Is our Brain Pre-Wired to Believe in G-d?

[empther]

The Neanderthals buried their dead 60-80,000 years ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanidar_1

There is evidence that Shanidar II was given a ritual send-off: a small pile of stones with some worked stone points (made out of chert) were found on top of his grave. Also, there had been a large fire by the burial site

So the Neanderthals had some concept of the soul, and by extension the afterlife.
They must have been wired to believe something.

 

[atheistgirl]

But why such a huge disparity? Why are so many millions pro abortion, for example?

Because they can weigh up the factors involved and determine their own mind on the issue and make a choice.

It certainly hasn’t always been that way. Seeing everyone as an enemy to be conquered has been more the way of the world than loving ones enemy. I mean, altruism is a relatively recent innovation. And what goes wrong in the case of mass genocide? Do things “go wrong” in one little part of the world, evolution somehow not getting its way so to speak on a grand scale?

Id like to understand how youre defining evolution

We have always been, and still are, to a greater or lesser extent, tribal. Empathy is not a ‘‘recent innovation’’. We have always been empathetic. The biochemical systems in the brain responsible for empathy are as old as we are.

In any case it’s hard to support the notion that evolution has determined that we all be consciously pro life/pro self worth.

If we werent, we would have died out. However, the very fact that we’ve now reached a notional 7 billionth member of the human population indicates our overall desire to procreate and survive is undiminished.

Sarah x

 

[empther]

In any case it’s hard to support the notion that evolution has determined that we all be consciously pro life/pro self worth.

You’re absolutely right.

Evolution could not do this.
Nor could it make us capable of understanding any concept, even those that have nothing to do with survival of the fittest.
Nor could it make somebody interested in art go to an art museum to enjoy the works of the masters.
Nor could it make us empathize with the suffering of animals.
Nor could it make us feel sorry for the deaths of a thousand people in a Chinese earthquake who we never knew and never would have met.

Yet we do all these things because they’re wired into our souls.

 

[atheistgirl]

You’re absolutely right.

Evolution could not do this.
Nor could it make us capable of understanding any concept, even those that have nothing to do with survival of the fittest.
Nor could it make somebody interested in art go to an art museum to enjoy the works of the masters.
Nor could it make us empathize with the suffering of animals.
Nor could it make us feel sorry for the deaths of a thousand people in a Chinese earthquake who we never knew and never would have met.

Yet we do all these things because they’re wired into our souls.

Can you provide some supporting evidence as to your assertations above. Incidently, evolution is not about the survival of the fittest!

Are you aware of any other descriptions in the areas of psychology or neurology that may account for the above - all of which have the processes of evolution at their base?

If, for example, empathy is wired into our soul, as you put it, why do psychiatrists and neurologists notice empathic changes in patients with brain injury?

Recent studies suggest that a fundamental mechanism of social behavior disturbed by acquired cerebral damage is empathy. Empathy refers to the cognitive and emotional processes that bind people together in various kinds of relationships that permit sharing of experiences as well as understanding of others. Empathic changes are particularly evident after focal prefrontal cortex damage and closed head injury in adults, though early frontal lobe damage is also associated with poor empathic and social development.

Source: Europen Neurology Vol 39 No. 4

Sarah x

 

[empther]

Originally Posted by empther forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
*You’re absolutely right.

Evolution could not do this.
Nor could it make us capable of understanding any concept, even those that have nothing to do with survival of the fittest.
Nor could it make somebody interested in art go to an art museum to enjoy the works of the masters.
Nor could it make us empathize with the suffering of animals.
Nor could it make us feel sorry for the deaths of a thousand people in a Chinese earthquake who we never knew and never would have met.

Yet we do all these things because they’re wired into our souls.*

Can you provide some supporting evidence as to your assertations above. Incidently, evolution is not about the survival of the fittest!

That’s got to be the most ridiculous statement I’ve seen this Fall.

If, for example, empathy is wired into our soul, as you put it, why do psychiatrists and neurologists notice empathic changes in patients with brain injury?

The soul depends on the body for some things. It the brain is severely injured, some change in behavior is not surprising. But the brain alone, considered as an organization of matter, can not solely be responsible for all human behaviors.

Consider, for example, the individual who undergoes a drastic change in behavior overnight, such as a criminal who suddenly finds religion and abandons all his evil behavior. This does happen frequently in this world. Can the brain alone explain it? No.

 

[atheistgirl]

Originally Posted by empther That’s got to be the most ridiculous statement I’ve seen this Fall.

