Jakina?
- Dígame una última cosa -dijo Harry-. ¿Esto es real? ¿O ha estado ocurriendo dentro de mi cabeza?
Dumbledore le sonrió ampliamente, y su voz sonó alta y fuerte en los oídos de Harry a pesar de que la brillante niebla estaba descendiendo de nuevo, oscureciendo su figura
-Por supuesto que está ocurriendo en tu cabeza, Harry, pero ¿por qué demonios tendría que significar eso que no es real?
Genius is a rare but highly valued trait, whereas tooth decay is common but obviously undesirable. Which one of these categories does mystical experience fall into? Why is the revealed truth of such transcendent experiences in any way "inferior" to the more mundane truths that we scientist dabble in? Indeed, if you are ever tempted to jump to this conclusion, just bear in mind that one could use exactly tthe same evidence- the involvement of the temporal lobes in religion- to argue for, rather than against, the existence of God. By way of analogy, consider the fact that most animals don't have the receptors of neural machinery for color vision. Only a privileged few do, yet would you want to conclude from this that color wasn't real? Obviously not, but if not, then why doesn't the same argument apply to God? Perhaps only the "chosen" ones have the required neural connections. (After all, "God works in mysterious ways") My goal as a scientist, in other words, is to discover how and why religious sentiments originate in the brain, but this has no bearing one way or the other on whether God really exists or not.
Dumbledore le sonrió ampliamente, y su voz sonó alta y fuerte en los oídos de Harry a pesar de que la brillante niebla estaba descendiendo de nuevo, oscureciendo su figura
-Por supuesto que está ocurriendo en tu cabeza, Harry, pero ¿por qué demonios tendría que significar eso que no es real?
Genius is a rare but highly valued trait, whereas tooth decay is common but obviously undesirable. Which one of these categories does mystical experience fall into? Why is the revealed truth of such transcendent experiences in any way "inferior" to the more mundane truths that we scientist dabble in? Indeed, if you are ever tempted to jump to this conclusion, just bear in mind that one could use exactly tthe same evidence- the involvement of the temporal lobes in religion- to argue for, rather than against, the existence of God. By way of analogy, consider the fact that most animals don't have the receptors of neural machinery for color vision. Only a privileged few do, yet would you want to conclude from this that color wasn't real? Obviously not, but if not, then why doesn't the same argument apply to God? Perhaps only the "chosen" ones have the required neural connections. (After all, "God works in mysterious ways") My goal as a scientist, in other words, is to discover how and why religious sentiments originate in the brain, but this has no bearing one way or the other on whether God really exists or not.
Phantoms in the Brain
Sandra Blakeslee & V.S. Ramachandran
Sandra Blakeslee & V.S. Ramachandran
EGIA
GARUNA
JAINKOA,
JAKINA
JAKINA?
Iruzkinak
Argitaratu iruzkina