Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Why materialist neuroscience must necessarily remain a pseudo-discipline

Categories
Neuroscience
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

At MercatorNet today:

all that fMRI ((brain imaging) really does is show which brain areas have high oxygen levels when a person is thinking something. It simply cannot tell us what people are thinking, because many brain centres are active and those that are active may be activated for many reasons. Each brain is unique so data from studies must be averaged. But thoughts are not averaged; they belong to the individual.

Then, when you are done with that you run smack dab into the hard problem of qualia.

Qualia? As Mario Beauregard and I (Denyse O’Leary) wrote in The Spiritual Brain,

There are good reasons for thinking that the evidence for materialism will actually never arrive. For example, there is the problem of qualia. Qualia (singular, quale) are how things appear to us individually—the experiential aspects of our mental lives that can be accessed through introspection. Every person is unique, so complete understanding of another person’s consciousness is not likely possible in principle, as we saw in Chapter Four. Rather, when we communicate, we rely on general agreement on an overlapping range of meaning. For example, historian Amy Butler Greenfield has written a three-hundred-page book about one primary color, A Perfect Red.

As “the color of desire,” red is a quale if ever there was one. Reviewer Diane Ackerman notes:

Anger us, and we see red. An unfaithful woman is branded with a scarlet letter. In red-light districts, people buy carnal pleasures. We like to celebrate red-letter days and roll out the red carpet, while trying to avoid red tape, red herrings and going into the red. Indeed, fashion houses rise and fall on the subtleties of shades of red. Yet, however “red” affects us individually, we agree communally to use the word for a range of meanings and connotations, not merely a range in the color spectrum. (pp. 104–5)

Sometimes, the signals can be completely opposite and we still converge on a common meaning! In the United States, red connotes “conservative” in politics; in Canada, it connotes “liberal.”

Scan that, genius. Your first task will be to sort out the people who are exclusively Canadian in culture from those who are exclusively American in culture, and good luck with it. You picked it up; you own it.

Materialist neuroscience has a hard time with qualia because they are not easily reducible to a simple, nonconscious explanation. In The Astonishing Hypothesis, Francis Crick grumbles:

It is certainly possible that there may be aspects of consciousness, such as qualia, that science will not be able to explain. We have learned to live with such limitations in the past (e.g., limitations of quantum mechanics) and we may have to live with them again.

Crick was a real scientist, honest enough to admit that. Don’t expect quacks, cranks, and hustlers to notice, or want to. They take refuge in pseudo-disciplines, claiming that, as a book review in The Scientist put it,

“‘Brains are hot,’ Sally Satel and Scott O. Lilienfeld acknowledge in Brainwashed, their ‘exposé of mindless neuroscience’ (mostly practiced not by neuroscientists, they stress, but by ‘neuropundits,’ among others). The ‘mediagenic’ technology of fMRI imaging has made the brain, aglow with metabolic hotspots, into a rainbow emblem of the faith that science will soon empower us to explain, control, expose, exploit, or excuse every wayward human behavior from buying to lying, from craving to crime.”

This is not so much an unsolved problem as an unsolvable one, at least in the terms in which the materialist wants it solved.

