Chapter Summary:
This week an analysis on the book Soul Made Flesh by Carl Zimmer will allow us to better understand the development of the science that we are currently studying. Carl Zimmer’s book gives a timeline of events and describes the people who contributed to the science of neurology. This week’s analysis will focus on chapter two entitled “World Without Soul,” which focuses on how scientific development and the church during the 1500 and 1600’s were unable to find a happy medium. The church doctrine followed Aristotle’s belief that “the Earth was at its center, surrounded by a set of rotating spheres that contained planets and the sun, surrounded in turn by the orbs of the stars” (26). However, as chapter two describes, philosophers and scientists were able to determine that Aristotle was wrong in his belief and therefore the church doctrine was false as well. With their own experiments and interpretations of each other’s research the philosophers in this chapter were able to develop their own understanding of the soul, which was clarified by the work of Descartes.
The most influential Greek astronomer, Claudius Ptolemy (Almagest) found an error in Aristotle’s philosophies. Ptolemy reworked the circular path of the planets by adding epicycles and shifting the Earth from the center of the cosmos (26). Although Ptolemy’s work was “brilliant” it did not support Aristotle’s philosophy as accepted as church doctrine (26). It was near the end of the sixteenth century when Galileo Galilei also determined that Aristotle’s theories of the cosmos were incorrect. According to Aristotle, “the larger the object the faster it should fall, because of the greater urge to reach its natural place.” However, Galileo determined “that heavy and light weights both fall at the same rate” (27). It was studying Copernicus’ work that Galileo realized Copernicus was right and that the Earth was not the center of the cosmos, thereby the “heavens were not a realm of perfection” (28). This new theory distressed the Catholic Church since it disrupted the cohesion of thoughts they strongly believed (28).
Yet there were monks and priests that thought the church should remove Aristotle from their doctrine since “God’s providence was irrelevant in Aristotle’s world made of self-transforming matter” (28). These monks and priests were concerned with the need of a more concrete theory because of the formation of mystical nature-worshiping sects and a growing number of skeptics within Europe (28). According to Zimmer, it was a monk named Marin Mersenne who led the “assault” on Aristotle and he decided “that the only way for the church to survive was to take the soul out of nature” (28).
Another priest, Pierre Gassendi embraced atoms and viewed the universe as “composed of indivisible, indestructible, invisible particles wandering through a void,” and each of these particles have an “intrinsic size, shape, and weight” (29). This idea of atoms, Gassendi believed was in perfect harmony with Christianity as was the idea of a soul made of atoms (29). Gassendi formulated the idea of two souls: the sensitive soul and the rational soul. The sensitive soul involved the nerves “receiving sensations and impressing them on the brain,” while the rational soul was deemed “immaterial” and located in the brain (29). The rational soul was dependent on the sensitive soul to send it images of the outside world (30). This natural philosophy, Gassendi believed would bring proper justice to the Christian soul since the rational soul was not composed of atoms and therefore it was immortal (30).
The ideas and theories of these men led Rene Descartes to bring a new perspective to the concept of the soul and its presence in the body. Zimmer gave a descriptive account of Descartes life and what led him on his philosophical journey. Descartes first research focused with the nervous system, and he came to believe that in the ventricles the soul controlled the body. He thought that a “subtle wind” caused by spirits, which formed as blood rose from the heart to the head pressed against the ventricles causing the “breeze” to surge into the nerves. As the nerves expanded with “spirits” Descartes assumed this caused muscles to swell and contract (35). Descartes treated the human body as an “earthen machine,” arguing that a body could live and move “without the help of life-giving souls” (34). He became convinced that animals and humans were “intricately crafted machines made up of passive particles,” however humans contained a rational soul (36). Descartes supported Galen’s claim that the pineal gland was located where the vessels joined together by studying Galen’s work. He asserted that the pineal gland allowed the rational soul to control the glands movements (37). Therefore, Descartes believed that it was the soul’s movements that “aimed the spirits at particular pores in the walls of the ventricles, which then traveled through the nerves and carried out the soul’s will” (37).
