Neanderthal Man

peakpilgrim

Hi

RE: NEANDERTHAL MAN

Did Neanderthal man have a Soul?

My own opinion is that I do not know, but, it is believed that he had his own language and he was capable of constructive thought; so he was, possibly, capable of believing in a GOD.

Does anyone have an opinion on this.

Kind Regards.

PDN

My own opinion (and, like noses, everyone has one) is that Neanderthals, like any other animal, possessed a soul (mind, will, emotion) but lacked a spirit (the part of us that communicates with God).

kelly1

PDN wrote: »

My own opinion (and, like noses, everyone has one) is that Neanderthals, like any other animal, possessed a soul (mind, will, emotion) but lacked a spirit (the part of us that communicates with God).

I'd agree with that. The neanderthal's soul would have been mortal, unlike ours.

Seoid

I don't think we (as in 'humanity') can answer that question with the info available.

First of all, what do you mean by 'soul'??? Is it the part of you that is capable of thoughts? Is it the part of you that is capable of being in touch with God? I don't fully understand PDN's distinction between soul and spirit.

Secondly, as far as I know, we don't know to what extent they (or other non-homo sapiens hominids) were capable of constructive or contemplative thought.

Maybe you're wondering if we can call them, broadly speaking, 'human' or 'animal' but I don't know how clear the distinction can be made.

Manach

From memory, there is evidence that Neanderthals had burial rituals - e.g. laying out bodies in a formal manner with funeral goods/flowers. To me this would suggest that they had some form of concept of an afterlife, a continuance of a soul?

kelly1

Seoid wrote: »

I don't think we (as in 'humanity') can answer that question with the info available.

First of all, what do you mean by 'soul'??? Is it the part of you that is capable of thoughts? Is it the part of you that is capable of being in touch with God? I don't fully understand PDN's distinction between soul and spirit.

Secondly, as far as I know, we don't know to what extent they (or other non-homo sapiens hominids) were capable of constructive or contemplative thought.

Maybe you're wondering if we can call them, broadly speaking, 'human' or 'animal' but I don't know how clear the distinction can be made.

See if this article helps? http://www.rosary-center.org/ll50n4.htm

Bduffman

PDN wrote: »

My own opinion (and, like noses, everyone has one) is that Neanderthals, like any other animal, possessed a soul (mind, will, emotion) but lacked a spirit (the part of us that communicates with God).

Mind, will & emotion comes from the brain. So is a soul just another name for the brain?

Bduffman

kelly1 wrote: »

I'd agree with that. The neanderthal's soul would have been mortal, unlike ours.

Is there any scripture to support that?

kelly1

Bduffman wrote: »

Mind, will & emotion comes from the brain. So is a soul just another name for the brain?

Mind is too broad a term I think but I would say intellect and will come from the soul/spirit.

Brain <> Soul. Soul is the life "principle" in all living things and in man it's spiritual.

Bduffman wrote: »

Is there any scripture to support that?

Not that I know of. I'm assuming that Adam & Eve were the first homo sapiens who were given spiritual souls by God.

Bduffman

kelly1 wrote: »

Mind is too broad a term I think but I would say intellect and will come from the soul/spirit.

Brain <> Soul. Soul is the life "principle" in all living things and in man it's spiritual.

Pretty sure all those things come from the organ we know as the brain. Admittedly, there are many things we don't know about the brain yet, but I suppose thats why we use terms like 'soul'. Its something that has always been done for things we don't fully understand.

kelly1 wrote: »

Not that I know of. I'm assuming that Adam & Eve were the first homo sapiens who were given spiritual souls by God.

Hmmm. Why didn't god mention them? Do you think the people who wrote the bible didn't know anything about neanderthals? Does that mean that god chose not to mention them? Even though he obviously knew that humans would become aware of them later (through scientific research & study), it would have been a very persuasive argument in support of the idea that the writers of the bible were truly inspired.
I suppose I am also to assume that while adam & eve were living it up in the garden of eden, the neanderthals were slumming it outside? And I suppose that any possible cross-breeding between homo-sapiens & neanderthals created some sort of beings with half-souls?

PDN

Bduffman wrote: »

Mind, will & emotion comes from the brain. So is a soul just another name for the brain?

More the mind than the brain. The brain is simply a hunk of meat. The mind, however, would be the sum of our thoughts, feelings and emotions.

