We live in a world where it’s possible to question the very existence of God, even the supernatural altogether. Our world also contains many religions that, more often than not, tend to break out along ethnic and cultural boundaries. Most of these religions claim to be the one true way to win the “game” of life — whether that’s through reaching enlightenment, receiving salvation, etc.
So for the sake of argument, let’s say that there really is a God, and he’s given us one of these religions that we’re supposed to follow. As most of these religions teach, picking the wrong belief system will result in horrible punishment that is likely to last an eternity. I already see lots of problems with this scenario, but let’s ignore those for the moment.
How are we supposed to know which religion is the true one?
We’re not born with the luxury of knowing about all these religions from a young age. Instead, each of us is raised to believe that one of the options (or none of them) is the truth, so it’s not until we’re adults that we really begin to learn more about the wider world. And at that point, we have a lot of preconceived notions to overcome. But luckily, these religions usually teach that God is a benevolent being that wants every single one of us to find the path to him, so we can reasonably expect that he’ll help us find a way to him.
The most direct way to communicate something to someone is to speak to them directly. So God could choose that method to let us know what he expects of us. If you’re into video games, this is similar to the tutorial dialogs that pop up in your game to let you know the rules. It’s a helpful tool. You can still press whatever buttons you like, but at least you’ll know what’s expected.
Of course, God doesn’t do that for us. Fair enough — what’s another method he could use? Ah, he could send us some kind of “cosmic email” — writing in the sky, or something like that. You know, something that would be nigh impossible for another person to fake. The message would be accompanied by the kind of sign that would give us assurance we’re dealing with the divine. The burning bush, Gideon’s fleece, Paul’s episode on the road to Damascus, etc.
But if God does this kind of thing today, he’s not ubiquitous with it. I’ve never received a sign like that, nor have most people that I’ve ever known. I guess that’s his prerogative, but it does make one question the Bible’s passages that say God is impartial. But I’m starting to digress…
So maybe God could send us some trusted messenger. It would need to be someone that I know well, so I could really trust what they’re saying. But again, I’ve never gotten such a message, and I also know that even well meaning people can sometimes be delusional. I’m not sure I want to risk my soul on such a message delivery system.
So God could send a messenger imbued with divine powers, someone that could work miracles that could only come from God. I would listen to an individual who could do the kinds of miracles that the Bible describes, but I’ve never seen anyone do them.
However, the Bible is a religious text that claims God did use this method a long time ago. Isn’t that just as good as witnessing the miracles for myself? Not for me. Thomas Paine said that once you tell a divine revelation to someone else, it ceases to be revelation and becomes mere hearsay. I have to agree. For me to accept the word of a religious text, the text would have to be incredibly amazing. The writers would have to demonstrate knowledge of things that they couldn’t possibly have known about ahead of time. When events are recounted in multiple places within the text, they must be without error or contradiction. When science is recounted, it must be without error — not simply a regurgitation of what was already known at the time. Its morals must be without reproach. If it gives prophecies, they must be without error.
If those standards seem too high, then maybe you aren’t truly considering what’s at stake. The soul of everyone who has ever lived hinges on the judgments of this God. Each and every soul should be just as precious to him as the souls of your own children are to you. Would you leave the fate of their souls up to chance, or would you do everything within your power to save them from eternal torture (or punishment, or annihilation — whatever your particular flavor teaches)? If you saw a windowless van pull up to your child and watched the driver coax them to come closer, would you stand back to see how your child reacts, or would you run to them as fast as you could, calling them back all the while? You don’t have to answer, because I know what you would do — you’d do what any decent human would do. Why doesn’t God do the same for us? If I’m currently bound for Hell, and I’m influencing my innocent children to eventually follow in my footsteps, why doesn’t God intervene to help us?
And before you say he does just that through scripture, the Bible fails every one of the criteria I listed out. In fact, I’m not aware of any religious text that comes close to meeting those standards. If we accept that God is loving, merciful, and just, then it does not follow that he would be the author of the Bible. I’d be happy to cite specific examples of the Bible’s failings, but I’ve written way too much already. Luckily, I have links to those examples on my home page.
It’s God’s overwhelming hiddenness that sounds the death knell on religion for me. As Delos McKown has said:
The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike.
