Print
The Neural Buddhists
by David Brooks, NY Times
David Brooks, New York Times Op-ed
In 1996, Tom Wolfe wrote a brilliant essay called "Sorry, but Your Soul Just Died," in which he captured the militant materialism of some modern scientists.
To these self-confident researchers, the idea that the spirit might exist apart from the body is just ridiculous. Instead, everything arises from atoms. Genes shape temperament. Brain chemicals shape behavior. Assemblies of neurons create consciousness. Free will is an illusion. Human beings are "hard-wired" to do this or that. Religion is an accident.
In this materialist view, people perceive God's existence because their brains have evolved to confabulate belief systems. You put a magnetic helmet around their heads and they will begin to think they are having a spiritual epiphany. If they suffer from temporal lobe epilepsy, they will show signs of hyperreligiosity, an overexcitement of the brain tissue that leads sufferers to believe they are conversing with God.
Wolfe understood the central assertion contained in this kind of thinking: Everything is material and "the soul is dead." He anticipated the way the genetic and neuroscience revolutions would affect public debate. They would kick off another fundamental argument over whether God exists.
Lo and behold, over the past decade, a new group of assertive atheists has done battle with defenders of faith. The two sides have argued about whether it is reasonable to conceive of a soul that survives the death of the body and about whether understanding the brain explains away or merely adds to our appreciation of the entity that created it.
The atheism debate is a textbook example of how a scientific revolution can change public culture. Just as "The Origin of Species" reshaped social thinking, just as Einstein's theory of relativity affected art, so the revolution in neuroscience is having an effect on how people see the world.
And yet my guess is that the atheism debate is going to be a sideshow. The cognitive revolution is not going to end up undermining faith in God, it's going end up challenging faith in the Bible.
Over the past several years, the momentum has shifted away from hard-core materialism. The brain seems less like a cold machine. It does not operate like a computer. Instead, meaning, belief and consciousness seem to emerge mysteriously from idiosyncratic networks of neural firings. Those squishy things called emotions play a gigantic role in all forms of thinking. Love is vital to brain development.
Researchers now spend a lot of time trying to understand universal moral intuitions. Genes are not merely selfish, it appears. Instead, people seem to have deep instincts for fairness, empathy and attachment.
Scientists have more respect for elevated spiritual states. Andrew Newberg of the University of Pennsylvania has shown that transcendent experiences can actually be identified and measured in the brain (people experience a decrease in activity in the parietal lobe, which orients us in space). The mind seems to have the ability to transcend itself and merge with a larger presence that feels more real.
This new wave of research will not seep into the public realm in the form of militant atheism. Instead it will lead to what you might call neural Buddhism.
If you survey the literature (and I'd recommend books by Newberg, Daniel J. Siegel, Michael S. Gazzaniga, Jonathan Haidt, Antonio Damasio and Marc D. Hauser if you want to get up to speed), you can see that certain beliefs will spread into the wider discussion.
First, the self is not a fixed entity but a dynamic process of relationships. Second, underneath the patina of different religions, people around the world have common moral intuitions. Third, people are equipped to experience the sacred, to have moments of elevated experience when they transcend boundaries and overflow with love. Fourth, God can best be conceived as the nature one experiences at those moments, the unknowable total of all there is.
In their arguments with Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins, the faithful have been defending the existence of God. That was the easy debate. The real challenge is going to come from people who feel the existence of the sacred, but who think that particular religions are just cultural artifacts built on top of universal human traits. It's going to come from scientists whose beliefs overlap a bit with Buddhism.
In unexpected ways, science and mysticism are joining hands and reinforcing each other. That's bound to lead to new movements that emphasize self-transcendence but put little stock in divine law or revelation. Orthodox believers are going to have to defend particular doctrines and particular biblical teachings. They're going to have to defend the idea of a personal God, and explain why specific theologies are true guides for behavior day to day. I'm not qualified to take sides, believe me. I'm just trying to anticipate which way the debate is headed. We're in the middle of a scientific revolution. It's going to have big cultural effects.
In 1996, Tom Wolfe wrote a brilliant essay called "Sorry, but Your Soul Just Died," in which he captured the militant materialism of some modern scientists.
To these self-confident researchers, the idea that the spirit might exist apart from the body is just ridiculous. Instead, everything arises from atoms. Genes shape temperament. Brain chemicals shape behavior. Assemblies of neurons create consciousness. Free will is an illusion. Human beings are "hard-wired" to do this or that. Religion is an accident.
