Religion and Science

[shrewsbury]

Religion seeks nothing.
Religious leaders seek personal gain.
Religious followers seek salvation.
Religious believers and faithful seek truth.

well put

[WilyWestbrook0]

That is pretty abstract, but I appreciate the attention to dualism.

For me, the main thing is trying to get past cognitive dissonance between empiricism and some of what the Bible (or many other aspects of religion from other sources) requires us to believe. I have no qualms with a Creator, universal moral codes, etc.

I am in a discussion right now with a guy who values empirical proofs a lot, yet is also conservative Christian (against macroevolution, has a largely literal interpretation of the Bible, etc.). Many atheists would just dismiss him outright, but despite those "biases" (and we all have biases), I have found him among the most logical, easiest, and most cordial with which to discuss these matters. Interestingly, for us sports fans here, his dad happens to be the guy who runs The Brain Type Institute, the one who works with the Boston Celtics right now and is most famous for predicting Ryan Leaf would be a flop in the NFL due to his "brain type." Anyway, here is what I posed to him a few days ago on FB, worth sharing here since it relates to the whole science/religion issue:

Hello! I decided to make this massive post to your wall (and yes, it took a few days to put together) because it probably will get a more meaningful response here than it would on mine. After all, only a couple of people ever bother to respond in any depth to my religion and neuroscience posts, and of those who do, I don't think they have any real knowledge of Brain Types, whereas your friend list likely does.

Anyway, I must confess that my continued study of neuroscience, genetics, and the Bible, along with my work with individuals with severe disabilities and behavioral issues, has led me to great doubt about some aspects of the Christian faith recently, though not of a Creator specifically (how's that for a surprise?).

Let me start this very long analysis of multiple issues by looking at one of the core theories of Christianity: namely, that when you die, you have an ethereal "spirit" that either goes to a heaven or a hell for eternity. This theory - and yes, it is absolutely a theory - is as impossible to evaluate empirically as reincarnation is. Sure, one can certainly understand how this conceptualization came about: this life is short, reality is unpleasant, good often goes unrewarded and evil often goes unpunished, and death is absolutely frightening. However, just because you can conceptualize something, doesn't mean it exists in reality, and you know this as well as anyone. :) It's really quite amazing how so many of us cling to the idea of an empirically unprovable afterlife, even those who find the idea of an eternal hell for those who happened to believe in the wrong religion horrific and excessive!

So what may have the answers to the causes and plausibility (or lack thereof) of this belief? Neuroscience. The cause might be simpler than one thinks: humans love to think in binaries. No matter how much some people may tout a dislike for "black and white thinking," we all engage in it on a daily basis (except perhaps the severely mentally handicapped - but I'll get to the implications of them later). The left hemisphere in particular cannot tolerate ambiguity, and most of us possess this hemisphere from birth. In Michael Gazzaniga's split brain experiments, even when the left brain did not have all the information to come up with an answer, it gave one anyway! The left brain has been repeatedly shown to see things in absolutes and will attempt to make something conform to a preconceived context even when it is shown to be false (not that the right brain doesn't have its weaknesses, as BTI has exhibited in the past - it will totally *neglect* context even when not appropriate, and it will look for any possible scenario where 2+2 might not equal 4 even though the left side is aware that no such scenario exists - but I'm digressing briefly here in these parentheses only for the sake of balance, lest I be accused of being unfair).

A heaven and hell binary, then, as well as monotheistic thinking in general, greatly appeals to the left hemisphere. All those people these days who love to go on about being "spiritual, but not religious," and those who are fond of more Eastern religions, are simply using more of their right hemisphere. It's just a brain issue. It is probably not as evil and horrible as it sounds (although the left side of my brain wishes those "spiritual" folks would get more specific and categorical and define in words what kind of "spiritual" they are, heh).

Back to the issue of the spirit - not just heaven and hell and how neuroscience can explain that notion. Yes, spirits are every bit as much a conceptualization that cannot be proved empirically as heaven and hell are, but many of us persist in such a belief as well. And yes, this looks like it can be explained by neuroscience, too.

Best empirical evidence points to your "spirit" really just being your frontal lobe, more or less - that part of your brain that lets you think and ponder about things beyond the present moment. Think about it - do we continue to smell the roses after we die, or argue about Calvinism vs. Arminianism, or whatever else when our brains stop functioning? No, because our brains control all our thoughts. If you don't believe that, you can work with the severely disabled, and see if they can confess with their mouths that Jesus is Lord. See if they can figure out why Jesus is God. See if you can control their impulsive behaviors by reading verses to them, or praying for them.

