Religiosity and Neuroscience

I don't take any notice of folks in the infant stage. All they want is some syrup on their dummy and a nappy change.

I apologize for being dense, but would you mind elaborating on what you mean by that metaphor, and how it applies to the article.

It was in the way of suggesting that no amount of sophisticated brain imaging technique will ever provide understanding of the nature of the spiritual experience in the brain and that Mr Wenk's "infant science" has no other function than to draw attention to himself by seeking to belittle and denigrate spiritual experiences by linking them with atrophy and epilepsy and thus undermine religious people.

And he does use the expression "that may also correlate" which implies, of course, that they may not. Such unscientific language, in my experience, does correlate with a militant atheism.

Yeah, I understand how some people are militant atheists, and to be honest theists too. I don't know if Mr. Wenk is or not, but that is plausible and likely due to his association with Psychology Today. I don't know about a classification of "infant science" for research into the function of the brain. In my mind the brain and mind are two different things. The Old Testament is composed of Semitic scriptures, and during the time those scriptures were recorded the belief was that the seat of emotion was the bowels, or abdominal area. Mormons talk about a spiritual experience call "The Burning in the Bosom", and for them the evidence of their faith is centered around this experience. Eastern religions identify chakra, vertices of energy through out the body. These many examples of ideas about the heart, the seat of emotion, in humans indicate to me that humans (scientist, or other wise) don't know where we experience life from. I've had several empirical spiritual experiences that I can not deny, and because of this my faith is not easily shaken by those who would propose other explanations for the human experience. I like to remind myself to be kind to the ignorant, because they lack my experience. That said I take a harder stance against those who are in denial of their own spiritual experience and are liars, deceivers, and corruptors of what they know to be truth. They are either willing or unwilling tools of Satan. And I believe this applies to the religious and anti-religious equally.

For me atrophy and epilepsy just are, and don't correlate to spiritual truth, nor the experience of a person who's been touched by the Divine. But there may actually be a correlation between religious behavior and atrophy and epilepsy. I've seen a lot of religious behavior from individuals whether they tagged a Ph D after their name or not. You seem religion and putting one's faith in a spiritual experience are two different things. I think of religion as something built off of dogma, doctrine, and ideology. Based upon my interpretation of the meaning I feel there are a lot of religious people that are militant atheists, and they too would show the same correlation. If there is one, that is.

Interesting. But the point is that though Mr Wenk doesn't actually say the correlation is proved he gives the impression that it is to casual readers. That was my objection really and that such a trick is driven by his emotions which defeats his own argument.

Materialists are committed to mind, brain, body and central nervous system being synonyms for a unity. Otherwise soul is admitted and they can't do that.

I'm inclined to think spirituality is culturally conditioned. The roles of music, colour and movement are important.

I believe that our perceptions are culturally conditioned, and it colors what we know to be true.

Yes, the casual reader, and pop media will pick up on Wenk's work to conform it to their beliefs and ideology. Hopefully on a2k we're better at discerning truth.

I don't know what it's like to be a materialist. I'd really like to see a long term (20 years or more) study of a large group of materialists to find out how their lives fair. (hmmm I would really enjoy a reality TV series that tracks hard core materialists)

For me I can't logically think of myself as a materialist, because the ideology doesn't correlate to my experience.

But I admit there could be some truth in their beliefs. I don't know how yet, but then I'm not God and as such don't know everything.

colour me dense but, what is a "materialist?"

spendius
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/materialist

I've read Armstrong's The Materialist Theory of Mind a couple of times. I've never yet met a materialist who can accept it mind you.

The fake materialists on the evolution threads, my stamping ground, have it on Ignore.

Well, it is quite clear, actually, that whatever one may wish to call 'spiritual experience,' is of course a neuronal activity of a thing. The title of the thread is a bit misleading, I would argue, however.

When you say "of course" I have to assume you've concluded that we're a product of biological functions. How did you come to this conclusion and decide against the view that we have minds?

Materialist have no choice Pron. They would need to admit "soul" otherwise and then all the sand under their feet starts sliding away.

