Gurdur

To summarize:

<ol type="1">[*]Any neuropsychological theory that wishes to explain religion must also explain the origins of religion.
.[*]There are cases of atheists becoming religious believers, and religious believers becoming atheists. A theory must be able to explain that - which strikes out any argument that all religous believers must believe, or all atheists are atheists unwillingly.
.[*]An acceptance of biological evolution means that at some stage human predesscors and early humans simply had no religion.
If biological evolution is not accepted, then it's anybody's game, and you can bring in UFO's.
.[*]Mystical experience has historically played a very subordinate role towards organized religion, which has often being dismissive when not actually extremely hostile towards mysticism.
.[*]The fact that today some religious believers say they are believers because of some near-mystical or mystical experience of someone near to them does not explain the development and growth of religion over history, since the above would seem to be rather recent as a phenomenon.
.[*]Pathological brain function does not explain all mystical experiences.
.[*]No difference has ever been found in brain function or chemistry between a non-mystical religious believer (the majority) and an atheist.
.[*]The <a href="http://www.mathom.com/Religion2/Origins_Of_Religion_04_01_What_is_the_religious_ex perience.htm" target="_blank">"religious experience" per se</a> is a very different thing from <a href="http://www.mathom.com/Religion2/Origins_Of_Religion_07_01.htm" target="_blank">the mystical experience</a>.
.[*]Mystical experiences do not necessitate a religious viewpoint, and most especially do not necessitate theism.
.[*]Searches for a completely mechanical view of belief, i.e. the view that a believer must believe, and an atheist must disbelieve, founder not only on all these points, but also on an inherent circularity of argument.[/list=a]
_________

.
<a href="http://www.mathom.com/Religion2/Origins_Of_Religion_Appendix_01_02.htm" target="_blank">Bibliography on neurological aspects of religion and mysticism </a>

<a href="http://www.mathom.com/Religion2/Origins_Of_Religion_Appendix_01_01.htm" target="_blank">Bibliography on religion and associated in general</a>

<a href="http://www.mathom.com/Religion2/Origins_Of_Religion_Appendix_01_04.htm" target="_blank">Bibliography On Evolutionary Psychology</a>

<a href="http://www.mathom.com/Religion2/Origins_Of_Religion_Appendix_01_09.htm" target="_blank">Bibliography On Mysticism In General</a>

<a href="http://www.mathom.com/Religion2/Origins_Of_Religion_Appendix_02_02.htm" target="_blank">Web links on neurological aspects of religion and mysticism</a>

<a href="http://www.mathom.com/Religion2/Origins_Of_Religion_Appendix_02_09.htm" target="_blank">Web links on mysticism in general</a>

[ December 18, 2002: Message edited by: Gurdur ]</p>

Kenny

Hello Gurder,

I have other projects in the works right now, so I doubt I will keep up this thread, but I did want to make a few comments. I do recognize that you have me outgunned in terms of the neurobiological/anthropological expertise required to discuss this issue. So, I will stick to what I do know something about – the philosophical and theological issues surrounding it.

I don’t see why, since these results, if legitimate (that human beings have certain innate religious tendencies), are, at the very least, equally probable, antecedently, on theism as they are on naturalism, if not more probable on theism. I’m really not sure where you are coming from here, however. Perhaps what you mean is that since these results are scientifically obtained and science (so it is often claimed) is dependent on methodological naturalism and, since these results depend on scientific reasoning, the theist is depending on naturalistic assumptions in entering into a discussion of them. Well, I disagree that science or scientific discussion depends on the assumption of naturalism, but that is a much broader debate than the current one. If, for the sake of argument, these results are under girded by naturalistic presuppositions, however, and they supposedly pose some problem for theism (though I do not see how), then I do not see why the theist could not simply dismiss any arguments from such results against theism as question begging.

I don’t see how. Keep in mind that this tradition was not developed as a means of responding to the results of 21st century neurobiology, but that it was merely the outworking of other theological concepts within Christianity. The notion that human beings repress instinctive knowledge of God is an explicitly Biblical theme (see Romans chapter 1). In other words, no arguments against naturalism are being advanced here but, rather, an alternative theistic interpretation is being suggested as having equal explanatory value. Furthermore, this explanation is in no way ad hoc nor was it developed merely to explain away some set of results, but rather it is one that follows from fundamental Christian doctrines and was developed long before the issue under discussion arose. Thus, I do not believe that the charge of question begging is applicable nor do I believe that the charge of special pleading sticks.

I don’t disagree with this statement. I’m not claiming that these results provide evidence for Christian theism, merely that Christian theism is capable of accounting for them as equally well as naturalism. Replace “Christian” with “metaphysical naturalist” in the above statement and I believe that it is still true. That’s the point I was making. I think that the interpretation of the evidence in this area is already so sensitive to metaphysical presuppositions that any arguments from such evidence for one metaphysic over another are likely to be largely question begging.

