Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

“Anyone who considers ID is not a scientist”

William Dembski
October 1, 2005
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

… I leaned across to the head of the laboratory of development[al] neurobiology at one of the important American universities, and said: “Quite a line-up of scientists supporting ID, isn’t there?”

The reply was furious, and the conclusion came out with venom: anyone who considers ID “is not a scientist.”

I let it lie there. But something I once read, written by a man who was not a Christian, came to mind: “My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds.

“That deeply emotional conviction of a presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God.”

That was Albert Einstein. Not a scientist?

[For the full article, go here.]

Comments
wmmalo Would you mind terribly stalking someone else for a while? Thanks.DaveScot
October 10, 2005
October
10
Oct
10
10
2005
10:40 PM
10
10
40
PM
PST
"Front-loaded evolution fits nicely into that scenario as well - life here started from one of those uber-dandelion seeds that came from elsewhere." hysteresiswmmalo
October 10, 2005
October
10
Oct
10
10
2005
12:03 PM
12
12
03
PM
PST
Dan That's one facet of me wearing my Lynn Margulis hat where symbiosis plays a great role in evolution. Gaeia is a rather sensible theory that Lynn also entertains. View the entire planet as one organism. What do all organisms do - they seek resources needed to reproduce and then reproduce. Eventually, the earth runs out of resources that life needs to reproduce (sun goes nova, inner solar system gets fried to a cinder). Ergo, if planetary life follows that on smaller scales, it has a way to find new resources and continue reproducing. What's required for a planet to reproduce? Well, spaceships capable of flights to other solar systems would sure come in handy. Sort of like an uber-dandelion seed. Rational man may merely be the mature reproductive cells of a much larger organism that has to travel interstellar distances to survive and reproduce. Front-loaded evolution fits nicely into that scenario as well - life here started from one of those uber-dandelion seeds that came from elsewhere. "There's more in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreampt of in your philosophy." WmShakespeare I try not to limit my horizons. If something isn't prohibited by the laws of physics then it's fair game to think about.DaveScot
October 10, 2005
October
10
Oct
10
10
2005
12:01 AM
12
12
01
AM
PST
Dave-nice post and I have never thought about this before. This would be an incredibly interesting thesis. DanDan
October 7, 2005
October
10
Oct
7
07
2005
09:01 AM
9
09
01
AM
PST
jboze
thats instinct tho. i wouldnt call that altruism at any level. i think that people can instinctively rescue someone but not have their brain turned off in the process. our brains tell us- save this person, but along with that we have emotions that tell us its the right thing to do. its mindless instinct with no real solid plan that is workable. plus, i wouldnt compare human compassion for others with microorganisms banding together to survive famine. having built in survival of the species instincts is one thing- feeling compassion for others and their suffering and putting yourself at risk to save them by knowing this is another. like i said, instincts tell us to save the person, but theyre built on underlying ethical principles that tell us leaving the person to drown is wrong. i dont think protozoan feel anything, let alone compassion. close, but different.
