Is Faith in God a neurological function?

Great Debates
41

Fair enough, Lib. But I think that no reasonable and intelligent person with an open mind can honestly say that they know everything there is to know about any given subject. To that extent, scientist (by this I imply atheist, recognizing of course that not all scientists are atheist) have discovered as much as they have been able to discover about the know universe. That implies that they have not discovered or understood everything correctly. That implies that further examination will often yield unexpected results and reasons for re-evaluation previous concepts and ideas. In other words, we know the house is not perfect but we will shore up the structure based on additional evidence and perhaps tear down parts which have been incorrectly built. Errors in contruction do not mean that all building must stop. And if (big IF) we find the foundation to be faulty then I am certain, after great pain, we will tear down the house to it’s base and rebuild anew.

Alternatively, if you’ve already decided on the correct answer, what would compel you to re-examine it for possible errors?

42

The man of faith is no different in that regard than the man of science. Both rely on the empirical evidence they have at hand. My experience tells me that God exists. Yours tells you that He does not. When my experience tells me otherwise, I will change my mind, as I always have. And I know that you, a man of science, will do the same.

The days of using gods to explain fire are long gone. We are discovering that, in our moral journey through the atoms, God is the Absolute. This probability field that our brains perceive, even with its billions of eons of time-space events is like a unit of cardinality in an infinite set.

There is nothing wrong with science when we use it to make discoveries about the atoms. But it is insufficient when we use it to make discoveries about God, just as theology is insufficient to explain fire. With respect to your spiritual reference frame, all you can really say is that you have not experienced God yet.

As my sainted mother used to say, “You never know what’s around the corner.”

43

I don’t know wheter all processes we experience can be said to be based in neurological terms though, esp. somthing so abstract as faith.

Prehaps I’m missunderstand you though. But it still seems that you are saying any subjective experince can be expressed as simple neurological states.

That’s what I question.

44

To add fuel to the fire :

Of course, this is taking the OP a little too literally, but hyperreligiosity is a known side-effect of certain strokes or brain insults. There are several case reports of hyperreligiosity in temporal lobe epilepsy. Do a PubMed/MEDLINE search on “hyperreligiosity” and you’ll get a bunch back.

To say a view which may be redundant:

[IMHO]
Our perception of God is a neurologic function. Nobody can deny this. But, our perception that grass is green is a neurologic function. The actual reality of the greenness of grass or the existence of God is not something we alone can accurately determine because we are always operating through the filters employed by our brain. This may not make any sense, but think of optical illusions – just because we perceive something doesn’t make it so.

Of course, science attempts to erase this bias, through repeated observation and experiment. I’ve said it in other threads, so I’ll say it again here. Science cannot answer questions for non-observable phenomena.

The existence of God is non-observable. Therefore, we default to other systems to try and explain the non-observable phenomena that we perceive.

If you perceive something which can’t be observed (the presence of God), then you choose religion to explain it to you. If you cannot perceive the presence of God (or other non-observable phenomena), you have no need for religion and therefore can suffice on science alone.

Now the tricky part, and the part that always annoys the scientists and faithful. If you have an improbable event that science can explain (by a complicated mechanism), and that religion can explain (by a simple one – God did it), the scientists will always pick the science (since the other system doesn’t exist) and the religious people will always pick the religion. Of course. Ockham’s razor still holds. Not gonna restart that debate.
[/IMHO]

45

That wasn’t a typo – that is an old Free Spirit saying. But to clarify: in the Newtonian model, if you drop a ball in a gravitational field, it falls. Why? Because of the law of gravity. In the quantum mechnical model, a particle probably exists at a certain point, and it suddenly exists probably at another point without any newtonian forces being applied. Why? Because the laws of quantum mechanics permit it. But, what if I had just wished that particle to exist probably at that point and it did so? Science does not require a “why” beyond the one given previously. There is no way to draw a direct causal relationship between these events, it is simply so.

46

The whole point is that this can not be done, as any occurance, no matter how improbable, can be explained away by science.

Were I to tell you of a miracles seen by me before I lost my faith, you would not believe me, nor would I expect you to. I doubt you would be willing to repeat my experiment, so I guess you can continue maintaining what I say is false out of ignorance, and that is your right.

So being too religious can get you sent to a mental asylum these days, huh, edwino? That sounds like a good idea in a free country. :rolleyes:

47

I believe that this is stated incorrectly. The man of science does not have empirical evidence that god does not exist, he lacks empirical evidence that god exists. So any reasonable person will not believe something for which they have a lack of empirical or other sufficient evidence.

How would you go about reproducing your empirical evidence that God exists so that I could experience it also? For example, if someone tells me “objects fall under gravity” and I doubt their word, they can easily share with me the empirical evidence that supports their statement.

48

Well, I’ve read this thread entirely. All I can say is…

Oh My God!!! 7 minutes of my life wasted forever!

I have no idea what it is that your talking about.

49

Arnold

I think that’s a fair criticism.

Scylla

We are talking about the epistemology of faith in a manifold of contexts.

50

And why is that?

People experience many things that are not real. People also fail to experience things that are real. So how would experiencing something make it necessary (outside of one’s neurology I mean)?

I trust my own personal experience much less than you do yours, I think. I know how fallible it can be.

–
peas on earth

51

How would you go about producing empirical evidence that some of the basic precepts of science.
Cause and effect as a universal code seems a bit wrong to me. =]

52

If your knowledge is so very fallible, then perhaps you are wrong about your personal experience. Maybe you should be trusting it after all.

