<p>MosbyMarion, I don’t propose to criticize this fatuous argument you are disgorging once more. You continue to post false arguments that merely demonstrate your misunderstandings of the functions of the brain. Not surprisingly, you manage to construct another straw-man argument that does not honestly reflect the genuine relationship between neurophysiology and its physical manifestations because you do not understand a single thing about it. Presenting an antithesis between thought, morality, and reason and the natural activity of the human brain is an enormous conceit that hugely communicates a fundamental ignorance of the matter and is a complete disgrace to the scientific understanding that we do have. You enjoy believing that your arguments masquerade as an appeal for truth and not your personal version of theology, but in reality it’s the same fraudulent spin on the same incessantly recycled argument: there can be no design without a designer and that a deity created humankind with a distinct reason and purpose in mind. You are yet another conservative Christian who believes that something remarkably significant is forfeited if scientific studies refute or overturn the dogmatic convictions that you hold. </p>
<p>Moreover, you invariably fail to acknowledge the necessity for methodological naturalism because of your concern for philosophical materialism’s implicit rebuke of your theology and do nothing but deviously conflate the two. In fact, you have a very narrow view of science, a terribly distorted perception of neurobiology, and, indeed, a very intellectually feeble theology. Fundamentally, your argument is nothing close to a robust assessment because supernatural explanations are essentially useless as part of the scientific enterprise as they refuse to conform themselves testable, experiential study. And when they do subject themselves to experimental testing, they are invariably bound to failure since the world is too remote from ordinary experience to be merely imagined. One progresses many times farther by positing empirical tests than ones derived from supernatural bias, revelation, and psychologically pleasing conceits. For example, the Hare Krishnas, a Hindu cult, unequivocally believe that the sun is more proximate to the Earth than the moon based on their unappeasably close-minded interpretations of the Vedas and Bhagavad Gita. Would you prefer revelation derived from holy books or systematic study to determine where to send the Apollo mission?</p>
<p>But I am not going to bother providing the same retort to your ludicrous claims (it’s well-archived on the other discussion), because you are incorrigibly resistant to being taught anything that is detrimental to your religious persuasions (you previously stated that nothing will change your fundamental beliefs so why even bother speaking with you?) and aren’t inclined to change regardless of the evidence, let alone offer an apology or concession about your misunderstandings.</p>
<p>I sincerely hope that you don’t utilize this same methodology of argumentation that you use on public message boards once you arrive on a university setting next fall. College professors and teaching fellows are largely intelligent and will see right through these loopholes and defects in your notion of what makes a supportable justification.</p>