We have a large amount of evidence that your personality, who you are, is simply a result of biochemical process in the physical brain. To speculate that this can continue after those processes stop is to go against the evidence that we do have.
I’ve made a prediction some time ago that brain science is the next battle ground between science and religion. For the past 100 years, it’s been biological evolution. That’s pretty much over, religion has lost, there are only a few scattered skirmishes at the fringes to quell. It’s a little tough for religion to say that everything has a pre-designed purpose, where humans were created special by God, when we know how evolution happened, and especially that humans have only come about in the most recent blink of an eye, relatively, and in a tiny speck called Earth in a giant universe.
I can’t even fathom what sort of proof there could be that something was “uncreated” or “uncaused.” Presumably some being or another could profess to take you back in time to witness the moment in which it came into existence, but even that would be more evidence of some sort of hallucination than anything.
I mean, Professor Charles Xavier could easily make me believe that all of the above things were true about himself; so what?
And this doesn’t include interacts with humans. Maybe a God does exist, but doesn’t give a crap about us. Maybe he is the god of some other planet, and we’re just accidents of the laws he created. How does that affect your faith? Wouldn’t that god be equivalent to none at all for us?
Way, way back in post #52 I laid out a foundation in earnest for a melding of “Science” and “Religion” (or perception of religion and faith to the best of our abilities and our ancestor’s abilities) that I’m still waiting to be told that it’s absolutely impossible and inconceivable.
Or illogical.
Or I’m a dumbass.
Or something.
Oh, and Der Trihs,
Dammit man, do you have any idea how much I hate agreeing with you?
But, yeah, I have to agree with you here. Religion is 100% man-made. If religion is the sole source of faith and values then the concept of God under that faith and value system is also 100% man-made. If faith and value transcend religion the concept of God becomes so much more relavent.
I don’t agree with you about the about the faith part though, I still say it takes more faith to stand against God then it does to believe in Him in whatever capacity.
As I said above, no ONE piece of evidence would convince me. I’d need thousands of invididual pieces of evidence that all fit together in a coherent whole. That’s how science works.
To add to what CurtC said, we also have the evidence of brain damage. Damage to the relevant parts of the brain damages the mind. It’s a straightforward extrapolation that destroying the brain destroys the mind. And no, the “the brain is an antenna for the soul” idea that religious types sometimes try to use to handwave this away doesn’t work. Brain damage and drugs don’t just distort or destroy your ability to control your body or your senses as you would expect if the brain was just an antenna; they damage or destroy the mind itself.
Can you please cite this evidence? Sure, there are various studies that demonstrate a connection or correlation between personality and these biochemical processes. To the best of my knowledge though, there has not been a single study which demonstrates – or even remotely suggests – that one’s personality can be completely boiled down to these processes.
“But it’s true!” one might object. Maybe, or maybe not. Remember though, I’m specifically asking about the evidence for this grandiose claim.
One might point to situations in which someone’s personality can be altered by various substances or by physical trauma, but that’s not the same thing. It supports what I said earlier about there being a connection between personality and these biochemical processes. It falls quite a bit short of demonstrating that the entirety of one’s personality can be reduced to those processes.
It’s that you are diving into the pool and claiming that it is a hot tub, and then getting indignant that other people aren’t going along with it. Wake up, man. You don’t seem that stupid
I am not trying to offend. I am speaking with authority and confidence. If I have been critical , its only based on peoples “comments” and not them per se. If you want to interpret that as being indignant so be it. I hope you can understand have tried to provide thoughtful commentary.
In my opinion, no human being will ever find “scientific” evidence of GOD. Never. The concept of GOD exists in the mind, and I believe the mind is a bridge between the body and soul/spirit, you need to find a source for both. However, I keep introducing concepts that do not conform to some of your ideologies so I guess I cannot discuss “the soul.” I suggest for some to try and accept that God is “within” you. Stop looking outside of yourself for measurable, observable physical evidence. He has already provided what you need to know him.
If somebody found scientific evidence of God, would it inspire you to worship him as a supreme being/ diety? Would it support your ability to relate to HIM in human terms?
