A
AdoroTeDevote
Guest
Would like thoughts- this is troubling for me!
Last edited:
Neuroscience and psychology have rendered it basically unnecessary to have a soul
- Status
Would like thoughts- this is troubling for me!
B
Benadam
Guest
According to science there were humans with our physiology that weren’t able to think abstractly, ask the five W questions, didn’t have transcendental desires such as the desire for perfect truth or a need to know everything about the world around them. They weren’t explorers for the sake of just exploring.
Evolution of the flesh was dependent on the environment but for us it’s internalized because we shape the environment not visa versa. What according to science is the difference between us and them? Same brain.
People having near death experiences is studied with lots of data, hypnosis also is evidence of a soul. Google Father Spitzer Magis Center. He has a scientific approach to the question.
Evolution of the flesh was dependent on the environment but for us it’s internalized because we shape the environment not visa versa. What according to science is the difference between us and them? Same brain.
People having near death experiences is studied with lots of data, hypnosis also is evidence of a soul. Google Father Spitzer Magis Center. He has a scientific approach to the question.
Last edited:
C
christofirst
Guest
This is the materialist view, but not the Catholic, spiritual, understanding. I’m reading a book just now, “The Immoral Landscape of the New Atheism,” by John Gravino, that addresses this very topic. He writes about how ascetical practices improve our mental health, which is being proven by neuroscience, even though some neuroscientists insist this purely on account of chemical activity in the brain. The Church disagrees, as Gravino states: “Christianity does not deny any of the findings of neuroscience, for it readily acknowledges that the brain is the physical component of the mind. But Christianity adds a little something more, and that little something more is called the soul. Christianity insists that the ultimate explanation for the benefits of asceticism does not stop at the level of brain physiology. It goes one level deeper, to a spiritual reality. On the spiritual view, brain chemistry and physiology are not the true cause of mental health. They do not produce mental health; rather, they are the results, the effects and the symptoms of mental health.”
Also, not all neuroscientists stop at what can be observed empirically, the materialist position. For example, Dr. Mario Beauregard, of the University of Arizona, who claims to have no religious affiliation, still insists that we have a spiritual component to our make-up, and that the mind is more than the brain, what we traditionally call the soul.
Also, not all neuroscientists stop at what can be observed empirically, the materialist position. For example, Dr. Mario Beauregard, of the University of Arizona, who claims to have no religious affiliation, still insists that we have a spiritual component to our make-up, and that the mind is more than the brain, what we traditionally call the soul.
Last edited:
S
semper_catholicus
Guest
This is the problem withmodern psycology.
C
Convert3
Guest
We should pray for his soul.
S
STT
Guest
He attacks the substance dualism. Catholics believe in Hylomorphic dualism wherein soul is form of matter.
S
Shakuhachi
Guest
“If the soul is where emotion and motivation reside, where mental activity occurs, sensations are perceived, memories are stored, reasoning takes place and decisions are taken, then there is no need to hypothesize its existence. There is an organ that already performs these functions: the brain.”
I am not sure that is what the soul is. That is why contemplation, as a spiritual practice, takes us beyond emotions, motivations, memories and reasoning. All that is like clouds passing by the inner witness who is the soul.
I am not sure that is what the soul is. That is why contemplation, as a spiritual practice, takes us beyond emotions, motivations, memories and reasoning. All that is like clouds passing by the inner witness who is the soul.
W
Wesrock
Guest
This author and D.K. Johnson seem to be thinking of the soul as an (over simplified strawman) Cartesian res cogitans but seem to lack any actual experience in philosophy of the mind discussions. When I and trained philosophers (not all Christian or theists) say that materialism is insufficient for a complete theory of the mind, it’s not because I dispute the role brain processes have in any of the above operations he mentions.
Last edited:
E
edwest211
Guest
Thank you. Well done.
S
Socrates92
Guest
Modern psychologists have some issues themselves…
Full disclosure: Haven’t actually read the article yet. My distracted student brain is unable to focus right now, but I will later.
Full disclosure: Haven’t actually read the article yet. My distracted student brain is unable to focus right now, but I will later.
T
Thorolfr
Guest
If brain chemistry and physiology are not the true cause of someone’s state of mental health but are only a product or symptom of someone mental health, then how does that explain a neurodevelopmental disorder like ADHD, for example which appears to be caused at least in part by faulty neurotransmission of dopamine in the brain?
Research including twin studies have revealed that ADHD is highly heritable so that it tends to run in families and a number of specific genes have been linked to ADHD, many of which directly affect dopamine neurotransmission in the brain. And stimulant medications such as Ritalin and Adderall, both of which have an effect on dopamine, help improve the symptoms of ADHD.
If this faulty neurotransmission of dopamine linked to ADHD is only a symptom of bad mental health caused by spiritual forces, then how can we explain the genetic component of ADHD and the fact that it is probably inherited?
A
AZ42
Guest
Other scientists have found evidence of an immaterial part of humans that lives on after death. Can’t find the exact article right now, but to say that science disproves the soul is incorrect.
