Neurotheology, Fingerprints of God

This reading was quite long, repetitive, and yet interesting. According to this, many scientists now believe that "spiritual experience is a trick of the brain" caused by either of the following: injuries, brain abnormality, or applied magnetic fields. The specific area of the brain responsible for these brain simulations is the temporal lobe and it has been identified as the "God Spot". Studies have shown that alteration to this part of the brain caused a “sense of presence” or “feeling of another entity”. This raised questions such as whether religious prophets or leaders had actual visions or experienced real occurrences, or if it were merely epileptic seizures that altered their temporal lobe allowing them to feel that “presence”. The reading then explores several examples of epilepsy patients that had an increased sense of spirituality during or right after their episodes.

But, from these examples, can we deduce that temporal lobe activity determines a person's sense of spirituality or a person’s attachment to a specific belief just because there’s a clear correlation between temporal lobe activity and a “sense of presence”? According to the reading, these scientists are not necessarily saying that their studies negate the existence of God. Rather, they are exploring the option that spirituality doesn’t act alone; feelings experienced by people can be due to both brain activity and a higher power.

Personally, it is quite interesting to see that activity in a specific part of the brain can be responsible for so many things. Though the correlation is quite interesting, I, However, don’t believe nor see it scientifically possible to prove that brain activity IS the cause for belief or disbelief in God. nevertheless, it is possible that this correlation is one step forward to understanding the basics of spirituality.

Science: What's it up to?

In light of our conversation to day about the relationship between science, religion and politics I thought that you might find this clip from The Daily Show amusing.

Neurotheology: Can we actually see God in the brain?

So what is neurotheology?

Neurotheology has been defined as "science’s attempt at explaining religion within the physical aspect of the brain using rational thought”…is a unique field of scholarship and investigation that seeks to understand the relationship specifically between the brain and theology, and more broadly between the mind and religion. Neuroscientists have found ways to detect and measure the varieties of religion experiences by using brain scanning technology but there is still one of the deepest mysteries in science which is the nature of ‘consciousness’.

In the book ‘Atoms & Eden’ , Andrew Newberg (a physician) explained how NEUROSCIENTISTS who study spirituality say that MIND COULD EXIST INDEPENDENTLY OF THE BRAIN.
An interesting study was made when Franciscan nuns were praying  and meditating and it was shown that important parts of their brain activated while praying. One important part was the frontal Lobe.  While praying they would lose their sense of self, no longer seeing a distinction between who they are and the actual prayer process itself. Some people call this a feeling of connectedness or oneness. Another part that changes is the Parietal lobe. He did and compared different studies with meditators and other groups of practitioners… the most fascinating result  was that he saw very different changes in the brain which concludes that different types of religious, practices and beliefs seem to be associated with different changes in the brain. At the end he was asked if consciousness exist outside the brain? He responded there was no answer, and it’s open to both possibilities… Do you think consciousness exist outside the brain?

Human Origins

I hope everyone had a restful three day weekend! Unfortunately, we have to get back to work.

During the three part program as presented by NOVA, what were your thoughts on what you have seen? What did you find to be really interesting about each of the three part program?
After watching the program, where did you think that humans developed a soul as we began talking about towards the end of class on Thursday morning.

I'll get things started by saying that the introductions on all three parts were somewhat the same and that it seemed a little boring at the beginning, but as soon as the program developed it started to rise some interesting points within the program. Even though the beginning of each of the programs seemed to started out the same, I really liked how NOVA was able to piece each part together so that their audience wouldn't be to confused about what is going on. In other words, I am trying to say that NOVA somewhat followed a  sequence of Human evolution by starting to talk about the human brain in Part I and how it compare to a chimp's brain. Then in Part II, NOVA began talking about Homo erectus and how they start to develop some traits of a human, such as emotions, living in society, and caring for each other. What I found to be interesting in Part III was the bottleneck effect and how everyone on Earth is basically 99% genetically related and dispute the fact that we all look differently, the reality is that as Homo sapiens, we are not that genetically diverse.
In regards to the human soul, I think that it started to develop with the Homo erectus because the NOVA program in part II stated that at this stage of human evolution, human beings started to develop a sense of emotion, caring for each other, and living in society. Another point that was rises within this part was how the longevity of living increased even though an elderly person may have lack teeth to eat and they can have someone to eat for them. It is at this stage that I think the human soul developed because personally, I think having a soul requires one to care others and try to put yourself in their position and see what that person may or may not be thinking at a certain time. In other words, I am trying to associate a sense of empathy with the human soul. Having empathy like having a soul is unique to us (humans) because with empathy, we develop emotions such as the emotion of guilt. The emotion of guilt can help define the concept of a soul because having guilt can help us moral decisions about what is right or wrong.

Natural Theology, On the Genesis of Species & Barbour

I believe to sum up the fifty pages of Paley, I would summarize his argument that all complex things or a contrivance must have a contriver, & designs have designers. He goes through many examples comparing a watch to a rock and mill he also goes into depth about the similarities of a telescope and an eye and how all species eyes are similar but different due to function which leads to his main point that there is an intelligible creator and that some species adapt the original design related to function and that humans inherited the power of intelligible design to create watches and telescopes and to use fish skin too polish wood that go did not create the fish skin to be rough to polish wood. What did you think about his arguments?

The Genesis on species discusses the evolution of animals the one problem not resolved was the different evolution linage and the Geographic location and connecting species but now that we know more than we did back in 1871 that the continents and land masses are always growing sinking and moving due to the plate tectonics the evolution examined here is very plausible.

I thought that Barbour's reading was Basically what we discussed in Tuesdays class how evolution and scripture can both be accepted through not reading genesis literally. A clarification on Paley is offered explaining the theology side of natural selection that there was d. The most interesting discussion was that of Darwin's worries or thoughts with publically explaining natural selection and weather that was moral when applied to humans that we let the weak die and not reproduce and the strong prosper and produce the most offspring. But Darwin thought there was a higher morality that exempted humans from the competition side of natural selection. Do you think that humans are above natural selection?

The Nobel Prize in Physics

Today in class I mentioned that the Nobel Prize in Physics had been announced this morning. Here is an article with more about the three Americans who won the award for their understanding of the expanding universe.

Darwin's Origin of the Species

I noticed that no one has begun the blog, so I will try to start you off with some questions. How did reading Darwin's actual text affect the ideas that you already brought into class about evolution? Did anything change? Did you discover a new insight? Did anything surprise you or was this what you expected to find? If it is what you expected, why is that so? I look forward to seeing your answers and to our convesation in class tomorrow.