The Greek word for soul psyche gives us a good clue to its meaning. Think of our English words that contain 'pysch' - they tend to be to do with the mind: psychology, psychiatry, psychadelic etc.

The spirit (Hebrew ruach or Greek pneuma) is the part of us that was created to share communion with God. Man was not really human until God breathed the spirit into him.

I would be open to Noel's idea that Adam and Eve were simply the first two people into whom spirits were breathed. This could make them contemporary with Neanderthals, or maybe long after Neanderthals had died out - we simply don't know and it would be pure speculation.

Hoping for an afterlife, BTW, would not, for me, be any evidence or indication of possessing a spirit - no more than having mating rituals or cleaning one's plumage.

Bduffman

PDN wrote: »

More the mind than the brain. The brain is simply a hunk of meat. The mind, however, would be the sum of our thoughts, feelings and emotions.

The Greek word for soul psyche gives us a good clue to its meaning. Think of our English words that contain 'pysch' - they tend to be to do with the mind: psychology, psychiatry, psychadelic etc.

The spirit (Hebrew ruach or Greek pneuma) is the part of us that was created to share communion with God. Man was not really human until God breathed the spirit into him.

I would be open to Noel's idea that Adam and Eve were simply the first two people into whom spirits were breathed. This could make them contemporary with Neanderthals, or maybe long after Neanderthals had died out - we simply don't know and it would be pure speculation.

Hoping for an afterlife, BTW, would not, for me, be any evidence or indication of possessing a spirit - no more than having mating rituals or cleaning one's plumage.

The heart is also just a chunk of meat but it performs a function that keeps us alive - ditto the lungs etc. Not a huge stretch of imagination to believe that another chunk of meat gives us our thoughts, psyche, thoughts, feelings emotions - and therefore our desire for an afterlife. But again, we don't know for sure - therefore people tend to invent a mystical name for the things we haven't discovered yet.
And it is more than 'speculation' that neanderthals lived at the same time as humans. And if so it is not a stretch to suggest that they could have cross bred. If so, did god suck the 'spirit' out of their offspring?

Húrin

Bduffman wrote: »

I suppose I am also to assume that while adam & eve were living it up in the garden of eden, the neanderthals were slumming it outside?

Why do you assume that people are trying to make you believe things?

Fanny Cradock

Húrin wrote: »

Why do you assume that people are trying to make you believe things?

Good point.

Bduffman

Húrin wrote: »

Why do you assume that people are trying to make you believe things?

:rolleyes: Ok I'll rephrase it. You expect some people to assume these things. Obviously I'm not one of those people - I'm gutted.

Talk about avoiding the point.

Rev Hellfire

PDN wrote: »

My own opinion (and, like noses, everyone has one) is that Neanderthals, like any other animal, possessed a soul (mind, will, emotion) but lacked a spirit (the part of us that communicates with God).

I'm curious about your answer, working on the assumption that you believe in evolution (guided or not). The question must be at what point did man obtain a soul. And what makes you so sure that this event happened after the spilt from homosapien ancestor.

PDN

Bduffman wrote: »

The heart is also just a chunk of meat but it performs a function that keeps us alive - ditto the lungs etc. Not a huge stretch of imagination to believe that another chunk of meat gives us our thoughts, psyche, thoughts, feelings emotions - and therefore our desire for an afterlife. But again, we don't know for sure - therefore people tend to invent a mystical name for the things we haven't discovered yet.
And it is more than 'speculation' that neanderthals lived at the same time as humans. And if so it is not a stretch to suggest that they could have cross bred. If so, did god suck the 'spirit' out of their offspring?

Yes, the brain does IMHO give us all those things - but that is different from the question you had asked (is the brain just another word for a soul). I would also agree that the brain probably gives us a desire for an afterlife, which is a very different thing from having a spirit that communicates with God.

I know of no evidence of neanderthals cross-breeding with homo sapiens - in fact I believe DNA analysis suggests the opposite. So I won't bother speculating about that hypothetical question.

Rev Hellfire wrote:

I'm curious about your answer, working on the assumption that you believe in evolution (guided or not). The question must be at what point did man obtain a soul. And what makes you so sure that this event happened after the spilt from homosapien ancestor.

