Where Did My Mind Come From?

We've all had discussions like this: the person we are talking to, is telling us something that we think is nonsensical. A common phrase we may say, (usually out of frustration) is: "Think about it!" or "Just stop and think about what you are saying (or going to do!)" What are we asking them to do? We are asking them to use their brain, so they can be of a sober mind, when saying, or doing something.

What is the mind's relationship with the brain? The brain is a simply an organ in the body. It works the entire physical body, including all physiological responses that the organism goes through such as shivering. While the mind is the variable where things like thoughts and emotions are derived from. There is some common ground that both the mind and brain share.

1. Both your brain and your mind are 100% dependant on each other and both are indisputable. Nobody can dispute the existence of either someone's brain and mind.
2. All mental facets (e.g. thoughts, emotions, etc.) are also dependant on both the brain and the mind. The mind conceives these metaphysical realities while the brain processes them.
3. Both mental facets and the brain can be revealable.  

However there are some very big differences in the natures of these two realities of the human being.

1. When we tell someone: "use your brain!" we are asking them to use their brain to do something, namely think or be conscious about what they are saying or doing. Their brains can't be the thing they are used for anymore than a pen can be the words that it writes; we use our brains to think thoughts, but our brains are not the thoughts we think. 
2. The brain is a measurable object: It can be experienced with all 5 senses. It has a weight, length, width and a height that can be measured. It has a physical appearance that can be mimicked in art form. The mind however has no physical appearance to be duplicated in picture format and nor can it be experienced by any of our five senses. It also cannot be measured as it has no weight or dimensions.
3. Even though both the brain and someone's thoughts and emotions are revealable they are only so in their own unique ways. Our memories and the processes that we use to arrive at conclusions are private, the brain is not. A neurosurgeon can take off the top of your skull to reveal your brain; but there is no type of surgical procedure that can reveal your thoughts. Your thoughts can be discovered by you, but their discovery is likewise a private moment; but for them to become public knowledge you have to convey them. In sum thoughts have to be conveyed, they cannot be uncovered.
4. Thoughts are not only private, they are also personal. It is true that there is a lot of information that we can get from books, people and other information mediums. However our reactions to various stimuli is very personal. I could learn how most people react in a situation, but that won't negate how I will react if I was put into that situation; my response may be shared by the majority of people, and I may share the same thoughts; or my reaction and thoughts may be different; but either way my responses and thoughts are my own and nobody elses'.

So we know what the mind does, but what is it? The answer that someone derives to, rightly or wrongly, depends on their presupposition of God's existence. From a theistic worldview, the mind finds its origins in the supernatural deity. From the Christian worldview, God is all-knowing, His nature is knowledge, and we humans are made in his image, (Genesis 1:26-27). Therefore we humans, can know things, and all knowledge gives rise to thinking, as we have knowledge to think about. When we tell someone to "stop and think" we are telling them to consider what they know (or at least we assume they do or should know) and act accordingly.

From an atheistic worldview however thoughts can only be merely responses of the brain; so someone's thinking is a mere reaction to stimuli which derives from learned information - of which is itself stimuli. So your brain, causes your ears to hear the crashing sounds in your backyard at 3:00 AM, causing you to be startled awake in a cold sweat. You have only one image in your mind - a burglar. Why? Over the course of your life your brain has received stimuli (information) that burglars exist; and they exist in your city. However why doesn't your mind gravitate to a racoon, as they exist, or the neighbour's cat, as it also exists? Or why can't it be a martian invasion? The knowledge your brain was given is that cats and racoons are nothing to be a afraid of; but a man breaking into your home is; and since the information your brain received regarding martians is that they don't exist, the martian option is simply not viable. So, in sum neurones fire off in your brain causing your ears to hear the crashing sounds, which causes you to wake up; and then other physical reactions happen which develops the image of the masked burglar to appear, where? In your mind. However from an atheistic paradigm, the phrase "in your mind" is a misnomer as there is only the physical organ in your skull, your brain. Therefore the only way the atheistic worldview can interpret something like 'the mind' is to call the mental reactions of the brain, 'the mind'. This way you can have the two separate realities that work in unison: the brain and its reactions.

