This reference describes the issues involved in the now world-dominant ideology/paradigm of scientism, the mind-forged-manacles or iron cage in which we are now all trapped:
http://www.aboutadidam.org/lesser_alternatives/scientific_materialism/index.html

This related references points out that all of the usual suspects (including Sells) that promote old-time back to the past Christian religiosity really wouldnt have a clue as to what they are talking about:
http://www.adidam.org/teaching/gnosticon/universal-scientism

There is also no such thing as "collective faith". Real faith is always a personal entirely subjective phenomenon based on the individuals own consideration of his/her subjective situation, and subsequent Realization.

I'm afraid you lost me at "no way", Mr Sellick.

"...there is no way we can bridge the gap between the material and our experience of being conscious"

and

"...neural networks produce consciousness but we have no way of knowing how this happens".

All this changes, if you were to introduce the simple word "currently" before each incidence of "no way". In doing so, you recognize the fact that science does not stand still, and that every year we will learn more about neural activity, and get closer to an understanding of how it impacts behaviours. Thus you cannot state, categorically, that:

"Even if it were possible to describe each neural firing and excitatory or inhibitory activation of synapses this would still not amount to a description of an event in consciousness. What would be missing would be the self that experiences this event."

In making the above statement, you have interposed the notion that "self" somehow can never be interpreted through the analysis of electrical impulses. Which is, of course, completely wrong. History is littered with "never" statements that have been overtaken by the continuous advancement of our understanding of human physiology.

Only by using the "never" word can you give yourself licence to introduce the concepts of spirit, psyche and soul, to temporarily fill the gaps in our knowledge.

Which is a bit of a circular argument, don't you think? Wearing your logical hat, that is, not your religious one.

I will stick with "no way". The distinction is between the brain and the mind. Although the two are related in some mysterious fashion they are realities that will never overlay each other, simply because consciousness cannot be reduced to brain mechanisms.

Let me suggest that 'Materialism' is not the conviction that there is nothing but the material. Rather, 'Materialism' is the conviction that matter, or existence, are important.

Otherwise, I enjoyed reading your article, Peter, and mostly agree.

Whether the brain and the mind are separate, identical or overlap, is also an unimportant materialist indulgence, because the only difference would be whether or not certain divisions exist within the material. While "Mind" could possibly reside in a different/separate layer of material reality, this remains a materialistic, time-wasting question.

Watching Sells desperately trying to convince himself that 'God' exists and that so does a spirit world inhabited by choirs of Angels or nymphs with wonderful adornments is rather sad.

Every now and again he pops by to share with us the latest bit of religious gobbledegook which he kneads and pokes into various shapes which might appeal to our intellect or searching souls.

Unfortunately, Sells is facing serious headwinds because of science. Had he been born three or four centuries ago he would have been at home among witches and goblins but, alas, they have gone.

Still Sells plods along, looking under this stone or that, looking for...: what would convince him? A burning bush? A pillar of salt.

Poor, tormented Sells. Death will put him at rest soon enough, his fruitless journey finally over!

David G

Did you read the article? The world of angels and nymphs and the supernatural is precisely what Peter rejects; in this article and many, many others.

Anglican Archbishop William Temple once called Christianity the “most materialistic of the great religions”. I’m not quite sure this is true, for it materialism is grounded in its Jewish roots. But it is certainly very materially focussed.

It is possible to believe in God without believing in miracles (understood as divine suspension of the laws of nature) or an immortal soul destined for an afterlife in heaven or hell