In this materialist view, people perceive God's existence because their brains have evolved to confabulate belief systems. You put a magnetic helmet around their heads and they will begin to think they are having a spiritual epiphany. If they suffer from temporal lobe epilepsy, they will show signs of hyperreligiosity, an overexcitement of the brain tissue that leads sufferers to believe they are conversing with God.
Wolfe understood the central assertion contained in this kind of thinking: Everything is material and "the soul is dead." He anticipated the way the genetic and neuroscience revolutions would affect public debate. They would kick off another fundamental argument over whether God exists.
Lo and behold, over the past decade, a new group of assertive atheists has done battle with defenders of faith. The two sides have argued about whether it is reasonable to conceive of a soul that survives the death of the body and about whether understanding the brain explains away or merely adds to our appreciation of the entity that created it.
The atheism debate is a textbook example of how a scientific revolution can change public culture. Just as "The Origin of Species" reshaped social thinking, just as Einstein's theory of relativity affected art, so the revolution in neuroscience is having an effect on how people see the world.
And yet my guess is that the atheism debate is going to be a sideshow. The cognitive revolution is not going to end up undermining faith in God, it's going end up challenging faith in the Bible.
Over the past several years, the momentum has shifted away from hard-core materialism. The brain seems less like a cold machine. It does not operate like a computer. Instead, meaning, belief and consciousness seem to emerge mysteriously from idiosyncratic networks of neural firings. Those squishy things called emotions play a gigantic role in all forms of thinking. Love is vital to brain development.
Researchers now spend a lot of time trying to understand universal moral intuitions. Genes are not merely selfish, it appears. Instead, people seem to have deep instincts for fairness, empathy and attachment.
Scientists have more respect for elevated spiritual states. Andrew Newberg of the University of Pennsylvania has shown that transcendent experiences can actually be identified and measured in the brain (people experience a decrease in activity in the parietal lobe, which orients us in space). The mind seems to have the ability to transcend itself and merge with a larger presence that feels more real.
This new wave of research will not seep into the public realm in the form of militant atheism. Instead it will lead to what you might call neural Buddhism.
If you survey the literature (and I'd recommend books by Newberg, Daniel J. Siegel, Michael S. Gazzaniga, Jonathan Haidt, Antonio Damasio and Marc D. Hauser if you want to get up to speed), you can see that certain beliefs will spread into the wider discussion.
First, the self is not a fixed entity but a dynamic process of relationships. Second, underneath the patina of different religions, people around the world have common moral intuitions. Third, people are equipped to experience the sacred, to have moments of elevated experience when they transcend boundaries and overflow with love. Fourth, God can best be conceived as the nature one experiences at those moments, the unknowable total of all there is.
In their arguments with Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins, the faithful have been defending the existence of God. That was the easy debate. The real challenge is going to come from people who feel the existence of the sacred, but who think that particular religions are just cultural artifacts built on top of universal human traits. It's going to come from scientists whose beliefs overlap a bit with Buddhism.
In unexpected ways, science and mysticism are joining hands and reinforcing each other. That's bound to lead to new movements that emphasize self-transcendence but put little stock in divine law or revelation. Orthodox believers are going to have to defend particular doctrines and particular biblical teachings. They're going to have to defend the idea of a personal God, and explain why specific theologies are true guides for behavior day to day. I'm not qualified to take sides, believe me. I'm just trying to anticipate which way the debate is headed. We're in the middle of a scientific revolution. It's going to have big cultural effects.
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 | PermalinkComments 1 - 50 of 249 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #179593 by Colwyn Abernathy on May 13, 2008 at 12:19 pm
The two sides have argued about whether it is reasonable to conceive of a soul that survives the death of the body and about whether understanding the brain explains away or merely adds to our appreciation of the entity that created it.
Begs the question:
What is this entity made of? If it exists outside of us...it must be material, yes? So then, what material is it?
Other Comments by Colwyn Abernathy
3. Comment #179595 by Nails on May 13, 2008 at 12:21 pm
First, the self is not a fixed entity but a dynamic process of relationships. Second, underneath the patina of different religions, people around the world have common moral intuitions. Third, people are equipped to experience the sacred, to have moments of elevated experience when they transcend boundaries and overflow with love. Fourth, God can best be conceived as the nature one experiences at those moments, the unknowable total of all there is
Totally irrelevant, in my opinon.