So, is the mind something that could be chalked up to being mere reactions to stimuli in the brain? Or is the mind a separate reality of the human being; a reality which works in unison with the brain and its functions? It would be erroneous to argue that the metaphysical and physical realities of the human being do not work together. One of the realities of the human being is we respond, intellectually to stimuli just as much as we respond physically to it.

We all have experiences; some good, some bad and some blasé. Stimuli comes at us every day and in many forms, and it affects us 100% of the time. Sometimes we recognize its affect on us immediately, while other times we recognize it sometime in the future, and with other stimuli we don't know how it has affected us, or even what the stimuli was or is. However our response to all stimuli is both intellectual and physical. This morning it was cold and wet when I woke up. My physical body was affected by the cold weather and so was my intellect. What did I do? I got dressed in long pants, shirt and a sweater. Of course my brain was given the information that to alleviate the shivers, I can cover my body with warm clothes; however, I am just as intellectually capable of resisting the temptation, and not put on a sweater. I didn't have a choice to shiver, but I did have a choice to put on, or not put on a sweater. This means my mind, isn't just mere, electrical pulses in my brain. Those electrical pulses caused the shivers and allowed me to filter through all the options that was at my disposal; but in the end it was my mind that chose, A over B and C.

So to conclude, the mind, is something that is not the brain, but which works with the brain. Where did this mind come from? It is not something physical and so it cannot have come from a physical source. Therefore it came from a metaphysical source: God; but whose God? Mine? The Muslim's? The Hindu's pantheon of gods? The worldview that best fits reality is the one whose God is the right God.

Everyone Is A Moral Being, Irregardless Of Religious Persuasion

A problem that arises, in the rejection of the divine, is it forces the atheist to explain everything in reality using only materialism. It is true, that there are aspects of life, that are knowable, brute facts that can be known through the five senses. However does that mean, then that unless we can either touch it, and or smell it, and or see it, and or taste it, and or hear it, it is not a knowable fact? Of course not! However attempting to explain morality through a naturalistic method is akin to trying to race a legless racehorse; you loose the race as soon as it starts. This is how:

Christian apologist J. Warner Wallace argues that "[describing] moral truth as a brute fact of the universe serves to identify and affirm moral truths without explaining why there are moral obligations."[i] It would be wrong, to say that atheism disallows the atheist to have moral convictions as everyone, irregardless of their religious views, have moral convictions, as they are human beings. Moral convictions is akin to the human navel: 1) everyone has one, 2) everyone's moral worldview undergoes changes in ones life in various ways and 3) while there is common ground in many people's moral convictions, everyone's moral convictions are unique. Where atheism fails the atheist, is to adequately explain why their moral convictions, are what they are.

Wallace states that "[those] who describe the existence of objective moral truth claims as brute facts of the universe have only taken the first step in explaining their existence."[ii] As stated above, everyone irregardless of their religious persuasion has moral convictions. However atheism fails to explain, where the atheist's moral convictions come from. Trying to explain morals as facets of this natural world is akin to trying to explain the existence of your umbilicus, using your own body, as its origin.

Moreover, if morality is materialistic, then you should be abel to hold, smell, taste, hear and see morality; and it should be discoverable like a new species of fish.

If morality is a mere natural entity, then just as everybody's navel is different in its shape and unique features but no better or worse than another's, then everyone's uniquely shaped moral view is no better or worse than any others, just merely different. This means that ISIS' moral outlook is just different than the moral outlook than that of The West; it is neither bad nor good. If morality is natural then people will act in accordance with how their morality is shaped. ISIS acts the way they do because their morality is shaped a certain way, and it dictates how they are to behave. What conceived their morality? A wiring of their brain which was a nurtured through experiences and teachings on life and God. In sum just as rodents are fidgety creatures, because that is simply the way they are, people act the way they do, because that is simply how they are.

