Mystery of Consiousness

I subscribe to Time magazine, and I was thrilled when I pulled the new issue (Jan. 29) from my mailbox on Thursday and saw across the top, "Mind & Body Special Issue." The main feature, in bold letters on the cover, is titled, "The Brain: A User's Guide."

Call me a nerd--I'll admit to it without hestitation--but I love reading about how the brain works. And the magazine issue generally lived up to my expectations. But I must express my frustration with some of the ideas put forth in the first feature article, which focuses on consciousness.

In "The Mystery of Consciousness," Steven Pinker discusses, in a way that ordinary people can understand, some of the most prevalent scientific theories. On the bright side, he does present different points of view. But he concludes the piece with the view most prevalent among scientists, which is this: while they have not located a part of the brain or figured out how, exactly, it creates this sense of individual consciousness, the sense that we exist, most of them are fairly certain that we'll solve this mystery within the century.

I've got no problem with this. In fact, I think it's pretty exciting. But Pinker should have ended the article there, because I'm irritated by the direction Pinker takes this in: the old, tiresome science-religion debate.

After pointing out that there is a consensus among scientists that they will indeed locate consciousness in brain activity, Pinker goes on: "For many nonscientists, this is a terrifying prospect" because it "strangle[s] the hope that we might survive the death of our bodies."

Does it, really?

To me, Pinker's argument sounds similar to one that the theory of evolution destroys the notion that we might have been created by a higher power, which I'll call God here for purposes of simplicity, but by all means, call it what you want. Who says God wasn't behind all the science? And who says this higher power isn't behind consciousness as well?