Evolution can be defined as: The gradual development, from a less adaptable to a more adaptable form through the process of **natural selection **- ''survival of the fittest is a misnomer and shorthand that is both inaccurate and can be misleading. It has to do with adaptation.

Do you think we were ever ‘‘fitter’’ than the ancestor of a lion or cheetah? We know a lot about the physiology of Neanderthal and we know we cohabitated with them - they would beat us into a cocked hat in terms of strength and speed! Why did our line survive - because we were the most adaptable!!!

But the brain alone, considered as an organization of matter, can not solely be responsible for all human behaviors.

In previous posts Ive linked to several interesting articles and videos showing some of the ongoing work of scientists in the area of consciousness, behavior, empathy etc. More and more we are finding the locus for all this in the processes in the brain. Do you have any links to research papers for what you are stating above? The arguement from personal incredulity isnt a, well, credible one.

Can the brain alone explain it? No.

I think it can, and Ive linked to references for it. Do you have any references to peer reviewed scientific work that says the brain can not explain human choices? I would genuinely be very interested in reading them if you do for balance and fairness and for my own enlightment.

Sarah x

 

[tonyrey]

Then you believe we’re not just valueless freaks of nature which exist by chance!

Which amounts to being valueless freaks of nature which exist by chance!

That in no way diminishes our value or sense of self worth. To do so, would be to fly in the face of evolution!

If our value is based on our own **opinion **of ourselves it is dubious! “it” refers to both value and opinion.

 

[atheistgirl]

Which amounts to being valueless freaks of nature which exist by chance!

Not at all. Our evolution from common ancestory is well documented in the dna and fossil record. Slow, inexorable change retaining those random mutations that gave advantage over the course of billions of years. There is nothing freakish about us at all.

If our value is based on our own **opinion **of ourselves it is dubious! “it” refers to both value and opinion.

Who else’s opinion is there? Self esteem is a vital component of menal health. Mental health professionals know well the implications of damaged self esteem. We also strive for acceptance and respect from loved ones, family, friends, peers etc. We are a gregarious species.

We also give and get feedback all the time, and we can adjust our behavior, atitude etc to maintain friendships, working relationships, family ties and so forth. We can see and feel the responses and reactions of the people we care about.

We can love unconditionally. Something fundamental to raising well balanced, healthy children.

When you introduce a diety into the situation, and need that dieties approval to determine your self worth and value, then there’s problems I think, because believers are told they are sinners, unworthy, will never been quite good enough, always in a state of sin one way or another - if anything is sure to have a negative impact on your value and self worth surely it’s that mentality?!

That dieties love is also conditional. The consequence of not meeting those conditions - dying in a state of mortal sin - is potentially eternal punshment

There is nothing, absolutely nothing, that anyone I know could do, that would make me think never ending punishment is in an way a balanced or reasonable response. There is something inherent in that that completely undermines the value, self worth and integrity of the person.

Sarah x

 

[empther]

About evolution:
Your “adaptability” is survival of the fittest.

Human behavior can’t be solely due to the material brain.

Can the brain alone explain it? No.
I think it can, and Ive linked to references for it. Do you have any references to peer reviewed scientific work that says the brain can not explain hu
man choices? I would genuinely be very interested in reading them if you do for balance and fairness and for my own enlightment.

Can you provide any links to explanations of how a person who is not an artist and does not depend on art to make a living can be interested in art and visit art museums just for the pleasure of it if the material brain alone is solely responsible?
Can you give similar links to give a material only explanation of the other behavfiors I listed, which of course you ignore because they counter your position?

 

[atheistgirl]

About evolution:
Your “adaptability” is survival of the fittest.

It isnt, and it doesnt matter how much you say it lol, it’s the survival of the most adaptable.

Can you give similar links to give a material only explanation of the other behavfiors I listed, which of course you ignore because they counter your position?

You havent countered my position. There is nothing supernatural in us enjoying a painting. The pleasure areas of the brain and their stimuli are well understood. Ive addressed empathy numerous times here and on other threads and even linked to a piece of research in neurology showing the biological basis for it.

If you are genuinely interested in the scientific response, I suggest you do some research.

If you simply want to come back and say it’s not so, well, hey ho. Arguement from personal incredulity is invalid Im afraid.

Sarah x

 

[tonyrey]

There is nothing supernatural in us enjoying a painting. The pleasure areas of the brain and their stimuli are well understood.

Your argument implies that all mental activity is due to stimuli over which we have no control - in which case we are more than biological computers…

 

[atheistgirl]

Your argument implies that all mental activity is due to stimuli over which we have no control - in which case we are more than biological computers…

Then either I havent been clear or you have misunderstood - and here, have your sarcastic rolleyes back - I have no need for them.