Comments
Ah, sorry. Let me post it again. It's about Brittany and Abigail Hensel. The original link was to a BBC site - I'll try again: Living a conjoined life They have made an amazing success of their lives. This is lovely:
The identical, conjoined twins from Minnesota, in the United States, have graduated from Bethel University and are setting out on their career as primary school teachers with an emphasis on maths. Although they have two teaching licences, there is one practical difference when it comes to the finances. "Obviously right away we understand that we are going to get one salary because we're doing the job of one person," says Abby. "As maybe experience comes in we'd like to negotiate a little bit, considering we have two degrees and because we are able to give two different perspectives or teach in two different ways." "One can be teaching and one can be monitoring and answering questions," says Brittany. "So in that sense we can do more than one person."
Elizabeth B Liddle
June 28, 2013
June
06
Jun
28
28
2013
11:29 AM
11
11
29
AM
PDT
By the way, Lizzie, your link ("these two girls") appears to be broken.keiths
June 28, 2013
June
06
Jun
28
28
2013
11:14 AM
11
11
14
AM
PDT
Lizzie,
So if I were defending dualism, I’d say that faced with a split brain, the mind is obliged to become two minds, because one mind can only control one brain.
But then 1) you'd need to explain why a mind/soul can control two eyes, two arms, but not two brains, and 2) you'd have to get used to the idea that neurosurgeons bring new souls into the world when they do commissurotomies. Obstetricians of an unusual sort. It also leads to an interesting moral problem. Suppose you are a neurosurgeon performing a hemispherectomy. Do you remove the corpus callosum first and then the diseased hemisphere, or vice-versa? Most neurosurgeons would do whatever was in the patient's best interest. If removing the corpus callosum first seemed safest, then that is what they would do. A pro-lifer, on the other hand, would object. By removing the corpus callosum first, the surgeon would bring a new soul into the world (to control the now-separate hemisphere). Then, by removing the diseased hemisphere, the surgeon would be committing murder. If the surgeon instead removed the diseased hemisphere first, then there would be no murder, because a second soul would never have come into existence. It gets even weirder. If the surgeon cuts the CC first, and a new soul comes into existence, which hemisphere gets the "old" soul, and which the new? How does God decide? And if the old soul goes into the diseased hemisphere, then by removing that hemisphere the surgeon is killing the very patient who sought his or her help! Another question: What if the surgeon only cuts halfway through the corpus callosum? Do we have one soul or two? What about three-quarters of the way through? What about 99%? It really is ludicrous. I just don't see a solution that would satisfy the typical dualist and fit the evidence.keiths
June 28, 2013
June
06
Jun
28
28
2013
11:09 AM
11
11
09
AM
PDT
'This only seems to be the case because materialists (i) conceive of the soul as a point-like, spatially located simple, where all the the thoughts of the person must be located ...' O-o-o-o-o-oh.... Time to get esteemed Mung on board. It's going to be r-e-a-l tricky trying to set those coordinates, even with a specialist sat navigator like him. But then, perhaps Mung's been getting his hand in by looking for nothing for Dawkins. But was nothing a product of chance or was it designed? The questions multiply. 'I see no ships. Only hardships.' That's the style: part material, part conceptual!Axel
June 28, 2013
June
06
Jun
28
28
2013
11:01 AM
11
11
01
AM
PDT
Split Brains: No Headache for the Soul Theorist:
We argue that cases of commissurotomy, wherein the cerebral hemispheres are disconnected via surgical disconnection of all or part of the corpus callosum, fornix, and Massa Intermedia, resulting in strangely bifurcated mental states, do not, contra the assertions of many materialists, constitute a problem for the soul theorist. This only seems to be the case because materialists (i) conceive of the soul as a point-like, spatially located simple, where all the the thoughts of the person must be located and (ii) because the materialist fails to take seriously the notion that the soul is dependent on the brain to subserve its thouhgt.
Joe
June 28, 2013
June
06
Jun
28
28
2013
09:37 AM
9
09
37
AM
PDT
Brain split between atheism and theism:
