Is apologetics a science?

[McCulloch]

Christian apologetics have always been a form of cognitive science.

Question for debate: Can Christian apologetics be considered a discipline within the field of cognitive science?

[jcrawford]

I think here you have to stop toying around and tell us what you define as a soul bacuase obviously you are not talking about the christian soul.

There are over 400 passages in the Bible which refer to the human soul and the word is used frequently today as throughout history.

The fact that your soul can be altered by natural external agents means that soul is natural and not supernatural or metaphysical.

Being subject and responsive to physical stimuli is an attribute of the soul and in no way determines, defines or limits its being to physical causes alone.

no it is not proof of a soul, it is proof that your brain is the organ responsible for your thought.

There is no evidence of the brain's capacity to conceive of itself as a soul.

You'd like to believe you have a soul and so you are deluding yourself.

You'd like to believe that you don't have a soul and so you are deluding yourself.

we have a word for that: cognitive dissonance.

Cognitive dissonance arises when someone's brain attempts to be objective about itself or presumes it can think for itself.

there is someone deluded here and i don't think it is psychiatrists.

Who are the psychiatrists here?

But nice prejudice though.

At least I don't suffer from Dawkin's Delusion or Psychological Prejudice.

[jcrawford]

Willpower would be a case in point unless you choose to credit the brain alone with having the sole capacity to make the choice of "blowing its brains out," so to speak, and snuffing out its life in an act of suicide.

Reducing the human soul and mind to mere functions and fabrications of the brain denies personal responsibilty and choice for any human act. It is tantamount to saying that my brain thought the idea up and told me to do it, which is not much different than saying that the devil made me do it.

No it is not. You have missed that there is no dichotomy.

You are only presuming and have not proved that there is no dichotomy.

My brain thought the idea up and provided the neural impulses to my body to carry out the task.

Since there is no cognitive evidence of your brain thinking any thoughts let alone conceiving an idea or being self-willed and cognizant of its conscience, you are just hypothetically reducing man to a neurological robot controlled by some neuroscientist behind some magicians curtain.

The thought and the act are all the responsibility of the human.

The human what? Soul, mind, person or body?

First you assign thought to the brain and then transfer responsibilty for thought to another area of the human soul.

My soul thought the idea up and put it into my brain. That is not much different than saying that the devil made me do it.

What evidence do you have for your soul thinking up anything, let alone transferring those thoughts to your brain?

[jcrawford]

Once again: mind=brain, brain=mind.

Repeat after me: Brain=physical, natural and observable.
Mind=mental, metaphysical, supernatural and cognitional.

My brain is responding to stimuli to make me cognizant of my awareness. Neurons, neurochemical/transmitters, synapses, hormones, etc.... all the processes that lead me to be aware.

Who is the "me" in this physical process? You, your brain, mind, personality or soul?

Without mind, personality and soul, you have no way of being objective about what you mentally believe to be functions of your brain.

I never met a brain with the sort of self-esteem, ego or personality that you would self-consciously attribute to its neurochemical or biological processes and capacities.

[McCulloch]

Since there is no cognitive evidence of your brain thinking any thoughts let alone conceiving an idea or being self-willed and cognizant of its conscience, you are just hypothetically reducing man to a neurological robot controlled by some neuroscientist behind some magicians curtain.

And you reduce humans to a meat machine occupied by some kind of immaterial ghost in the machine.

The thought and the act are all the responsibility of the human.

The human what? Soul, mind, person or body?

The human. I make no distinction between these various aspects. Is there any reason to.

First you assign thought to the brain and then transfer responsibilty for thought to another area of the human soul.

My soul thought the idea up and put it into my brain. That is not much different than saying that the devil made me do it.

What evidence do you have for your soul thinking up anything, let alone transferring those thoughts to your brain?

I guess I did not make myself clear. I was trying to make the point that saying that an entity called the soul calls the shots is not much different than saying that there is a devil and possibly a God vying for control. There is no support for such entities.

