Posted by Helen on: 05.15.2008 /
Beth sent me a New York Times article about The Neural Buddhists.
This article summarizes some of the newest research on the brain and consciousness:
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.
Their research, while not agreeing with atheists, doesn’t support believers in a personal God either
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.
Comment by: benjdm
1 05/15/08 6:50 AM | Comment Link |How does the research not agree with atheists? I’ve read the article twice now.
Comment by: Helen
2 05/15/08 8:07 AM | Comment Link |Good point, benjdm. By the way did you read the NYT article because I just realized I accidentally didn’t link to it (I just fixed the link).
I didn’t think “people are equipped to experience the sacred, to have moments of elevated experience when they transcend boundaries and overflow with love” agrees with atheists since atheists don’t believe in ‘the sacred’. However the next statement perhaps implies God is a metaphor and if God is a metaphor, then maybe ‘the sacred’ is also in which case, yes, it wouldn’t disagree with atheists.
Without reading the authors this is a summary of, it’s hard to know what they would mean by ‘the sacred’ and ‘God’.
Comment by: karen
3 05/15/08 10:05 AM | Comment Link |David Brooks is a conservative political columnist, he’s not a scientist nor does he seem to have any particular religious expertise.
This column (which I read yesterday) really annoyed me. But that’s not unusual. Brooks and the NYTimes other conservative columnist - William Kristol - regularly annoy and frustrate me. Of course I have to read them every week anyhow. ;-)
Comment by: Helen
4 05/15/08 10:21 AM | Comment Link |What annoyed you about it, Karen?
Comment by: karen
5 05/15/08 1:19 PM | Comment Link |The way he made a bunch of pronouncements about stuff he doesn’t seem to have any expertise on, and then the way he drew conclusions without backing up his presumptions.
I realize this is his job, as an opinion columnist (to give his opinion) but I think he was out of his depth on this one.
Comment by: Helen
6 05/15/08 1:44 PM | Comment Link |Fair enough - those are good reasons!
Comment by: Jason Horton
7 05/18/08 4:25 PM | Comment Link |Interesting. I do think that the research seems to support an atheist viewpoint though. “Sacred” is really just a word to explain that which is wonderful and awe inspiring.
Comment by: Helen
8 05/20/08 4:59 AM | Comment Link |Jason, I think people use the word ’sacred’ in various ways - I agree that for some it probably is simply a metaphor for ‘wonderful and awe inspiring’ and doesn’t necessarily mean anything supernatural.
For others it does mean something supernatural.
Without reading the original authors I’m not sure how they used it.