The Foundation of Religion

[Copernicus]

Most complex beliefs depend on other beliefs for their existence. In the case of religion, belief in the existence of brainless (disembodied) minds is a foundational belief. Gods are brainless minds, and so are souls. Most religions are focused on death and how a mind can survive it. In some religions, the immaterial mind is reborn in another body. In others, it continues to exist in a world of other spirits.

Just as belief in brainless minds shores up religion, lack of belief in such minds undermines it. Atheism does not necessarily oppose dualism--the position that minds and bodies have separate planes of existence--but atheists do tend to believe that the mind is an effect of a brain, not something that can exist independently of one. Not all atheists agree with this position. You can believe in a spirit world and still not believe in gods. But atheism does tend to be associated with either rejection of dualism or acceptance of the idea that all mental function is grounded in physical brain activity--that is, that the mind is somehow rooted in the physical world. Minds or "souls" cannot continue to exist when the brain is destroyed.

In the God Delusion, Richard Dawkins pointed out that human beings are inherently dualists. We live in a mental world, and we see the physical world as fundamentally apart--of a different nature--than our mental reality. The conscious mind consists of memory, emotions, moods, perception, calculation, volition, and self-awareness. We can control our own physical bodies through volition, but we cannot directly control other aspects of reality except through the mediation of our physical bodies. It is a small leap of imagination to conceive of minds that have no physical bodies and can manipulate reality as we manipulate our bodies. Gods tend to be thought of as such beings--disembodied minds that can effect physical events through direct volition. Atheism rejects the idea that such beings exist.

With these thoughts in mind, I want to make the following claim: theism is undermined by arguments that minds depend on physical brains for their existence. This is not, in any sense, a logical argument or a proof. It is merely the observation that belief in brainless minds is foundational for religion. Any attack on the credibility of brainless minds is an indirect attack on religion. Any argument that human minds depend on physical brains for their existence is largely incompatible with religion, because it undermines the spiritual basis for religion. Do you agree or disagree?

 

[AuroraWillow]

So, essentially what you're saying is that if you believe in God, you're not using your brain? I don't understand this whole "brainless mind" concept.

 

[Copernicus]

So, essentially what you're saying is that if you believe in God, you're not using your brain? I don't understand this whole "brainless mind" concept.

A "brainless mind" is one that can exist independently of a physical brain. In more familiar vernacular, it is a "spirit"--a disembodied soul. What I am saying is that the belief in "brainless minds" is a foundational concept for religious belief. If you reject belief in the existence of brain-free minds, then you reject the basis for most of the religions that humankind has ever come up with.

 

[sojourner]

Admiral Ackbar, to the bridge, please...

 

[PolyHedral]

Does "brain" include electronic or other devices that achieve the same function as the brain but through different means?

 

[MurphtheSurf]

Dead Forever: The foundation and hope for the Atheist.

 

[tomato1236]

Most complex beliefs depend on other beliefs for their existence. In the case of religion, belief in the existence of brainless (disembodied) minds is a foundational belief. Gods are brainless minds, and so are souls. Most religions are focused on death and how a mind can survive it. In some religions, the immaterial mind is reborn in another body. In others, it continues to exist in a world of other spirits.

Just as belief in brainless minds shores up religion, lack of belief in such minds undermines it. Atheism does not necessarily oppose dualism--the position that minds and bodies have separate planes of existence--but atheists do tend to believe that the mind is an effect of a brain, not something that can exist independently of one. Not all atheists agree with this position. You can believe in a spirit world and still not believe in gods. But atheism does tend to be associated with either rejection of dualism or acceptance of the idea that all mental function is grounded in physical brain activity--that is, that the mind is somehow rooted in the physical world. Minds or "souls" cannot continue to exist when the brain is destroyed.

In the God Delusion, Richard Dawkins pointed out that human beings are inherently dualists. We live in a mental world, and we see the physical world as fundamentally apart--of a different nature--than our mental reality. The conscious mind consists of memory, emotions, moods, perception, calculation, volition, and self-awareness. We can control our own physical bodies through volition, but we cannot directly control other aspects of reality except through the mediation of our physical bodies. It is a small leap of imagination to conceive of minds that have no physical bodies and can manipulate reality as we manipulate our bodies. Gods tend to be thought of as such beings--disembodied minds that can effect physical events through direct volition. Atheism rejects the idea that such beings exist.

