The ID Report

In "Faith Beyond the Frontal Lobes" (Washington Post, September 27, 2008) Michael Gerson offers a common sense corrective to rampant materialism in neuroscience. Reviewing Andrew Newberg's work with meditators, which Mario and I discussed in The Spiritual Brain, he notes,

Human beings routinely have experiences that are not commonly associated with normal consciousness yet seem more real than normal consciousness. "There is something in the brain that facilitates and rewards that type of experience," Newberg says, "and our brain desires to make sense of it."

This leads some, of course, to reductionism -- the assertion that a physical basis for transcendent experience proves there is no such thing as transcendence. It is an evolutionary joke on humanity -- perhaps useful, but not accurate -- because everything explainable is thus illusory.

But this view is not more "scientific" than other views. It involves a philosophic materialism that is entirely faith-based. We know, for example, that a complex series of physical, hormonal changes helps bond a mother to her newborn child. Does this mean that parental love is a myth? Only according to the philosophic claim that chemicals exhaust reality. Is it not equally possible that a cosmos charged with transcendence might organize itself in such a way that human beings can sense transcendence?

Yes, it is equally possible. And that is a better explanation than reducing ideas to chemicals. Put another way, the chemicals that help mothers bond to newborn children don't help us understand why there is a black market in babies for infertile women who have never experienced such chemicals. Nor do they help us understand Mother Theresa and her Missionaries of Charity, who provided homes for thousands of children, even though she became a nun and never tried to have any children herself.

Neuroscience can help us understand some important things about human beings, but it will be the most use if it is treated as one source of information, rather than as a reductionist explanation - especially of subjects like spirituality.

For example, Gerson notes that some people's genes might not predispose them to spiritual experiences. Perhaps, but many spiritual traditions do not emphasize personal experiences; they are viewed as a gift that can become a distraction from the main business of learning to live as a whole human being.

See also:

"Neuroscience: Getting beyond the mind-body problem

"Neurotheology": Bad neurology and bad theology?

Neuroscience: Meditation really can change the brain

Also, Just up at The Mindful Hack:

Altruism: Can mathematics, with a dash of faith, explain altruism?

Artificial intelligence: Conversing with computers? ... or with their programmers?

Spirituality: Is this a trend? Guy tries Judaism "on spec" - discovers 7-day no-refund policy, ends as famous pulpit rabbi

Psychology: Picture yourself deciding you actually like the way you look!

Toronto-based Canadian journalist Denyse O'Leary (www.designorchance.com) is the author of the multiple award-winning By Design or by Chance? (Augsburg Fortress 2004), an overview of the intelligent design controversy. She was named CBA Canada's Recommended Author of the Year in 2005 and is co-author, with Montreal neuroscientist Mario Beauregard, of The Spiritual Brain: A neuroscientist's case for the existence of the soul (Harper 2007).

By Robert Deyes
ARN Correspondent

Michael Gelb, renowned for his thought-provoking ideas on what made great minds such as those of Leonardo da Vinci and Einstein just so great, identified the incessant quest for scientific knowledge or "curiosita" as one of the outstanding features of these historical icons (Ref 1). Gelb has become one of the great visionaries of the business world because of his idea that, by tapping into our innate curiosity, we can all realize our full potential in life. One of Gelb's much used axioms sums up his view point: "If you want to compete in the challenging world of international business, you can't just rely on half a brain" (Ref 1). And yet within the context of science, the curiosity that drives us towards a deeper knowledge of our world needs to be defined within the bounds of moral limits. With this in mind, it is deeply concerning to read zoologist Richard Dawkins' call for the unrestricted march of scientific enquiry.

Dawkins ponders on such questions as why it is that we do not reconstruct prehistoric man while also voicing his support for a Dinosaur Genome Project that might bring past life forms back into the realm of reality (Ref 2, pp.114-115). These 'hoped-for' encounters with prehistoric man and dinosaur illustrate his call for an unlimited scope for scientific investigation. While the late paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould was highly critical of the idea of human-chimpanzee hybridization, calling it the most ethically unacceptable scientific experiment imaginable, Dawkins was almost encouraging of it writing that "a chimp/human hybridization would provide exactly the come-uppance that human dignity needs" (Ref 2, p.191). Such an unethical audacity should awaken our deepest reservations. We carry an enormous responsibility to ensure that our scientific enquiry is kept in check by constant probing of our own moral duties as humans on this earth. We are perhaps reminded of the solitary shepherd Santiago, the principle character of Paulo Coelho's 'The Alchemist', who sets of on a journey to discover the world (Ref 3). Guiding his sheep through danger, he knew of the need to tread carefully with the flocks that, under his guidance, relied heavily on his best judgment (Ref 3).

Theologian John Polkinghorne wrote of an 'ethical snare' that causes scientists to become so excited about their discoveries that they have little or no time to question the moral limitations of their work (Ref 4, p.92). Biologist Drew Endy from MIT, has voiced his concern for a need to "discuss the current state and future of biotechnology" while adding that the key to dealing with potential risks associated with the mis-use of biological technology lies in "creating a society that can use the technology constructively" (Ref 5). Worthy of note are the comments of Royal Society President Martin Rees who warned of how science and technology are creating "new threats" with increasing unpredictability leaving civilization "more vulnerable to misadventure as well as to disaster by design" (Ref 6).

Ironically it is not the creationists that position man apart from the rest of life in some inaccessible, irrational way but scientists such as Dawkins who see their own realms of investigation as licenses to do what they see fit all for the cause of science. The late theologian John Buttrick was so right to point out the nihilistic undertones of a materialistic philosophy in which we are ready to listen to the scientist who tells us that we are nothing more than "a midge breed" living on a planet that is destined to vanish (Ref 7 p.179). Polkinghorne similarly expressed a hope that "revolts against such a nihilistic conclusion" (Ref 4, pp.21-23). Dawkins would do well to heed the warnings from his contemporaries.

REFERENCES
1. Janet Rae-Dupree (2008), Da Vinci, Retrofitted for the Modern Age, New York Times, June, 2008, http://www.michaelgelb.com/ArticlesDefault.php?art=davinci_retrofitted_article

2. Richard Dawkins (2003), A Devil's Chaplain, Published by Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London

3. Paulo Coelho (1995), The Alchemist, Published by Harper Collins, London

4. John Polkinghorne (2003), Belief in God in an Age of Science, Published by Yale Nota Bene, Yale University Press, New Haven

5. W. Wayt Gibbs (2004), Synthetic Life, Scientific American, Volume 290 (5) pp 74-81

6. Julie Wakefield (2004), Doom and Gloom by 2100, Volume 291 (1) p48-49

7. George A Buttrick (1966) God, Pain and Evil, Abingdon Press, Nashville Tennessee