Abortion, and ‘When “Science” Becomes a Cult’

I hope you have already read When “Science” Becomes a Cult. If not, take some time to read it. I’m only quoting the second half of the article, regarding ‘an absolute right to an abortion.’

—<Quote begins>—

An Absolute Right

Today at The Stream, John Zmirak gives a concrete illustration: the “fervent, devout attachment to abortion, right up through birth, for any reason, at taxpayer expense isn’t grounded in reason. Or science.” Ideologues “pretend that their own value systems are somehow neutral, based on objective facts and ‘science.’ But what if that isn’t true? What if, in fact, the very opposite proved to be the case?” He notes the irony that dogma and creed are loudest among those who insist on an absolute abortion right, in the name of “science,” even as they defy what science in the “open process” sense indicates:

It’s interesting that so many founders of the pro-life movement were Catholics, and that so many who carry it on today are either Catholics or evangelicals. But that’s not because “life begins at conception” is some Christian dogma, like the Incarnation. No, it’s a sober fact of science, which appeared in embryology texts around the world before Roe v. Wade. Religious faith forces us, despite what we might want to think, to accept the verdict of science.

Zmirak traces the abortion creed back to the source: “Simone de Beauvoir’s claim, borrowed from the Marquis de Sade, that women could only be truly equal if they, like men, could freely evade the consequences of sex. Hence abortion.”

An Unborn Life

Biologist Jonathan Wells has written here recently about the science (“open process” sense) of embryology and what it tells us about the unborn human in the womb. See:

He actually distinguishes three separate senses of science:

In one sense, science is the enterprise of seeking truth by formulating hypotheses and testing them against the evidence. If a hypothesis is repeatedly tested and found to be consistent with the evidence, we may tentatively regard it as true. If it is repeatedly found to be inconsistent with the evidence, we should revise it or reject it as false. This is empirical science.

Or in other words, that is science as an “open process.” Dr. Wells goes on:

In a second sense, science can refer to the enterprise of providing natural explanations for everything — that is, accounting for all phenomena in terms of material objects and the physical forces among them. But this is equivalent to materialistic philosophy, which regards material objects and physical forces as the only realities. Mind, free will, spirit, and God are considered illusions. This is materialistic science.

In a third sense, science can refer to the scientific establishment, which consists of people who are trained and employed to conduct research in various areas. The majority opinion of this group is referred to as “the scientific consensus.” Unfortunately, the scientific consensus has changed many times in the course of history, so it is not a reliable guide to the truth. And although many people in the scientific establishment do excellent empirical science, the scientific consensus is currently dominated by materialistic philosophy.

The science cult unites those two final senses, where the “consensus” has drifted toward materialist dogma.

The cult enthrones politics and ideology and calls it “science.” That hurts the credibility of whatever goes by the name of science, unfortunately including the open-ended process of discovery that truly is scientific. The ideologues have themselves to blame. But what a mess! It impacts everyone, inside and outside of the cult.

I don’t have a problem with “cults” as such, by the way. Every religion, whether my own or the New Atheism or whatever example you choose, started out being dismissed as a cult. When Pharaoh first met Moses, no doubt he thought of him as a cult leader. The problem comes when, in order to win our acceptance, double-talk is used to pretend that a cult is something other than what it is.

—<Quote ends>—

Islam, Abraham, and the Ten Commandments

These people don’t have the slightest idea about what the Law is, do they?

Or what Moses actually said.

No, it’s all about the blood of Abraham (…through Hagar and Ishmael…), and the moral superiority of the Righteous over the Infidel.

And lots of rituals.

All from an “Abrahamic Religion” that doesn’t have the Ten Commandments.

Oh, dear.

Pagans, Darwinians, and New Lies for Old

(You might want to take a look at the original book…)

From the introduction to Part Two for Christian Economics: Student Edition

—<Quote begins>—

Beware lest you say in your heart, ‘My power and the might of my hand have gotten me this wealth.’ You shall remember the Lord your God, for it is he who gives you power to get wealth, that he may confirm his covenant that he swore to your fathers, as it is this day (Deuteronomy 8:17–18).