Descartes finally combined his work into one book, The World in 1632. However, due to Galileo’s condemnation by the church, Descartes decided to present his new argument in a short book, Discourse on Method. This book did not include his famous motto “Cogito, ergo sum: I think, therefore I am,” which supported his belief that God does exist (38). He explained in his discourse that the rational soul “directed the flow of animal spirits through the ventricles” (39). Descartes exploited his work in two more books Meditations and Principles (39). It was Descartes study of the brain that led natural philosophers to launch the “Neurocentric Age” (41).
**This link gives a good comparison between Aristotle’s and Ptolemy’s interpretation of the universe: http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/retrograde/aristotle.html.
**The hyperlink of the Descartes Principles is an index of the Principles so you can easily find the ones that interest you the most.
Critique:
According to Zimmer, Copernicus’ claim that the Earth was not at the center of the cosmos, but just another planet orbiting around the sun provided a new conception of the brain and the soul (25). It was Descartes “conception” of the brain and soul’s relationship that captured my attention in this chapter. His theory stated that a “subtle wind” was caused by spirits, which formed as blood rose from the heart to the head. This wind pressed against the ventricles causing the “breeze” to rush into the nerves. As the nerves expanded with “spirits” he assumed this caused the swelling and contracting of muscles (35). At first, I was confused on how he associated a relationship between the “spirits” that formed in the blood with the ventricles. But after I read about the ventricles function and structure I was able to understand why. The ventricles are filled with cerebral spinal fluid (CSF), which provides cushioning for the brain within the skull. I remember learning in class that the CSF dissolves neural hormones via the blood stream throughout the body. This is why I think Descartes associated the “spirits” with the ventricles because the ventricles consist of a fluid that could transport these “spirits” to other parts of the body.
Descartes idea of “spirits” was as “material as blood and bones” (35). This surprised me because Zimmer says on page 31 that Descartes had a “deep-running Catholic faith,” and I would have thought that Descartes observed how in the Bible the soul is a separate entity from the heart and our strength (Deut 6:5). Today in Christian teaching the soul is thought of as a nonphysical element opposed to a physical element as Descartes believed.
I also wanted to mention Gassendi because as a priest he was able to maintain his faith in God and correlate his faith with his scientific study. I found this extremely interesting since as science has developed some people, including myself at times have difficulty balancing the relationship between science and religion. The debates and conflicts between the Church and the development of science are still prevalent today as they were during Gassendi’s and Descartes time. An article in TIME Magazine titled “God vs. Science” is a good source to better understand the debates that are occurring within Science and Religious sects today. One of the debates is Darwinian Evolution vs. The Book of Genesis. As a Christian and a Biology major, I had to find a happy medium between this debate. For that reason I believe that the Book of Genesis is truth, but I also believe that the Earth has evolved and changed. And these changes could have occurred with accordance to scripture in seven days (definitely longer than seven days, so I like to call it God time). The author, David Van Biema includes a debate between two well-known scientists with conflicting opinions on science and religion: Richard B. Dawkins and Francis S. Collins. Dawkins is widely known for his anti-God sentiments and his support of the Darwinian Theory, which is found in his book The God Delusion. While Francis S. Collins, the director of the National Human Genome Institute supports the cohesion of science and religion.
Finally, I wanted to conclude by saying that I found this chapter very enlightening. I was able to apply the themes and philosophers I was introduced to in my Philosophy class to the development of neuroscience. I was also able to view how the Church’s relationship with the scientific community is still in conflict with certain issues.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Chapter 2 plays a crucial role in our understanding of the roots of neurobiology, as we know it today. Taking into account the information Zimmer presents in this chapter and those preceding it, it is evident that the widespread prevalence of the Church’s beliefs in secular society served as an impediment to the development of neurology and science in general. Contrary to FAITH2112’s first sentence, Copernicus’ belief that the Earth revolved around the sun did not directly provide a “new conception of the brain and the soul.” Rather, Zimmer presents the readers with information about the progression of scientific contemplation—such as the transition from Ptolemy’s geocentric to the heliocentric model of the universe—to illustrate that Renaissance scientists had to dissociate their pursuit for scientific truth from religious, and thereby societal, taboos so that science could proliferate. In that respect, such events were simply a prelude to the restructuring of beliefs regarding the brain and the soul.
