Am I just my brain?
Phill Sacre offers this review of Sharon Dirckx's contempo book Am I Only my Encephalon? published by Th e Good Book Company, 2019.
ane. The issue
A wise and learned philosopher once said, "We are living in a material world, and I am a textile daughter". OK, those were the lyrics to Fabric Daughter by Madonna – simply, whether she realised information technology or non, I call back she was onto something: many people today, specially within science, do recall we are quite literally living in a material globe. Many scientists (and, indeed, people from other fields such as history) presume methodological naturalism – the idea that the best explanation for anything is always a naturalistic 1. 'Supernatural' explanations are discounted a priori.
This kind of attitude seems to accept become standard fare in many scientific circles. Although I don't usually read the magazine, back in 2012 my married woman kindly bought me a re-create of the New Scientist special edition "The God Outcome". The editorial on the front folio talked scornfully almost religion: "Religious claims still wither under rational scrutiny and deserve no special place in public life." Ouch! This kind of attitude was evident near of the way through the magazine.
This kind of anti-religious sentiment comes out in various scientific disciplines, only peradventure none more than so than neuroscience – the field in which Sharon Dirckx works. Dirckx is a specialist in brain imaging and as such comes at the issue from both a scientific and a Christian perspective. According to her, many inside neuroscience are arguing that the sum total of human experience – listen and consciousness included – tin can exist explained past what happens within our brains.
By contrast, Dirckx argues that scientifically, philosophically and theologically the 'naturalistic' explanation is inconsistent, incoherent and fundamentally flawed (more on the argument of the book in a moment).
But Dirckx recognises that the question of whether we are only our brains touches on a deeper question: who we are as human being beings, and our place in the universe. Again and once again the volume goes deeper than the surface effect of the scientific evidence and probes into the more than central questions of man identity. As Dirckx says at the finish of the introduction, quoting Marilynne Robinson: "Whoever controls the definition of the mind controls the definition of humankind itself".
ii. The argument of the book
Dirckx develops her argument by looking at a serial of questions, e.g. "Is belief in the soul out of date?" and "Is free volition an illusion?" In each chapter she starts out with the physical and scientific evidence, so moves on to the logical, philosophical and theological perspectives on the question. She examines each view with the questions, 'Is it internally coherent?', 'Does it accept explanatory power?' and 'Can it be lived?'
One of the things I appreciated most nearly the book was that information technology makes technical arguments and discussion accessible for the layperson. She makes excellent employ of stories and personal anecdotes which aid humanise what could be a very technical discussion. Later all, issues of consciousness are not remote from our twenty-four hours-to-solar day experience of life – that'south the whole point!
Some other thing which I particularly appreciated most the book was the way Dirckx brings in the gospel. Through the book she talks increasingly about the Bible, the gospel, and her own experience of them. The message is articulate: (1) the question of whether we are simply our brains makes a real impact on the manner we think about ourselves and the way we live our lives; (two) the question of what nosotros believe well-nigh our brains is intimately bound upwards with what we believe well-nigh God.
For example, on the question of gender identity, she says: "as a society, profoundly contradictory messages are coming from dissimilar corners… some secular scientists say that the cadre of a person is physical. Many transgender advocates say things which seem to imply that the core of a person is non-physical; there is a soul that cannot be denied. Surely both of these cannot exist true – so which is information technology?" Here we see how a view about human beings directly impacts on a 'hot potato' issue in society today. Are nosotros bodies, brains, or both? Is there a soul where our 'true selves' are located, external to our brains? What nosotros believe about all these things will impact how we translate our experiences and how nosotros live our lives.
I as well particularly appreciated her drawing out the fact that this question is not neutral when it comes to belief in God. She says:
Humans are God'due south representatives on earth, and, as such, take a part in tending the natural world. The image of God helps us respond the question, "Am I just my encephalon?" If we are made in the image of God, then our cadre identity is not discipline to the vagaries of a degenerative affliction or historic period-related atrophy. Each human is infinitely precious and loved by God, regardless of what is happening to their torso or brain. Each one of the states is made in God's epitome for a life of meaning and purpose.
