• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Is the brain the source of faith?

sassafrassquatch

New member
Joined
Jul 20, 2007
Messages
961
What exactly is the purpose of having faith anyway? There are an infinite number of possible faiths, the likelihood of a particular faith being correct is infinitely improbable. If someone pulls a new faith out of their ass now like the scientologists or raelians no one takes them seriously because they know it’s all bullshit. But if someone pulled a faith out of their ass thousands of years ago it’s somehow more credible. Faith is nothing more than credulity. People believe what they do because they want to. Believing something to be true does not make it so.

If scientist goes to the jungle, comes back and says he discovered a new species of beetle but couldn’t catch a specimen it’s entirely reasonable to think that he did find a new beetle. If he comes back saying he found a real live dinosaur there is no good reason to believe him without evidence. It’s more likely he got into some mescaline. He may believe he did see a dinosaur for whatever reason but that doesn’t make it true because everything we know tells us dinosaurs died out millions of years ago.

Until someone can get Yahweh, Xenu, Zeus, Ahura Mazda, Thor or any other proposed godthing or spiritual entity to show up in a lab where we can examine it there is no good reason to take claims of their existence seriously. And no, anecdotes are not data. People are fallible and what they think they saw or experienced is not to be trusted without evidence.

Also, if any “spiritual” entity were to exist how would they be any different than the incorporeal energy beings like the Q from star trek? Even if they do exist, once you strip away all the spiritual and religious language, they would only be things like us just a little different.
 

Domino

ENFJ In Chains
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
11,429
MBTI Type
eNFJ
Enneagram
4w3
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Faith isn't hope, however - it is belief for belief sake. We all use it everyday - faith the bridge won't fall, faith that the elevator won't fall... We don't do a risk measurement for everything and so forth. It can be more - a coping mechanism (denial or justification - such as bad things are planned, etc), excusism (I act the way I do because I was taught to, but it's right because of...) and so forth, but in general it is simply a form of belief. For example, saying "I have faith that you won't cheat on me" generally means "I don't believe you will cheat on me even though I have no reason to know if you will". This is just for self-protection. The choice to believe on over the other is a defensive mechanism. Religion is often used in a similar way.

In that sense, faith is very quantifiable and fits in quite well with the way humans cope with the external world.

I don't consider that to be faith. I consider that to be a reasonable expectation, barring the idea that I live in some third world country where maintenance on structures isn't possible/important.

Faith has all to do with things beyond one's scope or realm of possibility. Such as the healing of a terminally sick parent. Medical science might dictate that the parent can't ever recover. You still live by faith, expecting if you will, something completely unreasonable in concrete terms.

Reasonable expectation cannot encompass an intangible, faith-human soul-miracles, etc, only what lies within possibility, like a bridge's odds of not failing on any given day (hence why engineers build bridges and not priests.)
 

ptgatsby

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
4,476
MBTI Type
ISTP
Faith has all to do with things beyond one's scope or realm of possibility. Such as the healing of a terminally sick parent. Medical science might dictate that the parent can't ever recover. You still live by faith, expecting if you will, something completely unreasonable in concrete terms.

So define faith in a way that I can understand. Is it an unreasonable expectation? Something that doesn't manifest?

Even then, if is not belief in something that one cannot know but one chooses to believe in regardless? How is that fundamentally different than any other type of belief?

(I'll point out that I was talking about belief from the mind's eye. We choose what to believe in, even if the justification is different. The willingness to believe in something differs - if we narrow faith down to the choice to believe in something despite a lack of reason to do so, it is even easier to explain from a "mind's" point of view. It matches up with almost any coping mechanism out there.)
 

Domino

ENFJ In Chains
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
11,429
MBTI Type
eNFJ
Enneagram
4w3
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
So define faith in a way that I can understand. Is it an unreasonable expectation? Something that doesn't manifest?

Personally, as someone who's been in church since the age of 3 or 4, I frequently find "faith" and its definitions maddeningly arbitrary and elusive. I could tell you that faith is, yes, in essence a completely unreasonable expectation (confronted with hard facts to the contrary). Santa Claus is something like that. Children and even fairly sane adults believe in Santa Claus, or the spirit of said person, though the real man has been dead for 100s and 100s of years, and never flew around the world in one night in a sleigh. Santa Claus never manifests, (expect maybe at Macy's ;)). Why people persist in believing in an impossibility like Santa Claus (and promoting him to their kids) would seem ludicrous. I don't personally have faith (or ignorance? Why do the two smack of each other sometimes?) that Santa Claus exists. I never really have. I have no difficulty in believing in God, but I do grapple with the whole faith issue as pertains to his nature and his goodness. That's another conversation, I think. (Or is it? I'm turned around).


Even then, if is not belief in something that one cannot know but one chooses to believe in regardless? How is that fundamentally different than any other type of belief?

I suppose it might not be, Gats. Purple looks much like blue in some shades.


