Neural Buddhism

[Sonart]

.

Those of you who've been on Volconvo for a while have probaby heard me expound on my personal belief system, which I've referred to as Darwinian Neurotheology.

It's essentially this: all human behavior can be defined by evolution -- that is, by the ultra-complex combinations of our inate hard-wired animal instincts, our mental abilities bequeathed by the evolutionary process on the human brain, all mixed and blended consciously and sub-consciously with our learned experiences.

And these behaviors include RELIGION! Research in the growing field of Neurotheology suggests that what we perceive as religious experience is actually a function of our own brains, functions that can be observed, defined and measured.

--"Neurotheology hypothesizes that the basis of spiritual experiences arises in neurological physiology, for example an increase of N, N-Dimethyltryptamine levels in the pineal gland, and attempts to explain these neurological basis for those experiences, such as:

* The perception that time, fear or self-consciousness have dissolved
* Spiritual awe
* Oneness with the universe
* Ecstatic trance
* Sudden enlightenment
* Altered states of consciousness

These experiences are seen as the basis for many religious beliefs and behaviors."--

Anyway, I was tickled to read an editorial in this morning's paper by none other than conservative political columnist, David Brooks, Connecting Science and Mysticism. With such increased mainstream recognition, could 'spiritual neuroscience' be the religion of the future?

Snippets from the editorial:

--"In 1996, Tom Wolfe wrote a brilliant essay called “Sorry, But Your Soul Just Died,” in which he captured the militant materialism of some modern scientists.

To these self-confident researchers, the idea that the spirit might exist apart from the body is just ridiculous. Instead, everything arises from atoms. Genes shape temperament. Brain chemicals shape behavior. Assemblies of neurons create consciousness. Free will is an illusion. Human beings are “hard-wired” to do this or that. Religion is an accident.

In this materialist view, people perceive God's existence because their brains have evolved to confabulate belief systems. You put a magnetic helmet around their heads, and they will begin to think they are having a spiritual epiphany. If they suffer from temporal lobe epilepsy, they will show signs of hyperreligiosity, an overexcitement of the brain tissue that leads sufferers to believe they are conversing with God.

Wolfe understood the central assertion contained in this kind of thinking: Everything is material, and “the soul is dead.” He anticipated the way the genetic and neuroscience revolutions would affect public debate. They would kick off another fundamental argument over whether God exists."--

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

--"The atheism debate is a textbook example of how a scientific revolution can change public culture. Just as “The Origin of Species” reshaped social thinking, just as Einstein's theory of relativity affected art, so the revolution in neuroscience is having an effect on how people see the world.

And yet my guess is that the atheism debate is going to be a sideshow. The cognitive revolution is not going to end up undermining faith in God, it's going end up challenging faith in the Bible."--

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

--"If you survey the literature (and I'd recommend books by Newberg, Daniel J. Siegel, Michael S. Gazzaniga, Jonathan Haidt, Antonio Damasio and Marc D. Hauser if you want to get up to speed), you can see that certain beliefs will spread into the wider discussion.

First, the self is not a fixed entity but a dynamic process of relationships. Second, underneath the patina of different religions, people around the world have common moral intuitions. Third, people are equipped to experience the sacred, to have moments of elevated experience when they transcend boundaries and overflow with love. Fourth, God can best be conceived as the nature one experiences at those moments, the unknowable total of all there is.

In their arguments with Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins, the faithful have been defending the existence of God. That was the easy debate. The real challenge is going to come from people who feel the existence of the sacred, but who think that particular religions are just cultural artifacts built on top of universal human traits. It's going to come from scientists whose beliefs overlap a bit with Buddhism."--

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

--"In unexpected ways, science and mysticism are joining hands and reinforcing each other. That's bound to lead to new movements that emphasize self-transcendence but put little stock in divine law or revelation. Orthodox believers are going to have to defend particular doctrines and particular biblical teachings. They're going to have to defend the idea of a personal God, and explain why specific theologies are true guides for behavior day to day."--


Statements in bold above are observations I've made on my own. Anyone besides me intrigued by the possibilities?


.

[Jack]

Absolutely. I am aware, though, that it's an intellectual mine field. Terminology can be too easily misconstrued, research is still in its infancy. It's a truly fascinating topic. I suspect it will gain a larger audience as scientists understand more about the functions of the brain and more about how humans are formed through social interactions.

[davedes]

Ha, I had no idea this field had a name! This is exactly the kind of thing I wish to pursue. Thanks for the links!

I've always found mysticism to be a fascinating topic, and I'm excited to see science finally tackle the matter.