The Foundation of Religion

[Sleekstar]

Interestingly, Copernicus, as great a point as I thought you were making, I'm no longer sure I agree with it. Would, for example, Christianity be undermined by your argument? The thing is, under the most faithful interpretation of Christianity, a Christian who dies is literally dead, with no soul surviving, and does not live again until after Judgment Day, when the faithful are literally, physically raised from the dead. Jesus, according to scripture, was literally, physically raised from the dead and ascended, bodily, into heaven. The popular view that, for instance, Grandma is looking down on us from on high, in spiritual essence, while her body rots in her grave, does not comport with the New Testament.

So if it were proven conclusively, and held as true by all Christians, that the mind was a byproduct of the brain, the more faithful, true, scriptural version of that religion's afterlife concept would survive. The only thing it would require is that God himself also be regarded as a physical being.

I could also imagine some tweaking would occur in other religions as well. The independent soul, the brainless mind concept may exist in a pop psychology sense among some religious adherents, and it may exist as a core, fundamental element in some actual religions. But the overall concept of religion would survive, especially among the 60% of the population who adhere to Christianity and Islam. Those two faiths could easily adapt.

 

[drsatish]

Interestingly, Copernicus, as great a point as I thought you were making, I'm no longer sure I agree with it. Would, for example, Christianity be undermined by your argument? The thing is, under the most faithful interpretation of Christianity, a Christian who dies is literally dead, with no soul surviving, and does not live again until after Judgment Day, when the faithful are literally, physically raised from the dead. Jesus, according to scripture, was literally, physically raised from the dead and ascended, bodily, into heaven. The popular view that, for instance, Grandma is looking down on us from on high, in spiritual essence, while her body rots in her grave, does not comport with the New Testament.

So if it were proven conclusively, and held as true by all Christians, that the mind was a byproduct of the brain, the more faithful, true, scriptural version of that religion's afterlife concept would survive. The only thing it would require is that God himself also be regarded as a physical being.

I could also imagine some tweaking would occur in other religions as well. The independent soul, the brainless mind concept may exist in a pop psychology sense among some religious adherents, and it may exist as a core, fundamental element in some actual religions. But the overall concept of religion would survive, especially among the 60% of the population who adhere to Christianity and Islam. Those two faiths could easily adapt.

[FONT=&quot]Hi Sleekstar![/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Can you explain what you mean by your statements:[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]1. Would, for example, Christianity be undermined by your argument? [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Can you Rephrase the Question As:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Will the Universe EXIST if Christianity is Undermined TOTALLY?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]or[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Will the Universe EXIST if ANY RELIGION is Undermined TOTALLY?[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]"The thing is, under the most faithful interpretation of Christianity, a Christian who dies is literally dead, with no soul surviving, and does not live again until after Judgment Day,"...[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]You think there IS an ACTUAL JUDGMENT DAY?...like 2012? Other than 'quoting' papyrus or digital CD...do you have any Personally Verified 3-D Co-ordinates...for SOME EVENT..which will OCCUR in the 4th Dimension of Time...like 2012..this month...this second?[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Can you think if it could be just 'metaphorical' to induce a sense of 'conscientiousness in'...evolving baboons,..gorillas..homo erectus..homo sapiens..what ever?[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Is there a JUDGEMENT DAY....for Whales, Beetles, ..& Beatles?[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Concept of 'Judgement'[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] is to 'rein in' the cancerous cells..[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] & give hope/assurance to the normal cells...[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Do you think ANYTHING will HAPPEN to the Universe...[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] ...if ALL WHALES ..actually Disappear..?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] ...if ALL CHRISTIANS...actually Disappear..?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] ..if ALL XXians....actually Disappear..?[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] NO![/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] ..THE UNIVERSE will be INTACT...[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] ..EVEN if THE WHOLE EARTH DISAPPEARS![/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] NO![/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] ..THE UNIVERSE will be INTACT...[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] ...even if the SUN DISAPPEARS ..in a Supernova![/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] OR[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] ...even if the SUN DISAPPEARS ..in a Black Hole![/FONT]


