1) Objection from science:
Someone might argue that these religious experiences all have some common cause in the brain or that they are a delusion. Indeed, science has proven that certain parts of the brain are especially active when a religious experience happens. A recent experiment done by Dr. Michael Persinger on patients with temporal lobe epilepsy used concentrations of magnetism to see whether religious experiences could be stimulated. The study proved that certain patients could feel a presence when stimulated. Other research has proven that certain lobes in the brain are more active and others are less active when religious experiences occur. It’s not exactly clear what this research means, but atheists have been quick to argue that it proves that religious experiences occur inside of the brain.
 |
| Temporal Lobe |
There are good reasons to reject claims of this sort by atheists. First, the research has only proved that certain brain lobes are activated, or shut down, when religious experiences happen. It’s just as likely that the lobes are the way we “sense” things in the “religious plain” in the same way we use our eyes to sense the natural world. In other words, the lobes of our brains could be the way we see things in the spiritual realm. In fact, this makes more sense considering that certain parts of our brains react differently when we see, smell and feel. Indeed, we would expect to have some of the most interesting physical things occur to us while we are in the middle of a religious experience.
Secondly, there really is no reason to assume that the atheists are right. As Richard Swinburne has pointed out it is a logical fallacy to say that religious experiences are false because they are too incredible to be true. In other words, the atheist is suggesting that religious experiences do not happen because they do not happen. This is as logical as saying that religious experiences happen because they happen. Both arguments are logically fallacious.
Thirdly, scientists simply do not know how to explain what they have found. As BBC reports, “Prof Ramachandran denies that finding out how the brain reacts to religion negates the value of belief. He feels that brain circuitry like that Persinger and Newberg have identified, could amount to an antenna to make us receptive to god.”1
The atheist may object saying that we simply haven’t had enough research to prove that the experiences occur wholly inside of the brain. I’ll leave them with a quote from a leading expert in nuerology and religious experience Dr. Andrew Newberg,
 |
| Dr. Andrew Newberg |
“While I think we have provided the most comprehensive neurological model of meditation and prayer to date, I can't prove or disprove that when somebody connects with God, he or she has actually connected. My publisher originally wanted me to call this a "real" experience - which we have no way of proving. Eventually, we compromised with the term "neurologically real" and we are in fact seeing something that is real from that perspective.”2
2) Objection from sanity:
The claim that everyone who has a religious experience is delusional or crazy also needs to be addressed. However, I think most who make this claim are themselves delusional. One can easily claim that someone is delusional for believing that fairies or aliens exist; however, claiming someone is delusional about an actual experience is quite another thing. While it is true that someone can believe that their religious experience is something different than it was, this does not mean that the event did not occur. In other words, misunderstanding a vision doesn’t make it untrue. Although “fish stories” grow as they are told, they almost always begin with an actual fish. Also, it would be impossible to prove that 2 out of 3 people (from the Baylor poll) are crazy. Another point to be considered is that by definition you cannot have the same religious experience over and over again. Temporal lobe epilepsy patients have the same recurring experiences. Thus, we can see that religious experiences aren’t had by “crazy” people.
3) Objection from skepticism:
The naturalist may object that it is impossible for religious experiences to occur on the basis of philosophy. This objection is based in skepticism. The naturalist will say that we should doubt all experiences. The skeptic suggests that experiences don’t necessarily tell us what reality is. Skeptics use dreams as an evidence of how our senses can be duped into thinking that what is not real (i.e. the dream) is real. However, this, like all skepticism, turns on itself because we know that what happened in the dream didn’t happen in real life. As humans we test our own experiences, trying to figure out which ones are real and which ones aren’t. You could make the argument that we self-authenticate our own experiences.
Further, on a completely philosophical level, skepticism is self-defeating. If you’re skeptical of everything than shouldn’t you be skeptical of your skepticism?
Swinburne offers another refutation to the objection from skepticism. He suggests that we should accept experiences to be true unless we have a reason to question them.
 |
| Richard Swinburne |
Stated logically, if it seems to a subject that x is present, then probably x is present.For example, we don’t doubt the veracity of a claim that the food is bad at a restaurant unless we have a good reason to doubt it. In plain English, you shouldn’t doubt something unless you have a reason to.
4) Objection from negative experience:
Finally, the naturalist may object, saying that their lack of religious experience proves that the supernatural realm doesn’t exist. This objection carries a lot of weight. Why can’t everyone have a religious experience? Naturalists might suggest the same argument that Swinburne uses in a negative way, “if it seems to a subject that x is not present, then probably x is not present.”3 However, the naturalist assumes that X must be present. In other words, the atheist suggests that the religious plain must present itself to everyone. However, that hasn’t been proven. Maybe only some people can experience it some of the time. Just because you don’t experience doesn’t make it false. It’s like saying that since you didn’t see the squirrel running across the street, the squirrel didn’t exist.
In the next post we will consider the actual argument for the existence of God. Hold in there.
Info
1) http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2003/godonbrain.shtml
2) http://www.horizonresearch.org/main_page.php?cat_id=203
3) http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/theistic-proofs/the-argument-from-religious-experience/the-principle-of-credulity/
photos:
1) http://www.wiredtowinthemovie.com/images/hotspots/level04temporalLobe.jpg
2) http://www.nourfoundation.com/images/gallery/dr-andrew-newberg.jpg
3) http://www.philosophytalk.org/pastShows/images/RichardSwinburne.jpg
No comments:
Post a Comment