Religion versus science might be all in the mind

The Sydney Morning Herald ^ | April 29 2003 | Chris McGillion

[WaveThatFlag]

For years now, one small branch of science has been chipping away at the foundations of religious belief by proposing that "otherworldly" experiences are nothing more than the inner workings of the human brain. Many neuroscientists claim they can locate and explain brain functions that produce everything from religious visions to sensations of bliss, timelessness or union with a higher power.

These claims have been strengthened by the work of the Canadian neuropsychologist Dr Michael Persinger. By stimulating the cerebral region presumed to control notions of self, Persinger has been able to induce in hundreds of subjects a "sensed presence" only the subjects themselves are aware of. This presence, Persinger suggests, may be described as Jesus, the Virgin Mary, Muhammad or the Sky Spirit - depending on the name the subject's culture has trained him or her to use.

"Neurotheology", as this line of inquiry has been dubbed, has its critics. Some say it fails to distinguish between experiences that contain a moral or spiritual dimension (such as visions of God) from those that don't (such as ghostly perceptions). Others point out that none of this research can ever establish whether our brains have been designed to apprehend religious experiences or whether these are simply the by-product of bad wiring.

But all agree that the approach is far too simplistic. "Where reductionist brain science fails," wrote John Cornwell, director of the Science and Human Dimension Project at Jesus College, Cambridge, earlier this month in The Tablet, the British Catholic weekly, "is in its failure even to mention, let alone give an account of, human imagination.

"This is not to claim that imagination is some kind of Cartesian spooky stuff, or to deny the theory of evolution, or to suggest that imagination is somehow outside the realms of biology, but simply to reflect on the consequences that flow from our ability creatively to compare things in one domain with those in another."

This is the objection addressed in a paper, Hallucinating God: The Cognitive Neuropsychiatry of Religious Belief and Experience, to be presented at a conference on evolutionary psychology in the United States in August. The paper has been written by Ryan McKay, a researcher at Macquarie University's Centre for Cognitive Science.

McKay says delusional beliefs may arise from so-called religious experiences when two factors are in play: first, a brain deficit that gives rise to an aberrant perception of some kind and second, a belief pathology that interprets (or imagines) this perception in ways inconsistent with what is scientifically plausible or otherwise generally regarded as acceptable.

The second factor represents a breakdown - or dysfunction - in the way the human belief evaluation system normally operates. Put simply, we tend to evaluate whether a belief is credible in light of everything else we know.

By contrast, when someone experiences an unusual sensory perception and also suspends well-known and widely accepted logical, physical or biological principles in their explanation of the perception, a belief pathology is involved, says McKay. Significantly, one can occur without the other. Persinger, for instance, claims to have had a mystical experience of "encountering a God-like presence" - the result of stimulating his temporal lobes electromagnetically - without developing a religious belief in God.

He thus represents what McKay calls a "mystical atheist" - someone who experiences paranormal sensations but is able to override the evidence of their senses when forming beliefs about them and accepting instead a rational explanation. Clearly, many adherents of religious doctrines develop and maintain their beliefs in the absence of direct religious experiences. An obvious reason is quite simply the effects of socialisation.

But McKay's argument goes to the origin of how such beliefs are generated in the first place. "Individuals with the 'second factor'," he says, "would tend to be misled by untrustworthy sources of information, and/or tend to be prone to having their belief formation systems derailed and overridden by their motives [wish fulfilment being chief among them]. Motives thus help to explain what maintains delusory beliefs once they have been generated by first-factor sources."

The jury is still out on whether such religious experiences are mere delusions and whether God might be nothing more than a hallucination. But the argument for both has just become a lot more interesting.

[maestro]

" In the Beginning,......Creator-Redeemer God,.....created all the 'potential' for the 'physical sciences'....."

:-)

[Lysander]

In the beginning, God created man.
Conversely, dancing around the sod,
Some say, "Man created god!"
Be careful or your words may do,
Something of the same to you!<BR

[Flightdeck]

This research fails to explain how somebody recently returned from a near-death experience was able to recite the serial number printed on the sticker on the top side of the ceiling fan blade. Be wary of anyone with an agenda, skeptic and soothsayer alike.

[mvpel]

These claims have been strengthened by the work of the Canadian neuropsychologist Dr Michael Persinger. By stimulating the cerebral region presumed to control notions of self, Persinger has been able to induce in hundreds of subjects a "sensed presence" only the subjects themselves are aware of.