[FONT=&quot] NO[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] ..THE UNIVERSE will be INTACT...[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] ...IRRESPECTIVE of Prophets....their guidance...[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] their misinterpretation...[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] their 'Flag' holding Followers...[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] .....when they, in fact, came to Deliver their message...[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] .... that THERE IS NO FLAG![/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Simply put,[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]the Universe CANNOT be TOUCHED...[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]......BY ..ANYTHING![/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]It is not 'Pop Psychology'....[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] ...but 'Rock' Psychology...like Iron Maiden, Uriah Heep, Black Sabbath, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd..?[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] Cast in Stone...[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] the Universe..[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] nothing can touch it![/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Satish[/FONT]

 

[bobhikes]

I know at least in the catholic religion the brain has no more power than the body. The soul given to you by god is what is all important. It must be cleansed of the body and mind sins. It is what god will receive in heaven.

 

[Copernicus]

Interestingly, Copernicus, as great a point as I thought you were making, I'm no longer sure I agree with it. Would, for example, Christianity be undermined by your argument? The thing is, under the most faithful interpretation of Christianity, a Christian who dies is literally dead, with no soul surviving, and does not live again until after Judgment Day, when the faithful are literally, physically raised from the dead. Jesus, according to scripture, was literally, physically raised from the dead and ascended, bodily, into heaven. The popular view that, for instance, Grandma is looking down on us from on high, in spiritual essence, while her body rots in her grave, does not comport with the New Testament.

Hi, Sleekstar. I'm well aware of this objection, but I disagree that there is a "most faithful interpretation of Christianity". Some Christians do believe that we all get physical bodies back, and it is true that Semitic and neighboring cultures developed rituals in which cadavers needed to be preserved, presumably for reanimation at a later time. The dead were interred with physical possessions that would help them in the afterlife.

It is still the case that the vast majority of Christians, as well as of other religious traditions, believe in a spiritual plane of existence. In that spiritual world, incorporeal minds are fully functional and capable of interacting in some way with the physical plane of existence. That mirrors our own experience as minds that manipulate the physical body through force of will. God himself is a mind that is supposed to have existed before physical reality came into being. So I would say that spiritual/physical dualism is still fundamental to most religious belief systems, regardless of the literal meaning of some passages in scripture.

So if it were proven conclusively, and held as true by all Christians, that the mind was a byproduct of the brain, the more faithful, true, scriptural version of that religion's afterlife concept would survive. The only thing it would require is that God himself also be regarded as a physical being.

I may be wrong, but I think that Mormons maintain this view.

I could also imagine some tweaking would occur in other religions as well. The independent soul, the brainless mind concept may exist in a pop psychology sense among some religious adherents, and it may exist as a core, fundamental element in some actual religions. But the overall concept of religion would survive, especially among the 60% of the population who adhere to Christianity and Islam. Those two faiths could easily adapt.

I do not think that even Christianity or Islam can really incorporate the idea of brain-dependent minds into their theology all that easily. For one thing, the resurrected being is an ideal of the physical one that dies. We all know that mental powers deteriorate as the brain ages, and sometimes the effects can be quite dramatic in terms of personality changes and memory loss. Where does all of that lost information get stored? Or are we to believe that Alzheimer victims get restored to the last state of mind that they had when they perished? I hardly think that that interpretation of the afterlife would be acceptable to most people. Autopsies of brains clearly link mental deterioration with specific types of brain deterioration.

