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.
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?