This is the heart of the matter. What we believe about our brains is dependent on what nosotros believe near God – and vice versa. The question is, which explanation of the universe makes near sense? Which caption of the universe do we live by? The one which says the universe has no intelligence behind information technology, has no purpose, no meaning, and all our deportment can exist determined by cause and effect? Or the one which says an intelligent mind made us in his image to relate to and worship him, to honey him and love others?
3. A theological reflection
Calvin began his Institutes :
The whole sum of our wisdom – wisdom, that is, which deserves to exist called truthful and bodacious – broadly consists of two parts, knowledge of God and knowledge of ourselves … now it is not like shooting fish in a barrel to discern which of the two comes commencement and and so gives rise to the other.
Calvin argues that we need both a knowledge of God and ourselves. The two are intimately related – as we grow in the noesis of i we grow in the knowledge of the other. One of the logical implications of this view is that a wrong view of God will lead to a wrong view of ourselves: our view of the i who made us is reflected in the way we see humankind.
But there's a snag: human beings are not neutral and impartial evaluators of the evidence. Paul speaks damning words about humanity in Romans 1:
The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven confronting all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness , since what may exist known near God is manifestly to them, considering God has made it manifestly to them (vv18-19).
Far from being neutral and impartial, nosotros are 'truth-suppressers' past nature. Nosotros choose to displace God from his throne; we want to live with the means and values that we desire rather than those given to the states by our Creator. Nosotros choose to suppress what we know to be true most God so we tin can have freedom to live our lives in the mode that nosotros want. To quote from another well-known group of wise and learned philosophers – Key Scream – "We want to be gratis to practise what we wanna do, we wanna get loaded, and nosotros wanna accept a good fourth dimension." This could be a motto for humanity!
How does this relate to the question of whether nosotros are simply our brains? Considering the answer comes with a theological subtext. Those who wish to claim that nosotros are nothing more than our brains are non but post-obit the evidence where it leads. They are actively seeking to write the God who made them out of the picture.
Scientific questions such equally these stretch across the bounds of data and encephalon scans. How nosotros respond the question will largely depend on the presuppositions we bring to the tabular array. If nosotros presuppose methodological naturalism, strangely plenty we'll end up with a naturalistic answer – irrespective of what the evidence might say. The question that Dirckx helpfully addresses in this book is, why should anyone committed to truth and to the evidence presuppose such a thing?
This is why I highly recommend Dirckx'southward book. It exposes the fact that these sorts of questions cannot exist answered by scientific discipline alone – and those who claim that they can accept an underlying agenda. I call back the book deserves to be read widely, not just for the treatment of the topic at hand only for the wider question of how science relates to theology. I don't know if the book in itself volition convince sceptics – it is of form upwards to the Holy Spirit lone to change hearts – simply it will ameliorate equip the church to respond to the naturalistic age we are living in.
Phill Sacre is an ordained government minister within the Church of England. He serves in a parish in the East of England. He regularly blogs at phillsacre.me.uk.
If you enjoyed this commodity, do share it on social media, possibly using the buttons on the left. Follow me on Twitter @psephizo.Like my page on Facebook.
Much of my work is washed on a freelance basis. If you take valued this post, would you consideraltruistic £1.20 a month to back up the production of this blog?
If you lot enjoyed this, exercise share it on social media (Facebook or Twitter) using the buttons on the left. Follow me on Twitter @psephizo. Similar my page on Facebook.
Much of my work is done on a freelance footing. If you lot have valued this post, you tin brand a single or repeat donation through PayPal:
Comments policy: Good comments that engage with the content of the post, and share in respectful fence, tin add real value. Seek first to understand, then to be understood. Brand the most charitable construal of the views of others and seek to learn from their perspectives. Don't view fence every bit a conflict to win; address the statement rather than tackling the person.
Source: https://www.psephizo.com/reviews/am-i-just-my-brain/
0 Response to "Am I just my brain?"
Post a Comment