Neurotheology & Non-Belief

[rojse]

When did I suggest otherwise?

Merely responding to this part of our discussion.

And this means their existence [visions] is in doubt?

No, it means it should be in doubt.

Why?

Surely an event that that makes such substantial claims and requires such substantial presumptions should not just be taken on face value. We should be examining reasonable alternatives to the situation in question.

End.

Psychiatry.

Just out of interest, when is the last time you have professionally visited a psychologist? I myself have never been to one.

Neurotheology.

And what exactly does neurotheology have to say about the brain's functions that is different to delirium or other forms of temporary loss of clarity?

Why do you accept that dreams occur, but question mystical experiences?

I never said that mystical experiences do not occur, rather that they might not have the significance that the people experiencing them believe they have.

And there is a vast difference between dreams and mystical experiences, Storm.

 

[rojse]

I do.

Is the word of a person whose sanity is in question legitimate evidence that the person is not insane?

And do you think patients in mental wards think that they are insane?

Actually, the Christian position is that humans are experiencing a more or less permanent debilitation due to damage to their sensus divinitatus.

Interesting. Can you please elaborate? I presume that the latin is "Divine Sense".

I do.

Under what grounds, besides the emotive?

And the very fact that this is a controversial position doesn't mean it can be dismissed (as you appear to be saying). Nor does it mean that it's on an equal footing with all the others. The test would be whether the perspective sheds more light on our current condition than the alternatives.

What light do you believe is shed upon the situation when God is used as an explanation?

What light do you believe is shed upon the situation when the events are reduced to a physical explanation?

 

[Storm]

Just out of interest, when is the last time you have professionally visited a psychologist? I myself have never been to one.

I see a therapist twice a week, a meds doctor once a month, and had a full psychiatric review less than a year ago. None of them say I'm delusional.

And what exactly does neurotheology have to say about the brain's functions that is different to delirium or other forms of temporary loss of clarity?

The neural activity is different.

I never said that mystical experiences do not occur, rather that they might not have the significance that the people experiencing them believe they have.

And there is a vast difference between dreams and mystical experiences, Storm.

Perhaps I misread you. It sounded like you were saying that the existence of any internal experience, which would include dreams as well as mystical experience, should be questioned. Was that not what you meant?

 

[Dunemeister]

Is the word of a person whose sanity is in question legitimate evidence that the person is not insane?

And do you think patients in mental wards think that they are insane?

As it happens, yes, most mental patients actually realize they are mentally ill. The fact that we know what it means for our faculties to be working properly means we can tell when they aren't. Seems really simple to me.

Interesting. Can you please elaborate? I presume that the latin is "Divine Sense".

I already have previously in this thread. Have a look there and if you have further questions, I can clarify further if need be.

Under what grounds, besides the emotive?

Rational grounds. The world just makes more sense under a Christian theistic framework than any other I've compared it to. Admittedly, the number of frameworks I've compared it to is somewhat small.

What light do you believe is shed upon the situation when God is used as an explanation?

Purpose, significance, divine activity.

What light do you believe is shed upon the situation when the events are reduced to a physical explanation?

Manner, method, earthly-level cause and effect.

 

[rojse]

I see a therapist twice a week, a meds doctor once a month, and had a full psychiatric review less than a year ago. None of them say I'm delusional.

With all of that, I believe that you can reasonably say that you are sane.

The neural activity is different.

Interesting. Do you have any links about this?

Perhaps I misread you. It sounded like you were saying that the existence of any internal experience, which would include dreams as well as mystical experience, should be questioned. Was that not what you meant?

Yes, internal experiences should be questioned. But in questioning these experiences, it should not be presumed that these experiences are real or not real, just that it should be approached with an open mind.

And I was trying to point out before that if these experiences are real, it may be that these experiences do not have the significance that most people attach to them.

 

[rojse]

As it happens, yes, most mental patients actually realize they are mentally ill. The fact that we know what it means for our faculties to be working properly means we can tell when they aren't. Seems really simple to me.

I would have to disagree with you there.

An anecdote from an acquaintance who was training to be a nurse: while on duty, one of the patients said that he was expecting a check in the mail, and that it should have arrived by now. The nurses on duty then spent an hour searching for this man's check, because it was quite common for patients to receive checks, from the government, or from families of the patient.

Asking the patient for some details about the check, in order to help find it, the nurses found out that this patient expected to receive a check worth a million dollars, straight from George W. Bush.

The nurses managed to convince him that because George Bush was busy running a war in Iraq, that he probably would not be able to send that check for some time. The man was quite happy with this, and promptly forgot that incident within a few hours.

Now, away from anecdotes - does a person who is not sane, and does not have faculties that work properly, would this person have the capacity of being aware that they are insane or not? That was my question previously, and it has not been answered.

I already have previously in this thread. Have a look there and if you have further questions, I can clarify further if need be.

I haven't seen it at all, and I have been following this thread.

Rational grounds. The world just makes more sense under a Christian theistic framework than any other I've compared it to. Admittedly, the number of frameworks I've compared it to is somewhat small.

