Religiosity and Neuroscience

Let me break this quote down:

1) The Platonic, or Neo-Platonic, idea of ‘soul’ (a view commonly head by a good number of people)

True enough this is a very common view particularly if you define people as all of mankind. I would have to say the vast majority would hold this view.

Platonic Greece was pivotal for the separation of Western and Eastern thought. Plato, Aristotle, and Socrates each defined man holistically from their respective points of view. Their philosophies have been passed down through the ages to create Western culture and are foundational to our being and essence. Because it is the body of knowledge that is our inheritance and human “fabric”, we believe it implicitly. To throw it out is to unmake us and destroy our culture.

2) False notion

This is false only for those who have rejected this foundational point, but not false to the vast majority. A person who believes this is false has rejected the foundations of Western thought and has shifted their point of origin to the Age of Enlightenment and reductionism. Such a person could be classified as a modernist. From such a point of view I too would agree with you that the “Platonic, Neo-Platonic, soul” is non-existent. This would be a logical and obvious conclusion.

But now in an area of post-modernism we see the rise of our Platonic roots welling up in the masses. Obviously our Platonic origins are manifesting itself, and pushing against the later modernist view (a natural thing for culture to do).

The number of people who hold then modernist view will dwindle in time as generations of post-modern scientists and thinkers take control of research and the body of knowledge held for specific topics.

3) Nature teaches us

It is said by many fundamentalist biblical scholars that the best way to interpret the Bible is by the Bible. I would state that a fundamentalist scientist would say, “The best way to interpret nature is by nature.” I might not totally agree with either statement, but I do think that using scripture to understand nature makes as much sense as using nature to understand scripture. I could believe that there are ways in which each refers to the other, but as for giving an explanation about the other I would say that this is much harder to prove.

Nature is nature and science studies nature.

Scripture is scripture and religion studies scripture.

Mixing the two is bad for both. The likelihood for theologians believing they are scientists and scientist believing they are theologians is too great. Since information is power (a commodity many of us crave) allowing scientist or theologians to control that much information would be bad for the masses. This statement I believe has been proven throughout history time and again. One only has to look at the foundations of history’s notorious purgings to see the consequences.

While its unreasonable to expect a scientist to ignore their religion as well as a theologian to ignore their nature I would hope that wise scientists understand what is nature and what is religion, and well as wise theologians understand what is religion and what is natural. And I believe when we have wise scientists and theologians the information provided to the masses will be less corrupted.

4) Conclusion

Foundationally I believe we all need to know the truth, but unless we work together as a community with love and respect what we share with each other is something much less beneficial (in effect evil).

Howdy there, Pronounce !! I'm enjoying your posts, but there is a lot which could be answered to, actually, and that would almost take a whole 'chapter-in-your-regular-advanced-university-textbook' worth of space (at the least). Please allow me to go over it slowly, and see if I can get any major junctions in your presentation which might cause adjustment in the results, and get back with you on that...again, it might take a while in that I am doing some extra writing work here, as it is (in real time).

Thanks again, and I shall return !

KJ

Thank you, but don't feel compelled if it's a hassle, or a drudgery to do so. Not that I don't welcome your reply, I do really, but it's more important to me that you write from your core (essence) then resort to any dogma and doctrine that I could readily research myself.

I have to admit that I'm a bit sensitive (maybe overly so) to regurgitated material. But on the other hand I'm attracted to thoughtful material that is born from the heart of a person. This is what makes your comments so attractive to me. I can tell they are born out of a passion and love for the material, and not someone who is trying to push room-furniture arguments up against the door of reasoning because their beliefs can't handle truth.

I don't care where one's beliefs lie on a topic, but it isn't hard to feel when those beliefs are just ideas (dogma, doctrine, theory) that have been given weight solely for the fact that if one was not to say they believed them they wouldn't be a part of the society they live in. (You see this type of thing in church ALL the time.)

Nice, thoughtful posts Pronounce. I'm not sure I have much to add; I've been down some of these roads a number of times. I don't share your spiritual outlook, but I do admire what appears to be a deep commitment and love of such spirituality. I believe that as a species, most of us have an innate need to wonder and reach for some sense of the ineffable and I find it a fascinating phenomena to behold as it speaks directly to humanity dealing with what appears to be an existence with no more purpose or meaning than your average lizard. So this is an intensely-interesting topic for me

Its very difficult to find people who can enunciate their theological/spiritual beliefs - as you said - without resorting to one kind of dogma or another. So again, kudos.

Thank you for your comments, and prayerfully and hopefully my thoughts will engage others into thinking more about why they believe what they believe.

A2K (and other forums) can be a great place to combine people from many different cultures with a variation of beliefs. The hope is that we'll come to respect our fellow man even if we don't agree with them.

I've read Rick Warren's "Purpose Driven Life" a couple of times and his points make sense, but the material should be viewed as a Protestant catechism. Nothing wrong with it if one is interested in knowing what Protestant Christians believe. (Be sure that Protestant Christians love to fight the establishment and so probably would vehemently disagree with this statement, and yet all the points in the book are taken from their dogma and doctrine.)

As for me I've been pondering something similar to this concept and that is: What does it mean to live true to myself?

OK, asking that question means I have to know me, and to know me I have to take the blinders off. My bias (blinders) are endemic to me. As such they can't be removed by thought or will power. One way for people to see their worldview (bias) is to live cross-culturally. By rubbing shoulders with others who don't share our basic beliefs we're forced to evaluate our beliefs. Assuming that my cultural origin is important to who I am (nurture) I can't just throw it away, but must embrace it. Then this begs the question how much of who I am is nature and how much nurture. Science has been doing some awesome research into human biology. I want to know what scientist think the perfect human is and how close I match up to that. The differences should highlight my uniqueness. I want to know my major histocompatibility complex (MHC) and see what percentage that matches up to others. Obviously there is a lot to know about oneself, and the above items are just a small small list of what interests me.

My goal for doing this might be good, and that is once I've come to grips with who I truly am, then I can choose to live authentically. This is better than living a lie, as some choose to do.

To this you're absolutely correct; and it'll take a lifetime to completely discover. Of course, as each day comes and goes - each experience subtly or radically alters your 'self' - that self will change. I've come to realize that there won't be any single point where I can really understand myself completely; perhaps in stages, but that's about it. Even so, its a rewarding experience.

Critical thinking - that method that allows us to question and observe - coupled with a healthy dose of personal humility, are - for me - the best tools I've found.



SO true; the time I've spent in Europe and the Middle East opened my eyes to a *ton* of perspectives I wouldn't have ever imagined, had I not gone and lived with the locals. I could talk for hours on this - such the eye opener it was.

As far as authenticity: There is what I hold best, true, admirable and what I am - and the two don't meet as much as I'd like them to. Honestly accepting my shortfalls - that pinch of hypocracy I think we all have at least some of - must take place if I'm to affect any change. Its a lifelong endeavor.

Cheers