Nothing 'makes me so sure'. This whole thread is highly speculative and I've stressed that what I'm sharing is simply my opinion.

We have no idea at what point man obtained a spirit.

As I've already said, I believe man always possessed a soul, just as many animals have souls. A soul, as others have said, is simply a word to describe our mind, will & emotions which would appear to be caused by our brains.

Bduffman

PDN wrote: »

I know of no evidence of neanderthals cross-breeding with homo sapiens - in fact I believe DNA analysis suggests the opposite. So I won't bother speculating about that hypothetical question.

True - no great evidence. But the idea that they may have cross-bred is hardly impossible. Certainly more believable than adam & eve being the first homosapiens surely?
So, as we agree this is just 'speculation' I wonder what kind of 'soul' or 'spirit' their offspring would have, compared to their homosapien parent?

Seoid

Is it really so impossible to believe that neanderthals had a relationship with God or a potential for an afterlife?
To me, having a belief in the afterlife implies an ability for contemplative thought and meaningful relationships - including with God. Why would God make creatures capable of having a relationship with him and then deny it?

What is the reason that this is such a touchy topic?
Is it because there's no mention in the bible? we already know of one other 'species' that has a relationship with God (angels) and the bible only seems to mention things that are relevant to us but this might not have anything to do with us.

Is it because we like to believe that we're the centre of the universe? Did God create reality just so that he could make us?

What if there are aliens? It wouldn't make any difference to our situation re. God or salvation.

Just curious!

peakpilgrim

Seoid wrote: »

Is it really so impossible to believe that neanderthals had a relationship with God or a potential for an afterlife?
To me, having a belief in the afterlife implies an ability for contemplative thought and meaningful relationships - including with God. Why would God make creatures capable of having a relationship with him and then deny it?

What is the reason that this is such a touchy topic?
Is it because there's no mention in the bible? we already know of one other 'species' that has a relationship with God (angels) and the bible only seems to mention things that are relevant to us but this might not have anything to do with us.

Is it because we like to believe that we're the centre of the universe? Did God create reality just so that he could make us?

What if there are aliens? It wouldn't make any difference to our situation re. God or salvation.

Just curious!

Hi

You raise some interesting points.

The Catholic Church's position on Evolution, as I understand it, is that at some point God gave Man a Soul; possibly at the time he was able to realize
that there was a God and was capable of worship.

This may have been before, or after neanderthal man; The Baptism of Desire would then mean that, if he was true of heart and followed his conscience he could inherit eternal life.

Neanderthal Man was 'ethnically cleansed' from the planet by Homo-Sapiens.

We don't know enough about the creature, at this time, to form a cast iron theory but, if he was as intelligent as Homo-Sapiens, we may be guilty of 'Prejudice' by not giving him his rightful place in God's Kingdom.

The same analysis could, also, be applied to Intelligent Alien Species; if there are any out there.

Galvasean

peakpilgrim wrote: »

Neanderthal Man was 'ethnically cleansed' from the planet by Homo-Sapiens.

Hang on now. There is insufficient evidence to make that statement. Thus far there has been one (unconfirmed) case of 'modern' humans eating a neanderthal. To say we wiped them out is jumping the gun.

wolfsbane

Please note: there is an alternative view of the Neanderthals held by many Christians, for example:
http://creation.com/neanderthal-children-s-fossils

Galvasean

wolfsbane wrote: »

Please note: there is an alternative view of the Neanderthals held by many Christians, for example:
http://creation.com/neanderthal-children-s-fossils

That article makes the assumption that orthodox science still believes that modern humans are decended from neanderthals which isn't true. So it's starting off with a misconception from the word go. Considering some of the evolutionary sources cited date back to the 1930s they're hardly having a go with modern scientific thinking.
A Young Earth Creationist website basing an agument off misrepresentation? Well i never!

I could go into much greater detail, citing examples where the article is just plain wrong, but there's not much point when the article is so fundamentally flawed.

wolfsbane

Galvasean wrote: »

That article makes the assumption that orthodox science still believes that modern humans are decended from neanderthals which isn't true. So it's starting off with a misconception from the word go. Considering some of the evolutionary sources cited date back to the 1930s they're hardly having a go with modern scientific thinking.
A Young Earth Creationist website basing an agument off misrepresentation? Well i never!

