tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8757961399966322659.post4002878823546171500..comments2023-09-28T08:59:20.149-07:00Comments on The State Of My Ignorance: God and NeuroscienceZachary Krogerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11722264446136249191noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8757961399966322659.post-8265934698496881712012-07-11T15:14:24.586-07:002012-07-11T15:14:24.586-07:00The difference between quoting "my" peop...The difference between quoting "my" people and quoting Abu'l-Baha is that people like Ramachandran, Pinker and Gazzaniga are considered as experts in their fields. The scientific opinions they hold are also the opinions of basically everyone else in those fields (because the evidence is clear, unambiguous and overwhelming). They aren't just some fringe figures who just so happen to agree with me.<br /><br />Abu'l-Baha, on the other hand, has absolutely no training in modern neuroscience (or any science). Not only that, even if he was, he is almost 100 years behind on the science.<br /><br />It would be similar to us talking about airplanes, me quoting a few respected scientists, and then you quoting some Indian guru from 100 year ago.Zachary Krogerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11722264446136249191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8757961399966322659.post-8374496532516825582012-07-11T15:01:10.116-07:002012-07-11T15:01:10.116-07:00I suppose you're right on that. Christians are...I suppose you're right on that. Christians are under the idea that the existence of sin comes from Eve and that Jesus was meant to redeem that.<br /><br />And it's true that if the earth was not created in a literal 7 days, then there was no literal Tree of Knowledge, and no original sin.<br /><br />There is no original sin. People are imperfect and make mistakes; they need to better themselves.<br /><br />The scriptures make clear that Jesus came not to free people from the consequences of the Tree of Knowledge. It is the Tree of Knowledge! It is what we all take with us into this world. We are all Adam and Eve (human and soul) leaving the womb and facing a world of opposites and good and evil.<br /><br />Jesus came to restore the temple. That was what the prophecy said. The modern doctrine of Jesus saving us from original sin itself is even more irrational when you consider the prophecies that Christians believe in. He talked about people coming after Him. Why would there need to be another if He was enough for all time?<br /><br /><br />To comment on the main issue, I suppose people can talk their heads off over whether or not our minds are in our brains or not. You quote a lot of people who think like you do. I guess I'll give a quote here.<br /><br />"The rational soul—that is to say, the human spirit—has neither entered this body nor existed through it; so 240 after the disintegration of the composition of the body, how should it be in need of a substance through which it may exist? On the contrary, the rational soul is the substance through which the body exists. The personality of the rational soul is from its beginning; it is not due to the instrumentality of the body, but the state and the personality of the rational soul may be strengthened in this world; it will make progress and will attain to the degrees of perfection, or it will remain in the lowest abyss of ignorance, veiled and deprived from beholding the signs of God." -'Abdu'l-Baha<br /><br />I suppose the "data recall" idea is the idea of God making a copy of one's mind some place.<br /><br />But I suppose put forth in the above is that our bodies are the copy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8757961399966322659.post-33571527434906229202012-01-04T22:06:56.039-08:002012-01-04T22:06:56.039-08:00YEC is not just "unproven", it is flat o...YEC is not just "unproven", it is flat out disproven. Literally every area of science contradicts it.<br /><br />From the reviews of Collins' book, "Did Adam And Eve Really Exist?", it seems he defends the idea that they were actual, historical people. If that is the case, that helps my argument, and I am not sure how that helps you.<br /><br />Regardless, there are always going to be Christians who defend very liberal views of every aspect of Christianity. Heck, there are scholars who call themselves Christian who don't think Jesus actually rose from the dead (bodily). And I am very aware that there are Christians (especially scientists) who don't think A&E were literal. Ken Miller and Francis Collins come to mind.<br /><br />However, in this case, the traditional view that A&E were actual people (and is what seems John Collins defends) MUST be true. If it isn't, and the whole thing is metaphorical, then Jesus died for a metaphorical sin, and the whole story goes out the window.<br /><br />But it's not just A&E that are the problem. The whole account of creation is incoherent when looked at scientifically. Trying to pull the "Day doesn't mean day, but millions of years" card just makes things worse, cause then you have plants existing without the sun for millions of years, Adam existing without eve for millions of years, etc. Anyway you slice it, it fails.<br /><br />Dualism is not possible at all. If you think it is, you just don't know enough neuroscience. I suggest reading some Pinker, Ramachandran and Gazzaniga if you want to know what the best minds in the business have to say. And the scientists who reviewed the Spiritual Brain trashed it for how sloppy it was. Heck, even Bryan Appleyard (an intelligent design advocate) said that it's "conclusions are speculative" and "evidence is patchy" and that the religious experiences described are not "demonstrably different in kind from anything encountered in material science." Regardless, Beauregard is in the VERY small minority in regards to the dualism/physicalism idea. The idea has all been but completely abandoned. Though, people who aren't familiar with current neuro and philo of mind aren't aware of this.<br /><br />Regardless, dualism is not a side issue, it is the main issue (of this blog post, at least). The side issue is the Adam and Eve thing. And saying God can just "recall data" is shamelessly ad hoc. And I am not sure what recalling data even means, in this case. Where would he put it? You have to have a physical brain if you want to store memories, personalities, etc.