This passage makes it clear that positive economic sanctions confirm God’s covenant with covenant keepers. This was announced to the nation of Israel by Moses just prior to the invasion of Canaan. Moses warned against the assumption of man’s autonomous productivity as a confirmation of a rival confession of faith. There are rival confessions that reflect rival religions: the worship of God and the worship of mammon. What is mammon? A statement of faith: “more for me in history.” Jesus warned: “No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon” (Matthew 6:24, New King James Version).

The five points of the dominion covenant are these: God, man, law, sanctions, and time. I have presented this in my book, Unconditional Surrender (2011). Before the fall of man in the garden, the five economic points mirrored the five points of the dominion covenant: ownership, stewardship, property, imputation, and inheritance. I have covered this in Part 1.

The fall of man did not change the structure of the dominion covenant. This structure is universal. Man cannot abandon any of the five points. These categories define the human condition. But covenant-breaking man immediately substituted new content for the original dominion covenant’s content: polytheism, the divine state, salvation by ritual, magical invocation, and cyclical history. Christianity steadily replaced this worldview through evangelism for its first thousand years. Humanistic man ever since Darwin has changed his confession of faith again: cosmic impersonalism, autonomous man, situation ethics, state sanctions, and social evolution. He also restructured economic theory to reflect and then implement his new confession of faith: chance, autonomy, theft, bureaucratization, and the disinheritance of covenant keepers. I explore some of the implications of the new economics in Part 2.

—<Quote ends>—

The Christian Dominion Covenant, under God as the Source of the Law:

“The five points of the dominion covenant are these: God, man, law, sanctions, and time.”

The Christian Economic Covenant, under God as the Source of the Law:

“Before the fall of man in the garden, the five economic points mirrored the five points of the dominion covenant: ownership, stewardship, property, imputation, and inheritance.”

The Pagan Power Covenant, under Demons as the Source of the Law:

“…polytheism, the divine state, salvation by ritual, magical invocation, and cyclical history.”

The Darwinian Power Covenant, under the State as the Source of the Law:

“Humanistic man ever since Darwin has changed his confession of faith again: cosmic impersonalism, autonomous man, situation ethics, state sanctions, and social evolution.”

The Darwinian Economic Covenant, under the State as the Source of the Law:

“He also restructured economic theory to reflect and then implement his new confession of faith: chance, autonomy, theft, bureaucratization, and the disinheritance of covenant keepers.”

My private suspicion: over time, as the power of atheism becomes more and more untenable and increasingly diminished, the enemies of God will dump Darwin and go back to the Pagan Power Covenant.

And the demons, unable to hide their hatred of God, Men, Liberty, Law, and Prosperity with cant about The Needs of the People, will have to openly reveal themselves again.

And suffer even more losses for it!

Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding in his hand the key to the bottomless pit and a great chain. And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years, and threw him into the pit, and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he might not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were ended. After that he must be released for a little while.

Revelation 20:1-3, English Standard Version

The little while is rapidly drawing to a close, in my eyes. The New World Order has failed, and is rapidly sliding to sterility, madness, poverty, and death.

As drastically fewer and fewer people believe their lies, it’s back to the pit for the wicked, for centuries (or longer!) to come.

The world is a wheat field, not a tare field. The wicked don’t belong here, and the land – and, in time, even the people and the nations – will spit them out, into the pit they belong.

As God demands.

Thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven.

Knowing the Covenant, Upholding the Covenant

Know neither yourself nor your enemy? Lose all the battles… and the war.

<Waves to the conservatives.>

Know yourself, don’t know the enemy? Lose half of the battles.

Know the enemy, don’t know yourself? Lose half of the battles.

Know yourself, Know the enemy? Win all of the battles… and the war.

I think we all know what God wants us to do.
Know yourself, know the enemy… and put that knowledge to work in the real world.


Gentry outlines the depressing fact that the Temple became an idol, an abomination that had to be destroyed.

Postmillennial Worldview

Building templePMW 2020-082 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

In this sixth entry in an 8-part series I am arguing that the Jewish Temple in the first-century effectively functioned as tool of emperor worship because of its corrupt high-priestly aristocracy. I recommend reading the previous articles first, and in order.