I'm saying survival instinct exists at the species level and it can be found in the behavior of organisms from the most simple to the most complex. I gave an example in a primitive single celled organism where some individuals are sacrificed so that some others can reproduce. The example wasn't banding together to survive famine. The example was some committing suicide so that others can reproduce and continue the species. There's no higher example of altruism. Compassion for members of one's own species may simply be, and probably is, no more than a complex behavior rooted in instinctual concern for survival of the species. Of much more interest to me is interspecies altruism which is much harder to explain. It appears to be largely confined to mammals from my observations. It doesn't appear to be instinctual, per se, but is so readily learned in the right environment that it's probably a latent instinct. What it is, really, is unselfish love. Mammals have a high capacity for it, some moreso than others. It may be that humans have the highest capacity for it but unfortunately the capacity has a range of zero to infinite with people like Hitler being close to zero and people like Christ being close to infinite. That's a sad situation for those of us closer to Christ than to Hitler.DaveScot
October 7, 2005
October
10
Oct
7
07
2005
08:08 AM
8
08
08
AM
PST
Creator, designer, is there a significant difference? Is there any difference? If it looks like a duck… it’s a duck. I still have hopes for ID, however forlorn its defenders appear. As long as this theory yoyo in and out of religion it will be beaten to death by the science it’s trying so desperately to seduce. The obvious ‘threat’ it poses is its thinly veiled attempt to usurp the influential power of science, specifically evolutionary theory. Personally, I’m not threatened by the research ID might present. I’m not threatened by religion or science, or for that matter, the absence of either or both. However many people do feel intimidated by suspicious strategies, whether disingenuous or not. ID must prove first that it isn’t ‘faith-based’ or it will be tagged an ideological subversion of the scientific ‘philosophy’ and continue to scare the shit out of all those non-believers. ID needs to walk before it runs. Right now, it doesn’t have a leg to stand on.wmmalo
October 6, 2005
October
10
Oct
6
06
2005
03:24 PM
3
03
24
PM
PST
I agree that societies can make up similar views, but they are not absolute. I appreciate working through this with you as you are very respectful...I cannot stand it when you are going back and forth and folks become asses. DanDan
October 6, 2005
October
10
Oct
6
06
2005
01:33 PM
1
01
33
PM
PST
Hi Dan, Personally, I agree that without God nothing matters, all is futile. However, I was making the case that there are good and logical reasons for societies to come up with many similar views on morality because they are prolife or antilife.avocationist
October 6, 2005
October
10
Oct
6
06
2005
10:17 AM
10
10
17
AM
PST
Hi Avocationalist, Thanks for your response and the answer is yes...without God, there is nothing wrong with murder unless the society says it is wrong. Here are some examples: Abortion is killing life. The debate is over personhood, not life In Africa, parents performed natural selection by throwing deformed babies to hippos up until...well they still do it. Eskimos put their elderly on an iceberg when they could not keep up with the herd or left them behind to die. In India, a widow was burned to keep her pure in her dead husband's eyes. Also, War is justified by taking control away from someone who should not be in control, therefore justifying murder. There are many other current situations that I can point out like capital punishment and assisted suicide or personal suicide. Regards DanDan
October 6, 2005
October
10
Oct
6
06
2005
08:37 AM
8
08
37
AM
PST
ah. very interesting points. nothing that i disagree with really when i think about it. just trying to get your head around the whole part of the soul and mind interacting thru the brain in this world were in now and deciding how to phrase that issue itself. sometimes boggles my mind, because youre trying to convery the idea that- on one level its the soul that is doing this but at the same time, the brain is the point where it meets the physical world. so it IS the soul and the mind but its manifesting itself thru the brain (i guess that makes sense to say it that way or some similar way.) i do think that too many people make the mistake of putting god into our time frame (time is a concept that means nothing to god- we sense time because our bodies age, we have appts to keep, we have days on the calendar to tell us when columbus day is :), but god it outside of time. nature is part of its cause, 'within it' so to speak, and that cause is god...so, yeah, thats also a mistake that people often make i think. as for the brain areas- ive heard many others talk about how the research leads them to believe that its like a direct connection to god built into our brains. like i mentioned, too often i see these as attempts at reduce mind and soul and morality and all of that to chemicals and a piece of flesh in your cranium, which doesnt fly with me, so i tend to be on the defensive when seeing these studies at all, waiting for the inevitable conclusion that its all brain and nothing else exists. good to see thats not the conclusion of all thinking people tho!jboze3131
