Observers often base their opinion of Religion on the content of existing religious texts. Religious books, are not written in what most people today would accept as a scientific manner. Nor indeed are they written in an academic style. Most religious books, recount stories/histories which rely upon an acceptance of eye witness accounts, for the proof of their veracity.
For those, who like empirical evidence, this makes many of the episodes recounted, sound quite implausible.
Religions often demand acceptance of their core books on faith alone, which as lovely as that may be, puts the scientific thinker in a quandary. For science requires questions, and answers.
I believe it is fair to say that a scientific method requires an open mind, to any field of investigation or science for which evidence is still lacking. So, to say something can not be, because a way for it to be, is unknown to current science would in itself, be unscientific.
Setting aside possible historical contexts and relationships, religion at it's core seeks to answer questions about life, the mind or soul, and the possibilities of an afterlife, or incorporeal existence, after corporeal death. It also seeks, to answer questions about the origin of the world, nature, and humanity itself. In some ways, religion is an early proto science.
So, a Scientist weighing up religion in general, need to ask at least three questions:
i/ What is the nature of the Mind (or soul)?
ii/ Can the Mind exist in a non corporeal state?
iii/ Is it possible for non corporeal entities to exist in parallel, or within, the corporeal world, and would such beings be able to affect the corporeal world, in any way, if they did?
These questions have vexed people for many years, and scientists of various calibres have been investigating since humanity first learnt to speak.
i/ The Nature of the Mind (or soul).
Neuroscientists having been studying the Brain and Brain function, dysfunction, and development, for years. Their published findings, as far as I can see, follow the 'Man as Machine' theorem. The human body is indeed, a machine. The Brain is indeed, a Computer. The big question is, is it the whole source of the Mind, or is it just an interface, between the Mind and the physical corporeal world. If you like the remote control receiver, for something based, or extending from elsewhere? From perhaps a non corporeal level of reality. Now, how you could prove conclusively that the Mind had it's source elsewhere, is a difficult one, as Memory, gives all the appearance of being stored locally, in the corporeal brain. It may be that the Memories are stored, incorporeally as well, and the corporeal Brain merely filters data through, with greater or lesser efficiency according to it's physical condition. If the mind exists, with it's source elsewhere, is it an individual in it's non corporeal state, or is it a part or aspect of a greater whole, or a larger 'construct' amongst other large constructs? Some religions maintain that at a fundamental level all are one, (eg Buddhism), some maintain the individuality of each life force, distinct and separate.
ii/ Non Corporeal Existence of the Mind.
If an answer is found to the first question, it would possibly answer this one too. People have reported experiencing, out of body events, astral projection, realistic dreams, many things over the years. Possibly the way to know, would be to monitor the brain activity of someone engaged in what they believe to be one of those states. But of course, a living brain, will always have some activity, and that is no guarantee that the 'Consciousness' or Mind, has not gone elsewhere, during such an event. As far as I know, no one has developed an actual method to measure 'Consciousness' as a separate force, instead measuring electrical activity in neurons of the Brain. Of course it may be that, the electrical activity is it, alone.
iii/ Existence of Non Corporeal Entities, able to independently affect the corporeal world.
This question cannot be answered until answers exist for i/ and ii/.
But it may be that any non corporeal world, is one that is subconscious, ie indistinct and lacking individuality. Such a non corporeal world would be unlikely to support individual conscious Entities. I said unlikely, but who knows?
If distinct non corporeal existence is normal for disembodied Minds, then the possibility of earlier Minds to have developed to the point of being able to interact with the corporeal world, without corporeal embodiment has to be considered. What such a Mind could do, is beyond any ones guess, but could then account for early tales involving mystical or miraculous events.
If a non corporeal 'world' exists in parallel to the corporeal 'world' then who knows what levers or effects might be generated by one, (or more, in co operation) non corporeal Minds, if such had the desire too.
This has been long and rambling and I blame my flatmate for telling me I haven't written anything interesting for a bit. Personally, I tire of people asserting things as reality for which they have as yet shown no proof.
So, before you criticise religious theorems, or scientific theorems, answer questions i/ and maybe ii/
If you can answer iii/ as well, you would make history.
Until a new and better theorem turns up!
No comments:
Post a Comment