What's Actually the Argument (a response to Ali)

Dawahfilms's video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJt1PV_UIqw&feature=feedu

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• atheism
• theism
• christian
• christianity
• islam
• muslim
• bible
• koran
• science
• empiricism
• philosophy
• epistemology
• debate
• discussion

[lukeism2]

@DawahFilms .. I'll raise an obvious objection to reliance on intuition.. Intuitively, walking outside and looking at my surroundings, I see a flat Earth

[gamutman]

You make the point that perception of agency and duality could have been evolutionary, and I agree. You also suggest that if they evolved it was either because the perception had an evolutionary advantage or once had an advantage which is since maladaptive. There's a third option. It may have never been beneficial, but rather simply tagged along as part of another adaptation which was beneficial.

[BigLundi]

@stealspell No...he's not putting a metaphysical spin on science...he's putting a metaphysical spin on an atheistic philosophy when viewed in contrast to a theistic mindset.

Atheists don't view everything as being only answerable through science, at least those who aren't logical positivists(which, if anyone holds this position, is kinda laughable).

[BigLundi]

@Diognetus He was talking about how we...naturally view the world.

Prior to investigating epistemology and philosophy and logic and blah blah, we simply naturally presume the universe is constant in many ways, like that I won't all of a sudden fall through a sidewalk one day.

It's an appeal to our intuition.

[katiefershadybaby]

3 months no video :(

[Diognetus]

"We don't question things unless we have sufficient reason for questioning them." Isn't that sort of backwards? Wouldn't be more accurate to say, "We don't believe things unless we have sufficient reason to believe them?"

[stealspell]

You're being too metaphysical. The scientific perspective does not make claims about "reality", but phenomena. Your deduction, thus, is misunderstanding the functions of science and is more of a grammatical mistake. Scientifically speaking, the brain interprets illusions. Yet science does not make the claim, "illusions exist", rather, "the brain interprets illusions." You give a metaphysical spin on science, using it as a metaphysical groundwork for "reality" or what is "true".

[maddsleezy]

Y U NO MAKE NEW VIDS?????

[gamutman]

@jdizzle0401 My point wasn't about anything quite so specific. I'm simply saying that whatever the possible evolutionary cause the result could simply be a side effect of a separate beneficial adaptation. For example, perhaps being comfortable with rote activity helped gel tribes, but it also made us inadvertently appreciative of ceremony. Those tribes more accommodating to rote survived better, but were also thus more susceptible to religious ideas (as an example).

[jdizzle0401]

@gamutman I would also argue that it is the Prefrontal lobe that inhibits us humans from ever experiencing what the Buddhists would call enlightenment- but thats a debate for a different day =)

[jdizzle0401]

@gamutman Maybe I am off my marker here, but theres a video here on youtube- RSA The Divided BrainI-- that describes the usefulness of perception in concert with the Prefrontal lobe. The immediacy of experience is slowed down until we can filter out useful information to our benefit. Tell me if I entirely missed the point on what you are saying =)