October 5, 2005
October
10
Oct
5
05
2005
10:22 PM
10
10
22
PM
PST
Now that I look over the entire thread, I take that back. Good conversation here by all involved.Charlie
October 5, 2005
October
10
Oct
5
05
2005
10:19 PM
10
10
19
PM
PST
Avocationist, great comments.Charlie
October 5, 2005
October
10
Oct
5
05
2005
10:14 PM
10
10
14
PM
PST
oops, I mean I dislike the WORD supernatural.avocationist
October 5, 2005
October
10
Oct
5
05
2005
09:21 PM
9
09
21
PM
PST
The idea that we are all gods is not new age, it is Hindu, which has made an inroad into our culture in this - I mean last, century. I dislike the world supernatural for the kinds of reasons I mentioned - it promotes magical thinking that is no longer appropriate in our age. Yes, I do think that all htose events considered miraculous are not supernatural in that I think God did not suddenly cause molecules to behave against their laws, or atoms to jump out of their places, or the elements to not behave as they must behave. Rather I think that just as live organisms have incredibly small and detailed operations, so does the physical world, and that God has the ability to change things on a subatomic level. We could call it a miracle in the sense of an intentional intervention, but I strongly feel that there will be the same tiny, detailed, perfectly orderly physical underpinnings to it that there is to all the rest of our physical world - and which is a pretty amazing manifestation too! Yes, I'd say that if God speaks to someone that is natural enough, and that it is also likely that our brains have an area which is ready to receive such experiences, just as our brains come ready with areas that can be used for many other tasks and experiences. But it does not seem that "God" ever does appear, only angels or perhaps Jesus. I agree that it is confusing to think about. Somehow the spiritual communicates with the physical. There is an interaction point. As to whether the creation itself is a supernatural event - I think that technically I might have to say yes. Nature includes cause and effect, but it cannot therefore cause itself. There must be a cause to nature that is in some way prior to nature. But I don't think of God as separate from the creation, and I think that has been a common error of thinking. No, not that god is part of nature, but that nature is part of God. God is more than nature, but nature is included within God. I think this must be so. For where can nature come from if not from God Himself? Even if nature pops into being due to a thought from God - still nature is completely a part of God. And this is the reason why Hindus have always said that all is One, and all of us are part of God. They do not really promote the idea that humans are equal to God, but rather they look at the fact that what they call the Absolute is all there is. There is nothing outside of God, there is no such thing even as 'nonexistence.' There is only existence. Nonexistence and atheism are just concepts in our world and are also part of God. That is why Hindus call God "the One without a second." It isn't so far off if you think of it logically, and remember the Bible says we are in the image of God, that "ye are gods", and Jesus prays that people will be in him and in the father, just as Jesus and the father are one, so should people be included in that.avocationist
October 5, 2005
October
10
Oct
5
05
2005
09:17 PM
9
09
17
PM
PST
i didnt take any of that as an outburst of any kind, so no apology needed. :) then again, maybe im slow. hmmm... i dont object to some aspects of the stuff morse mentions. i just meant that, it sounds a bit kooky to me. i dont think i believe in psychic abilities and stuff that is similar. i remember seeing tv shows about studies they did on NDE's where a patient would tell someone about an object on the roof that they couldnt have possibly seen or known about unless they were somehow out of their body during the NDE itself. its interesting stuff, some of it, but some of it just sounds too kooky to take too seriously. tho i wouldnt totally rule anything out in such an abrupt manner. even then, i dont know that i object to it...more that it sounds just like i said- kooky. maybe too kooky. maybe not. i dont think id have much of an open mind when it comes to being your own god and were all gods- that sort of new age stuff. in using the term supernatural to explain the way god would talk to moses or someone else in a sense like that (abraham, paul, etc), im just going with the