What has religion got to do with morals?
Bottom line, religion is for those too weak psychologically to cope with life; or too stupid to open their eyes. These people may always be with us, but hopfully we can remove the hatred and obsessiveness of their teachings.
Other Comments by Nails
4. Comment #179598 by riandouglas on May 13, 2008 at 12:23 pm
The real challenge is going to come from people who feel the existence of the sacred, but who think that particular religions are just cultural artifacts built on top of universal human traits.
Isn't that the essence of most new-age garbage?
Other Comments by riandouglas
5. Comment #179599 by Colwyn Abernathy on May 13, 2008 at 12:24 pm
Bottom line, religion is for those too weak psychologically to cope with life; or too stupid to open their eyes. These people may always be with us, but hopfully we can remove the hatred and obsessiveness of their teachings.
I concur, Nails. It also differentiates those who are "spiritual" from those who are merely "faithful".
Other Comments by Colwyn Abernathy
6. Comment #179612 by al-rawandi on May 13, 2008 at 12:35 pm
I read this trash this morning.
It is a sad that the New York Times continues to employ such ignoble commentators, who really find it a stretch to think beyond the simple minded drivel that they "analyze".
Such fools and idiots that help shape the public opinion. I like the term "bewildered herd", and here we see the sheep dog.
Other Comments by al-rawandi
7. Comment #179613 by Colwyn Abernathy on May 13, 2008 at 12:37 pm
I like the term "bewildered herd", and here we see the sheep dog.
Which reminds me of Bill Hicks talking about being the angry sheepherder ranting to his flock, who tend to look at him "like a dog who's just been shown a card trick."
Other Comments by Colwyn Abernathy
8. Comment #179614 by Deepthought on May 13, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Bottom line, religion is for those too weak psychologically to cope with life; or too stupid to open their eyes. These people may always be with us, but hopfully we can remove the hatred and obsessiveness of their teachings.
You're being a bit harsh. Some of them aren't stupid but just stubborn. You could also say "addicted". Plenty of really smart people have been addicted to tobbacco.
Other Comments by Deepthought
9. Comment #179617 by MaxD on May 13, 2008 at 12:43 pm
Mysticism and science are joining hands? What a goofy essay. Other Comments by MaxD
10. Comment #179622 by Colwyn Abernathy on May 13, 2008 at 12:50 pm
Mysticism and science are joining hands?
Don't we have a number of members who argue for the veracity of mysticism/metaphysics? I haven't been on in a while, so their handles escape me.
Other Comments by Colwyn Abernathy
11. Comment #179623 by MaxD on May 13, 2008 at 12:51 pm
We do indeed. But I can't think of them at the moment either. Other Comments by MaxD
12. Comment #179625 by phatbat on May 13, 2008 at 12:52 pm
Lo and behold, over the past decade, a new group of assertive atheists has done battle with defenders of faith.
And the theists still don't know they've lost.
Genes are not merely selfish, it appears. Instead, people seem to have deep instincts for fairness, empathy and attachment.
Oh dear, I think someone needs to read a few books. A selfish gene does not mean we can't have deep instincts for fairness, empathy and attachment. for goodness sake.
Scientists have more respect for elevated spiritual states. Andrew Newberg of the University of Pennsylvania has shown that transcendent experiences can actually be identified and measured in the brain (people experience a decrease in activity in the parietal lobe, which orients us in space).
Ok, uh-huh, thats seems reasonable
The mind seems to have the ability to transcend itself and merge with a larger presence that feels more real.
Oh dear, now you've gone and spoilt things by going way over the top.
First, the self is not a fixed entity but a dynamic process of relationships. Second, underneath the patina of different religions, people around the world have common moral intuitions. Third, people are equipped to experience the sacred, to have moments of elevated experience when they transcend boundaries and overflow with love. Fourth, God can best be conceived as the nature one experiences at those moments, the unknowable total of all there is.
No, god can best be conceived as the creater of the universe, there is no reasonable avenue to squeeze god into these experiences.
In their arguments with Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins, the faithful have been defending the existence of God. That was the easy debate.
...for Chris and Richard
The real challenge is going to come from people who feel the existence of the sacred, but who think that particular religions are just cultural artifacts built on top of universal human traits.