In what way does the world make more sense? What phenomena, what events does it explain that are not explained by science, for example?

Purpose, significance, divine activity.

What purpose and significance?

Oh, and why does "divine activity" seem only be found under a theistic world-view?

I would hazard the presumption it is because of the general presumption of those with this world-view that such activities must exist, and that events of chance or luck can be made to confirm this. What are your thoughts, Dunemeister?

 

[Dunemeister]

Now, away from anecdotes - does a person who is not sane, and does not have faculties that work properly, would this person have the capacity of being aware that they are insane or not? That was my question previously, and it has not been answered.

In severe cases, of course not. Someone in the throes of an all-encompassing delusion don't realize it's a delusion. In less severe cases, even the sufferer knows.

I can trade anecdotes too. A personal friend of mine had manic episodes during which she suffered from delusions. When they subsided, she was still convinced of the truth of them, but eventually she came to her senses.

My point is that the distinction between a properly functioning cognitive capacity and a malfunctioning one makes perfect sense, and we are perfectly capable of identifying them.

I haven't seen it at all, and I have been following this thread.

Post #9. I could have sworn that Storm had asked me to furnish a further elaboration and that I had obliged. But I can't find it. In any case, a summary statement is that God has created us to be able to perceive truths about God and morality through what theologians have called a sensus divinitatus. That sense has been damaged by sin such that it is no longer entirely reliable, which leads to a variety of religious belief. The damage to that sense is complicated further by damage to our affections such that, even when the sensus works aright, we find we do not even really want to know the truth about God. We're happier with our self-serving ideologies.

Thus, on a Christian anaysis, it's perfectly unsurprising to find out that we are "hard-wired" for belief yet also find that not everyone believes.

In what way does the world make more sense? What phenomena, what events does it explain that are not explained by science, for example?

The existence of the universe is not explained by science. Heck, it's not even possible. Science also cannot account for the truth of morality. There just is such a thing as right and wrong, but as many have said before, you cannot derive "ought" from "is." I also find it impossible to account for the emergence of the (Jewish)Christian belief in the messiahship of Jesus despite his death, not to mention his resurrection (as well as the content and shape of the records and community that preserves that memory) apart from the actual work of God in the physical realm, namely a resurrection. I'm aware of the skeptical arguments, I just find them unconvincing.

What purpose and significance?

That varies on the theology.

Oh, and why does "divine activity" seem only be found under a theistic world-view?

What divine activity could there even be under an atheistic worldview?

I would hazard the presumption it is because of the general presumption of those with this world-view that such activities must exist, and that events of chance or luck can be made to confirm this. What are your thoughts, Dunemeister?

Sure, I suppose that's possible. Of course, it's also possible merely not to be biased from the start against the possiblity of divine activity in the world and to become convinced based on the preponderance of evidence. Or perhaps one's belief is formed more apocalyptically and reflection might show that the beliefs are warranted. Either way, we need not assume that one's perception of divine activity amount to wish fulfillment or finding what you already expect to find. Besides, that's easily turned around on the skeptic. The skeptic doesn't find God because she doesn't expect/want to. Nyah.

 

[rojse]

Post #9. I could have sworn that Storm had asked me to furnish a further elaboration and that I had obliged. But I can't find it. In any case, a summary statement is that God has created us to be able to perceive truths about God and morality through what theologians have called a sensus divinitatus. That sense has been damaged by sin such that it is no longer entirely reliable, which leads to a variety of religious belief. The damage to that sense is complicated further by damage to our affections such that, even when the sensus works aright, we find we do not even really want to know the truth about God. We're happier with our self-serving ideologies.

Thus, on a Christian anaysis, it's perfectly unsurprising to find out that we are "hard-wired" for belief yet also find that not everyone believes.

I went back to have a look at your post.

It seems that Catholic theology answers quite a few difficult questions by using "The Fall" as a rebuttal.

Regardless of that, why is it, then, that those who are theists have their sensus divinitatus working well enough to be able to sense God, while others do not? Do you think that atheists all deny God's existence, even when it is revealed? God has not revealed himself to those that are atheists? Or is it something else?

The existence of the universe is not explained by science. Heck, it's not even possible.

How is the existence of the universe explained by Catholic theology? God created the universe... why? You've added an extra agent and answered nothing.

Science also cannot account for the truth of morality. There just is such a thing as right and wrong, but as many have said before, you cannot derive "ought" from "is."

Morality has been linked to evolutionary theory. Someone who is more knowledgeable in science than I could provide a more informative site, but Wiki is a good starting point, as always.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_morality

I also find it impossible to account for the emergence of the (Jewish)Christian belief in the messiahship of Jesus despite his death,

Do you believe that martyrdom hinders a religion, or assists it?

not to mention his resurrection (as well as the content and shape of the records and community that preserves that memory)

The same resurrection of Jesus that was documented in Gospels written fifty years after said event?

apart from the actual work of God in the physical realm, namely a resurrection. I'm aware of the skeptical arguments, I just find them unconvincing.