It won't work. They will just remain as before, because that is all their brains can process. We take *so much* for granted living a middle-class existence where most of us are healthy and have fully functioning brains and where most others in the populace confess some form of Christianity. So, so, so much, that I believe it ultimately clouds our objectivity, even when we are not aware of it.

More about the "spirit," and why the "spirit" apparently dies when the brain dies:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michae..._b_983852.html

If the example of the severely disabled is not enough, and that article is not convincing enough, see how much infants can understand about Jesus. Or try to consider what happens to infants who die, or those who lived in the bush and never heard of Christ. I've seen Christians attempt to explain away these difficult and very real scenarios, but again, the answers are that dreaded thing we hate to hear - purely theoretical and unprovable by empirical means. We can't even turn to the Bible for answers there! But we can turn to the brain to help answer things, that unavoidable thing we must use every day lest we no longer perceive existence.

So what's next? How about morality? Let's look again to neuroscience:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/sc...t-1641022.html

"They found that people of different religious persuasions and beliefs, as well as atheists, all tended to use the same electrical circuits in the brain to solve a perceived moral conundrum – and the same circuits were used when religiously-inclined people dealt with issues related to God."

Again, it all goes back to the brain, much as we desperately wish it was something *more* and *eternal* and some ethereal thing that we cannot really *see* (as an aside - Jesus, as arguably the most deeply abstract thinker to have ever lived, naturally emphasized what we CANNOT see and didn't place much emphasis on the concrete things of this world - though thank goodness he picked apart the Pharisees and their numerous logical inconsistencies, as well as synthesizing the seemingly endless OT laws into a couple of far more universal principles that people can actually handle, even if they can't consistently and pragmatically apply some of his other ones, like loving enemies).

Back more to the morality topic after the Jesus digression in parentheses. Ever wonder why a nice, friendly ISFJ like Nazr Mohammed can do the morally right thing and apologize for shoving a player rather than trying to justify it? I mean he's a ***gasp*** MUSLIM! But the answer is surprisingly easy: because the brain is the seat of morality, and as shown earlier, people can make good or bad moral choices with their brains regardless of their religion (or lack thereof). Nazr didn't need Jesus to do the right thing - he simply used his brain, and he even has the benefit of a genotype that has been alleged to make him more likely to stay within the bounds of proper behavior. And even if that is not true, or else overstated by BTI, the choice still goes back to Nazr's brain - not a spirit, not Jesus, not a Holy Spirit or other abstract part of a trinity - just an empirically verifiable, well-functioning brain.

We also see different brains, and different experiences, leading to some wildly different conclusions and/or emphases among those who insist upon the same faith. Paul was a little unrealistic hoping for no divisions - but then again, he didn't have the knowledge of neuroscience that we have today, either. Whether we are talking about different denominations, or different Brain Types, Christians cannot even agree on all the same doctrines or faith approaches! A fairly crude example, but a pertinent one, nonetheless: one ENFP friend of mine posts about 50 "happy" Bible verses a day out of context, hoping to bring sunshine, flowers, and hugs all day long. Deep analysis of doctrine and Scripture are very difficult for her, so she just repeats whatever most of her Christian friends are saying at the moment when any hint of that comes up, no matter how contradictory or absurd (especially in the case of her ever-changing, far-out-there eschatological beliefs). She has little logic to offer in debate, so she will avoid most debates whenever possible, or else just parrot what she's heard other people say again. An ISTJ friend, on the other hand (guess who I may be referring to here!), posts rarely, is far more specific about doctrinal matters, keeps verses in context, can discuss far more difficult issues with deeper analysis, and hardly ever changes opinions on any matters. I guess one's understanding and focus when it comes to God depends more on genotype and resulting brain function differences than we'd like to admit, not ethereal "spiritism." Is my ENFP friend's flighty, fluffy faith simply inferior? Can she help it, or is her brain just wired that way, and is expecting her to act like the ISTJ completely unrealistic knowing what we do about the empirical reality of Brain Types?

Even much of that mysterious abstraction called "love" is explained by empirical means. That great affection people feel in a monogamous relationship? Voles experience it, too - thank the presence of vasopressin and oxytocin. Not as exciting or glorious as "God is love," but certainly more empirically verifiable.

So there we have it. I have stated my case about several crucial Christian issues that start to become very difficult to reconcile when a more empirical approach is taken. I could go further, but time and attention spans are always limited, and it is best not to overwhelm in one sitting (though I probably did anyway!). With that in mind, I think it's unfortunate that most discussions about religion turn into mud-slinging fests (and atheists are often *awful* about this*), or else trail off into debates about side issues like evolution, homosexuality, abortion, guns, conservative and liberal politics, and the age of the Earth. These all may be interesting issues in their own right, but they often distract from even bigger issues, and it seems neither side is ever willing to compromise anything to the other.

