Can Religious Belief Be Studied Scientifically?

[Garth]

SelfAdjoint, on Dawguard's point I have to agree with you, unfortunate as that may be for the cause of rational faith.

I think Dawkins et al. on the one hand, and the Literal Creationists on the other, need each other; they provide each other with the 'straw men' of easy adversaries and easy answers that are so simple to dismiss. But they are not the whole story, or in my book, not even an important part of it.

The nature of the evidence you follow is often personal in nature and therefore difficult, or even inappropiate, to tackle with the scientific method, but the subject can be thought through rationally.

There are of course many other human experiences that fall into that same catergory, falling in love or appreciating great art or music, and it is important to think rationally as well as emotionally about these as well.

But, as far as objective evidence from the world around us is concerned, the nature of that evidence is that it is a matter of interpretation. Like the optical illusion where you see first an old woman and then a young girl, two people can look at the same evidence and interpret it differently. One sees a world full of purpose and the other "a tale told by an idiot", one sees the Anthropic coincidences as the fingerprints of God and the other sees them as the product of a selection effect acting upon an ensemble of all possible universes.

Sometimes, as in the optical illusion, these two people are the same person alternating in the interpretation of faith as they struggle with the problem of existence.

However, in the popular media it is the extreme positions that get first recognised and then identified with the two sides of this matter. This does two things in my experience living in a very secular and post-Christian country Britain.

First it reinforces the idea that 'science has disproved God' and therefore we do not have to bother with religion.

But secondly it reinforces the idea that science is dehumanising, that it is all 'nuts and bolts' and has nothing to say about the higher realms of human experience, except reduce them to the machinations of the electronic web of the biological computer we call our brains. Therefore we better not bother with science.

Of two of the major British universities I have served in as chaplain, one closed the physics department and the other closed the whole science department! I felt like a scientific Jonah! But actually that is the nature of this post-modern age in which we now live.

My concern is that science and faith should overcome the false divorce hoisted on them since the nineteenth century and realize that actually with mutual respect they can benefit from each other.
“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind” (A.E.)

Garth

 

[wave]

When was the last time you heard of a major religious organization that was opposed to scientific research simply because it didn't fit with their dogma?

http://www.bju.edu/academics/cas/undergrad/divns/teaching/" is the part that frightens me the most!

 

[selfAdjoint]

If you or anybody else is interested Roy Masters has his own website and the meditation exercise can be downloaded and copied, burned, to a CD to use on a portable CD player etc.http://www.fhu.com/ Just click on the meditation button and follow the instructions. It will take a while if you have a dial up connection as I do, but I think that it is worth it. Give it a try if your at all interested. All I can say is that it worked for me and my wife.

I am certainly willing to give it a try. No faith, no guarantees, but an honest try. I have downloaded the introduction and excercise and when I get back from my son's birthday next week I will make time each day to do the excercise as directed. Whatever happens I will report back here after I have done that for ten days.

 

[sameandnot]

j. krishnamurti? royce? any one?

 

[Royce]

j. krishnamurti? royce? any one?

Huh? Hari Krishna? I know nothing about it/him.

 

[Royce]

I am certainly willing to give it a try. No faith, no guarantees, but an honest try. I have downloaded the introduction and excercise and when I get back from my son's birthday next week I will make time each day to do the excercise as directed. Whatever happens I will report back here after I have done that for ten days.

It doesn't take faith and there are never any guarantees.
Trying doesn't work. In fact trying gets in the way.
Just doing it and letting whatever happens, happen.
Just keep an open, receptive and accepting mind.
Roy says that praying is talking to God; meditation is listening to God.
However a belief or faith in God has nothing to do with it as Buddhist and Zen meditation is not about a god at all.

Its like chicken soup. It can't hurt and who knows, it just might help.

Good luck! It may take longer than 10 days, but it may only take a couple of days to see some results.

 

[Vast]

My concern is that science and faith should overcome the false divorce hoisted on them since the nineteenth century and realize that actually with mutual respect they can benefit from each other.
“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind” (A.E.)
Garth

I’m curious to know; in what way can science and religion benefit from each other? Science, I can immediately see many benefits, but religion, for the life of me I can’t see any. Obviously there must be some usefulness of religion, it’s existed for many thousands of years, but to each other, and to how they can both coexist, I am not convinced.

 

[Orefa]

I’m curious to know; in what way can science and religion benefit from each other? Science, I can immediately see many benefits, but religion, for the life of me I can’t see any. Obviously there must be some usefulness of religion, it’s existed for many thousands of years, but to each other, and to how they can both coexist, I am not convinced.

Religion can appease fears. Fear of death, fear of the unknown. If you have such fears then believing that stuff can make you sleep better. I think a whole lot of people have these fears so a whole lot of people are more comfortable believing.

Science and superstitions of all sorts can also coexist when they address different needs. A bridge engineer who is busy calculating load capacity has no particular reason to be either a theist or an atheist.

 

[Garth]

I’m curious to know; in what way can science and religion benefit from each other? Science, I can immediately see many benefits, but religion, for the life of me I can’t see any. Obviously there must be some usefulness of religion, it’s existed for many thousands of years, but to each other, and to how they can both coexist, I am not convinced.