That varies on the theology.

How do purpose and significance relate to empirical events?

Sure, I suppose that's possible. Of course, it's also possible merely not to be biased from the start against the possiblity of divine activity in the world and to become convinced based on the preponderance of evidence. Or perhaps one's belief is formed more apocalyptically and reflection might show that the beliefs are warranted. Either way, we need not assume that one's perception of divine activity amount to wish fulfillment or finding what you already expect to find. Besides, that's easily turned around on the skeptic. The skeptic doesn't find God because she doesn't expect/want to. Nyah.

The concepts espoused in religion are far more palatable than secular concepts. Eternal life, salvation, miracles...

 

[rojse]

Sorry if I am helping to derail your topic, Storm. Just think of how this is helping to increase your fruballing-power. :yes:

 

[Shahzad]

Nobody doubts that mystical experiences are a genuine experience but so far nobody has given any criteria to judge whether the cause is inside the brain, as in a dream, or outside the brain from a spiritual reality. In the absence of any such criteria there doesn't seem to be a reason to favour the latter explanation over the former.

 

[rojse]

Nobody doubts that mystical experiences are a genuine experience...

Yes, a genuine experience, but a genuine experience of... what?

 

[Storm]

With all of that, I believe that you can reasonably say that you are sane.

I misspoke, I see a therapist once every two weeks, not twice a week. All the same, I think I can reasonably call myself sane, too.

Interesting. Do you have any links about this?

I don't, I'm afraid. I've read a couple of books on the topic, and while I've been exposed to some criticism of the main one, nobody's challenged the neuroscans.

Yes, internal experiences should be questioned. But in questioning these experiences, it should not be presumed that these experiences are real or not real, just that it should be approached with an open mind.

I just don't see how you can doubt that they're real. Even if they were hallucinations or the product of madness, they would still be real experiences.

And I was trying to point out before that if these experiences are real, it may be that these experiences do not have the significance that most people attach to them.

I do agree with this.

 

[Storm]

Sorry if I am helping to derail your topic, Storm. Just think of how this is helping to increase your fruballing-power. :yes:

I didn't think you guys were derailing it.

Nobody doubts that mystical experiences are a genuine experience

rojse seems to....

ETA: Nevermind, just saw this:

Yes, a genuine experience, but a genuine experience of... what?

but so far nobody has given any criteria to judge whether the cause is inside the brain, as in a dream, or outside the brain from a spiritual reality.

Personally, I can't even imagine how we would go about testing for a spiritual reality, and the scientific community doesn't appear to be interested. So, what are we to do?

In the absence of any such criteria there doesn't seem to be a reason to favour the latter explanation over the former.

See, I draw the opposite conclusion. Science hasn't given me any reason to doubt the truth of my experience. I see both stances as valid, though.

 

[Dunemeister]

Regardless of that, why is it, then, that those who are theists have their sensus divinitatus working well enough to be able to sense God, while others do not?

First, a qualification. On a Christian understanding, the precise problem caused by the fall is both noetic (belief-related) and affective (attitude-related). In large part, our sensus divinitatus can give us right truths about God but our attitude prevents us from welcoming those truths; so we literally lie to ourselves. It's also worth pointing out that this is a very large-scale description of the problem. That is, it's a description of the problem for humanity writ large, not for any particular human being.

To your question, then. On a Christian analysis, God reveals himself to certain people through revelation, a revelation that effects a repair of the sensus divinitatus (to the extent that it was the specific problem). Thus the person can perceive God. God also repairs the affective capacity of the person such that the person welcomes that perception. Thus the person perceives God and welcomes God. All this is pretty well laid out in the first three chapters of the book of Romans. Go there for a more detailed exposition. Just keep in mind that, once again, we are dealing with a very large-scale description of the situation.

My point, once again, is that Christianity is comfortable with the notion that science may have discovered that we are hard-wired for religious belief yet not everyone has a religious belief. Indeed, on a Christian understanding of things, that's just what we'd expect.

Do you think that atheists all deny God's existence, even when it is revealed? God has not revealed himself to those that are atheists? Or is it something else?

There is a sense in which God has revealed himself to everyone. Theologians call this "general revelation." As the aforementioned passage in Romans says, everyone is well enough informed about God to be held accountable for concealing or obfuscating God through unrighteousness.

There are some (very few) for whom general revelation is enough because they are not ideologically, culturally, or attitudinally resistant to God. So when they turn their attention to general revelation, they perceive that God is responsible for creation and conscience, and this in turn spurs them on to cultivate a relationship with their creator. But that won't do for most because, as I've said, there's more to it than mere damaged equipment. Even when the equipment works properly, some people simply resist. It's like a delusional person who, shown that he's delusional, prefers the delusion. Thus he comes up with all sorts of rationalizations for the delusion.

Regrettably, I'm afraid that your other questions take this thread much too far afield, so I'll just leave them unanswered in this thread. If you want to start another thread based on them, I could provide my two cents' worth there.