For those who lean towards materialism the question, couldn’t life be just a physical property? has great importance. And why not? Even though it is begging the question, so much of our world seems physical or the same, material. In light of this, could our mind which perceives, feels, thinks and has goals, be nothing but a physical property of the brain?
From the standpoint of neuroscience which, for some, appears to be the new reigning champion of scientific progress, it is not hard to come to the conclusion that our mind is nothing but the brain, surrounded by a protective layer of bone.
But how is proof possible insofar as the scientific method, itself, is based on the fallacy of “affirmation of the consequent” (a implies b) in which all of its hardcore evidence actually adds up to a refinement of opinion? But the truth is this: the scientific method is only a method. It gives us educated opinions, good guesses, hypotheses, models; but not incontrovertible proof.
No matter how we slice it, it is the same, that is, opinion. In fact, there is a whole spectrum of opinions, from uneducated opinions to highly educated and refined opinions. Even the fruits of the best application of the scientific method can, and often do, end up as refined opinions, e.g., the universe is 13 billion years old, give or take a few billion years. I hasten to add that there are other countervailing refined opinions which challenge this opinion. There was no big bang. The universe is electrical/plasma—even, ultimately, a configuration of mind. It’s always been here. No God or big bang is necessary.
The secular Buddhist crowd that shoves “it’s not backed by science” in the face of Buddhists who are open to rebirth and karma, not to mention transcendent nirvana, are under the spell of opinions, not proof. To claim, for example, that consciousness or mind is emergent or is an epiphenomenon of the brain, is to say really nothing of importance. This is only a refined opinion. Such Buddhists need to wake up from the spell that the scientific method is infallible. It is not without major flaws—it limps along. Just because the street in front of our house is wet doesn’t mean it has rained.
Comments