Comments on: Reports of the Demise of Materialism Are Premature

By: Egnor vs. Novella and its Consequences - Telic Thoughts

Egnor vs. Novella and its Consequences - Telic Thoughts — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 13:48:06 +0000

[...] from several quarters, including one of my own. Dr. Steven Novella wrote a two-part response (Part One, Part Two), taking the opportunity especially to make swipes at Michael Egnor of the Discovery [...]

By: Dualism Dueling With Science? - Thinking Christian

Dualism Dueling With Science? - Thinking Christian — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 20:28:42 +0000

By: Vast conspiracy files: Connecting the dots to include non-materialist neuroscience | Uncommon Descent

Thu, 20 Nov 2008 15:56:22 +0000

[...] at Neurologica blog, Steve Novella speculates about non-materialist neuroscience, about which he seems to have [...]

By: overshoot

overshoot — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 20:02:42 +0000

The opposite of love is not hate, it is indifference.

The theocrats have dealt with hate throughout history and are, if not comfortable, at least practiced in dealing with it. What science has been doing to them for a couple of centuries is much worse — it has ignored them.

What, after all, is “non-materialist engineering?” How does one design a “non-materialist” airplane? In what way does “materialism” detract from the practice of agriculture?

A mere eyeblink ago as human history goes, priesthoods controlled nearly every aspect of people’s everyday lives. Agriculture? You planted by the moon and ensured crops by religious rituals. Today, if you suggested that sacrificial blood and a romp in the haystack would substitute for fertilizers or crop rotation, the most fundamentalist farmer in North America would laugh until beer ran out of his nose. (Although he might go for the romp in the haystack, it wouldn’t be for the crops!)

That’s all why you find the theocrats slinking about in the shadows at the edge of the light. They can’t offer any reason why they shouldn’t be ignored in fields like engineering, accounting, orthopedic medicine, mining, manufacturing, etc. Only where there’s enough fog to obscure the outcomes is there enough cover for them to pretend that they actually make a difference, and they can’t stand being ignored.

By: Fifi

Fifi — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 13:22:28 +0000

DavidCT – Well it is just a plea for the “eternal soul” really but dressed up in more sciency language. While it seems self evident that the mind arises from the brain, I don’t discount the idea of “soul” since I think it’s a useful description of an aspect of being human. I don’t mean “soul” in the sense of an eternal non-physical version of ourselves but rather in people’s experience of themselves that they call “soul”. Putting aside for a moment people’s fear of death and the desire to escape death through immortality, and the usefulness of delayed gratification (the heavenly reward) and repression of individual needs and desires to politcal organizations such as churches and nations: my take on it is that people believe they have souls because they experience certain parts of themselves – generally the more emotional aspects of themselves – as who they truly are. (We have a mental image of who we are externally, “soul” is like our mental image of who we are internally.) While I discount the idea of the eternal soul as an entity, the idea of the soul as being our subconscious and emotional parts of ourselves is actually quite useful (and clearly important to most people). Most people don’t respond well to being told “souls don’t exist” because they have a subjective experience of themselves they call “soul”.

By: DavidCT

DavidCT — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 12:29:02 +0000

The concept of the mind as separate from the brain sounds very similar to what is called the immortal soul. The soul is that part of us that is the core of our being separate from the body – what would continue on into an afterlife. When you suggest the the mind is a function of the brain, the spiritually inclined are at some level are going to understand this as questioning the existence of the soul. This challenge is something that they will resist like grim death.

There is likely more going on than just differing points of view as to how the brain (mind) works.

By: tsiraluces

tsiraluces — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 17:04:24 +0000

If my question is naive please forgive me. The extent of my knowledge of science is limited to that which I learned in highschool and college (and have since forgotten.)

It is my understanding that brain injuries can cause changes in intellectual capabilities and even personality.

If that is true doesn’t it indicate that mind and brain are not separate, or at least not completely separate?

If the mind was truly distinct from the brain as opposed to a byproduct of it how could brain injuries result in such changes?

By: Heraclides

Heraclides — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 11:00:52 +0000

I would like to think that they will run into people familiar with their past tactics if they take on neuroscience. One of the developments in neuroscience that interests me is the increasing application of gene expression work, molecular biology, computational biology, and so on. I’d like to think that the people working in these areas are familiar with previous efforts from the creationist/ID camp, so I’d like to think that they respond in a similar manner as the current crop of evolutionary biologists do.

RoaldFalcon: I can’t help thinking that religions will, over time, get more “problems” from neuroscience, evolutionary cognitive science, behavioural studies and so on, to the point that its hard to see what they are going to be able to try hold up as “supernatural” eventually. (You’d think it’d be smarter to figure out a way to move forward than to keep trying to open doors that are closing, so to speak.)

Fifi: The link with OCDs and brain damage is interesting. Anecdotally, someone I know because quite religious some time before it was realised that she had some brain-related illness.

CrookedTimber: I think there is plenty against the creationist “arguments”, but a question is how the “lay” person views the neuroscience. I worry that many people see some of this work as a bit vague, so its easy to be played with. That said, I hope superdave is right!

By: NeuroLogica Blog » Reports of the Demise of Materialism Are Premature - Part II

Fri, 24 Oct 2008 13:00:22 +0000

[...] I wrote about the Wedge strategy of the intelligent design (ID) movement – namely to undermine and replace [...]

By: “Maverick” Scientists Find Friends In Creationists « The Semi-Complete Works of Fred Lunjevich

Fri, 24 Oct 2008 07:21:14 +0000

[...] For a more detailed expose visit Dr Steven Novella’s blog Neurologica, specifically this post. Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)The Pattern Creators And The Need For Critical [...]