Relax, relax. I'm NOT about to take on that role myself! It's just that there's a fascinating article at Fox News this morning: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/04/22/can-faith-reside-within-brain/
"Neuroscience knows a great deal about how the brain works during a variety of spiritual experiences, ranging from meditation to near-death to the mystical sense of oneness. Knowledge made firm by well-established brain mechanisms that have stood the scientific test over time.Against our intuition, we now clearly see that spiritual experience of many varieties is inextricably bound to our primal brain. When we consider the brain's majesty, things like Beethoven's symphonies and Einstein's theories come to mind. However, this grandeur blinds us to the brain's prime purpose-to keep us alive....
Of course science can't explain everything about the brain, including spirituality.
Beyond science's boundaries we discover faith. When transcending science's limits, we must keep in mind that like knowledge, faith too resides within the brain since nothing is known of experience outside the brain.
Many neuroscientists, like Thomas Metzinger, hold that the brain with its own processes is incapable of fully understanding itself. The brain thereby finds itself enveloped in "a special form of darkness."...
Do cold hard science facts suck the nectar from our spiritual potential? I think not, for it seems to me we are poised on the threshold of an era holding promise for the birth of a new kind of wisdom. Such wisdom steels us against false hopes shielded by false science. A wisdom that dispels the "scientific proof" that out-of-body experience evidences consciousness outside the brain, or that near-death experience "proves" a return from death possible or life after death. These assertions rightfully belong in the province of personal faith, not the realm of science."
How refreshing: A scientist, and moreover one in a "hard" field that explores questions with objective answers (could we but know them), who admits to the limits, not merely on his own comprehension, but on science itself! There are some, clearly, but I get the sense that most of them prefer to keep their convictions to themselves.
Faith doesn't come to all of us in exactly the same fashion. Indeed, it doesn't come to all of us, period. Some reach it through a process of exaltation, perhaps through art or music. Others of other inclinations yearn for it, but must fight their way past the many obstacles that rationality and the human experience pose to belief. Still others simply accept the Bible story without objection, make it the core of their lives from early on, and are never troubled by the carpings of the anti-theists.
Because it's neither provable nor disprovable, faith is the ultimate mixed bag.
Alongside that, allow me to quote a recent review of my novel "On Broken Wings" ( http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/9937 ):
"Again Porretto has the courage to ask life's major questions: what is religion? What is love? When is it okay to kill? What is God? What happens when we die? What do we owe our fellow man? What do we owe ourselves?"
(It's an extremely flattering review, and I wish its author had left an email address so that I might thank her for it. Ah, well. We don't always get what we want, and that's not always a bad thing.)
The part that made my ears prick up was "What is God?" If you recall the piece I wrote about definitions -- go to http://bastionofliberty.blogspot.com/2012/04/pragmatics.html if you don't -- the point of definition is to establish the criteria for inclusion in a category. Since God is, by postulate, unique, any attempt to define Him intensively would be internally contradictory. However, we can theorize with fair confidence about certain of His attributes, which is another approach to the exploration of His nature and our relation to Him.
Faith is, of course, a prerequisite: at minimum, faith that God exists (whatever "exists" means in application to a Being we cannot probe by material or temporal methods). But given that much faith -- alternately, that much willingness to suspend disbelief for the sake of an interesting inquiry into the likelihood of a supernatural realm -- it becomes possible to ask other questions of import. For example:
- Why did God create the universe?
- Does God experience time in any meaningful sense?
- Is there only one valid "God story," or might there be more?
- Does Man stand in a special relation to God? If so, what is it?
- Is there a Divine Plan? If so, is it possible for mortal Man to know it?
One of the blessings of our time is that intelligent people with the required modicum of intellectual courage, such as neurologist Dr. Kevin Nelson, who authored the Fox News article cited above, can actually discuss such things with no fear of being burned at the stake, regardless of their conclusions, doubts, or reservations. It was not always thus. Indeed, we should remain mindful that, given Man's habit of attempting to impose his views on others by force, it's not impossible that the hazards once associated with such undertakings will return in some darker future age.
2 comments:
I know the point of the essay wasn’t about the questions that the reviewer asked, but I was struck by a powerful urge to answer them as best I could and see what the reaction to all that was, and then realized that it does sort of tie back into the overriding theme of the essay. Bear with me for a minute:
what is religion? - the key here is faith. If you have something tangible, concrete, and defined, as science would tend to desire, you don’t have religion. That is why science cannot deal with religion, because the very act of applying science to religion creates an unavoidable observation bias - discovering religion, and the roots thereof, and the great questions to the answers that religions gives, would render it something other than religion. If we all knew what God looked like, because we’d seen him defined in a mathematical proof, it would reduce our belief in him to an understanding of a hard science, and not a religion. People used to worship rocks because they didn’t understand them. They had faith that they were something more than they really were. Once science proved that rocks were just rocks, our relationship with them changed. I’m afraid that science could never define religion because the very act of doing so would destroy that which it sought to define.
What is love? - scientifically speaking, the brains biochemical reaction to a set of key indicators creating the feeling that we describe as love. Again, science falls short in answering this question. The true answer? I couldn’t tell you, but you’ll know it when you feel it.
When is it okay to kill? - in defense of your life or the life of another innocent. In no other occasion is killing another human being allowable or moral.
I could start a debate by adding "mercy" to the above list, but I won't, mainly because I'm not sure I believe that.
What is God? - See “what is religion” above. Science could not define God without rendering Him less than God. If He is truly God, He will never be defined. If He is ever defined, then He is not God.
What happens when we die? - You’ll have to wait and find out.
What do we owe our fellow man? - Non-aggression unless in response to aggression. Good faith (no fraud). Respect for personal property (no theft). Respect for health and well-being (no reckless endangerment) The right to be left alone (freedom of association, etc). Those four things, if everyone would just adhere to them, would create a perfect society. If only.
What do we owe ourselves?" - The best you can do, coupled with the ability to look at oneself in the mirror at night without feeling shame.
The thing that keeps me awake at night about my inability to experience faith (which I’ve struggled with for years) is that even if you don’t have faith, you have to accept that morality is a thing. Even on the tribal level, tribes that did immoral things inevitably failed, and those that tried as hard as they could to remain moral succeeded. Rome was the most powerful force on Earth for centuries, until immorality plunged it into darkness. People who live immoral lives even today face a myriad of plagues and downsides to their lifestyle. It is a universal constant, and yet such a thing should not exist in a world that did not have some form of higher power. I can’t explain it without also including God in the discussion, and yet try as I might, I can’t discover Him the way that many of you have. It is frustrating and makes me want to give up.
I still think you would have made a great preacher.
is that even if you don’t have faith, you have to accept that morality is a thing
I agree absolutely. Maybe I cannot accept the faith of Christianity and the miracles of that belief, but objectively, I can see that it is a good thing.
Our host has shown me at least that much of my own faith.
Post a Comment