S
Servant31
Guest
Forgive me but I actually had a hard time getting through the article I had so many disagreements with his conclusions and reasoning…
Have you ever heard of the near death experience of Dr Eben Alexander? He is a neurosurgeon who died and saw God (if you believe his story is credible) or at least some of the spiritual. The interesting thing about his experience specifically was that he had a specific type of meningitis which rendered much if his brain inert. Thus it wasn’t possible for this to simply be an illusion or the brain trying to make sense of a diseased state, his brain wasn’t functioning at all. It was his soul experiencing this, his consciousness separate from his body’s function. Many near death experiences state similar. He also later spoke of scientists’ tendency to view consciousness from a “reductionist materialism” perspective. This is, generally, the idea that everything, including consciousness, is simply an expression of the physical components of the brain. Ie Everything is just a synergistic expression of smaller functioning parts. This is taught as fact by many in medicine and academics. Truthfully as a lower level science person myself it drives me nuts. I see little evidence for this theory, and in fact the near death experience evidence is often clearly to the contrary. There is simply no current scientific test for God or the existence of the soul. Certainly nothing that could prove or disprove it one way or another. In the context of the article I personally feel there are quite a few logical leaps and conclusions based on insufficient or non-relevant data to make these claims. At any rate I’ve written a wall of text here but in short I wouldn’t worry about this type of thing, I think there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. Not to mention I just saw two psychologists at a church dinner.
Have you ever heard of the near death experience of Dr Eben Alexander? He is a neurosurgeon who died and saw God (if you believe his story is credible) or at least some of the spiritual. The interesting thing about his experience specifically was that he had a specific type of meningitis which rendered much if his brain inert. Thus it wasn’t possible for this to simply be an illusion or the brain trying to make sense of a diseased state, his brain wasn’t functioning at all. It was his soul experiencing this, his consciousness separate from his body’s function. Many near death experiences state similar. He also later spoke of scientists’ tendency to view consciousness from a “reductionist materialism” perspective. This is, generally, the idea that everything, including consciousness, is simply an expression of the physical components of the brain. Ie Everything is just a synergistic expression of smaller functioning parts. This is taught as fact by many in medicine and academics. Truthfully as a lower level science person myself it drives me nuts. I see little evidence for this theory, and in fact the near death experience evidence is often clearly to the contrary. There is simply no current scientific test for God or the existence of the soul. Certainly nothing that could prove or disprove it one way or another. In the context of the article I personally feel there are quite a few logical leaps and conclusions based on insufficient or non-relevant data to make these claims. At any rate I’ve written a wall of text here but in short I wouldn’t worry about this type of thing, I think there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. Not to mention I just saw two psychologists at a church dinner.
T
Thorolfr
Guest
How is the soul different from the brain? If the brain is somehow impaired by disease or injury such as late stage Alzheimer’s or dementia or a stroke, does the soul still have memories or likes and dislikes? Does the soul have a personality or display emotions? A recent book by the neuroscientist, Professor Lisa Friedman Barrett, How Emotions Are Made, shows the progress that science is making in understanding how our emotions are produced by our brains. So, if all the things I listed such as emotions, memories, etc. are produced by our brains, then what would our soul be if the brain isn’t working properly? Would it be something with no emotions, no memories, no personality, etc., and if so, wouldn’t it be kind of an empty shell?
Last edited:
T
Thorolfr
Guest
I don’t agree with Fr Ripperger’s claim that if someone leads a good Catholic life, they are far less likely to have any mental health problems. He also says that medications just mask the symptoms. So if someone has clinical depression or schizophrenia or OCD or bipolar disorder, all they have to do is lead a good Catholic life and all their mental health problems will just go away?
Last edited:
B
Bradskii
Guest
The article was probably buried on an inside page of some local newspaper. Not exactly the biggest discovery in history.
Oh, wait…
L
Lee1
Guest
I think the soul develops in the background and the ego is the active part of our minds that we are aware of. If someone gets dementia I think this affects the ego or conscious mind but not the soul which cannot be affected by the organic brain deterioration in the way that the conscious mind is. After death of the organic brain I think the soul then leaves intact in the fullness of the developmental state it reached, in that way it is then whole, and in the same way we are made whole since we are no longer simply our conscious mind which was the product of our now deceased organic brain.
All of which is simply my subjective viewpoint and imagination.
All of which is simply my subjective viewpoint and imagination.
L
Lee1
Guest
In a ‘straight talking introduction to psychiatric drugs’ Dr J. Moncrieff, a psychiatrist, explains how psychiatric drugs do indeed deal with symptoms but do not treat the underlying disorder. In fact she explains how little they know about the underlying mechanisms involved in psychiatric disorders.
It’s a very interesting book. Unless I am very mistaken she advocates the temporary use of minimal dosage of drugs, however I would advise that one should read her book oneself.
Clearly since we are mind, body and spirit it is difficult, if not impossible to determine how affected we may be by outside influences. I could imagine that since prayer is definitely heard and we are sometimes aware of actual results emanating from those prayers in the world that we might at times be affected by external forces. Cases of miraculous healing for example seem to indicate that too.
It’s a very interesting book. Unless I am very mistaken she advocates the temporary use of minimal dosage of drugs, however I would advise that one should read her book oneself.
Clearly since we are mind, body and spirit it is difficult, if not impossible to determine how affected we may be by outside influences. I could imagine that since prayer is definitely heard and we are sometimes aware of actual results emanating from those prayers in the world that we might at times be affected by external forces. Cases of miraculous healing for example seem to indicate that too.
R
Rubee
Guest
It’s certainly a naturally occurring phenomenon, ADHD. What I disagree with is that it’s a disorder. Some argue that it’s just a different but perfectly natural way of being human. It’s my view too. Because it has gifts along with those ‘symptoms’ considered to be problematic.
Last edited:
- Status