Also, I do not necessarily agree with the assertion that Descartes associated the “animal spirits” that comprised the rational soul with the ventricles due to the presence and function of cerebrospinal fluid. I think it is merely coincidental that CSF distributes neural hormones throughout the body in the same manner that the Cartesian perception of the soul did. At the time, it was unknown that CSF was even present in the ventricles, which Descartes believed was empty (35). I would think that this notion would not be countered until vivisections were implemented.
Despite Descartes’ Catholic upbringing, I do not find it surprising that he began to perceive the soul as a physical extension to the human body. Like many other philosophers and scientists during the Renaissance, his thoughts began to diverge from spirituality, due in part by the deductive reasoning he acquired as a child (31). Gassendi himself believed that the soul possessed a physical component. Unlike the rational soul, he believed that the sensitive soul was material and—in modern biological jargon—genetically inherited.
For more information on:
1) Descartes' perception of the brain and the soul: http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/Mind/Descartes.html
2) Gassendi's atomic theory of "soul inheritance": http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/perspectives_on_science/v011/11.4fisher02.html
When Zimmer states that Descartes idea of "spirits" was as "material as blood and bones" on page 35, I don't think that he meant that Descartes literally took the "spirits" as physical elements. I think Descartes used the spirits and materialized them for himself into this blood and bones in order to create something tangible to work with. Most of the time people enter the field of science because they like facts. I feel Descartes was using the spirits to try to create a fact as to how the soul would run through the body.
I feel Descartes still kept with his deep-running Catholic faith. In his theory, as Faith2112 points out, the spirits were formed as the blood rose from the heart to the head. In this case Descartes is sticking with Deut 6:5, where the soul is a separate entity from the heart and our strength. The spirits or the soul part of our bodies left the heart to go to the head, still keeping the heart separate from the soul. It can be seen on page 41 that Descartes was a religious man because in the hour of his death, he told his spirit to leave its prison (his body). Even though Descartes factualized the spirits for others purposes, he knew what the spirits were.
I do agree with Faith2112 that there are still conflicts between the Church and science development. The conflicts, in my opinion, may not be at the level they were in Descartes' time, but have the same meaning to us as they did to the scientists back then.
To expand on Faith2112's two scientists with conflicting opinions, I found some articles:
1) Richard Dawkins: Is Science a Religion? www.thehumanist.org/humanist/articles/dawkins.html
2)Fracis S. Collins: Why this scientists believes in God. http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/03/collins.commentary/index.html
Chapter Two was a very interesting chapter for me for I learned about some people who I had heard of before but never knew, off hand, what they contributed to the developments of neurobiology. FAITH2112'S summary of the chapter was very through and inclusive. I agree that those are the major points for the chapter but, when it came to the analysis of what the information was trying to convey, my feelings seem to be a mixture of things.
The Descartes theory that states "spirits" were as "material as blood and bones"(page 35) was one that did not surprise me because there is such a constant, factual struggle between science and religion in our present time. These beliefs did not, in my opinion, just spring up in our present era and, from prior knowledge, I knew that it must have originated hundreds of years ago.
I do agree with FAITH2112 when she stated that there is still conflict between the Church and the world of science. The only surprising part of this, to me, was that Descartes was the individual making the correlation. I assumed that either you believed what scientific evidence was telling you or you believed in God’s word but you could not believe both. Since I was raised to take the Bible as truth and to never to question its teachings, I, myself, am new to the whole idea of there possibly being a middle ground between the information in the Bible (that we are told is infallible truth) and the theories of man based on things seen. In today's society, it seems to be a constant mental and spiritual battle between people of faith who work in the world of science to maintain a balance of the two mindsets.
I agree with JAMAWA on the sentiment that Descartes was still very solid in his Catholic upbringings despite his attempts to make a tangible comparison of the “spirits”. On his deathbed, he was having a personal conversation with God about man and his misery (page 40). He even told his soul (in his last hour of life) that it would soon be free from its “prison” and to “ bear this separation with joy and courage “ (Zimmerman, 2004; page 40).
