Neurotheology & Non-Belief

[Storm]

Jay, I'm not the only one sick of your snide bs.

 

[Dunemeister]

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.

That's more or less right, although I'm not sure our ability is deteriorating (getting worse) as time goes on. More precisely, our primal rebellion against God and our selfish desire to assume the Creator's authority and privileges has implications for the human condition. So ruptured is our relationship with our Creator that it has affected our noetic (belief-forming) faculties, especially (though not exclusively) as they relate to the Creator. It has also affected our affections (moral feelings). Thus our religious impulse itself is shot through with an admixture of genuine need and desire for God (that's the way we're built) along with an antipathy toward the creator (our damaged affective capacities causing wiful blindness in matters of religion and/or ethics) and a reduced capacity to perceive God aright (causing misperception even if our affections don't stand in the way of the perception). So things are pretty messy on this analysis.

And if this analysis is right, we shouldn't be surprised to find that we are somehow hardwired to perceive God AND that beliefs about God, and religious systems, show great variety across cultures and even among people who share a culture. It's another case in which science merely confirms what everyone already knows.

 

[Storm]

That's more or less right, although I'm not sure our ability is deteriorating (getting worse) as time goes on. More precisely, our primal rebellion against God and our selfish desire to assume the Creator's authority and privileges has implications for the human condition. So ruptured is our relationship with our Creator that it has affected our noetic (belief-forming) faculties, especially (though not exclusively) as they relate to the Creator. It has also affected our affections (moral feelings). Thus our religious impulse itself is shot through with an admixture of genuine need and desire for God (that's the way we're built) along with an antipathy toward the creator (our damaged affective capacities causing wiful blindness in matters of religion and/or ethics) and a reduced capacity to perceive God aright (causing misperception even if our affections don't stand in the way of the perception). So things are pretty messy on this analysis.

And if this analysis is right, we shouldn't be surprised to find that we are somehow hardwired to perceive God AND that beliefs about God, and religious systems, show great variety across cultures and even among people who share a culture. It's another case in which science merely confirms what everyone already knows.

OK. This is a bit tangential, but if our capacity to know the Creator is so damaged, what makes you think Christianity knows Him any better than, say, Hinduism?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

May I ask why?

Because, apparently, they lack specificity. If they can support a wide range of beliefs, then it would be difficult for them to be the root cause of one specific set of beliefs within that range, no?

What would you consider to be a contradiction?

Most fundamentally, that the stuff of a mystical experience is perceptible.

How would we test for that?

Lots and lots of archaeological digging.

 

[Dunemeister]

OK. This is a bit tangential, but if our capacity to know the Creator is so damaged, what makes you think Christianity knows Him any better than, say, Hinduism?

As a Christian, I have to admit that it's entirely possible I'm wrong, especially if the only thing I have to go on is my personal experience. However, the Christian religion points outside its theology to historical events as part of its witness. In particular, we point to the resurrection of Jesus as a public event that vindicates our proclamation. Of course, despite how strong a case can be made for the historicity of this event (and it is indeed quite strong), it's also true that it's not uncontroversial and could be wrong. So being a Christian ought not to be a triumphalist exercise in finger-wagging at non-believers. We need a measure of humility, too.

It's also worth noting that Christianity has always affirmed (at least officially) that other religions do at times perceive God rightly and offer wisdom to the world. We don't have a corner on the truth. If what the church says about herself is true, we merely have some privileged access, but it's not the only group with access.

 

[Storm]

Because, apparently, they lack specificity. If they can support a wide range of beliefs, then it would be difficult for them to be the root cause of one specific set of beliefs within that range, no?

Did you get the impression I thought they did?

 

[Storm]

As a Christian, I have to admit that it's entirely possible I'm wrong, especially if the only thing I have to go on is my personal experience. However, the Christian religion points outside its theology to historical events as part of its witness. In particular, we point to the resurrection of Jesus as a public event that vindicates our proclamation. Of course, despite how strong a case can be made for the historicity of this event (and it is indeed quite strong), it's also true that it's not uncontroversial and could be wrong. So being a Christian ought not to be a triumphalist exercise in finger-wagging at non-believers. We need a measure of humility, too.

It's also worth noting that Christianity has always affirmed (at least officially) that other religions do at times perceive God rightly and offer wisdom to the world. We don't have a corner on the truth. If what the church says about herself is true, we merely have some privileged access, but it's not the only group with access.

