(March 2, 2017 at 8:52 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:(March 2, 2017 at 7:49 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: I disagree. The question is what does it mean for it to be natural to believe in gods and the afterlife, and your argument very specifically makes the inference that one interpretation of that meaning should be the default position. That's a flawed inference. Whether that instinct refers to something real or imagined is indeed relevant to your argument. It may be natural to believe in the afterlife for reasons having nothing to do with an actual afterlife. The null hypothesis isn't about what is natural or conventional, but about the relationships between causes and effects. There is no reason why a natural concept should necessarily correspond to a veridical one. Until you demonstrate that there is a relationship, the null hypothesis is that there is none.
At the beginning of every inquiry, there is always a given. You may later conclude that the given was incorrect but that does not negate the fact that you had to start with one.
What is the given for "Where is the objective, verifiable evidence for the proposition of a deity?"
"The last superstition of the human mind is the superstition that religion in itself is a good thing." - Samuel Porter Putnam