However, we know that in this life, our decision-making, our thoughts, feelings and so on are not independent of the material substrate of the brain—the material brain is intimately involved in such things. If it were not so, then anesthetics would not make us temporarily lose our decision-making processes, for instance, nor would mind/mood altering drugs, both legal and illegal, or intoxicants have any effect on our reasoning capacities, for example. In short, God, as creator of the biological world, has chosen to make the brain with its amazingly complex biological machinery to somehow act as the material ‘substrate’ that connects with and interacts with the transcendent aspect of all of us. It is the vehicle through which such processes as decision-making, thinking, reasoning, etc. are carried out. And this is almost certainly true for decision-making concerning salvation issues, as well. It can therefore be deduced from the biblical existence of the soul that our non-material part is capable of interacting with the material part (brain)—and does so intimately during life. How exactly this happens is currently completely unknown, and it may in fact be unknowable. But so are large aspects of consciousness and reasoning and so forth themselves. So it’s not some copout to say that the way in which the ‘soul’ interacts with the material brain is poorly understood—this description applies to consciousness itself, which is actually regarded as one of the great mysteries of modern science, and may also turn out to be unknowable.
And that is support for my hardware malfunction claim. Also included is the following:
In Christian theology, what is being judged is not the material substrate of the body, but the immaterial, based on actions and beliefs in life.
What I said (79): A soul is our essence. It is judged on what we have done. Our body is dead, keiths. It cannot be judged. Looks like Christians agree with me, keiths.Joe
June 28, 2013
June
06
Jun
28
28
2013
09:32 AM
9
09
32
AM
PDT
Until keiths can provide valid references that support his claims pertaining to the soul, he is just spewing nonsense, as usual. And I know that he cannot support his tripe...Joe
June 28, 2013
June
06
Jun
28
28
2013
05:40 AM
5
05
40
AM
PDT
keiths:
Most Christians believe that the soul is the “worker”,
No they don't.
morally responsible for our actions and beliefs.
That's wrong too. The problem is keiths is just making shit up and trying to pass it off as fact.Joe
June 28, 2013
June
06
Jun
28
28
2013
05:38 AM
5
05
38
AM
PDT
Indeed, the split brain patient is more like these two girls than a single person. It's just that it happens mid-life, rather than at an early embryonic stage. So if I were defending dualism, I'd say that faced with a split brain, the mind is obliged to become two minds, because one mind can only control one brain. One model is: a Mind is divinely created for each brain-body, and controls it. If a brain splits, either into two hemispheres, or two separate two-hemisphere heads, then the Deity either duplicates the Mind, and allocates the each one brain each, from henceforth, or splits the Mind into two separate Minds, with half a brain each to control. Klunky, but not ludicrous.Elizabeth B Liddle
June 28, 2013
June
06
Jun
28
28
2013
03:33 AM
3
03
33
AM
PDT
i.e. your problem is not to explain why some events in the brain are automatic keiths, your problem is to explain why all events in the brain are not automatic! You simply are not even in the ballpark of conclusive proof as to making a rigorous case for your 'non-existent soul' claim keiths! That level of proof, since you are trying to prove the soul does not exist instead of that it does exist, is far harder to achieve than you seem to believe!bornagain77
June 28, 2013
June
06
Jun
28
28
2013
02:10 AM
2
02
10
AM
PDT
keiths you claim that:
because neuroscience shows that the will itself is a function of the brain, and the split-brain studies confirm this.
Hmmm keiths, so if you conclusion for no free will is robust as you hold, and is not an anomaly of 'hardware malfunction', as Joe and I hold, then it should explain all the data right? Even down to the foundation of reality right?,,, But your position is not what we find when we look at the foundation of reality itself keiths!: In the following experiment, the claim that past material states determine future conscious choices (determinism) is falsified by the fact that present conscious (free will) choices effect past material states:
