[Mark Lapierre]

Originally Posted by Uplift

I notice brains, minds and neural pathways and their workings are often compared to computers, circuits, programmes, etc, which all obviously have an intentional designer, builder or creator, and operator. So the simplest most accurate way of discovering their workings is to consult the manual, or ask the designer and creator or operator. Yet suddenly, in the case of the brains, minds and pathways, the wall goes up, and the notion of a designer, creator and operator is fervently rejected, leading to blindly trying to figure out what the things do.

The computer analogy for brains is useful to an extent, but as with all analogies, it breaks down, and in this case fairly quickly. It is useful for comparing functions (short-term vs. long-term memory, processing of information), but not at all useful for comparing physical components. So there the fact that computers are designed doesn't suggest that brains are designed as well.

Secondly, there is nothing 'blind' about scientists' approaches to understanding the brain. Read any research paper and you will see a careful, systematic, thorough approach.

Originally Posted by Uplift

Little wonder scientists have virtually no knowledge of them, and what they are capable of, or whether they are causing or creating harm.

I think the people contributing to the many psychology and neuroscience journals around the world would have a different opinion...

Originally Posted by Angela

I can totally understand liking or preferring proof, scientific curiosity and all.

...

If you are so intent on finding proof one way or the other, why not just go do your research?

Come back when I've got my PhD in Neuroscience

Originally Posted by Mr.Mustache

So, just because our biological forms evolved it doesn't mean that the fine-tuned universe we live in is an accident of miracle proportions.

But it does suggest that perhaps, like ourselves, the existence of the universe can be explained without resorting to appeal to a higher power.