A Question for Christians

[fuego527]

The reason why saying "read the Bible" is a cop-out is that we don't care what you think Job did or what the main course was at the Last Supper. The concept of "something that happens in a story" is very familiar to us already. The things that interest us are the "why do you think that?" and the "how did you come to this conclusion?" The problem is that the answer is not based in fact, which is the only thing that we will accept. It is, instead, based in belief. You feel safe in this belief because there are a lot of people that believe in the same thing. That is OK with me (which I know doesn't mean [censored] to you, as it shouldn't), believe what you want. I do not have that luxury, my brain does not allow me to believe things beyond the extent of "this seems probable" without proof of such things. So, from this perspective, you can probably see why threads like this one exist. People like Lestat and myself need to understand such specific details to think that something is true. The attempt is not to trap as much as it is to understand your specific belief. The truth is, however, that your system is not based on fact, and therefore can not stand up to such analysis. The last sentence is not intended in a derogatory manner, I just meant that that stuff CAN'T be proven.

[Sifmole]

[ QUOTE ]
The reason why saying "read the Bible" is a cop-out is that we don't care what you think Job did or what the main course was at the Last Supper. The concept of "something that happens in a story" is very familiar to us already. The things that interest us are the "why do you think that?" and the "how did you come to this conclusion?" The problem is that the answer is not based in fact, which is the only thing that we will accept. It is, instead, based in belief. You feel safe in this belief because there are a lot of people that believe in the same thing. That is OK with me (which I know doesn't mean [censored] to you, as it shouldn't), believe what you want. I do not have that luxury, my brain does not allow me to believe things beyond the extent of "this seems probable" without proof of such things. So, from this perspective, you can probably see why threads like this one exist. People like Lestat and myself need to understand such specific details to think that something is true. The attempt is not to trap as much as it is to understand your specific belief. The truth is, however, that your system is not based on fact, and therefore can not stand up to such analysis. The last sentence is not intended in a derogatory manner, I just meant that that stuff CAN'T be proven.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your post is, to me, a reasonable one with decent points. I did want to bring to the front the thing you ended with, which I think is most relevant. Christianity is a "faith", and based on "beliefs" not on facts or science -- and as such cannot be proven. But it can be discussed in a philosophical sense, and has been many times.

[ QUOTE ]

Your post is, to me, a reasonable one with decent points. I did want to bring to the front the thing you ended with, which I think is most relevant. Christianity is a "faith", and based on "beliefs" not on facts or science -- and as such cannot be proven. But it can be discussed in a philosophical sense, and has been many times.

[/ QUOTE ]

Heya Sifmole,

I really think that here you hit the nail right on the head. Indeed relgion is based on faith, as has been demonstrated and claimed over and over again, on this forum. Of course if a religionist says that he has no rationale for his belief, I, for one, cannot object to this. I accept that it is so. The problem is that religionists in their insecurity always seem to want to justify to themselves and others that their position is somehow rational. Of course it isn't, and by these discussions they are going to be confronted over and over again with the obvious contradictions inherent in their faith based positions. This is why I do tend to answer statements from religionoists, altough I am certain, that they truly are not interested in critically investigating facts. They would like to convince themselves and others that their position is rational. But being confronted over and over again, may just be enough in rare case to start thinking critically, like nearly every atheist has probably had to do. I do hope so. Liberation from delusion is a very worthy thing in my experience. It is truly to be reborn and see the world as if for the first time.

By the way, I find it most interesting that religionists, seem to act in concert (in cohorts? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] ) and tend to ignore the most salient posts made on this forum.

[Lestat]

Wow! You said what I have to say better than I ever could have said it.

[Sifmole]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Your post is, to me, a reasonable one with decent points. I did want to bring to the front the thing you ended with, which I think is most relevant. Christianity is a "faith", and based on "beliefs" not on facts or science -- and as such cannot be proven. But it can be discussed in a philosophical sense, and has been many times.

[/ QUOTE ]

Heya Sifmole,

I really think that here you hit the nail right on the head. Indeed relgion is based on faith, as has been demonstrated and claimed over and over again, on this forum. Of course if a religionist says that he has no rationale for his belief, I, for one, cannot object to this. I accept that it is so. The problem is that religionists in their insecurity always seem to want to justify to themselves and others that their position is somehow rational. Of course it isn't, and by these discussions they are going to be confronted over and over again with the obvious contradictions inherent in their faith based positions. This is why I do tend to answer statements from religionoists, altough I am certain, that they truly are not interested in critically investigating facts. They would like to convince themselves and others that their position is rational. But being confronted over and over again, may just be enough in rare case to start thinking critically, like nearly every atheist has probably had to do. I do hope so. Liberation from delusion is a very worthy thing in my experience. It is truly to be reborn and see the world as if for the first time.

By the way, I find it most interesting that religionists, seem to act in concert (in cohorts? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] ) and tend to ignore the most salient posts made on this forum.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you sell quite short many Christians and incorrectly elevate many atheists. Much philosophical and scientific thought was produced by individuals who held to Christian beliefs. Holding a belief in something spiritual does not preclude thought, reasoning or science. And simply chucking the concept of something divine and becoming an atheist does not suddenly make one a reasoning, or rational, individual.