Quantum physics mimics spooky action into the past - April 23, 2012 Excerpt: The authors experimentally realized a "Gedankenexperiment" called "delayed-choice entanglement swapping", formulated by Asher Peres in the year 2000. Two pairs of entangled photons are produced, and one photon from each pair is sent to a party called Victor. Of the two remaining photons, one photon is sent to the party Alice and one is sent to the party Bob. Victor can now choose between two kinds of measurements. If he decides to measure his two photons in a way such that they are forced to be in an entangled state, then also Alice's and Bob's photon pair becomes entangled. If Victor chooses to measure his particles individually, Alice's and Bob's photon pair ends up in a separable state. Modern quantum optics technology allowed the team to delay Victor's choice and measurement with respect to the measurements which Alice and Bob perform on their photons. "We found that whether Alice's and Bob's photons are entangled and show quantum correlations or are separable and show classical correlations can be decided after they have been measured", explains Xiao-song Ma, lead author of the study. According to the famous words of Albert Einstein, the effects of quantum entanglement appear as "spooky action at a distance". The recent experiment has gone one remarkable step further. "Within a naïve classical world view, quantum mechanics can even mimic an influence of future actions on past events", says Anton Zeilinger. http://phys.org/news/2012-04-quantum-physics-mimics-spooky-action.html
In other words, if my conscious (free will) choices really are just merely the result of whatever state the material particles in my brain happened to be in in the past (deterministic) then how in blue blazes are my present choices instantaneously effecting the state of material particles into the past?,,, Perhaps keiths you may just shrug your shoulders and claim it can be explained as a exotic quirk of quantum mechanics, but you would be wrong to think that it was merely a quirk keiths. Free will conscious observation is literally built into our best description of reality (Quantum Mechanics) as a starting assumption!
Can quantum theory be improved? - July 23, 2012 Excerpt: However, in the new paper, the physicists have experimentally demonstrated that there cannot exist any alternative theory that increases the predictive probability of quantum theory by more than 0.165, with the only assumption being that measurement (conscious observation) parameters can be chosen independently (free will assumption) of the other parameters of the theory.,,, ,, the experimental results provide the tightest constraints yet on alternatives to quantum theory. The findings imply that quantum theory is close to optimal in terms of its predictive power, even when the predictions are completely random. http://phys.org/news/2012-07-quantum-theory.html An experimental test of all theories with predictive power beyond quantum theory – May 2011 Excerpt: Hence, we can immediately refute any already considered or yet-to-be-proposed alternative model with more predictive power than this. (Quantum Theory) http://arxiv.org/pdf/1105.0133.pdf
Now this is completely unheard of in science as far as I know keiths. i.e. That a mathematical description of reality would advance to the point that one can actually perform a experiment showing that your current theory will not ever be exceeded in predictive power by another future theory is simply unprecedented in science! I know of no other mathematical theory in science that has ever excelled to such a point as a accurate description of reality! Moreover, and most importantly as to refuting your deterministic view of reality keiths, it was shown in the paper and experiment that one cannot ever improve the predictive power of quantum mechanics by ever removing free will conscious observation as a starting assumption(s) in Quantum Mechanics! This is simply devastating for your materialistic position keiths. There is simply no within space-time materialistic story that you can appeal to so as to rescue your preferred deterministic view of reality keiths
Henry Stapp on the Conscious Choice and the Non-Local Quantum Entangled Effects - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJN01s1gOqA
Needless to say, finding ‘free will conscious observation’ to be ‘built into’ our best description of foundational reality, quantum mechanics, as a starting assumption, is VERY antithetical to the entire materialistic/atheistic philosophy. Now keiths, I know you are smitten with your split-brain anomaly and think it is much more solid than it actually is, but you have, besides this evidence from quantum mechanics, been provided many reasons why your theory is not nearly as robust as you think it is, but this evidence from quantum mechanics for 'free will' is devastating to your position and simply completely undermines any solid footing that you thought you had as to rigorously establishing your point conclusively!,,, Of note, beside quantum mechanics, 'Mind' is certainly not lacking in substantiating evidence in neuroscience as well:
