Pseudo-neuroscience: If you believe in God, it is just because you think you ARE God?

See the abstract for "Believers' estimates of God's beliefs are more egocentric than estimates of other people's beliefs" by Nicholas Epleya,1, Benjamin A. Conversea, Alexa Delboscb, George A. Monteleonec and John T. Cacioppoc:

Abstract

People often reason egocentrically about others' beliefs, using their own beliefs as an inductive guide. Correlational, experimental, and neuroimaging evidence suggests that people may be even more egocentric when reasoning about a religious agent's beliefs (e.g., God). In both nationally representative and more local samples, people's own beliefs on important social and ethical issues were consistently correlated more strongly with estimates of God's beliefs than with estimates of other people's beliefs (Studies 1–4). Manipulating people's beliefs similarly influenced estimates of God's beliefs but did not as consistently influence estimates of other people's beliefs (Studies 5 and 6). A final neuroimaging study demonstrated a clear convergence in neural activity when reasoning about one's own beliefs and God's beliefs, but clear divergences when reasoning about another person's beliefs (Study 7). In particular, reasoning about God's beliefs activated areas associated with self-referential thinking more so than did reasoning about another person's beliefs. Believers commonly use inferences about God's beliefs as a moral compass, but that compass appears especially dependent on one's own existing beliefs.

Well, obviously, people who believe in God would want to take God's side in ethical issues, right? Who wants to be merely on the neighbours' side (obsessed with property values) or on Satan's side ... (evil for the fun of it?).

The authors of this study, having begun by assuming that God does not exist, attempt to reason about why people conform their beliefs to what they think God wants, based purely on private preferences. That goes against everything I know about religious people.

Can we trust other people's spiritual experiences? Why should we?

In a discussion of C. S. Lewis's The Great Divorce, Kathleen Lundquist references Fr. Luigi Giussani on the question of whether we can trust the spiritual experiences of others. That is, why should we believe it if it didn't happen to us?

Fr. Giussani writes that of the two ways of gaining knowledge (1: empirical observation/sensory input and 2: indirect knowledge through a mediator, i.e. through persons, parents, teachers, books, etc.), it is indirect knowledge, i.e. that which comes to us through trust in a witness, which is at the core of human culture and foundational to our existence: “Listen, what’s more important: the evidence or this knowledge mediated through a witness? Get rid of this knowledge through mediation and you wipe out all human culture, all of it, because all human culture is based on the fact that one person begins with what another person has discovered and then goes forward from there. If you couldn’t reasonably do this, the ultimate representation of reason, which is culture, couldn’t exist… Culture, history, and society are based on this type of knowledge called faith, knowledge through faith, indirect knowledge, knowledge of reality though the mediation of a witness“[iv] (emphasis mine).

Fr. Giussani thus radically reorganizes the categories of the faith vs. reason debate. Since faith is the foundation of our knowledge about the world, faith is the most reasonable choice to make when evaluating the testimony of someone you know and trust — especially if the encounter is exceptional in some way. He continues: “From a rational point of view, it’s clear that if you become certain that another person knows what he or she is saying and doesn’t want to deceive, then logically you should trust, because if you don’t trust you go against yourself, against the judgment you formulated that that person knows what he or she says and doesn’t want to deceive you.

Should we trust even our own experience?

Interestingly, naturalist (materialist) Gordy Slack notes in a recent article in science, "What neo-creationists get right: An evolutionist shares lessons he's learned from the Intelligent Design camp"(free registration):

Millions of people believe they directly experience the reality of a Creator every day, and to them it seems like nonsense to insist that He does not exist. Unless they are lying, God's existence is to them an observable fact. Denying it would be like insisting that my love for my children was an illusion created by neurotransmitters. I can't imagine a scientific argument in the world that could convince me that I didn't really love my children. And if there were such an argument, I have to admit I'd be reluctant to accept it, however compelling it appeared on paper. I have too much respect for my own experience.

So here is someone who thinks that your (and his) experiences are not factual saying that it isn't wrong to treat them as factual. (That by the way just shows how mixed up he and all materialists are but ... a story for another day.)

Personally, I think that if a person genuinely becomes more loving and caring toward others and maintains that change over a number of years, that is powwerful testimony that they encountered a spiritual reality.

Hat tip to The Sheepcat for Catholic Exchange.

See also Fr. Luigi Giussani. Is It Possible to Live This Way? Volume 1 - Faith. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2008.

Palliative care doctor on The Spiritual Brain

He kindly writes,

Just wanted to let you know that I just finished reading the latest book you co-wrote and found it to be dynamite.

My favorite was at the bottom of p.99 where you pointed out that if the materialist view is right then we'll just have to accept it despite it going against all of our observations about human nature and that we'll just have to live with "cognitive dissonance" due to materialism's assumptions. But the best part was the materialist's need to deny that the human brain could have evolved in a way that made us believe in materialism.