I find it most interesting that the most insulting posts come from the "rational" scientific posters. I don't see that religionists, as you termed them, act any more together than the scientifists ( not-a-word ). They just tend to be answering the same questions.

What is the core problem with Lestat's "question"? Well, because it can't be answered in a one-answer-is-right fashion. From the "belief" in a soul standpoint, I don't know that there is even concensus among Christians -- I've never really thought about the question myself until this thread so I never looked into it. But if the Christians to whom this question is posited answer, "We don't know." Will Lestat accept that? Or will a "We don't know" be seen as proof that Christian belief is false?

I would hazard Lestat's intent to the "We don't know answer" would not be acceptance; but perhaps I am wrong, although the rest of his posts don't seem to show that.

So -- all you non-believers: If we switch brains which man is which? Because one is on death-row and to be executed tomorrow and the other is a free man. So which one dies?

[ QUOTE ]
I find it most interesting that the most insulting posts come from the "rational" scientific posters.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's probably because it's easy for the atheists to insult the intelligence of the believers, but not vice-versa. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] Nah... I'm sure being a good Christian witness has something to do with it.

[ QUOTE ]
What is the core problem with Lestat's "question"? Well, because it can't be answered in a one-answer-is-right fashion.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think most questions would fall into this category. I see nothing wrong with this.

[ QUOTE ]
I've never really thought about the question myself until this thread so I never looked into it.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, maybe instead of bashing Lestat because he asked a question you've never thought about, you should think about the question so that you might present a good response. "I don't know" is always valid, and atheists use it all the time. The key is thinking about it, rather than dismissing it and berrating the questioner instead.

[ QUOTE ]
So -- all you non-believers: If we switch brains which man is which? Because one is on death-row and to be executed tomorrow and the other is a free man. So which one dies?

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe the personhood is equal to or completely contingent upon the functioning brain. Move the brain, you move the person. Destroy the brain, you destroy the person. However, we tend to give people ownership of their own bodies. So, unless the person freely gave up his own body, then that body that now has the criminal's brain, belongs to the non-criminal, and should not be destroyed.

[hmkpoker]

I think OP made a mistake in the way he worded the question. Most people would agree that the soul would correlate more with the brain than the rest of the body, so putting A's brain in B's body still leaves the B body with A brain with all the responsibilities of the orignal A and vice versa.

But...

Let's say the procedure were different. Rather than yanking the big cerebral mass altogether, what if it was transplanted nueron bundle by neuron bundle?

NOW we run into a slew of philosophical problems.

At what point does soul A officially transfer into B's body? If it does at some point transfer, then what if a different neuron bundle were switched over before that point? Is it possible for the soul to be an amalgam...that is, part A and part B...and if it is, don't we have to rethink what a "soul" is?

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
I think OP made a mistake in the way he worded the question. Most people would agree that the soul would correlate more with the brain than the rest of the body, so putting A's brain in B's body still leaves the B body with A brain with all the responsibilities of the orignal A and vice versa.

But...

Let's say the procedure were different. Rather than yanking the big cerebral mass altogether, what if it was transplanted nueron bundle by neuron bundle?

NOW we run into a slew of philosophical problems.

At what point does soul A officially transfer into B's body? If it does at some point transfer, then what if a different neuron bundle were switched over before that point? Is it possible for the soul to be an amalgam...that is, part A and part B...and if it is, don't we have to rethink what a "soul" is?

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree these are better questions. I just wanted to keep the concept simple. As it is, some have said it's a ridiculous question. If they can't fathom it might one day be scientifically possible to transplant a brain, they certainly aren't going to grasp the concept of transferring neuron bundles.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> So, unless the person freely gave up his own body, then that body that now has the criminal's brain, belongs to the non-criminal, and should not be destroyed. </font>

Hmm, this is interesting and I admit somewhat surprising. So if George is a mass murderer who is on death row and Harry is a do-gooder, and their brains are transplanted, you feel Harry's body should get a reprieve from execution (try to omit any personal opinions on the death penalty itself)? Would you go a step further and say it should be released from the confinements of jail?


Very interesting, because I do see your point about ownership of bodies.

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue"> So, unless the person freely gave up his own body, then that body that now has the criminal's brain, belongs to the non-criminal, and should not be destroyed. </font>

Hmm, this is interesting and I admit somewhat surprising. So if George is a mass murderer who is on death row and Harry is a do-gooder, and their brains are transplanted, you feel Harry's body should get a reprieve from execution (try to omit any personal opinions on the death penalty itself)? Would you go a step further and say it should be released from the confinements of jail?


Very interesting, because I do see your point about ownership of bodies.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's imperative that George (his brain) is not released to cause further harm. If it's possible, his brain should be removed from Harry's body (if it is still Harry's body), and transplanted back into his own body (if it is still his own body).

If that is not possible, then I'd say it's more important for George (his brain) not be released, than it is for Harry to get his body back.