Neurotheology as the Modern Approach - Essay Example

Neurotheology as the Modern Approach Abstract “Neurotheology”, is the modern approach to the interpretation of human beliefs. “Neurotheology”, is a science that makes a study of beliefs, and engages meaningful understanding of the physical, mental and spiritual aspects of all human experiences. It involves both science and beliefs intersecting each other using a four fold methodology, which serves as the basis for unraveling the complexities in accordance with their relationships and transferring these influences of feeling, behavior, thought and experience to everyday life. It provides us with a broad conceptual framework to discern whether these beliefs are religious, social or political, cultural, economic or environmental or mythical. Neurotheology - 2 The scientific study of beliefs is what is called as “Neurotheology” which involves 6 different Belief Dimensions. Each and every one of these dimensions involves various disciplines, which combine to make a critical study of the belief and belief systems that are involved in this process. Each and every dimension and discipline offers unique interpretations that explain the relationships and thinking processes between the mind, brain and beliefs. Neurotheology is a fast emerging discipline that endeavors to integrate together two widely different opinions or perspectives: Theological and the Scientific into one vast pathway of knowledge or enlightenment that brings together the various perspectives and helps to construct a methodological platform or springboard from where progress or development could take place while taking Neurotheology to be an independent branch of knowledge. James Ashbrook, one of America’s brilliant scientists was the first person to coin the term “Neurotheology” when he wrote an article on Neurotheology: The Working Brain and the Work of Theology”1. Researchers like James Ashbrook, Michael Persinger, Eugene d'Aquili, Charles Laughlin, and others involved themselves with the new tools of neuroscience that helped them explore neuropsychological determinants that involved ritual behavior of humans to reveal certain specific psychological characteristics with relation to various belief patterns and images of the divine2. Scientists used this modern approach, to distinguish between the brain as being essentially physical and chemical and the mind as being generally associated with abstract thoughts and ideas. Jung refers to this inner journey as the “process of individuation” which is a process that allows the individual to become “oneself”. In other words, it means becoming an “individual,” or reaching “self realization.” (n3) Jung terms this as the “just – so” life.” (n4) According to Jung, the images that pop out or emerge from within the depths of our psyche should be made use of for obtaining insight, passing judgment and making or taking decisions. He says that individuation is a process by which we discover or explore that dimension of ourselves that we call psychic. In his 1994, book called “Neurotheology - Virtual Religion in the 21st Century” Laurence O. McKinney3 explains the stance of Neurotheology in its relation to traditional science. “By zeroing on the important brain areas involved in spiritual experiences and finding out how these experiences arise, the scientists hope to learn whether anyone can have such experiences, and why spiritual experiences have the qualities they do”4. Many researchers as well as critics are of the opinion that if neuroscience and theology are synchronized under one discipline, then eventually, the stronger of the two would dominate the other, and that would obviously be theology. Dating back to the centuries, great philosophers, thinkers, scientists, and researchers have probed deep down into this subject to analyze and understand the relationship between God the spiritual power and our own human existence. The key reason for continuous debates, discussions and arguments over the issue of mind and body is solely due to the over flooding of theoretical and empirical evidences that make it rather difficult and near to impossible to draw up relevant or suitable solutions. The assumptions of Hubel and Wiesel’s are that every species has its own limitations of visualizing that which is unique to themselves and when analyzing the findings among newborns concluded that- ‘a face-like pattern elicits a greater extent of [newborn] tracking behavior than does a non-face-like pattern’ ‘that newborns focus for a longer period on complex visual stimuli5 Based on the above results Ashbrook and Albright theorized that “…the evolutionary yearnings of the human mind, finds manifestation in the idea of the Christian God”6. According to Ashbrook, the only biological species that is attracted to search for its likeness is only the human species alone. The theory of Neuroscientist