What Ive done is referenced various peoples work which I find fascinating - and none of which includes involves or requires the supernatural.

Sarah x

 

[empther]

Your argument implies that all mental activity is due to stimuli over which we have no control - in which case we are more than biological computers…

It’s worse than that.
We would have no free will, because our behavior would be determined by what’s imprinted in our brains.
But people clearly make decisions, even decisions that work against themselves. An animal could not do this.

Of course, it is this free will that makes possible our imagination, our artistry for creating a painting, or the works of Shakespeare.

To say nothing of understanding all this stuff, which no material thing could do.

Atheistgirl keeps referring to llinks that talk about brain damage affecting people’s behavior,
… necessarily in a destructive way, of course…
but she just can’t seem to understand that these links don’t even begin to explain how our higher human behaviors are built up.

But we’ll never convince her.
It’s llike a mathematician I heard about who said anything divided by zero equalled one. ( I acccidently referred to that on another thread in a brain fart. ) Other mathematicians explained to him that dividing by zero is undefined, but he refused to accept it. He had a hangup.

 

[atheistgirl]

It’s worse than that.
We would have no free will, because our behavior would be determined by what’s imprinted in our brains.
But people clearly make decisions, even decisions that work against themselves. An animal could not do this.

Of course, it is this free will that makes possible our imagination, our artistry for creating a painting, or the works of Shakespeare.

To say nothing of understanding all this stuff, which no material thing could do.

Atheistgirl keeps referring to llinks that talk about brain damage affecting people’s behavior,
… necessarily in a destructive way, of course…
but she just can’t seem to understand that these links don’t even begin to explain how our higher human behaviors are built up.

But we’ll never convince her.
It’s llike a mathematician I heard about who said anything divided by zero equalled one. ( I acccidently referred to that on another thread in a brain fart. ) Other mathematicians explained to him that dividing by zero is undefined, but he refused to accept it. He had a hangup.

Youve simply expressed your personal incredulity. That’s not an argument. HAve you got any scientific peer reviewed papers to link to for the claims that we simply could not use our imagination to create great works of art or literature unless some divine intervention was involved? If not, youre presonal incredulity isnt presuasive in arguing the case.

There is some fantastic research out there on human behavior, how it is ‘‘built up’’ to use your words. Here’s a nice link to issues and views on free will and touches on philosophical and christian ideas as well as scientific - it’s not nearly as simply as you’d like to make out. experiencefestival.com/a/Free_will/id/1895135

Sarah x

 

[tonyrey]

Your argument implies that all mental activity is due to stimuli over which we have no control - in which case we are more than biological computers…

On the contrary you have made it quite clear that you believe:

1. There is nothing supernatural in us enjoying a painting and the pleasure areas of the brain and their stimuli are well understood.
2. You have referenced various peoples work and none of which includes involves or requires the supernatural.
3. Therefore - unless you accept the supernatural in other human activities (which you obviously don’t) - all human activity has natural causes and we are more than biological computers.

 

[tonyrey]

Youve simply expressed your personal incredulity. That’s not an argument.

It’s not an rational argument to accuse some one of expressing personal incredulity.You need to substantiate your implication that all human activity has physical causes…

 

[empther]

Atheistgirl wrote:

There is some fantastic research out there on human behavior, how it is ‘‘built up’’ to use your words. Here’s a nice link to issues and views on free will and touches on philosophical and christian ideas as well as scientific - it’s not nearly as simply as you’d like to make out. experiencefestival.com/a/…ill/id/1895135

All right, Atheistgirl. I clicked on your weird link….
……and the first thing on the top is an invitation to “Click Here for your Free Numerology Reading.

Definition of NUMEROLOGY
: the study of the occult significance of numbers

If this is where you get your philosophy, I pity you.

 

[atheistgirl]

Atheistgirl wrote:
]If this is where you get your philosophy, I pity you.

I get an ad for a hosting site

You do realise bulletin sites are often monetized and have no control over the ads placed there

Did you actually bother to read the essay

 

[empther]

Originally Posted by empther

forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
Atheistgirl wrote:
]If this is where you get your philosophy, I pity you.

I get an ad for a hosting site

You do realise bulletin sites are often monetized and have no control over the ads placed there

Not this website:
http://www2.nd.edu/Departments/Maritain/etext/gc.htm

 

[Faith1960]

atheistgirl wrote:

all right, atheistgirl. I clicked on your weird link….
……and the first thing on the top is an invitation to “click here for your free numerology reading.

definition of numerology
: The study of the occult significance of numbers

if this is where you get your philosophy, i pity you.

lol.