Religion and the new technology

[intaglio]

45. Interesting

I think you had better inform William Lane Craig of your opinion immediately! He needs to know that he and his ilk hold outdated views about the nature of deity.

For the rest you are talking nonsense; what is more it is evidence free nonsense because it depends upon the lack of evidence for its conclusions. The God you believe in is a retreat; no longer incarnate but spirit, no longer above the firmament but in an undetectable aetherial realm, no longer interventionist but only a prime cause, no longer a judge but an observer. You make an assumption, that there is a deity, and then modify that deity to fit in the vanishing gaps current knowledge. If the deity is what you say then how can it have informed the world of its existence?

If this ghost has, somehow, broken down the barriers between spirit and matter then why has the message been different or non-existent for every age, every culture, every nation and every individual? If this deity has this power and chooses not to use it is not that deity guilty of deceit? If this deity does not have that power then explain how it is a deity.

Regarding your OP. The question is imprecise for you ask about the way the brain functions. That "way" is electrochemical activity modified by inputs from the senses, customary pathways, genetics and perhaps, if Penrose is right, quantum effects from cellular architecture. If however you mean "is brain function changed by technology?" then the answer is yes, a trivial example is the effect of video games upon the sensory and emotional functions in the brains of games players or less trivially the apparent loss of verbal memory in literate as opposed to non-literate cultures.