Neuroscience and God

I would not be writing this right now if I were not reading a book about people in non-scientific fields making sweeping proclamations about science and what it means. Usually what happens is that the "critical theorist," quite frankly, makes an irredeemable ass out of himself by talking total twaddle. (I'm grooving on the word "twaddle" lately--what's up with that?) Well, let's see what happens when a Jesus nut like Chuck Colson, who dropped one too bars o' soap in the "pokey" after Watergate if you know what I mean (because I sure don't), and became "Mr. I Foun' the Law Jesus In Pizzon!," writes an article called "Neuroscience and God." Hold on. I need to get a fistful of Vaseline first.

In a recent issue of the New York Times, respected columnist David Brooks described how what he calls a “revolution in neuroscience” is shaping “how people see the world.” I agree with him—up to a point.

I can’t believe he called David Brooks respected. This man is insane!

What Brooks calls the “revolution in neuroscience” is the rapidly growing body of research into phenomena such as religious experience and shared moral intuitions.

In one such experiment, volunteers are asked to imagine the following scenario: A village is under attack, and its residents are in hiding. Suddenly, a baby begins to cry. Its crying threatens to reveal their location.

Volunteers are asked whether killing the child to save the others is justified. Not only does the vast majority say “no”—thankfully—but CAT scans and EEGs reveal that the same part of their brains is active when they react to the question.

This and similar studies have, as Brooks put it, “shifted away the momentum” from seeing our minds in purely materialistic terms. Our brains are not “cold machines.” Rather, “meaning, belief and consciousness seem to emerge mysteriously from idiosyncratic networks of neural firings.”

Hold on a second...Did I just read that correctly. I beg the kind reader's pardon, but I need to see that again:

"This and similar studies have, as Brooks put it, “shifted away the momentum” from seeing our minds in purely materialistic terms."

Yep. He said it. What is not materialistic about that judgment? They are looking at the brain, not some...ethereal...fuzzy wuzzy fucking Care Bear! Am I missing something here, or is he staring straight at the brain and saying, "Yup, that's god doing that"?

And Brooks is right when he says that research like this will turn the recent debates over atheism into a “sideshow.” There is simply no way to sustain a “hard-core” materialistic understanding of human consciousness and morality in light of the new research. Where does the consciousness and moral decision-making come from?

What I'm guessing is that Brooks got around to reading The God Delusion, saw some pretty scary shit for a person on the religious right, and parroted the research that Dawkins reported on. Colson came along and said, "See? Evidence for God!" Balls. The experiments, if I remember correctly, tested to see how people made decisions about morality: "Is it ok to push a fat person in front of a train to stop the train from hitting a dozen people / Is it ok to push a person into the jaws of an alligator to save a dozen villagers from being eaten" The decisions were similar across cultures--they thought it was wrong to use people as a means to an end or as a tool. What this leads to, inexorably, is that morality itself is wired into the brain--that it is a product of the material world--and that no religion has a claim on what we perceive is "right" behavior. Morality does not come from a terrifically unconvincing book, but from nature.

However, I disagree with him when he writes that this research will pose a challenge to “faith in the Bible” and, instead, lead to what he calls “neural Buddhism.”

If anything, the opposite is true. This rebuttal of modern materialistic reductionism is a confirmation of what the Scriptures teach us about being created in the image of God.

It corroborates the biblical idea that we are, to use a modern phrase, “hard-wired” for spirituality and God. It suggests that we are irresistibly religious, as philosophers have always argued.

What?!? Do you not know what words mean, you douchebag? If what you are saying is true, God is hardwired...for God. Silly Christian.

Check out my not being religious, by the way.

Now, Brooks goes on to say that this will lead to a form of vague spiritual mysticism. This will happen, he says, because Orthodox believers will have trouble defending “particular doctrines and particular biblical teachings.”

Well, Brooks is wrong. The evidence from neuroscience is only part of the picture. While the mystical religious experiences and moral intuitions he writes about are shared by many religious traditions, there is no comparable evidence for Buddhism’s other claims: Its tenets about reincarnation and the illusory nature of physical existence cannot be substantiated.

Colson, whose bigotry finishes the race several lengths ahead of his intelligence, does not understand metaphor. This makes his interpretations of the Bible especially whimsical.

In contrast, as I point out in my book The Faith, the Bible’s claims can be substantiated. It makes the very same claims about universal moral intuitions that neuroscientists are now proving.

HAHAHA!!!! Sorry. Fuck, why did the scientists have to do the science since Jesus or whoever already published it? Ha! Then will you do me a favor, Pig Boy? Tell your jackass Christian nutjobbies to stop saying that because there is a universal sense of morality, we don't need the fecking Bible to have morality. Please!

It is not only the Bible’s moral and anthropological claims that are being proven: Archeology is increasingly proving Scripture’s historical claims, as well.

Well, not entirely true. Pseudo-archeology is saying that. And legitimate archeology needs to do a better job delineating between good archeology and the shit you see on the History Channel these days.

In many ways, see, the Bible anticipates contemporary scientific discoveries—as in Romans 2. It is not because the writers of Scripture were lucky—it is because the Bible is the revealed Word of God.

"...Missed that whole evolution thing, though. Oh, and geology. And astrophysics. Genetics. Materials science. Basic gemoetry...."

What really gets me is that people think that they can diddle with the results of science and say it means pretty much whatever the fuck they already believed. He betrays no understanding about the research, or the brain, or survival strategies. Indeed he is repeating what someone said someone else said about an experiment that someone else did and giving us his proclamation several orders removed from the original source. It's like that kids' game telephone, except you are playing with David Brooks.

HJ (There's Vaseline everywhere.)