Finally, I would like to conclude that none of what I have broken down by any means negates the issue of a Creator, which is why I mentioned that issue in the first paragraph, because it's so easy for Christians to jump too quickly to negative conclusions that any doubts of faith are due to complete unbelief of any Creator, lack of morality (which I already covered and which itself is explained much by neuroscience rather than specific faiths or lack thereof), etc. We know from observation (yes, empirical means!) that everything created has to have a creator. Atheists love to add, well, who created the Creator, then? At some point, something had to have always been. For those of us who have brains that can comprehend such things, we should be awed at whatever this Creator is, because, flawed though this universe and its life forms may be, and doubtful as some religious concepts may be, life sure is amazingly complex. And that we *know*. I'm thinking we'd all do better to try to focus more on what we can know for sure, not what could be or might be, or what we merely wish or hope to be true. We can start today by worrying less about how our afterlives might be, and focus, say, on helping that sick person who needs his leg surgery to be done correctly - not prayer, for proper surgery is empirical, verifiable, practical, and useful, whereas prayer is only what we wish and hope.

[Wickabee]

Thing is, if there is a creator, it's pretty obvious he doesn't work as previously thought through the centuries. There is no dues ex machine from the heavens. As such, belief with a lack of empirical evidence being a simple matter of how the brain works is a nice thought, but could be argued that, since the hypothesis is we can't and don't know all the intricacies of how a Creator works, it can be attributed to God's methods and never proven or disproven.

And this is the problem many have with "God". It can't be proven, it can't be disproven it can only be believed and/or held faith in. Many atheists, I find, will only believe what they see and this, by definition, means they are faithless. Not amoral, faithless. I don't believe God is necessary for morality, nor do I believe God is. But the reasoning I hear from so many, a simple "I'll believe it when I see it" (and I won't get into the fact that that is NOT atheism) means they can't possibly have faith. And, if this is how they view God, what, if true, would be the most important thing existing, how could they apply faith to anything else. I'm not saying an atheist is going to cheat on his/her spouse, for example, but that they will never fully trust or have faith that their partner is faithful to them (in the colloquial sense) because they can't watch thei partner 24/7.

If you're willing to base your entire life on an inability to have faith, how can you not base individual pieces of it into the same inability?

[imronron]

Science does not exist and you can't prove otherwise. Greedy scientists are the ones who brought us weapons and ammunition, nuclear bombs and false hopes in cures.

[shrewsbury]

Science does not exist and you can't prove otherwise.

In what context are you talking? Science exists, though not all hypothesis are provable, their is plenty of provable science, and it is obvious it exists, just like religion exists.

[imronron]

Science itself relies on abstraction, it is a body of knowledge not a material thing. It cannot walk right up to you and say "Hello".

[JustAlex]

Science does not exist and you can't prove otherwise. Greedy scientists are the ones who brought us weapons and ammunition, nuclear bombs and false hopes in cures.

Hopefully you're joking, nowadays I really can't tell when someone is being sarcastic on the internet sometimes.....hopefully this is one of these times.

BUT, in the case that you're not joking....

You might want to remember it's thanks to science that you're able to use the "internet" on your modern computer.

It's thanks to science that humans now live an average of 80-85 years whereas not that long ago they lived half of that if not shorter lifespans.

It's thanks to science that we have discovered so much about our universe, earth, and humans in general that we have a much better understanding of why things are the way they are compared to the people who wrote scribblings on 2000 year old books.

Science itself relies on abstraction, it is a body of knowledge not a material thing. It cannot walk right up to you and say "Hello".

As opposed to religion that can do that?

What's your point?

No, science isn't a person or persons, its an idea founded on the best system that humans have developed in order to understand their surroundings.....the scientific method.

By all means if you find something better, go right ahead and use that, but understand that in the history of humanity nothing has worked better than science.

Science is able to make models of prediction that are so darn good, that we can know what the weather will be like before it actually happens.

It's scientific theories are second to none, and explain how and why simple yet complex things like gravity work.

[centrehice]

Maybe I missed it, but what TRUTH is religion seeking?

Winner, Winner, Chicken Dinner !!!

[imronron]

Ah yes, Scientism or Chance whichever you prefer, you can only accept something as true if it is shown to be true by the "scientific method". So you do agree science is an abstraction. You would point me to some scribblings that support your "ism". You cannot show by the "scientific method" that one should only accept as true that which can be shown true by the "scientific method". In other words can you prove the "scientific method" using the "scientific method"?

[habsheaven]

Look around you. The proof of "scientific method" is staring you in the face.