More duff philosophy….
I’ve long since stopped trying to work out how and why “Nature” (a weekly scientific “journal” that we’d all like to publish in for reasons that are too tedious to mention) picks what it picks to publish. There’s a letter in this week’s edition entitled “Neuroscience gears up for dual on the issue of brain versus deity”. It’s another one of these examples of the bad effects of the philosophical ignorance and lack of philosophical education among scientists.
Some quotes to give a flavour:
“… the truly radical and still maturing view in the neuroscience community that the mind is entirely the product of the brain presents the ultimate challenge to nearly all religions.”
Don’t think so! From Christian perspective I would have thought that the problem of an all powerful and loving God vs a world containing evil and suffering was a tad trickier. Not to mention the “God’s sovereignty vs human freewill” debate.
Apparently the decisive question is “..whether a product of the mind, such as God, can have any traditionally valid existence whatsoever.”
I haven’t had independent confirmation of this yet, but I suspect God isn’t too perturbed by this. Please!! Where to start. Except to point out that if we can only start the debate from a position where God is the product of the mind, then we are not talking about the Living God the Bible talks about, and whom I worship. Suffice it to say that those of us who are neuroscientists and Christians (and there are a few of us, we even have a society!) see no fundamentally new challenges here. The issues raised by neuroscientific advances are important, but the key issues have been around for a very long time. The mind/brain debate is at least a couple of thousand years old, an is probably not amenable to a solely scientific answer. And regardless of my forthcoming blockbuster results (reflex saccades are indeed modified by visual illusions!) the really big questions, questions if purpose and personal significance, are not scientific at all. Bit more humility, bit less hubris would not go amiss.
I’ve long since stopped trying to work out how and why “Nature” (a weekly scientific “journal” that we’d all like to publish in for reasons that are too tedious to mention) picks what it picks to publish. There’s a letter in this week’s edition entitled “Neuroscience gears up for dual on the issue of brain versus deity”. It’s another one of these examples of the bad effects of the philosophical ignorance and lack of philosophical education among scientists.
Some quotes to give a flavour:
“… the truly radical and still maturing view in the neuroscience community that the mind is entirely the product of the brain presents the ultimate challenge to nearly all religions.”
Don’t think so! From Christian perspective I would have thought that the problem of an all powerful and loving God vs a world containing evil and suffering was a tad trickier. Not to mention the “God’s sovereignty vs human freewill” debate.
Apparently the decisive question is “..whether a product of the mind, such as God, can have any traditionally valid existence whatsoever.”
I haven’t had independent confirmation of this yet, but I suspect God isn’t too perturbed by this. Please!! Where to start. Except to point out that if we can only start the debate from a position where God is the product of the mind, then we are not talking about the Living God the Bible talks about, and whom I worship. Suffice it to say that those of us who are neuroscientists and Christians (and there are a few of us, we even have a society!) see no fundamentally new challenges here. The issues raised by neuroscientific advances are important, but the key issues have been around for a very long time. The mind/brain debate is at least a couple of thousand years old, an is probably not amenable to a solely scientific answer. And regardless of my forthcoming blockbuster results (reflex saccades are indeed modified by visual illusions!) the really big questions, questions if purpose and personal significance, are not scientific at all. Bit more humility, bit less hubris would not go amiss.
posted by Paul at 2:51 AM
2 Comments:
Scientists like to think they are dealing with Ultimate Questions. It gives them a sense of purpose, gets publicity, gets money.
Am I a cynic? I hope not too much, but I was in science long enough to see these things at play.
Perhaps a just a touch, the merest smidgeon, of cynicism is showing through.
I find myself pulled in two directions. On the one had I think the first part of your comment is largely correct. But they (we,I) think that way because they're only human beings, not because they're scientists. Bankers, teachers and probably professional footballers all basically feel they do something of fundamental importance. When not seen within the context of that which really is of fundamental importance (ie our proper relationship with our Creator), it all gets out of kilter.
On the other hand I think that within its proper (and I would argue important) sphere, science has been, and continues to be, fantastically successful. It illuminates the created order in way that nothing else has. It excites the imagination. And it give very great power over the world in which we live. Unfortunately it doesn't supply the necessary wisdom to show how that power should be used. That has to come from somewhere else. Tragically for us all, it rarely comes from the ultimate author of all truth.
Post a Comment
<< Home