Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
If the process is controlled by another being outside yourself then it is not something that can be judged by that being.
Not if you believe in a just or fair God anyway.
Lutherans teach that damnation is a result of an unbelievers sin, rejection of the forgiveness of sins and unbelief.
If the physical brain has any part in the process of belief, then it is open to the problem of a physical barrier to belief.
I was partially agreeing with you, but also trying to note a distinction. So, I was referring to freeing one from constraint. If one is freed from a bad situation, and then chooses to go back to it, I think the burden of that decision is on the one who made the choice.
So, are brains involved in the process or not?
On what grounds do you make that assertion?
Faith is not bad, so long as it is recognised for what it is. "Scientific" is a label present day atheists more or less automatically attach to their own beliefs, even when they are no such thing.Faith is bad. I am still amazed when theists use their own terms in the pejorative.
Indeed. Is one molecule of water wet?
Not one that would fit your preconceived notions of soul/sentience/consciousness, no.
Is there any circumstance under which a brain is responsible for the choice it makes?
I find the idea of a "soul" nearly impossible to believe, and that's in large part to this long article: A Ghost in the Machine
In it are many examples of personality changes that occur due to brain injury/illness. After reading it I have found it very hard to believe in something like a soul that exists separate from the body.
-From the article.
That's the next question Resha, I'm still evaluating that mootness claim you made and deciding whether in Lutheran theology, brains are involved in the salvation process.
So you should answer my question with an answer rather than a question.
I find the idea of a "soul" nearly impossible to believe, and that's in large part to this long article: A Ghost in the Machine
In it are many examples of personality changes that occur due to brain injury/illness. After reading it I have found it very hard to believe in something like a soul that exists separate from the body.
-From the article.
I understand, but I couldn't tell what you were really asking, so I'm trying to step back and clarify. My comment only referred to moral decision making in the context of salvation, not to all decision making.
I agreed with you that someone can reject Christ, so it seemed obvious to me the person's mind (brain) would be involved.
If that answers your question, I'd like an answer to mine as well.
Is there any circumstance under which a brain is responsible for the choice it makes?
I would think it is always responcable as it is the system making the decisions, the question I find interesting is how dysfunctional brains are supposed to be held to the same standards as functional ones.
I don't know what Lutherans say specifically, but as I said, it's a general Christian understanding that they are not held to the same standards.
Isn't everyone expected to believe?
I know a Calvinist would say no but...
An unevidenced assertion. You would you first have to establish what consciousness *is* - you have not done that.a.) Quantum mechanics aside, modern physics is still fundamentally about bits of solid stuff being pushed around by forces. That may work as a description of most of what can be seen around us, but it won't work with consciousness, which is not a force or a bit of solid stuff.
I do not see how this applies.b.) For the last four centuries or so, the physical sciences have made it a matter of policy to exclude the subjective from their account of reality, in the name of objectivity. Although that may have advantages when it comes to building bridges, you cannot both deliberately try to exclude something from your account of the universe, and then turn round, and try and include it as an afterthought.
Another unevidenced assertion. How do you know that neuroscientists are mistaken on their goals of understanding the brain?c.) There is something fundamentally fallacious about trying to account for subjective experience by doing what science usually does, which is examine the objective realm. The fallacy would soon be noticed if somebody turned the procedure around, and tried to come to conclusions about the objective world by contemplating their inner experience.
Then present your arguments, not just your assertions.d.) The project of materialists is to try and explain mind in terms of energy and matter. Arguably, it should be the other way round. For us, our own consciousness is the fundamental datum, and matter is an abstraction which the mind invents for itself, in order to understand its experiences.
Those are big, broad brushstrokes you are painting people with. Perhaps you could be more concise.Faith is not bad, so long as it is recognised for what it is. "Scientific" is a label present day atheists more or less automatically attach to their own beliefs, even when they are no such thing.
Presumably? Is not 'wetness' the property of a liquid? Citation, please.Presumably. It will have the same slight stickiness as many molecules, which is why water is wet and mercury isn't.
Post #44:And what preconceived notions might they be?
The same for me, from theists.I just don't believe the bluster and bombast I hear from materialists.
We'd have to take a step back and unpack your statement: If the only decision that matters to the fate of your soul is the acceptance of a particular version of God... I don't necessarily agree with that, and it's probably worthy of a thread of its own.
The soul is the self-reflective, truth-discerning, and spirit-perceiving part of man which forever elevates the human being above the level of the animal world. Self-consciousness, in and of itself, is not the soul. Moral self-consciousness is true human self-realization and constitutes the foundation of the human soul, and the soul is that part of man which represents the potential survival value of human experience. Moral choice and spiritual attainment, the ability to know God and the urge to be like him, are the characteristics of the soul. The soul of man cannot exist apart from moral thinking and spiritual activity. A stagnant soul is a dying soul. But the soul of man is distinct from the divine spirit which dwells within the mind. The divine spirit arrives simultaneously with the first moral activity of the human mind, and that is the occasion of the birth of the soul."UB 1955
Without any evidence to the contrary, it would appear that you are simply working backwards from a preconceived notion of a 'soul' to explain what we actually observe. Your assertion adds nothing to our understanding of how the brain works.If you damage a radio it may change the sound coming out of the speaker while yet having no effect on the broadcast itself. (the funtional radio itself is not the cause of the broadcast but a broken radio could be the cause of the noise coming out of the speaker) This is why when someone has brain damage we normally say things like "that person isn't their self"
Damage hardware on a PC can cause the software to malfunction even though the acts are one yet separate. There is no doubt a brain (hardware) not function correctly can effect the input and output of the soul /person (software-that which has no mass).
Without any evidence to the contrary, it would appear that you are simply working backwards from a preconceived notion of a 'soul' to explain what we actually observe. Your assertion adds nothing to our understanding of how the brain works.
Neuroplasticity is quite fascinating, but, by your own admission, we have no direct evidence that we are more than our brain/body.Really? So what we know is true with the radio and computers that same reasoning can't be applied to the brain /soul relationship. Then claimed there is no evidence ... maybe no direct evidence.
Then there is the case where half of a girl brain was removed yet she did not become half of the person and the case where two women shared over 70% of the brain yet had two completely different personalities. The whole idea of a brain using it's brain trying to figure out how the brain works points to the fact we are more than just a brain.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?