To add to the science vs. religion debate, I have found the following article:
1)Cornelia Dean
"Science, Religion and the Battle for the Human Soul"
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/06/26/arts/snsoul.php
Faith2112 says that she was surprised by the fact that Descartes’ idea of “spirits” was as “material as blood and bones” because it contradicted his “deep-running Catholic faith.” I, on the other hand, do not feel that this statement belittles his faith in God at all. He was an inquisitive man who recognized his faith in God but had “a nagging doubt about everything else” (31). Scientists try to answer questions to further understand the premise of some idea. He was only trying to allow the soul to be visualized as something one could understand. I cannot fully conceptualize the word: soul. As a scientist, I want and need proof that there is such thing as a soul but I still have faith that everyone has one. My faith allows me to believe even though I cannot sense a soul; in other words, see, touch, smell, hear, and taste a soul. My senses allow me to fully perceive something but my belief in that something is just by some means present.
Faith2112 mentions Gassendi because he maintained his faith in God in accordance with his views. However, I think Gassendi was just being careful to avoid any persecution by the church. I feel that as a scientist, there should be no limits, no boundaries and being cautious only restricts one from the answers that may lie ahead. Gassendi envisioned a sensitive soul made of atoms. Again, I believe he did this to solidify the idea of a soul. Revisiting the senses allowing one to fully perceive something, Gassendi too believed that “no arrangement of atoms could reflect on itself or perceive something beyond the images supplied by the senses” (29). Yet, he also believed in an immaterial rational soul that was “lodged within the brain” that would leave the body upon death and “move toward Him” (30). I believe this was another precaution so as to protect himself from heretical thinking and an intolerance and condemnation by the church.
Faith2112 also mentions that she at times has difficulty balancing the relationship between science and religion. I too believe that it is difficult to balance science and religion and to find a happy compromise. I agree that this debate is still very prevalent today as it was back during Descartes’ and Gassendi’s time. There are many people who have conflicting opinions when trying to distinguish one from the other.
More information on the debate of religion vs. science:
Articles of Faith: Conflict between religion, science seems everlasting
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/328138_faith18.html
Genesis vs. Evolution
http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/genesis-vs-evolution.html
This website is particularly interesting and a specific section relevant to neurobiology:
“Consider the ultimate example of design in the human body, the human brain”
I thought it was interesting what Descartes explained about the spirits,” and that it controlled the body meaning as the nerves expanded with “spirits,” this would cause the muscles to swell and contract. Displacing such beliefs as that souls controlled the body and spirits, are formed by blood flow from the heart to the head, and so due to the possession of spirits was the belief that health resulted from a balance among bodily element or processes.
Sometimes I wonder how do philosophers like Descartes and priest like Gassendi come up with how souls or spirits can be associated to how our body functions. For instance, Gassendi had the idea of two souls that are identified as sensitive soul and rational soul. The sensitive soul are the nerves that receive sensations, whereas rational soul was considered as “immortal” and located in the brain. And so, that made me think how did he come about with the idea that a rational soul is “immortal” ?
Faith2112 mentioned that science and religion are difficult to relate to each other. I too believe that it is difficult to balance science and religion. The reason is spiritual beliefs and God’s creations all draw from a religion, whereas the major goal of science is to discover the causes of phenomena, and so, as causes are known, predictions become more accurate. And so, it is just difficult to understand and provided an answer as to how God created the way are body’s are structured and functioned without having to oppose religion, at the same time, it is difficult to prove the answer to that. While science can be proven, even if predictions are made, because later on it becomes more accurate and reasonable for people to understand. However, by looking at things religiously, it is difficult to prove if there are such things as “spirit” and “soul.” And so, there are still uncertainties around us that questions the relationship between science and religion.
