In this two Christian philosophers, Richard Swinburne and Tim O'Connor, discussed the concept of neuroscience and the soul. The first philosopher, Swinburne, believed in the idea of substance dualism while O’Conner supported the argument for emergent individualism.
Swinburne starts off by saying one’s physical body is simply the vehicle we interact with the world while the real essence of a person lies within their soul. When it comes to Swinburne’s belief on the soul after death I am reminded of Phaedo and how death will only bring about separation of body and soul. Plato’s view of the soul being naturally immortal can been seen as coherent with Swinburne because according to him the soul continues to exist after death. As the body decays the soul goes on. He says God preserves the soul, while on the other hand, O’Conner has a completely different theory. O’Conner says that he does not necessarily know how God may preserve one’s soul and then goes on to say that he believes that the matter that composes a person is fissioned upon the moment of death and the copy that is created is
…show more content…
His theory just seems more plausible. Also Plato’s writing appear to coincide with his ideas too.
Another disagreement with these two Christian Philosophers was the importance of the soul on a person’s actions and thoughts. Both seem to want to agree with the idea that a person has free will in their choice making, but O’Conner says the emergent view shows a limited measure of autonomy. In other words our brains decide for us due to natural responses. Swinburne’s dualism supports the idea of free will more and says we determine our actions not just chemicals in our brain.
Again I have to say I am in favor of Swinburne’s ideas. While there is still a lot we do not know about the brain, I still live to be under the impression that we have some control over what happens in our own
Brain science is hard to understand. Very hard. However, Dr. Norman Doidge describes the current understanding of brain plasticity by using relatable examples and comprehensible diction instead of arduous textbook style writing. In The Brain that Changes Itself, Doidge challenges the age-old belief that the brain's structure is concrete by providing countless experiments that prove the brain to be malleable. Doidge shines a light on traumatic injuries and brain illnesses by providing individual cases from patients around the world.
In “Cooling Down Our Brain,” Jason Peters talked about how researchers proved that self-control can be developed by specific mental exercises. He explained an experiment named “the marshmallow test” and how the result of the experiment showed that children who had self-control became more successful in their lives than those who did not have it. The author further stated that additional research showed that the human brain has “hot” and “cool” areas and everyone can train the “cool” part to control the impulses.
He further to response to Princess Elisabeth question by introducing to her what is called (Cartesian Dualism) he uses these to explain to her that the mind, soul and the body are not the same and can never be same, which came to conclude that your mind cannot be your body and your body cannot be your mind. He also explains
As the argument is inductive, Richard Swinburne argues that it is rational to presume that God is omnibenevolent and wants to be actively present in people's lives. ‘An Omnipotent and perfectly good creator will seek to interact with his creatures and, in particular, with human persons capable of knowing him'. Richard Swinburne believes that if countless people have had a so called ‘religious experience' then this is enough evidence to believe them. (Principle of credulity) Swinburne proposes that religious encounters are judged through our senses and clarified through ‘religious insight Hence, in the event that somebody has had a religious experience, then it is reliable to trust that their telling the
Socrates in the dialogue Alcibiades written by Plato provides an argument as to why the self is the soul rather than the body. In this dialogue Alcibiades and Socrates get into a discussion on how to cultivate the self which they both mutually agree is the soul, and how to make the soul better by properly taking care of it. One way Socrates describes the relationship between the soul and the body is by analogy of user and instrument, the former being the entity which has the power to affect the latter. In this paper I will explain Socrates’ arguments on why the self is the soul and I will comment on what it means to cultivate it.
William Rowe’s article Life After Death focuses on the various beliefs of immortality and the problems with those beliefs. In researching William Rowe, the author of the article I chose, I found that he was a professor of philosophy at Purdue University. Rowe converted from Christian to an atheist. I found it interesting that he chose this conversion because of the fact that
The debate of Naturalism versus Christian Views is a topic that garners a lot of attention, especially in scientific endeavors. Naturalism beliefs stem from the view that through scientific investigation you can discover how natural laws or forces operate in the world through evolution over time. On the other hand, Christians believe that God is in control of the universe and that He created humans with a body and a soul allowing a consciousness to be present during mental activities. When looking at this debate the questions that need to be asked is “What is a soul” and “Are thoughts and brain activity the same thing”?
Conclusion: The mind is substantively different from the body and indeed matter in general. Because in this conception the mind is substantively distinct from the body it becomes plausible for us to doubt the intuitive connection between mind and body. Indeed there are many aspects of the external world that do not appear to have minds and yet appear none the less real in spite of this for example mountains, sticks or lamps, given this we can begin to rationalize that perhaps minds can exist without bodies, and we only lack the capacity to perceive them.
They both have the same shortcoming of beeing more descriptive than explanatory. The two have their sets of charateristics what an authortarian personality defines. But the explanation of the development of authorianism through psychoanalytic theory or social learning didn't include the environmental factors which play an important role in personality development. Besides that they did not explain in what circumstances this behaviour occurs. Understanding results of scientific studies always require critical examinations of certain points, like the background the aims and objectives of the researcher, the methods used.
If the soul cannot possibly begin when a person does, when and where else could the event take place? However, Darrow 's argument is impaired by his incongruous application of the term soul. He mentions that the soul is popularly equated with identity, consciousness and memory, but fails to specify whether it is this notion or another that he uses. (42) Presuming, for the sake of moving forward, that it is this definition he himself adopts, it seems directly in conflict with his belief that the soul would exist outside of the physical body. (43) Darrow 's argument lacks a clear explication of his concept of the soul and, furthermore, it presents a confusing, contradictory account of the soul 's nature and
Same as humans, we also don’t need a mind. We are just physical things. Churchland also says that there is no way to prove that there is a mind/ soul. Science can’t prove it. We can think of our mind as a software and you’re brain as a hardware.
When people follow their own truths, they are “safe at last” meaning they are living the way they are supposed to live (Emerson 31). In other parts of his essay, Emerson says that the soul is light, that the relation of the soul to the divine spirit is pure, and that the soul “becomes.” Emerson consistently provokes a positive connotation for the word soul because your soul is the most important part that makes you who you are, as it contains your
In Plato’s dialogue Phaedo, he explains the soul and comes to the conclusion that the soul is immortal. Through describing the last hours of Socrates life before his execution, he lays out three arguments in support of the idea that while the body may cease to exist the soul cannot perish. In this paper, I will explicate Socrates three arguments for the immortality of the soul and their objections. Then I will argue on the presupposition of the Law of Conservation of Mass, that the universe, entailing the soul, must be cyclical. The Law of Conservation of Mass
There has been a recent shift in the desire to understand what happens after death, and the increase in occurrence of near-death experiences 's (NDE 's) have acted as miniature victories for philosophers and researchers world-wide. It is theorized that if an understanding of what occurs at
In his philosophical thesis, of the ‘Mind-Body dualism’ Rene Descartes argues that the mind and the body are really distinct, one of the most deepest and long lasting legacies. Perhaps the strongest argument that Descartes gives for his claim is that the non extended thinking thing like the Mind cannot exist without the extended non thinking thing like the Body. Since they both are substances, and are completely different from each other. This paper will present his thesis in detail and also how his claim is critiqued by two of his successors concluding with a personal stand.