In The Wonder Of Being Human: Our Brain and Our Mind, Eccles and Robinson discussed the research of three groups of scientists (Robert Porter and Cobie Brinkman, Nils Lassen and Per Roland, and Hans Kornhuber and Luder Deeke), all of whom produced startling and undeniable evidence that a "mental intention" preceded an actual neuronal firing - thereby establishing that the mind is not the same thing as the brain, but is a separate entity altogether. http://books.google.com/books?id=J9pON9yB8HkC&pg=PT28&lpg=PT28 “As I remarked earlier, this may present an “insuperable” difficulty for some scientists of materialists bent, but the fact remains, and is demonstrated by research, that non-material mind acts on material brain.” Sir John Eccles - Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 1963 - (as quoted in Cousins, 1985, pp. 61-62,85-86) "We regard promissory materialism as superstition without a rational foundation. The more we discover about the brain, the more clearly do we distinguish between the brain events and the mental phenomena, and the more wonderful do both the brain events and the mental phenomena become. Promissory materialism is simply a religious belief held by dogmatic materialists . . . who often confuse their religion with their science." - John C. Eccles, The Wonder of Being Human: Our Brain and Our Mind, 1984 - Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 1963 Materialism of the Gaps - Michael Egnor (Neurosurgeon) - January 29, 2009 Excerpt: The evidence that some aspects of the mind are immaterial is overwhelming. It's notable that many of the leading neuroscientists -- Sherrington, Penfield, Eccles, Libet -- were dualists. Dualism of some sort is the most reasonable scientific framework to apply to the mind-brain problem, because, unlike dogmatic materialism, it just follows the evidence. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/01/materialism_of_the_gaps015901.html Do Conscious Thoughts Cause Behavior? -Roy F. Baumeister, E. J. Masicampo, and Kathleen D. Vohs - 2010 Excerpt: The evidence for conscious causation of behavior is profound, extensive, adaptive, multifaceted, and empirically strong. http://carlsonschool.umn.edu/assets/165663.pdf
bornagain77
June 28, 2013
June
06
Jun
28
28
2013
02:02 AM
2
02
02
AM
PDT
Hi Eugen, I apologize for the late response. I somehow overlooked your comment last night.
If patient with split brain operation can be aware of the issue that “his left arm has mind of its own” that would suggest the person’s mind is still unified and can recognize the problem.
Don't forget that only the left hemisphere can speak. So when the patient says his left arm "has a mind of its own", it is the left hemisphere that is making that statement. The left hemisphere controls the right arm, and the right hemisphere controls the left. So each arm literally "has a mind of its own". The left hemisphere can control what the right arm does, but it can't control the left arm. Thus it says that the left arm "has a mind of its own." The right hemisphere can control what the left arm does, but it can't control the right arm. Thus it thinks that the right arm "has a mind of its own", but it can't say so, because it can't speak. That's why the experimenters don't ask for verbal responses. Instead, they ask each hemisphere to respond by pointing. The patient's mind is not unified. Each hemisphere has its own knowledge, beliefs, desires, and will. If you haven't watched the videos, please do. They're absolutely fascinating: Video 1 Video 2 Video 3 It's remarkable and eerie, isn't it? Two separate minds in the same skull.
Specialized training will likely enable patient to establish control over the contrasting “hemispheres gone wild”.
The hemispheres learn to cooperate. Imagine that you and your best friend are placed into the same body. You have control over the left arm and he or she has control over the right. The two of you will quickly learn how to coordinate your actions, as long as you are working toward the same goal. Problems will arise only if your wills clash -- for example if you want to wear a certain shirt, and start buttoning it up with the left hand, but your friend doesn't like it and starts undoing the buttons with the right hand. (That actually happens to some patients.)
All of us here are probably aware of hundreds of contrasting thoughts popping in our minds daily. We filter out most of them – for example “I should buy Lawrence Krauss’s book”; examine some of them – for ex. “That lady looks fantastic!” and act only on few of them – for ex. “It’s a hot day, have another beer” :)
Yes, but what happens with split brain patients is different. It's not just that they filter out some thoughts and pay attention to others. It's that the left brain knows things that the right brain doesn't know. The left brain believes things that the right brain doesn't believe -- recall the patient whose left brain was an atheist while the right brain was a believer. The left brain wants things that the right brain doesn't -- recall the woman whose left brain wanted to smoke, but whose right brain stopped her from lighting the cigarette. Again, I urge you to watch the videos. The experimenters have developed a technique by which they can communicate with each hemisphere separately. It's very clever, and the results are mind-blowing. The conclusion is inescapable: the immaterial soul does not exist.keiths
