RDFRS US:
The mission of the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science is to support scientific education, critical thinking and evidence-based understanding of the natural world in the quest to overcome religious fundamentalism, superstition, intolerance and suffering.
The Magic of Reality
for the iPad
Sean Faircloth:
Attack of the Theocrats!
J. Anderson Thomson Jr. MD:
why we believe in god(s)
RSS Feeds
Thankyou Alan4discussion
The validity of my position is derived from its acknowlegement that reality can be understood equally in terms of object and subject. Your unfounded assumption is that the rational object corresponding as it does with a rational subject must be interpreted to mean that the rational subject is a product of the rational object rather than the other way around. I don't know how I can make my position any more simple. The rational self consistency IS the validity in this argument...unless I was trying to prove one position over the other which I am not...you are though...and this fact makes your position a "Castle in the air".
Not so. This assumes materialism. Let's agree however that brain and mind are synonymous...this is rational. The assumption lies in asserting that the object (in this case electro-chemical processes) is the basis for the subject (the cognitive processes) rather than the other way around.
Permalink Mon, 26 Dec 2011 12:01:08 UTC | #902754