 

[Rick B]

Your claim is confusing two different subjects.Theism(the belief in a god) or Theology(the study of God) is divided from the study of man in the Christian faith. The constitution of man is under the heading of Anthropology in "Systematic Theology". In the material/physical existence of man a child would know that there would be no mind/thought without a brain. One must accept the metaphysical reality of a spiritual existence of being to believe in "brainless minds" as you conceive it. Jesus demonstrated after His resurrection that there is a spiritual "body" after death. However the Father and the Holy Spirit are purely spirit. The spiritual body is not just an ideal physical body but one suited to exist throughout eternity without the same limitations of earthbound bodies. Paul discusses this in 1 Corinthians chapter 15 esp. vv35-44. He states there are heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies. There is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. Verse 38 "But God gives it a body just as He wished..." They will be similar and we will be recognized but as far above our earthly bodies as the heavens are above the earth to use a familiar analogy. The "spiritual basis", for the Christian religion at least, is certainly not what you postulate in your loaded question. That is not really a religious question at all but a simple medical one as I stated above when dealing with the mundane. A nonissue in the spiritual unless of course you believe in annihilationism and the non-existence of a redeeming God which inescapeably leads to skepticism(in the philosophical sense). The spiritual basis for religion, any religion, is explained in Romans 1:18-23-"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteaousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures." And verse 25 -"For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen." Several points - God has constituted every man with the knowledge of His exisence with the created order and inward awareness. There is no such thing as a true atheist but those who reject and suppress the truth. They create gods that serve their purpose, for all men everywhere are religious. If they worship nothing else they most certainly will lift their brain actuated mind above all others things making it their final authority.

 

[Penumbra]

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?

Good thread. I agree that most religions rely on the concept that the mind is not strictly reliant on the brain. Not only does it affect their afterlife model, but it also affects concepts of morality and meaning.

 

[Copernicus]

Thanks for the comment, Penumbra.

Your claim is confusing two different subjects...

Rick, after reading all of that commentary, I cannot see how you could have found what I wrote in the slightest bit confusing. your quotes simply confirmed my point that religion (in this case, yours) depends on the idea that brain-independent minds exist. The problem with that point of view lies in the observation that virtually all human mental function is tied to the the physical health and activity of a living brain. While it is remotely possible that minds can exist independently of the brains that appear to sustain them, there is no reasonable or credible evidence that they can. One would expect to find some such evidence to support religious belief on that subject, but there is none to be found.

 

[smokydot]

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.

Not all "gods" are without bodies, are just brainless minds. Those who worship animals, reptiles, or mythologial "gods" are worhsiping physical "gods."

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?

The only foundation for the God of the Bible is the revelation thereof. It is revelation, not "brainless minds" that is the foundation of Judaism or Christianity.
The source of their belief in spirits, and everything else, is not belief in "brainless minds."

You've got the cart before the horse when it comes to the God of the Bible.

And that Dawkins stuff is so incredibly uninformed on the matters it claims to treat.

 

[PolyHedral]

It is revelation, not "brainless minds" that is the foundation of Judaism or Christianity.

Revelation implicitly assumes the existence of the god doing the revealing, which in this case is bodyless.

 

[Copernicus]

Not all "gods" are without bodies, are just brainless minds. Those who worship animals, reptiles, or mythologial "gods" are worhsiping physical "gods."

Not necessarily. God totems can be seen as symbolic manifestations of the spiritual gods. After all, Christians pray before crosses and statues. They treat those physical objects with reverence and awe, but that doesn't mean that they confuse their god with the physical totems. Or does it?

The only foundation for the God of the Bible is the revelation thereof. It is revelation, not "brainless minds" that is the foundation of Judaism or Christianity.

Polyhedral pointed out the objection to this argument.

The source of their belief in spirits, and everything else, is not belief in "brainless minds."

Well, that is basically what I am claiming here. It was not just the Judeo-Christian tradition that I had in mind when I wrote the OP.

You've got the cart before the horse when it comes to the God of the Bible.

And that Dawkins stuff is so incredibly uninformed on the matters it claims to treat.

Can you back up such claims with a little bit of argument?

