In a previous post, I lauded the new atheist author Sam Harris for reaching out to David Eagleman, a neuroscientist who advocates "possibilianism" as a kind of intellectual antidote to the culture wars.
Whatever this pair does, I hope it's televised. Eagleman and Harris are that rare pair who disagree, yet might shed more light than heat in a collaboration.
To briefly summarize my previous post, Eagleman defines a "possibilian" as someone who enjoys holding different possibilities in mind. This stance is opposed to an atheist or a believer, who commits to a particular story, like "There is no God," or, conversely, "There is a God, and let me tell you exactly what he thinks." A possibilian is also not, simply, an agnostic who considers some questions unanswerable. A possibilian believes in science and encourages people to think and explore realms even beyond science's current boundaries to actively seek out new possibilities to consider.
Harris is more commited to a worldview. And in books like The End of Faith and The Moral Landscape he has made his case that the world's religions are demonstrably false, dangerous to society, and, well, silly. He "reached out" to Eagleman in a kind of corrective mood, taking umbrage at Eagleman's posing himself as a kind of "third way" between atheism and religious belief. Despite his sometimes strident-seeming demeanor, Harris undoubtedly carries the scent of the possibilian, standing almost entirely alone among the New Atheist tribe in advocating for a kind of broadly defined spirituality that would include practices like meditation, contemplative "prayer" and perhaps even a little mystical drug use.
I write, in a mostly admiring fashion, about both Eagleman and Harris in my book, Fringe-ology: How I Tried to Explain Away The Unexplainable - And Couldn't. The book is largely an attempt to encourage greater collaboration and so, in keeping with that theme, I would suggest Eagleman and Harris incorporate a third man into their meeting: Dr. Andrew Newberg, a physician and researcher who has now published five books on neurotheology, the study of the relationship between religious experience and the brain.
Like Harris and Eagleman, Newberg is an important point of focus in Fringe-ology; and I characterize him as a curative figure. In a media landscape where each new scientific finding, no matter how tangential or tenuous, is portrayed as groundbreaking and definitive, Newberg always seems to play the responsible adult, reminding us of the limited conclusions we can draw from the data at hand. He even downplays his own findings, stating that the neuroimaging studies he has produced of the brain during religious and spiritual experience don't and cannot provide evidence for or against the existence of God. "Here's what I can tell you," he says.  "I can tell you, when people are having a particular spiritual experience, which parts of the brain light up. That's it. That's all I can tell you."
Everyone can take a lesson from this kind of humility. But it is not only Newberg's refusal to extrapolate from his science to some definitive vision of the world that encourages me to recommend him as a partner to Harris and Eagleman. It is what he has found about the benefits of religious and spiritual practice and about believers themselves.
Newberg can scientifically back up Harris's claims for the benefits of meditation and contemplative prayer. And he can also challenge Harris in a way that might prove both provocative and productive.
In perhaps his most disarmingly simple study, in fact, Newberg asked people to draw an image of God. The result could have been embarrassing for believers: If the cartoonish version of the religious advanced by new atheists were true, Newberg would have been left with numerous images of an old man with a beard. But it turned out the most likely test subjects to draw such a God were first, children, and second, atheists. Believers in fact most often drew the sun, light, mirrors and even nothing -- abstract images that reflected a conception of God as vast and unknowable.
In short, the God the new atheists so vehemently reject is perhaps not the one held closest to believers' hearts. The God Newberg found in his test subjects is instead an array of possibilities in a wider field of possibilities. And I'm left thinking that these three men may not be able to sort out the exact nature of reality, but they might collectively be able to get us past the usual debate about belief and non-belief and instead get us really thinking, really moving forward again, toward whatever reality awaits us.
Meditation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Religious experience - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Religious Experience: An introduction | That Religious Studies Website
Today, we still are in the image of God but we bear the scars of sin. And, upon Salvation the original image will be restored to man.
When I view mankind I see the image of God. I know some atheists are greatly troubled by even the concept of God. But, really that's their problem. Some atheists choose to go through life condemning those who believe, and that's like spitting in the ocean. And, none of their sarcasm, ridicule, or hatred will change one true believer.
