Many of the arguments in "My God Can Beat the Shit Out of Your God" concern the validity of religous beliefs versus scientific facts. Now, if you suppose that religious beliefs and scientific facts eventually become electrochemical impulses to be intrepreted by other such electrochemical impulses in the brain, what makes one impulse more correct than the other? What makes an impulse better than another one? Human existence is uncertain and therefore subjective.
Soren Kierkegaard illustrated in one of his writing that religion(and what it entails) is something that resides in the interior and spiritual realms, thereby eluding logical or direct communication. Kierkegaard believed in God.
By rejecting the idea of a religous or spiritual soul, the scientific idea of a neurological soul ultimately fails because scientists must inevitably appeal to the higher faculties to whom their relevance they deny.
The human existence is something to be lived; it can not be comprehended.
(I don't want any bullshit religious bias posted here)
[This message has been edited by NihilisticAinSophAur (edited 07-28-2004).]
|
Threaded Mode
