Comments on: Reductionist neurotheology http://www.numenware.com/article/428 Religion. Brain. Dogen. Language. Japan. Wed, 19 Nov 2008 17:44:53 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5 By: Lupe http://www.numenware.com/article/428#comment-356 Lupe Sat, 18 Feb 2006 16:54:57 +0000 http://www.numenware.com/article/428#comment-356 Well, the paper you cited is actually the only one devoted to the replication of Persinger’s work. I recommend the reading of <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15862915&query_hl=2&itool=pubmed_docsum">Persinger’s comments</a> regarding the lack of results in that study. The answer to DavidD’s questions is that our brain has not the machinery to perceive metaphysical entities. Actually, my last statement is a tautology since a metaphysical entity is the one we are not able to perceive. But metaphysical entities exist in our minds, as memes. A different issue is that during the anomalous experience known as mystical experience, some people percive a presence that, depending on individual cultural and religious expectancies, could be experienced as God’s presence. How this kind of experiences arises from abnormal (non pathological) brain functioning is a fully legitimated scientific question. And Persinger’s work offers an scientific hypothesis for explaining that issue. Well, the paper you cited is actually the only one devoted to the replication of Persinger’s work. I recommend the reading of Persinger’s comments regarding the lack of results in that study.

The answer to DavidD’s questions is that our brain has not the machinery to perceive metaphysical entities. Actually, my last statement is a tautology since a metaphysical entity is the one we are not able to perceive. But metaphysical entities exist in our minds, as memes. A different issue is that during the anomalous experience known as mystical experience, some people percive a presence that, depending on individual cultural and religious expectancies, could be experienced as God’s presence. How this kind of experiences arises from abnormal (non pathological) brain functioning is a fully legitimated scientific question. And Persinger’s work offers an scientific hypothesis for explaining that issue.

]]> By: DavidD http://www.numenware.com/article/428#comment-353 DavidD Fri, 17 Feb 2006 17:16:43 +0000 http://www.numenware.com/article/428#comment-353 The thing is, Lupe, that religious experiences may correspond to activity in the brain that is just like that of all other experience. Michael Persinger claims to generate specific responses, but these claims have not been reproduced, and in fact have been strongly questioned in a study of 89 people, Neurosci Letters, Apr. 29, 2005. Some people want so badly to believe that religion is just some “God module” that even Scientific American and Newsweek embrace junk science regarding it. Why shouldn’t invisible beings be processed in the brain just as visible ones are? If I hear a rustling in the bushes, are the signals in my brain that much different if my first guess is that this is an animal, the wind or something supernatural? Neurotheology may have some substance, but I wouldn’t count on it. The thing is, Lupe, that religious experiences may correspond to activity in the brain that is just like that of all other experience. Michael Persinger claims to generate specific responses, but these claims have not been reproduced, and in fact have been strongly questioned in a study of 89 people, Neurosci Letters, Apr. 29, 2005. Some people want so badly to believe that religion is just some “God module” that even Scientific American and Newsweek embrace junk science regarding it.

Why shouldn’t invisible beings be processed in the brain just as visible ones are? If I hear a rustling in the bushes, are the signals in my brain that much different if my first guess is that this is an animal, the wind or something supernatural?

Neurotheology may have some substance, but I wouldn’t count on it.

]]> By: Lupe http://www.numenware.com/article/428#comment-224 Lupe Mon, 04 Jul 2005 21:39:39 +0000 http://www.numenware.com/article/428#comment-224 The point is that “the stars”, but not God, do exist outside of our minds. So “neuroastronomy” could be the science of what astronomers feel when looking at the stars or how they come out with new hypothesis on the origin of the universe from their observations of the stars (like “neurophysics” or “neurohistory” could be). But “neurotheology” is a part of the neurosciences focused in how the religious experience arises from the activity of our brains and why that experience has such a deep impact on our behavior (I mean the believer’s behavior). My congratulations to Bob for this very interesting weblog. I will post about it in my weblog on “pseudoneurosciences” “The pyramids of the brain” (piramidescerebro.blogspot.com) (sorry, in spanish). The point is that “the stars”, but not God, do exist outside of our minds. So “neuroastronomy” could be the science of what astronomers feel when looking at the stars or how they come out with new hypothesis on the origin of the universe from their observations of the stars (like “neurophysics” or “neurohistory” could be). But “neurotheology” is a part of the neurosciences focused in how the religious experience arises from the activity of our brains and why that experience has such a deep impact on our behavior (I mean the believer’s behavior).

My congratulations to Bob for this very interesting weblog. I will post about it in my weblog on “pseudoneurosciences” “The pyramids of the brain” (piramidescerebro.blogspot.com) (sorry, in spanish).

]]> By: Mikefrog http://www.numenware.com/article/428#comment-217 Mikefrog Tue, 28 Jun 2005 09:42:49 +0000 http://www.numenware.com/article/428#comment-217 I sometimes make an analogy with “neuroastronomy”. Suppose we took “astronomers”, brain scanned them while they were “looking at stars” through their “telescopes”, and then announced that the experience of astronomy is caused by activity in certain regions of the brain? Of course, this is not to deny that there are experiences (hallucinations) that are internally caused. What I’m suggesting is that you can’t necessarily tell the difference by looking inside brains. You need to look at the stars to get the whole picture. In the case of religion, that means (depending on your pov) considering God, or considering the social and psychological functions of religion. Neither of which is accomplished with an <span class="caps">MRI</span> scanner. You talk about the characteristics of an explanation, and in my view, to say “the brain is such that we tend to be religious” is so weak an explanation as to be none at all. And being more precise about which parts of the brain, does not address the nature of that weakness. I sometimes make an analogy with “neuroastronomy”.

Suppose we took “astronomers”, brain scanned them while they were “looking at stars” through their “telescopes”, and then announced that the experience of astronomy is caused by activity in certain regions of the brain?

Of course, this is not to deny that there are experiences (hallucinations) that are internally caused.

What I’m suggesting is that you can’t necessarily tell the difference by looking inside brains. You need to look at the stars to get the whole picture.

In the case of religion, that means (depending on your pov) considering God, or considering the social and psychological functions of religion. Neither of which is accomplished with an MRI scanner.

You talk about the characteristics of an explanation, and in my view, to say “the brain is such that we tend to be religious” is so weak an explanation as to be none at all. And being more precise about which parts of the brain, does not address the nature of that weakness.

]]>