<br /><br />Anyway, thanks for the comment though. Always nice to know that someone is reading what I write, even if they disagree!Zachary Krogerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11722264446136249191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8757961399966322659.post-5390100983266052552012-01-04T21:36:15.104-08:002012-01-04T21:36:15.104-08:00'evolution does show that the Biblical account...'evolution does show that the Biblical account of history is false'<br /><br />This is untrue. It only disproves the YEC view, which is not proven. Thousands of christians are scientists who are not YEC, along with biblical scholars. A well respected hebraist by the name of John 'Jack' Collins has written several books on both creation and the bible, along with the Adam/Eve question. Well worth looking into before assumptions are made.<br />Dualism is still quite possible, as The Spiritual Brain: A Neuroscientist's Case for the Existence of the Soul by Mario Beauregard (a neurologist) shows. Even without dualism, that doesn't prove or disprove christianity. For example, if God can create ex nihilo, there's no reason he couldn't recall your 'data', so to speak. So dualism is a side issue.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8757961399966322659.post-76066936924766954082010-01-23T21:49:43.002-08:002010-01-23T21:49:43.002-08:00Anon, you stated that "Evolutionary theory do...Anon, you stated that "Evolutionary theory doesn't have any conflict with God's existence, not even monotheistic religions." I agree, that's why I said that "Many point out (and I would agree) that evolution does not disprove the existence of God."<br /><br />However, evolution does show that the Biblical account of history is false. There was no garden of Eden, no Adam and Eve, no forbidden fruit, etc. Therefore, the entire premise of Christianity (Jesus had to die for sin that Eve brought into the world) is false.<br /><br />Name one modern Christian theologian or philosopher who doesn't think God is an immaterial mind. And if he isn't then what IS God?<br /><br />I agree that the idea of consciousness surviving death is new. It was originally thought that your body would be in the afterlife. Christians know better now, so they claim it is the mind that survives. <br /><br />I am absolutely not making a correlation/causation fallacy. That is specifically why I used that example. Are you seriously arguing that when you cut a brain in half, and two separate spheres of consciousness come about, that that is NOT a result of cutting the brain in half? C'mon.<br /><br />Left hemisphere is responsible for language in 90% of right handed people. 10% of right handed people have their language centers on the right hemisphere. It just depends on the individual and their brain lateralization. Also, brain plasticity allows certain functions of the brain to be taken over by other parts, if the original part was damaged. The earlier in life the damage happens, the better the chance the person has of the brain delegating that task elsewhere (this is called brain plasticity). It is well known of, and it has nothing to do with some sort of independent consciousness.<br /><br />Christians are dualists... at least modern ones like William Lane Craig, Alvin Plantinga and even CS Lewis all defend the idea of a mind existing without brain. And science laughs.<br /><br />I completely understand that free will (as it is traditionally defined) is impossible... but as my other post (The Incredible God Stopper) points out, rational thought is completely impossible given dualism, and is only possible if materialism is true.Zachary Krogerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11722264446136249191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8757961399966322659.post-73351368059133278162010-01-23T11:33:44.407-08:002010-01-23T11:33:44.407-08:00Continued...
On the idea of two consciousness of ...Continued...<br /><br />On the idea of two consciousness of brain splitting, you're dead wrong. I'm no mind-body dualist, but it's easy to poitn out your fallacy. You're makign a correlation/causation fallacy, furthermore it can be in support of the mind-body dualist. The left hemisphere of the brain is responsible for linguistic and rhetoric recognition. The right brain is responsible for other things, but a person who only had his right hemisphere was able to comprehend? This produced a consciousness independent of the brain.<br /><br />Furthermore you make too many moot points throughout, you equate Theism (especially Christianity) with dualism (which is not true, look at Aquinas), and you ignore the implications of monistic materialism on free-will and ignore other positions like monistic idealism. This was just a whole bunch of facts that have no relevancy to the point, red herring fallacy in all. I ask everyone to be very careful in reading this article, his ideas are dangerous (literally).<br /><br />He does not understand that his position eliminates the existence of free-will and ethics, meaning human beings are not responsible for their actions.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8757961399966322659.post-88656971039235268172010-01-23T11:33:10.913-08:002010-01-23T11:33:10.913-08:00I'm sorry you make too many hasty generalizati...I'm sorry you make too many hasty generalization fallacies and special generalization fallacies.<br /><br /> Evolutionary theory doesn't have any conflict with God's existence, not even monotheistic religions. Darwin himself remained a Christian 13 years after his discovery of natural selection theory in 1838. He deconverted in 1851 due to his daughter's death not evolutionary theory. Furthermore you equated Christianity with mind-body dualism, a special pleading fallacy. Many Christians, notably people liek Thomas Aquinas, did not hold mind-body dualism and many people do not hold God as an immaterial mind as Christians.<br /><br />Furthermore, I have not ready any theology on Christianity believing consciousness survived, rather only an afterlife. The afterlife only consists of eternal happiness, which only mentions the presence fo the divine creator. Other than that is folk and cultural myth, not actual Christian theology.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com