term that most would use. it all depends on how we define natural and supernatural. i think of god as supernatural, but if he made the world (i believe he did) and all things in it, doesnt that make him part of the world, which would make him natural? so, thats a difficult choice whether to use natural or supernatural. both i guess, when you think about it? all depends on how we define the terms, as i said. wouldnt you say creation itself (of matter, the universe, whatever- if thats what you believe) is a supernatural event? its hard to say when we define the terms the way we currently do, huh? im not sure what youre getting at tho- that we can explain moses' experience in some other way, rather than saying that maybe it was truly god? or are you saying that maybe god did indeed speak to him in an audible voice and prescence visually and that you would still consider that a natural event somehow? id agree, as i think ive made clear, that the brain is involved in the spriritual experience. every experience, really. i see it as the car and the mind and soul as the driver...without the car you cant go anywhere, so in the physical world we all know and can interact with today, the brain is the sole device thru with we experience. then again, i think we can have non-physical experiences in the sense that a spiritual life exists. but that spiritual life would involve the brain in the physical world, so its rather confusing to think about. its both at the same time sort of. thats how i see it. i dont think the brain is mind and soul- not buying the reductionist model...thats why i said it doesnt really make much of a difference to me where the soul interacts with the brain. i see most of those attempts as reductionist attempts to explain away mind and sould and spirit. so, i guess it peeves me a bit as it is. and were definitely off topic. ID to morality to ethics to mind and soul. :) i see it all as related tho- i think in any subject you bring in all different parts of your worldview along, so maybe not SO off topic.jboze3131
October 5, 2005
October
10
Oct
5
05
2005
08:34 PM
8
08
34
PM
PST
jboze, I apologize for my outburst. It might be time to start thinking some new thoughts about how things work. We know so much more now, and there is no reason for it not to change our understanding even in the spiritual realm. ID itself is an example. When Darwin thought up his idea, he had no clue what he was saying because the enormous complexity of living things was quite unguessed at, utterly unexpected. We can assume that the spiritual realm is similar to that situation, because spiritually, we are not very functional, and the spiritaul world is quite murky to us. It is so murky that people only have a poorly working conscience and half of us can't feel the presence of God. So we should be open to increasing our understanding of how spiritual tings work together with ourselves while we live in these bodies and brains. We are in an age of discovery and if you reject it all and call it new age, how is a Christian to progress? Do you just want to be left behind? Because if you can't incorporate new knowledge, that's what will happen. I don't understand your objection to Morse. He's really looking into this stuff, thinking about it, trying to understand it for years. The research is not his but he meets a lot of patients who have had NDEs. And the things you object to - remote viewing and such - they are not incompatible with Christianity. But I do think there is a tremendous amount of ignorance and arrogance in Christianity, and it is very detrimental. All that stuff you disdain - a universal consciousness or a universal memory bank that is nonphysical or outside the body, or telepathy - either it can happen or it cannot. If it can happen we need to find out more about it. You misunderstand meditation if you think it is a trance state. Most meditation involves repeating a prayer or mantra, usually the names of God. Catholics and Orthodox Christians have used the Jesus prayer for centuries, and they do so because they follow the scripture which says to pray without ceasing. The purpose is to calm the mind. There are other forms of meditation that do not involve prayers, but it is not trance. Some yogis may go into a trance, but so have some Christians, for example, St. Paul. He stated he did not know whether he was in the body or not. That is very deep prayer. The new age ideas that you are your own God are not so far off as you think. I do not believe in the concept of a supernatural event, whether God intervenes or not. Let God intervene. Does he go against the laws of nature? Not necessary. God can act within nature and do things that we cannot. When we see something done that we cannot do, and when we also have no idea how it happened, we use names like supernatural, or magic, or miracle. If you simply say that what happened to Moses was supernatural and leave it at that, then you have run away from understanding and investigating it. You