Tuesday, October 12, 2010

Spiritual Atheism

In this and the next few posts I am going to describe a brand of spiritualism that is compatible with many concepts of deity - from "no God" to the "unknowable God" to the highly personal God.  This idea is new to me, but I am not perfectly well-read in the philosophical and religious literature.  Chances are good that someone else thought of this hundreds of years ago.

I originally conceived of this idea while thinking about a common objection that people have about religion.  Many people see religious belief as unjustified because there is simply no evidence to support it - there is no quantifiable reason to believe.  For some, religion seems to be outdated, outmoded, unfounded, superstitious, untestable, overly emotional.

To put it another way, religion always seems centered around powerful personal emotion.  This emotion can, in fact, be so powerful that God can seem more real and literal than the words on this page or the chair you are sitting in1. It is expected that if you are a devoted worshiper, you will begin to "know" that what you are worshiping really exists, irrespective of what that thing happens to be.  The following quote, from the book "How God Changes your Brain," illustrates this point:

"The thalamus [the part of your brain that is mainly responsible for perceiving/interpreting reality] makes no distinction between inner and outer realities, and thus any idea, if contemplated long enough, will take on a semblance of reality.  Your belief becomes neurologically real, and your brain will respond accordingly.  But for someone else, who has meditated on a different set of beliefs or goals, a different reality will seem true."

Don't misunderstand my purpose here - I am not trying to minimize the value of religious belief or invalidate anyone's faith.  Rather, I am pointing out an objection that many atheists and agnostics have about religion - specifically, that human beings will predictably believe in whatever religion they choose to immerse themselves in, whether it be Islam, Buddhism, Catholicism, Mormonism, or whatever.  But "believe" isn't strong enough a word, because eventually the belief will feel like certain knowledge.  More certain even than physical reality.  As a method for finding absolute truth, then, religion seems inadequate because the part of our brain that makes us think something is true doesn't actually care whether that thing is true or not.

It is probably an uncomfortable thing for many religious people to read this - please don't let it bother you.  As explained in The Varieties of Religious Experience by William James, the existential study of religion has no bearing on religion's value.  Just because we are neurologically wired to believe what we worship does not mean that we shouldn't choose to worship. 

In fact, studies that measure the neurological effect of religion show that worship is almost always incredibly healthy.  In my next post, I will describe how religion positively affects the mind.  Then, I will describe how all the positive neurological benefits of religion can be obtained in a way that avoids the atheistic/agnostic objection I described in this post.

1. This has been shown to be true through anecdotal descriptions by scores of religious individuals, and by a number of neurological studies. The book How God Changes Your Brain by Waldman and Newberg describes many of these studies.

6 comments:

  1. Interesting counterpoint to William James: "The Varieties of Scientific Experience," by Carl Sagan. Good read.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I actually have that sitting on the desk in front of me. :-)

    I agree, it is a good read. I'm not sure I would classify it as a counterpoint to James' book, though. Both books are existential, they just tend to focus on different things. I think they are fairly complementary.

    ReplyDelete
  3. :-) Meant more the title, which he did deliberately because both books were drawn from the same lecture series, separated by a few years... Look forward to your posts.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Maybe that's why it's so difficult to introduce a concept or practice that messes with our traditions... We see them as "truth". I believe that tradition does not equal truth. That traditions can change, but that there is unchangeable truth that can be found and should be sought for. (I also believe it's okay to say "I don't know," and still embrace a concept that I don't have all figured out.)

    But here's my question: What happens when someone who has believed a certain way about a bible story for years, even lectured on those beliefs, but after reading Darwin, they adjust the way they think about that scripture? Or someone who gets converted to a belief system that doesn't match what they previously believed, without any doubt, to be true? (This kind of thing happens to me all the time.) According to the quoted author, does the brain get rewired and reworked to accept a new truth?

    ReplyDelete
  5. I think it is fairly uncommon for people who "know" a religious belief is true to change their beliefs altogether - depending of course on what it means to "know".

    Some might passively accept a belief and call it knowledge or even faith, but that doesn't mean the belief is neurologically real like it might be for a dedicated worshiper.

    But even "knowledge" can be changed if someone thinks about it deeply and consistently. Waldman points out that the brain can actually change itself very quickly, and that it can do so regardless of past changes. He calls this "neuroplasticity."

    So, a former worshipper could lose whatever testimony he might have had before he stopped worshipping. And vice versa.

    ReplyDelete