Viruses and the Problem of Evil

Hmmmmm… good point, worthy of additional consideration. But could a Paleolithic human appreciate it (provided the whole event were not completely frightening) in much the same way as a modern human?

I believe what we see biologically can be explained naturally. I could be wrong and there may be evidence at some point that would cause me to reevaluate my position on the human mind, but I believe there is more to it than mere biology.

It was an honest question. I’m probably not as familiar with other religions as I should be.

You’re a dualist? You think the mind is not a product of the brain? That the soul produces the mind? I’m having trouble making sense of this.

If you’re interested, a google of “book of mormon witnesses” will inform you.

I believe it is largely biological, but quite possibly more complicated than just biology. I suppose we could call the additional component a soul.

Your beliefs seem highly ambiguous, even to you. What is the basis for your opinion (if it really is your opinion) that there is more than biology going on?

1 Like

32 posts were split to a new topic: Vesuvius and the Evidence for the Resurrection

11 people swore that they saw the plates.

1 Like

No, I don’t think they would. There were plenty of people panning it when it was first performed.

Wikipedia recounts the words of a contemporary critic:

> Musical connoisseurs and amateurs were divided into several parties. One group, Beethoven’s very special friends, maintains that precisely this symphony is a masterpiece… The other group utterly denies this work any artistic value … [t]hrough strange modulations and violent transitions … with abundant scratchings in the bass, with three horns and so forth, a true if not desirable originality can indeed be gained without much effort

Culture evolves, just like knowledge evolves. The ‘first’ humans were not nearly as different from their contemporary ‘apes’ as we are now. Perhaps the biggest difference is that humans have acquired and/or developed tools and techniques to preserve and transmit the knowledge and achievements of previous generations. Over hundreds of thousands of years this has added up to monumental differences.

Human babies are not all that different from ape babies. They grow into modern humans because they are raised, socialised and educated by the people around them. They don’t get there on their own.

2 Likes

That may be. Sometimes it depends upon what we consider “negative” evidence. To me, the evidence from neuroscience strongly suggests that there is NOT anything we might call a soul, for example. One may phrase this as “nothing in neuroscience gives support to the idea of an immaterial soul,” or as “everything in neuroscience seems to confirm that minds are the product of physical brains, so I conclude there is no soul.”

I find the absence of evidence for the gods quite impressive, stunning, and consistent. The old saw “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” often gets raised in response, but the fact is that absence of evidence is ALSO not evidence of existence, and nobody is in much doubt as to whether it fits better with the “absence” hypothesis or with the “existence” hypothesis.

1 Like

I get tired of that old saw. It’s wrong; absence of evidence for a rhinoceros in your back yard is in fact good evidence that no rhinoceros is there. (I’m assuming that you don’t have a rhino in your back yard; correct me if I’m wrong.) Absence of evidence is evidence of absence if, given presence, we would expect such evidence. Happens all the time. Now of course we can’t rule out the sort of god who wouldn’t leave any evidence behind, but few if any people are positing that sort.

1 Like

Speak for yourself, sir! Why do people constantly assume I do not have a rhino in my back yard?

Agreed.

True, BUT one notable thing is that people whose gods ought to have left evidence yet somehow have not have the habit of insisting, when this is pointed out, that to expect god to leave evidence would be “reducing” him to something contemptible, or is based upon a naïve epistemology, or is unreasonable because god IS the sort who doesn’t leave evidence behind. Of course, then they go straight back to telling you how compelling the evidence that their god has left behind is.

1 Like

Your conclusion is incorrect for there are plenty of evidence that the mind is not a byproduct of the brain; and thinking otherwise has dangerous medical implication.

The brain and the mind exist in a symbiotic relationship, in which they both affect each other, but in which neither is entirely the other. As a result, to some extent, we have treat them as distinct phenomena.

I don’t think the mind IS the brain. Dead people have brains. So do unconscious people.

The mind is what the brain some times does. They’re processes of change that occur over time. Sort of like convection. Convection is a process that happens in a particular type of medium.

The mind is a particular type of process that (so far is only known to) happen in brain tissues.

1 Like

From the psychology today article:

This research is highly significant because it shows that the mind is not just a product of brain activity. If it were, it would be impossible for changes in psychological functioning to bring about changes in the brain, in the same way that it would be impossible for changes in the images on a computer screen to bring about changes to the circuitry of a computer.

I think this reasoning is flawed. I see no conflict between the mind being a product of the brain and cognitive therapies bringing about changes in the brain. We know that the brain is shaped by experiences, in terms of new neuronal connections etc. It seems trivial that our brain responds to stimuli, so why shouldn’t a specific set of stimuli (e.g. CBT) be able to change the way the brain works?

3 Likes

evograd and Rumraket are right. The author of the piece overstates his case, and you’ve oversimplified the matter. That thinking – a process which the brain does – may affect the brain is obvious. This in no way suggests that the mind is not generated by the brain, and we have absolutely no evidence that the mind is generated by anything else.

1 Like

So your conclusion that the mind is a product of the brain is itself a product of the brain. But since there is no reason for neural activity to have anything to do with truth, how can we give any credence to your conclusion?

No reason for neural activity to have anything to do with truth? Explain how you reached THAT conclusion. What an odd thing to say.

But if you’re concerned that organic brains may not accurately perceive reality, then you will of course have to admit that your religious beliefs are also suspect, as your organic brain appears to have simply generated these by the same “neural activity” which you think is so highly suspect.

2 Likes

Again, I am only trying to contrast how each of us approaches these questions in keeping with the PS motto of trying to find common ground.

For the skeptical atheist, “suggestive of” is a synonym for “human bias”. There are many things humans can observe that are suggestive of the Sun moving about the Earth or suggestive of the Earth being flat. Skepticism isn’t so much about which conclusions are allowed, but the method one uses to arrive at conclusions. Relying on an emotionally charged human intuition is not going to convince many skeptical atheists.

For many of us skeptical atheists, it does come down to a question of parsimony. From what we can see, a natural world without a creator would look very much like the one we see. We don’t see anything that requires a creator, and we also see a universe that seems indifferent to our existence.

1 Like