How do you feel the existance of the sacred? I can't believe that's the best word you can think of to describe these feelings.
That's bound to lead to new movements that emphasize self-transcendence but put little stock in divine law or revelation. Orthodox believers are going to have to defend particular doctrines and particular biblical teachings. They're going to have to defend the idea of a personal God, and explain why specific theologies are true guides for behavior day to day.
This is exactly what they have to do now, new discoveries aren't going to cause that to happen they may just make it even easier for us to win the debate.
Other Comments by phatbat
13. Comment #179626 by riandouglas on May 13, 2008 at 12:52 pm
Am I simply sleep deprived, or is it saying "Look, science says spiritual experiences are legitimate, therefore god!" Other Comments by riandouglas
14. Comment #179629 by Colwyn Abernathy on May 13, 2008 at 12:53 pm
A selfish gene does not mean we can't have deep instincts for fairness, empathy and attachment. for goodness sake.
In fact, it's entirely feasible that we HAVE selfish genes for fairness empathy and attachment. ;)
EDIT:
The mind seems to have the ability to transcend itself and merge with a larger presence that feels more real.
It FEELS more real...ergo it IS!
Paging Mr Barnum...paging Mr. Barnum, you have a sucker on line 1.
Other Comments by Colwyn Abernathy
15. Comment #179631 by skyhook87 on May 13, 2008 at 12:55 pm
Genes are not merely selfish, it appears. Instead, people seem to have deep instincts for fairness, empathy and attachment.
It baffles me how many people just flat out do not understand the selfish gene concept!
..if only there was a book that explains the concept...
Other Comments by skyhook87
16. Comment #179632 by Colwyn Abernathy on May 13, 2008 at 12:57 pm
if only there was a book that explains the concept...
He said...stating the obvious. ;)
Other Comments by Colwyn Abernathy
17. Comment #179638 by annabanana on May 13, 2008 at 1:00 pm
Phatbat,Genes are not merely selfish, it appears. Instead, people seem to have deep instincts for fairness, empathy and attachment.
I couldn't tell if this resulted from the author's having had knowledge of The Selfish Gene by RD or because he'd only read the title since one of the main premises of The Selfish Gene is that our genes are encoded for us to act empathetically towards one another because it benefits the genes because the organisms are more successful at reproducing.
Other Comments by annabanana
18. Comment #179643 by Oppomystic on May 13, 2008 at 1:10 pm
Most genes are merely apathetic...most people, merely pathetic. Other Comments by Oppomystic
19. Comment #179644 by phatbat on May 13, 2008 at 1:10 pm
17. Comment #179638 by annabanana
couldn't tell if this resulted from the author's having had knowledge of The Selfish Gene by RD or because he'd only read the title
I know, it seems like the author is very confused about what he thinks. He seems to contradict himself all over the place. I think he thinks he knows more than he knows.
Other Comments by phatbat
20. Comment #179646 by annabanana on May 13, 2008 at 1:12 pm
phatbat,I think he thinks he knows more than he knows.
I think that about sums it up.
Other Comments by annabanana
21. Comment #179654 by Quetzalcoatl on May 13, 2008 at 1:26 pm
The mind seems to have the ability to transcend itself and merge with a larger presence that feels more real.
Oh does it really?
First, the self is not a fixed entity but a dynamic process of relationships. Second, underneath the patina of different religions, people around the world have common moral intuitions. Third, people are equipped to experience the sacred, to have moments of elevated experience when they transcend boundaries and overflow with love. Fourth, God can best be conceived as the nature one experiences at those moments, the unknowable total of all there is.
This is all very New-Agey and ambiguous.
Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl
22. Comment #179657 by Liveliest Crib on May 13, 2008 at 1:29 pm
If you survey the literature . . .Indeed, that appears to be what Brooks does. He merely surveys the literature. He does not actually read it. Want proof?
Researchers now spend a lot of time trying to understand universal moral intuitions. Genes are not merely selfish, it appears. Instead, people seem to have deep instincts for fairness, empathy and attachment.I guess he got as far as the title, and figured he understood the thesis.
In their arguments with Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins, the faithful have been defending the existence of God. That was the easy debate.Yeah, you really checkmated us on that one. A dollop of Pascal's idiot wager, a pinch of Intelligent Design, some insults about immorality, Hitler and Stalin, and we were down for the count. Now if only that Bible thing made sense....
