You must be a registered user to access our website. Please complete the registration form at no cost, or login if you are already a registered user. Be assured, your registration information is secure and will not be sold or made available to others.
To learn why registration is now required, see this editorial on the website changes. Once you have completed the registration process, to include verification of your email address, a cookie will be placed on your computer to automatically complete the login process in the future.
Registered users, click here.
New users or if you have never registered before, click here.
|6/7/2013||Point of View: Syria and the war on Christians: Should the U.S. intervene?|
|5/29/2013||Point of View: Changing the world: The passions of William Wilberforce|
|5/10/2013||Point of View: Running toward chaos: Making the invisible Kingdom visible|
|4/26/2013||Point of View: A cornerstone, not a capstone: The case for early marriage|
|4/15/2013||Point of View: TV tips for parents: Interaction, not isolation|
|3/25/2013||Point of View: NPR, gay marriage, and Superman: Very little considered|
|3/11/2013||Point of View: Wet gushy stuff: Materialism can’t explain consciousness|
|2/25/2013||Point of View: An American in Iran: Support an imprisoned pastor|
|2/12/2013||Point of View: Don’t you believe it: China’s one-child policy|
|1/25/2013||Point of View: Light a candle against violence: See you at the theater|
|View All Articles by ERIC METAXAS|
Subscribe to ERIC METAXAS's RSS Feed
The “biggest mystery left to science” is the fact that you are listening to this broadcast. Well actually, it’s that you’re aware that you’re listening to this broadcast.
But what about the so-called “mind/brain” distinction? It’s just as mysterious today as it was when philosopher Rene Descartes wrote, “I think, therefore I am” some four centuries ago.
This mystery and what to make of it was the subject of a recent public radio series entitled “Mind and Brain.”
The mystery lies in the fact that, as one guest put it, this “wet gushy stuff” with the “consistency of mashed potatoes” in our skulls is an integral part of “us”: of our thoughts, our feelings, our hopes, and desires.
As was clearly evident on the program, the culture we live in is, in large measure, shaped and governed by a materialist worldview. That worldview holds that the only “real” things are matter and energy and that everything we observe is the product of the interaction between matter and energy.
That “everything” includes our awareness that we are the ones doing the observing. But as the philosopher David Chalmers said, “materialism doesn’t have the resources to fully explain consciousness.”
Instead of acknowledging the inadequacy—or, as the program called it, “limits”—of the materialistic worldview, three of the program’s guests, militant atheists all, tried to play down the problem.
Daniel Dennett, author of Darwin’s Dangerous Idea, insisted that there was no mystery at all. When challenged by the host, he argued that, within 15 to 20 years, we would be able to “read” people’s dreams while they slept. Right.
When the host challenged that assertion, all that Dennett could say was “hang on to your hat.”
Richard Dawkins, who penned, among other things, The God Delusion, admitted that we may never solve the mystery of consciousness, but added “What on earth makes you think that religion will?”
And Sam Harris would not rule out the possibility that consciousness survived death. That’s right, one of the world’s most famous atheists allowed for the possibility of life after death. He just thinks that the “idea that the brain can die and a soul that still speaks English and recognizes Granny is going to float away into the afterlife” is “profoundly implausible.”
Well perhaps it is. But what is equally implausible is that the materialism that reduces consciousness to chemistry and electrical impulses can tell us anything worthwhile about the human condition.
As award-winning writer and Christian Marilynne Robinson explained in her book Absence of Mind, a “central tenet” of this materialistic worldview is “that we do not know our own minds, our own motives, our own desires.” Only “well-qualified others” know them.
Thus, materialistic neuroscience explains away “experience and testimony of the individual mind,” and substitutes a story that more neatly fits the materialist paradigm.
Except that it doesn’t fit. And people are noticing this, and are pushing back against junk neuroscience and even the worldview that produced it.
Which is a very good thing. I’m sure the wet gushy stuff inside your head would agree.
You must be login before you can leave a comment. Click here to Register if you are a new user.