That's why the pseudo-materialists on the Evo threads have Armstrong on Ignore. It discomfits them you see.

Unless you are really asking how did they come to be materialists.

Maybe that's what I'm asking. I wonder if they know. Maybe materialists (like so many others) just follow what they are taught without any thought at all. Maybe it just seems right to them is the sole basis of their faith.

Please do excuse me for the delay in getting back, Pronounce, a heavy load over here, these days.

Yes, Pronounce, I have come to conclude, in face of the evidences at large, that such is the case, we are biological through and through, and only have that certain dependency on energy--which I guess we'll have to hold outside the realm of biology, though not the physical universe.

Before I answer your question, however, please do let me give a little further background, unasked for (so as to highlight the latter, forthcoming, portion which does answer your question).

I grew up in a protestant setting with my grandfather's being a rural circuit preacher for the Methodist Church. My father was a lay-preacher, and very involved. However, in highschool, I became a little 'open minded' (shall we say?) and also looked into Hinduism, as well. (Perhaps the greatest reason for that was my interest in India, and my studying Hindi at the time.)

Jump on over a handful of years, or so, and I'm what you would call a 'true believer.' I took up serious Bible study at that time, going so far as to study the Greek and Hebrew and getting original recensions (such as Aland & Nestle's 27th ed., BHS, and LXX Stuttgart, etc.) and scholarly works on such. I've been a member of the Society for Biblical Literature for coming up on 10 years now. This learning, and (again) open mindedness towards the data base of Christianity (Hinduism, Buddhism, and Shinto...as it turned out too...to more or less degrees) presented the evidences for those individual theist-based religious belief systems.

In the mean time, however, I had attempted to use--as one might expect--various bits and pieces of scientific evidence to support ID. Well, being the slightly perfectionist that I am, and due to a certain degree of 'open mindedness' which, to whatever degree, I have always seem to have had, I slowly came to see that the better evidences of what nature is, has done, and is doing, belied the data bases of those several theist-based religious belief systems. The total of that evidence leads to the more likely conclusion that nature is what we should be looking at instead of human designed god-models, and the doctrine which surround the particular systems.

I have been a member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science for a good while now, and am a member of the Society for Neuroscience, and the New York Academy of the Sciences too. (and still belong to SBL) I have been studying and doing research on the Central Nervous System, particularly the brain, for some six years now--which, of course, is very short, and nothing to brag about, but is still, that much time, at least.

One thing to keep in mind, Pronounce, is that being a biological entity such as the H. sapiens is, does not mean that we do not have a mind--of course we have minds, just as other primates do, and probably most other mammals as well (and I'm putting this on the safe side by stopping there, that's all) It would be an error to conclude that by our brains' being a result of biological process, it could not be said that we have minds; in that the noun 'mind' came especially from that very state of brain build/state. If one were to study the old Hebrew texts (in Hebrew, I mind you), it becomes clear that the earlier postulators of that system seemed to have realized as much--that which is the being--either animal or human--is that soul. Thus, the soul, along with the body and mind that it is, dies. (and that's the end of it, until that resurrection idea, according to that model)

The Platonic, or Neo-Platonic idea of 'soul,' as is still commonly held by a good number of people yet, is a false notion. This is what nature teaches us.

Thank you, an awesome reply, and no apology needed (the time stamp shows that you replied relatively quickly). I’m going to break up my replies to highlight certain topics. I’m going to categorize this one as the quest for truth.

I was excited by your background, because you've had the opportunity to investigate, in depth, several areas of science that I've long to investigate but realize that I will never have the chance to.

I don't know how deeply you've involved yourself in any of your religious studies (including Christian), but the fact that you realized spending six years doing research into the central nervous system as a relative short time coincides with what I've come to learn about understanding and knowledge, and that is that it takes time to really know something well; To the point that the individual who truly wants to grasp the necessary depth and breadth of the subject must "sell out" to the culture of the knowledge. So for a person to really understand Christianity they would have to be a "sold out" Christian. To understand evolutionary biology you have to be a "sold out" evolutionary biologist. One has to swallow the whole pill to know the truth (Matrix - Gnostic metaphor). Of course this is the realm of epistemology.