June 28, 2013
June
06
Jun
28
28
2013
01:22 AM
1
01
22
AM
PDT
And if you don't like the word 'materialism', then substitute 'naturalism' or 'physicalism'. The important point is whether there is an immaterial soul that can function independently of the brain.keiths
June 27, 2013
June
06
Jun
27
27
2013
11:06 PM
11
11
06
PM
PDT
Hi Querius, Thank you for stepping up to the plate.
So yes, I also believe your personality, split or not, is immaterial: you can’t measure its volume, you can’t weigh it, or take its temperature.
That's a faulty criterion. You can't take the temperature of wetness, or weigh it, or measure its volume, but it's still a material phenomenon. Also, don't forget that most people who believe in the soul also believe that it can function independently of the body -- after the person dies, for example.
That one can isolate areas and structures in the brain that correspond (loosely as it turns out) with certain aspects of personality is not much different than discovering that your legs facilitate locomotion under the control of your will...
No, because neuroscience shows that the will itself is a function of the brain, and the split-brain studies confirm this. After the operation, each hemisphere possesses a separate, distinct will. Recall my examples:
One patient was seen to pick up a cigarette with her right hand and place it in her mouth. Her left hand plucked it out and threw it away before the right hand could light it. In another case, a man attacked his wife with one arm while defending her with the other.
These examples are not consistent with a single, unified, immaterial will.keiths
June 27, 2013
June
06
Jun
27
27
2013
11:03 PM
11
11
03
PM
PDT
Keith, The biblical word for soul approximates our word for "personality." The Greek words in the B'rit Chadasha for spirit, soul, and body are pneuma, psuche, and soma, respectively. In the Hebrew Tanakh the same three words are ruach, nephesh and geshem. For example "May God himself, the God of peace, sanctify you through and through. May your whole spirit, soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." or "For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart." So yes, I also believe your personality, split or not, is immaterial: you can't measure its volume, you can't weigh it, or take its temperature. In other words, if you're a materialist, you won't have a problem accepting that you have a complete lack of personality. That one can isolate areas and structures in the brain that correspond (loosely as it turns out) with certain aspects of personality is not much different than discovering that your legs facilitate locomotion under the control of your will (which you also lack if you're a behaviorist), and disconnecting the nerves to one your legs results in distinctly odd behavior. ;-) Whether you believe in the immaterial is your choice, and entirely a matter of what you're willing or unwilling to believe for whatever reason.Querius
June 27, 2013
June
06
Jun
27
27
2013
09:01 PM
9
09
01
PM
PDT
Joe,
If someone is judged by the work they do, and that work is recorded in a notebook, according to you the notebook is being judged, not the worker.
Most Christians believe that the soul is the "worker", morally responsible for our actions and beliefs. And since the soul is responsible, it is punished or rewarded accordingly. You, on the other hand, say that the soul "basically records our actions". In other words, you say it is the notebook. Why do you think a notebook should be rewarded or punished for what someone writes in it?keiths
June 27, 2013
June
06
Jun
27
27
2013
07:57 PM
7
07
57
PM
PDT
LoL! I didn't defend the soul, moron. I just refuted your feeble attempt at showing it didn't exist.Joe
June 27, 2013
June
06
Jun
27
27
2013
07:46 PM
7
07
46
PM
PDT
Joe, Well, I would love for any Christians who are reading this to tell us what they think about the soul, especially if they can improve upon your feeble defense of it.keiths
June 27, 2013
June
06
Jun
27
27
2013
07:43 PM
7
07
43
PM
PDT
If someone is judged by the work they do, and that work is recorded in a notebook, according to you the notebook is being judged, not the worker.Joe
June 27, 2013
June
06
Jun
27
27
2013
07:33 PM
7
07
33
PM
PDT
According to you, the soul is judged “on what we have done”, despite the fact that we “are not governed by our souls”.
