The “God spot”, and 3 questions to ask a Christian about God
Earlier tonight a friend of mine asked me what I thought of the “God spot” in the brain (that is, a suggested neurophysiological basis for mystical/religious experience)
It seems obvious that this is no anti-God argument for the atheist, and it doesn’t even devalue religious experience. Even the articles I linked above say “It is not the final reduction of God to mere neurophysiology”, however I feel it is worthwhile to spell this argument out.
So here we go
- The brain is the ultimate sensor we possess, for physical and emotional sensation, in fact, there is no experience we have which is not mediated by the brain.
- The taste of a fine steak, the anticipation of seeing a loved one from whom you have been separated, the thrill of winning a sporting competition – all these will excite different parts of the brain.
- Understanding the part of the brain responsible for the enjoyment of food, or relationship, or achievement does not lead us to question the meaning of a meal, a reunion, or a victory.
- Mystical experience exists. People have experiences of transcendence.
- When we ask “Is a mystical experience real?”, we really mean “Does that experience mean anything”.
- We may well say “It’s just an excitation, a “lighting up” of the ‘God spot’ ” ; however; in the same way a fortunate person present for the Gettysburg address may have said “It’s just an excitation of my auditory and visual centres in my brain”
- The point is, the explanation of how an experience came to be tells you its genesis (be careful of the genetic fallacy!) not its meaning
- In the same way, an explanation of how a Christian feels about God tells us nothing about that feeling’s meaning.
- For example, if a Christian says “I love God”, the fact we know what part of the brain is responsible tells us no more about God than we already know, that is, that this Christian says he or she loves Him.
- In particular, it tells us nothing about the object of this love.
Assuming you are an honest inquirer, the way to find out about the object of the Christian’s love is to ask questions. Suppose you were about to say to our God-loving Christian: “Your religious experience is merely the excitation of the “God spot” in your temporal lobe”, but then you remembered this post and thought better of it. Here are some questions which I think have the same thrust but may yield more enlightening answers:
- How can you love someone you can’t see?
- What do you mean when you say you love God? Is it the same way you love your parents, or spouse, or friends?
- But how do you know God loves you back? Anything you feel or that happens to you might be accounted for by natural explanations!
As a Christian, I’d be delighted to be asked these questions.
just finished reading an article in spectrum on these recent experiments…it is really interesting to think about.
im not really sure what i think. i guess i would say a couple of things though…
i would want to contend the cartesian dualist approach underpinning some of the ideas- where mind and body are so distinctly separated. i feel like it is really important to clarify the ontological implications invoked by this position which ultimately render it unintegrated from the human condition…
i think that a phenomenological methodology where the point of departure is embodied experience would enable a more holistic inquiry that resonates with the meaning of our existence as being always already immersed in the world, as Being-in-the-world.
i agree with you that ‘reality’ is semiotically situated and the language used to utter it is discursively conditioned- which means that experience is crucial to understanding fundamental reality.
At this point I wonder whether the transcendent could be folded back on itself into something immediate. something immanent. and whether this is where the most significant encounter with God actually unfolds…
I really think this is an interesting issue though…
hope you’re well joel! we need to talk philosophy at more length!
emily
emily hughes
May 15, 2010 at 5:09 am
hey Em,
Sorry I’ve left your comment to languish for so long – alas exams!
To be honest, I struggle with the vocab – eg “semiotically situated” sent me scurrying for a search engine.
The point of this post was to sketch out my argument against a kind of reductionism that turns music into sound, or the flight of a bird into aerodynamics. I think you agree with me when you say that embodied experience should be our point of departure. Certainly I did not intend any suggestion of a dualistic ontology, and if I betray a Cartesian streak – forgive me! I am a mathematician, after all…
As for your comments on the immanent immediacy, I would need you to expand – I don’t think I know what you mean.
Joel
June 22, 2010 at 3:13 pm