Other Comments by Liveliest Crib
23. Comment #179659 by Frankus1122 on May 13, 2008 at 1:34 pm
I know, it seems like the author is very confused about what he thinks.
Yes, the point was a bit muddled. I think some people are reading more this than what is there.
Is he not saying that the brain is responsible for 'mystical' experiences?
Perhaps it is because I am a 'hard core materialist' that I don't have a problem with what he is saying. If he is saying what I think he is.
God can best be conceived as the nature one experiences at those moments, the unknowable total of all there is.
Or what we call God is, in fact, a brain state. I'm okay with that. I think I am in touch with the universe because I have a wave of firings across my brain. Cool.
I think that is what happened to that brain scientist who had a stroke and got all mystical and 'connected' as a result. It was a TED talk I linked to before.
I don't think there is a problem saying we get weird connected feelings of oneness when our brains fire off in certain ways.
Or is he saying something else and I just can't see it because of my 'materialist-lens'?
Other Comments by Frankus1122
24. Comment #179661 by alexmzk on May 13, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Over the past several years, the momentum has shifted away from hard-core materialism. The brain seems less like a cold machine. It does not operate like a computer. Instead, meaning, belief and consciousness seem to emerge mysteriously from idiosyncratic networks of neural firings. Those squishy things called emotions play a gigantic role in all forms of thinking. Love is vital to brain development.
Researchers now spend a lot of time trying to understand universal moral intuitions. Genes are not merely selfish, it appears. Instead, people seem to have deep instincts for fairness, empathy and attachment.
Scientists have more respect for elevated spiritual states. Andrew Newberg of the University of Pennsylvania has shown that transcendent experiences can actually be identified and measured in the brain (people experience a decrease in activity in the parietal lobe, which orients us in space). The mind seems to have the ability to transcend itself and merge with a larger presence that feels more real.
this is such a bad section, it really makes it sound like he doesn't understand what he's talking about. mostly he just contradicts himself, but also he completely misconstrues several of the main issues he's trying to address. sloppy.
Other Comments by alexmzk
25. Comment #179664 by aussieatheist_111 on May 13, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Nuggets of sensibility and half truths mixed with a whole lot of misunderstanding.Other Comments by aussieatheist_111
26. Comment #179665 by Frankus1122 on May 13, 2008 at 1:41 pm
The mind seems to have the ability to transcend itself and merge with a larger presence that feels more real.
Oh does it really?
I think the answer is yes. The mind does SEEM to merge with a larger presence that feels more real. This is something that many people experience. But again, I think there is an answer for this feeling in what the brain (physical) is doing.
Am I missing something?
Other Comments by Frankus1122
27. Comment #179666 by riandouglas on May 13, 2008 at 1:43 pm
Frannkus1122: Or is he saying something else and I just can't see it because of my 'materialist-lens'?
To me, he seemed to go a little bit 'woo woo' towards the end. I thought a "soul" or dualism was strongly suggested, but I may be reading it poorly also.
Other Comments by riandouglas
28. Comment #179667 by Nova on May 13, 2008 at 1:43 pm
Over the past several years, the momentum has shifted away from hard-core materialism. The brain seems less like a cold machine. It does not operate like a computer. Instead, meaning, belief and consciousness seem to emerge mysteriously from idiosyncratic networks of neural firings. Those squishy things called emotions play a gigantic role in all forms of thinking. Love is vital to brain development.Steven Pinker's How the Mind Works totally destroys this nonsense of David Brooks - I'm on page 177 now and it's an eye opening experience and shows how shallow the concept of the soul is.
Genes are not merely selfish, it appears. Instead, people seem to have deep instincts for fairness, empathy and attachment.A complete and regular misunderstanding of the whole point of the Selfish Gene. I haven't read it but I know Richards point was that it is the genes and not necessarily the organism that is selfish.
Other Comments by Nova
29. Comment #179668 by Quetzalcoatl on May 13, 2008 at 1:44 pm
Frankus-
that's my point. I take issue with the idea that the mind "transcends itself". It doesn't- like you say, the answer is in the brain. And since mind and brain are essentially the same.....
Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl
30. Comment #179670 by Darwin's badger on May 13, 2008 at 1:47 pm
I've not read all of those that he recommends, but of those that I have (Damasio, Gazzaniga, Siegel, Haidt, plus many, many more) have all attempted to explain the religious experience as a neural process within the brain, not suggest that it's a valid perception of external stimuli. The guy who wrote this comes across as a new-age woo-merchant who has read the bits that he likes and ignored the rest. X-( Other Comments by Darwin's badger
31. Comment #179673 by Vergil on May 13, 2008 at 1:49 pm
I think what he is saying is that advances in science demonstrate that slithy toves do gyre and gimble in the wabe. Furthermore, the borogroves are all mimsy, and the mome raths outgrabe. And a good thing too.Other Comments by Vergil
32. Comment #179682 by Quetzalcoatl on May 13, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Vergil-
he's only saying that because the jabberwock told him to. He's a mouthpiece for that strange creature, and nothing more.
Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl
33. Comment #179685 by Darwin's badger on May 13, 2008 at 1:58 pm
Phew, that's cleared that up then! :D Other Comments by Darwin's badger
34. Comment #179688 by Nova on May 13, 2008 at 2:01 pm
I've noticed that new age garbage eases people in, leading them into a false sense of security with reasonalbe statements and then spews crap at them when there off guard. I picked up a new age book and the cycle of reasonable statement to unfounded rubbish seemed to go on for the whole book. Here's some examples I found in this article:Scientists have more respect for elevated spiritual states. Andrew Newberg of the University of Pennsylvania has shown that transcendent experiences can actually be identified and measured in the brain (people experience a decrease in activity in the parietal lobe, which orients us in space).reasonable
The mind seems to have the ability to transcend itself and merge with a larger presence that feels more real.followed by crap
First, the self is not a fixed entity but a dynamic process of relationships. Second, underneath the patina of different religions, people around the world have common moral intuitions. Third, people are equipped to experience the sacred, to have moments of elevated experience when they transcend boundaries and overflow with love.other than the religious part of the second point and I don't know about the third but this seems reasonable
Fourth, God can best be conceived as the nature one experiences at those moments, the unknowable total of all there is.followed by crap!
Vergil typed:
I think what he is saying is that advances in science demonstrate that slithy toves do gyre and gimble in the wabe. Furthermore, the borogroves are all mimsy, and the mome raths outgrabe. And a good thing too.While this is satire I think it humorously (and more briefly) illustrates what I said, real advances in science is presented, it's the conclusions drawn that are gibberish.
Other Comments by Nova
35. Comment #179695 by Dax on May 13, 2008 at 2:10 pm
What a poorly written article, filled with wild assumptions and incorrect representations of science.This guy just assumes things... and we all know that assume makes an ass of 'you' and me.
Other Comments by Dax
36. Comment #179698 by Spinoza on May 13, 2008 at 2:14 pm
It's a good thing that's an Op-Ed, because if it was a piece of science journalism, I'd tear it to shreds.As it stands, the guy's opinion is just silly and based on misunderstandings of the literature. That's all.
Other Comments by Spinoza
37. Comment #179704 by Acitta on May 13, 2008 at 2:24 pm
The self is not a fixed entity but a dynamic process of relationships.
Two of the major doctrines of Buddhism are "anatta" (soullessness or selflessness") and "dependent origination" which states that phenomena arise together in a mutually interdependent web of cause and effect.
Other Comments by Acitta
38. Comment #179705 by noodly_noodleson on May 13, 2008 at 2:25 pm
"Buddhists" ...don't believe in a soul either (at least it's not in the official teachings).This reminds me terribly of my own writing when I was in school. When you don't have very in-depth knowledge of anything in particular, you tend to piece together fuzzy snippits of whatever you do know.
Other Comments by noodly_noodleson
39. Comment #179709 by jonjermey on May 13, 2008 at 2:35 pm
Isn't this just another example of the 'not MY God' argument? No old guy in the sky? -- check. No transcendental Creator? -- check. Must be 'the ability to transcend and merge itself with a larger presence that feels more real'.So football crowds are God.
Other Comments by jonjermey
40. Comment #179718 by mmurray on May 13, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Surely this bit
The mind seems to have the ability to transcend itself and merge with a larger presence that feels more real.
should read
"The mind has the the ability to seem to transcend itself and merge with a larger presence that feels more real."
Michael
Other Comments by mmurray
41. Comment #179736 by Barry Pearson on May 13, 2008 at 3:32 pm
If this article were talking about what the public believes, rather than what is true, it might mirror what is happening in Europe.