say if someone receives the Holy Spirit it is a supernatural event. I meant in the sense Christians often talk about. I meant that a change of heart is a kind of miracle. Many christians think that the Holy Spirit is the cause (along with the will of the individual to accept grace) of such a repentance. You can call it supernatural if you like, but it is the goal of the Christian life. You don't think it makes any difference what part of the brain is active during a supernatural spiritual intervention? I am sure that CANNOT be correct. No, I am not a reductionist at all. I do not think the mind or soul is the brain. But I do think that, while we are in the body, the brain is involved in our spiritual perceptions, and it can change from spiritual experiences. I'm sure we are way off topic by now.avocationist
October 5, 2005
October
10
Oct
5
05
2005
07:51 PM
7
07
51
PM
PST
avocationist- im not talking about modern day humans talking to god. you mentioned OT and NT events of people seeing and talking directly to god. when god spoke to moses, that was a supernatural event. when god intervenes in the world, it would be considered a supernatural event. i dont think that god works that way anymore...were in a new era and we have the revelation of christ and his work- after that, i think direct contact from god ended. well, direct contact in the sense that god doesnt call down in an audible voice for anyone around to hear and hes not sending himself into human form to heal the sick or anything. im saying 'new age' in the sense that- well, new age religious type ideals that you are your own god and all that sort of stuff. it sounds new age to me (much of the NDE research and god spot stuff. im not all that familiar with new age religious ideas tho.) also, as i said before, prayer in a meditation style. thats not what christians, in general do, they dont go into a meditation with a trance-like state. in general, this isnt the christian way of prayer. its more an idea of the buhddist style or maybe hindu. im not saying all of the experiences are of one kind for all christians. morse (who did a lot of the nde studies and the god spot of the brain stuff) makes claims of telepathy, mental imaging, psychic powers, and all sorts of other new age type ideas. thats what i meant with that...i dont think christians usually go with that sort of thing. we dont see the brain as being able to connect into the cosmic source which would allow us to read the thoughts of others or predict future events, which is what morse claims, according to the sites ive read about his work. that the god spot is a way to allow us to connect into the univeral consciousness of the entire planet, that sort of stuff. if one receives the holy spirit, it would be a supernatural event, but i dont think it makes any difference in that regard what part of the brain fires. ive no doubt that one could have little function or massive amts of function in the RTL and both could be just as religious as the other. maybe that part of the brain is used in connection with the person as a whole, ive no idea. but the person isnt the brain. you could take out someones brain and its just a piece of meat. can chemicals and neurons create the color red, the distinct taste that can be easily recognized as an apple? i dont think so. the mind isnt the brain. the mind, in the natural world, uses the brain to express itself (and the mind is surely connected to rhe soul which is the seat of morality), but i dont buy into a reductionist model (youve mentioned youre not necessarily saying that you believe that to be the case either).jboze3131
October 5, 2005
October
10
Oct
5
05
2005
04:14 PM
4
04
14
PM
PST
jboze, I am taken aback. After the things I said, you speak of brain processes gone awry. You speak of a vision from God as being a nonnatural event. Having nothing to do with the brain. And if that person had an EEG hooked up to them while they were having their vision of God, would everything be in the same state as normal? I think not. I know this sounds negative and I shouldn't say it, but you seem brainwashed by theology that you do not understand. There must be 100 million Christians in this country. Some are in monasteries that practice various sorts of prayer. Some are pentecostals that speak in tongues. some shout and sing, some are somber. How can you assume that all Christians automatically have a certain kind of experience and that anyone who is "new age" has some different one? Suppose a nonreligous person experiences the Holy Spirit and repents and becomes a Christian. Would you consider that not a natural event? Dan - yes those people had a lot of influence. I could never understand why. The explanation seems to go something like this: Newton figured out that there were forces to make the planets go round, not angels pushing them, and suddenly the world has no need of God after all. So if I understand you right, murder is bad because God says so.avocationist
October 5, 2005
