Tebow's pre-Wonderlic prayer request falls flat

[Legacy Fan]

[caution]Cherry Picking Ahead[/caution]

Originally Posted by grimmreaper3

The brain, it seems, has been proven responsible for all the functions typically ascribed to a soul, be it morality, spirituality, or even <third thing>. This is, essentially, why I don't really grant much credence to any faith.

No, it hasn't been proven responsible. Pathways, and mechanisms for said functions have been credited to the brain because their origin has not been proven.


Is Faith so silly?

[grimmreaper3]

Okay, what level of medical knowledge do you have? Am I arguing with a doctor?

Edit: My response is largely contingent upon your answer.

In any case, Sorry about the awkward spacing below, but...

It is only when we ascribe distinct psychological sub-functions of moral
decision-making to distinct physical parts of the brain that moral decision-making
starts to look like a mechanical process. And this is exactly what the
neuroimaging experiments described above do. Our claim is not that the ACC is
“involved” in moral judgment in some nebulous way. If our theory (Greene et al.,
2004) is correct, the ACC performs the specific function of detecting conflict
between competing responses, both in moral contexts and in other contexts that
have nothing to do with morality per se (Botvinick et al., 2001; Cohen, 2005). Our
theory likewise attributes a control function to the DLPFC and an emotional
function to the medial prefrontal cortex5. Of course, the dualist can dig in his
heels, even in the face of functional decomposition of this kind. He might
imagine, for example, that each of these brain regions simply receives
transmissions from different functional parts of the soul: The ACC receives
transmissions from the part of the soul that detects conflict, and so on. But this
can’t go on forever. As our body of knowledge grows, the moral brain will be
decomposed into smaller and smaller physical parts, associated with narrower
and narrower psychological functions, until the corresponding bits of soul are
reduced to an array of manifestly superfluous micro-ghosts with no purpose other
than to be there.
As Wolfe’s remarks suggest, the soul will officially expire when the
mechanics of the moral mind become transparent. I believe that the death of the
soul may prove to be one of psychology and neuroscience’s most lasting
contributions. That is, if we’re around long enough to get the job done.

If you wish to impugn the analytics of the argument, it can be found here:

http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~jgreene/...Last-Stand.pdf

And the author:

http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~jgreene/

[AdaM]

I was merely callin spec a prick because he called all atheists pricks.


Not literally

[Vegasdogg]

Don't you people work? LOL

[Legacy Fan]

Originally Posted by grimmreaper3

Okay, what level of medical knowledge do you have? Am I arguing with a doctor?

Edit: My response is largely contingent upon your answer.

In any case, Sorry about the awkward spacing below, but...



If you wish to impugn the analytics of the argument, it can be found here:

http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~jgreene/GreeneWJH/Greene-Last-Stand.pdf

And the author:

http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~jgreene/

Dentist-to-be (cue "the Hangover" quote: Dude, you're not a real doctor)

Not to belittle the work, and advancements made in the field, (as they are completely impressive/amazing) but it's imaging, plain & simple - just now in HD. Even with the advances in lipidomics where they are able to measure neurotransmitter amounts, they still can not determine origin, because you can't get into a living persons brain at relay centers and into the limbic system to take those measurements. Those are autopsy things at the moment.

Light years ahead of where they were 10 -15 years ago, but not close to replacing the "soul" at its current definition/meaning.

[grimmreaper3]

Why then, I wonder, does a Harvard professor consider it evidence against the existence of a soul? This is not an ethos fight, I'm just curious as to why someone with an apparently intimate knowledge of the brain would follow a red herring like that.

[Legacy Fan]

Originally Posted by grimmreaper3

Why then, I wonder, does a Harvard professor consider it evidence against the existence of a soul? This is not an ethos fight, I'm just curious as to why someone with an apparently intimate knowledge of the brain would follow a red herring like that.

Because that would be quite the feather in his cap. The power of knowledge is very addictive. Especially if you've got the kind of mind like Prof. Greene where you've rarely heard the phrase "that's incorrect." The field of psychology is notorious for new evidence "not only being right, but the last guy is an idiot." Look at the evolution of the way intelligence was perceived. From just "general intelligence" to "creative, practical, analytical, emotional, etc. intelligence."

Edit: This is not a knock against psychology, but if professor Green was also a neurosurgeon (or at least a radiologist) on the side.......

[Danamal]

My life mantra is I have no idea if there is or isn't anything after this life and for me it isn't fair to chastise those of faith the same as it isn't fair that they cram there beliefs down my throat.

Treat others as you wish to to be treated and if there is something after this hopefully my actions and deeds will have been enough and if not well i'll be in some pretty damn fine company in whatever awaits me in the next life.

Or the short version ,Don't be a dick!

[AdaM]

Thats kinda what the bible seems to be for me, Danamal. Just a code to live by and teach lessons. Sadly most of the lessons do not apply to today so people interpret them however they see fit.

People created religion to give life a purpose IMO.

[heckofajobbrownie]

I love this:

(NEWSER) – Tim Tebow makes no secret of his religious faith (remember that Super Bowl ad?), but some of his fellow athletes aren't so enthusiastic. Before an exam at the NFL Scouting Combine, Tebow asked everyone to bow their heads in silent prayer. Another in the room responded, "Shut the fuck up," and got a round of laughter, reports the Pro Football Talk blog at NBC Sports.

[AdaM]

Its already posted days ago. Church and State section.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Oh, sorry. Well, now it's posted here, where people will actually see it. Because it's funny.