Fair enough.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Did you get the impression I thought they did?

At this point, I have no clue what you think.

We're talking about the origins of religions, i.e. specific sets of beliefs and practices regarding the spiritual. If something doesn't help support specificity, I really don't see how it helps explain how the religion arose: it doesn't explain what the religion was meant to do or why it has the form it does. IOW, it has no explanatory power, just like I said.

 

[Storm]

At this point, I have no clue what you think.

We're talking about the origins of religions, i.e. specific sets of beliefs and practices regarding the spiritual. If something doesn't help support specificity, I really don't see how it helps explain how the religion arose: it doesn't explain what the religion was meant to do or why it has the form it does. IOW, it has no explanatory power, just like I said.

Not religions, just God-belief. Religion is a byproduct.

 

[rojse]

Well, if neurotheology's findings have any validity at all, evolution definitely selected for religious belief. Which raises the interesting question of how it's advantageous.

I would venture to suggest that evolution might select for other traits, some of which might mis-fire and make us accept religion.

 

[rojse]

Granted, but as we've discussed before, the spandrel does not exist in a vacuum, even if true.

And...?

 

[rojse]

Atran is the man behind the spandrel hypothesis, yes?

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

What is reality, Storm? Is it your personal experiences, that may occasionally coincide with the experiences that another person has? Or is it what a group of people can agree upon without argument - this is a chair, that is a desk? Or is it something more complex than this?

 

[Hospitaller]

As many of you know, I'm fascinated by neurotheology, the fledgling science which seeks to understand why we believe in God.

The findings thus far seem to imply we're hard-wired for such belief, or at least the seeds of it.

So, assuming for the sake of discussion that this is true, the question becomes, why doesn't everyone believe?

Your thoughts? (Will post my own later.)

hmmm... maybe because someone decided to ignore God because he didnt think his prayers were being "answered" (or something else like that)

this someone maybe educated his children in the same manner, and this could have then spread and "evolved" into non-belief. maybe?

 

[Dunemeister]

hmmm... maybe because someone decided to ignore God because he didnt think his prayers were being "answered" (or something else like that)

this someone maybe educated his children in the same manner, and this could have then spread and "evolved" into non-belief. maybe?

Doubtful. Unbelief is an extremely recent and minority phenomenon. Belief is far and away the majority human experience. It's only modern western society that has cultivated anything like a culture of (religious) unbelief, and even then, as atheists will attest, it sure seems like a small, relatively lonely group.

 

[fantome profane]

Doubtful. Unbelief is an extremely recent and minority phenomenon.

Nonsense. Non belief may be in the minority, but it is just as old as belief. There have always been non-believers, they may have always been the minority, but they were always there.

 

[Hospitaller]

Doubtful. Unbelief is an extremely recent and minority phenomenon. Belief is far and away the majority human experience. It's only modern western society that has cultivated anything like a culture of (religious) unbelief, and even then, as atheists will attest, it sure seems like a small, relatively lonely group.

that can only be proven if the group continues to grow.
but i do believe atheism went very far back. probably when there first started to be other religions there started to be atheists.

 

[Storm]

What is reality, Storm? Is it your personal experiences, that may occasionally coincide with the experiences that another person has? Or is it what a group of people can agree upon without argument - this is a chair, that is a desk? Or is it something more complex than this?

In this context, the reality is that such experiences occur.

 

[rojse]

In this context, the reality is that such experiences occur.

I would be pedantic and say that the reality is that people believe that such experiences occur.

 

[Storm]

I would be pedantic and say that the reality is that people believe that such experiences occur.

Do you have a reason for saying that?

Besides, given that they're internal experiences, what's the difference?

 

[Dunemeister]

that can only be proven if the group continues to grow.
but i do believe atheism went very far back. probably when there first started to be other religions there started to be atheists.

Well, I guess that's right. Even in Roman times, there were those who were pretty cynical in their religious observances. Perhaps they didn't really believe that Apollo pulled the sun across the heavens, but being practical folk, they made their sacrifices and oblations anyway. One can't be too careful. But if anything, that speaks to their essentially religious outlook. I honestly think that the sort of thoughtful, reflective atheism, such as we find exhibited by some folks here on these boards for instance, is a very recent and very western phenomenon.

Besides, what do you mean by "that"?