why study neurology?

mat mats_trash at hotmail.com
Thu Jan 10 14:19:54 EST 2002

jalmb at my-deja.com (Jack) wrote in message news:<46648236.0201100737.331579dd at posting.google.com>...
> You seem awfully closed-minded. If you are interested in proving the
> soul is a myth, that is unfortunate, but if you are interested in
> finding the "truth", then you need to stop discounting what you have
> not experienced.

Quite the opposite, I am interested in finding the truth and in doing
so through finding empirical evidence to support a theory or
contention.  However, the belief systems that posit a 'soul' often
explicitly deny that the existence of that soul can ever be proven or
disproven.  If I announced tomorrow that I had proven the existence of
God, then most people would say no you haven't becuase you can't, and
somewhat perversely WANT a God which you cannot prove exists or not. 
One of the main reasons people declare for having religious beliefs is
that there are things in this world that they cannot explain, and a
prominent example is our consciousness.  So they turn to religion to
explain the things they cannot, because they want to understand the
world.  However, they then actually relish the fact that God and the
soul is inexplicable. Why are people unhappy about not being able to
explain things but then at the same time inexorably happy to believe
in something which is totally inexplicable?!  And its not just that we
haven't explained before, like the example above, people actually WANT
religion to be inexplicable, to explain the world!! I don't see how
that is a tenable position...

I would absoultely believe in a soul if you could provide me with some
direct evidence of its existence, but I am not prepared to do so on
faith as religion not only currently requires, but actually demands.

I reckon that if scientists put forward theories in which we just had
to 'have faith' and no proof, more people would actually 'follow' and
believe sceince.  People seem to have this need to put their whole
faith in something which proclaims its own existence while at the same
time saying you can never prove it, and if you think you have proved
it, what you've proved is not 'it' becuase it defines itself as
unprovable.  I don't understand how anyone could believe in something
which is axiomatically unprovable.

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net