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.

  • thumb
    May 13 2013: Don,

    You are right there is a vast difference between Voltaire , Magellan and T Murphy & Sheldrake. I love the irreverence of Voltaire and the uncanny intelligence of Magellan (so easy to confirm his findings!) .
    Now Neurotheology, God(s) helmets, Telepathy makes for good sales at Barnes & Noble but as of now that 's just about it. In the Scientific community all the above postulates have been measured and they were found wanting .Take for example the double blind study conducted by Pehr Granqvist from the University of Uppsala, Sweden that concluded "revealed main-effects of personality parameters indicative of susceptibility to suggestion but no effects from magnetic field application."(pehr.granqvist@psychology.su.se this is DR. Granqvist email if you are interested Don)

    A "new language will require new distinctions (Eskimos have a large number of words for snow). I'd say let's use what we have as in: I cannot detect a non existent being .

    I appreciate your kind offer to repent to avoid being stalled in another plane of existence.
    Death to me is simply a part of life, as mankind became self aware of living then---> "nothing" ...that crude fact creates angst, even agony.
    Religion figured that fear could be used to control masses, to have faith beyond reason and that's why many want to find comfort in pseudoscience(or religion) to calm the dissonance of knowing that we all shall die.The individual needs to believe even thou there is no certainty ( not even in percentages) really it's that's the crux.

    PS Wasn't Sheldrake censored by TED? Why? Do you have any info?

    “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes
    our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot
    alter the sate of facts and evidence"---J Adams

    Best regards Don,

    • Comment deleted

      • thumb
        May 18 2013: : Don,
        We can disagree, but calling people dishonest? There, there,. How about exposing my dishonesty with a brilliant discourse that dismantles my veil of twisted arguments ( according to you) (do I sense ad hominem?)

        Please enumerate " the list of facts is known by scholars to be dishonest argument."

        Heading to the beach!
      • thumb
        May 20 2013: "Your smile Carlos Marquez, makes me feel suspicious, I am inclined to say ego-centric.
        Not likely acceptable to be a Mason."

        My smile, well perhaps is not my best picture, what can I say? Maybe I should try an oxford and a tie with a cardigan?
        I have met many a Mason in my days worked and trained with them, good men.
        I agree Don , there is a lot to do in order to protect our environment.
        "...until something changes tour wilful blindness." you mean your willful blindness. So it is a requirement for me to hear answers to my questions to have a predisposition to believe in what you or Will are stating beforehand.Or you want me to suspend judgment concerning your "dissertations", what you really want from me is willing suspension of disbelief (Coleridge 1817, I know another old philosopher!)
        And back to the subject of our debate Associate Professor Peter Granqvist in Sweden performed a double blind on the "Koren Helmet" have you looked at it?


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.