Thinking religious belief, as opposed to the fundamentalist black-and-white mentality kind, asks questions like science. The realms in which the questions of science and faith are based are different. Some would see the two realms as being independent, separate and of no consequence to the other and others (like myself) see them as complementary, and indeed often overlapping.

The questions a rational faith seeks to answer are the questions of:
1. Origin - where did I come from?
2. Identity - who am I?
3. Purpose & Meaning - what is my life for?
4. Destiny - where am I going?
5. Morality - how am I to behave?
6. Theodicy - the problem of suffering and evil.

These questions can be answered by anybody at many different levels, they may see themselves as theists or atheists, nevertheless, the recognition that these questions are important and the difficult quest of seeking a satisfying answer for them, I would understand as a fundamentally religious instinct.

They are answered by a cultures myth life, where the word myth is used in a technical sense, not meaning 'untruth' or 'fairytale', but a story that encapsulates the deepest truth, a truth that cannot be told in a prosaic way. That is why stories are so important and powerful in our society.

The frustration of not focusing on these questions, and the denial that they are serious questions in the first place, is a serious cause of social neurosis.

Now it is fascinating to see that the popular, 'sexy', scientific subjects that attract media attention are those that attempt to answer just these questions. Such as the cosmological study of origin in the Big Bang, the place of humanity in the scheme of things, how are we like and different from the animals, particularly the great apes, what is the future of the human race/planet/universe, ethical questions that arise from medical technology.

Rather than seeing these subjects at loggerheads with traditional belief patterns I would argue for a deeper historical perspective on it all.

Garth

 

[Vast]

Thinking religious belief, as opposed to the fundamentalist black-and-white mentality kind, asks questions like science. The realms in which the questions of science and faith are based are different. Some would see the two realms as being independent, separate and of no consequence to the other and others (like myself) see them as complementary, and indeed often overlapping.

The questions a rational faith seeks to answer are the questions of:

1. Origin - where did I come from?
2. Identity - who am I?
3. Purpose & Meaning - what is my life for?
4. Destiny - where am I going?
5. Morality - how am I to behave?
6. Theodicy - the problem of suffering and evil.

These questions can be answered by anybody at many different levels, they may see themselves as theists or atheists, nevertheless, the recognition that these questions are important and the difficult quest of seeking a satisfying answer for them, I would understand as a fundamentally religious instinct.

They are answered by a cultures myth life, where the word myth is used in a technical sense, not meaning 'untruth' or 'fairytale', but a story that encapsulates the deepest truth, a truth that cannot be told in a prosaic way. That is why stories are so important and powerful in our society.
The frustration of not focusing on these questions, and the denial that they are serious questions in the first place, is a serious cause of social neurosis.

I just finished watching the second part in Dawkins series, and there was a part towards the end where morality was shown to be an altruistic characteristic inherited from generation to generation, predating religious beliefs or the birth of the modern mind.
The six questions you listed above, in this sense, can all be understood from a Darwinistic perspective. I would like to see more credit and value given than is deserved to the theory of evolution in answering these questions of origin, meaning and morality.

Now it is fascinating to see that the popular, 'sexy', scientific subjects that attract media attention are those that attempt to answer just these questions. Such as the cosmological study of origin in the Big Bang, the place of humanity in the scheme of things, how are we like and different from the animals, particularly the great apes, what is the future of the human race/planet/universe, ethical questions that arise from medical technology.

Rather than seeing these subjects at loggerheads with traditional belief patterns I would argue for a deeper historical perspective on it all.
Garth

Creation myths do indeed try to answer questions of origin’s, but from a historical point of view I would give them the same respect as say, astrology in regards to the science of astronomy. Meaning that astronomy has its roots in astrology, but those roots have all but withered away. Creation myths show us that we’ve always had a sense of wonder about the world, but that’s all they seem to answer. They’ve served their purpose, so what need to we have for them anymore?

Perhaps we haven’t fully adopted science and reason just yet?

"Religion is something left over from the infancy of our intelligence; it will fade away as we adopt reason and science as our guidelines."
—Bertrand Russell

 

[Garth]

The six questions you listed above, in this sense, can all be understood from a Darwinistic perspective. I would like to see more credit and value given than is deserved to the theory of evolution in answering these questions of origin, meaning and morality.

From the OP link to the Guardian article:

This is the only context that can explain Dawkins's programme, a piece of intellectually lazy polemic which is not worthy of a great scientist. He uses his authority as a scientist to claim certainty where he himself knows, all too well, that there is none; for example, our sense of morality cannot simply be explained as a product of our genetic struggle for evolutionary advantage. More irritatingly, he doesn't apply to religion - the object of his repeated attacks - a fraction of the intellectual rigour or curiosity that he has applied to evolution (to deserved applause). Where is the grasp of the sociological or anthropological explanations of the centrality of religion? Sadly, there is no evolution of thought in Dawkins's position; he has been saying much the same thing about religion for a long time.

Dawkins certainly makes that claim but does it stand up? Surely an evolutionary derived morality would focus on the survival of the fittest and the weakest to the wall?