Finding Truth 
One of he most continually annoying aspects of Unklee’s presentation of god-belief is that he always loads his argument – see his repeated fawning over Newberg – to imply that, apparent worldwide god-belief somehow supports his god. And when I say his god I am not referring to the meglomaniacal, egocentric son-of-a-bitch, man-made Canaanite deity, Yahweh, but his son (sic), the biblical character, Jesus of Nazareth.
When someone like Unklee takes on-board a study(ies) of god-belief it is for the sole purpose of justifying Christianity . To demonstrate the disingenuous nature that’s at work here he sides with the view that Christianity is THE religion and others are not true representations of the creator of the universe(sic), as they reject Jesus as a saviour, or he simply does not feature in their religion.
And let’s remember, he also considers the Old Testament has little hold over his belief, even when it is pointed out that the Pentateuch is regarded by most scholars and archaeologists as Historical Fiction.
Couple this with the findings of the Human Genome Project and the over riding premise of Christianity Sin- Salvation- Saviour – is rendered moot.
This might seem obvious, but it needs to be pointed out time and time again as his arguments inevitably wander all over the place and the over riding elements of his prepositional ”revealed religion” tend to get lost among the other diatribe he puts forth to challenge simple common sense.
As for his claims of the ”positive benefits of god belief”, no matter who he cites, he is in effect metaphorically slapping every deconvert on this blog and elsewhere in the face, and as much calling you all misguided at best and liars at worst.
Ark.
LikeLike
Opps. Nate, please close off after ”Christianity”, second sentence second paragraph. Thanks.
LikeLike
“Andrew (Newberg) and therapist Mark Robert Waldman, and their research team, have concluded that active and positive spiritual belief changes the human brain for the better. What’s more, actual faith isn’t always necessary: atheists who meditate on positive imagery can obtain similar neurological benefits.” (http://www.andrewnewberg.com/books/how-god-changes-your-brain-breakthrough-findings-from-a-leading-neuroscientist)
Let me quote this part again, “What’s more, actual faith isn’t always necessary: atheists who meditate on positive imagery can obtain similar neurological benefits.”
LikeLiked by 3 people
Hi Ken, it is good to find someone else interested in this book. I have been fortunate enough to find it in my local library, so I can read more than the 2 chapters available online. I am not far into it yet, but a few conclusions are clear.
1. Religious & spiritual beliefs and practices really are beneficial in many ways. They reference many other researcher on this so it isn’t just them, and they list a range of activities that are beneficial in different ways. I have already given several quotes on this.
2. Secular versions of these practices can also give benefits. Your quote shows this, as do several quotes I have given.
3. Some of their statements suggest that religious/spiritual practices are sometimes more beneficial than secular. Here are a few quotes:
“when meditation is religious and strengthens your spiritual beliefs, then there is a synergistic effect that can be even better”
“Contemplating God will change your brain, but …. meditating on other grand themes will also change your brain. If you contemplate the Big Bang ….. But religious and spiritual contemplation changes your brain in a profoundly different way because it strengthens a unique neural circuit that specifically enhances social awareness and empathy while subduing destructive feelings and emotions.”
4. Negative religion, as well as negative secular thoughts, can damage our brains.
That much seems to be factual. I’m still trying to understand the balance between religious and secular, and here’s where I’ve got so far.
5. There are some activities that religious or non-religious people can do with equal benefit – meditation, faith (in their definition of a positive view of the future), smiling, exercise, relaxation, constructive dialogue, etc.
6. But there are some activities that “work” better for religious people:
* It is not the religious belief itself that is beneficial (because belief alone doesn’t stimulate the brain) but rather the synergistic effect of a whole range of practices and attitudes: “because religion is often a combination of social dialogue, intellectual stimulation, and faith, it can be a powerful mechanism for exercising your brain and optimising the brain’s functions.”
* It is probably easier for a christian who believes in God’s guidance now and heaven after this life to have a positive hope for the future than it is for an atheist who doesn’t have either of those things.
* Contemplating God may be better than contemplating the Big Bang, and christians may be more likely to do it.
* Religious people tend to have rituals and activities that help them practically do the beneficial activities, whereas most non-believers don’t.