Gaston (75-76) argues for “a definite anti-cultic polemic in the tradition behind the gospel according to Mark.” Thus, in Mk 14:58 the Lord himself alludes to the temple as an idol for Israel. There we read witnesses against him declaring: “We heard Him say, ‘I will destroy this temple made with hands [cheirpoiēton] and in three days I will build another made without hands.’” We see cheirpoiēton frequently used of idols in the LXX in the place of eidōlon or tupos. In the LXX the term “almost always” (TDNT 9:436) refers to pagan idols: Lev 26:1; Dt 4:28; 2Ki…

View original post 1,637 more words

Cosmic Personalism

An extract from Gary North’s Chapter 3: Property, in Christian Economics: Student’s Edition

—<Quote Begins>—

A. Holiness

Point one of the biblical covenant is God’s transcendence, yet also His presence. This is the issue of God’s sovereignty. It asks: “Who’s in charge here?” How does this apply to property?

The biblical concept of holiness has to do with ethics. It is a matter of ethical purity. Grammatically, holiness is based on the Hebrew word, qadash. It means to set apart or to consecrate. The English word used in the King James Version of the Bible, “hallowed,” refers to this consecration. Theologically, to be holy is to be set apart by God in terms of ethical purity.

The original setting apart was God’s setting apart of Himself. He is different from the creation. There is a fundamental distinction between the Creator and the creature. This has to do with the very being of God, but it also has to do with the ethical purity of God. He is the ethical standard. His commitment to purity is absolute. Jesus said: “Be perfect, even as your father in heaven is perfect” (Matthew 5:48).

Another word related to purity is “sanctification.” It also means to be set apart. We speak of someone or something as being sanctified. This is related to the English word, “saint.” We speak of someone as a saint because of the person’s ethical purity. We regard that person as being different from the rest of us. We set apart that person in our own minds. We think to ourselves: “This person is special.” Theologically, we are to begin with God as our model. God is uniquely holy. His holiness makes Him special. There is an English word, “sacrosanct.” It is a combination of “sacred” and “sanctification.” God is uniquely sacrosanct.

The biblical doctrine of creation leads to a conclusion: the universe is personal. We can call this cosmic personalism. The God of creation providentially upholds the entire universe. But because this God is uniquely holy, the universe itself is governed by the ethical standards that God has identified as required for personal holiness. The universe is both personal and ethical.

We do not think of the supposed two trillion galaxies, each with its hundred billion stars, as being related to ethics, but they are. They were created by God and are at all times providentially administered by God. This God is transcendent. He is above the creation. He is fundamentally different from the creation. He is the source of the creation. He has delegated to mankind the administration of the earth and any other place in the universe where men may eventually travel, either before or after the final judgment. God’s dominion is inherently and inescapably ethical.

Every social science is at bottom ethical. Secular scientists usually deny this. They believe that the scientific principles that govern their area of study are ethically neutral. They search for causes and effects in history, and they insist that these causes and effects are governed by impersonal laws that have no connection to ethics. In other words, they deny the existence of ethical cause and effect that is transcendent to man in his institutions. Social scientists and historians acknowledge that particular views of ethical cause and effect do have effects in history. But they insist that these views were invented by individuals, and these theories have no connection to any transcendent source of social order. This is the atheists’ view of society. It is dominant in academia. It is at war with the biblical worldview.

B. Service

Point two of the biblical covenant is hierarchical authority. It asks: “To whom do I report?” How does this apply to property?

God’s covenant with mankind, which was made before either man or woman was created, is a covenant of service. Mankind is dependent on God. God upholds mankind and man’s environment by means of providence. God created mankind in order to serve Him as His corporate agent in extending the kingdom of God across the face of the earth. Man is a legal agent. Man is also an economic agent. God holds individuals and institutions responsible for the administration of the assets He has delegated to them, including their own lives.

This system of service to God mandates service to the creation. Men represent God to the creation, and they also represent the creation to God. What mankind does as God’s agent influences what happens in the general creation. When men rebelled against God in the garden, the world came under negative sanctions. This was taught explicitly by the apostle Paul in the eighth chapter of the epistle to the Romans.

For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now (Romans 8:18–22).

Men are to serve as stewards over the creation. But this is only part of the story. Covenant-keeping people are also to serve as stewards in their relationship with others in God’s church. Jesus was explicit about this.

You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be your slave, even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many (Matthew 20:25–28).

This principle of service is fundamental to a correct Christian understanding of the free market economy. In order to prosper in a free market, producers must serve the desires of customers. Producers dare not lord it over customers. Customers, because they have money, lord it over producers. Money is the most marketable commodity. Everybody would like more money, but at zero additional cost, of course. This is the basis of consumer authority in the free market.

