(October 5, 2013 at 1:40 pm)Rational AKD Wrote: well the definition I presented did exclude spirit. though if it were consistent with naturalism it is not the naturalism i'm addressing. this argument is more tailored toward materialistic naturalists.But what I keep trying to tell you is that if "souls" exist, they're part of the materialistic and natural universe. They would have properties that could be studied and understood.
Quote:I suppose if you did believe in a 'spirit' as a form of nature, you may bypass the argument *if* it has an explanation why natural selection doesn't affect our beliefs/thoughts as to make them survival instincts rather than indicators of actual truth.And as I've said previously, there are two reasons that this argument you've presented is completely moot:
1. Natural selection doesn't necessarily weed out neutral traits or even work to produce the most optimal species. We have "wisdom teeth" which are certainly not things that promote survival. They're actually quite destructive to our dental health. There are many other features of our bodies which aren't optimally designed. We have an appendix that once served a purpose but now just explodes. We breath and eat out of the same orifice, causing choking if food isn't chewed properly.
2. I'm still fuzzy on the whole, "pursuit of the truth is counter-survival" thesis you've presented. What has allowed us to survive is our ability to work together and build communities. A society of paranoid humans would be dysfunctional in its ability to cooperate and coexist and therefore be maladaptive to survival.
Quote:if any thoughts are distorted through the evolutionary process, we can't possibly determine which ones are. as I said, you can't reason without using your reason.And as I've already said, yes you can. You look for internal consistency and support from verified data. Saying you can't validate reason without reason is like saying you can't validate what one book says because it footnotes another book by another reputable source. One could just as easily argue "you're using a book to prove a book and that's circular reasoning" but this would fundamentally misunderstand what circular reasoning is. Where there are multiple sources of data, the conclusion is not necessarily circular.
Quote:it shows that solipsism logically and inescapably follows naturalism,I run into the same line of argument from presuppositionalists who flirt with solipsism and then claim their faith gives them a "get out of solipsism free" card.
How does this work exactly?
Why is naturalism supposedly prone to solipsism where magical thinking is not? In what way does your magical thinking free you from solipsism where naturalism would not?
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