Therefore, if morality is natural, like the the weather is natural, then there is no justification for judgements. This earth is not doing anything wrong, when it's skies brew a hurricane and destroy villages. In the same way, when ISIS sweeps through a city, captures its citizens and beheads them, they are not doing anything wrong; as they are just working in accordance with their natural wiring.

It is true, that morality does play out in the physical world; a positive moral code (charity, helping people in need, etc.) pushes society forward in a positive way, and a negative moral code (murder, theft, etc.), hinders that positive progression. However it fails to explain two things: 1) why do we want a positive progression through life, and 2) what makes, what a society considers a positive progression, a positive progression? The answer to the first question, seems obvious: because people generally want to have a good quality of life. However, the likes of ISIS, would argue that eradicating anyone who rejects Islam, is working towards a positive quality of life; yet, many people in The West would argue, that a 'live and let live' philosophy, leads to a positive life. A quickly developing society, doesn't answer why a way of life, is morally right, as a quickly growing society, doesn't make such a determination.

Furthermore, it could be argued, that the society, where there is happiness, is in most of its members, has the best moral code. This again fails to explain objective morality because there are, happy people who live in societies with conflicting moral codes: there are plenty of happy ISIS members, just as there are happy Westerners. Someone's happiness, does not determine, what makes them happy, morally right.

So in the end, if morality is a natural like the moon is natural, it's my uniquely shaped morality verses how your morality is uniquely shaped. Neither of our views are better or worse than each others, and so it doesn't matter if which one of us wins. The loosing party, should just shrug their shoulders and accept life, as is, and be happy, or at least be content, with the way things are. We of course, could look within ourselves, and attempt to denominate our views, over the view of others, if we cannot simply stand by and be content with how things are. This however, is Darwinistic, in that the winning moral outlook, does not win, because it is morally superior, but only because the beholder of the moral view, was more effective in implementing their view, over the view of others; it doesn't say anything about the moral outlook itself.

However, if morality is immaterially discovered, and is outside of the natural reality, but is in unison with it, then the rules change. What is the nature of morality? Morality is a mental construct. Although it cannot be discovered in the same way as one discovered a new species of insect, morally is discoverable through the medium of what is natural; the reality that is physically touchable, observable, tastable, auditory and smellable. This gives birth to the plains of good, evil, and morally-neutral, and it necessarily requires a prerequisite mind, to determine how to slot moral issues, and behaviours, into either of those three categories. This mind, can determine how the antics of ISIS should be judged, that is as either good or evil. However why can't humans make their own moral codes? Are not humans intellectual beings? If morality is left up to the human intelligence, then as discussed above, Darwinism kicks in and the dominating view wins on virtue of its beholder's abilities to fight for what they believe in, and not because what they believe in is morally right. Something can only be a moral issue, when there is a external ruler that it can be measured to. Constructing morality, by the exclusion of the external mind, or in accordance with ones own mind is parallel to excluding your parent's intellectual choice to have sexual intercourse so to conceive you, thus necessarily giving you your navel; and just as your parent's physical sexual-intercourse, brought your physical umbilicus into existence, an immaterial origin will bring an immaterial item, like a moral construct, into existence. You need to evoke something outside this natural world in order to explain the origin of morality.

Morality is knowable, through common-sense. Although the flourishing of the love of life, is not the moral standard, it is evidence of the true moral standard. What is this moral standard? God; but whose God? In brief: The worldview, is best explains reality is the right worldview, and thus its God, is the true God, and His moral construct, is the standard for our moral constructs.

_____________________

[i] - http://coldcasechristianity.com/2015/are-moral-truths-simply-brute-facts-about-the-universe/ - accessed September 4, 2015
[ii] - Ibid,.