For example, in 2005 the European Union surveyed all its states with questions about God, etc.
http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_225_report_en.pdf
Here is the UK result (page 9):
"I believe there is a God": 38%
"I believe there is some sort of spirit or life force": 40%
"I don't believe there is any sort of spirit, God or life force": 20%
Don't know: 2%
What is that 40% about? Is it what the article here is talking about?
Other Comments by Barry Pearson
42. Comment #179737 by Apathy personified on May 13, 2008 at 3:33 pm
'The mind seems to have the ability to transcend itself and merge with a larger presence that feels more real.' Finally, proof that the Force does exist....
The only question is, Jedi or Sith?
I truly can't stand all this mysticism and spirituality bollocks, any excuse to avoid reality, or to create a parallel existence.
Other Comments by Apathy personified
43. Comment #179747 by Atticus_of_Amber on May 13, 2008 at 3:52 pm
My letter to the NYT:Dear Editor,
Clearly David Brooks has not read the "new atheists" he tendentiously compares with the findings of modern neuroscience ("The Neural Buddhists", May 13, 2008). Indeed, the author who kicked off the "new atheist" movement, Sam Harris, is a neuroscientist himself.
But more than that, Harris is a former seeker, a man who spent ten years in meditation retreats and with yogis and monks (including a stint as a bodyguard for the Dalai Lama). In the last chapter of his "The End of Faith", Harris argues that there really is something worthwhile and wonderful about the mystical experiences that lie at the root of most of our religions. These experiences are real and important and increasingly measurable by neuroscientists - but the truth about them is buried beneath mountains of "metaphysical bullshit". Harris extols the virtues of the contemplative disciplines at the same time as he is withering in his criticism of the ancient theology and modern "New Age" waffle that so often goes with them. What we need, argues Harris, is to take a ruthlessly logical and scientific approach to these ancient disciplines, to separate the wheat from the chaff.
And it's not just Harris. Daniel Dennett has made similar points. Anyone who has read Richard Dawkins will be aware that he is no stranger to the wonder and awe of the universe or the beauty of art and poetry. Even Christopher Hitchens is at pains to point out that he seeks to separate the transcendent from the supernatural so as to save the former from the latter.
It would be nice if people like Brooks actually bothered to read the "new atheists" before attempting to criticise them.
Other Comments by Atticus_of_Amber
44. Comment #179752 by Frankus1122 on May 13, 2008 at 4:16 pm
Barry Pearson :What is that 40% about? Is it what the article here is talking about?
Probably.
Someone asked me if I believe in God.
I replied, "No. I don't believe in any sort of magic at all."
He said, "What about a higher spiritual power?"
Me: "Was I unclear?"
Is there stuff that we don't know about in the vast universe?
Probably.
Is the unknown stuff a 'higher power'?
There could be beings with powers beyond ours, but they would be part of the natural universe.
There may even be 'spirit' in the universe. It could be the case that beings have existence in some other dimensions that transcend our space-time existence. Being beings that inhabit dimensions beyond ours they would not interact with our space-time and therefore we could call them 'spirits'. To interact with them would require us to somehow get out of our space-time and make contact with other dimensions.
All this could be.
Maybe.
There is just no evidence for it whatsoever.
I am not even sure how you would try to discover whether or not 'spirit' existed.
If the 'higher powers' are immaterial then they cannot by definition interact with us. If they are part of the material universe then okay. They would just be something that is yet to be discovered and understood.
I like science fiction.
It has lead to some real science.
But until the flights of the imagination do have real science behind them I wouldn't base my life on a fantasy.
Other Comments by Frankus1122
45. Comment #179773 by ericross on May 13, 2008 at 5:48 pm
I usually find Davis Brooks worth reading, but I was not particularly impressed with this op-ed. He starts out by presenting the atheist position as far more sweeping and rigid than it really is, and throws in the loaded term "militant" to further discredit the idea. He then nevertheless seems to concede that atheists have a point, and belief in the Bible has become untenable. He then tries to smuggle god back in by redefining the word as some kind of mysterious force, and further tries to give this idea some modicum of credibility by saying it's kinda sorta like Buddhism. Finally, he declares himself incompetent to form a opinion.
Despite his cop-out at the end, I suspect David Brooks is yet another religious moderate who attempts to harmonize science and religion. The result is predictable -- a confused, self-contradictory, incoherent, rambling mess.
