On 13 Jan 2002 05:58:54 -0800, mats_trash at hotmail.com (mat) wrote:
>As I have said in other posts, religion and soul etc.. start with the
>premise that they are not scientifically provable or unprovable.
>However, if you can prove a scientific theory of mind, then the
>religious option become less attractive. You can never disprove the
>religious hypothesis becuase by definiton people who believe it don't
>want it to be disproved and will have faith regardless.
Well, I must point out that in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance,
the Catholic church felt there were two paths to God: rationality and
faith. Descartes would be the best example as he often used
rationality to prove the validity of religion.
I am curious about your comment: 'proving a scientific theory of mind
then the religious option becomes less attractive'. A scientific
theory of mind might actually plausibly conclude that the religious
option is an unavoidable product of our mind and that it does have
profound psychological benefit. In medicine at least, religous
behaviour in first world conditions decrease morbidity.
[Disclaimer: not a personal attack, just an observation]
I think you are approaching cognitive science with a preconceived
desire to knock down religion and spirituality. I think anti-religious
mindset characterised by Richard Dawkins is in itself a religion based
on faith alone with limited evidence. At this point in time, there is
nothing which will prove or disprove the existence of noncorporeal
concepts like soul, God, the Why question, life after death (sic),
etc. This does not mean that the soul is never provable by scientific
reasoning, but simply that we don't have the tools (yet). I'm not a
religious person myself and am a devout agnostic (as you might