernatural nature of our soul "obvious"? As far as I can tell, the only evidence you use to support that assertion is that the majority of people believe it so.
Having a soul is something everyone experiences directly. Thus we have, essentially, billions of direct witnesses to a phenomena. Possibly they are mistaken (thus my reference to an illusion). But what is clear is that we either have a soul, or it at least seems like we do to ourselves.
Thus isn't it a reasonable expectation that one should offer an alternate natural explanation before entertaining the idea that it isn't supernatural?
Okay, what I get out of this article is that scientists are admitting that God created the animals. Hee hee hee.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.