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.

[HuntsvilleTxVeteran]

By stimulating the cerebral region presumed to control notions of self,
How does he do this?

[gcruse]

. Like why our dating system is based on the Lord's Death.

By decree.  Or do you thank God came down and set the calendar?
And why are the Jewish or Chinese years different from AD/BC.  Come
to think of it, this is called before and after the Common Era in many places.
Sorry, the calender doesn't prove a thing.

[MineralMan]

"Why would a part of the brain evolve to be able to experience an otherworldly "sensed presence," unless there is some sort of otherworldly presence that can be sensed in the first place?
"

Why would a brain evolve to dream why the organism sleeps? Why would not the "sensed presence" be related to that activity.

The mere supposition of a deity does not validate that deity's existence, you see. Otherwise, all those Greek deities would be real, valid deities. Another person here is arguing that temples, etc. are evidence of deities.

That's nonsense, unless every deity that has a temple is a valid deity.

Our brains are quite competent to imagine things that do not exist. That capability is quite adaptive, since it leads to things like invention, music, art, etc. Indeed, such an ability is widely recognized as the difference between humans and the rest of the animals.

I doubt that we're unique in that, but that's the general belief. A belief in a deity is no evidence of the existence of that deity.

[onedoug]

Odds are, it's all statistical.

[whattajoke]

The funny part is that man isn't even particular creative when inventing the more recent deities (Jesus being relatively young, with his attendant virgin birth, death and resurrection all being simply borrowed myths).

At least the Hindis and the Buddhists and the Aztecs had less concrete science to work with when inventing their myths.

Oh well, as long as there are people who can believe that dead people can read the tops of ceiling fans (Personally, I'd opt for something a bit more interesting than a serial number when I'm floating about), and others who believe John Edwards can talk to the really dead people, religions will survive and florish.

[MineralMan]

"Oh well, as long as there are people who can believe that dead people can read the tops of ceiling fans (Personally, I'd opt for something a bit more interesting than a serial number when I'm floating about), and others who believe John Edwards can talk to the really dead people, religions will survive and florish."

There ya go. For me it boils down to this: Either all the deities are real or none are. Since the only evidence of any deity we have is our belief in that deity, I cannot draw any conclusions as to which one is the real one and which one the hallucination. But that's just me. So I disbelieve in all of them.

[Alex Murphy]

Bump for later

[asformeandformyhouse]

For me it boils down to this: Either all the deities are real or none are

Or maybe there's just the one and this was his plan all along.

2 Thessalonians 2:11  And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

[whattajoke]

As I always say:

"You (i.e. religionist of any sort) and I are both atheists. I just happen to believe in one less god than you do. When you figure out why you don't believe in all the other gods available to you, you will understand why I don't believe in yours."

Feel free to use that as you see fit. It is especially effective when said face to face, rather than in this forum, in which it will be pointed out to me for the millionth time that Jesus saves and Mithra doesn't.

At the least, it will go to show that some folks are incapable of grasping my original intent.

[MineralMan]

"Or maybe there's just the one and this was his plan all along.

2 Thessalonians 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
"

Sure, why not? You believe whatever you like, and I'll disbelieve. That way, we'll both be happy. But...consider this: How do you know that what you believe is not the "strong delusion" mentioned in your verse? You believe it because it is written in a book, but most modern religions have books just as thorough as the one you believe. Why are they wrong and you right?

As I said, I'll just go along with my disbelief and let others decide for themselves, if that's OK with you.

[MineralMan]

"Feel free to use that as you see fit. It is especially effective when said face to face, rather than in this forum, in which it will be pointed out to me for the millionth time that Jesus saves and Mithra doesn't.
"

I've used that one many times, but it requires folks to think more than they're willing to. I don't bother any more. I just say that I don't believe in any supernatural entities, but others are free to believe whatever they wish, as long as they don't insist that I follow their lead.

[whattajoke]

"2 Thessalonians 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie."

huh. Interesting... especially in light of Hebrews 6:18 (among other verses in 1Samuel and Titus) which states unequivocably, "It is impossible for god to lie."

I was under the assumption that it was satan who planted the lies we see all around us (re: "evilooshun") but now you're telling me that god "plants" lies regarding other religious myths... even though some were documented before the OT was written.

I'm so confused. /sarcasm>

[f.Christian]

To: f.Christian

I've struggled with this for years. First being fully indoctrinated on young earth creationism (before it had that name), then being fully indoctrinated with evolutionary naturalism.

Never have fully sorted it out, but I have reached a few conclusions.