With these thoughts in mind, I want to make the following claim: theism is undermined by arguments that minds depend on physical brains for their existence. This is not, in any sense, a logical argument or a proof. It is merely the observation that belief in brainless minds is foundational for religion. Any attack on the credibility of brainless minds is an indirect attack on religion. Any argument that human minds depend on physical brains for their existence is largely incompatible with religion, because it undermines the spiritual basis for religion. Do you agree or disagree?

So...you're regurgitating?

The answer to this is, I obviously don't believe my beliefs are wrong, or they wouldn't be my beliefs. What are you trying to get from this?

 

[Jeremiah]

Most complex beliefs depend on other beliefs for their existence. In the case of religion, belief in the existence of brainless (disembodied) minds is a foundational belief. Gods are brainless minds, and so are souls. Most religions are focused on death and how a mind can survive it. In some religions, the immaterial mind is reborn in another body. In others, it continues to exist in a world of other spirits.

Just as belief in brainless minds shores up religion, lack of belief in such minds undermines it. Atheism does not necessarily oppose dualism--the position that minds and bodies have separate planes of existence--but atheists do tend to believe that the mind is an effect of a brain, not something that can exist independently of one. Not all atheists agree with this position. You can believe in a spirit world and still not believe in gods. But atheism does tend to be associated with either rejection of dualism or acceptance of the idea that all mental function is grounded in physical brain activity--that is, that the mind is somehow rooted in the physical world. Minds or "souls" cannot continue to exist when the brain is destroyed.

In the God Delusion, Richard Dawkins pointed out that human beings are inherently dualists. We live in a mental world, and we see the physical world as fundamentally apart--of a different nature--than our mental reality. The conscious mind consists of memory, emotions, moods, perception, calculation, volition, and self-awareness. We can control our own physical bodies through volition, but we cannot directly control other aspects of reality except through the mediation of our physical bodies. It is a small leap of imagination to conceive of minds that have no physical bodies and can manipulate reality as we manipulate our bodies. Gods tend to be thought of as such beings--disembodied minds that can effect physical events through direct volition. Atheism rejects the idea that such beings exist.

With these thoughts in mind, I want to make the following claim: theism is undermined by arguments that minds depend on physical brains for their existence. This is not, in any sense, a logical argument or a proof. It is merely the observation that belief in brainless minds is foundational for religion. Any attack on the credibility of brainless minds is an indirect attack on religion. Any argument that human minds depend on physical brains for their existence is largely incompatible with religion, because it undermines the spiritual basis for religion. Do you agree or disagree?

"Do you agree or disagree?"

I think when one views this as the only life, then the notion of a god loses luster. You come to the realization that the question of whether or not gods exist, is completely irrelevant to you. As before humankind will ever answer that question you'll be long dead. In such a case, consequentially, a person may be more likely become agnostic, atheistic or deistic.

Of course we can only speaking generally and there would always be exceptions. But you don't find many people who believe this is the only life, yet still have a positive theistic view of "God".

 

[Zadok]

Most complex beliefs depend on other beliefs for their existence. In the case of religion, belief in the existence of brainless (disembodied) minds is a foundational belief. Gods are brainless minds, and so are souls. Most religions are focused on death and how a mind can survive it. In some religions, the immaterial mind is reborn in another body. In others, it continues to exist in a world of other spirits.

Just as belief in brainless minds shores up religion, lack of belief in such minds undermines it. Atheism does not necessarily oppose dualism--the position that minds and bodies have separate planes of existence--but atheists do tend to believe that the mind is an effect of a brain, not something that can exist independently of one. Not all atheists agree with this position. You can believe in a spirit world and still not believe in gods. But atheism does tend to be associated with either rejection of dualism or acceptance of the idea that all mental function is grounded in physical brain activity--that is, that the mind is somehow rooted in the physical world. Minds or "souls" cannot continue to exist when the brain is destroyed.

In the God Delusion, Richard Dawkins pointed out that human beings are inherently dualists. We live in a mental world, and we see the physical world as fundamentally apart--of a different nature--than our mental reality. The conscious mind consists of memory, emotions, moods, perception, calculation, volition, and self-awareness. We can control our own physical bodies through volition, but we cannot directly control other aspects of reality except through the mediation of our physical bodies. It is a small leap of imagination to conceive of minds that have no physical bodies and can manipulate reality as we manipulate our bodies. Gods tend to be thought of as such beings--disembodied minds that can effect physical events through direct volition. Atheism rejects the idea that such beings exist.

