Apparently I am not alone in deducing that there is more to conscious human thought than mere chemical activity in the brain. I recently came across this snippet from the CS Lewis essay entitled "Is Theology Poetry?". He summarises my own logical deduction in just one sentence:
If minds are wholly dependent on brains, and brains on biochemistry, and biochemistry (in the long run) on the meaningless flux of the atoms, I cannot understand how the thought of those minds should have any more significance than the sound of the wind in the trees.
http://www.samizdat.qc.ca/arts/lit/Theology=Poetry_CSL.pdf
To be absolutely honest, I am able to find a great deal of meaning and significance in the sound of the wind in the trees, certainly more significance than I can with your own proselytising, for instance.
From the larger context:
If, on the other hand, I swallow the scientific cosmology as a whole, then not only can I not fit in
Christianity, but I cannot even fit in science. If minds are wholly dependent on brains, and brains on biochemistry, and biochemistry (in the long run) on the meaningless flux of the atoms, I cannot understand how the thought of those minds should have any more significance than the sound of the wind in the trees.
The waking world is judged more real because it can thus contain the dreaming world; the dreaming world is judged less real because it cannot contain the waking one. For the same reason I am certain that in passing from the scientific points of view to the theological, I have passed from dream to waking. Christian theology can fit in science, art, morality, and the sub Christian religions. The scientific point of view cannot fit in any of these things, not even science itself. I believe in Christianity as I believe that the Sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
To be kind to C.S.Lewis here, I doubt if he knew of the great advances that have taken place in lucid dreaming, especially since 1978, which clearly links it to REM sleep. It does seem that we can be aware of our waking state in a dream world.
Of course it can be argued that Christian theology has some bearing on morality, art, and *religions, although my opinion is that these 'can fit' is far too strong a term, and seems to have rather supercilious overtones. One could equally make a case that certain strands of ancient Greek thought have just as much a bearing on these attributes. Why pick out Christian theology?
However, again to be kind to C. S. Lewis here, I suggest that he was unaware, I assume, that science(especially neuroscience) has significant things to say about the human mind and brain, and how such things as morality, art, beauty and *religions can be increasingly explained by science in its broadest sense, and by the disciplines of anthropology and psychology in particular.
Science is to do with examining and attempting to explain the natural world by use of agreed and accepted scientific methodology. Part of that natural world is how the human brain develops morality, for instance, and science has a great deal to say on this. The idea that science cannot fit into science is a meaningless statement. Would you say, for instance, that the theological point of view doesn't fit into theology?
As far as the last sentence is concerned, I see it as rather a meaningless deepity. One could just as easily insert almost any belief in place of 'Christianity'. It is simply an assertion...which is probably the reason why you like it.
*I hesitate to use C.S. Lewis's choice of words here((sub Christian religions) as I find them demeaning, not that I am surprised because he showed his prejudices quite openly,(e.g. intolerance of homosexuality, attitude that women should know their place)