I find this quite interesting based on my own personal experience. I've noticed that I'm far more aware of persons in my surroundings than my wife and other people, and I wonder if perhaps my brain structure has somehow connected my conscious and subconscious perceptions of nearby individuals to this "sense of self" cerebral region?

[1FreeAmerican]

"T'wer it not for God, man would have invented him". (I still don't know who said that.)

[angkor]

Inducing "otherworldly" sensations doesn't in any way prove there is no God. It merely proves that sensations of various kinds can be induced. Period.

It's a remarkable feat of arrogance (and, also, remarkably unscientific) to assert that these induced sensations encompass the entirety of religious belief and experience.

[sarasota]

A book titled God's Whisper Creation's Thunder by Brian Hines (a physicist) puts this matter into yet another perspective. An incredible read.

[ClancyJ]

Well, I know it is extremely hard for many to believe - but - who created the brain? God. Who is to say he would not create it with built in functions to enable us to more readily feel His presence, to communicate with Him and any other spiritual function.

Since the brain has the capabilities does not mean there is no God - it means that God is the creator and created the brain and man for His purposes.

I always think of a programmer and a computer program. The programmer is the creator and his creation automatically performs many functions. Yet, these functions would not work without the creator.

[walden]

"It's a remarkable feat of arrogance (and, also, remarkably unscientific) to assert that these induced sensations encompass the entirety of religious belief and experience. "

Yes-- extremely reductionist. The irony is that these kinds of researchers never seem to have a personal religious experience, that rich combination of experience, faith, reason, and knowledge that comprises mature "religious belief". It's like the difference between art critics and artists.

[MineralMan]

"This research fails to explain how somebody recently returned from a near-death experience was able to recite the serial number printed on the sticker on the top side of the ceiling fan blade. "

What's the corroboration for this incident? Where did you hear about it? What confirmation is there that it actually happened?

Sounds like an urban legend to me.

[gcruse]

This research fails to explain how somebody recently returned from a near-death experience was able to recite the serial number printed on the sticker on the top side of the ceiling fan blade.

I'd really like to see a cite for that.  One doctor I read about put a
signboard on top of the cabinets in a room where patients often
had NDEs.  During the patient's phenomenon of floating above
their bodies and the room, none was ever able to tell her what
was on the sign.

[gcruse]

"T'wer it not for God, man would have invented him". (I still don't know who said that.)

If no one had ever said that, I would have.  ;)

[MineralMan]

"I'd really like to see a cite for that. "

You won't see one, I'm afraid. I've seen dozens of these claims, but none that were ever backed up. If there is a cite, it will be from some web site, with nothing further to back it up.

Of course, there are always those gullible enough to believe any story, as long as it seems to support their personal beliefs.

[Sabatier]

Saying that religious experience is nothing more than brain chemistry is like saying that the Mona Lisa is nothing more the way oil paint refracts light or that opera is just vibrations hitting your inner ear. To the scientist that's all he can say to describe those experiences. It says nothing about the meaning or quality of the experience.

[gcruse]

Of course, there are always those gullible enough to believe any story, as long as it seems to support their personal beliefs.

As the article mentions, there is a lot of wishful thinking involved.

That said, Elizabeth Kubler-Ross & Dr. Moody (?)'s book Life After Life
is a really good read.  The are some instances that give you something to
think about.  Not that there is a God, but that there is more.

[gcruse]

Saying that religious experience is nothing more
 than brain chemistry is like saying that the Mona
 Lisa is nothing more the way oil paint refracts light

Okay.  Then religious experience is a certain kind
of brain chemistry.  Turn off the lights, and Mona
Lisa is no different from Dogs Playing Poker.

[Flightdeck]

I'll look for it and get back to you. It was in a book I have. And I don't consider myself gullible. Personal experience has led me to alter my skeptical beliefs which were due in part to a heavy science background.

[MineralMan]

"That said, Elizabeth Kubler-Ross & Dr. Moody (?)'s book Life After Life
is a really good read. The are some instances that give you something to
think about. Not that there is a God, but that there is more."

Perhaps. However, having personally been clinically dead at one time, I can tell you that I had no near-death experiences whatever. I recovered completely from my bout with encephalitis, and had no experiences from the time I stopped breating and had no pulse. None.

Others, perhaps, have had such experiences, but I did not.

As for gods and the like, I was an atheist then and I'm one still.

[LiteKeeper]

read later