I could go into much greater detail, citing examples where the article is just plain wrong, but there's not much point when the article is so fundamentally flawed.

My point was to show that many Christians regard the Neanderthals as fellow humans, not pre-humans or contemporary apes.

As to modern evolutionary theories, the author cites a fairly recent work: I. Tattersall, ‘Species Recognition in Human Paleontology’, J. of Human Evolution, Vol.15, 1986, pp. 165–175. Are you saying Tattersall did not present the Neanderthals as transitional fossils?

marco_polo

wolfsbane wrote: »

My point was to show that many Christians regard the Neanderthals as fellow humans, not pre-humans or contemporary apes.

As to modern evolutionary theories, the author cites a fairly recent work: I. Tattersall, ‘Species Recognition in Human Paleontology’, J. of Human Evolution, Vol.15, 1986, pp. 165–175. Are you saying Tattersall did not present the Neanderthals as transitional fossils?

Are you saying he did?

Having read one of his books and some interviews I severly doubt he ever presented such a view in any of his papers.

Could it be that his paper contained the sentence "Neanderthals are a grouping of fossils that often have been used as transitional fossils by palaeoanthropologists in the past", and the proceeded to argue strongly against the fact?

Hey presto! Magically you have a legitimate creationist scientific reference. The slight of hand is simply brilliant. :rolleyes:

.......

Neanderthals are a grouping of fossils that often have been used as transitional fossils by palaeoanthropologists in the past,2 and presented to the public as drawings of reconstructions, photographs of isolated parts, and reconstructions made of either plaster or combinations of bone and plastic-like material. Were their faces reconstructed accurately?


2. I. Tattersall, ‘Species Recognition in Human Paleontology’, J. of Human Evolution, Vol.15, 1986, pp. 165–175.

In case you are interested in his actual opinions on the topic read this

http://www.amazon.com/Extinct-Humans-Ian-Tattersall/dp/0813339189

Helix

PDN wrote: »

More the mind than the brain. The brain is simply a hunk of meat. The mind, however, would be the sum of our thoughts, feelings and emotions.

start messing round with the hunk of meat and the thoughts, feelings and emotions arent long in either disappearing or screwing up completely though

Galvasean

wolfsbane wrote: »

My point was to show that many Christians regard the Neanderthals as fellow humans, not pre-humans or contemporary apes.

Well technically (biologically speaking) they are humans as they are (like us) part of the genus Homo (not to be confused with the abbreviation for gay people).

*Scientists disagree exactly where the neanderthal lies in relation to humans. Most agree that they are a seperate species of human (Homo neanderthalensis as opposed to Homo sapiens[us]). However some believe them to be asubspecies of our own, Homo sapiens neanderthaensis and that the two were capable of interbreeding. unfortunately, romantic as the idea that the neanderthals still walk among us is, the evidence is not very compelling.

You probably should have highlighted that is what you meant as the article you linked to had a lot more to say than just that. As a result your (valid) point was lost to me amongst some of the junk perpetuated in the article.
Sorry for missing your point. I get a bit mad when i see things that are palaeontologically incorrect.

Wolfsbane wrote:

As to modern evolutionary theories, the author cites a fairly recent work: I. Tattersall, ‘Species Recognition in Human Paleontology’, J. of Human Evolution, Vol.15, 1986, pp. 165–175. Are you saying Tattersall did not present the Neanderthals as transitional fossils?

Over the last 23 years so much work has gone into studying neanderthals and so much has been discovered that a source from 1986 isn't the best starting point.

Everything else I wanted to say was said by marco_polo in his last post.

PDN

Galvasean wrote: »

unfortunately, romantic as teh idea that the neanderthals still walk among us is, the evidence is not very compelling.

You haven't watched Borat then?

Galvasean

Sorry I forgot to address the main point in the OP re: would neanderthals have souls?

Well as most of you probably know I don't believe in the immortal soul but if I were to play devil's advocate and assume there was such a thing I'd be inclined to say the neabderthals would have had one.
Since we have uncovered evidence that they buried their dead in ritualistic ceremonies they must have had some sort of belief in life beyond mortal life so to speak. Surely having such an awareness of an afterlife would indicate having an immortal soul. After all, why would God create creatures capable of knowing such things only to deny them?

Galvasean

PDN wrote: »

You haven't watched Borat then?