If someone wants success, he must learn to serve. This is fundamental to the free market social order, and it is fundamental in nonprofit institutions. This is a matter of ethics. God built this into the social order from the beginning. There is an ethical cause-and-effect system that is inherent in the human condition. It did not come from man. It came from God.

—<Quote Ends>—

Humans Evolving? Human Degrading! But There’s Hope…

In the article Humans Evolving? Armed with the Evidence, the Story Breaks Down, Eric H. Anderson goes over a new research finding regarding the median artery:

[…] Science Alert headline was more direct, both about the observation and the implications: “More Humans Are Growing an Extra Artery in Our Arms, Showing We’re Still Evolving.”

Reporting in the Journal of Anatomy, scientists in Australia had uncovered that more adults now possess a “median artery of the forearm,” contrasted with studies over the past two centuries. Specifically, based on a sample of “78 upper limbs dissected at two different Australian Universities,” the researchers analyzed whether a median artery in the forearm was present. They then compared this number to those of prior studies and concluded that “the prevalence of median arteries of forearms” since 1846 had increased from approximately 10 percent to over 30 percent. The authors calculate that if the trend continues, nearly every person born after 2100 will have a median artery.


Setting aside for a moment the small sample size (as the authors acknowledge), let’s assume that the numbers reported in this study and in prior studies back to the mid 1800s are reflective of a genuine trend in the prevalence of the forearm median artery. Let’s further assume that the researchers’ projections for the future increase of this prevalence are spot on and that everyone born after 2100 will carry a median artery. What does this demonstrate about evolution? After all, it isn’t sufficient to simply observe a biological change and then declare that, therefore, humans are “evolving.” We must look at the underlying cause to understand what is really happening.

Regulating Embryonic Development

The authors of the study acknowledge that the cause of this change is unknown, but suggest it is likely the result of a mutation in a regulatory structure. Specifically, the median artery is “an embryonic structure, which normally regresses around the 8th week of gestation.” The median artery is therefore a perfectly normal aspect of human anatomy, present during early embryonic development and then typically fading or disappearing altogether as the radial and ulnar arteries on either side of the forearm develop and take over the job.

If we pause here and consider the facts, we can already see the clear outlines of a rational fact-based answer to the question at hand. The median artery is a normal (presumably essential) part of early embryonic development. After the artery has done its job, the developing embryo shuts down the median artery as it develops the radial and ulnar arteries. This speaks clearly to regulation and control. The kinds of things that are consistent with a planned and purposeful process. Indeed, the authors recognize that a regulated system is at work: “The mechanism for the regression of the median artery is initiated and regulated by specific genes. Persistence of the median artery into adulthood indicates the failure of the expression of these genes” (emphasis added). The researchers go on to suggest that this failure of the regression process “could have resulted from alteration of or damage to genes by mutations,” or perhaps an environmental factor, such as an infection of the mother, could have disrupted the regression process.

In either case, what we have is a carefully controlled process toward a particular outcome that has been disrupted.

Humans Evolving? Armed with the Evidence, the Story Breaks Down, by Eric H. Anderson

It’s not that something new is naturally arising: it’s that something is broken.

And sadly, as time goes on, more and more of our genes are going to break down.


We now have a decent handle on biotechnology, and this grip on the science will grow firmer over time. Eventually – this decade, or next century – we will be able to fight the natural (and probably accelerating!) degradation of our bodies and our genes and even of the animals and plants around us: a fight that I believe we will largely win, even before the Second Coming.

No more shall there be in it an infant who lives but a few days, or an old man who does not fill out his days, for the young man shall die a hundred years old, and the sinner a hundred years old shall be accursed.

Isaiah 65:60 English Standard Version

But let’s return from future victory, to the needs of the current fight:

Darwin Devolves — Again

First, no new biological structures were observed and there is no evidence that evolution produced any new biological feature. Quite the contrary. A functional structure, necessary for early embryonic development, failed to be removed when it would normally be eliminated in the developmental process. If this counts as “evolution,” as the authors say and the eager headlines proclaim, then it certainly is not evolution as Darwin envisioned it. Evolution needs to explain (and Darwin thought he was explaining) the origin of new biological features, and eventually completely new biological forms. Observing that a pre-existing structure remains on the scene after it was supposed to depart stage left tells us nothing about the structure’s origin.

