<< And several years ago, circa Sept 1, 1996,
(http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/199609/0001.html) you (Bob) wrote:
>I hypothesize that the right hemisphere of the brain is the primary locus of
>religious faith, and is the channel, as it were, through which God revealed
>Him/Herself to and communicated with human beings. I suggest that in far off
>historical times, the function of the right brain may have been more dominant
>than it is today. The right hemisphere developed historically in the human
>race more rapidly than the left brain, as it does in individual development.
and
>
>The "window of opportunity" for God's special revelation is closed, and the
>various revelations have been gathered together in the Bible. Anticipating
>the maturing and dominance of the left brain in human history, and subsequent
> subordination of the right brain, and with it the cessation of revelatory
>dreams and visions, it might seem that God ordained the composition of the
>Scriptures to consolidate and contain what had been revealed in the great
>revelatory age, the age of the active right brain.
>
This is in principle unverifiable. Demonstrate that God is talking to the
human brain via observational data! You can't. You can't demonstrate with
any observational evidence that the right brain was more dominant in the
past than today. You can't use observational data to support your idea that
the left hemisphere develops more rapidly today than in the past. Who
measured the rates of left hemisphere development 20,000 years ago, who?
You can't use observational data to demonstrate that God is no longer
communicating with man either. Yet you reject my view because it hasn't
been verified (which is ok), but you then start talking about my view being
in principle unverifiable and yet hold many views that are outside the
realm of any verification. If there ever was an unverifiable (in principle)
hypothesis, it was that above. If you are in the habit of rejecting views
because they are unverifiable, maybe you should live consistently and
reject some of your own views. People in glass houses should throw
stones--it is hypocritical.
glenn
>>
Glenn,
What I presented was a hypothesis, as I clearly stated. I did not claim that
is or was verified or confirmed. To be sure, a hypothesis should be
verifiable. If this one is not, as you have demonstrated, so be it.
It does not make me hypocritical to ask, as I did in my last post--"Your view
regarding the Mediterranean basin as the site of Eden and Noah's flood is not
confirmed, and for practical purposes is unconfirmable. I take it that that
is an accurate statement?"
Enough, yet. You have my last word on this matter. You may take it farther,
if you wish. Thanks for what was to me an interesting exchange.
Best regards,
Bob