The Economist had up last week a rather interesting article about that "experiment" creating religious experiences with a magnetic field. For those of you not familiar with it, there is a kind of epilepsy that generates religious hallucinations. There was a paper claiming that a magnetic field would affect the part of the brain thought to be "creating" the effect. They even sold devices designed to create the experience. However in a paper last month in Neuroscience Letters the whole study has been called into question. More detailed information can be found in this article at News-Medical Net.
Now the who controversy, along with the controversy of the "God gene" doesn't really affect Mormons as much as some might suspect. For one, Mormons always focus on the content of religious experience and not the experience itself. Indeed from early on there was a fair distrust of the religious experience for itself, as one often finds in mystic movements. In responding to "charismatic" manifestations brought over from various Protestant traditions, Joseph Smith asked whether any intelligence was communicated in the religious experience. If not, it wasn't to be trusted. Even such charismatic experiences such as speaking in tongues are typically interpreted by Mormons to only be helpful if it allows one to speak an unknown language. This is reflected in Mormon folk tales, such as people suddenly being able to speak some specialized language of a tribe in the mountains of Guatamala or speak in Maori. Of course historically there were other examples, such as the Pentacostal experiences at the Kirtland Temple dedication. But even there the speaking in tongues was interpreted as speaking in the language of Adam and there was a strong emphasis on messages being communicated.
I bring this up since to a Mormon merely generating an experience is meaningless. Despite what our critics sometimes argue, I don't believe Mormons really trust religious experience on its own. Rather there is the issue of conviction, faith, and more importantly constant testing and experience. That is, Mormons conceive of faith as something that develops with use. Further I think that Mormons, in our theology of revelation, believe that personal revelation is developed in a manner somewhat akin to learning a language. What is emphasized is communication and communication is achieve through trial and error and a careful examination of predictive power.
Of course I'm sure many will chime in and argue with me in the comments. And I'll heartily agree that not all Mormons do this. I'd say, however, that many Mormons do in fact do this, even if they can't explain what it is they are doing. Further I think there are many conference talks and even lessons in church that discuss this. I can even think of a few from the last priesthood lesson.
My point, however, is less to debate Mormon views of inspiration and personal revelation - although those are issues seen as vital within Mormonism. Far more than in most other Christian sects. My point is simply that if there is a God gene or some part of the brain that causes religious belief or experience, it shouldn't bother Mormons. What would count is how that part of the brain is used.
To make an analogy (also brought up by the Economist) having a religious structure to the brain says no more about religious experience than the fact of linguistic structures in the brain tells us the meaning of Shakespeare's Hamlet. Further, Mormon materialism, as I see it, would actually expect there to be parts of the brain dealing with our ability of receive revelation and have faith. So if anything, this would (if true) line up with Mormon expectations.
I should add, that there is an interesting possibility from the notion of neurological structures related to religious predispositions. For one it would explain D&C 46:11-16. There we have the odd construction that to my eyes appears to suggest that not everyone will be able to discern the Holy Ghost and have a testimony. Yet others can believe independent of such knowledge. Further that all these are gifts. If we each have different physical abilities with respect to religious experience, this makes considerable sense. Further it would explain why some seem unable to receive answers to prayers.
An other interesting and far more speculative possibility is the issue of the spirit-body integration. Mormons typically (although not exclusively) think of spirits as matter. Exactly what kind of matter isn't clear - presumably somewhat different from regular atoms. But little is asserted beyond some sense of materiality. Yet, this notoriously leaves Mormonism with a kind of dualism. Different from Descartes dualism, but a dualism nonetheless. Descartes notoriously asserted that the penal gland was the interface between minds and bodies. Mormons probably wouldn't go that far, and probably would all agree that the brain in part generates consciousness and our manner of thinking. Yet we need some place for our spirits to interact with bodies in a fashion more akin to biology than akin to how Aquinas like views of souls function. That seems to require a "God gene" and various places not just for religious experience, but for other sorts of interactions. If these are physical sites, then external physical manipulation ought cause responses we might normally attribute to spirit.
Of course even if we were to find such sites, it seems difficult, if not impossible, to be able to judge it as a spirit-interface. Any neurological investigation might well simply describe it as a religious center that evolved to function on its own.
I've never been impressed with arguments against religion that claim to show "the real source" for religious beliefs. These types of arguments all take the form of the genetic fallacy. Simply pointing out the origins of a belief are suspicious doesn't make the belief false. Plus, it doesn't account for all of the other evidence for believing in God.
By the way, I also like how you respond to this problem as well, Clark. Even if there is a physical basis for religious experience, who's to say that the physical basis is not God's work through the physical?
What is so interesting to me is that there is so much historical basis for thinking in this way. Descartes' penal gland is but one example. There are quite a few in the history of western thought. I've not read The God Gene yet, but I wonder if he deals with that history. (Indeed for someone familiar with that whole period - especially the period from Telesio up through the vitalist movement in the 19th century - it would make an interesting book.
I am at the moment working through Michael Shermer's The Science of Good and Evil, which my Dad gave me for Christmas. He's going through the evolutionary theories (or at least his theories) for ethics and religion. However I anticipate a lot of question begging in the book. Although I do confess enjoying an atheist knocking down the old strawman that God is necessary to ground ethics. (That argument by theists has always annoyed me)
I've closed comments in order to avoid spam since I don't check this older blog as much anymore.
and Theology
Number of unique visitors:
Blogged by Clark Goble