Ah yeah, good stuff. I think I agree, though I'm just skimming to refresh my memory.
Conversation
Replying to
religious creation myths aren't the same as aliens inventing genomics. They're about breathing consciousness into matter.
1
2
that's where the categorical diff between theists/atheists lies: how they account for consciousness. "Breath of god" vs "tbd"
1
2
Breath of God isn't defined in the sense you're thinking. These are experiential categories.
2
Replying to
I'm talking generally about that kind of allegory. In hinduism it is the primordial sound (nad brahma) for eg
1
2
Replying to
Haven't read, but sounds beautiful. You take it as a primarily ontological claim?
1
Replying to
in general steelman views of religion = best understood as consciousness ontologies. Everything else breaks with skepticism
1
2
Replying to
This is probably our core disagreement: To me, “soul” is an experiential claim. The experience is what the ancients really *meant*.
1
1
It's only our society that reads “soul” as metaphysics.
4
1
Replying to
depends on whether by soul you mean just subjective consciousness (which I agree is an experiential reality) or more
Replying to
I mean subjective consciousness, and I think they did too. As evidence, the Hebrews didn't have a baked-in concept of afterlife.
3
2
Replying to
so you're not really religious at all if that's all you commit to. Most atheists, would agree subj consciousness is real
1
1
Show replies