Paul MacLean, was also analyzed by Ashbrook and Albright and they theorized that the human brain is divided into three evolutionary episodes (the reptilian, the mammalian and the neo-cortex) and he explained the relationship between the functions of the different partitions and ““God’s way of being God.”7. They recognized that God is above all else and stressed the concept of God “as interactive and nurturing, among others, allegedly reflects the human capacity for empathy and the urge to relate conferred by the inner workings of the limbic system”8 The results of the hypothesis of Ashbrook and Albright are accepted to be partially valid. Methodologies of Neurotheology: Speaking on the methodologies of Neurotheology, we come to understand that it is made up of a spectrum of 8 different dimensions that comprised of myriad perspectives, which are religious scientific, mystical or psychological, social or cultural and economical or political, combined with the massive impact of technology and other ethical implications that tend to burst its seams if they are not bound properly together. Therefore, four methods help us to bind these perspectives and beliefs together and give us more meaning and understanding in dealing with it. 1. Ultimacy: It help us understand the environment and the universe we live in, and as such Metaphysics/Paradigms/Research programs are used. 2. Typologies: The subject being so diverse that it definitely needs ways and means to relate and correlate between the existing diversities and variety of viewpoints such as nature, biblical, evolutionary and materialism. 3. Ritual Experience: All our interpersonal and intrapersonal experiences comes from the ritual experiences that have a direct impact on each and every thought process that we have as well as our beliefs. William James refers to this as “Habit” and by the repetitive actions of meditating, singing or chanting, we intend to allow these feelings and emotions happen. 4. Inner Life: This is a very important dimension that arises from our consciousness or sub-consciousness and involves both internal as well as external qualities. However, psychological science finds this aspect very difficult to accept and therefore, it has avoided this particular area of study. CHRISTIAN AND BUDDHIST PERSPECTIVES ON NEUROPSYCHOLOGY AND THE HUMAN PERSON: In the light of current advancement made regarding the Christian – Buddhist religions, focusing on the mind-brain and the soul-body problems that exist, they have pitted Christianity, Buddhism and Science against each other. The results that emerged was that this neuro – scientific field is enriched and enhanced by Christian concept of pneuma (spirit) and the Buddhist concept of pratityasamutpada (codependent origination). Gregory Peterson gives us an insightful introduction in his recent book titled “Minding God”. According to his thesis he says, “serious consideration of the cognitive sciences stands to affect nearly every facet of Christian theological thinking. . . . Insofar as methodology and content are connected, the content of the cognitive sciences can affect the way we go about doing theology” (Peterson, 2003, 12). For centuries the problems of mind – body existed, where different dualisms and monisms have attempted to explore how they related and interacted with each other. However, these views had many shortcomings and were very unpopular. According to Peterson “any dialogue between theology and cognitive science should be cognizant not only of theological pluralism but of religious pluralism as well” and thus suggests the timeliness of a “‘trialogue’ among religious traditions on the matters of science, as each works through issues of borders, compatibility, and interpretation”(Peterson 2003, 13). Even so, he proceeds to zero in only on the dialogue between Christian theology and the cognitive sciences.9 Recent progress has been made between emergentism and the Christian – Buddhist dialogue. Both these concepts i.e. pneuma (spirit) on the Christian side and pratityasamutpada (co-dependent origination) from the Buddhist side has gained renewed attention. Pneuma is not only concerned with Buddhism but also with the cognitive sciences. It helps to create a co-relational framework of the mind-brain and soul-body relationship on one hand, while taking into consideration the broader environmental and social background of the human person on the other hand. The Spirit is recognized as an emergent reality but is somehow dependent on the brain even though it preserves the Christian conviction of the relationship of humans with the Divine. On the other hand, pratityasamutpada gives us a non-dual perspective from within the Buddhist tradition which services dialogue between Christianity and the cognitive sciences. It provides a similar framework for the mind-brain and soul-body interactions of the various different