Neurotheology & Non-Belief

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No specific theology (which, for purposes of this discussion, includes animism), but belief in some sort of spirit world (which also includes animism).

The trance state itself commonly conveys a sense of presence, the rest is interpretation. Could be the spirit of the stag, could be Allah, and it mostly depends on cultural bias.

But you were the one who said the two would differ, so I return the question to you.

Hang on - I said that if they were based on one or the other, they should be different. What you seem to be implicitly saying here (though I realize you explicitly disagreed with it earlier) is that religion isn't really based on mystical experience, but instead mystical experiences are attributed to the religion that the people experiencing them are already familiar with.

 

[Storm]

Thanks. Pigliucci, who've I've quoted as far back as December 2004, does a more than adequate job addressing Newberg and D'Aquili ...

Bookmarked for later, thank you.

Instead of following their research to the logical consequence--that mystical experiences are no different from delusions and drug-induced states because they alter the functioning of he posterior superior parietal lobe--the authors take a stupendously irrational turn. "Gene and I ... believe that we saw evidence of a neurological process that has evolved to allow humans to transcend material existence and acknowledge and connect with a deeper, more spiritual part of ourselves perceived as an absolute, universal reality that connects us to all that is."

Really? In other words, the authors think that what clearly looks like a malfunctioning of the brain due to an unusual condition of sensorial deprivation evolved as an adaptation to get in touch with a higher level of reality. Accordingly, the rest of the book is bad science tamed worse toward the end. Most chapters present just-so stories in the worst possible sociobiological genre. Interesting scenarios are built on what our cave-dwelling ancestors were thinking and how they were coping with the realization of their mortality. It is really a shame that brains and emotions don't leave a fossil record so that we could check on these stories. As geneticist Richard Lewontin once wrote in a similar context, "I must say that the best lesson our readers can learn is to give up the childish notion that everything that is interesting about nature can be understood.... It might be interesting to know how {insert here your favorite biological phenomenon for which there is no trace in the fossil record} arose and spread and changed, but we cannot know. Tough luck."

Bad science ...

I really need to reread the book now that I've been exposed to criticism as well. I've forgotten a lot.

 

[Storm]

Hang on - I said that if they were based on one or the other, they should be different.

Yes, and I asked you how they would differ. You only described one, which gave me nothing to compare, so I asked again. What's the issue? Have I misunderstood your position?

What you seem to be implicitly saying here (though I realize you explicitly disagreed with it earlier) is that religion isn't really based on mystical experience, but instead mystical experiences are attributed to the religion that the people experiencing them are already familiar with.

I see your confusion.

I think that, at some point in the dawn humanity, mystical experiences played a role in triggering God-belief, or at least spirit-belief. Religion developed around that belief. Millennia later, a majority of people who have mystical experiences turn to the explanations of their ancestors, established religion. We've come full circle.

Does that help?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes, and I asked you how they would differ. You only described one, which gave me nothing to compare, so I asked again. What's the issue? Have I misunderstood your position?

I've never had a mystical experience; you say you have. What's the point in me telling you the spiritual questions that such an experience would create in a person?
My point was that whatever those questions are, they're likely different than the ones raised by attribution of agency. And I think that examining the answer, i.e. religion, is probably our best way to figure out which question it was trying to answer.

I see your confusion.

I think that, at some point in the dawn humanity, mystical experiences played a role in triggering God-belief, or at least spirit-belief. Religion developed around that belief. Millennia later, a majority of people who have mystical experiences turn to the explanations of their ancestors, established religion. We've come full circle.

Does that help?

Not really.

Mystical experiences are, by their nature, the province of a minority. Religion is a community activity: it's something engaged in by the majority. While one person's mystical experience might lead them to certain religious beliefs, I think that a religion requires as its basis something that's shared by all or most of its members. Mystical experience doesn't fit that bill.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I think that, at some point in the dawn humanity, mystical experiences played a role in triggering God-belief, or at least spirit-belief. Religion developed around that belief. Millennia later, a majority of people who have mystical experiences turn to the explanations of their ancestors, established religion. We've come full circle.

And how is that a better description than that offered by Atran?

 

[Storm]

I've never had a mystical experience; you say you have. What's the point in me telling you the spiritual questions that such an experience would create in a person?

Then what was the point of saying they would differ? I'm getting confused.

My point was that whatever those questions are, they're likely different than the ones raised by attribution of agency. And I think that examining the answer, i.e. religion, is probably our best way to figure out which question it was trying to answer.

Hmmm...... I'm wondering if our disagreement is based on you viewing the spandrel, the mystical experiences, etc. as separate and unrelated phenomena, while I see them as pieces of one puzzle. What do you think?

Not really.

As in you don't agree, or don't understand?

Mystical experiences are, by their nature, the province of a minority. Religion is a community activity: it's something engaged in by the majority. While one person's mystical experience might lead them to certain religious beliefs, I think that a religion requires as its basis something that's shared by all or most of its members. Mystical experience doesn't fit that bill.

Possibly, but I'm factoring in two things you seem to exclude:
1) Communication. We're social animals, we talk about things. In this way, one person's experience could be believed in by the tribe.
2) Certain hardships like hunger seem to make the advent of mystical experiences far more likely. These hardships were more common for our ancestors than modern, Western people. It seems a reasonable conclusion that trance states were more common, too.

 

[Storm]

And how is that a better description than that offered by Atran?

I don't say it's better than anyone's description, but are you really implying I can't speak for myself?

If you have a quote you prefer, feel free to share it.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I don't say it's better than anyone's description, but are you really implying I can't speak for myself?