I was presupposing a normal level of intellectual capacity and normally functioning cognitive faculties in my comments. Obviously, cases of severe mental deficiencies are a different matter. That being said, I do not believe that saving faith in Christ is primarily intellectual in nature, but is rather a relational trust in a living person. That is not to say that faith in Christ is divorced from the intellectually grasped proposistional aspects of the Christian Gospel, merely that it is deeper. Those who do not have the mental capacity to understand the intellectual content of the Christian Gospel, I believe, are still capable of this deeper level of saving faith. Just as an infant trusts in his or her mother without an intellectual grasp of the mother/child relationship so I believe it is possible for someone to trust in Christ even if he or she is incapable of understanding, at an intellectual level, what the nature of his or her relationship to Christ is.

God Bless,
Kenny

Gurdur

A pity.

Interesting comments; thank-you.
Naturally, I'ld love to disagree, on the theological and philosophical implications.
I will prepare a full response to you; hopefully, you will have the time to answer it.

BTW, it's not a matter of "outgunning" anyone on any area; while I prefer it if people recognize that I have put in a fair amount of work on this, and I far prefer it if they're willing to think out the implications of what I'm saying on this, I don't see it in any way as a contest of egos - I only get pissed off when I have some non-knowledgeable person deafly shouting unsupported assertions at me.
The logic of all of this is accessible to anyone, irregardless of stand of knowledge.
Ta muchly for your reply.

Gurdur

OK, here goes.


You're not quite correct. I am being precise and careful; I'm not saying the entire scientific enterprise necessitates naturalistic metaphysicism, I'm saying the chain of work that lead to these results was based on naturalistic metaphysicism in practice.

Any theist who dismissed neurology as question-begging would be useless as any kind of neurological help to patients in need, that's why.
Whether or not you accept the in practice natural metaphysics of neurology, and then add a whole supernatural superstructure to it all, you cannot avoid the initial practical naturalistic metaphysics, or you simply then become immoral by being useless as a real help to patients.

I'm quite aware of that. I am not just a pretty face.

Actually, it predates the Bible, most especially it predates the NT.
And "knowledge of God" is slightly misleading; what people mean by "God" is very illuminatingly different - and that in important ways.

Then you're safe for the moment from my first objection, since I'll take it you've more or less agreed with me.....

Not correct. While I'm happy to grant you some hsitorical legitimacy of theory, I'll point out to you that quite contradictory Christian doctrines were also in historical evidence, and therefore you're picking out the one selected for by Darwinian evolution.
Meaning, you are taking only one particular line of Christian theology, one which happens to suit, and then you're naming it "Christian", as though it had been the only such one all along; and we both know that simply isn't true.

I am always shocked when people simply agree with me, and it leads me to wonder, just what am I doing wrong ?


See comments regarding historical theology above.

See my moral argument at beginning as to which approach must be taken for a moral stance.

Look, I could go through the list of mental (which includes emotional) pathologies till I reach anacephalic babies.
The point is, there are simply some humans who are incapable of any real emotional or intellectual relationship with anyone or anything else.

Two largest tragedies are late-developed severe schizophrenia and Alzheimer's; not all the arguments from faith in the world will obviate the fact that these people were once normal and functioning, but then are simply cut off from any relationship of any kind completely.

You will need much more sophisticated theology than what you've written here to encompass these people as well.

BTW, many thanks for this conversation; this is partly the conversation I would have liked to have had with Metacrock, but we got bogged down in him accusing me of scientism etc., which of course was simple untrue melodramatics.

[ December 20, 2002: Message edited by: Gurdur ]</p>

scigirl

I'll bite. This first claim is interesting but I'm not sure I entirely accept it.

Let's consider language. There's no doubt that a thorough understanding of the brain would explain why it is that we can speak such amazing and diverse lanugages as English and Cantonese.

However, the origins of our language involve more that just our brain. First of all, we had to evolve a different type of larynx. I'm sure religion needed other adaptations as well. In this case, all of the adaptations had to occur in the brain. But we needed a better memory before we could establish religions, for one example. But I don't think the existence of our memory explains why we are religious. Is this making sense?

Second, how much of the actual specifics of the language (and religion too , to paraphrase Lennon! ) were just random stochastic events?

In other words, Tarzan said "Ugg" to Jane when he could have said "Bugg." And similarly, the specific religious rituals that developed and were passed on culturally could have been a myriad of other rituals. But the reasons why cultural rituals are even passed down at all could be possibly explained by our brain architecture.

I believe that a thorough explanation of how our brains work will give us clues as to why we can have the beliefs that we do. It's just . . . we are far from even understanding a smigeon of it.

scigirl

scigirl

No it does not strike out my particular argument at all. I think atheists can often hold irrational beliefs.