October
10
Oct
5
05
2005
02:54 PM
2
02
54
PM
PST
Hi Avocationalist, I did answer your question and it does not matter if they were dull or depressed. They are the thinkers whom have molded the post-modern and positivist theories of life which are so prevalently practiced today. It is simple, without God, there are no morals for God is truth and the opposite of true is false. Without God, there is no opposite of true therefore there is no truth. This is not only well conceeded in philosophical circles, but accepted by the policitaclly correct dogma which has become a cultural blight for our society. DanDan
October 5, 2005
October
10
Oct
5
05
2005
12:45 PM
12
12
45
PM
PST
the word i was looking for in the last comment was a meditative state. like religions that use a lot of meditation- the studies have shown changes when in those states. i used the word trance-like states...close enough to the state you want during meditation i guess. and in regards to OT and NT seeing of the supernatural...i dont think its relevant to the brain topic brought up, because these events were clearly not natural events, nor were they meant to be or thought to be.jboze3131
October 5, 2005
October
10
Oct
5
05
2005
12:45 PM
12
12
45
PM
PST
i never said christians dont have spiritual experience. the studies done with this have been people in mediatative states. when you pray, you dont usually try to put yourself into such a state. trance-like states are what most of these studies have looked at. there a different kind of experience, usually new age types of experiences, which is why i used that term for the experiences. christians dont go into prayer in trance like state the way some other religions do. as for hearing and seeing god- those are supernatural events clearly, not hallucinations or brain processes gone awry. so, the rules havent changed, no.jboze3131
October 5, 2005
October
10
Oct
5
05
2005
12:11 PM
12
12
11
PM
PST
Oh, dear. So only Christians have spiritual experiences? If the RTL experiences are weird, then what is that part of the brain for? To cause confusion so more people can go to hell? Christians never hear the voice of God? What happened, the rules changed? They did in the OT. Paul did in the NT. People with near death experiences see God also. How do you know that the atheist who starts to believe has done so without any input from his RTL, and that there have been no brain changes? Religious people may very well have more active right temporal lobes, and perhaps other differnces. They have already done studies on praying nuns and meditating Buddhist monks, and seen some changes, a more active RTL. The question of the study was, which came first? In other words, are people with more active RTLs more likely to pursue a spiritual life (I'm sure that is correct) or does the spiritual life cause the RTL to get more active (I'm sure that is also correct)? I am by no means reducing feelings or thoughts to the brain itself. But the brain is part of the experience. We are talking about consciousness here. We have the sleep state, we have the waking state. Surely the brain waves and activity levels differ in these states. Then we have the "awake" state, referred to by all relgions. Why not suppose that the awake state involves increased consciousness in the brain, just as the waking up state in the morning is more conscious than the sleeping one? It works with the car analogy. The car does not decide where to go, but a car with a strong engine can do things a weak car cannot. A car with 4 wheel drive can get up my driveway, and a 2 drive cannot. But there is still the driver, a person. there's no need to label those thins odd or new age. They are not unknown within Christianity. Christians do not live in a different reality. We are all in the same one, working with whatever tools we've got.avocationist
October 5, 2005
October
10
Oct
5
05
2005
12:02 PM
12
12
02
PM
PST
avocationist, I'll direct you to the expert himself. This article explains these evidences far more eloquently than I can: http://www.boundless.org/features/a0000901.html. And there are evidences he doesn't mention in this article, as well.Bombadill
October 5, 2005
October
10
Oct
5
05
2005
12:01 PM
12
12
01
PM
PST
those who have had their right lobes affected have weird experiences. nothing like christians have. they include hearing the actual voice of God, actually SEEING God, and having what would be considered new age-like "spiritual" experiences. i dont think you can reduce all religious experience to this tho. why would a lifelong avowed atheist come to god without any affect on this part of the brain in his 70's, 80's, 90s, whenever...? shouldnt we see all religious people with RTL that are affected somehow chemically? most of this stuff was done by morse, i believe...and he claims that humans can interact with the universe via this part of the brain (telepathy, remote viewing, and other "paranormal" things). lots of odd new age stuff. i think its always dangerous to