Right, because the objections any atheist has is dependent on the visual form of said god. *facepalm*
Atheists reject all gods. Period. Zeus, Quetzelcotl, Yahweh, FSM, The Great Green Arkleseizure, a superintelligent shade of blue, anything.
"Wait, you mean your conception of god isn't a bearded man in the sky? Well I'll be darned, I'm off to get myself baptised/circumcised/etc."
A believer talks to God, and an atheist talks to himself. It is in those conversations that both have respectively which adds to stability. And, this whole universe is based upon communication in some form or the other.
Even in Church, most Christians think to themselves, that this is a good prayer for all of us in the congregation to be saying together...but, when I get home I will pray the serious stuff to God.
Dreams are fascinating to me. They've studied them for years and are still at odds to explain them. And, I am not meaning the neurology of them...but, really explain the meaning of them. What makes them the most fun to me is that dreams are uniquely individual. We may all have certain genre of dreams. However, nobody has each other's dream
I believe that some dreams open a channel of communication with God. I know scientist will tell us that dreams are for resolutions of problems. But, some of my atheist friends have told me that they have had dreams which they wished they hadn't.
this is classical cause and effect thinking. he has discovered that certain awareness and a flow of thoughts called consciousness will have an effect on the brain in certain areas of the brain. the brain is going to respond to such stimuli in different ways slightly unique for each individual.
humans looking for god are like fish looking for water and even that analogy is incorrect but you get the point.
all is of the Infinite Absolute Isness even space. what we think as space is only our unawareness seeing what we call space. we in the human realm of existence are but one aspect or dimension of that space.
actually scientists are on the right track looking for dark energy and dark matter. better defined as unknown matter and energy. unknown by most but not all. :-)
when we come to realize that there is no such thing as space we come to understand quantum physics much better. all connected no matter the distance, instant response.
Let me clarify: If I were writing poetically about a camping trip to the desert and I said that the night sky was a canopy of diamonds, would you even consider asking me if I "believed" in a canopy of diamonds? It's a metaphor used to convey what was felt, not simply what was seen. In this case it referenced something real - the night sky - but the word "God" is a reference to what is beyond definition or description.
In the hands of a skilled teacher religion can be a fine instrument for opening the mind and heart to a spiritual awareness - an abiding sense of awe and wonder at the mystery of life and of the world. The fact that it's more often used as a hammer says more about the skill of the craftsman than the tool.
-the Sun and Nothing are good images-Platonism's Sun as the Image of the "Good beoyond Being"-which of course in another way "is" (a super) Nothing. The New atheists are in some ways as bad as Fundamentalists-they believe/don't believe in the same absurdly childish "God"
To Sam Harris and co, I much prefer the old French Existentialists-their reasons for unbelief were not based on "schoolboy scientism"; but rather a lucid mind facing an universe that does not respond to it's reasonable queries-this is the Absurd. The "mystics" have experiences and the Pascalian's make leaps of faith. Things may also form a Unity, based on a Blind Will behind everything, as Schopenhauer thought. This does not suggest a "Good". Then there is the God of Hans Jonas, who "withdraws" into Himself, giving up some of his power to make "room" for creation, which thereby is filled with contingent possibilities-thus God can't help us-He needs our help.
There are other possibilities.
A biologist does not describe an amoeba so much as trying to survive, as trying to maintain homeostasis; that is responding to changes in its environment in such a way that it maintains an internal chemical balance and state of well-being. If it did not maintain homeostasis it would die. But well being is its immediate objective. There is the "Good" for the Blind Will of the the intentionality of life. God is benevolent. The mechanism points us towards well-being.
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110831/full/477023a.html
Atheism, at its most basic definition, is "lacking a belief" in gods.
You can believe something to be true, believe something to be false, or have no belief whatsoever. In fact the default position, when you're born, is to hold no belief whatsoever.
I'm an atheist who lacks a belief in supernatural deities. I don't believe there is a god nor do i believe there is no god. I simply lack a belief in any god(s).
Incidentally, I'd be the first to criticize any sort of theist who still held to the view of god s/he had as a child, as well. Both theists and atheists have a responsibility to mature in their beliefs and also appreciate that their opponents should (and often do) mature in theirs.