Do you not understand all that went with what I said? The soul IS OUR ESSENCE. That essence is what is judged- what we have done is what is judged. And you have no idea what christians would say. I know most would agree with me.Joe
June 27, 2013
June
06
Jun
27
27
2013
07:31 PM
7
07
31
PM
PDT
Joe, I want you to concentrate. You say:
We are not governed by our souls.
And:
A soul is our essence. It is judged on what we have done.
Are you still concentrating? According to you, the soul is judged "on what we have done", despite the fact that we "are not governed by our souls". Most Christians would disagree, vehemently. They think that the soul is judged because it is morally responsible for what we do.keiths
June 27, 2013
June
06
Jun
27
27
2013
07:21 PM
7
07
21
PM
PDT
So we are judged by our actions, which are recorded by our soul.
So you believe that the soul is judged for things it didn’t do?
No, we are judged by our actions, which are recorded by our soul.Joe
June 27, 2013
June
06
Jun
27
27
2013
06:59 PM
6
06
59
PM
PDT
LoL! keiths can't support his tripe.
So you believe that the soul is judged for things it didn’t do?
A soul is our essence. It is judged on what we have done. Our body is dead, keiths. It cannot be judged. What is wrong with you?Joe
June 27, 2013
June
06
Jun
27
27
2013
06:56 PM
6
06
56
PM
PDT
keiths, you are delusional if you think you have in any way, shape, or form, made a compelling case for the non-existence of the soul. What you have made a very compelling case for is that you have no clue as to what constitutes scientific proof, what a soul truly is, what Christianity truly is, and perhaps most convincingly, that you have no clue as to how to be objective with scientific evidence!bornagain77
June 27, 2013
June
06
Jun
27
27
2013
06:23 PM
6
06
23
PM
PDT
UDers, are there any among you who can do a better job than Joe and BA77 at defending the idea of an immaterial soul?keiths
June 27, 2013
June
06
Jun
27
27
2013
05:40 PM
5
05
40
PM
PDT
bornagain,
keiths, do you even know of the concept of propitiation?
Of course, but it doesn't help your case. Joe, So you believe that the soul is judged for things it didn't do? Most Christians would disagree. They would say the soul is morally responsible.keiths
June 27, 2013
June
06
Jun
27
27
2013
05:37 PM
5
05
37
PM
PDT
keiths, do you even know of the concept of propitiation? G.O.S.P.E.L. – (the grace of propitiation) poetry slam – video https://vimeo.com/20960385 Top Ten Reasons We Know the New Testament is True – Frank Turek – video – November 2011 (41:00 minute mark – Despite what is commonly believed, of someone being 'good enough' to go to heaven, in reality both Mother Teresa and Hitler fall short of the moral perfection required to meet the perfection of God’s objective moral code) http://saddleback.com/mc/m/5e22f/bornagain77
June 27, 2013
June
06
Jun
27
27
2013
05:26 PM
5
05
26
PM
PDT
keiths, I lived the life, went to their schools and were taught their ways. If christians do believe in the soul the way you say it is a silent minority. Not even wikipedia agrees with you. So all I can is say that you are full of it. The reason I stated: We are not governed by our souls. It gives us life and basically records our actions, and perhaps even our thoughts. When we die it is examined and sorted. It is our essence. Oh it may also contain the basic programming for being a human. From what the Muslim clerics told me, that includes the program that it is a Muslim, born onto the one True God. So we are judged by our actions, which are recorded by our soul.Joe
June 27, 2013
June
06
Jun
27
27
2013
05:14 PM
5
05
14
PM
PDT
bornagain,
keiths, I truly doubt you ever truly were a Christian...
You're wrong about that. I took it very seriously and even considered (at my pastor's urging) whether I was called to the ministry.
As to your strawman version of the soul keiths, I’ve been a Christian for most of my adult life, gone to many different types of Churches from strict Catholics to dancing Pentecostals, and I have never heard such a strict definition for the soul as to exclude any negative feedback for the body whatsoever. In fact, in many places in scripture it mentions a constant battling against the desires of the flesh,,,
Giving in to the "desires of the flesh" is considered sinful, bornagain. The soul is held responsible for sins. When God is judging you, do you plan to say "Oh, I'm not responsible for that. My body (or brain) made me do it"? Not a very Christian notion.keiths
June 27, 2013
June
06
Jun
27
27
2013
04:50 PM
4
04
50
PM
PDT
Joe,
Strange that you cannot reference your claims.
Follow my links, Joe, and do some Googling. The information is out there even if you squeeze your eyes shut and pretend that it isn't.
The soul is punished for the very reason I stated.
What "reason you stated"?keiths
June 27, 2013
June
06
Jun
27
27
2013
04:36 PM
4
04
36
PM
PDT
1 16 17 18 19 20 21

Leave a Reply