Creation myths do indeed try to answer questions of origin’s, but from a historical point of view I would give them the same respect as say, astrology in regards to the science of astronomy. Meaning that astronomy has its roots in astrology, but those roots have all but withered away. Creation myths show us that we’ve always had a sense of wonder about the world, but that’s all they seem to answer. They’ve served their purpose, so what need to we have for them anymore?

So we now know the truth do we? Granted we know much more about the universe around us than the ancients, but in probing the ultimate limits of space and time, with theories about the origin of the Big Bang abound with clapping branes, eternal inflation and multiverses we are perhaps nearly as far removed from falsifiable observational science as the ancients. Do you not find it thought provoking that we are no nearer comprehending the nature of time than St. Augustine in the fifth century:

What then is time? I know well enough what it is, provided that nobody asks me; but if I am asked what it is and try to explain, I am baffled. (St. A. Confessions XI 14)

Perhaps we haven’t fully adopted science and reason just yet?
"Religion is something left over from the infancy of our intelligence; it will fade away as we adopt reason and science as our guidelines."
—Bertrand Russell

Russell was perfectly entitled to his own opinion on the matter but in making that prediction he was doing so as an act of faith not sight.

Garth

 

[Vast]

Dawkins certainly makes that claim but does it stand up? Surely an evolutionary derived morality would focus on the survival of the fittest and the weakest to the wall?

I think this is an area of evolutionary biology where you’ll find a wealth of evidence to support his claim. There is more to evolution than survival of the fittest, Kin selection for example can explain many altruistic behaviors towards close relatives. But humans are also social organisms which live in large groups, without cooperation there’s no cohesion, yet we see thousands of species living together in ordered systems, displaying cooperation and altruistic behaviors. I find Bunting’s article to be irritatingly ignorant of evolution.

So we now know the truth do we? Granted we know much more about the universe around us than the ancients, but in probing the ultimate limits of space and time, with theories about the origin of the Big Bang abound with clapping branes, eternal inflation and multiverses we are perhaps nearly as far removed from falsifiable observational science as the ancients. Do you not find it thought provoking that we are no nearer comprehending the nature of time than St. Augustine in the fifth century:
Russell was perfectly entitled to his own opinion on the matter but in making that prediction he was doing so as an act of faith not sight.
Garth

Perhaps Aristarchus may have been seen as dabbling in metaphysics when he proposed the heliocentric model more than two thousand years ago, but there is definitely a progression to scientific knowledge that allows us to do away with much of suppositious and religious beliefs. I agree there is much we don’t know, but science has this uncanny ability to close the gaps of what we don’t know.

 

[Garth]

Is there not in evolutionary theory the ability to predict anything that is observed to exist in living specimens? And therefore if anything, nothing?

The case of a possible gene for homosexuality comes to mind.
When it was first suggested it was rejected as being contrary to the principles of natural selection, and might have posited a means of falsification for the theory of eveolution.

However it was then explained that such a gene would aid survival as 'gay' uncles/aunts would help look after relatives' sibblings and therefore this gene (if it exists) would be an example of 'kin selection'. All very plausible, but how do you falsify such a hypothesis?

I am not thereby refuting the theory of evolution, just questioning the significance of its a posteriori explanation of such as altruistic behaviour. Without falsifiable predictions how do you prevent it becoming a collection of 'Just So' stories?

Garth

 

[Vast]

Is there not in evolutionary theory the ability to predict anything that is observed to exist in living specimens? And therefore if anything, nothing?

I’m not sure what you’re getting at Garth, whether as you say, the theory of evolution can predict anything that is observed, leads to it being unfalsifiable, I think is somewhat of an incorrect interpretation. We know that the theory makes many falsifiable predictions, but at the same time the theory should account for all human characteristics, I don’t see how it can be any other way. The obvious dilemma of course, one we encounter from people of religious persuasion, is that the human qualities, of altruism, morals, ethics etc, are derived from a divine source, i.e. scripture, spirituality, religion or God. The denial to accept ourselves as just another animal, albeit a more complex animal intellectually, but nonetheless, still an animal, misses the fact that we are still subjected to the same evolutionary processes as all other species.

The case of a possible gene for homosexuality comes to mind.
When it was first suggested it was rejected as being contrary to the principles of natural selection, and might have posited a means of falsification for the theory of eveolution.
However it was then explained that such a gene would aid survival as 'gay' uncles/aunts would help look after relatives' sibblings and therefore this gene (if it exists) would be an example of 'kin selection'. All very plausible, but how do you falsify such a hypothesis?
I am not thereby refuting the theory of evolution, just questioning the significance of its a posteriori explanation of such as altruistic behaviour. Without falsifiable predictions how do you prevent it becoming a collection of 'Just So' stories?
Garth

As far as a gene for homosexuality, I have no idea. There are mutations, if they prove successful then they survive, but I would start by looking elsewhere in nature, in other species to see if there are any correlations that corroborate your hypothesis.

 

[Les Sleeth]

I am certainly willing to give it a try. No faith, no guarantees, but an honest try. I have downloaded the introduction and excercise and when I get back from my son's birthday next week I will make time each day to do the excercise as directed. Whatever happens I will report back here after I have done that for ten days.