Are you implying that Americans are an artless people?

Coriolanus

Working on the premise that humans have an immortal soul (which I don't beleive, just for the record) then knowing about the structured burial customs of neanderthals then on that basis I'd imagine they had one too.
It's always been presented to me at least that religion is the outward manifestation of humanities soul-bearing and neanderthals seemed to have at least some of the forms of religion.

Zombrex

peakpilgrim wrote: »

Hi

RE: NEANDERTHAL MAN

Did Neanderthal man have a Soul?

My own opinion is that I do not know, but, it is believed that he had his own language and he was capable of constructive thought; so he was, possibly, capable of believing in a GOD.

Does anyone have an opinion on this.

Kind Regards.

Most Christians appear to say (when asked about extra-terrestrial life) they don't have any problem with other alien life having a relationship with God.

So I imagine they wouldn't have any problem with another terrestrial life form having a relationship with God.

wolfsbane

marco_polo said:

Quote:
As to modern evolutionary theories, the author cites a fairly recent work: I. Tattersall, ‘Species Recognition in Human Paleontology’, J. of Human Evolution, Vol.15, 1986, pp. 165–175. Are you saying Tattersall did not present the Neanderthals as transitional fossils?
Are you saying he did?

Having read one of his books and some interviews I severly doubt he ever presented such a view in any of his papers.

Could it be that his paper contained the sentence "Neanderthals are a grouping of fossils that often have been used as transitional fossils by palaeoanthropologists in the past", and the proceeded to argue strongly against the fact?

Hey presto! Magically you have a legitimate creationist scientific reference. The slight of hand is simply brilliant.

It would be deplorable if that was so. to establish that would require some deeper research on what the author was saying about evolutionary ancestry, and I don't have time to devote to that now. But if you want to follow him up and point out his arguments, I'll come back.

My point was to show Creationists regard the Neanderthals as fully human.

wolfsbane

Galvasean said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
My point was to show that many Christians regard the Neanderthals as fellow humans, not pre-humans or contemporary apes.
Well technically (biologically speaking) they are humans as they are (like us) part of the genus Homo (not to be confused with the abbreviation for gay people).

*Scientists disagree exactly where the neanderthal lies in relation to humans. Most agree that they are a seperate species of human (Homo neanderthalensis as opposed to Homo sapiens[us]). However some believe them to be asubspecies of our own, Homo sapiens neanderthaensis and that the two were capable of interbreeding. unfortunately, romantic as the idea that the neanderthals still walk among us is, the evidence is not very compelling.

When I say human, I mean us.

You probably should have highlighted that is what you meant as the article you linked to had a lot more to say than just that. As a result your (valid) point was lost to me amongst some of the junk perpetuated in the article.
Sorry for missing your point. I get a bit mad when i see things that are palaeontologically incorrect.

Yes, highlighting the specifics would have kept us on topic. Thanks.

Galvasean

Galvasean wrote: »

Hang on now. There is insufficient evidence to make that statement. Thus far there has been one (unconfirmed) case of 'modern' humans eating a neanderthal. To say we wiped them out is jumping the gun.

Just taught I'd bump this as new evidence has emerged of another case where a human most likely killed a neanderthal.

wolfsbane

Galvasean wrote: »

Just taught I'd bump this as new evidence has emerged of another case where a human most likely killed a neanderthal.

Thanks. Doesn't change my case, of course - that neanderthals were human too. We are very prone to eliminating the opposition.

Bougeoir

Well humans evolved from other more ape-like beings such as the Neanderthals over a long period of time. So it wasn't like the Neanderthals existed 100 years ago and then 100 years later they're humans. It was gradual extremely gradual actually over such a long period of time that we'd find it hard to understand the time frame. And between the Neanderthals and modern human our species would have gone through many other different stages of evolution changing even so slightly by natural Selection. Pretty amazing I must admit. So there are a few viewpoints one can take, either what we call the soul is actually mortal in every creature which is a rather Materialist viewpoint or everything has a soul which would be a more Pantheist/New Age sort of view. Both viewpoints conflict with Christianity. One of the main reasons I reject Christianity, Judaism, Islam they just conflict with modern science and aren't compatible in so many ways.

toiletduck

Bougeoir wrote: »

Well humans evolved from other more ape-like beings such as the Neanderthals

Modern day homo sapiens did not evolve from Neanderthals. They were on a different 'branch' of the homo tree.