Instead, what we seem to be observing in the case of the human median artery is a breakdown of a pre-existing system and a failure of a regulatory process to proceed along its pre-programmed lines. In spite of the evolutionary narrative, breakdown of existing systems and disruption of genetic programming is precisely what we can expect from mutations. If it turns out that the persistence of the median artery into adulthood is indeed the result of mutations, then what we will have is yet another example of broken genes and a broken process — another example of loss-of-function mutations, just as Michael Behe argued in Darwin Devolves. Such de-evolutionary changes may be interesting, but they are of no comfort to the evolutionary story. Indeed, they are precisely the opposite of what evolutionary theory has to explain.

Natural Selection to the Rescue?

Second, despite suggestions in the researchers’ paper to the contrary, the persistence of the median artery can hardly be viewed as an example of natural selection acting on variations. If it is, then it seems to be exactly backwards from what the theory states. As already mentioned, potential negative implications for carpal tunnel syndrome are at hand. Additionally, the authors note the disadvantages of the persistent artery in terms of potential “thrombosis, aneurysm, calcification or traumatic rupture,” and acknowledge that “a median artery is usually considered a disadvantage when complications arise due to its presence.” Why then would natural selection aggressively select for the median artery in the course of just a few generations? The best the authors can offer for a selection advantage is that “in rare instances,” the median artery could act as a backup “emergency vessel” if damage to the radial or ulnar arteries occurs.

On balance, the authors’ own cited evidence points to an overarching disadvantage in the persistence of the median artery, suggesting (one might reasonably conclude) that there was a purpose in the first place for the regression of the artery after it had done its job in early embryonic development.

Humans Evolving? Armed with the Evidence, the Story Breaks Down, by Eric H. Anderson

Christians are going to have to get to work, to fix the increasing cascade of genetic problems.

And not waste time in occult beliefs on how our bodies & genes breaking down supposedly represents a genetic improvement over the past.

Politics, Crackdowns and Trust

From It isn’t skeptics who are harming science today, at Uncommon Descent

—<Quote begins>—

Most of the injuries are self-inflicted:

At the beginning of the coronavirus outbreak, the World Health Organisation (WHO) advised that the wearing of face masks by non-medical workers was unnecessary. Months later, they changed their stance to recommend the use of masks by the general public.

After Donald Trump touted hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for the virus, the drug came under heavy criticism, most notably by The Lancet journal — prompting global trials of it to be suspended. But soon after, data inconsistencies and claims of misconduct surfaced, causing the Lancet study to be retracted — and hydroxychloroquine trials to be resumed.

In the latest major backflip, the WHO has condemned lockdowns as a primary strategy for combating the spread of the virus, after originally recommending them.

Kurt Mahlburg, “To beat Covid we need real science, not scientism” at MercatorNet

Plunging whole hog into politics will only make the world more sceptical. And authoritarian crackdowns will not compensate for lack of genuine trust.

See also:

Now Nature endorses Joe Biden for US Prez—and doesn’t seem to realize what it is doing to itself. Nature was founded in 1869. Between then and now, many U.S. Prezzes have come and gone. The puzzling part is why Nature (and stablemate Scientific American) would throw themselves into the fray like this, as if they had no reputation or credibility, apart from politics, to defend.

—<Quote ends>—

The crackdowns will continue, as legitimacy erodes.

Some variation will continue on the theme of expanding State power: less directly violent and authoritarian than the Soviet and Nazi eras, but still variations on a theme.

The problem is not the opposition of the People: the government-trained Pavlovian Dogs truly don’t care, so long as the checks & treats keep coming.

It’s that

  • deficits do matter,
  • technology continues to decentralize
  • the gatekeepers aren’t coming back
  • and public legitimacy – Trust in Authority – falls away.

You can’t rule just with sticks, with crackdowns, with univocal media noise, with sterile sex games.

You need treats, bribes, and buyouts too… and these things come at a cost. Even as our soft-fascist economy continues to age and wither.

Keep an eye on those checks and budgets, the foundation of government authority today.

See how they rot, via inflation. Deliberately under-reported/under-measured inflation, in order to better shield government balance sheets.

Even as the bailouts keep being pumped out.

Watch out, should the interest rate rise out of the control of the central bank.

And when the treats end – directly, or (more likely) implicitly and secretly, with inflated sawdust being offered as meat – the dogs will get very hostile.

