That is, on that first here, everything depends on what you mean by "God."
On here the second, makes sense to me. There are undoubtedly parts of the brain/particular neural pathways associated with all mental activity, including doing science. When they find the ones associated with scientific mentation, it won't invalidate science.
It's the old reductionist fallacy. Because a phenomenon is based upon more rudimentary phenomena doesn't make it's "nothing but" the more rudimentary phenomena.
Gotta wonder about the helmets in some ways. I mean... so did each of the helmet wearers have profound enough insights to start their own churches, become saints, save the planet... you'd think if the helmets were that good, something ought to come out of them.
At the least, churches should be taking up collections for their pastors to use them while writing sermons and preaching...
I'd suggest they don't pad the helmets so that when conservatives and progressives inevitably butt heads they have a chance of making dents in each others' religious perspectives for a change.
You know, I bet context counts for a lot. Even if you can induce certain kinds of experiences with direct brain stimulation - or drugs - that doesn't mean the person is going to have the sort of experience that he or she can integrate, make sense of, and be powerfully motivated to live by.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, me and Crystal are trying to talk about panentheism and pantheism, but we're not entirely clear. If you get a chance, please chime in if you can clarify...
Arg, sorry. Work has been demanding far more attention than usual. I have lots of things to talk about, though, so I promise I'll get back to readin' and writin' soon.
Next question, probably: can you only be a Christian if you're a premodern Jew?
8 comments:
Your "God Box" link just links back to your own blog. Is is a slasdot article you're citing?
Gr. Thanks, Scott. I've fixed the link.
Mstone's argument was concise, clear, and to the point.
Here, here!
That is, on that first here, everything depends on what you mean by "God."
On here the second, makes sense to me. There are undoubtedly parts of the brain/particular neural pathways associated with all mental activity, including doing science. When they find the ones associated with scientific mentation, it won't invalidate science.
It's the old reductionist fallacy. Because a phenomenon is based upon more rudimentary phenomena doesn't make it's "nothing but" the more rudimentary phenomena.
Gotta wonder about the helmets in some ways. I mean... so did each of the helmet wearers have profound enough insights to start their own churches, become saints, save the planet... you'd think if the helmets were that good, something ought to come out of them.
At the least, churches should be taking up collections for their pastors to use them while writing sermons and preaching...
I'd suggest they don't pad the helmets so that when conservatives and progressives inevitably butt heads they have a chance of making dents in each others' religious perspectives for a change.
You know, I bet context counts for a lot. Even if you can induce certain kinds of experiences with direct brain stimulation - or drugs - that doesn't mean the person is going to have the sort of experience that he or she can integrate, make sense of, and be powerfully motivated to live by.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, me and Crystal are trying to talk about panentheism and pantheism, but we're not entirely clear. If you get a chance, please chime in if you can clarify...
I want it. No, it goes against my religion.
I heard the writers union in L.A. is on strike. Solidarity, brother?
Unless you actually got one of those God Boxes and now nobody can get you to take it off.
Let this be a warning to you kids out there...
Arg, sorry. Work has been demanding far more attention than usual. I have lots of things to talk about, though, so I promise I'll get back to readin' and writin' soon.
Next question, probably: can you only be a Christian if you're a premodern Jew?
Post a Comment