Sometimes you have to go out of your comfort zone and reflect on new perspectives and ideas.
I wont be posting anymore because I have really nothing left to say. Peace guys…
I hadn’t expected this line of reasoning. I’m not necessarily sure that I buy your assertions in the end of the quote, though–I’m curious as to how one would design an experiment to prove that there’s no possibility of an undamaged “mind”/“soul” communicating through a damaged “antenna” brain, short of complete/exact repair of damaged brain material, which as far as I know we can’t even begin to do.
Of course, sitting as I do firmly in the militant agnostic camp (I don’t even know what we can and cannot know, let alone know anything), I’m not sure that there exists a totally logical/evidence-based “proof” for the lack of a spiritual world–just an increasing pile of positive evidence for a deterministic universe modified by quantum effects, and an increasingly small number of ways any potential spirit realm could even be conceived of touching.
It occurs to me that I never answered the OP. Such a phenomena, if repeatable, would arouse my curiosity, I admit. What it wouldn’t do is prove anything–the whole point of random chance is that sometimes the long odds get hit. All it would do is make for an interesting thought problem, and then people would likely go on doing what they were doing anyway–proof, let alone circumstantial evidence like this particle’s theoretical emissions, has very little to do with religion or morality or faith or whatever.
It’s statements like the last there that make you come across the wrong way–clearly, if he HAS provided what each of us needs to know him, then those of us who do not are being willfully ignorant or obtuse. Heck, upthread Brian even said he had such a set of conditions that would make him think hard about it, and that those have not yet been met. Basically, many of us expressly reject your premise, and to make claims that expressly overrule our own internal experience can frankly come across as arrogant.
That’s an interesting question. As I said before, knowing for sure that there was a God and what he wanted wouldn’t change my morality–better to rot in hell than serve a bloodthirsty tyrant, if for example we’re discussing the Old Testament “God”. As for relating to God, such as he might be, the only terms WE have to do so are human terms. He’s the all-powerful one, he can shrink to relate to us.
Sure, what about the ability to make a rat forget a specific memory with a certain drug administered at the right time? It inhibits the chemical process of storing into memory, and the interesting thing is that if they get the rat to recall something it’s already learned while suppressing memory storage, that memory doesn’t get put back on the mind’s shelf to be available later.
You yourself grant that there are various studies that establish that certain functions of the mind are chemistry-dependent. If major sections of personality (especially memory) are material, then what’s left to be non-material?
An “antenna brain” wouldn’t affect your mental processes if drugged or damaged; only your perceptions and your ability to control your body. And in the case of drugs, we do have an example of just what you are talking about, as the effects of most stop by themselves after a time.
Science isn’t an ideology. And you can discuss anything you like; it’s just that here people are free to argue with you about it.
And if there’s no evidence for God, there’s no reason to take him or anything he supposedly wants seriously.
He’s done nothing of the sort, even assuming he exists. The “evidence” you describe is indistinguishable from self delusion, and I see no reason to consider it anything else.
I have no interest in worshiping anything whatsoever; I find the concept disgusting. Nor have I any desire for any relationship with any gods, real or not. Except to execute the majority of the versions that have been claimed to exist, assuming they were real enough to kill and it could be done.
Amusing, coming from a believer.
In other words, you want to toss this out and not bother to defend it.
It’s not a “grandiose” claim; it’s simply the only one that has any evidence whatsoever. And is therefore the only one worth taking seriously.
Making unsubstantiated claims that a “spirit” or “soul” we have no evidence for, which we have no evidence is even possible, is in some way we can’t demonstrate what we are made of and that it survives after death - THAT’S grandiose.
I’ve juxtaposed these two statements of yours to point out that your position is logically inconsistent.
IF you believe that human beings possess a soul AND that that soul uses the brain as a conduit to influence our behavior THEN that effect should be observable. As we learn more and more about how the brain functions at some point we should eventually come up against an anomaly: Physics and chemistry will say that the brain should do X, but instead it does Y. That would be direct physical evidence for the existence of a soul.
