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!
    Yes, Its 'yours truly' with the quick :) end to my blathering ... YEAAAAH !!! :D.
    Since my two week hiatus (sabbatical ? :) , I have had a chance to check out several other online discussions in this area of research interest which are much more open to other paradigms and research. (interesting side note, Bernie Segal considers paradigms to be emotional addictions).
    So, even though I would greatly miss you and all the wonderful folks I have met here - why should I have to jump through hoops to avoid the censors here? :(
    I suppose I can provide references and or links via my email at trueascensionllc. But should I have to go through this - just to talk to folks?
    I'm really sorry to end my first contribution to your new talk with such a down expectation for its future. I really appreciate your invitation to this new chat and I don't take your friendship lightly, nor am I just going away or rejecting you or all the great folks I've met here. I'm just expressing to you how I'm feeling, sorry.

    Your Buddy,
    • thumb
      May 9 2013: How does "TED" censor you?
      Please send your links by email.
      I'll PM (Personal Message) you my email.
      I am confused about this!
      Kind regards,

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.