Phineas Gage
Dr. PJ Meyers of Pharyngula points us to this Neuroscientist and science writer, Dr. Robert M. Sapolsky. What makes act the way we do? When it comes right down to it, we are all just a bag of chemical reactions.
What does it say if, in all of history, there was even one religious person whose religiosity was due to some neurotransmitter hiccup, and in all of history there was even one person whose atheism was due to a different type of neurotransmitter hiccup?Dr. Meyers says forget about evolution. He points out that neuroscience is creeping up on the creationists.
Evolution is shredding their preconceptions about history and their origins, but neuroscience is going to rip out a different, but even more central concept: the soul. Minds are the products of electrochemical and molecular/physiological activity, not spirits or souls or extradimensional magical forces — brains are meat and thoughts are the product of ions and small molecules bubbling about in coordinated patterns.
4 comments:
I tend to think that PZ Myers is a bit of an ass with the things he writes. I don't think we need to attack religion to advance evolutionist thought - but I highly recommend any of the books that Sopolsky's written. Try " A Primates Memoir," it's a good read, and not overly heavy like some science writing can be.
So PZ Meyers is an ass for strongly defending his beliefs and his science. I guess that makes people who strongly defend their religion asses as well huh? It's alright for religious fundies to attack evolution theory with their lies, misstatements and ignorance. Biologists should just sit quietly by and let them get away with it. Yes, that's the ticket.
Peter, I must say that in the last few months, at least as far as this blog is concerned, you've become a bit of a curmudgeonly, pompous ass yourself. Gone is the intelligent discussion you used to provoke and here to stay are your knee jerk reactions and grumpy shouting without reason. I don't even know where in the hell you're coming from with a response like that. Not that, I'm sure, responding myself is going to get me anywhere, but here goes.
As I've explained to you before, probably over coffee, I personally don't believe that science or religion have any business trying to explain each other. I think it's completely asinine for fundy parents to try and get "creation science" included in science classes. I also think it's completely asinine for PZ Myers, Richard Dawkins, or any other scientist to attempt to prove or disprove the fantastic (ie "unexplainable") through science. I think they're mutually exclusive scools of thoughts and are both equally ill equipped to explain each other. But you can go ahead and shout some insane bullshit at me again for happening to see things a little differently from you if you want. Funny that you're the "open minded" one, though (Let the comments from every last reactionary that stumbles upon this begin...)
I'm sorry you think defending PZ Meyers makes me an ass. Moreover, I guess anyone who strongly defends their opinions and beliefs is an ass as well. And where was the "shouting"?
Where has Meyers or Dawkins ever tried to prove anything about religion? They typically clearly state that nothing can be proven about religion.
An open minded person should critically examine all claims but will not accept them if there is no reason to believe they are true or if there is reason to believe they are false. Maybe you have another definition.
I don't quite understand. I point to an article by a psychologist that you admire and I end up being an ass for it.
Well, maybe you shouldn't read this pompous asses blog anymore. I certainly wouldn't want you to be upset with my commie ideas and all.
Is that reactionary enough for you?
Post a Comment