I'm impressed you will try, but I hope you are a true genius at meditation. I know it took me 20 years of practice, at that time 2 to 3 hours per day, to achieve competence; and another 12 years to acquire a degree of certainty about what the experience is. Other famous inner practitioners from the Buddha, Shah Nimatullah Wali, Joshu and Kabir to Teresa of Avila, the Baal Shem Tov, (Jesus' "missing" 17 years?), early Greek Orthodox monks, and a host of others all spent many years of devoted practice as well.

 

[selfAdjoint]

I did not claim that I would reach any particular state in 10 days. But I should know after that time if I want to continue. I do not propose to become a guru!

In any case, the viewers of this thread are entitled to some timely feedback. Be assured that I will not diss meditation just because I don't have a life-changing experience after 10 days.

 

[Garth]

The obvious dilemma of course, one we encounter from people of religious persuasion, is that the human qualities, of altruism, morals, ethics etc, are derived from a divine source, i.e. scripture, spirituality, religion or God. The denial to accept ourselves as just another animal, albeit a more complex animal intellectually, but nonetheless, still an animal, misses the fact that we are still subjected to the same evolutionary processes as all other species.

Who is denying that we are part of the animal kingdom? But a special quality of humans is that we are not the https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0385334303/?tag=pfamazon01-20 (we have hair) but the 'Religious Ape' with a sense of spirituality and morality that goes beyond the expediency of survival.

For example, a good moral question is: "How should we treat the great apes?" - see The Great Ape Project, when we discover the apes are asking the same question about us in return then I will grant them that same quality of humaness that in the Abrahamic faiths is encapsulated in the expression "imago deo".

This image may itself be an emergent property of high intelligence but would only be possible if the universe were a moral and spiritual, as well as a physical, universe in the first place.

Garth

 

[Vast]

Spirituality is a vacuous term, it insinuates soul where there has only been shown to be mind. You have every right to call yourself a religious ape, but I am neither religious nor ape.

And I don’t think anyones asking you to grant them the same quality of humanness? It seems a little chauvinistic to expect anything of such from another species, they are not a member of our species, and so cannot possibly have all the attributes we have. Furthermore, how can you possibly assign “In the Image of God” to the human species alone? Aren’t all species emergent? Isn’t it merely a roll of the dice that a species makes it to our level of awareness and beyond? If we tried to imagine different intelligent life forms on other planets, there would surely be in many different images.

I’m sorry, but I totally disagree with you. Its one thing to say God designed the universe especially for life, but quite another to say human like cognition is Only possible if the universe is a moral and spiritual place. This seems to border on God having an active roll in the creation of different species.

 

[Les Sleeth]

My concern is that science and faith should overcome the false divorce hoisted on them since the nineteenth century and realize that actually with mutual respect they can benefit from each other.

I've enjoyed how you've argued your points fairly and backed up by evidence. We need more philosophy discussed like that around here.

I think you can see that some atheists are so because they hate religion. I've never been able to make a dent in the minds of those who automatically link religion and God. I am not trying to criticize those who find religion rewarding when I say that much of what religion is about has little to do with God experience.

Here at PF I think most of us are empiricists; that is, we require experience to "believe." I'd go so far as to say that even in the realm of faith we require some degree of experience from which to extend our faith (otherwise it's "blind faith"). I have faith in science to explain mechanics for example. It hasn't explained all of the universe's mechanics, but it's done such an admirable job with everything else mechanical that I have faith it can explain anything mechanistic that's explainable.

I chose your statement above to quote because I have in the past described that "false divorce" as an issue of epistemology. Is the way we experience physicalness/mechanics the same way we experience God (assuming for discussion sake there is one)? To experience the physical universe we peer through our senses to experience. To scientifically study things, we then process that sense data with our mentality. So the epistemology of physical/mechanical knowledge is sense-intellect dependent.

However, that is not what inner adepts have claimed is the way to know God. (I’ve been writing about this quite a bit lately, so my apologies to those who’ve read what I’m about to write.) A careful study of serious inner practitioners reveals not that they are participating in sense experience or the intellect, but have instead developed an entirely new experiential skill. In fact, as I posted to selfAdjoint in my last post, most spent much of their lives developing this skill.

That skill, rather than relying on senses and intellect, has as it’s first requirement to withdraw from the senses and intellect. This is significant, extremely so. What would most dedicated science-atheists say there is to experience if one actually could withdraw from the senses and intellect? “Nothing” is the answer I most often hear. Yet I assure you (from years of practicing it) that such is not the case. Instead there is a brightness, a vibrancy, a gentle pulsation; as one goes deeper into it, harmonies can be heard (not with the ears); deeper still and one seems to disassociate from the body and sort of “float”; deeper still and it feels like one merges with something vast and conscious. That merging phase is where I claim the most credible reports of “God” have come.

Now, is that experience just my imagination (hallucination?), or is it real? (You might check out the interview PIT2 posted here -- https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=106775 -- where a brain researcher discusses the so-called “mystical” experience.) Have others reported the same thing? Absolutely, and for upwards of 3000 years. Unfortunately, those who study religion, atheists and believers alike, seldom look at this ancient and venerated practice.