contexts in which they occur. At the same time, Buddhists recognize human selfhood as an emergent reality, but has the notion that the true self is finally empty so that it maintains its dialogues with Christianity as well as the cognitive sciences. New Frontiers in the Cognitive Science of Religion: During the early days of research in the cognitive science of religion, the main aim was to redress an imbalance in religious studies wherein the particular was favored over the general and the interpretive over the explanatory. (Lawson and0McCauley 1993).The cognitive process is of interest to cognitive scientists, because it is not only reasonable but also can be explained with examples. To explore new developments at the interface of the cognitive sciences and religion disciplines such as psychology, anthropology, religious studies, biology, philosophy, and cognitive science were studied in respect to religion. The cognitive sciences helps in our understanding of religious phenomena and maintain that religious thought and action turn on overwhelmingly, harnessing perfectly ordinary forms of cognition available to all normally equipped human beings. The cognitive science of religion has also served to redress an imbalance within the cognitive sciences. Cognitive science has had a great deal to say about the generally rational but next to nothing to say (until recently) about the apparently unreasonable, but ubiquitous forms of cognition associated with religion. Pascal Boyer’s in his ground-breaking book, The Naturalness of Religious Ideas, says, Religious concepts could not be acquired, and more radically could simply not be represented, if their ontological assumptions did not confirm an important back ground of intuitive principles. It is self-evident that defining the components of mental processing in terms of their functions, is fundamentally different, from offering functionalist explanation principles. But when subscribing to a theory of identity according to which mental processes are identical with neuro-physiological events, We are aware of the fact that human brains, though similar, differ from one another in some respects. Dealing with the subject of mental functioning, we understand that there are two kinds of mental functioning - non-reflective and reflective. Reflective mental processing involves active, conscious attention while Non-reflective mental processing does not. At this juncture, we come to understand that there is a third process called Perceptual processing which comprises or synchronizes all the above processes by which the brain takes the primary input from the senses and formulates it into an organized representation to the world . Evolution seems to have selected reflective processing as the mechanism through which the brain assesses, corrects, and refines the results of perceptual and non-reflective processing in cases where the results of prior processing seem unreliable. For example, when one sees a mirage, one comes to the conclusion that it is probably not a likely source of water. Cognitive theorists of religion usually talk about costliness in such a way so as to imply that counter-intuitiveness would in fact decrease a concept’s activation level. But a model in which the mind is attracted towards putting it into use successfully, repeatedly makes it survive in memory. Religious scholars are convinced that minimal counter-intuitiveness defines a cognitive optimum. Scholars who have contributed to the cognitive scientific study of religion differ considerably on the cost of religious concepts. For people like Pascal Boyer, the cost of religious concepts is moderate, while on the other hand, Harvey Whitehouse concedes that minimal counter-intuitiveness defines the cognitive optimum; but yet agrees with Illka Pyysiäinen (2001), that most religious concepts are rather more costly. Stewart Guthrie suggests that religious concepts prevail because they are in fact the least costly. While taking into account the cost of religious concepts seriously, we must understand that the mind or brain is no cheapskate. A concept cannot be deemed right or wrong on the basis of the one which costs less, since the brain is not wired to always accept the least costly concept. The disagreement over the cost of religious concepts has a very real basis. Religious concepts cannot be defined according to their production, retention, and transmission because the cost of such concepts vary from one to the other according to the changing times. Concepts are not computer viruses. They do not simply replicate on their own or reside in memory until they are passed on to the next person. A concept does not entirely disappear but its strength definitely diminishes. The costs of religious concepts should meet a few criteria. 1. It should make success and failure of concepts a function of the mind’s attempt to maximize conceptual profit. 