Other Comments by ericross
46. Comment #179781 by John Pritzlaff on May 13, 2008 at 6:02 pm
My letter to the NYT:
Dear Editor,
Clearly David Brooks has not read the "new atheists" he tendentiously compares with the findings of modern neuroscience ("The Neural Buddhists", May 13, 2008). Indeed, the author who kicked off the "new atheist" movement, Sam Harris, is a neuroscientist himself.
But more than that, Harris is a former seeker, a man who spent ten years in meditation retreats and with yogis and monks (including a stint as a bodyguard for the Dalai Lama). In the last chapter of his "The End of Faith", Harris argues that there really is something worthwhile and wonderful about the mystical experiences that lie at the root of most of our religions. These experiences are real and important and increasingly measurable by neuroscientists - but the truth about them is buried beneath mountains of "metaphysical bullshit". Harris extols the virtues of the contemplative disciplines at the same time as he is withering in his criticism of the ancient theology and modern "New Age" waffle that so often goes with them. What we need, argues Harris, is to take a ruthlessly logical and scientific approach to these ancient disciplines, to separate the wheat from the chaff.
And it's not just Harris. Daniel Dennett has made similar points. Anyone who has read Richard Dawkins will be aware that he is no stranger to the wonder and awe of the universe or the beauty of art and poetry. Even Christopher Hitchens is at pains to point out that he seeks to separate the transcendent from the supernatural so as to save the former from the latter.
It would be nice if people like Brooks actually bothered to read the "new atheists" before attempting to criticise them.
Wow Atticus_of_Amber, exactly what I was thinking. Well said.
Other Comments by John Pritzlaff
47. Comment #179792 by leviticus on May 13, 2008 at 6:42 pm
To these self-confident researchers, the idea that the spirit might exist apart from the body is just ridiculous.
These self-confident researchers seem to be quite logical to me. The idea of a spirit apart from the body raises more ridiculous questions and problems that it could ever solve and seems highly improbable in the first place.
Q. Where do these spirits come from? Does God put them in us. Or do they exist in the gametes that join to form us.
A. A Personal God doesn't exist, and sperm and eggs apparently couldn't possible contain souls. If they did billions of souls would perish every day due to the death of sperm alone. One might suggest that the soul develops as the living being develops. This would be a logical error. Material object developing into a non material spiritual soul.
In unexpected ways, science and mysticism are joining hands and reinforcing each other.
I think not, and if science goes this way it'll drown in new age mumbo-jumbo.
Life is material, that doesn't mean we loose anything. It doesn't make life any less beautiful.
Other Comments by leviticus
48. Comment #179799 by cam9976 on May 13, 2008 at 7:07 pm
I hate this new age garbage of trying to muddle science with religion. People such as this author are trained in science, and are therefore able to sneak snip-bits of religious bullshit into their ideas and make them seem legitimate, even scientifically accepted. These people are even worse than the fundamentalists because they do not shun science but instead try to pervert it to their own ends. Other Comments by cam9976
49. Comment #179801 by petrucio on May 13, 2008 at 7:20 pm
Steven Novella posts on NeuroLogica Blog about this:http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php?p=293
Other Comments by petrucio
50. Comment #179813 by njwong on May 13, 2008 at 8:01 pm
Speaking about neuroscience, I caught this wonderful Nova documentary called "Secrets of the Mind" featuring V S Ramachandran investigating the working of the mind on some of his patients. I found the patient who believes he is God very intriguing.
http://www.veoh.com/videos/v5581876CT9rmEg?searchId=8010879891514178&rank=1
(Note: The video is hosted on VEOH (can't find it on YouTube or Google Video), and VEOH requires you to install a web browser plug in to watch the whole hour long program. Without the VEOH plug in, you can only watch the first 5 minutes of the documentary from your web browser.)
Other Comments by njwong
Over 1.5 million copies sold
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
1. Comment #179584 by Colwyn Abernathy on May 13, 2008 at 12:15 pm
False analogy. The soul would have to EXIST first before it could die. ;)
EDIT: IE, if it never existed in the first place, that, in reality, is a failed explanation for behaviour, probability of an afterlife, etc., how can such an entity "die"? Unless he's being metaphorical and means that the "IDEA" of the soul is dead.
"I'd like to see a forklift carrying a crate full of forks...It'd be so damn LITERAL."
-Mitch Hedberg
Other Comments by Colwyn Abernathy