The Buddha dedicated his life to teaching this practice (known as samadhi), and I believe Jesus did too (so there’s no misunderstanding, I belong to no religion). Claiming Jesus taught the practice (called, logically, union by monastics) raises the most controversy with people who think Jesus was a supernatural being, son of God, messiah, etc. However, if Jesus didn't teach union there is no other plausible way to explain why shortly after Jesus’ death so many solitary hermits populating the deserts around Palestine, Egypt, and Asia Minor were practicing union and calling themselves Christians. Furthermore, this practice of the “desert fathers,” as they are known, was taken into the first monasteries and kept alive there until at least the 17th century.

Returning to my point about different epistemologies, if the practice of samadhi/union requires withdrawing from the senses and intellect and then merging with something, how is that anything like the epistemology of science? Yes, they are both empirical (based on experience) but they certainly are not learned, practiced and realized the same way nor are they the same type of experience.

I realize not everyone wants to spend the time to develop the inner skills I’ve described. So if one doesn’t practice union, does that mean (relying on my explanation) if one believes in God one’s belief is unfounded? I personally don’t think that. What I’ve discovered is that my experience has deepened as my feeling ability has become more sensitive. God, in my opinion, is felt (and I don’t mean emotion), and not thought or observed by the senses.

For that reason I am convinced a great many people believe in God because they feel it. Maybe they don’t feel it as clearly as serious inner practitioners, but they are picking up on something they are willing to trust. Religion then provides structure and interpretations (right or wrong) to the feeling. Personally I don’t like religious interpretation, I prefer to pursue the experience without it.

 

[Royce]

Good post, Les.

I have one point, which you touched on but didn't express, in the form of a question.

If what we perceive with our senses, sight, touch etc. is observation, experience and empirical evidence, then can what we observe and experience with our minds also be considered empirical evidence as long as it it verifiable?

The inputs from our physical senses have to be processed and interpreted by our minds so our perceptions of these inputs too are ultimately subjective. I know that this would not be acceptable by the physical scientist, but philosophically speaking, I don't see any great difference.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Good post, Les.
I have one point, which you touched on but didn't express, in the form of a question.
If what we perceive with our senses, sight, touch etc. is observation, experience and empirical evidence, then can what we observe and experience with our minds also be considered empirical evidence as long as it it verifiable?
The inputs from our physical senses have to be processed and interpreted by our minds so our perceptions of these inputs too are ultimately subjective. I know that this would not be acceptable by the physical scientist, but philosophically speaking, I don't see any great difference.

I'm not sure how you are distinquishing between consciousness and mind. If by "mind" you mean mentality, I personally see that as an aspect of consciousness; the thinker is consciousness and the thinking device is the mind. So consciousness can experience "mind," and consciousness can experience sense data and consciousness, according to my last post, can experience itself and union.

However, if you wondering if thoughts themselves are "evidence," I'd say that they are only evidence that the mind can think. The thoughts a mind has about something, like God or QM or multiple universes, are not empirical evidence of those subjects.

 

[Garth]

There are a lot of very good points here.

Vast - It is possible to have degeneracy in theoretical explanations of the universe, i.e. where two different theories make the same predictions and therefore, if those predictions are verified, cannot be distinguished apart. I find there is a degeneracy between theist and atheist explanations of 'all-that-there is'.

The Anthropic coincidences come to mind, these might be the fingerprint of God, or they might be the product of a selection effect, which has selected our universe out of a multiverse of all possible universes. In that case we are in this one because we can be in no other. Either answer requires faith, either faith in an 'unobservable God' or an ensemble of unobservable other universes.

The God Spot is another case in mind. It seems human beings are 'hard wired' to have religious experiences.

But why should this neurological feature exist? Merely as an evolutionary adaptation that aids survival of the species? Or, like the other senses, has it evolved because the spiritual is a real feature of the natural universe? So the 'God Spot' has evolved to 'receive God', just as eyes have evolved to receive light, ears to receive sound, and so on.

The answer you choose depends on which perspective of faith, either as an atheist or theist, that you interpret it with. The a posteriori explanation of it being merely an evolutionary survival ploy may give one explanation of its existence but it certainly is not a definitive one.

My own perspective is moulded by spiritual experience, one which I find brings a comprehensive understanding to my science, and therefore one that demands much rational thought and analysis, but certainly it is not in conflict with it.


Garth

 

[Royce]

However, if you wondering if thoughts themselves are "evidence," I'd say that they are only evidence that the mind can think. The thoughts a mind has about something, like God or QM or multiple universes, are not empirical evidence of those subjects.

I'm not talking about thoughts nor mentality. I'm talking about that which we experience while in a meditative state, union for instance. If empirical evidence is that which is observed and experienced which as I said is ultimately subjective, why is not that which we observe and experience during meditation also considered empirical as it is definitely consistent and verifiable from numerous sources.

 

[Les Sleeth]

I'm not talking about thoughts nor mentality. I'm talking about that which we experience while in a meditative state, union for instance. If empirical evidence is that which is observed and experienced which as I said is ultimately subjective, why is not that which we observe and experience during meditation also considered empirical as it is definitely consistent and verifiable from numerous sources.

Ahhhh, of course. That, in fact, is what I've been arguing for some time now. That is, if the basis of knowledge is experience, as empirical theory claims (and has amply demonstrated to be true) then why allow only sense experience as valid (as scientism devotees insist)?