More information on science vs. religion:
Science vs. religion: teach the difference, resolve the conflict. (Special Issue: Science and Religion: Conflict or Conciliation?).
http://gr4an4te8p.scholar.serialssolutions.com/?sid=google&auinit=Z&aulast=Pazameta&atitle=Science+vs.+Religion:+Teach+the+Difference,+Resolve+the+Conflict&title=Skeptical+inquirer&volume=23&issue=4&date=1999&spage=37&issn=0194-6730
Article on Descartes:
Descartes: An intellectual Biography
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=QVwDs_Ikad0C&oi=fnd&pg=PR14&dq=descartes+works&ots=9TZ_DFugkd&sig=m18b3QH5BZjGdyj5WNbCwZXrVbs#PPA3,M1
There were parts from the second chapter of the book Soul Made Flesh by Carl Zimmer that I found fascinating, yet there were also parts that did not strike a chord with me. I found myself becoming more engaged in the book as I read about a number of gifted men from different walks of life, trying to grapple with explaining the workings of the universe and eventually the human body. This was done against the backdrop of powerful Church doctrines. I enjoyed learning about how early philosophers equated their religious teachings with new ideas that oftentimes did not mesh.
I respect Faith 2112’s opinion of Gessendi, however, I did not like Zimmer’s crediting Gassendi with forming the idea of the soul consisting of infinitesimal, indestructible particles called atoms (29). Gessendi was not the first (or probably even one of the first) to theorize that atoms may make up the universe and the human soul. The Greek philosopher Democritus (ca. 460-370 B.C.) postulated that all things, including the universe and the human soul (as well as the human mind) were made up of extremely small, invisible particles called atoms (http://www.iep.utm.edu/d/democrit.htm).
FAITH212 also states that she does not understand how Descartes could have been a devote Catholic if he equated the soul with the “spirits” he claimed to be “material as blood and bones.” I think it is important to keep in mind that Descartes was attempting to “uncover the truth” through his theory of believing nothing to be true (32). It is also important to note that Descartes began to dismiss the idea of the soul being responsible for our bodily functions (35). Hence, I do not think that he was referring to the human soul when he stated that the “animal spirits” were “as material as blood and bones” (35). It does not seem as though he was trying to equate the two.
I was not raised Catholic due to which I am not as knowledgeable as I would like on the debate that exists between the Church and Science,. However, it has not been easy to escape the fact that both do not see eye to eye. I would have liked to know a little bit more about how Faith212 has managed to achieve the “happy medium” between her Catholic teachings and the facts or theories put forth by science. Her comment led me to think of a number of other religions that also conflict with scientific postulations. One of these religions is Islam, which similar to the Catholic faith, believes in the evolution of human beings from one man (http://www.beliefnet.com/story/110/story_11063_1.html).
Overall, I found the chapter to be an enlightening read as it gave a clear background to the information that we have come to take for granted today.
There were parts from the second chapter of the book Soul Made Flesh by Carl Zimmer that I found fascinating, yet there were also parts that did not strike a chord with me. I found myself becoming more engaged in the book as I read about a number of gifted men from different walks of life, trying to grapple with explaining the workings of the universe and eventually the human body. This was done against the backdrop of powerful Church doctrines. I enjoyed learning about how early philosophers equated their religious teachings with new ideas that oftentimes did not mesh.
I respect Faith 2112’s opinion of Gessendi, however, I did not like Zimmer’s crediting Gassendi with forming the idea of the soul consisting of infinitesimal, indestructible particles called atoms (29). Gessendi was not the first (or probably even one of the first) to theorize that atoms may make up the universe and the human soul. The Greek philosopher Democritus (ca. 460-370 B.C.) postulated that all things, including the universe and the human soul (as well as the human mind) were made up of extremely small, invisible particles called atoms (http://www.iep.utm.edu/d/democrit.htm).
FAITH212 also states that she does not understand how Descartes could have been a devote Catholic if he equated the soul with the “spirits” he claimed to be “material as blood and bones.” I think it is important to keep in mind that Descartes was attempting to “uncover the truth” through his theory of believing nothing to be true (32). It is also important to note that Descartes began to dismiss the idea of the soul being responsible for our bodily functions (35). Hence, I do not think that he was referring to the human soul when he stated that the “animal spirits” were “as material as blood and bones” (35). It does not seem as though he was trying to equate the two.
