In this last part of the discussion we\u2019ll examine the neural correlates and morality and summarize the discussion.<\/p>\n
Do Neural Correlates Mean There\u2019s No Soul?<\/strong><\/p>\n The last sentence in the article on the NPR site<\/a> really caught my eye: \u201cIf something as complex as morality has a mechanical explanation, [the scholar said], it will be hard to argue that people have, or need, a soul.\u201d<\/p>\n First, to repeat the point made in the previous blog post, it\u2019s simplistic to claim that morality has a \u201cmechanical explanation\u201d\u2013 in other words, that morality boils down to \u201cjust\u201d the operations of the material (= mechanical) brain \u2013 simply because there are neural correlates to moral experience and action.<\/p>\n Second, to the heart of the matter, the closing sentence refers to the view, held by different religions and philosophies, that the fundamental source of morality \u2013 and by extension, human goodness, compassion, altruism, kindness, etc. \u2013 is transcendental, such as a proposed soul, divine spark, or Mind of God. In the culture wars of the last few decades, studies on the neural substrates of the loftier realms of experience and behavior (including the one discussed here, on moral judgment) have been taken as evidence by some that we don\u2019t need transcendental factors to account for those aspects of a human life \u2013 and by extension, that such transcendental factors do not exist: in other words, that \u201cpeople do not have or need a soul.\u201d Let\u2019s try to unpack this.<\/p>\n Human psychology alone \u2013 without reference to transcendental factors \u2013 can fully account for morality, or it cannot. (And as we\u2019ve seen, that psychology is inextricably intertwined with our neurology.) Separately, either there are transcendental factors or there are not. If we do not make the assumption that morality is based on God, then evidence that morality requires only a mind and brain is not evidence against the existence of God.<\/em><\/p>\n You see a similar fallacy in the cultural conflicts over the implications of biological evolution. If one believes that \u201cGod created Man,\u201d then evidence that modern humans gradually evolved from hominid and primate ancestors sounds like an argument against the existence or importance of God. Those who think that evolution would somehow eliminate God consider evidence for it to be a kind of blasphemy, so some school boards have tried to slip creationism into science textbooks.<\/p>\n Yes, the evolutionary account of life on this planet does undermine the story of God the Creator in the book of Genesis, but that\u2019s just one portrayal of the nature of God. Setting aside that particular portrayal leaves plenty of other ways that God could work in the world. Evidence that God did not create Man is not evidence that there is no God: in principle, God could exist and not have created Man. In other words, a reasonable person could believe both that evolution has unfolded without being guided by the hand of God and that God exists \u2013 and similarly believe that morality does not require God and that God exists. It is a category error, and a deeply unscientific one, to think that evidence for the neuropsychological substrates of morality is evidence against a soul (or against other transcendental factors).<\/p>\n In this light, one does not need to resist evidence for evolution, or for the neuropsychology of morality or spiritual experiences. This point has significant social implications, because the resistance to scientific findings out of a fear that they somehow challenge faith has dramatically lowered scientific literacy in America. For example, in the 2008, biannual survey by the National Science Board<\/a> of scientific understanding, only 45% of respondents agreed that, \u201cHuman beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals.\u201d Th is percentage is much lower than in Japan (78%) , Europe (70%), China (69%), and South Korea (64%). Similarly, only 33% of those surveyed agreed that, \u201cThe universe began with a big explosion.\u201d<\/p>\n Summing Up<\/strong><\/p>\n To be clear: I am not asserting that there is or is not God; nor am I asserting that, if God exists, he\/she\/it\/none-of-the-above plays a role in mind, consciousness, or morality. I am asserting that attempts to draw inferences from neuropsychology about God\u2019s existence or role in human affairs are usually a waste of time. At most such inferences can refute a particular theory about God\u2019s role in life \u2013 such as God is necessary for human morality, or for the existence of our species altogether. But that leaves all sorts of other theories about God that are not yet disproved \u2013 as well as the fundamental matter that God is by definition categorically outside the realm of proofs or disproofs within the material universe.<\/p>\n God may or may not exist. You have to find your own beliefs in that regard \u2013 and brain science will not help you.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n The post The Mind, the Brain, and God \u2013 Part III<\/a> appeared first on Dr. Rick Hanson<\/a>.<\/p>\n In Part I and Part II of this blog series, we discussed the meaning of the words: mind; brain and God, and looked at the interdependence between the mind and the brain. In this last part of the discussion we’ll examine the neural correlates and morality and summarize the discussion. Do Neural Correlates Mean There\u2019s <\/p>\n The post The Mind, the Brain, and God – Part III<\/a> appeared first on Dr. Rick Hanson<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":270,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[25],"class_list":["post-492","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","tag-blog"],"yoast_head":"\n<\/a>
<\/a>
<\/a>
<\/a>\n<\/div>\n
<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"