One reason often given is that with "inner" experience, for example, others cannot tell if what someone reports is real or, say, a hallucination. That's true, but the externalization standard science demands is for working with externals, so it seems appropriate.

In the case of inner knowledge, the work is not external but internal. So the standard for verication is different. In that case, the standard is that each person must experience and know for himself.

That said, I would also repeat that anyone can study the long history of union and notice the consistency of the reports made by people well-separated by time and cultures. It must be more than coincidence that the reports are so similar. Also significant is how those devoted to inner experience (i.e., rather than speculation and theology etc.) seem at some point to start talking about God or some sort of greater unifying consciousness.

My main complaint here at PF about religious/spiritual discussions has been that skeptics, when stating their reasons for rejecting any thought of God/universal consciousness, almost always cite the inconsistancies found in the theologial speculations and beliefs of religion, neither of which rely on direct experience for their supposition.

Since we value the empirical process so much for science, why not when arguing against (or for) God/universal consciousness, rely on reports taken from where the most powerful and consistent experience is found?

 

[Royce]

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

empirical

Main Entry: em·pir·i·cal
Pronunciation: -i-k&l
Variant(s): also em·pir·ic /-ik/
Function: adjective
1 : originating in or based on observation or experience <empirical data>
2 : relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory
3 : capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment <empirical laws>
4 : of or relating to empiricism

I see here no reason to limit empirical data to "then why allow only sense experience as valid."

"That's true, but the externalization standard science demands is for working with externals, so it seems appropriate."

Yet we all know how easily our sensory inputs can be confused or in error as in optical illusions or the Doppler effect in sound. And, as I said all of our sensory input is subjected to mental processing and interpretation by the mind/brain so why do we give such absolute credence to sensory, scientific, data and totally discount and ignore data from meditation experience ad observation that has been consistent and duplicated thousands of times by thousands a persons over thousands of years.

An example is nuclear particle science. They spend millions of dollars setting up one experiment and collect data for millions of collisions and if they get lucky and collect 10-20 occurrences of an indication that they have discovered or proven the existence of a new particle they break out the champaign and start passing out Nobel Prizes. That's science at its current best. Yet all of the data collected by experience and observation by all of those who have meditated is hallucination, delusion, and hogwash, proves nothing and is definitely not science or empirical evidence.

(I know this is a bit off topic. Thanks for letting me unload.)

 

[Vast]

But why should this neurological feature exist? Merely as an evolutionary adaptation that aids survival of the species? Or, like the other senses, has it evolved because the spiritual is a real feature of the natural universe? So the 'God Spot' has evolved to 'receive God', just as eyes have evolved to receive light, ears to receive sound, and so on.

It shouldn’t be surprising that we find humans hard-wired for religious experiences, after all, humans have been practicing ritualistic activities for tens of thousands of years. These rituals often involved consuming psychoactive drugs to heighten ones spiritual experience. If you imagine yourself in the distant past with all your relatives surrounding a campfire smoking peyote (or whichever way it’s consumed) and altering states of consciousness, you’d undoubtedly conclude communication with spirits or gods. This is one of the main reasons we say God is a product of mans imagination – that it’s all in your head.

 

[arildno]

The God Spot is another case in mind. It seems human beings are 'hard wired' to have religious experiences.
But why should this neurological feature exist? Merely as an evolutionary adaptation that aids survival of the species? Or, like the other senses, has it evolved because the spiritual is a real feature of the natural universe? So the 'God Spot' has evolved to 'receive God', just as eyes have evolved to receive light, ears to receive sound, and so on.

A disgusting insinuation that those millions of individuals for whom religion is of no concern whatsoever is somehow failed human beings without this magnificent God sense.

Stop this effrontery at once.

 

[Les Sleeth]

A disgusting insinuation that those millions of individuals for whom religion is of no concern whatsoever is somehow failed human beings without this magnificent God sense.
Stop this effrontery at once.

I hope you are kidding about being outraged at Garth's suggestion. I'd hate to see you blow a circuit over that! Besides, even if such a "god spot" exists, it could still be each person's choice whether or not to take advantage of it, plus God may not judge people one way or another for their decision in that regard.

 

[Les Sleeth]

These rituals often involved consuming psychoactive drugs to heighten ones spiritual experience. If you imagine yourself in the distant past with all your relatives surrounding a campfire smoking peyote (or whichever way it’s consumed) and altering states of consciousness, you’d undoubtedly conclude communication with spirits or gods. This is one of the main reasons we say God is a product of mans imagination – that it’s all in your head.

Is that the voice of experience speaking?

 

[arildno]

I hope you are kidding about being outraged at Garth's suggestion. I'd hate to see you blow a circuit over that! Besides, even if such a "god spot" exists, it could still be each person's choice whether or not to take advantage of it, plus God may not judge people one way or another for their decision in that regard.

Hmm..sloppy research designed to produce "justification" for religious belief?
Sure, I am at the very least resigned about the whole thing.

 

[Evo]

Temporal lobe seizures seem to enhance the feeling of spirituality. Religious/superstitious thoughts seem to be affected by this area of the brain.