Like your "open mindedness" that you've always had. I was born with a questioning mind. I don't ever accept things at face value, and I'm constantly asking, "Why"? This means in church circles I'm asking why people know what they know to be true, and how is that worked out in their daily lives. I want to know if what they say they believe is real to them. (Maybe if I was completely honest here I would have to admit that what I’m trying to do is get people to admit to themselves that unless their beliefs manifest in reality they don’t really believe what they are saying.) In science circles I ask them if they are able to step away from the data and analyze it from a new perspective. Of the scientist I want to know if they've lost sight humanity. I’ve found that many scientists have become esoteric and irrelevant from the perspective of the common man. I’ll admit that these scientists know well the material they’ve come to know, but my question is do they know how to apply that knowledge wisely so that mankind will benefit from the knowledge. Often times they get lost in their circles of study, and find that the only people who understand them are the same people they work with day in and day out. And at times their discoveries are hidden from public view and exploited by a few to accumulate wealth and power.

Obviously I'm not very popular and have few friends. It seems to me that people, in general, don't like to have their belief systems questioned (attacked?).

I’ve come to see that once humans have their baser needs met they tend to allocate their time between pain mitigation and self determination. These two aspects involve humanitarian aid, protest marches, using stimulates to dull pain, workaholism, pornography, hedonism, scientific research, play writing, finding a life partner, child rearing, wanting to be accepted, love, etc., etc., etc., etc., but over arching these two aspects, I theorize, is self-denial and ignorance. I’ve noticed that people either tend to deny what they think they know about themselves, and/or through ignorance are clueless what it means to live true to themselves.

I say this, because the more I dig into what it means to be a human (biological, philosophical, and spiritual) the more I know I don’t know. And when I talk to others about what they know about what they know I’ve come to see the blindness of humanity. For instance I must suppose that you through your field of study have acquired specific knowledge about the how the human body works and have seen experimental results that show, in biological terms, why humans behave the way they behave. I believe that you know things about neuroscience most people are clueless about. I then believe that all the others who don’t know what you know and understand it to the degree you do are blind in this way about what it means to be a human. And I think this ignorance is part of the reason people mistakenly do the things they do.

I don’t know how big a factor ignorance is and I only just considered its ramifications, but when it comes to self-deception, this is what I’ve been concentrating on, I believe here is where most of us live. Either though laziness and an unwillingness to progress, or the threat of the painful truth, we cloud our minds to what is true and prefer to live a lie. The fabricated façade born out of our desire for self protection and/or for cultural continuity has caused most humans to behave in a way that isn’t truly them.

I believe this is true, and find it interesting that we’re all too happy to allow our fellow man to live “any ol’ way they choose” as long as they aren’t close to us, but when an individual is significant to us we are acutely aware consciously, or unconsciously, that they are living a lie. And we consciously, or unconsciously, find this lie offensive to us. So we feel like we have to correct them to become “better” (right, true, in grips with reality). (Well to the degree we’re not narcissistic. Someone sufficiently narcissistic doesn’t view others as significant enough to waste their life on no matter how close they are.)

I'm categorizing this reply as religion.

Have you had any empirical ecstatic experience where you know that something outside yourself (call it the divine) touched you spiritually or physically? If not that then have you personally had an emotional experience where you were caught up in the moment of the situation? Then if not that are you aware of being a part of a religious cultural experience?

I believe the first question supersedes the second which supersedes the third. I view it this way, because I see humans as made up of layers and the surface layer is behavioral, the next layer is institutional, the next layer is experiential, and the final layer is essence (nurture/nature).

I theorize that the conviction of belief is a factor of the depth of experience. Someone whose conviction is born out of their essence is going to be more committed to their beliefs then someone whose beliefs are formed by the group they are a part of.

