More on Sam Harris and Neurology

In their research on neurological beliefs, Harris et al are assuming that statements can be classified perfectly so they can be identified as either true or false. This perfection has been achieved only in the physical sciences when it found physical laws. But, this perfection and physical science apply only to nonliving things. This perfection has never achieved in living things. I say that this perfection will never be achieved on living things because God exists and is creating nonliving and living things.

So, I believe that Harris et al will never be able to prove that a law will be found on the relations between neurons and human behaviors and human beliefs. So, if this research project is funded by the US government, the governmental funding of Harris et al research is taxpayer waste. In general, I say that ‘life science’ researchers are fools to follow the research paths of the physical sciences.

Below are the Editor’s excellent comments on Harris et al research.

Editorial
This Editorial of the American Neurological Association (Published by Wiley) highlights the article, "A Neurology of Belief " by Oliver Sacks, MD, FRCP and Joy Hirsch, PhD, Columbia University Medical Center. This article discusses the research of Harris et al on neurological beliefs: This Editorial summarizes this article as follows:

1. That Harris’ enhances our understanding of a uniquely human cognitive ability to distinguish the true from the untrue.

2. That Harris supports "Spinoza’s conjecture that the mere comprehension of a statement entails the tacit acceptance of its being true," an almost reflexive, if provisional, assent, to be followed by a more deliberate weighing and assessment. Human beings, in other words, are wired to "accept appearances as reality until they prove otherwise." This seems to us to ring true.

3. That Harris finds that all reactions of assent or acceptance (or belief, if one prefers) are neurophysiologically identical, whether propositional judgments are made in the highly charged realm of ethical or religious issues or the seemingly neutral realm of arithmetical statements.

4. That if Harris’ results can be duplicated, Harris et al. will have made a fascinating discovery.

5. But are there different kinds of belief? Is belief in a simple statement whose truth can be checked (such as"Jesus spoke 2,467 words in the New Testament") comparable to forms of belief which we call "faith" or conviction, where assent is given to transcendent propositions which lie beyond the realm of evidence (such as belief in a soul, a god, heaven or hell)?

6. These are all questions for future research, and one hopes that such questions will now be addressed by Harris et al., as well as by other researchers. Harris and his colleagues have set up an original and elegant series of experiments, and that they have achieved such clearcut results represents a brilliant beginning to what we hope will be a whole series of ever deeper and more probing studies on the neurology of belief, a crucial aspect of human behavior and identity which has, until now, been beyond the reach of neuroscience.