There was a great NOVA episode on this.

"It has been known for a long time that some patients with seizures originating in the temporal lobes have intense religious auras, intense experience of God visiting them. Sometimes it's a personal god, sometimes it's a more diffuse feeling of being one with the cosmos. Everything seems suffused with meaning. The patient will say, "Finally I see what it's really about, Doctor. I really understand God. I understand my place in the universe, in the cosmic scheme." Why does this happen and why does it happen so often in patients with temporal lobe seizures?

"Now, why do these patients have intense religious experiences when they have these seizures? And why do they become preoccupied with theological and religious matters even in between seizures?"

"V.S. RAMACHANDRAN: A few years ago, the popular press inaccurately quoted me as having claimed that there is a God center or a "G-spot" in the temporal lobes. Now, this is complete nonsense. There is no specific area in the temporal lobe concerned with God. But it's possible there are parts of the temporal lobes whose activity is somehow conducive to religious belief. Now this seems unlikely, but it might be true. Now, why might we have neural machinery in the temporal lobes for belief in religion? Well belief in religion is widespread. Every tribe, every society has some form of religious worship. And maybe the reason it evolved, if it did evolve, is that it is conducive to the stability of society, and this may be easiest if you believe in some sort of supreme being. And that may be one reason why religious sentiments evolved in the brain."

If you do a search on "John Sharon", it will take to the section about damage to the temporal lobe and it's connection to religious/spiritual feelings.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2812mind.html

 

[Astronuc]

. . . . religion does pose a serious threat to the world.

I believe that corruption in religion or corrupted religion is the serious threat, not religion. By that I mean, incorrect thinking - such as dogma, especially dogma based on false or misinterpretations of religious principals - leads to actions which are inconsistent with righteous behavior, which is the goal of a religious person.

Righteous behavior precludes imposing one's beliefs upon another.


The term religious is often incorrectly applied to those who subscribe to a dogma, or who religious practices are largely limited to the mystical or the metaphysical, while devoid of application of righteous principals.

A 'religious' person who does not question his/her beliefs is not truly religious.

One definition of religious is - relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity (Merriam Webster). An atheist, who practices 'faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality' is by this definition religious. However, there are those theists who would deny that atheists could be religious. On the other hand, that definition is so broad that it could be applied to anyone with 'destuctive' or 'nihilistic' view of reality, and then one such a religious practice would be a threat.

In the long run, I suppose the accuracy of the above quote depends on the definition of 'religion'.

(1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance

(2) a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices

(3) a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

I fall into category (2), where I conduct myself in accordance with adherence to a system of principles based on my understanding/knowledge of an ultimate reality. I certainly do not impose understanding on anyone. I quietly work to change the world in a positive way.

 

[Vast]

There was a great NOVA episode on this.

I remember watching this documentary, really fascinating!

After a little googling I found that Vilayanur S Ramachandran is also a part of Edge. You can read his answer to this years “http://www.edge.org/q2006/q06_12.html#ramachandran""

Also of interest is a set of 5 lectures you can listen to online called “http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/reith2003/lecturer.shtml" " I have still to listen to them.

 

[Evo]

I remember watching this documentary, really fascinating!

Yes, it was very fascinating and cleared up the misunderstanding of that so called "god spot" that doesn't exist. Although I can see that part of the brain controlling superstitious and religious thought. If it becomes active or damaged either through seizure or meditation, those types of thoughts will become activated. Interesting. I guess through meditation you can affect this part of the brain enough to cause an altered state that allows you to believe that you have a higher understanding of things and a deeper connection with a higher conscious, when all that is happening is that your brain is backfiring.

I need to look into this more, but it does seem to explain things people say they experience.

After a little googling I found that Vilayanur S Ramachandran is also a part of Edge. You can read his answer to this years “http://www.edge.org/q2006/q06_12.html#ramachandran""

Also of interest is a set of 5 lectures you can listen to online called “http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/reith2003/lecturer.shtml" " I have still to listen to them.

Thanks, I will check them out!

 

[Garth]

A disgusting insinuation that those millions of individuals for whom religion is of no concern whatsoever is somehow failed human beings without this magnificent God sense.
Stop this effrontery at once.

No insinuation or effrontery intended.

From Steve Connor, Science Correspondent, LA Times, Wednesday 29 October 1997 'God spot' is found in brain

Evolutionary scientists have suggested that belief in God, which is a common trait found in human societies around the world and throughout history, may be built into the brain's complex electrical circuitry as a Darwinian adaptation to encourage co-operation between individuals.
If the research is correct and a "God module" exists, then it might suggest that individuals who are atheists could have a differently configured neural circuit.

(Emphasis mine)

I should have said "The God Spot - if it exists - is another case in mind." The rest of the argument follows as a hypothetical analysis to illustrate my main point that there is need of a perspective of faith either way when interpreting the data.

Garth

 

[Astronuc]

Evolutionary scientists have suggested that belief in God, which is a common trait found in human societies around the world and throughout history, may be built into the brain's complex electrical circuitry as a Darwinian adaptation to encourage co-operation between individuals.

Interesting notion - co-operation by obeisance to a virtual authority. I can see were problems arise when one or more individuals in a society think the one or many have the exclusive right of interpreting the virtual authority.