* A wide range of activities are beneficial in different ways, and not all can be secularised. They say (my emphasis): “you can transform nearly any religious ideology from one spiritual practice to another and still receive the same neurological benefits from the experience.”
* In the end, religious people just do these beneficial things more than non-believers do.
So that is where I have got so far. But I can certainly thank this discussion for pushing me to read more about this stuff, which has in turn strengthened my view that these discoveries are a pointer to the existence of God – I think it is clearly more likely that these things would be true in a theistic universe than in a naturalistic universe. Which of course is where this discussion started.
I think you should find the book and read it too! Thanks.
LikeLike
unkleE, I never said that I disagreed with your findings. I don’t remember seeing where you have shared where the “Secular versions” have also produced these benefits. And if you have , what’s the point of referencing a study which shows both religious and secular practices can provide benefits ?
“2. Secular versions of these practices can also give benefits. Your quote shows this, as do several quotes I have given.”
Would you mind showing me where you have quoted this ? There have been many comments to view so I may have missed them.
I don’t mind reading the book but I have read several studies that show both religious and secular practices are beneficial so what’s the point ?
LikeLike
“… strengthened my view that these discoveries are a pointer to the existence of God – I think it is clearly more likely that these things would be true in a theistic universe than in a naturalistic universe.”
“… strengthened my view that these discoveries (higher stress leads to more negative results… whodathunk?) are a pointer to the existence of God (no, they’re not… and it’s hardly a ‘discovery’; in fact, the support for the stress thesis has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with strengthening or weakening the reality of the object of a faith-based belief) ) – I think it is clearly more likely that these things (what ‘things’?) would be true in a theistic universe than in a naturalistic universe (there’s only the universe we know anything about, which may or may not contain divine agencies… but if it did, then you have absolutely nothing to relate such an agency to Jesus… and Newberg gives us nothing new to work with in this regard).”
Now compare this thesis about stress and its side effects with something like, say, prayer to a particular god for independent interventionist effects which can be shown to lead to statistically significant favourable results. That would indicate something. Transitioning stress studies to religious relaxation practices and then pretending its the ‘spiritual’ (read religious) aspect that is of statistical note (kind of, sort of, maybe-ish, depending…) is a rather underwhelming way to reach a conclusion about a divine causal and creative agency that just so happens to be the one you believe in. Faith in this sense is not ‘good for the brain’; practicing stress reduction is. In fact, the faith claim is a reach of exceptional distance that only the converted might find believable.
LikeLike
Hi Ken,
I have said it many times over and I’m surprised you missed it. A quick trawl through this thread yielded these 8 examples:
“I’m NOT saying there is no contrary evidence.”
MAY 20, 2016 AT 10:19 PM
“Now it isn’t only religious faith that can have that effect, but religious faith is obviously one of the main things they are considering. …. I am NOT saying that these studies prove God exists. They simply say that religious belief and practice more often than not has good effects on the person. “
MAY 21, 2016 AT 2:24 AM The first time I mentioned Newberg I think.
“You may have missed that I qualified my reference to Newberg with this statement: “Now it isn’t only religious faith that can have that effect, but religious faith is obviously one of the main things they are considering.””
MAY 21, 2016 AT 6:08 PM
“I have consistently pointed out, both in previous discussion with you, and now here, that there are other factors involved other than religious belief and practice.”
MAY 23, 2016 AT 5:29 PM
“The results are not black and white, but the overall conclusions are very clear. …. Often religion is found to be a significant cause. …. and with many exceptions”
This is from my blog which you linked to here: MAY 23, 2016 AT 6:42 PM
“though not of course totally, …. it isn’t only religious faith that can have that effect …. and with many exceptions …. the reason for this isn’t clear) …. The causation and mechanisms are not always clear”
MAY 23, 2016 AT 11:34 PM
“Now other secular practices can be substituted for religious ones, and they still work. Meditation can be non-religious. Faith can be in science or human nature. Contemplation can be of the universe or science generally. Non-believers can participate in religious rituals. All of this is true. But it also remains true that religion is the main way these things occur in our world. “Spiritual practices, even when stripped of religious beliefs, enhance the neural functioning of the brain in ways that improve physical and emotional health. …. the health benefits associated with meditation and religious ritual cannot be denied.” (p6,8)”
MAY 25, 2016 AT 2:00 AM
“when meditation is religious and strengthens your spiritual beliefs, then there is a synergistic effect that can be even better.” …Now I’m not sure, I think maybe he thinks even this synergistic effect can be achieved in a totally secular way, but it isn’t clear. So perhaps religion can do it better than the secular alternatives.”