(I'll point out that I was talking about belief from the mind's eye. We choose what to believe in, even if the justification is different. The willingness to believe in something differs - if we narrow faith down to the choice to believe in something despite a lack of reason to do so, it is even easier to explain from a "mind's" point of view. It matches up with almost any coping mechanism out there.)

I can't argue with that. I've hated myself in the past for believing that faith in better things would get me through a crisis, when in fact, I would get dropped on my ass anyway. Faith only seemed to heighten my feelings of betrayal. The odds of my life getting better or worse are perhaps even, and yet the coin keeps flipping and coming down tails. I have been unable to banish a certain inherent level of knee-jerk faith/hope/anticipation (I've mercilessly fed reams of such idiotic though not unreasonable stuff into the shredder recently), and while I have no patience for icy soulless skeptics, I do see the correlation between many "intangible" functions and the brain. For example, the day people accepted schizophrenia as a disorder and not a demon possession was a huge step forward.
 

JAVO

.
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
9,178
MBTI Type
eNTP
I think Sam Harris' definition of faith in this context might be more clearly termed "religious experience", or maybe "belief in something spiritual." That's my first-glance impression based on very limited reading though.

I'm not sure exactly what it is (if anything) Sam Harris is attempting to prove in his brain scan studies. It appears that he may be trying to show that religious experience originates entirely in the mind of an individual. If so, isn't that somewhat of a futile goal since the brain imaging studies are correlational rather than experimental? Maybe I haven't read enough about his methods though. I just suspect he's trying to jump to causative conclusions from correlational evidence. (The problem with this was pointed out by athenian and nightning.)

Until someone can get Yahweh, Xenu, Zeus, Ahura Mazda, Thor or any other proposed godthing or spiritual entity to show up in a lab where we can examine it there is no good reason to take claims of their existence seriously.
What kind of scalpel are you planning to use to dissect God? ;)
 

sassafrassquatch

New member
Joined
Jul 20, 2007
Messages
961
What kind of scalpel are you planning to use to dissect God? ;)

hannibalknifeze7.jpg


I think I'll serve communion with a nice chianti.
 

reason

New member
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
1,209
MBTI Type
ESFJ
There are so many bad arguments in this thread I think my head is about to explode.
 
O

Oberon

Guest
what are you talking about?

when i say everything's physical, i do not mean everything is an object we can see or touch. but there must be some configuration of neurons in our brain that define the concept of justice (it's obviously a loose concept, but whatever), otherwise the concept/word 'justice' wouldn't exist.

Because you have started with the premise that the mind is no more than the interaction of neurons in the brain, you have arrived at the conclusion that "justice" is a concept that depends completely upon the interaction of neurons in the brain.

It's a Skinneresque tautology. Is your premise proven?
 

reason

New member
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
1,209
MBTI Type
ESFJ
Charming. What's yours?
I didn't make an argument. I was just commenting that the preceding arguments were very bad, and whether I made an argument, good or bad, would be irrelevent.

Edit: Actually, scratch that! The big toe is the source of faith, obviously.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,187
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Edit: Actually, scratch that! The big toe is the source of faith, obviously.

Great. And I am such a klutz, I keep stubbing mine.

ps. If you'd care to make a cogent argument, I'd enjoy reading it. (Either that, or I guess I should visit the INTPc version of this thread.) This thread seems more focused on sharing people's personal opinions rather than making any sort of substantiated case. Just a different focus, I guess.
 

reason

New member
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
1,209
MBTI Type
ESFJ
Great. And I am such a klutz, I keep stubbing mine.
Ignore me. I am just in a strange mood with a low tolerance to bad argument. In truth, most are not bad arguments per se, but fairly typical and standard arguments, both thoughtful and considered. They're just stupid to me. They remind me of an old me, and he was stupid, to me, anyway.

Edit: I am feeling very confrontational, and am trying to control myself (remember INTPC a while back when I was... well... harsh with everyone? Like that).
 

Domino

ENFJ In Chains
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
11,429
MBTI Type
eNFJ
Enneagram
4w3
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
I didn't make an argument. I was just commenting that the preceding arguments were very bad, and whether I made an argument, good or bad, would be irrelevent.

Edit: Actually, scratch that! The big toe is the source of faith, obviously.

Funny you should mention it - one of my big toes staged a coup just yesterday, but said treasonous action was contained by an extra pair of socks.

Take that, cosmos.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,187
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Ignore me. I am just in a strange mood with a low tolerance to bad argument. In truth, most are not bad arguments per se, but fairly typical and standard arguments, both thoughtful and considered. They're just stupid to me. They remind me of an old me, and he was stupid, to me, anyway.

Yup, I know. (Not about you, of course... just about me.)

Edit: I am feeling very confrontational, and am trying to control myself (remember INTPC a while back when I was... well... harsh with everyone? Like that).