try to reduce feelings and thoughts to the brain itself. the brain might be the tool used to express this from the soul to the outside natural world, but thoughts and feelings and such, i dont think, can be reduced to just chemical reactions in the brain or various brain areas firing off. it would seem that all of us would have very different experiences of the same events, but we really dont in general. we see things differently, sure- but we all see red the same way. we all experience and know what apple flavor is and its the same for all of us (so seems to be the case). i dont know. it just seems dangerous to reduce things to chemicals and brain processes. as i said- i see the soul and person as a seperate entity but using the brain and the body to express itself to the natural world. maybe it sometimes uses the RTL to express itself, but maybe thats not always the case (it seems to be the case with NDE's, but you still have to explain some odd things like how people can see things in other rooms while theyre supposed to be "dead").jboze3131
October 5, 2005
October
10
Oct
5
05
2005
10:45 AM
10
10
45
AM
PST
Sounds like the most popular version of Flew's "No true Scotsman" fallacy.dbergan
October 5, 2005
October
10
Oct
5
05
2005
10:14 AM
10
10
14
AM
PST
Bombadill, I've been reading about the right temporal lobe, the "God spot" and after death experiences. It all makes sense now. Why do some people sense there is a God? Their right temporal lobe is (just slightly) functioning. Why can you never convince someone else who does not sense the presence of God? Because they have no sense of it. When you go through the dying process, the right temporal lobe kicks in. If you survive, you're never the same because pathways in the brain have been activated, and once activated, will never again be as dormant as they were before. But sometimes people have powerful spiritual experiences not brought on by near death. Such experiences involve the right temporal lobe. Since you now have activated a relatively dormant part of the brain, you now are no longer quite the same person as before. Your outlook changes. You process information differently so that the spiritual realities become far more obvious to you. You can talk about it, but it is very hard to transmit such a thing to someone else, in whose brain the necessary apparatus is dormant. They just don't "see" it, as a colorblind person doesn't see color. This right temporal lobe is the place of "ears that hear" and "eyes that see." Some people, upon hearing that there may be a "God spot" in the brain immediately think that it invalidates spiritual experience, as if it were "just" a brain thing, some chemicals reacting. But think again. While we are alive, we are in these bodies which include the brain, and at no point whatsoever can we have an experience that leaves the brain out. If we are to have a spiritual life, we MUST have a brain that can process it! The right temporal lobe is the interface. As we know, brains are highly malleable, especially at certain times (infancy, 7 years, 12 years) and different skills can be developed at the expense of others. That is why a feral child, past a certain age at rescue, will never learn to talk much. Meanwhile, the folks here and similar blogs are reacting to Dawkins recent statements about a religious upbringing as a form of child abuse. And they counter with studies that show greater mental health in children brought up in religious households. As usual, the truth is a jumble because certain stupidities of the religous households often do cause damage, and yet the stimulation of hope in the soul of the religiously-raised child may very likely be the cause of the more resilient mental health. So my question is, if there is a right temporal lobe God spot, and if lack of stimulation to any area of the brain during development causes it to be undeveloped and dormant, then isn't being raised without spiritual encouragement a form of neglect? Anyway, Bombadill, I would like to understand better why being only physical makes it impossible to have a first person perspective? As to why we are the same person after 7 years, wouldn't the faithful copying of memory be the main reason?avocationist
October 5, 2005
October
10
Oct
5
05
2005
10:09 AM
10
10
09
AM
PST