I was not raised Catholic due to which I am not as knowledgeable as I would like on the debate that exists between the Church and Science,. However, it has not been easy to escape the fact that both do not see eye to eye. I would have liked to know a little bit more about how Faith212 has managed to achieve the “happy medium” between her Catholic teachings and the facts or theories put forth by science. Her comment led me to think of a number of other religions that also conflict with scientific postulations. One of these religions is Islam, which similar to the Catholic faith, believes in the evolution of human beings from one man (http://www.beliefnet.com/story/110/story_11063_1.html).
Overall, I found the chapter to be an enlightening read as it gave a clear background to the information that we have come to take for granted today.
I feel as though with most of the great scientists and philosophers mentioned in Carl Zimmer's Soul Made Flesh, there's a 'hit or miss' trend. Ideas are thrown out and they are either proven to be true as we know now, or bear no current significance at all. But on what basis are some theories acknowledged and others cast off as blasphemy? For instance, the church reverently adopted Aristotle’s theories and shunned anyone who questioned it or offered another theory regarding the Earth’s location in the cosmos. Why was the church so ardent in its decision? Aristotle didn’t have valid proof to fit his theory. As Zimmer states, “Mathematics was the sort of minor detail he couldn’t be bothered with (26).”
René Descartes went against Aristotle when trying to explain how the liver sends ‘particles’ to the heart, where he believed “they were transformed by heat into blood.” He was sure to mention that this was not related to Aristotelian heat which was “innate to the heart,” but “a fire without a light (35).” At this point neither party seems to have a good grasp on what we know to be scientifically significant, however, Descartes proves himself to be leaning in the right direction when he chooses the Pineal gland as the residence for the soul. The gland secretes Melatonin, which regulates biological rhythms within the body. So when, Descartes concludes that “rational spirits,” perhaps the rational soul, steers the body to “speak,” “write,” and “walk.” Although Zimmerman feels as though Descartes was wrong in his observations regarding the Pineal gland and its location, in a way, given his time, Descartes was right.
As far as the use of “spirits” with the Ventricles in concerned, Descartes may have been speaking of not the soul, but perhaps some force, or neuronal impulse as we know it today, that drives bodily movement. I agree with FAITH2112 that Decartes may have been on to something when he associated the two together, however, I’d also like to point out a fallacy in his example. Descartes uses the example of having one’s foot too close to a fire, i.e. a burn reflex. This would indicate that he was actually observing a reflex arc, in which case, neuronal impulses would only reach the Spinal Cord, and not the Brain, thereby not dealing with Ventricles whatsoever. He seemed to have the right idea, just with the wrong details. Then again, that is the theme for most early scientific findings.
I must say that I did find myself quite excited that Gassendi and Descartes and other great minds incorporated God into their arguments and philosophies. This may have been due to fear of being excommunicated, a good point mentioned by ‘burd,’ or perhaps their personal that there is no knowledge without God. I feel that the sciences are ironically slipping into the footsteps of the early Catholic Church, which ardently held onto Aristotle’s teachings, threatening anyone who went against them. In this day, most avid scientists seem to shun anyone who may not believe in Darwinism, or perhaps follow other theories, or even have their own theories on the matter. Why must students or anyone in the field choose between Science or Religion. Why is there a conjunctive “or” between these two words? Like FAITH2112 stated, why must religious scientists be ridiculed for believing in a possible Science and Religion?
