(October 5, 2013 at 6:23 am)Rational AKD Wrote: the definition of naturalism excludes beliefs in the supernatural and spiritual.It would exclude the "supernatural", yes, by definition. Would it exclude the spiritual?
I'm not saying this is what I believe but let's hypothetically say that there really are such things as "souls" that account for our existence as conscious beings. Perhaps they're some kind of energy or something not yet understood by science. Regardless, let's say for argument's sake, they really do exist.
That accepted for the sake of argument, they would currently be beyond the understanding of science. However, as we collect more information, we might one day make that discovery. Having made it, we could then study souls and come to understand their properties and explain how they interact with the brain, which presumably would be the seat of said "soul". Once we understand it, we could then explain how it works.
Do you know what we call something that was once thought to be "supernatural" or "magical" when it can be proven to exist, when it can be observed and studied, when it's properties understood and explained?
"Natural".
Then again, consciousness may just be an emergent property of brain activity. My point is that it doesn't necessarily follow that just because there's no magic and woo in the world doesn't make it necessarily so. I await the findings from neruoscience on just what consciousness is and will withhold judgment until then. For the reasons provided above, "naturalism" doesn't necessarily dictate any conclusions on the nature of our existence.
natural selection definition Wrote:the process whereby organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more offspring. The theory of its action was first fully expounded by Charles Darwin and is now believed to be the main process that brings about evolution.Natural selection is only part of the process of evolution, as the very definition above, handily bolded, alludes to.
Organisms over time have many mutations. Some of these mutations are detrimental to survival or reproduction and so are weeded out by natural selection. Some of these mutations are highly beneficial, and so are favored by natural selection. Some of these mutations are neutral or have little effect on survival/reproduction, and so may get passed on or may not. It does not follow that every mutation passed on is perfectly designed for our survival or that some features irrelevant to survival haven't been bolted on.
Your argument rests on the assertion that "determining the truth", whatever you mean by that, isn't necessarily essential to our survival.
Quote:4. C2 all our cognitive functions came about for the purpose of survivability which is not necessarily hinged on determining the truth- from P2&C1.
Your point?
As others have noted, we're bred for pursuing dinner, not "The Truth". Being able to think about complex philosophical questions may not be essential to survival if you're a primitive human living in the wild. That doesn't preclude the function being present. Unless something is specifically maladaptive to survival, natural selection may not necessarily weed it out.
Quote:exactly, once we deny our senses it inevitably leads to solipsism.Solipsism is technically true and stupid to spend much time thinking about unless you're a science-fiction author working on an idea for a story. Esquilax has already torn apart that concern so I won't steal his thunder.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