Millions and millions of them.

A Few Books to Read

The Bible
That You May Prosper, Ray Sutton
Institutes of Biblical Law, vol. 1, R. J. Rushdoony
The One and the Many, R. J. Rushdoony
Man, Economy, and State, Murray Rothbard
Human Action, Ludwig von Mises
Fire in the Minds of Men, James Billington
The Constitution of Liberty, F. A. Hayek
Knowledge and Decisions, Thomas Sowell
That Hideous Strength, C. S. Lewis

Gary North, The Ten Books That Have Most Influenced Me

I’ve read 1, 2, 3, 4, and 10.

I really should get cracking on 9.

I highly respect the Austrian school of economics, but I don’t have time to get really deep into it, just reading summaries and topical articles. Your mileage may vary.

Your Mind vs. Your Brain

A pile of snippets from Your Mind vs. Your Brain: Ten Things To Know,

Here are some reasons why they aren’t really the same:

1.Is the human brain unique in some way? Yes, but not so much in its structure as in the things we do with it. For example, the human, mouse, and fly brains all use the same basic mechanisms, which is a bit of a puzzle, considering the different things we do with our brains. […]

2.If the brain is so closely interconnected, wouldn’t people lose the ability to think if their brains were split in half or half cut away? This surgery is done to treat severe epilepsy. The brain adapts to what it must work with and the patient usually suffers only minor disabilities. Roger Sperry’s Nobel Prize-winning split-brain research convinced him that the mind and free will are real. And yes, some people think and speak with only half a brain. […]

3.Can people in comas, who show no awareness of their surroundings, really think? Yes! […] For example, in one study, “Remarkably, five patients were able to wilfully modulate their brain activity, suggesting that, though unable to express any outward signs of consciousness at the bedside, they could understand and follow the researchers’ instructions.” Generally speaking, they can hear us: Researcher Adrian Owen found that brain wave patterns when asked to imagine something, were the same as those of normal volunteers. [….]

4.Is a brain really needed for thinking? That’s a good question. At the animal level, maybe not. The “blob,” now on display at the Paris Zoo, engages in complex behavior without a brain. So does the flatworm and the amoeba and so do the many plant communications networks. […]

5.Can we develop tests of the brain for consciousness? Well, first, we aren’t really sure what consciousness is. […]

6.But wait. If the mind were real, wouldn’t we be able to control things by thoughts alone? We do that now with our bodies. And we can do it under other circumstances too if an electrical connection can be established. […]

7.Can brain scans read our minds? They can—in a dozen conflicting ways. […] The main thing to see is that “reading the mind” is more like reading the ocean than like reading the directions on a package. We would need to begin by deciding exactly what we want to know—and then go fishing.

8.Aren’t computer programs being developed that think just like people? No. There are a number of reasons why computer programs can’t and won’t think just like people. For our purposes here, the brain is not at all like a computer: Seeing the brain as a computer is an easy misconception rather than an informative image, says neuroscientist Yuri Danilov: “But as soon as you assume that each neuron is a microprocessor, you assume that there is a programmer. There is no programmer in the brain; there are no algorithms in the brain…” […]

9.Don’t neuroscientists say that the mind is just the brain? Many scientists believe that, not because of evidence, but because they are materialists. The evidence does not point in that direction. Thinking it through carefully, the idea doesn’t even make sense, as Michael Egnor points out: “How do we believe that there are no beliefs? If eliminative materialism is true, then their own belief in eliminative materialism isn’t a belief. It’s a physical state, a certain concentration of neurochemicals that we (the uninitiated) foolishly call a belief. So a disagreement between an eliminative materialist and a dualist isn’t really a disagreement at all. It’s just two different concentrations of brain dopamine or whatever. Exactly how these chemicals in different skulls get into a “disagreement” is left vague. At this point, you may get a bit uncomfortable, as you would if the guy you’re sitting next to on the subway starts talking about the fact that CNN is broadcasting directly into his brain.” […]

10.Do any neuroscientists doubt the consensus that the mind is just the brain? Yes, the great mid-twentieth century neurosurgeon Wilder Penfield offered three lines of reasoning for such doubts, based on brain surgery on over a thousand patients. A number of other neuroscience pioneers, some of them Nobel Laureates, arrived at that position due to their research. Here are four examples. […]