I think one of the biggest flaws that the proponents of a soul have going for them is that they are unable to define exactly what a soul is and what it does. I have only seen it used as a filler for the gaps in our understanding of natural mechanisms. Until something more substantial can be put forward, I see no reason to consider it likely.
Actually, the whole sentence goes like this...
That was not the author's opinion as he was referencing someone else, even though he readily admits that he doesn't have a solid philosophical argument for materialism.
(May 15, 2013 at 11:55 pm)cato123 Wrote: C'mon Chad?!? What the fuck????
I got to page two of your link and was confronted with this: "...materialism is an article of faith based on the worship of science". Note 4 left much to be desired.
Actually, the whole sentence goes like this...
Quote:Tyler Burge and others have maintained that the naturalistic picture of the world is more like a political or religious ideology than like a position well supported by evidence, and that materialism is an article of faith based on the worship of science.
That was not the author's opinion as he was referencing someone else, even though he readily admits that he doesn't have a solid philosophical argument for materialism.
Even if the open windows of science at first make us shiver after the cozy indoor warmth of traditional humanizing myths, in the end the fresh air brings vigor, and the great spaces have a splendor of their own - Bertrand Russell