[jcrawford]

True, a personality may be the closest definition one can use for a soul, but if this is the case, it is weak at best.

Personality may be best be understood and qualified as an aspect of one's soul, rather than the biological creation of one's brain.

Why must I use supernatural powers to know which top is appropriate for the weather outside, or which apple is ripest?

Because human cognition is a supernatural faculty of the soul, and human knowledge of the physical world can only be classified as a metaphysical capacity and function of the human mind.

You haven't seen any thoughts or ideas in your microscope or telescope lately, I hope.

I use this funny thing called a brain and knowledge gained over the years to use decision making skills.

Yes, a brain is a terrible thing to waste.

This proves the brain is able to evolve to accomodate the growth of information, not supernatural powers.

What is natural, physical or biological about information and how does it evolve in accordance with the supernatural theory of natural selection and biological evolution?

[McCulloch]

Because human cognition is a supernatural faculty of the soul, and human knowledge of the physical world can only be classified as a metaphysical capacity and function of the human mind.

You haven't seen any thoughts or ideas in your microscope or telescope lately, I hope.

And you will not see any software in the electronic circuits or chips of your computer. Computer software is not supernatural either.

[jcrawford]

One facet of the human mind which was discovered by Sigmund Freud....

Thanks Sigmund! If left undiscovered we would still be mindless I guess.

I think Sigmund deserves more thanks for his oral fixations on parents more than anything else. Perhaps we are mindless, we just don't know it.

The Mind is that aspect of our souls which God gave us to intelligently cognize and objectively reflect upon the various conditions of, and relationships between, our physical bodies and souls. Without a God-given Mind, man could hardly be expected or required to objectively reflect on the condition of his body and soul at any time.

While true that the brain monitors involuntary bodily functions as part of its God-given tasks, there is no way that a human brain can be conscious or cognizant of all the experiences and memories which exist in man's sub-conscious or unconscious Mind, even when willed by the soul to do so, proof being that we cannot remember that which we have intentionally forgotten and suppressed and our brain has no power to think otherwise.

[jcrawford]

And you reduce humans to a meat machine occupied by some kind of immaterial ghost in the machine.

I don't regard human beings as machines at all. That is Darwinistic and a misapplication of mechanistic thinking.

The human. I make no distinction between these various aspects. Is there any reason to.

Only if you want to analyze and discover yourself. Can't think of a better reason.

I guess I did not make myself clear. I was trying to make the point that saying that an entity called the soul calls the shots is not much different than saying that there is a devil and possibly a God vying for control.

I know, but the analogy was based on false premises.

There is no support for such entities.

According to who - scientists who deny their own souls and only think of themselves as brains?

Your biased presuppositions and attitudes are showing.

[jcrawford]

Because human cognition is a supernatural faculty of the soul, and human knowledge of the physical world can only be classified as a metaphysical capacity and function of the human mind.

You haven't seen any thoughts or ideas in your microscope or telescope lately, I hope.

And you will not see any software in the electronic circuits or chips of your computer.

No, but it can be easily detected and decoded by any knowledgable computer programmer.

Computer software is not supernatural either.

Software is designed and created by computer programmers whereas their minds are created by God to function logically, rationally and supernaturally.

Seen any logic in a test tube lately, or just the application of rational logic by scientists to what they mentally observe in a test tube?

[Furrowed Brow]

While true that the brain monitors involuntary bodily functions as part of its God-given tasks, there is no way that a human brain can be conscious or cognizant of all the experiences and memories which exist in man's sub-conscious or unconscious Mind, even when willed by the soul to do so, proof being that we cannot remember that which we have intentionally forgotten and suppressed and our brain has no power to think otherwise.

Can you clarify? Do you mean..

1) At times the brain cannot think of stuff even when willed by the soul.

2) The mind cannot think of stuff, even when willed by the soul?

Can the soul think of stuff without the mind and the brain? If it can why does it need a mind. Why not a soul-brain theory, and leave out the mind. If it can't, how is it able to will the brain/mind to cognise without knowing what it is trying to will them to do.