MAY 27, 2016 AT 9:33 PM
Well I can see three advantages. (1) You might learn some practices that will make the rest of your life better. (2) I have shown that they seem to be saying that religious practices, at least sometimes, may be more effective, so you may learn if that’s so. (3) You may even learn something about God.
What’s not to like? 🙂
LikeLike
Hi Tildeb,
I would really like to have a thoughtful and courteous conversation with you, I really would. But to be thoughtful, we need some facts to base the discussion on. And you continue to make claims, sometimes quite outrageous and scurrilous claims, while virtually never offering any evidence at all for them. In my comment of MAY 27, 2016 AT 8:25 PM, I asked you to supply references for your claims, including one that you said was easily googled, but you were either unwilling or unable to do so.
Now if you choose to keep offering opinions without evidence, that is your right, but I will have little option but not to take any notice of them. I won’t be so rude as to name them oogity boogity (BTW, the urban dictionary describes “oogity boogity as “a tactic to scare someone”, which sounds a fair description of your use of the term – that is when it isn’t given a more downmarket meaning!). 🙂
So if you want to have a thoughtful conversation, can you please provide some references to the matters you raise here and the questions I raised in the previous comment. Otherwise I will have to make the working assumption that you are not interested in evidence.
I’m still hoping you will come to the party.
LikeLike
(1) You might learn some practices that will make the rest of your life better
Which religion do you suggest ?
(2) I have shown that they seem to be saying that religious practices, at least sometimes, may be more effective, so you may learn if that’s so.
Again I ask which one ?
(3) You may even learn something about God
I was a Christian for over 50 years. I think I already know a little something about God 🙂
Maybe I need to meditate like a Mormon?
This study, written with Professor James E. Enstrom of the University of California, Los Angeles, showed that the life expectancy of Mormon men was almost ten years longer than that of the general population of white American males.
What religion do you most closely associate yourself with unkleE? Mormon ? Jehovah’s Witness ? Catholic ? Protestant ?
LikeLike
“This study, written with Professor James E. Enstrom of the University of California, Los Angeles, showed that the life expectancy of Mormon men was almost ten years longer than that of the general population of white American males.”
(http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2013/03/25/is-religion-good-for-your-health/)
LikeLike
Again, compelling evidence that faith is good for the brain. here’s how this works: longevity is good for the brain! Polygamy is good for the brain! Magical underwear is good for the brain! Discriminating against those with the mark of Cain is good for the brain! Believing in magical plates is good for the brain! Why, it’s a spiritual fountain of youth!
So much goodness, so little time to amass contrary studies… it must be a good indication that Mormonism is revelatory of the One True God or the universe wouldn’t favour a Mormonistic approach to life.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“Which religion do you suggest ?”
I was actually talking about his 8 helpful practices.
“Again I ask which one ?”
Your choice.
“I was a Christian for over 50 years. I think I already know a little something about God:-)”
I’m sure you are still capable of learning something new! 🙂
“What religion do you most closely associate yourself with unkleE? Mormon ? Jehovah’s Witness ? Catholic ? Protestant ?”
Following Jesus.
LikeLike
UnkleE concludes about the claim faith is good for the brain:
“Well I can see three advantages. (1) You might learn some practices that will make the rest of your life better. (2) I have shown that they seem to be saying that religious practices, at least sometimes, may be more effective, so you may learn if that’s so. (3) You may even learn something about God.
What’s not to like? :)”
Regrading:
1) those practices are relaxation and community building practices,
2) only those religious practices that are positive, optimistic, and relaxing correlate with lower stress (I mean, the notion of Hell and eternal damnation and fear of the Lord and ongoing judgement by a divine Thought Police really are quite positive messages of love to take to heart, I’m almost sure. These basic tenets are really a means to promote and sustain a very optimistic and rosy outlook for the ‘craven and fallen’ who accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior. And who can seriously doubt that not quite knowing if a slow roast is in one’s everlasting future will be in the cards is really quite relaxing, Many children raised in such environments could almost wax poetically about the tranquility, serenity, and peace such ‘faith’ brings to their little minds every night before bed. This is nearly the perfect model for relation and lowering stress.).