I'm not sure if you've heard this quip by C.S. Lewis when he was told that a belief in God is "only a creation of the mind". He said "so is the belief in materialism" The corollary of the materialist argument being that if one can believe in there being a "God gene" then logically there must also be the possibility of an "Un-God gene" and that explains why materialists "believe" as they do. - palliative care doctor, friend of co-author Denyse O’Leary

Thanks, Doc! Mario and I really hope that The Spiritual Brain will be just the sort of crossover science and religion book that can communicate with people in science who are also people of faith! - d.

Atheism and popular culture: Why science, not faith, is now often the enemy of reason

In "Arrogance, dogma and why science - not faith - is the new enemy of reason", the Daily Mail's Melanie Phillips points out that current sicence can be an enemy of reason, as much as blind faith:

The heart of the Judeo-Christian tradition is the belief in the concept of truth, which gives rise to reason. But our postreligious age has proclaimed that there is no such thing as objective truth, only what is "true for me".
That is because our society won't put up with anything which gets in the way of 'what I want'. How we feel about things has become all-important. So reason has been knocked off its perch by emotion, and thinking has been replaced by feelings.

This has meant our society can no longer distinguish between truth and lies by using evidence and logic. And this collapse of objective truth has, in turn, come to undermine science itself which is playing a role for which it is not fitted.

Worse, many scientists such as genome mapper Francis Crick ended up insisting that our brains have not evolved to understand scientific truth, but only to leave fertile descendants. (The Spiritual Brain, p. 111.) If they were right, we would be fools to heed anything they said, as if it had meaning. Fortunately, they are wrong.

A third recent ChristianWeek column: Faith as one of the healing arts

Faith as one of the healing arts

by Denyse O'Leary

According to an article in Jewish World Review (October 3, 2006) hospitals in the United States have finally begun to pay attention to patients' religious beliefs. "The last thing you want to worry about while somebody is sick is that they might have to transgress on something they believe in," says Zahava Cohen, Englewood Hospital's patient care director (New Jersey). Cohen is surely right; and we can only hope that this trend spreads.

Yes, yes, illness and death come to us all. And serious illness may require abrupt actions and intimidating technology. But, especially among older people, many illnesses are chronic. There is no "pill for every ill." We adapt our lives to illnesses and illnesses to our lives, and go on from there. We instinctively resist being packaged as "the pancreas in # 209" or ultimately the "corpse" to be disposed of, with no acknowledgement that this is or once was part of a person who was in turn part of a community. After all, even in death, the silenced corporal reality is still "Nana" or "Unkie Joe." Acknowledging the community to which the sick, dying, or deceased belong, in which they will be remembered at least by a few for decades to come, is good medicine.

The way in which we receive health care makes a huge difference to its ultimate effect. This reality has long been disguised under the misnamed and misunderstood "placebo" effect. Literally, the word means "I will please." Originally, it referred to sugar pills given to a patient who believes that they are potent. Over one third of patients get better simply because they think the placebo is a powerful medicine. The placebo effect probably underlies traditional shamanism. The reason so many tribal Christians continue to surreptitiously visit shamans is not that they are deluded into believing that shamanism works but because it so often does work. Unfortunately, the shaman typically attributes the healing to specific bizarre practices rather than to the power of belief to trigger healing processes.

Indeed, since the 1970s, a proposed new medication is expected to perform about five percent better than a placebo, if it is to be licensed for use by physicians. Now, let's stop and think about what that means for a moment: We may be taking medications that are only a small percentage more effective than our own belief in them! The placebo effect is thus an interesting demonstration of the power of the mind over the brain and body. It might better be called the cognosco or "I am aware (of healing)" effect.

The placebo effect is not a cure-all; a recent study suggests that it is ineffectual against cancer. However, a 2004 study compared thirty Parkinson's patients who received controversial embryonic stem cell implants with patients who thought they were receiving them (but were actually undergoing a sham surgery). Those who thought they had received stem cells reported a better quality of life a year later than those who thought they had received the sham surgery, regardless of which surgery the patients had actually received. And the medical personnel's assessments of patients tended to concur with the patients' own views.

Doctors use the placebo effect automatically in their work. For example, they behave confidently and reassuringly even when completely stumped by the patient's symptoms or faced suddenly with a life-threatening disorder. They are right to behave this way. A doctor's anxiety would trigger the placebo effect's evil twin, the nocebo effect. "Nocebo" means "I will harm," and nocebos really do harm. Patients may be ill for longer periods and suffer worse symptoms if nocebo effects convince them that they are doomed.

Some consider the placebo effect a mystery. In March 2005, British science magazine New Scientist listed thirteen "Things That Don't Make Sense", and the placebo effect was number one on their list. Of course, the placebo effect doesn't "make sense" if you assume, as they do, that the mind either does not exist or is powerless. The traditional Christian view is that the mind is grounded in the brain so long as we live in this world. Therefore, what the patient's mind perceives expresses itself in the brain and body. Both the placebo and nocebo effects are strong support for the traditional view.

My other blog is the Post-Darwinist, detailing events of interest in the intelligent design controversy. My most recently published book is By Design or by Chance?, an overview of the intelligent design controversy.