This article argues that people's belief in dualism is an ever greater problem than the belief in creationism:
I believe that the mind is nothing more than the brain. But it's difficult to really believe it, because it feels so different. My guess is that he's right, that most people are dualists, and this leads to all kinds of beliefs inconsistent with reductive materialism - souls, afterlife, etc.
Are you a dualist? Is this really as bad of a belief as this author makes it out, worse than creationism?
Quote:
The second clash between common sense and reality concerns how we think about minds and brains. There is considerable evidence that people are natural-born dualists; we see ourselves as non-material things, separate from our brains. Common sense tells us that conscious experience and free will can exist without a brain at all, making it possible for the self to survive the destruction of the body, perhaps ascending to heaven, descending to hell, joining the spirit world, or occupying some other body, human or animal.
...
But there is a difference between creationism and dualism. From the standpoint of law and public policy, creationism matters less. If every adult became a staunch Darwinian, it would make little difference for how we live our lives. Like the origin of the universe, the origin of the species is an issue of great intellectual importance and little practical relevance. In contrast, our beliefs about mind and brain matter a lotthey bear on such issues as abortion, stem-cell research, euthanasia, cloning, cosmetic psychopharmacology, and the legal definition of insanity.
A dualist world-view, for example, makes it sensible to draw sharp lines with regard to abortion and animal rights, differentiating creatures on the basis of whether or not they have souls. It also makes possible a distinction between actions caused by a person and those caused by a brain, leading to the excuse we can call to use Michael Gazzaniga's nice phrase "My brain made me do it."
The problem is that dualism is mistaken. Science tells us that the brain is the source of mental life. While there is no accepted theory as to how a physical thing can give rise to conscious experience and some scholars are skeptical that we will ever have such a theory it is clear that Cartesian dualism is wrong, as wrong as creationism.
...
But there is a difference between creationism and dualism. From the standpoint of law and public policy, creationism matters less. If every adult became a staunch Darwinian, it would make little difference for how we live our lives. Like the origin of the universe, the origin of the species is an issue of great intellectual importance and little practical relevance. In contrast, our beliefs about mind and brain matter a lotthey bear on such issues as abortion, stem-cell research, euthanasia, cloning, cosmetic psychopharmacology, and the legal definition of insanity.
A dualist world-view, for example, makes it sensible to draw sharp lines with regard to abortion and animal rights, differentiating creatures on the basis of whether or not they have souls. It also makes possible a distinction between actions caused by a person and those caused by a brain, leading to the excuse we can call to use Michael Gazzaniga's nice phrase "My brain made me do it."
The problem is that dualism is mistaken. Science tells us that the brain is the source of mental life. While there is no accepted theory as to how a physical thing can give rise to conscious experience and some scholars are skeptical that we will ever have such a theory it is clear that Cartesian dualism is wrong, as wrong as creationism.
I believe that the mind is nothing more than the brain. But it's difficult to really believe it, because it feels so different. My guess is that he's right, that most people are dualists, and this leads to all kinds of beliefs inconsistent with reductive materialism - souls, afterlife, etc.
Are you a dualist? Is this really as bad of a belief as this author makes it out, worse than creationism?