I. The Bible is open to some limited interpretation. Day-age, for starters. Which hebrew words are used for "made"? For that matter, look at what leading Jewish theologians say about it, its vastly different that what they teach in mainstream protestant sunday school.

II. Science itself is not anti-God. It is a study of that which God has made, and can provide a multitude of lessons about the nature of God.

III. Science is limited to naturalistic assumptions. Meaning, being based on repeatable experiments, it [i]a priori[/i] excludes the miraculous. Some misunderstand this and conclude miracles are impossible. No, they are just not subject to investigation by science, because they are by their very nature non-natural, non-repeatable.

IV. The Theory of Evolution is a mixture of good and bad science, and advocated zealously by the naturalists. The naturalists seem to think that the T-of-E removes the need for a God. Ignoring the whole question of where did the universe come from in the first place.

V. The two single biggest problems for the T-of-E are macroevolution and abiogenesis.
A) Abiogenesis, that life arose from inorganic material, is, scientifically, a discipline in shambles. A lot of time and energy spent, a lot of speculations made, and so far, nothing but some impossible speculations to show for it. Oddly, the impossibilities are suppressed, the cleverness of the speculation trumpeted, and in some quarters people think its already proven.

B) Macro-evolution - perhaps a bad term. I mean to say, descent with change is proven - children differ from their parents, over time this can lead to changes in a species. But, the assumption or speculation that this accounts for the grand diveristy of all life on the planet has not been proven, and in fact, scientifically, is a huge and largely unsupported leap. Put another way: the fossil record supports this theory very poorly.


7 posted on 04/28/2003 8:03 AM PDT by FactQuest

[whattajoke]

"2 Thessalonians 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie."

huh. Interesting... especially in light of Hebrews 6:18 (among other verses in 1Samuel and Titus) which states unequivocably, "It is impossible for god to lie."

I was under the assumption that it was satan who planted the lies we see all around us (re: "evilooshun") but now you're telling me that god "plants" lies regarding other religious myths... even though some were documented before the OT was written.

I'm so confused. /sarcasm>

[cowboyfred]

Well that proves it. Ultimately there is nothing and the universe is meaningless. How about a Fresca? Hmmm? Hmmm?

[Celtjew Libertarian]

You skipped a step. I'm not assuming any deity. I'm asking why would the brain evolve the ability to sense or experience something, when there is nothing really there to sense?

Yes, we dream. I've heard several theories why. That it's to organize our memories and thoughts. That it's random firing of neurons.

In any case, dreams may be made out of imaginary sights, sounds, and sensation, but, when awake, we experience real sights, sound, and sensation. Yes, we can imagine something that doesn't exist, but we imagine them in terms of sights, sounds, sensation, etc.

We see, not because of hallucinations or imagination, but because there are things to see. We hear, because there are things to hear. We taste, because there are things to taste. We feel because there are things to feel. We smell, because we need to take a shower -- I mean, because there are things to smell.

It does not make sense that we would evolve the ability to sense something transcendent with out there being something transcendent to sense. I'm not specifying any deity or other spirit here; but the fact that we sense such things is evidence -- not proof -- that something transcendent or spiritual exists.

[MineralMan]

"Ultimately there is nothing and the universe is meaningless. "

Hmm...how does it say that. Obviously, there is something. The Universe exists. I exist, as do you. You're contradicting yourself.

As for the "meaning" of the universe, what exactly do you take its "meaning" to be. Personally, I doubt that it "means" anything at all. It is. That's quite enough.

How it came to be is a matter of some interest, certainly.

[whattajoke]

I find it odd that an adult such as yourself sees the universe in such black and white terms.

Personally, as a non theist, I can assure you that life has meaning for me, morals are important to me, love is possible for me, and I'm happy to be alive each and every day.

I just don't need a boogeyman to keep me in line. It's really not all that difficult, trust me.

[asformeandformyhouse]

Why are they wrong and you right?

Why are liberals wrong and conservatives right? Because there is a difference between right and wrong. Having investigated the others, I know that most don't believe that. I feel comfortable that I have come to the correct conclusion based on the evidence.

As I said, I'll just go along with my disbelief and let others decide for themselves, if that's OK with you.

That's fine with me. No need to get panties in a wad. Since you posted your opinion on this thread, I thought you might like something else to consider. I wasn't sure your mind was closed on this matter and that you merely meant to state your objection against those who do believe. I thought you might possibly want to know (if you didn't already) that your objections and the fact of your 'all or nothing' theory have already been attested to. Excuse me for thinking your response was intended to garner others. I will speak no more of this.

[VRWC_minion]

The original lie comes back

"You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman. 5 "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."