religious creation myths aren't the same as aliens inventing genomics. They're about breathing consciousness into matter.
Conversation
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
There are modern theologies, like Mormonism, that explicitly associate souls with matter -- not supernatural metaphysics
1
2
they still have notions of revealed scripture etc which no atheist would accept as defensible claims
Replying to
Right. I don't think theists and atheists necessarily have any disagreement over nature of the soul. It's a misunderstanding at best.
1
Replying to
I think there's a deep, unbridegeable divide and you're just in denial that you've turned effectively atheist bwahahaha 😈
1
1
Show replies
Many Mormons understand revelation in ways that are entirely consistent with naturalism. As disclosure, I'm one of them.
2


