GOD, BELIEF, SCIENCE - 2

Scientists and Skeptics

The earlier post ‘GOD, BELIEF, SCIENCE’, based on the Templeton conversation “Does Science make belief in God absolute”? We concluded as follows. (http://www.templeton.org/belief/)

“Atheist or theist; objection is not to the rational belief in God or Religion, but to the extremists’ superstitious attitude on both sides, which has potential to harm”.

The luminaries involved in the conversation are thinkers of highest repute and though there are certain differences in means, the ends are almost the same, as seen from the following statements.

‘This stimulating conversation has moved from the question of whether science has made belief in God obsolete to the question of whether, on balance, society would be better off with or without religious faith’.

“We want people of religious faith and without religious faith to act with genuine concern for the well being of others”.

Let us try to analyze the conversation by another angle. 

Shermer   If God is, in your words, "without form, immeasurable" and exists "in a dimension that cannot be quantified or depicted by science," how do you know God exists?

Groopman Indeed, it is not possible to prove that God exists; we cannot be sure, and people of faith do doubt. Such doubt is not restricted to my own tradition.

Shermer So I have one final question for you: why believe in God at all? Why not just be an agnostic?

Groopman Why believe? I have no rational answer. The question seems to be in the domain of why do we love someone? You could reduce it to certain components, perhaps refer to neurotransmitters, but somehow the answer seems to transcend the truly knowable. This is the cognitive dissonance that people like me live with, and with which we often struggle.  

Pinker.  But the statement "There is a God" is not subjective. It is about the nature of the world, and as soon as it is put forward as a proposition for other people to consider, they are entitled to ask whether or not there are good reasons to believe it.

Philip.  But my belief in God does not depend on such gaps in scientific knowledge, nor does the belief of most of the people who, like me, take both science and religion seriously. Rather, our belief depends on a rational choice to accept certain truths as a matter of faith. It depends on our understanding that science is not the only standard of truth. For many of us, our belief depends on the personal experience of having been touched by God's spirit. And that belief leads us to a commitment to live in accordance with the same moral principle.

Am I free of doubts about God?

Hardly. Questions about the presence of evil in the world, the suffering of innocent children, the variety of religious thought, and other imponderables often leave me wondering if I have it right, and always leave me conscious of my ignorance. Nevertheless, I do believe, more because of science than in spite of it, but ultimately just because I believe. As the author of Hebrews put it: “faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”

Atheists

-         Steven Pinker is the Johnstone Family Professor in the department of psychology at Harvard University and an author.

-         Michael Shermer is the publisher of Skeptic magazine (www.skeptic.com), a monthly columnist for Scientific American (www.michaelshermer.com), a professor at Claremont Graduate University and an author.

Theists

-         Jerome Groopman is the Recanati Professor of Medicine at Harvard and an author.

-         William D. Phillips is a Nobel Laureate in physics, is a fellow of the Joint Quantum Institute of the University of Maryland and the National Institute of Standards and Technology.

We see from the conversation that while theists, when it comes to faith in God, rely more on the sentiments, intuitions, whereas the atheists rely more on logic and evidence. All the above persons are scientists but not all are skeptics.

Research in the field of Prayer / Spirituality

-         Larry Dossey - Distinguished physician, and author deeply rooted in the scientific world, has become an internationally influential advocate of the role of the mind in health and the role of spirituality in healthcare.

-         Gregg Braden - New York Times bestselling author is internationally renowned as a pioneer in bridging science and spirituality.

You can’t reach to God unless you pray and you can’t perform a true prayer unless you get engrossed with emotions (viz. love, compassion). You may start a prayer with rational mind but finally the surrender is necessary. Prayer is commitment or believing your emotions from the heart.

Various scientific studies reveal that regardless of which religion or faith the prayer takes, without love or compassion the prayer has no effect. According to Larry Dossey it is “caring deeply with no hidden agenda”. Greg Braden, another researcher on ‘prayer’ conclude – human mind communicate with the field through the language of emotions, by experiencing the intent of prayer as if it has already occurred. (Ref. Secrets of the last mode of prayer)

Both Dossey and Braden agree that in order to have something, you must at once desire it, yet not be attached to getting it. While performing the prayer one has to care deeply for the purpose of the prayer yet not be attached to the outcome.

Here the reasons and logic does not have much role to play. Devotion, Prayer and faith in God are possible for the persons where their intuitions or inner experiences prevail over logic and evidence. The inner experiences can’t be proved nor can evidence be provided. If someone says “I saw a black cow in my dream last night”, the others can either believe it or not but can’t ask the person to prove it with evidence.

The people who give more importance to reason; evidence; logic, and ignore sentiments; intuitions, are less likely to be successful in Prayer.

Michael Shermer in an article in Scientific American, ‘(I Want to Believe’, published July 2009), says. ‘What I want to believe based on emotions and what I should believe based on evidence does not always coincide. And after 99 monthly columns of exploring such topics, I conclude that I’m a skeptic not because I do not want to believe but because I want to know’.

Can we attribute the intuition dominated and evidence dominated thinking to the right – left brain dominance?

As believed by science based on the research so far, people having left brain dominance tend toward logic and reasons where as those with right brain dominance are more sentimental, emotional. The degree of dominance in the respective brain believed to be the guiding factor to decide the degree of such tendencies. But this long standing, widely held “Belief” of science, is in question with the new research findings.

Researchers Debunk Myth of 'Right-Brained' and 'Left-Brained' Personality Traits (1)

“Chances are you've heard the label of being a "right-brained" or "left-brained" thinker. Logical, detail-oriented, and analytical? That's left-brained behavior. Creative, thoughtful, and subjective? Your brain's right side functions stronger -- or so long-held assumptions suggest. But newly released research findings from University of Utah neuroscientists assert that there is no evidence within brain imaging that indicates some people are right-brained or left-brained”.

"If you have a connection that is strongly left- lateralized, it relates to other strongly lateralized connection only if both sets of connections have a brain region in common," said Nielsen. Results of the study are groundbreaking, as they may change the way people think about the old right-brain versus left-brain theory, he said. "Everyone should understand the personality types associated with the terminology 'left-brained' and 'right-brained' and how they relate to him or her personally; however, we just don't see patterns where the whole left-brain network is more connected or the whole right-brain network is more connected in some people. It may be that personality types have nothing to do with one hemisphere being more active, stronger, or more connected” said Nielsen.

(1) (Journal Reference: Nielsen JA, Zielinski, Ferguson, Lainhart, Anderson. An Evaluation of the Left-Brain vs. Right-Brain Hypothesis with Resting State Functional Connectivity Magnetic Resonance Imaging. PLoS ONE, 2013 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0071275)

In the above mentioned July’2009 article (‘I Want to Believe’), Shermer describes Science: “I believe that the truth is out there. But how can we tell the difference between what we would like to be true and what is actually true? The answer is Science.”

As we have seen in past several years, with the advance in research, there are often changes in the accepted beliefs of science. Of course; this must be accepted as positive sign of progress of human intelligence and also a virtue of science to advance towards the truth. But the fact remains that “Believed Truths” in science have some limitations.

But this is not a major issue between theists and atheists. The major issue is to find a true plan of action for the welfare of the humanity which would serve the purpose of all prudent thinkers in different clans.

Vijay R. Joshi.