It is clear that you can and will speak for yourself. I am asking you why you believe your explication is more compelling than that offered by Atran. If you'd rather wrap yourself with feigned righteous indignation than answer, fine ...

If you have a quote you prefer, feel free to share it.

See Ratcliffe M.J. 2006. Neurotheology: A Science of What?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Then what was the point of saying they would differ? I'm getting confused.

Because you've described different things about your experiences that lead my thinking in certain directions, but I wanted to establish a starting point that you agreed with.

Hmmm...... I'm wondering if our disagreement is based on you viewing the spandrel, the mystical experiences, etc. as separate and unrelated phenomena, while I see them as pieces of one puzzle. What do you think?

I don't see mystical experiences as a necessary piece of the puzzle, no. I don't think they add explanatory power when we're talking about the origins of religions.

Now... this doesn't hold true with certain religious traits, though. I think that in some cases, the division of religions into priesthood and laity may be explainable by mystical experiences or something like it.

As in you don't agree, or don't understand?

More like I don't find it convincing.

Possibly, but I'm factoring in two things you seem to exclude:
1) Communication. We're social animals, we talk about things. In this way, one person's experience could be believed in by the tribe.

But less so when it contradicts a person's own experience.

2) Certain hardships like hunger seem to make the advent of mystical experiences far more likely. These hardships were more common for our ancestors than modern, Western people. It seems a reasonable conclusion that trance states were more common, too.

Okay, well there's something that seems at least theoretically testable to me: where and when did religion originate, and what sort of conditions were there at the time?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Okay, well there's something that seems at least theoretically testable to me: where and when did religion originate, and what sort of conditions were there at the time?

Religion defined how?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Religion defined how?

I was getting at what Storm said before:

I think that, at some point in the dawn humanity, mystical experiences played a role in triggering God-belief, or at least spirit-belief.

If that's true, and if mystical experiences can be made more prevalent by things like hunger, then we'd expect God-belief/spirit-belief to first emerge during a time of scarcity.

 

[Willamena]

See Ratcliffe M.J. 2006. Neurotheology: A Science of What?

Good article, good read. Thanks. This part sums up my reservations about neurotheology:

By analogy, if one were to study the nature of baseball, an account that referred solely to the biological capacities of individuals that dispose them to play baseball would not only be incomplete but largely beside the point, given that the activity of playing baseball is only possible given a particular cultural context. It is this context which explains the existence of baseball, rather than ‘baseball areas’ in people’s brains.
Perhaps religious experiences are comparable. Even solitary meditation is performed in accordance with established norms and shared practices that are passed on from generation to generation via cultural, rather than biological, transmission. If historically stable cultural conditions are required before individuals can have experiences of a certain type, interpret their mundane experiences in a certain way or categorize certain experiences as religious, spiritual or mystical, then perhaps the brain is not the right place to start looking for answers.

 

[Storm]

It is clear that you can and will speak for yourself. I am asking you why you believe your explication is more compelling than that offered by Atran.

Atran is the man behind the spandrel hypothesis, yes?

Assuming I recall correctly, the answer is simple: he ignores the reality of mystical experience.

If you'd rather wrap yourself with feigned righteous indignation than answer, fine ...

Your poor phrasing and habitual trolling are not my responsibility.

See Ratcliffe M.J. 2006. Neurotheology: A Science of What?

This paper raises a number of concerns about the new field of 'neurotheology', which seeks to investigate the neural correlates of religion and religious experience. I conclude that this area of enquiry is no more credible than the science of, say, 'neuroStevenSeagalology', which is the study of the neural basis of Steven Seagal film experience. But, if you don't like Steven Seagal films, pick whatever content you like. My colleague Ben Smith favours 'neurocheeseburgerology'.

Yeah, that's objective....

 

[Storm]

I don't see mystical experiences as a necessary piece of the puzzle, no. I don't think they add explanatory power when we're talking about the origins of religions.

May I ask why?

But less so when it contradicts a person's own experience.

What would you consider to be a contradiction?

Okay, well there's something that seems at least theoretically testable to me: where and when did religion originate, and what sort of conditions were there at the time?

How would we test for that?

 

[Dunemeister]

I think I see where you're going with this, but I don't want to assume. Could you elaborate a bit?

Perhaps if you could say something about where you think I'm going, I could then tell you to what extent you've interpreted me rightly or wrongly? Otherwise, I'm not sure what to elaborate on exactly.

 

[Storm]

Perhaps if you could say something about where you think I'm going, I could then tell you to what extent you've interpreted me rightly or wrongly? Otherwise, I'm not sure what to elaborate on exactly.

Fair enough. It sounded like you were saying that humans were designed to know God perfectly, but since the Fall, this ability has deteriorated. We tend to believe in either the "wrong" God, or no God at all.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Atran is the man behind the spandrel hypothesis, yes? Assuming I recall correctly, ...

That would be (yet another) false assumption. On the other hand, you would be better able to "recall correctly" if you actually took the time to read the man ...

 

[Storm]

It wasn't an assumption, it was a question. Now, if you can't contribute, get the hell out.

 

[linwood]

Jared Diamond's lecture. It's astounding, as is everything he writes about.

Most excellent.

Thank you.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It wasn't an assumption, it was a question. Now, if you can't contribute, get the hell out.

Oh my ...

Actually, Storm, I honestly believe that my references to Atran, Pigliucci, and Ratcliffe contributed qualitatively to the discussion (and certainly far, far more than your childish outbursts), but you were no doubt too wrapped up in defending yourself to notice. Sad ...