My claim is as follows:

Our brains, for whatever reasons, contain elements in them that allow us to believe illogical events. The cause is probably multifactorial - due to the incomplete wiring of our sensory systems, and the less-than-digital connections between all the different parts of our brains. These irrational beliefs end up often being religious ones, because of cultural upbringing.

Plus there are logical reasons for accepting religion (heh do I get kicked out of FPF for saying that one?) if you buy into the idea that accepting authority has some logical basis for it (which I do).

I'm confused. You don't believe that at some stage, we did not in fact have religion? It doesn't appear that our immediate cousins have religion (although there really is no way to know whether they hold irrational beliefs I guess).

I agree with you, and find fascinating, your views on mysticism. I read your "Honorary PhD thesis" remember?

I just don't think they are the whole story in regards to what I am talking about. Again, I am talking about our brain's ability to 'suspend disbelief' in the face of evidence or logic - like believing our family members are perfect, etc, etc. This feature of our brain in part explains why we can hold superstitious beliefs.

I'll re-read the mysticism stuff if I have a chance over break and see if I'm justified or not in the above statements.

scigirl

Gurdur

um, no.
For a start, language can be expressed in different modalities, such as hand-signs - the same areas (Broca's, Wernicke's and their connection) control language irregardless whether through hands or larynx.

But this is probably a mere pointless quibble of mine, so let's go on....

I'm not trying to be rude, but I haven't yet gotten the point you wish to make.

All evolution is just "random stochiastic events", but then random events selected for and against by powerful selection mechanisms.
However, that still leaves wiggle-room for accidents and by-products; abstract modern art can hardly be explained as an evolutionary necessity or even desirable (evolutionarily, I mean. Some of it is rather good. )
um, yes. Agreed.

And that's where I strongly disagree.
For a start, why look to neurology to provide explanations that are already done by psychology ?

Example:
Relying on someone gives you a warm fuzzy.
In uncertain times, relying on some imagined then derived supernatural entity gives you a warm fuzzy.

Now, you can either sit down and think:
1) "Hey ! I'll go with the warm fuzzy, and refuse to worry about any cognitive dissonance that arises from its premises (or I'll do my best to explain all contradictions away without actually tackling them)"
or
2) you can think,
"No, This is a dishonestly gained warm fuzzy, and it's simply not tenable, so I'll go on looking for better explanations, and refuse the temptation of a quick&easy&dirty warm fuzzy"

plus
you're ignoring the point I made that some change from atheism to religion, and some (more some) change from religion to atheism, and others make a pendulum look like a rigid pylon.

I'ld love to see a hard-wired-belief neuro theory get around that one.

BTW, you're making the same case that Metacrock made to me in my debate with him; you're making the atheist counterpart of his vague-theist case.

Metacrock argued that because some feel "God", God must exist.
You're mooting that some people feel "God", so they must believe.

And in both cases, I see a mechanicality of mind here, a mechanicality that simply doesn't exist, a denial of choice, and a denial of facts.

I'm aware that eventually one can construct a halfway plausible theory that is based on psychological determinism - the idea that all states of mind and all people in all things are driven eventually willy-nilly by meachanical forces beyond their "command"; but I fail to see that even then it's a very compelling case, even then it simply doesn't convince me, since one can also make a very good case for the evolutionary development of limited free-will, and simulate (very primitively) some of the mooted necessary mechanisms to it.

Gurdur

BTW, Scigirl:

Many thanks for continuing your part of the discussion, even if I repeatedly disagree !

You wouldn't believe just how much this whole area fascinates me, and how much I love talking about it. Really !

Gurdur

Addendum:

Scigirl,
your second post just now covered parts I had objected to in my initial response, so my apologies if I sound stupid in my last long response to you, since I wrote it before you made that second post.

scigirl

I found this link that Gurdur provided to be rather interesting. It summarizes several theories about the brain, religion, and all that stuff:

<a href="http://bhidalgo.tripod.com/litreview.htm" target="_blank">http://bhidalgo.tripod.com/litreview.htm</a>

Here was the author's overall conclusions:
I think I agree with them that we should hesitate to be too reductionistic when looking at any cognitive function. However, how much of their skepticism is truly reductionist skepticism, or simply due to the fact that we just don't know how the brain works yet? For instance this "hypothetical interpreter"? What is it? Could it be, yet, another brain structure or pathway, that is influenced by genetics?

Here are some of the theories that were being summarized:

I tend to agree with this analysis of the temporal lobe - it gives us certain 'feelings' or 'states,' which, depending on the context or social context we percieve as "religious" or some other state.

The model for meditative status:
Well I'm off to think about the brain (no actually to get my snowboard ready for a day on the hill but anyway...)

scigirl