|
|
IV. The Apparent
Physiology of Religion (10/10/09)
1. We humans have two different ways of thinking.
2. The two hemispheres of our brain are responsible for this dichotomy.
3. Typically, our right hemispheres think “holistically,”
while our left hemispheres think “analytically.” (Link to
follow)
4. (For simplicity and brevity sake, I will refer to the right, holistic
hemisphere as RH, and the left, analytic hemisphere as LH.)
5. We humans sense, or imagine, something we call “transcendence.”
6. “Transcendence” is an alleged non-physical dimension of
reality.
7. A belief in transcendence is like the “bottom line” for
religion. A belief in transcendence is what makes a philosophy, or worldview,
“religious.”
8. Apparently, only one of our hemispheres – the RH -- senses (or
imagines) transcendence.
9. The LH seems to have no appreciation for transcendence or religion.
10. What we call “religious experience” takes place in the
RH; it does not take place in the LH.
11. It would appear, therefore, that either the LH is “transcendence-blind”
(as in “color-blind”), or the RH hallucinates…
12. (And, I must admit that the latter, in light of “natural selection,”
is a reasonable possibility.)
13. During religious experience, electrically speaking,
the RH lights up while the LH darkens.
14. We can actually create religious experience in subjects by electrically
stimulating their RH’s.
15. That our physiology is ultimately responsible for religious experience
and that we can produce a kind of synthetic religious experience, should
not be taken as an indication that transcendence and religious experience
are simply electrical illusions. We can do the same things in regard to
such experiences as fear and anger – and no one suggests that fear
and anger are only illusions.
16. It seems to me that this could go a long ways towards
validating religion.
17. The amount of electrical activity in the two hemispheres
varies significantly over time.
18. This could explain why people who are normally very religious experience
significant periods of “emptiness” or doubt. For whatever
reasons, the RH must simply be “sleeping” (dark) during those
periods.
19. Certainly, *I* go back and forth. Sometimes, the Jesus concept really
does “feel” right on – I get it. But then, other times,
it feels ridiculous. It seems to me that I just have two, seriously different,
ways of thinking about it...
20. In addition, we humans (especially us males) tend
to be dominated by one hemisphere or the other.
21. It appears that the more we are dominated by our LH’s, the less
we appreciate religion.
22. This could explain why we humans (especially us males) vary (between
each other) so much in terms of religiosity.
23. Then, it so happens that public schools in the U.S.
teach almost exclusively towards the LH.
24. Consequently, kids who do well in U.S. schools tend to be dominated
by their LH’s, and become more so dominated as they progress in
school.
25. This could explain why the well-educated in the U.S. tend to be much
less religious than do the poorly educated.
26. And this tendency amongst the well educated in the U.S. to disdain
religion takes on A WHOLE NEW SLANT…
27. Not to mention that by avoiding religious ideas (due to our Constitution),
schools (at least to some extent) implicitly deny the validity of religion
to impressionable minds -- and in effect, promote atheism...
28. With this basic physiology of religion, some of the
basic logical problems with religion are dispersed.
29. But, we still don’t know that the RH isn’t “making
this up” for natural selection reasons.
30. So again, which is which? Is the LH transcendence-blind, or does the
RH hallucinate?
31. Fortunately, there seems to be plenty of reason for suspecting the
former – that the LH is simply transcendence-blind, and the RH is
showing us a whole other side to the universe…
32. Skeptics might should open their minds.
33. First, if you think about it, what we call "reasoning"
is analytic -- whereas ... reality, itself, must be holistic...
34. And so, trying to understand reality using (ordinary) reasoning must
be like trying to solve a calculus problem using algebra. Or like trying
to understand a black hole in terms of classical physics or Euclidian
Geometry. Or like, trying to divide up a round pizza using a square pastry
cutter. Assuming, as Aristotle did, that the whole is greater than the
sum of its parts, something is intrinsically lost in translation, something
is missing. (Consider the square root of two and Zeno's Paradox.)
