TED Conversations

Bernard White


This conversation is closed.

What theological implications does the "Psychology" and "Neuroscience" (and possibly biology) of religion (or "God(s)") have?

I'm very interested in people's opinions on this matter.
I would just like to say, as I have said in the past, this debate is not to make mockery of "God". It is just honesty enquiry.
Yet as I have explored with my other debates in the past, it seems we must first define (or describe to the best of our limits) what we mean by "God(s)" and "Existence". Otherwise the debate "Does God exist?" becomes slightly meaningless.
Now that's done.
I was reading much about the psychology of religion, and found that due to articles like :
“Thinking Style and Belief In God” - Art Markman
Link : http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/ulterior-motives/201208/thinking-style-and-belief-in-god
"We are programmed to believe in a god" by Jesse Bering.
"Is God an Accident" by Paul Bloom :
that had many theological implications!
And made me think :
- There is a strong correlation with a "Theory of mind" and belief in God. Animals don't really have a "theory of mind", does this mean other animals can't experience "God(s)"?
- Psychologists can now artificially create a "God experience", Doesn't this make the "Religious experience" argument rather dubious?. Link : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y02UlkYjSi0
And there are probably many more Tedsters could think of!
However I do think it is worth mentioning that :
As Justin L. Barret said, that the psychology and neuroscience of religion (God) doesn't (dis)prove that God isn't real. For it wouldn't make much sense if a God who wanted to be in a relationship with us, didn't give us the ability to conceive such a God.
Another great quote by him :
"Having a scientific explanation for mental phenomena does not mean we should stop believing in them. “Suppose science produces a convincing account for why I think my wife loves me — should I then stop believing that sh

Topics: Church of God

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • May 9 2013: Hi Bernard, Ol' Buddy!,
    Sorry its been two weeks since last talking with you. You mentioned you would be busy w/ work for a few days, so I decided it would also be a time for me to catch up with some work also. A few days turned into two weeks ...Yikes !!! :s
    This sounds like an interesting topic to work with. But, I do have some preliminary questions I'd like to pose that came to the front of my diminutive cranium during the last couple of weeks that I would like to share.
    While working I came across a classic that I decided too reread. I had not read "The Holographic Universe", by Michael Talbot since it was released in 1991, Talbot was kind of our (U.S.), version of your (and our), beloved fiction and science writer, Arthur C. Clarke - equally at home in both worlds. He was one of the first writers able to write a cohesive compilation of the science of consciousness research which was already well established in the early 1970's, but not yet popularized. He was friends with many of the pioneers of the field like; physicist David Bohm, neuroscientist Karl Pribram, physicist Russell Targ, physicist Fred Allen Wolfe, Yale surgeon Bernie Segal, psychologists Stanislav Grof, Stanley Krippner, Charles Tart and Kenneth Ring (whom my wife had an opportunity to study with). This modern classic has been available continuously and was republished in 2011.
    It is foundational reading for any cogent discussion of this area. So, I would highly recommend it for a discussion that is going to be more than just a chat about opinions or feelings of this area.
    Which brings me to my second question; This science predated ted by several decades, yet ted's paradigm deliberately excludes this body of work from serious discussion - a new permutation of the 'flat earth society? (see huffingtonpost 3-18-13 article "dear ted, is it 'bad science' or a 'game of thrones'?") I personally had references or links to this science censored by ted.
    End of part 1, Sorry, I'm a windbag :(
    • thumb
      May 9 2013: :D
      Nice to see you again Jordan Burrill.
      I have quite important exams in the next three weeks (wish me luck!), so I won't be able to be as "active" as I would like to be.
      Yet I will try to make the effort to spare some time to respond to the feedback from this debate! :P
      I hope you don't mind!
      Kind regards,
      Your buddy Bernard.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.