|
|
回復 嘁哩喀喳 211樓 的帖子
好的，請讀這篇文章：
Santoro G, Wood MD, Merlo L, Anastasi GP, Tomasello F, Germanò A.
The anatomic location of the soul from the heart, through the brain, to the whole body, and beyond: a journey through Western history, science, and philosophy.
Neurosurgery. 2009 Oct;65(4):633-43.
這篇文章挺好的，從古埃及到如今人類對於soul的認識的發展過程。你要是讀他最後那段，乾脆我給你抄過來這段吧，明確說明現代科學debunk了不死的靈魂的概念：
CONTEMPORARY SCIENCE: BRAIN, MIND, CONSCIOUSNESS, AND THE SOUL
In a New York Times op-ed piece, Yale psychologist Paul Bloom wrote that 「The great conflict between science and religion in the last century was over evolutionary biology. In this century, it will be over psychology, and the stakes are nothing less than our souls」 (16, p 2). Indeed, contemporary evolutionary biology, cognitive neuroscience, cognitive psychology, and experiments in artificial intelligence have eroded, to perhaps a greater degree than ever before, the concept of an immaterial and immortal soul that somehow transcends the materiality of the human body. In How the Mind Works (1999), evolutionary psychologist Steve Pinker argues, for example, that 「our minds are not animated by some godly vapor or single wonder-principle」 (31, p 4) of the sort associated with the soul. According to Pinker, modern science has in large measure dispelled 「the ghost in the machine.」 Cognitive neuroscience makes it possible for us to appreciate the extent to which the eyes are not so much windows to the soul as they are extensions of the brain (31).
And while many worry that contemporary science's debunking of the idea of an immaterial soul in turn undermines the interrelated concepts of morality and free will, in fact the same science is moving quickly toward developing models to explain these complex phenomena as not only products of evolution that are hard-wired into our biological make-up but also functions of our relationships to other members of our species and the social and natural environments in which we exist. Morality and free will, the capacity to choose one course of action over another, are real, even if they do not depend for their existence on the existence of an immortal and immaterial soul. 「Our moral sensibilities are,」 notes Thomas W. Clark, 「indelibly encoded in the neural architecture bequeathed us by evolution, and as further shaped by culture」 (18), and to the extent this is the case, we may still assume that we are morally obligated to act compassionately in relationship to each other (18).
Even with all of the recent scientific advances with regard to understanding the nature and relationship between the brain and mind, inasmuch as science explores material realities, questions regarding the existence of a soul, to the extent that the soul is thought to transcend material reality, are questions that transcend the epistemological and methodological boundaries of science. Moreover, to the extent that people experience the soul as something real, however purely imaginary its reality may be, the search for the soul and determination of its nature will continue for quite some time to come. Or, as Richard Dawkins clarified, in a discussion with Steven Pinker, while science may continue to marginalize theoretically the idea of an immaterial soul, the classical notion of a soul, the idea of the soul as spiritual awareness, esthetic sensibility, intellectual power, musical ability, emotional sensitivity, and imagination has, if anything, been dramatically enriched by scientific inquiry and provides the basis for what may become the richest exploration of the soul to date (39).
|
|
狗仔卡
樓主
我同意宗教信仰的確和科學不屬於同一範圍。所以我的觀點恰恰是反對以科學為標準的立場來評判任何宗教。你可以參看前面的討論。