Just as soon as the teeniest scintilla of evidence for a deity appears, they'll weigh it.
In the meantime, the possibility is open, but not worth a moment's thought.
The dogmatic tone you claim to object to is simply the verbal or written equivalent of the forehead palm slap, as we watch people waste significant fractions of their lives by mumbling on their knees for no good reason.
I was with you till the last sentence here. I think people often get to "mumbling on their knees" for great, legitimate reasons. First and foremost, and this is what Newberg is studying, prayer and meditation are neurologically beneficial. I write about this at length in Fringe-ology, but the brains of people engaged in contemplative prayer and meditation enter a very peaceful state, with a particular reduction of activity in the amygdala. In this sense, through all these millennia, people have not prayed for "no good reason." They have prayed because they did so and it seemed to work for them. Now we know it did work for them.
I'd simply like to see us all begin a smart, compassionate exploration of spirituality and the kinds of practices Newberg is studying without committing to any given outcome. My "problem," if I have one, with atheism, is only that non-belief is, in practice, too often twisted into belief in a specific outcome—no Gods, no afterlife, etc. This seems a mirror image to me of the problem I have with fundamentalist religious belief, which is this claim some people have that they "know" there is a God and they "know" exactly what God wants, thinks, etc.
How about we just continue the search without insulting each other in the meantime?
—Best, Steve V.
That's all well and good, but I strongly suspect they wouldn't report that as what they were doing.
I merely propose that people seek an evidence-based outlook on life.
Who will here proclaim it?
Whence was it produced?
Whence is this creation?
The gods came afterwards, with the creation of this universe.
Who then knows whence it has arisen?”
Now despite my belief of any of this falling into the latter percentage I’m not an agnostic or undecided or Possibilian. Instead I am honest to say that I don’t know and can never know if George Washington was a zombie stuffed with llama fur but until there is good freakin’ reason to believe it’s even a possibility then I’m going to round my answer to the nearest whole number and just declare “no”. I can’t honestly give credence to every sunstroke victim’s story or chemical hallucination so until the crowers show me something to crow about I’m going to dismiss all such mythical tales until they are no longer considered mythical tales. Maybe the sky is actually pink and green polka dots but my eyes see it completely different from the entire rest of the world.
Possible, but I find it pretty durn unlikely. Yet I need to constantly back up my disbelief? Please.
Atheists and religionists; what is so hard to grasp about “I don’t know but I don’t see reason to believe”? It’s not claiming to know, it’s merely offering a counter to those who state myths as facts. As atheists, WE don’t have to support or defend our disbelief, as we are not making the definitive claims.
It boggles my mind that so much is put against those who don’t automatically fall down and worship sight unseen the stories that others tell them. When christians revel in my going to hell for not embracing their saviour it seems to me a lot like a prosecuting attorney threatening the jury when he’s the one who made a weak and unconvincing case.
Somehow, according to many christians who have talked with me on this subject, my NOT being swayed as well as having my own opinion on the subject—which I can back up by listing the reasons I have for not being convinced—about religion makes me a liar, evil, anti-religious, animalistic, angry, bitter, hedonistic, satanic, criminal, empty and sad while leaving me with no reason to get up in the morning or even to live.
Rejection of unproven, unprovable and unlikely myths is far more reasonable than hating those who don’t embrace them.
but hey who listens to the thoreau's of the world americans prefer the bush jr's, the preachers, the supreme court, the atheists but not the thoreau's.
we all have to do the work it is an inside job of discovery. cause and effect will make sure that it happens. no exceptions.
a neuroscientist trying to find god is like a fish trying to find water. best analogy I know of but applies here perfectly. and neither the scientist nor harris nor eagleman will have a clue of the reality of this analogy.
this neuroscientist to his credit has admitted he has only found an effect and not a cause.
A young boy was intensely concentrating on drawing a picture.
His mother said: “what are you doing.”
The child responded: “I am drawing a picture of God.”
His mother responded: “no one knows what god looks like.”
The young boy answered her proudly: “well they will when I am finished.”
From teaching your children about God. P47 Rabbi David J Wolpe