Bougeoir

toiletduck wrote: »

Modern day homo sapiens did not evolve from Neanderthals. They were on a different 'branch' of the homo tree.

Oh really? I was mistaken then. Thanks for correcting me.

ocianain

Bduffman wrote: »

Mind, will & emotion comes from the brain. So is a soul just another name for the brain?

The brain and the mind are not the same. The mind controls the brain. This is implicitly understood br everyone, for example when someone "goes insane" he's said to have "Lost his mind" not "Lost his brain." Activity in any part of the brain does not indicate origin, it indicates utility, what part of the brain does the job. For example, if I supinate my lower arm the bicep contracts, if the bicep was hooked up to a EMG we would see electrical activity. This does not mean the bicep decided to contract, the bicep did not originate the idea of supination. Likewise, brain activity does not indicate originality, it indicates utility. The mind creates thoughts and ideas.

marco_polo

ocianain wrote: »

The brain and the mind are not the same. The mind controls the brain. This is implicitly understood br everyone, for example when someone "goes insane" he's said to have "Lost his mind" not "Lost his brain." Activity in any part of the brain does not indicate origin, it indicates utility, what part of the brain does the job. For example, if I supinate my lower arm the bicep contracts, if the bicep was hooked up to a EMG we would see electrical activity. This does not mean the bicep decided to contract, the bicep did not originate the idea of supination. Likewise, brain activity does not indicate originality, it indicates utility. The mind creates thoughts and ideas.

Dualism is so last Century.

marco_polo

Since we are on the topic there is a great article on the subject in the latest edition of Scientific American.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-mysterious-downfall

wolfsbane

Bougeoir wrote: »

Well humans evolved from other more ape-like beings such as the Neanderthals over a long period of time. So it wasn't like the Neanderthals existed 100 years ago and then 100 years later they're humans. It was gradual extremely gradual actually over such a long period of time that we'd find it hard to understand the time frame. And between the Neanderthals and modern human our species would have gone through many other different stages of evolution changing even so slightly by natural Selection. Pretty amazing I must admit. So there are a few viewpoints one can take, either what we call the soul is actually mortal in every creature which is a rather Materialist viewpoint or everything has a soul which would be a more Pantheist/New Age sort of view. Both viewpoints conflict with Christianity. One of the main reasons I reject Christianity, Judaism, Islam they just conflict with modern science and aren't compatible in so many ways.

Yes, I can see why you choose the new religion, Scientism. It is not restricted by absolutes, cannot be falsified by investigation. It is whatever the latest discovery is, even if that is the opposite of yesterday's truth, and half of tomorrow's.

Let me suggest your confidence in Science as the source of all truth is a pitifully low view of reality. Lift your eyes from the mud; see the trees, mountains and stars that Reason and Revelation point to. Consider that your understanding of the nature of the mud might just be distorted by your myopia.

Zombrex

ocianain wrote: »

The brain and the mind are not the same. The mind controls the brain. This is implicitly understood br everyone, for example when someone "goes insane" he's said to have "Lost his mind" not "Lost his brain."

Since when has implicitly understood by everyone ever meant something was true.

Considering most if not all mental health problems can be traced directly to damage or imbalance in the physical structure of the brain there seems little evidence that the mind is a separate entity. If damaging the brain also damages the "mind" why believe the mind is anything other than the state the brain is currently in.

As marco said dualism is so last century

ocianain wrote: »

Activity in any part of the brain does not indicate origin, it indicates utility, what part of the brain does the job. For example, if I supinate my lower arm the bicep contracts, if the bicep was hooked up to a EMG we would see electrical activity. This does not mean the bicep decided to contract, the bicep did not originate the idea of supination. Likewise, brain activity does not indicate originality, it indicates utility. The mind creates thoughts and ideas.

Again study of people with brain damage contradicts that idea. People with brain damage can have difficulty forming new ideas, learning, processing information. If the mind is the origin of ideas and the brain simply does stuff with them then damaging the brain should not effect a persons ability to form thoughts or ideas. But does.

