Question by DavidVR: A question about neuroscience, free will, and moral responsibility?
Which of the following statements are true or most nearly true, in your opinion?
1. Traditional notions of the soul, free will, and moral responsibility are not challenged by neuroscience.
2. A traditional notion of the soul must be discarded because of neuroscience, but traditional beliefs about free will and moral responsibility are not challenged.
3. Both a traditional notion of the soul and free will must be abandoned, but moral responsibility is not threatened by neuroscience.
4. Traditional notions of the soul, free will, and moral responsibility must be abandoned because of neuroscience or radically revised.
Answer by .PAT..
This question is settled now, The only way to counter the findings is to become an IDEALIST who says ALL reality is internal and solely internal
The Spiritual Brain: A Neuroscientist’s Case for the Existence of the Soul
“using Carmelite nuns as subjects, Beauregard’s group at the University of Montreal found specific areas of brain activation associated with contemplative prayer. But these patterns are quite distinct from those associated with hallucinations, autosuggestion or states of intense emotional arousal, resembling instead how the brain processes real experiences. Insisting that we have never entertained the idea of proving the existence of God, the authors concede that the results of our work are assumed to be a strike either for or against God and that on the whole, we [don't] mind. “
Add your own answer in the comments!