Your description of your heritage gives me some idea about your foundations. I’ve work with pastor’s kids, have taught pastor’s kids, and have watched pastor’s kids struggle with their personal “faith”. A child cannot inherent genuine faith from their father (or mother), unlike religion. Plus I’ve known too many pastors too well to be so naive as to think they are perfect in the practicing of their faith. A pastor’s child will know the truth all too well, and this often leads to a crisis of belief.

As for me I grew up with an atheist/agnostic father, who is an MD, and a committed Christian mother (nurse). My mother exposed me to religion and my father to logic. My father reasoned away faith in a Divine Being who saved souls and believed that we just ended our days returning to the pool of matter that we started. I could see that he believed what he said to be true, but I detected his belief wasn’t absolute and so there was a touch of fear that the logic wasn’t sound. My father’s example gave me the idea that the faith of atheists wasn’t so different from the faith of theists. I see atheism and theism as two sides of the same coin; a belief system created by finite beings with limited resources that’ve assembled a body of doctrine they claim explains concepts, ideas, and things that reasonable people know to be beyond their ability to grasp. I see fundamentalist tendencies in both groups whereby they promote their dogma using rhetoric with an expectation that reasonable people should accept their doctrine unreasonably. Both groups lack humility and the ability to admit that their doctrine was created by fallible beings with a propensity to make mistakes, corrupt truth, and/or lie.

As for me, my faith was born out of the fact that the Divine spoke to me in my soul/spirit saying, “I want you for my own” (those where the words I heard in my soul, and I felt a pull upon my reasoning to make those words known to others). Because it happened in a Southern Baptist Church I was lead to identify that with God (el in Semitic languages), but I’ve come to realize that that term is too generic and not very descriptive of His nature and being. I’ve come to believe that the being designated as God by some could be called by any number of better names like: Love, Peace, Joy, Truth, Perseverance, Reality, Knowledge, Nature, Faith, Etc., Etc., Etc., and many more I don’t know. To those who know Him best He’s just called Father.

But what is His being? What can anyone know of it? I believe that He limits his nature for our benefit, because not doing so would destroy us (i.e. imagine what it would be like for darkness to exist in the presence of light). I believe the reason science can’t see the supernatural aspect of the Divine is because of these limits. I believe that the study of nature is the study of these limits. I believe by definition that science cannot see the supernatural, because Nature was put in place to separate us sufficiently from the Divine for our protection. I also believe to be a true scientist means to study only that which is visible and available to inquiry. By definition the scientific method cannot define the supernatural aspect of the Divine. I believe that anyone who proclaims science has evidence of the Divine, or the lack of the Divine, they are at best ignorant, misguided, self deluded and at worse a liar and deceiver. I believe this because natural and supernatural are normally mutually exclusive. For two things that are mutually exclusive to exist at the same time would take a supernatural act, and thus not be normal. (I do recognize that there are those who investigate supernatural events using some semblance of scientific methods, a field known as parascience, aka non-science.)

I share similar view with Avi Rabinowitz, NYU, http://pages.nyu.edu/~air1/index.htm.

I'm going to label this one investigation.

One thing that impresses me about some people is their willingness to actually get “dirty” when it comes to investigation. Maybe true open-mindedness is just the willingness throw away all previous beliefs and completely immerse oneself in a new belief system.

I want to know about a lot of things, but I realize to really know something about a subject I have to be involved in the subject to point of immersion. The process requires that a person throw away, remove, or discard, some of what makes them themselves. This is a scary process for some people, and I know myself well enough to know I’m one of those. I don’t want to take my truths and discard them as false, because I know I will lose myself in doing so.

What is the alternative? Well for me it’s meeting others who are steeped into the topics that I want to know about; who’ve committed themselves to ascertaining all the details on a topic. I realize that while these individuals are glad to do what they do, I wouldn’t be and thus, selfishly, I can use others to learn about topics that I don’t want to be “corrupted” by. (The analogy would be like finding a person who’s willing to be lowered into an out-house pit so they can relay back what they find.) Of course this only works as long as the investigator and I can communicate. Beyond a certain point the investigator can’t relay their findings in such a way that I can understand and communication breaks down.