2. It should apply to all concepts, not just religious concepts. 3. It should be probabilistic. 4. It should account for the way religious concepts and others vary with non- reflective and reflective processing, such as more or less counter-intuitiveness. 5. It should not depend solely upon the formal properties of concepts, such as counter-intuitiveness, to explain their retention and transmission. It would be flippant to suggest that religion occupies a cognitive optimum but it can be framed in the language of propositional attitudes. Attitudes express standpoints which minds accept with respect to concept, but it has been insufficiently theorized. The ability of the human mind to adopt specific attitudes still baffles us, for it needs more than memorability to explain why the attitude “I believe” with regard to the concept of God -that God exists. The theory of cognitive optimum suffers from the flaw that it is backed by a model of concepts which are impoverished. Attitudes are totally ignored while emphasis is put on what makes conceptual content more memorable. Instead of trying to identify some optimal level of counter-intuitiveness in religious concepts, it would be easier to train the mind to retain concepts which are coherent. It would be more feasible to say that religious concepts should be fully coherent and exhibit counterintuitive features of certain as yet unidentified and understudied attitudes. For religious concepts to be coherent, that requirement only selects which concepts are likely to survive long enough in order to classify them. If science ever manages to demonstrate regularities that are counterintuitive, that is, that violate the presumptions of folk physics, biology, and psychology, no reason could be seen in principle, why it could not then; the definition above creates problems for demarcating science from religion. All around the world, debates are being carried out on the neural and cognitive processes that are involved in religious experience and the possible and feasible evolutionary foundations of these processes. Thagard argues on one end of the spectrum of opinion saying that most of the religious theories that have been created on the basis of evolutionary considerations are unconvincing. Most scientists like Thagard, reject the possibility that religion was formed as a solution to various adaptive problems. However, there is no doubt that evolutionary psychology has a major role to play in the explanation of a religion. According to Thagard, religion is an “accidental by-product’ of specialized cognitive mechanisms that have quite unrelated adaptive functions.” (Thagard,) According to Sperber (1996) it could be possible that a uniquely human susceptibility towards religion might prove to be part of an accidental by – product of yet another by – product of a uniquely human cognitive adaptation. This particular possibility has encountered a decidedly warmer reception in the cognitive science of religion, than the concept of religion as an evolved adaptation. References: Amos Yong is Associate Professor of Theology, Bethel University, 3900 Bethel Drive, St. Paul, MN, 55112; e-mail a-yong@bethel.edu. [Zygon, vol. 40, no. 1 (March 2005).] © 2005 by the Joint Publication Board of Zygon. ISSN 0591-2385 Ashbrook, James. 1984. The Human Mind and the Mind of God: Theological Promise in Brain Research. Lanham, Md.: Univ. Press of America. Ashbrook, James, and Carol Rausch Albright. 1997. The Humanizing Brain: Where Religion and Neuroscience Meet. Cleveland: Pilgrim. Boyer, Pascal (1994). The Naturalness of Religious Ideas: A Cognitive Theory of Religion. Berkeley: University of California Press. C. G. Jung, Memories, Dreams, Reflections, trans. Richard and Clara Winston (New York: Vintage Books, 1963), 325, for a description of the experience leading to this awareness. C. G. Jung. "The Relations between the Ego and the Unconscious," in Collected Works, vol. 7: Two Essays on Analytical Psychology, trans. R. F. C. Hull (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1966), 173. D’Aquili, Eugene G., and Andrew B. Newberg. 1999. The Mystical Mind: Probing the Biology of Religious Experience. Minneapolis: Fortress. Guthrie, Stewart E. (1993). Faces in the Clouds: A New Theory of Religion. New York: Oxford University Press. MCCAULEY, R.N. AND E.T. LAWSON 2002 Bringing Ritual to Mind: Psychological Foundations of Cultural Forms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pyysiäinen, Ilkka (2001). How Religion Works: Towards a New Cognitive Science of Religion. Leiden: E. J. Brill. THAGARD, P. 1992 Conceptual Revolutions. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 2000 Coherence in Thought and Action. Cambridge: MIT Press. Whitehouse, Harvey (1995). Inside the Cult: Religious Innovation and Transmission in Papua, New Guinea. New York: Oxford University Press. Read More