53

A really good question, Arnold.

And my best answer to it would be: Me.

And Tris., and Lib., and Amulet, and a few dozen others.

Here’s my thinking: I have no access to cyclotrons or linear accelerators. Hence my knowledge and understanding of nuclear physics must of necessity come from authority. Scholarly theoretical physicists have devised an intellectual structure that explains and interprets the phenomena that they observe in terms of hadrons, leptons, quarks, and such. They confirm each other’s understandings and observations, critique each other’s variants on the theory underlying it, and in general present a coherent intellectual edifice that leads me, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, to accept their system. I have never seen, nor ever expect to see, an atom, much less a subatomic particle. (Ignoring the fuzzy scanning-ion-microscope pictures that might show atoms, or nano-dustbunnies.) But I have no doubts that the theory is, if incomplete, an accurate mapping of reality, because I accept it on the authority of intelligent men reasoning together.

A fundamentalist insisting on the literal inspiration of his Bible and rejecting any evidence that does not jibe with his understanding of Scripture, is not presenting you with evidence you can accept. His concept is based on an authority (Scripture as interpreted by his style) and a methodology (anything else must be Satan’s work to confuse humans) you find pitifully lacking.

But when otherwise rational and clear-headed individuals (a category I hope you will consider me to fall into) present you with a hypothesis that is beyond your previous world-view, i.e., that an insensible entity communicated through some mental/spiritual process with them, are willing to discuss at length the phenomenon, their understanding of it, answer questions about it, treat it as an experiential event they are reporting for further information, it moves from the realm of faith to the realm of analysis. Distinguish carefully my interpretation of the event (an encounter with God) and my faith-based response from the reportage of the event. And consider what you know of me as a poster and the personality and intellect that seem to lie behind the words you read. I do not troll; I try to resolve problems; I seem to be living out the life I claim to be trying to lead; I am capable of thinking rationally and judging the truth value of information. If I present to you evidence of a phenomenon I claim to have experienced, that data becomes information with which you may work, just as my reportage of what I noted during a solar eclipse that you had not seen and I had would.

54

(at the risk of repeating myself :wink: )

But I do not need to believe in a solar eclipse in order to observe it. I sense the opposite is true of God.

55

Could you offer a few excerpts from this text in support of your assertion? (Note, by physical effects I meant something to the extent of move mountains rather than physiological excitation or interpersonal communication of the mundane nature).

How does one perceive that which one cannot observe? Does one not use the senses for both perception and observation?

Why is an additional why necessary? If one offers an additional cause, one creates double causation, which is unnecessary.

Would you elaborate upon this experiment prior to asserting that I am ignorant?

I think jmullaney has already answered that excellent question with this statement:

I certain do consider you to be such an individual, and because that is who you are, well said.

56

But it isn’t strictly a double causation either, because quantum mechanics doesn’t provide a cause per se itself. The universe is bereft of reason.

I thought you would never ask. It is quite simple. Sell all that you have and give the money to the poor. Leave your friends and family. Go and seek the kingdom of God. (Allow 6 to 8 weeks for delivery. Some restrictions may apply – you should also keep the teachings outlined in the sermon of the mount I would say – heck a good thorough study of the gospel wouldn’t hurt. Occasion spiritual failings along the way will not void offer, though you may experience delays.)

57

:smiley:

Wow. God bless you, Mr. or Ms. Mullaney.

58

I’d like to summarize our personal vollies over the last few posts in order to avoid a digression. Basically, jmullaney, I have asserted that faith is a neurological function. You have stated that faith has an impact at a quantum mechanical level. Moreover, this faith manifests itself through miracles; therefore faith is the cause on quantum mechanical phenomena, because quantum mechanics offers no answer to the question “Why?”. In addition, you have stated that if I were to go seek the Kingdom of God, I would have evidence relating to how faith acts in physical reality.

I have a few questions:[ol]
[li]Where is this kingdom? I thought the universe was part of it.[/li][li]Is potentiality not sufficient reason?[/li][li]Is it the neurological function, or something else which induces ramifications of the physical realm (I honestly, know of no other realm).[/li]Is this concept of an interaction between faith and quantum mechanics the vehicle through which you will attempt to refute the concept that faith is a neurological function.[/ol]

59

You raise some excellent points, Polycarp. I will admit that when I read in Time magazine "Juan Malcadena is working on a theory that will bridge quantum mechanics and general relativity, I will accept that statement without trying to read his writings (which would doubtless leave me scratching my head and saying “huh?” while reaching for the bottle of extra-strength pain reliever.) And when an astronomer shows me a photograph showing some pretty red colours and says “that’s a dust cloud x light years away from earth” I accept his authority.

But you are familiar with the statement “extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.” You volunteered to present evidence of a phenomenon which you claim to have experienced. I’m all ears!

As a proof of my respect for your intellect - you don’t know how difficult it was for me to restrain myself on not commenting with a wisecrack to your sentence below.

P.S. In my youth, I heard many people whose truth and honesty I respected claiming, for example, that they were convinced that visions of the Virgin Mary were real. One priest told us once in class about his vision of St. Michael. And I’ve read several nineteenth-century and twentieth-century books by intelligent, honest people claiming the existence of ghosts. I still view those with skepticism, so if you fail to convince me, you are in excellent company, please don’t take it personally.

60

The universe is nothing but Big Bang shrapnel.

[/quote]
Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, “The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, nor will people say, ‘Here it is,’ or ‘There it is,’ because the kingdom of God is within you.” — Luke 17:20-21

[/quote]