3) You may even learn something about the god UnkleE believes in but good luck relating that projection – and all the associated claims about it – to this plethora of accommodationist and apologetic studies about the benefits of ‘faith’… a term in this case supposedly synonymous through a twisted and contorted linguistic path to mean ‘long term practices and views that are positive, optimistic, and relaxing enough to lower the release of stress hormones’. Yeah, that’s a good definition of religious faith. Oh, wait…
LikeLike
@Tildeb.
This is why Christianity and every minion of its spurious nonsense is disingenuous and unkleE the perfect exponent of this trait. A true poster-boy for the sycophantic drivel as espoused by every god botherer.
As mentioned before, it is most telling that Newberg’s study apparently does not include any data about what happens to those traumatized by religion, by the very things included in christianity just waiting to snare the unfortunate backslider. ( And apostates of the other Abrahamic faiths)
And and we know of numerous people, many of whom comment right here on Nate’s blog who have gone through – and please forgive me for writing this – Hell, because of the indoctrinated superstitious shit that cannot be separated from the oh-so-marvelous spiritual highs gleaned from contemplating on a smelly little semi-literate Jewish rabbi suffering in excruciating agony and humiliation as he slowly suffocates to death while nailed to a fucking cross.
LikeLiked by 1 person
What Ark… you don’t find gazing at the agony of the Savior on a cross relaxing? It’s a ubiquitous symbol… I even see it on neck chains of children all the time.
What’s not peaceful about a hanging corpse? I know my stress hormones decrease rapidly when I think on His supposedly Very Real and Historical suffering and on my behalf, no less… days of it. How could I possibly feel any guilt at all?
In fact, it’s a kumbaya kind of faith, donchaknow… butterflies and rainbows and unicorns abound. It makes me smile serenely wrapped in loving optimism about my approaching time of suffering and dying that this death cult faith naturally endows me with.
I’ve got a study to back this up…. now, where did I put that one? Let me see….
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thank you! Should we ask unkleE to talk with Charity, Victoria, Zoe, Ladysighs, Siriusbizness, Lukelively,Violet or any number of deconverts, at least a couple of who are currently in therapy because of the wonderful spiritual enlightenment of christianity?
I suspect each and every one would give dear old unkleE and Newberg for that matter very short shrift indeed.
Perhaps they were just doing it wrong?
Hell is all Butterflies and Candy floss really.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t think these folk would say their faith improved their brain. Do you?
LikeLike
Knocked it out of kilter in almost every instance.
LikeLike
And non-apologetic neuroscience shows us how and why… not that UnkleE cares; it doesn’t fit his religious model, after all, and so why should he bother? He already knows the truth and he’s sifted a lot of material to find bits and pieces that appear to support what he already knows… revealed to him by a god, no less.
Confirmation bias, thy name is UnkleE, which is why he is in a position to reject out of hand whatever doesn’t pass through his religious filter.
Of course, he’ll squeal that no links are provided here and so the contrary claims must be only opinion. God forbid (and perhaps UnkleE thinks He has) he actually go to Victoria’s site and read the hundreds of studies she provides that reveal the how and why.
Speaking of increased stress that ‘faith’ supposedly can reduce, that religious belief killed Victoria’s husband in no way diminishes his absolute certainty that his faith cannot possibly be the case because he already knows the Truth (TM).
LikeLiked by 2 people
Willful ignorance is thoroughly appropriate is unkleE’s case, and I am being very generous in my terminology.
He is like a thinking(sic) Colorstorm, and that has the potential to be worse than some of the outright nutters christianity produces because he thrives on an air of false intellectual respectability, which is little different from the likes of Licona and Craig.
LikeLike
I would have responded to unkleE in more detail today but had to take a last minute flight to visit my dear 97 yr old Mother who is in the hospital and not doing well.