In the case that the hyperlinks do not work, please refer to the following websites:
Pineal Gland
www.vivo.colostate.edu/hbooks/pathphys/endocrine/otherendo/pineal.html
"Spirits"
plato.stanford.edu/entries/pineal-gland/#2.1
Congratulations to you all on a very thoughtful series of responses to FAITH2112's post addressing chapter 2 of Zimmer's book. Below I have quoted some excellent points from commentors. Some things to think about are 1) is the word 'spirits' the same as the word 'soul'? Most philosophers/scientists of the time thought there were at least several spirits-- the 'animal spirits' that control the body are physical, but that doesn't meam all the spirits necessarily have a physical component. 2) Although there is certainly a "science vs religion" component to this book, I strongly agree with some of the below sentiments that science and religeon are NOT necessarily diametrically opposed to eachother. For example (correct me if I am wrong) it is my understanding that the Catholic Church has fully accepted the scientific estimation that the earth is over 4 billion years old and that natural selection has guided human evolution during this time. The Church, of course, did not always believe this, but they also did not always believe the earth was round. It is also very important to distinguish between a scientific approach to questions, compared with a 'faith'-driven approach. How does a scientist know when she/he is wrong? When their theory is no longer supported by the weight of the evidence. Scientists can and very often do change their minds. Also keep in mind that their is a huge difference between religious faith and religious certainty (i.e. fundamentalism). By definition, faith means that you are NOT exactly certain, but very hopeful. You cannot, on the other hand, have a discussion with someone who is absolutely certain that their interpretation of how the world works is absolutely correct. This applies to BOTH science and religion. The last comment I want to make about science, and this is an important one, is that SCIENCE CANNOT PROVE ANYTHING! IT CAN ONLY *DISPROVE* THINGS! There are an infinite number of scientific theories out there that postulate how earth and humans developed. However, the vast majority of these theories have been scientifically disproven (they do not agree with physical laws). The rest of the theories, like Darwinian evolution, have not been 'proven' (science does NOT prove things!), they have just withstood the test of time extremely well (we have not been able to scientifically disprove them). This does not mean that these theories won't change with time or even be scientifically disproven some day. The difference between a real scientist and a fundamentalist (religion OR scientist) is that the real scientist will change his/her mind as different theories become disproven. Fundamentalists CAN'T change their minds.
Ynaling: "Unlike the rational soul, he [Gassendi] believed that the sensitive soul was material and—in modern biological jargon—genetically inherited.
JAMAWA: "When Zimmer states that Descartes idea of "spirits" was as "material as blood and bones" on page 35, I don't think that he meant that Descartes literally took the "spirits" as physical elements. I think Descartes used the spirits and materialized them for himself into this blood and bones in order to create something tangible to work with."
Darcy: "I assumed that either you believed what scientific evidence was telling you or you believed in God’s word but you could not believe both. Since I was raised to take the Bible as truth and to never to question its teachings, I, myself, am new to the whole idea of there possibly being a middle ground between the information in the Bible (that we are told is infallible truth) and the theories of man based on things seen."
Burd: "Faith2112 mentions Gassendi because he maintained his faith in God in accordance with his views. However, I think Gassendi was just being careful to avoid any persecution by the church... I believe this was another precaution so as to protect himself from heretical thinking and an intolerance and condemnation by the church."
Laine: "The reason is spiritual beliefs and God’s creations all draw from a religion, whereas the major goal of science is to discover the causes of phenomena, and so, as causes are known, predictions become more accurate. "
Suba Perumal: "It is also important to note that Descartes began to dismiss the idea of the soul being responsible for our bodily functions (35). Hence, I do not think that he was referring to the human soul when he stated that the “animal spirits” were “as material as blood and bones” (35). It does not seem as though he was trying to equate the two"
Looking for Angels: "I must say that I did find myself quite excited that Gassendi and Descartes and other great minds incorporated God into their arguments and philosophies. This may have been due to fear of being excommunicated, a good point mentioned by ‘burd,’ or perhaps their personal that there is no knowledge without God. I feel that the sciences are ironically slipping into the footsteps of the early Catholic Church, which ardently held onto Aristotle’s teachings, threatening anyone who went against them. In this day, most avid scientists seem to shun anyone who may not believe in Darwinism, or perhaps follow other theories, or even have their own theories on the matter. Why must students or anyone in the field choose between Science or Religion. Why is there a conjunctive “or” between these two words? Like FAITH2112 stated, why must religious scientists be ridiculed for believing in a possible Science and Religion?"
Faith 2112 interpretation of chapter two was very interesting because she to shared a small part of the misunderstanding on discovering the where about of the soul as it related to the humans anatomy, that the past researchers where so perplexed by. In particularly, the way she applied today knowledge to develop a deeper level of understanding on how he “associated a relationship between the “spirits” that formed in the blood with the ventricles.” This shows how the most primitive ideas can continue to help enlighten us in quest for more knowledge.
Post a Comment