jboze, I noted on another thread that an 18-year-old said that his contemporaries have all been given to understand in school that we are the result of unplanned, accidental processes. I do think this is a deadly thing to do to teenagers. I am sure it contributes to suicide and depression. In fact, if there is a spiritual side to reality, I would consider that an assault. Just as emotional abuse does emotional damage, so would spiritual abuse cause spiritual damage. Teens are misunderstood in our society. They are wide open like babies, not physically but their minds and idealism are new and just beginning to develop. When my son was 12, I found a book he brought home that was being read aloud to the boys and girls in class. It was a novel about a poor boy who loved his pet pig and his father said they could only afford to keep it if she was bred. Somehow, she didn't come into season but they put her in a breeding pen with a boar anyway. Now, this pig was like a young maiden in that she was just at breeding age. She was anthropomorphized in that the boy loved her. In the breeding pen, she was raped and it was graphically described. There were phrases like "his privates were alert and ready to breed." The female pig squealed and squealed from the pain of him forcing himself into her, and "the blood trickled down her leg." Three times in these two pages there was the statement "but he was all boar and there was no stopping him." Now, I ask you, have you ever heard the phrase "he was all boy"? And isn't it sort of a compliment? He is active, he gets in a bit of trouble, but after all, he is all boy. We talk about date rape - wouldn't a book like this make some boys feel very guilty, and some boys feel deep down that if they are all boy there will be no stopping them? And how do the girls feel sitting there and reading about someone very much at their own stage of life being raped by an "all boar" who could not stop? They read this story to all the 7th grade classes for several years. Is it possible some 12-year-olds might not really know much about the mechanics of sex? Might this be a shocking introduction? And they were so ignorant that they said this is nature. It is not nature! Female animals are almost never raped. So the kids are the result of accidental processes and the girls are just lucky they are human and have a chance of escaping a life of rape. I am not like you guys here, I'm not a fundie. I'm a commie, hippie, leftist pinko. But sitting down 12-year olds and reading those two pages (in an otherwise great book) was emotional, even sexual abuse. But the school board was completely impervious to my arguments and gave me some literature about book banning. Like I want to ban books. Anyway, I don't see why we would necessarily evolve different moralities in different societies - we are the same species. You seem to think morality, whether from nature or God, is some arbitrary set of rules. And what I am trying to get at is that morality must be fundamentally welded to life itself. I agree with your analogy about the soul and brain.avocationist
October 5, 2005
October
10
Oct
5
05
2005
09:34 AM
9
09
34
AM
PST
Good points. Neuroscience has built a solid case for dualism with the brain as the "apparatus" for the "mind". There have been experiments which have indicated that the will/emotions/mind exist apart from the physical apparatus. People have come back from a state of no brain activity on their death bed and describe very lucid conscious experiences. From where I stand, one could build a pretty strong argument for compassion as part of the metaphysical realities that make us "persons". Additionally, every atom in our bodies is renewed every 7 years. If we are merely the sum of our physical forms, then what makes us the same "person" after these periods of physical renewal? Might sound silly, but I think there's something to that. JP Moreland makes a compelling argument regarding how we could not have a true first-person perspective if we are merely physical and if consciousness were merely the byproduct of the physical brain.Bombadill
October 5, 2005
October
10
Oct
5
05
2005
08:39 AM
8
08
39
AM
PST
i mean to say that the instance you talk about is mindless instinct with no plan. as in, they cant THINK thru a plan of action as to what would work. humans can. we dont just jump in and drown ourselves, we form a plan in our head then we act. instinct is involved, but as i said its based on compassion and those sorts of feelings. and it isnt instinct that allows us to plan out a rescue scenario in our heads (which might mean using things around the area in our plan) to help those in need.jboze3131
October 5, 2005
October
10
Oct
5
05
2005
08:36 AM
8
08
36
AM
PST
thats instinct tho. i wouldnt call that altruism at any level. i think that people can instinctively rescue someone but not have their brain turned off in the process. our brains tell us- save this person, but along with that we have emotions that tell us its the right thing to do. its mindless instinct with no real solid plan that is workable. plus, i wouldnt compare human compassion for others with microorganisms banding together to survive famine. having built in survival of the species instincts is one thing- feeling compassion for others and their suffering and putting yourself at risk to save them by knowing this is another. like i said, instincts tell us to save the person, but theyre built on underlying ethical principles that tell us leaving the person to drown is wrong. i dont think protozoan feel anything, let alone compassion. close, but different.jboze3131
October 5, 2005
October
10
Oct
5
05
2005
08:24 AM
8
08
24
AM
PST
1 2

Leave a Reply