With these thoughts in mind, I want to make the following claim: theism is undermined by arguments that minds depend on physical brains for their existence. This is not, in any sense, a logical argument or a proof. It is merely the observation that belief in brainless minds is foundational for religion. Any attack on the credibility of brainless minds is an indirect attack on religion. Any argument that human minds depend on physical brains for their existence is largely incompatible with religion, because it undermines the spiritual basis for religion. Do you agree or disagree?

I believe your "thinking" is flawed. How can your brain be "self" aware when there is no actual self to have real awareness? So you are a simulation of non-existent independent thinking. What an original thought – woops; without an actual self to generate original thought such cannot exist (by your admission). Sorry, what a simulated almost original but none-the-less preprogrammed and prewired instinctive thought!

Zadok

 

[Rhizomatic]

I think that you're greatly overgeneralizing religion, which frequently does manifest itself without any beliefs in disembodied minds, though I would agree that the possibility of a mind without a body as we understand them is a necessary axiom for many forms of theism. When we are discussing a hypothetical deity that transcends our reality, as is the case with many articulations of theism, I also wonder just how undermining any example of "this is necessary in our incredibly limited experience" is.

 

[Copernicus]

Does "brain" include electronic or other devices that achieve the same function as the brain but through different means?

I see no reason to exclude such devices in principle.

I believe your "thinking" is flawed. How can your brain be "self" aware when there is no actual self to have real awareness?

You are begging the question with this rhetorical question. If one believes that brain function is what creates and sustains self-awareness, then a "self" does not necessarily exist until there is a physical brain to create it. We build machines to have a very primitive awareness of "self" now. They can monitor and report on their own function or "health". The animal brain is a very complex machine that is evolved for maximal awareness of self.

I think that you're greatly overgeneralizing religion, which frequently does manifest itself without any beliefs in disembodied minds, though I would agree that the possibility of a mind without a body as we understand them is a necessary axiom for many forms of theism...

I expected this kind of reaction. My response is that I think the generalization applies to most religions, not to mention superstitious beliefs in spirits, magic, and what-not. There are very few religions I am aware of that reject belief in an immaterial soul, and that belief certainly permeates the majority of folks who consider themselves religious. There may certainly be exceptions, but I do not consider my generalization overly broad. Belief in brainless minds is foundational to religious belief systems.

When we are discussing a hypothetical deity that transcends our reality, as is the case with many articulations of theism, I also wonder just how undermining any example of "this is necessary in our incredibly limited experience" is.

Who said anything about "necessary"? We can argue on empirical grounds that the human mind is an effect of brain function. That does not necessarily undermine belief in mind-body dualism, but it does undermine belief in minds that can exist independently of physical processes. We have no evidence that disembodied minds can exist, but we have excellent evidence that embodied minds do exist.

 

[jmvizanko]

Any argument that human minds depend on physical brains for their existence is largely incompatible with religion, because it undermines the spiritual basis for religion. Do you agree or disagree?

I agree. However, until we have a much greater scientific understanding of the brain, I think it is still pretty hard to make that argument. Unless I am just grotesquely ignorant of how far we are with neuroscience.

It would be pretty amazing to discover that there is input coming into the physical brain from unexplainable sources, as if the brain is the keyboard for the spiritual mind. I don't assume that is the case, as there hasn't really been evidence for the supernatural in any other sphere of experience. But when it comes to what we really don't understand at all, I try to keep the jury out.

 

[Zadok]

...


You are begging the question with this rhetorical question. If one believes that brain function is what creates and sustains self-awareness, then a "self" does not necessarily exist until there is a physical brain to create it. We build machines to have a very primitive awareness of "self" now. They can monitor and report on their own function or "health". The animal brain is a very complex machine that is evolved for maximal awareness of self.


...

Hardly, as a engineer and scientist expert in automation, robotics and artificial intelligence you are assuming things never proven and using a lot of unverified logic with a construct driving towards a conclusion with much hand waving steps over unexplained magical miracles.

Please, the movie “I Robot” is pure fantasy. There are no self aware machines. We can use the same arguments that computers do not have programs because machines without programs (life) weigh the same as machines with programs – Since programs have no physical characteristics that can be measured there is no substance therefore proving computer programs do not exist.

Zadok

 

[Dan4reason]

Hardly, as a engineer and scientist expert in automation, robotics and artificial intelligence you are assuming things never proven and using a lot of unverified logic with a construct driving towards a conclusion with much hand waving steps over unexplained magical miracles.

Please, the movie “I Robot” is pure fantasy. There are no self aware machines. We can use the same arguments that computers do not have programs because machines without programs (life) weigh the same as machines with programs – Since programs have no physical characteristics that can be measured there is no substance therefore proving computer programs do not exist.

