Giving the idea of the 'soul' substance, amounts to:
the attribution of an immaterial counterpart or dimension to certain kinds of body
a hypothesis about the metaphysical constitution of certain animals,
and hence about the ontological furniture of the universe, from which moral implications might flow.
But since brain science is doing pretty well in understanding how these animals’ minds work as part of a wholly physical universe, religious belief is under threat from this aspect of scientific advance.
What do these scientific developments say about religious believers.
Before we proceed to a swift rebuttal of 'belief' in the face of 'science'
are we then to view believers as lacking the intelligence to appreciate scientific advances
should we deign believers as having psychological inadequacies that account for their unwillingness to know when they’re beaten?
At what point, do we as the champions of science pause in our in cascade of condescension towards those who still believe, (although my experience has been a cascade of condescension for not believing).
But as non-believers might we consider applying the principle of interpretative charity, (Christian in itself) and ask whether we have properly understood what it is that religious believers mean to say when they talk of believing in God, and of human beings as embodied souls?
Source Stephen Mulhall
the attribution of an immaterial counterpart or dimension to certain kinds of body
a hypothesis about the metaphysical constitution of certain animals,
and hence about the ontological furniture of the universe, from which moral implications might flow.
But since brain science is doing pretty well in understanding how these animals’ minds work as part of a wholly physical universe, religious belief is under threat from this aspect of scientific advance.
What do these scientific developments say about religious believers.
Before we proceed to a swift rebuttal of 'belief' in the face of 'science'
are we then to view believers as lacking the intelligence to appreciate scientific advances
should we deign believers as having psychological inadequacies that account for their unwillingness to know when they’re beaten?
At what point, do we as the champions of science pause in our in cascade of condescension towards those who still believe, (although my experience has been a cascade of condescension for not believing).
But as non-believers might we consider applying the principle of interpretative charity, (Christian in itself) and ask whether we have properly understood what it is that religious believers mean to say when they talk of believing in God, and of human beings as embodied souls?
Source Stephen Mulhall
No comments:
Post a Comment