Scientific evidence of the existence of souls would at least cause me to entertain the notion of God, instead of simply dismissing the idea as I do now. I think it would be a very good thing if the religions of the world would pour money into fundamental neurological research so this question can be settled once and for all. If the operation of the brain can’t be explained by simple chemistry then the theists will have a powerful argument to use against us atheists. And if it turns out that souls don’t exist they can use that information to rectify the errors in their theology.
Blah, blah, blah. You aren’t paying any attention at all to what I’m saying. Let me say it very clearly so we can try to ram this through your ears:
This thread is called “Scientific evidence of God’s existence”.
This thread is about scientific evidence of God’s existence.
This thread is for discussion of scientific evidence of God’s existence.
Anything completely unrelated to scientific evidence of God’s existence is not appropriate to this discussion.
Spiritualism is not science.
Wow, that took a long time! Thank you for finally discussing the topic of the thread.
It has nothing to do with my “ideology”, although that was clever of you to make my empirical, reason-based system of thought sound equivalent to your process of being told a load of hooey about the Inner Spirit and deciding to swallow it whole. Anyway, it’s not about ideology, it’s about you shitting all over this thread, hijacking it and spinning it into a completely different direction, and then getting all huffy and self-righteous when you were called out on it. Really, can’t you debate this in a thread called “God is within us” or something?
The idea of God as Love and all that is nothing new to me. I’ve reflected on it plenty, and I strongly reject this notion that I’m only an atheist because I’m ignorant of the wondrous song of heaven playing in my heart. I also strongly reject the implication that I am intellectually weaker than you for being less willing to swallow some pulpy, saccharine-loaded pap about the Love God.
Saw your post from afar. Just to let you know when science called spiritual things nonsense it opened the door for debate. Also as we post many universities are studing spiritual experiences.
You can’t call people names and expect them to roll over and play dead, my friend.
I believe the rebuttal has only begun. If you can’t take the heat get out of the kitchen.
I already addressed that. As I said, that sort of thing is evidence of a connection between biochemical processes and one’s personality. It falls far, far short of demonstrating – or even remotely suggesting – that the entirety of one’s personality can be reduced to these biochemical interactions.
That’s precisely why I anticipated your response and said,
“One might point to situations in which someone’s personality can be altered by various substances or by physical trauma, but that’s not the same thing. It supports what I said earlier about there being a connection between personality and these biochemical processes. It falls quite a bit short of demonstrating that the entirety of one’s personality can be reduced to those processes.”
We have evidence that some major functions are determined or influenced by the material world. This is quite a bit different from saying that they ARE completely material, or even that the majority of major functions are physically determined.
Moreover, even if that were true, it would be ultimately irrelevant. Remember, you specifically said that the evidence says that our personalities can be completely reduced to biochemical processes. The burden of proof rests on the person making the claim. We can see that some (and perhaps all… perhaps) mental functions are influenced by the physical world, but that’s not the same as saying that they are exclusively determined by chemical processes, nor does it mean that our personalities can be completely reduced to these physical interactions.
Okay, then please cite this evidence that our personalities can be completely reduced to biochemical interactions. Not just some aspects of our personalities, mind you, and not merely influenced. We need evidence that the entirety of our personality is 100% determined by the chemical processes within our brains. You said that you have evidence for this grand claim, so where is it?
And if I had claimed that we had a spirit or a soul, then your objection might have some merit. I did not though, so let’s not shift the burden of proof here.
(This is granting – for the sake of argument – that there is no evidence whatsoever for the spirit or soul. I know that many Dopers would be unwilling to accept such a claim at face value, but even if we grant it to be true, it’s not the thesis that’s under discussion here.)
The example I picked shows that at least memory is a biochemical process, not simply affected by chemistry. We understand how individual nerve cells work pretty well, and prediction of the emergent properties on a mass scale is still beyond us, but this bottoms-up kind of work points to biochemistry as well. In fact, all the evidence we have points to the material explanation, although you’re right that we don’t yet have it all figured out. On the other hand, we have zero indication that there’s anything else going on. That’s what I meant by my statement that we have lots of evidence that indicates that personality is simply material, and I still stand by that.