LikeLike
Hi Tildeb,
“1) those practices are relaxation and community building practices,”
Actually, this statement is almost totally wrong. Newberg names 8 practices that will greatly improve neurological health, and community building isn’t one of them. Relaxation is one (only sixth most important), and there are seven others. Some have several different aspects, some are predictable, some are surprising.
There’s a little lesson in here too. It is very easy for people to speak most confidently but still be quite wrong.
You have made other statements that conform to this pattern, i.e. which you spoke with confidence but haven’t offered any evidence by way of references to good science, and which I believe are also wrong, .
You will recall you made these claims:
Those are strong statements to make against a respected scholar with scores of peer-reviewed papers published. I invited you to offer some tangible evidence for those claims, but so far you’ve haven’t offered any. Just a few papers by other peer-reviewed scholars backing up your claims of him being a “con artist” would be a start.
You also said that religious belief correlates with social dysfunction and thus is not beneficial, and then said: “Go ahead and google all these claims I make if you want to find out just how contrarian is the Newberg article’s claim to the mainstream data.”
Again, I invited you to give just half a dozen of those references – not many to go against the hundreds that I could point you to that say the opposite, and again you have provided none. I am familiar with a couple of studies that may be what you are basing this statement on, but they are misleading. They compare statistics between US states, or between countries, but there are so many factors in play that no conclusion can be drawn until one controls for the other factors. When that is done, it seems that religious belief correlates with poverty (poorer people are more religious) and crime and other dysfunction also correlate with poverty. And so religion and dysfunction do sometimes correlate, but the common cause is poverty. When religion is considered on its own, it generally yields positive results, as hundreds of studies show. Newberg and others point out that some forms of religion have negative outcomes, but overall it has positive ones.
So can I request again that you offer your evidence, so we can see it and discuss.
“non-apologetic neuroscience shows us how and why… not that UnkleE cares; it doesn’t fit his religious model”
So how does one judge who is right here, if not by references to peer-reviewed studies? So at the moment, it is clearly you who is rejecting evidence, by refusing to accept the evidence not just of Newberg, but of scores of other researchers and hundreds of other papers. Could it be that you have an “anti-religious model” that prevents you from accepting the evidence? So there’s the challenge for you.
One more thing. I have been trying to build bridges and make discussion less adversarial. Again I will suggest you think about that. Instead of sniggering and making insulting personal attacks, you could offer evidence and we could have a sensible discussion, just as I have with Nate, Dave and Travis.
Further, as I will comment shortly, Newberg shows that his brain exercises can benefit people. I think they can benefit me. I think you could benefit too. It would be a pity if you missed out because of an anti-religious bias and an unwillingness to fact facts. Why don’t you wait and see my next comment and form a sensible judgment? Thanks.
LikeLike
Imagine a child who for whatever reasons is fearful of the world in which she lives. To make herself feel better, she invents an imaginary friend who has amazing magical powers to protect her. She speaks to her friend multiple times throughout the day and believes that her invisible friend speaks to her in a voice that only she can hear. She believes that her friend guides her in making everyday decisions. With her new “friend” constantly at her side, she is happier, more self-confidant, and less anxious.
Question: Once this child becomes an adult, is it healthy for her to maintain this belief system if it continues to give her peace and a sense of security and comfort?
I say, no. Once she is no longer a child, she needs to deal with life as an adult. Her belief in an imaginary friend with magical powers is unhealthy and most mental health professionals would consider her mentally ill.
I’m not saying that all religious persons are mentally ill, but if you are talking to an invisible friend multiple times a day and you believe that this invisible friend “guides” you in your daily decision-making, I think the comparison with the child above is valid.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I have been reading more of the Andrew Newberg and Mark Waldman book, and I think there is some interesting and worthwhile things to report. I hope people will be interested and not rufuse to learn because it is me reporting.
I have read about 9 neuroscience books in the last decade, but this is probably the most interesting, and not just for the reasons some of you will think. Not only can I learn about cutting edge neuroscience, but there are practical applications.