Zadok

Well, actually, there is no proof that there are self aware machines. There may be self-aware machines. If machines were self-aware, how would we know?

 

[jmvizanko]

There are no self aware machines.

Not yet. But who knows what we'll be able to do with ever faster computers and networks, such as with neural networks and lord knows what else we haven't even thought of yet.

We can use the same arguments that computers do not have programs because machines without programs (life) weigh the same as machines with programs – Since programs have no physical characteristics that can be measured there is no substance therefore proving computer programs do not exist.

Put programs do have physical characteristics, as every bit of information in them is stored and processed by physical computer components. In a sense they are just programmed electrical energy. Lets see you try to load software into a rock.

 

[Meow Mix]

Well, actually, there is no proof that there are self aware machines. There may be self-aware machines. If machines were self-aware, how would we know?

Turing tests maybe, or a nice tidbit I took away from a discussion with a friend...

He said if a machine isn't explicitely designed to lie, but it does for its own self-interest or to achieve a directive, we can pretty much say that it's achieved sentience.

 

[jmvizanko]

Turing tests maybe, or a nice tidbit I took away from a discussion with a friend...

Well one could envision a computer program that was so good at language manipulation that it could hold conversations, even though its algorithms did not equate to sentience. It would be one hell of a program, but perhaps its possible. I've seen primitive attempts such as ELIZA.

He said if a machine isn't explicitely designed to lie, but it does for its own self-interest or to achieve a directive, we can pretty much say that it's achieved sentience.

An interesting requirement of sentience, and humorously misanthropic, but I guess it just doesn't sit very well with me as being an exhaustive indicator of sentience, and I don't really know why yet.

 

[Copernicus]

I agree. However, until we have a much greater scientific understanding of the brain, I think it is still pretty hard to make that argument. Unless I am just grotesquely ignorant of how far we are with neuroscience.

I don't think that you need to be a neurophysiologist to understand the argument that the brain sustains mental activity. All you have to do is observe the behavior of a drunk person and to think about how that person's behavior differs from a sober person's behavior.

It would be pretty amazing to discover that there is input coming into the physical brain from unexplainable sources, as if the brain is the keyboard for the spiritual mind. I don't assume that is the case, as there hasn't really been evidence for the supernatural in any other sphere of experience. But when it comes to what we really don't understand at all, I try to keep the jury out.

It is possible to have an opinion on the nature of reality without committing yourself to an irreversible position. You can take a stand and still remain open to changing your opinion.

Well one could envision a computer program that was so good at language manipulation that it could hold conversations, even though its algorithms did not equate to sentience. It would be one hell of a program, but perhaps its possible. I've seen primitive attempts such as ELIZA.

Eliza had nothing to do with real natural language processing. It was the computational equivalent of a parlor trick. You can program computers to simulate behavior that humans will mistake for intelligent behavior. That doesn't mean that the program actually is intelligent, Turing notwithstanding. He tended to define intelligence in operational terms, which was very characteristic of the 1950s. I believe that it is possible to create self-aware, conscious machines, but I do not believe that it is a realistic goal for the near future. There is still too much that we do not know about how human brains and human minds work.

 

[Rhizomatic]

I expected this kind of reaction. My response is that I think the generalization applies to most religions, not to mention superstitious beliefs in spirits, magic, and what-not. There are very few religions I am aware of that reject belief in an immaterial soul, and that belief certainly permeates the majority of folks who consider themselves religious.

That depends entirely upon how you count. If you want to go by populations of religious followers an immaterial soul is certainly a common religious belief. If you simply want to go by numbers of religions, though, there are quite a few (Buddhism, Taoism, Falun Gong, Thelema, various forms of modern Satanism, various non-theistic/ pantheist NeoPagan traditions, Unitarian Universalism, etc.) religions that explicitly reject and/or accept non-belief in immaterial souls/ gods. I agree that it's very common in religion, but I'm extraordinarily hesitant to turn that into a characteristic of religion.

 

[lunamoth]

Who said we would not have brains?

35But someone may ask, "How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?" 36How foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. 37When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else. 38But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body. 39All flesh is not the same: Men have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another. 40There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another. 41The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor. 42So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; 43it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.
If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"[e]; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. 46The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. 47The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven. 48As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the man from heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. 49And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we[f] bear the likeness of the man from heaven.
50I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— 52in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. 54When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: "Death has been swallowed up in victory."[g]
55"Where, O death, is your victory?
Where, O death, is your sting?"[h] 56The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. 57But thanks be to God! He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.