And I see problems for the rational/intelligent person who realizes that there may not exist a god - so from where does the authority arise?

Some people conduct themselves out of fear of 'divine retribution', while others conduct themselves simply because it is the right thing to do. Different neural patterns perhaps. Then again everyone's brain represents a unique neural pattern. On the other hand, a Darwinian evolution-based perspective might imply some common architecture shared among those with common believes.

 

[Les Sleeth]

I guess through meditation you can affect this part of the brain enough to cause an altered state that allows you to believe that you have a higher understanding of things and a deeper connection with a higher conscious, when all that is happening is that your brain is backfiring.

God haters and physicalist believers have labelled experiences they don't understand in all sorts of ways. One of those ways is to frame an experience (they've never had) into terms that fits what they already believe but cannot prove, and then proclaim everywhere that their little pet theory is virtually a fact.

A respectful attitude would be more cautious when talking about such things, especially when it is something a great many people cherish with all their hearts. But no, their little self-righteous hatred crusade makes them think they can say anything they please.

And then to make scientists some sort of all-wise group! Afterall, scientists are little more, when reasoning as scientists, than glorified mechanics. What makes anyone think they have wisdom, and can speak about subjects sans-experience? Know-it-all and intolerant attitudes, whether done in the name of science or religion, are equally ignorant.

 

[Evo]

God haters and physicalist believers have labelled experiences they don't understand in all sorts of ways. One of those ways is to frame an experience (they've never had) into terms that fits what they already believe but cannot prove, and then proclaim everywhere that their little pet theory is virtually a fact.

Well, I'm not a God hater, but you have to admit that the effects you talk about are the same effects people with frontal lobe siezures experience. It seems logical that with drug use and the meditation techniques, a person could possibly trigger responses in that part of the brain that will either bring on or immitate the seizure in the brain, causing all of the feelings described.

If you read about what these siezure patients experience, it does sound exactly like what you describe. It makes sense. Why is finding out what part of your brain you are affecting to cause these feelings a problem for you? Apparantly the people that have these seizures love them so much they don't want them to stop and some doctors agree that it would be a shame to take the feelings away from them. I don't see anything disrespectful in figuring out what causes the feelings. Is it because it removes the mystical part if you know the actual physical cause? Personally I prefer to know the answers.

From the transcript:

"V.S. RAMACHANDRAN: Just because some patients with temporal lobe seizures have intense religious experiences, this does not in any way invalidate that experience for that patient. In fact, it can very often enrich the patient's life enormously. And it poses a dilemma very often for the physician, because what right do we have to treat the patient with medication or with surgery, thereby, in some instances, depriving him of these valuable experiences? To me the exciting thing is that subjects like God and religion can now be actually addressed by us scientists. We can begin to ask questions about religion and God and begin to approach these questions by listening to these patients—by talking with them and by studying them.

NARRATOR: It is a tragic irony that today's breakthroughs in our understanding of the human brain are made possible by the misfortune of brain injury. For centuries, philosophers have labored to understand God, consciousness and the mysteries of human nature. Now perhaps science will have its chance."

Advances are being made in understanding the brain and how it affects how we think and perceive. If you are able to alter a part of your brain to induce certain perceptions, I think that's awesome, it would validate that you have actually changed something and what you experience isn't just "pretend" as some people believe. I would think you'd want scientists to prove you can tap into this part of the brain to create your own experiences.

 

[Garth]

To reduce experience to "nothing but" 'frontal lobe seizures', or more common simple excitation of particular 'spots' in the brain is to make a category mistake. (the error of ontological reductionism)

The fact that stimulation of one particular area in the brain, which produces a religious experience, no more settles the question of whether normal religious experiences are delusional or not, than whether stimulation of another area, which produces the experience of a flash of light, settles the question of whether normal sight is delusional or not.

The interpretation of such experiments and equivalent normal experiences is theory dependent, and in no way resolves the faith degeneracy (the faith of whether there is a 'God', or the faith that there isn't).

Garth

 

[Royce]

If religious or mystical experiences are real there must be a way for the brain to respond and interpret these experiences.

That these areas of the brain can be stimulated by a probe or activated by damage disease or malfunction to generate the same type of feelings and sensations should then be a given.

That this happens and can be detected by scanning does not prove that these experiences are real or that they are delusional. It only proves what we already know, that the brain can and does respond to and interpret these experiences.

Which is the cause and which is the effect?

Can a normal healthy brain self-induce hallucinations of that kind of intensity with that kind of repeatability form person to person over many varied cultures and ages? I don't know but, I doubt it. But, I do not doubt the experiences nor the results that I have had nor the experiences that others report having.

 

[Vast]

An interesting interview with Daniel Dennett in the NYT about religious belief:nytimes.com

You’ll have to use bugmenot to gain access.

The interviewer Deborah Solomon, begins by asking a couple of unintelligent questions; “how can religious devotion/belief be studied scientifically?” I don’t know about you, but isn’t this essentially anthropology and sociology? She then goes on to state that religious belief cannot be studied in the lab. Is she totally ignorant of neuroscience?

There’s a few other stupid questions, but a good read nonetheless.