|
As soon as you mix 'soul'/quasi-religious and materialist rhetoric you've disconnected from honesty.
The two arguments do not fit together at all.
Materialism deals with measurable, describable Universe.
Any mention of 'soul' immediately moves into a supernatural, idealistic frame of reference that is completely incompatible with a materialistic description.
If you'd like to justify a position of privilege based on the supernatural, do so honestly.
If you'd like to justify a position of privilege based on the material, do so honestly.
"I believe that the soul begins to inhabit a person at the 'collection of cells with development of the proto-cns' stage of the embryo." is not a reasonable argument.
You can't justify mysticism with science or science with mysticism.
__________________
"I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place." - Winston Churchill, 1937 --{ORLY?}--
|