Just sneering at New Scientist doesn't make the problm go away. You have no evidence that your god exists. None. Just because you find science frightening doesn't mean its wrong. Just because you don't like the conclusions doesn't mean they aren't correct. Despite your faith in faith, wishing doesn't make things so.Will you ever argue any one thing through to the end? Or is this blog just a place to post an endless litany of gripes, misrepresentations, inuendo, undigested quotations and naked asseverations? Do you have any substantive argument at all in favor of your case? Even if scientists were the uncouth unethical drooling morons you protray us as, and all of the fruits of science are just the products of as many lucky guesses, that still says absolutely nothing in favor of the cause you "defend"; you can't win by default.Your case is getting weaker and weaker by the day.
I don't know what else has been on this site as I just read this. Both sides seem a bit hot-headed to me. The argument is an interesting one. Some scientists have found evidence that the idea of God or something like it emerges from the way our brains are made. An atheist sees a way to explain how belief could arise. So does the believer. The atheist says, "What an interesting (and regrettable) accident". The believer says "Ah, so this is part of how God puts the idea around." It's rather like the discoveries that ideas of morality may have deep hard-wired bases. The believer (and some sorts of non-theistic philosopher) sees this as evidence that there is Natural Law after all, while the atheist might see it as evidence of a purely evolutionary basis for moral ideas. The point is that all these things can be read either way. Read Gould, a true scientific thinker about this, (himself a non-believer) on the separate magisteriums model.
Anonymous: I tend to agree with you, except for saying the perception would be viewed as a regrettable accident. It wouldn't be an accident or particularly regrettable as such. What's regrettable is that just thinking about it is anathema to the religious zealots. Anything contradicting orhodoxy is a cynical political manouver to them, not just another idea to consider.
>The believer (and some sorts of non-theistic philosopher) sees this as evidence that there is Natural Law after all, while the atheist might see it as evidence of a purely evolutionary basis for moral ideas.I reply: Of course if the discovery of the "God Part" of the Brain is seen as evidence of a purely naturalistic evolutionary basis of belief in God (as Materialists & Naturalists might claim) then what we have here is PROOF of Plantinga main thesis in his Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism. Think about it.
Could you elaborate? I don't see that Plantinga connection at all.
"Anything contradicting orhodoxy is a cynical political manouver to them, not just another idea to consider."I know. I mean, Marx and Engels only had ideas to consider. As did Lenin later on. And really, those ideas didn't have any consequences far into the Bloodbath Century...ah, I mean, the 20th Century.We orthodoxists really ought to not question the motives of those who simply want to de-God the world. Really, their only aim is to supplant theology with atheism, and to turn theism into a dichotomized form of thought, detached from "reality". Box up religion, keep it in a corner (or a concentration camp). No big deal.When you're ready to lie down for that kind of lobotomy and colonic a'la Clockwork Orange, let us all know.