Equally we would not see parts of the brain light up when people are asked to remember things or try and solve puzzles. The "mind" never lights up.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, I can see why you choose the new religion, Scientism. It is not restricted by absolutes, cannot be falsified by investigation. It is whatever the latest discovery is, even if that is the opposite of yesterday's truth, and half of tomorrow's.

You do realise that is a total contradiction

Scientific ideas cannot be falsified by investigation!! Which is why .. er .. scientists keep falsifying their ideas and ... er coming up with more accurate ones ... they are always changing their minds ... down with this sort of thing!

Rather than this wishy washy methodical investigation it is far better to believe something is absolutely true and cannot be ever wrong because feel it in you heart. You just know it is true and you can't be wrong. You don't need to scientifically test what you know is true.

ocianain

Wicknight wrote: »

Since when has implicitly understood by everyone ever meant something was true.

Considering most if not all mental health problems can be traced directly to damage or imbalance in the physical structure of the brain there seems little evidence that the mind is a separate entity. If damaging the brain also damages the "mind" why believe the mind is anything other than the state the brain is currently in.

As marco said dualism is so last century

Again study of people with brain damage contradicts that idea. People with brain damage can have difficulty forming new ideas, learning, processing information. If the mind is the origin of ideas and the brain simply does stuff with them then damaging the brain should not effect a persons ability to form thoughts or ideas. But does.

Equally we would not see parts of the brain light up when people are asked to remember things or try and solve puzzles. The "mind" never lights up.

You're wrong on many counts, in particular snide remarks (dualism is so last century) are not valid refutations, it may however indicate an immature and unformed mind though. Most mental illnesses have not been tied to brain abnormalities./

In a wholly naturalistic metaphysical belief system the mind is a priori not assumed to exist, ergo the brain becomes the organic cause. Again, activity does not indicate origin/creation, it indicates utility. See by post about 6 back. People with brain damage have trouble communicating/collating ideas.

marco_polo

ocianain wrote: »

You're wrong on many counts, in particular snide remarks (dualism is so last century) are not valid refutations, it may however indicate an immature and unformed mind though. Most mental illnesses have not been tied to brain abnormalities./

In a wholly naturalistic metaphysical belief system the mind is a priori not assumed to exist, ergo the brain becomes the organic cause. Again, activity does not indicate origin/creation, it indicates utility. See by post about 6 back. People with brain damage have trouble communicating/collating ideas.

And at what point between fertilization, when there is but a single cell, and the formation of the brain does the mind get added in?

I also present exhibit A

http://www.pinktentacle.com/2008/12/scientists-extract-images-directly-from-brain/

Zombrex

ocianain wrote: »

You're wrong on many counts, in particular snide remarks (dualism is so last century) are not valid refutations, it may however indicate an immature and unformed mind though. Most mental illnesses have not been tied to brain abnormalities./

I'm not sure where you are getting that from. Can you name one that isn't?

Most mental illness is caused by physical damage to the brain, for example inflammation of the brain (swelling) has been linked schizophrenia, depression, autism, anxiety and bipolar disorder.

Other mental illness is related to brain chemistry imbalance.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20090729/sc_livescience/moderninsanitywhatreallymakesuscrazy

ocianain wrote: »

Again, activity does not indicate origin/creation, it indicates utility. See by post about 6 back. People with brain damage have trouble communicating/collating ideas.

As I've already said you can watch the brain activity in someone who is imagining something new. There is no evidence that this idea comes from anywhere other than the brain and tons of evidence that it comes from the brain. So what exactly am I missing. It comes from the "mind" because you say it does?

Are you sure you are not just making the mind up?

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

You do realise that is a total contradiction

Scientific ideas cannot be falsified by investigation!! Which is why .. er .. scientists keep falsifying their ideas and ... er coming up with more accurate ones ... they are always changing their minds ... down with this sort of thing!

Rather than this wishy washy methodical investigation it is far better to believe something is absolutely true and cannot be ever wrong because feel it in you heart. You just know it is true and you can't be wrong. You don't need to scientifically test what you know is true.

A scientific analysis of my post would have prevented you making such a statement!

Scientism cannot be falsified by investigation, not Scientific ideas. Scientism has as its truth the current scientific ideas.

As for the Christian faith, that is made known to the believer in his spirit, by God's Spirit. It is verified many times in the Christian's experience. Experiences of God's deliverance, insights beyond human level, power and ability not one's own, etc.