There are still many mysteries surrounding brain function, including the still elusive nature of consciousness. One of the most recent advocates of a materialistic approach, the rabid atheist Daniel Dennett, wrote a book called Consciousness Explained, but even fellow evolutionists have called it Consciousness Ignored. In fact, many evolutionary experts in the area admit that consciousness is a huge mystery for evolutionary theory. E.g. Richard Gregory, evolutionist and professor of neuropsychology and director of the brain and perception laboratory at the University of Bristol in England, explained the dilemma in the book Consciousness :
If the brain was developed by Natural Selection, we might well suppose that consciousness has survival value. But for this it must, surely, have causal effects. But what effects could awareness, or consciousness, have?
Why, then, do we need consciousness? What does consciousness have that the neural signals do not have? Here there is something of a paradox, for if the awareness of consciousness does not have any effectif consciousness is not a causal agentthen it seems useless, and so should not have developed by evolutionary pressure. If, on the other hand, it is useful, it must be a causal agent: but then physiological description in terms of neural activity cannot be complete. Worse, we are on this alternative stuck with mentalistic explanations, which seem outside science.
The materialists teach that our consciousness is really an effect of our brain responding to external stimuli via the laws of chemistry. But this belief itself is merely the result of neural chemistry. Therefore according to their own belief system, they did not freely reason out their belief according to the evidence. Rather, they believed their theory because they couldnt help itit was predetermined by brain chemistry. But then, why should their neurons be trusted over mine? They both obey the same laws of chemistry.
In reality, those who assert that consciousness is just an epiphenomenon of the brain do so because of their materialistic philosophy that clouds the interpretation of the evidence. For example, Dennett admits that he cant disprove the existence of a mind distinct from the brain, but asserts that such a view is fundamentally unscientific and is to be avoided at all costs. In reality, materialism is an assumption before they even consider the evidence.
It seems philosophically unsound to attack a belief system by appealing to observation-based arguments which deny a priori the validity of that systems own presuppositions. In other words, one would need to disprove the idea of the Christian God in order to deny the possibility of the survival of the persona after death. To use the apparent disproof of such survival to cast doubts on the validity of belief in the Christian God is thus seen to be a fairly subtle, but definite case of the philosophical fallacy known as begging the question.
The evidence for such things as fulfilled prophecy, the resurrection of Christ, and creation itself is freely available for all with a desire to see. The evidence of changed lives is another.
Some have experienced the reality of the supernatural realm in a way that defied all explanation by way of subjectivity, psychology, etc. and totally defied the laws of physics, mathematical probability, etc. It is not something of the nature of so-called after death experiences, which can never be proved to be anything more than a persons brain chemistry under those conditions.
