tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post503015600420783249..comments2024-03-27T18:43:12.776+00:00Comments on Darwinian Conservatism by Larry Arnhart: The Case For (and Against) Life After Death (3): Kantian DualismLarry Arnharthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14619785331100785170noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-80760654265294619672017-10-31T07:30:56.410+00:002017-10-31T07:30:56.410+00:00Even if D'Souza's argument were right, he ...Even if D'Souza's argument were right, he isn't consistent about it. His entire book on the afterlife is about evidence... which relies on the things he says we cannot. The same goes for his book about Christianity, and the many debates he's done, articles written, etc. As for the idea this props up his religion, maybe so, but everyone else's religion too. Unless he's going to become a completely ecumenical, "anything goes" believer, that is another inconsistency. To show his own religion alone is true surely relies on some evidence again.mcc1789https://www.blogger.com/profile/14617311408171673829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-36738784872329037712014-04-21T20:23:12.458+01:002014-04-21T20:23:12.458+01:00Either there is a life of some kind after death or... Either there is a life of some kind after death or there isn't. If the non-believers are right, they'll never know; if the believers are wrong, they'll never know. Believers will either know they are right or be unaware they were wrong. Non-believers will either know they are wrong or be unaware they were right. Hardly seems fair.CJColuccihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03691840821795365920noreply@blogger.com