Support the Café
Search our site

Science and the ‘underdeveloped religious function’

Science and the ‘underdeveloped religious function’

At Huffington Post, Catherine Hochman probes the question, “Has science replaced religion?

Hochman cites Emile Durkheim (1858-1917) as well as current figures Richard Dawkins (he of the polarization) and Matthew Alper. Of this last name,

In his book The God Part of the Brain (1996), [Alper] shows how genes influence our religious experiences. He also gives accounts of many scientific studies which suggest that activities such as meditation, yoga, or prayer evoke sensations, which, although perceived as evidence of the divine or sacred, are actually the ways in which our brain interprets neurochemical processes.

Based on a series of studies of twins, Alper shows the influence that genes have on religious behavior. For example, in one study at the Virginia Commonwealth University involving 30,000 sets of twins, researchers concluded, “Although the transmission of religiousness has been assumed to be purely cultural, genetic behavior studies have demonstrated that genetic factors play a role in the individual differences in some religious traits.”

Alper suggests that there is a bell curve where the majority of people are spiritual/religious. On one of the tapering edges of the curve, there are people who are extremely religious, many of whom are martyrs, spiritual leaders, or prophets. The other extreme has people who are “spiritually/religiously deficient, those born with an unusually underdeveloped spiritual/religious function.”

She concludes:

Will, or can, science ever explain religion?

Here’s the kicker, found in italics at the bottom of the piece:

When Catherine wrote this she was 14 years old.

My suspicion – and it’s only mine – is that she hasn’t yet found the answer to that final question of hers.

Dislike (0)
0 0 vote
Article Rating
Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

Café Comments?

Our comment policy requires that you use your real first and last names and provide an email address (your email will not be published). Comments that use non-PG rated language, include personal attacks, that are not provable as fact or that we deem in any way to be counter to our mission of fostering respectful dialogue will not be posted.

4 Comments
Newest
Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
tgflux

although perceived as evidence of the divine or sacred, are actually the ways in which our brain interprets neurochemical processes

Praise God for our brain's neurochemical processes!

😉

JC Fisher

...and also for highly intelligent teenagers like Catherine.

Like (0)
Dislike (0)
Donald Schell

...and this question of the power and use of uncertainty in empirical thinking is what Rupert Sheldrake argues for in "Science Set Free," one of the books I'm inviting us to explore to enrich our understanding of reason (with a hat tip to Richard Hooker) in this essay here at the Daily Episcopalian https://www.episcopalcafe.com/daily/theology/reason_nature_experience_and_d.php#more .

Like (0)
Dislike (0)
Donald Schell

NPR regular (and Episcopalian) Barbara Bradley Hagerty's book "Fingerprints of God, The Search for the Science of Spirituality" offers her two year experience of conversations and study with a wide breadth of neuroscientists, some atheists, some agnostic, some believers. Across the range, some were clear that they were researcher human phenomena which might (or might not) connect with something beyond us, and some fell into the reductionist trap of thinking they were "proving" or "disproving" the existence of God. It's a good read and the breadth of experiments of kinds of data they're finding offers great material for reflection and wondering.

Like (0)
Dislike (0)
Donald Schell

Alper's reductionist account -

"...of many scientific studies which suggest that activities such as meditation, yoga, or prayer evoke sensations, which, although perceived as evidence of the divine or sacred, are actually the ways in which our brain interprets neurochemical processes," could equally well demonstrate that there is no such event as light. That it's "Actually the ways in which our brain interprets neurochemical processes." If we want to insist that our experience proves the existence of light, we're in a bit of a bind, but that bind extends to everything else we experience, even (whether it's comforting illusion or transcendent reality) experience of God and the Holy. Either side claims or gives away too much using brain phenomena as proof.

Like (0)
Dislike (0)
Facebooktwitterrss
Support the Café
Past Posts
2020_001

The Episcopal Café seeks to be an independent voice, reporting and reflecting on the Episcopal Church and the Anglican tradition.  The Café is not a platform of advocacy, but it does aim to tell the story of the church from the perspective of Progressive Christianity.  Our collective sympathy, as the Café, lies with the project of widening the circle of inclusion within the church and empowering all the baptized for the role to which they have been called as followers of Christ.

The opinions expressed at the Café are those of individual contributors, and, unless otherwise noted, should not be interpreted as official statements of a parish, diocese or other organization. The art and articles that appear here remain the property of their creators.

All Content  © 2017 Episcopal Café