 

[smokydot]

Revelation implicitly assumes the existence of the god doing the revealing, which in this case is bodyless.

You're confusing the revelation with the believer.

This thread is about the believer. . .who learns of the existence of God from the revelation. . .who learns that God is spirit from the revelation.

He could have thought Zeus was a living person and was God. His foundation there would not have been a brainless mind.

 

[smokydot]

Not necessarily. God totems can be seen as symbolic manifestations of the spiritual gods.

My statement was, "Not all gods are without bodies. . ." That is the same as your "not necessarily."

Christians pray before crosses and statues. They treat those physical objects with reverence and awe, but that doesn't mean that they confuse their god with the physical totems. Or does it?

It means that your thinking is limited to inside the box.

Polyhedral pointed out the objection to this argument.

Not really. . .see post #71.

Well, that is basically what I am claiming here. It was not just the Judeo-Christian tradition that I had in mind when I wrote the OP.

Your claim was that the foundation of religion is the belief that God is a "brainless mind." The fact of the matter is: that is not true regarding Judaism or Christianity.

Can you back up such claims with a little bit of argument?

I just backed up my claim that Dawkins is wrong when he claims the foundation of the Jewish and Christian faiths is a pre-existing belief in the "brainless mind."
I will back up any other claims I make as more of Dawkins incredible lack of knowlege regarding the matters he claims to treat is presented.

 

[Copernicus]

You're confusing the revelation with the believer.

No, he was exactly right. The source of revelation is almost always associated with an immaterial spiritual being--a god. You are the only one who seems confused about this.

This thread is about the believer. . .who learns of the existence of God from the revelation. . .who learns that God is spirit from the revelation.

Here you merely confirm the point made in the OP--that your god, like all the other presumed false gods, is an immaterial being. This thread offers the opinion that such a perspective is inherent in mind-body dualism. Such dualism exists quite naturally because we perceive ourselves as minds that interact with physical bodies. It is a small step to think of other observed physical events as the product of an immaterial mind manipulating reality.

You are also quite confused about the nature of revelation. Believers acquire religion from other people, not direct revelation. They tend to trust in claims of revelation from other people. But doctrines vary on this matter.

He could have thought Zeus was a living person and was God. His foundation there would not have been a brainless mind.

I don't know what your obsession with Zeus is. I rather fancy Kukulkan, the Mayan god that inspired the Aztec god called Quetzalcoatl and may have had something to do with the fall of the Aztec empire to the Spanish.

My statement was, "Not all gods are without bodies. . ." That is the same as your "not necessarily."

Not really. Most cultures promote belief in invisible spirit forces that can manipulate physical reality.

It means that your thinking is limited to inside the box.

Certainly not any more than yours is.

Not really. . .see post #71.

Right. That's why I made a point of responding to it.

Your claim was that the foundation of religion is the belief that God is a "brainless mind." The fact of the matter is: that is not true regarding Judaism or Christianity.

But you have already admitted this, so why do you bother to deny it now? In post #71, you said that believers learned this "from revelation" rather than the quite natural instinctive basis I described in the OP.

I just backed up my claim that Dawkins is wrong when he claims the foundation of the Jewish and Christian faiths is a pre-existing belief in the "brainless mind."

He never claimed anything quite as specific as that. You clearly have not read anything he has written on the subject, and you read too much into the OP. In his treatise on possible causes for religion, he pointed out that we all seem to gravitate towards dualism naturally. The purpose of this thread was to point out that anything that tends to undermine belief in brain-independent minds also tends to undermine religious belief.

I will back up any other claims I make as more of Dawkins incredible lack of knowlege regarding the matters he claims to treat is presented.

To do that, you would actually need to read works that he has written, and you show no evidence of having done so.

 

[JustWondering]

Admiral Ackbar, to the bridge, please...

[youtube]piVnArp9ZE0[/youtube]
YouTube - ITS A TRAP!

