Religion
Related: About this forumThe brain: a user's guide
By Nigel Farndale
11:30AM BST 24 Apr 2012
It ought to be quite intimidating, talking to David Eagleman. He is one of the worlds leading neuroscientists, after all, known for his work on time perception, synaesthesia and the use of neurology in criminal justice. But as anyone who has read his best-selling books or listened to his TED talks online will know, he has a gift for communicating complicated ideas in an accessible and friendly way Brian Cox with an American accent.
- snip -
Indeed, according to Eagleman, we mostly run on unconscious autopilot. Our neural systems have been carved by natural selection to solve problems that were faced by our ancestors. Which brings me to another of his books, Why The Net Matters. As the father of children who spend a great deal of their time on the internet, I want to know if he thinks it is changing their brains.
- snip -
Eagleman calls himself neither religious nor atheist, I should point out, but a Possibilian, a denomination of his own invention, that, like the book, has attracted a cult following. The idea with Possibilians is that we dont know what is going on here. It is a big, strange, lovely cosmos and if theres one thing that is clear its that our ignorance of it is too vast to commit to atheism, and at the same time we know too much to commit to a particular religion.
If we get closer to understanding the human brain, will it help us understand the universe, I ask, not feeling entirely confident that my question makes any sense. Boy, that seems right, he says. (Phew). Whats happening in brain science at the moment is as exciting as the discoveries that are being made about the cosmos. Inner space and outer space. Maybe consciousness is a new kind of force, in the way electricity or magnetism is. It might be that, as we explore the brain, we come to an understanding of consciousness as being a separate property.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/9214684/The-brain-a-users-guide.html
yodermon
(6,143 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)I did not know that saying "I'm not convinced by your evidence" is a commitment, I guess. Silly me.
rug
(82,333 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)If online, I take it to the bigoted assholes.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Because of the negative repercussions, not really for myself but my family.
So am I committed to atheism then?
But there is a level of commitment and consequence to any position somebody takes, especially unpopular ones.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)patrice
(47,992 posts)Silent3
(15,259 posts)A "Possibilian" as defined in that article is merely a variety of atheist. The way Eagleman describes "Possibilian" describes me fairly well, but I still consider myself an atheist.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Eagleman seems to be making the all-too-common mistake of assuming all atheism = strong atheism.
Jim__
(14,083 posts)... to process the input from these electrodes as he climbs Mount Everest.
rug
(82,333 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)patrice
(47,992 posts)AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Last edited Thu Apr 26, 2012, 02:32 AM - Edit history (2)
Yawn....
Atheism is not the rejection of a particular religion.
It is the rejection of an ancient superstition: god
Only if you redefine "god" does this fly.
Under any traditional definition of a god, to an atheist, it's just not worth worrying about.
There's no need to go to the universe to reject a god. All species on this planet but one never made up such a concept. So god doesn't even "exist" on 99.99% of our own planet.
Must we go thru Russell's Teapot again???
darkstar3
(8,763 posts)words that are already available are really tiring.