No need to apologize, I get in grouse mood as well... and when you do it, then I don't have to. :)
 

Athenian200

Protocol Droid
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Messages
8,828
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
4w5
Hmm... let me elaborate on mine again.

Faith is the condition of believing in something without evidence. Belief without evidence is based either on fear, discipline, or choice. Fear, discipline, and choice are known to be related to conscious processes in particular areas of the brain. Fear to the amygdala, and discipline/learning to the cerebral cortex. Choice is the phenomena we haven't isolated yet, therefore it is likely the focus of the query. We know that faith is a conscious choice, and that conscious choices are somehow made in the brain. Thus the brain is the source of faith in as much as faith is conscious and observable. However, this observation doesn't preclude the existence of a soul, which would theoretically have control over the brain's function, and thus still be the source not only of faith, but of all conscious choice and free will as well. If the soul exists, it could be said to exist on a different plane of existence, and that while the brain is definitely the source of faith on the physical plane of existence, it may or may not only be relaying/conveying the will of the soul. This can not be shown one way or the other.

What did you think? I was just bored, so I decided to refine my idea.
 

JAVO

.
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
9,178
MBTI Type
eNTP
Thus the brain is the source of faith in as much as faith is conscious and observable. However, this observation doesn't preclude the existence of a soul, which would theoretically have control over the brain's function, and thus still be the source not only of faith, but of all conscious choice and free will as well. If the soul exists, it could be said to exist on a different plane of existence, and that while the brain is definitely the source of faith on the physical plane of existence, it may or may not only be relaying/conveying the will of the soul. This can not be shown one way or the other.

Very well defined! I agree with this, and this seems to be the most encompassing perspective. I suspect this is similar to the perspective taken in The Spiritual Brain, which was suggested as a relevant book by someone on INTPc.

This leads to further things to ponder. If the spiritual (possibly through the "soul") acts on the material brain, what is the mechanism of this interaction? Is it biochemical, electrical, magnetic, or quantum? Or maybe this is being reductionistic and the spiritual acts on the material brain psychologically through intuition? And, maybe the biological effect of this is that modules (functionally related, interconnected clusters) of neurons act as the "receptor" for spiritually-originating perception.

If such a method of spiritual perception evolved, what was its purpose? If such a method of spiritual perception was created, what was its purpose?
 

redacted

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
4,223
Because you have started with the premise that the mind is no more than the interaction of neurons in the brain, you have arrived at the conclusion that "justice" is a concept that depends completely upon the interaction of neurons in the brain.

It's a Skinneresque tautology. Is your premise proven?

of course my premise isn't proven. and you're right, i am a behaviorist. but my logic is sound at least :)

do you want to challenge behaviorism? if so, how? i'd definitely like to defend it if necessary.

i always love a good philosophy discussion.
 

JAVO

.
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
9,178
MBTI Type
eNTP
do you want to challenge behaviorism? if so, how? i'd definitely like to defend it if necessary.

That's too easy. Just cite any other branch of psychology which explains things better than behaviorism. :) For instance, how does behaviorism explain that it takes longer for us to process information in a list of 10 items versus a list of 3 items assuming the same reward?
 

Maha Raj

New member
Joined
Nov 13, 2007
Messages
67
MBTI Type
ENTP
Is the brain the source of faith?

Well if you agree that you can only have Faith when you are alive, then yes brain is the source of Faith.

Open the Notepad and type "God will give me a car" and then save it and check the size of it. May be 1kb.

Then open the notepad again and type "I am gonna leave the room and go to work. Today, i am gonna make $200 and I am gonna put $150 in a saving account to buy a car.." and write everything you do every other days until you saved up enough money to buy a car. When you are done check the file size. Let say 20MB.

If you see the brain as a computer hard drive, then you will see how much "space and processes" it used to buy that car.

Faith is like a 1KB of contents in your brain. Less knowledge. Less use. Less work done.

If you can see what the brain is doing and what it has in it with brain imaging, then you will see a brain of a person with "Faith" is similar to a dead brain.

Afterall, why use a computer if you're just gonna write "God will do this assignment for me". Even if you use it, it just gonna be as new as it was when you bought them.

Can brain imaging prove or disprove that the brain is the source of faith?

If you can find a huge difference between the brain images of Dalai Lama and Albert Einstein, then yes.
 

JAVO

.
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
9,178
MBTI Type
eNTP
Faith is like a 1KB of contents in your brain. Less knowledge. Less use. Less work done.

If you can see what the brain is doing and what it has in it with brain imaging, then you will see a brain of a person with "Faith" is similar to a dead brain.

Afterall, why use a computer if you're just gonna write "God will do this assignment for me". Even if you use it, it just gonna be as new as it was when you bought them.
Good one! :laugh:

If you can find a huge difference between the brain images of Dalai Lama and Albert Einstein, then yes.

We might have a few confounding variables in this study....

Albert Einstein said:
My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.
 
Top