35. In other words, it must be that we cannot fully understand reality
using reasoning -- and reality will be "magical" in that sense.
Part of reality will not make analytic sense.
36. In still other words, if we listen carefully, the analytic hemisphere
seems to be "telling on itself." It is telling us that it cannot
fully account for, or fully describe, reality... (We are getting this
from the horse's mouth...)
37. And, we are justified in suspecting that this stuff that is missing
in translation is from where the “magic” of religion comes,
and why we shouldn’t be so quick to dismiss the apparent magic.
38. So, analytically speaking, parts of reality are "a-rational"
and in that sense “magical.”
39. Somehow, the “whole” IS greater than the sum of its parts…
40. And we have reason to believe that holistic thinking, simply, can
sense what is considered “magical” (and, impossible) to analytic
thinking.
41. Transcendence seems to be analogous to the square root of 2 (what
is called an “irrational number”) in that analytically speaking,
this number never ends, and in that sense, is not rational, or “real”
-- whereas, holistically speaking, there is no problem – the square
root of 2 is quite real…
42. And, the RH is let off the hook. We still can’t be sure that
the RH is not hallucinating, but the main reason for thinking that it
is has been eliminated, and the “magicalness” of religion
has a potential, if not likely, savior.
43. And then, many of the “things” that we
think we know, or that we otherwise “believe in,” do not really
fit with our naturalistic (physical/analytic) worldview... For instance
44. While consciousness may be the result of purely physical causes, consciousness,
itself, would seem NOT to be physical... (Link to follow)
45. Surely, most of us sense, or at least imagine, a non-physical dimension,
of reality that we call "transcendence" -- if we call it anything.
If we think that life has "meaning," or if we believe in right
and wrong, or "true love, "we are believing in something transcendent
(perhaps, unwittingly) and implicitly believe in an ethical, non-physical,
magical, aspect to reality. (Link to follow)
46. Then, if one believes in free will, one believes in magic -- analytically
speaking, free will is impossible. (Link to follow)
47. It turns out that existence itself doesn't really make sense. Now
if there was nothing, that actually would make sense. But, once there
is something, we have a seemingly unsolvable analytic conundrum. (Link
to follow)
48. And then, there’s the fact that life in general depends upon
numerous physical constants being exactly what they are. If, for instance,
the force of universal gravity was just slightly less than it is, the
universe would be all gas. Quite a coincidence… (Link to follow)
49. And finally, our own personal awareness is a statistical miracle.
Not only is it non-physical, it is mathematically impossible. (5)
50. Then, note that each of these concepts is either not
physical or not rational – or, not either. It is in those senses
that they are “magical.”
51. We just don’t tend to notice their “magicalness.”
We look right through the magic. Probably, like a fish does with its water.
52. And finally, there is the issue of where we humans
are on the potential scale of intelligence and understanding.
53. As a chicken's understanding of reality is to human understanding
of reality, human understanding of reality COULD be to perfect understanding...
54. Is there some reason to think that our different cognitive abilities
include all the cognitive abilities possible?
55. Is there some reason to think that we are not making some big, crucial,
mistakes, or that we're not missing a lot of critical facts? They certainly
did in the past.
56. How much could we be missing, or getting wrong?
57. How far do our seemingly exceptional brains take us?
58. Could we humans trying to understand reality be like worms trying
to understand calculus?
59. So, it could be that with greater cognitive abilities, we wouldn’t
“see” non-physical or “irrational” concepts as
being magical.
60. And then, Quantum Mechanics, might be revising the definition of “magic”
as I speak.
61. And, there is reason to think that we analytic thinkers need to open
our minds and deflate our egos.
62. So … in trying to “rationally” evaluate
the Jesus concept/story, the nature of our physiology is instructive,
and we cannot dismiss the c/s out of hand on the grounds of its “magicalness.”
63. And consequently, the Jesus religion needs to be evaluated on its
own merits.
64. No summary judgment here.
65. To the contrary, we have significant reason to believe that transcendence
and “magic” are real -- and, this case should proceed with
great interest.
Magic
|