 

[smokydot]

No, he was exactly right. The source of revelation is almost always associated with an immaterial spiritual being--a god. You are the only one who seems confused about this.

Are you sure about that? . .Cart before the horse again.

The revelation came first, which revealed the immaterial spiritual being.
The revelation is the source of the belief in the "brainless mind."
Belief in the "brainless mind" is not the source of the revelation.

Here you merely confirm the point made in the OP--that your god, like all the other presumed false gods, is an immaterial being. This thread offers the opinion that such a perspective is inherent in mind-body dualism. Such dualism exists quite naturally because we perceive ourselves as minds that interact with physical bodies. It is a small step to think of other observed physical events as the product of an immaterial mind manipulating reality.

Cart before the horse. . .again.

You are also quite confused about the nature of revelation. Believers acquire religion from other people, not direct revelation. They tend to trust in claims of revelation from other people. But doctrines vary on this matter.

Are you sure about that?

Not talking about doctrine. . .talking about actuality. . .Scriptural revelation is the source of Judaic and Christian belief that God is immaterial spirit.

I don't know what your obsession with Zeus is. I rather fancy Kukulkan, the Mayan god that inspired the Aztec god called Quetzalcoatl and may have had something to do with the fall of the Aztec empire to the Spanish.

Nor do I know what your obsession is with Quetzalcoati. . .

Not really. Most cultures promote belief in invisible spirit forces that can manipulate physical reality.

Repeating: My statement that "not all 'gods' are without bodies" is the same as your "most cultures promote. . ."

Certainly not any more than yours is.

It is until you see which is the horse. . .which is the cart. . .and which goes first.

Right.
But you have already admitted this, so why do you bother to deny it now? In post #71, you said that believers learned this "from revelation" rather than the quite natural instinctive basis I described in the OP.

Which shows the point of the OP, that all religions learn it from a natural instinctive basis, is in error.
Believers of Judaism and Christianity don't learn it that way.

He never claimed anything quite as specific as that. You clearly have not read anything he has written on the subject, and you read too much into the OP. In his treatise on possible causes for religion, he pointed out that we all seem to gravitate towards dualism naturally. The purpose of this thread was to point out that anything that tends to undermine belief in brain-independent minds also tends to undermine religious belief.

And I'm addressing the point made there that all religious belief in an immaterial God has its origin in an assumption.

To do that, you would actually need to read works that he has written, and you show evidence of having done so.

I don't need to read a book to respond to points of the OP.

GAME OVER. . .

 

[Storm]

I think that we can only know that for certain when we are aware of its imminence. But fear of death is one of the most basic instincts in all living beings. Survival is a prime imperative.

Survival instincts do not necessarily translate to any emotion.

 

[PolyHedral]

The revelation came first, which revealed the immaterial spiritual being.

But in order to say, "This was revealed to me by [Deity X]," you must first assume that there is such a thing as Deity X.

 

[smokydot]

But in order to say, "This was revealed to me by [Deity X]," you must first assume that there is such a thing as Deity X.

Not necessarily. . .I don't first assume that there is such a planet as Jupiter in order to believe the scientific revelation of it.

I can have no belief about it at all, one way or the other.
OR. . .I can even fervantly disbelieve until I read the revelation.

 

[PolyHedral]

Not necessarily. . .I don't first assume that there is such a planet as Jupiter in order to believe the scientific revelation of it.

You don't need to, because your reasoning for believing Jupiter is there isn't "Jupiter told me so!"

 

[smokydot]

You don't need to, because your reasoning for believing Jupiter is there isn't "Jupiter told me so!"

Believing the revelation is a matter of faith.

The OP is not about faith. . .it's about the foundation of religion being an assumption that God is an immaterial spirit., which assumption is held before the belief in a religion.

That is incorrect regarding Judaism and Christianity.
Those faiths are not based in an assumption.
They are based in ancient written revelation, which they believe.