To grossly oversimplify, some parts of our brains process reasoning and other parts process emotions. Then there are parts that balance between the two, process memory & learning, etc. People are spread along a bell curve on reason and emotion, and this helps explain how we respond to spiritual ideas – more reasoning people tend to be either uninterested in God or believe in God in a rational way, people who are stronger on the emotional end tend to have experiential faith, or be interested in the paranormal, and most people tend to be somewhere in the middle. It is probably best to be in the middle, as we need both intuitive and analytical thinking to function best.
It turns out that different mind-body practices, especially spiritual (in the widest sense) practices, exercise and strengthen different of these parts, and weaken other parts. So by choosing different brain exercises (they list 8, from less important to most important – smile, stay intellectually active, consciously relax, yawn, meditate, aerobic exercise, dialogue, faith) we can target different parts of our brains and strengthen them.
So we can improve memory or thinking, we can become more sensitive to others, or soften our emotions and become more peaceful. All of these things can lengthen our productive lives and help us be more effective and at peace.
Newberg and Waldman say that most of these practices have arisen through religion of one form or another, because contemplation of God achieves a lot of good results – provided it is a loving God. Religious believers, or non-believers too, can focus on negative ideas (about God or about other subjects) and do themselves harm, or on positive qualities and do themselves good.
“Contemplative practices stimulate activity in the anterior cingulate, thus helping a person to become more sensitive to the feelings of others. Indeed, meditating on any form of love, including God’s love, appears to strengthen the same neurological circuits that allow us to feel compassion towards others. …. We believe that meditation …. appears to make us more sensitive to the suffering of others, which may explain why those traditions that emphasise meditation are often involved in community charities and peacekeeping ventures.” (p 53,4)
They have found that non-religious equivalents can be used too (not surprising since Newberg is an agnostic and Waldman is a naturalist and presumably an atheist), and I think we can finally settle the discussion on whether the effects are all due to non-religious causes:
“This evidence confirmed our hypothesis that the benefits gleaned from prayer and meditation may have less to do with a specific theology than with the ritual techniques of breathing, staying relaxed and focusing one’s attention upon a concept that evokes comfort, compassion, or a spiritual sense of peace. Of course, the more you believe in what you are meditating or praying about, the stronger the response will be.” And “when meditation is religious and strengthens your spiritual beliefs, then there is a synergistic effect that can be even better.” p48 + from an interview.
I find the idea that we can improve our physical and emotional health, memory, thinking and aging to be very exciting, and one that we could all benefit from regardless of belief.
That much seems to be scientific fact. Now a brief personal comment.
1. Discussion here and elsewhere often becomes acrimonious and nasty. I try to be polite at all times (and have even been criticised for it!) and ignore the negative stuff (I mostly don’t read it), despite the fact that my natural state was once to be more pushy. I think I can probably do better if I apply some of these insights, and I am reinforced in taking that stance. Those who feel or act angry towards others, including those who do that on the internet, are actually harming themselves more than the person they criticise. I find it encouraging that “old fashioned virtues” are actually good for us.
2. I still think it would be surprising for these facts to be true and religion be so positive if we were in a naturalistic universe, and thus these ideas strengthen my belief in God. That will enrage some and others will simply quietly disagree, and the debate will go on. But it would be a pity if disagreement on this conclusion prevented people from learning something useful, or from learning how to improve their lives.
I think that is enough of a book review. Best wishes to all of you.
LikeLike
@UnkleE
You see, unkleE te reason you are such a disingenuous pain-in-the arse is simply because the religion you punt is Christianity, a disgusting doctrine for which there is no evidence for the foundational tenets that are crucialfor supposed redemption.
Everything pertaining to your worldview hinges on this unsubstantiated waffle.
And, of course, failure to genuflect to your god will result in annihilation at best and eternal torture at worst, at the hands of the god your religion claims is love personified who came back from the dead and, just by the by, is the creator of the entire Universe.
Furthermore, you have scant regard for the claims of any other medium of god-bothering, often, even within your own religion, and you write off every other region as per your specs of salvation as none include the biblical character, Jesus of Nazareth.
Your continued attempts to intellectualize your faith are nothing but a slap in the face for every deconvert and especially those that you attempt to belittle with your condescending sycophantic drivel. You are no better than Craig or Licona and at the root of all you are pushing, your ulterior motives, is nothing but rank apologetics and comparable to every snake oil salesman there ever was.
LikeLike