The Illusion of God's Presence: The Biological Origins of Spiritual Longing

[Recusant]

. . . Is the title of a very recently published book that puts forward a hypothesis which attempts to explain the experience of actually feeling the immediate presence of a deity. When somebody senses that their god is literally with them, right then and there, what is going on? Is it possible to understand this phenomenon in any other way than accepting it on face value?

"Book Review: The Illusion of God's Presence" | Daylight Atheism

Summary: Not a new theory, but a new and strong case for an old theory, supplemented with up-to-date neurological evidence.

Jack Wathey is a neuroscientist and computational biologist and the founder of Wathey Research, a scientific firm that focuses on problems like protein folding. His new book, The Illusion of God's Presence, presents an answer to a puzzling problem: Why do human beings believe so strongly in a supernatural deity, even in the face of ample contradictory evidence?

[Continues . . .]

Very brief interview with the author: "The Science Behind Prayer and 'The Illusion of God's Presence'" | Publisher's Weekly

[Biggus Dickus]

This looks fascinating Recusant, thanks for posting. My plan is to read the full interview with the author today during lunch. This part of the book review was quite intriguing..."infantile imagery" in a wide variety of religions and cults: texts and rituals that, implicitly or explicitly, tell believers to picture themselves in an infantile role and God as a loving parent.

Sometimes when I visit my father's gravesite I hold conversations with him in my mind, really just me speaking out my thoughts , but often I sense a connection with him, a feeling that is hard for me to put into words. However, it's nothing I subscribe to as being spiritual or supernatural, simply me connecting to my memory and love of him along with a longing to be with him again, and relating that as nothing more than a personal conscience experience, if that makes sense.

I've often wondered what the sophisticated explanation is for this phenomena, and this explanation of the "Illusion of God's Presence" so many people feel goes a long way to explaining that.

I may have to pick a copy of this up.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

I rarely get into serious discussions on this forum, confining myself mainly to 3 Word Story and the Ban threads.  Here, however, I have some personal experience.  As one who has had what I consider to be profound experiences of God, I've decided to weigh in.  My personal experience of Jesus is not in a parent-infant context, but more brother-brother or friend-friend, at times perhaps teacher-student.  Maybe older brother-younger brother is the average. I don't expect anyone who has never had profound religious experiences to understand this, but these experiences are the most "real" phenomena that I can imagine. They were more prevalent when I was younger, but I occasionally have them now.  The point I want to make about them is this: since all human experience is in the brain, these experiences will always have some neurological manifestation on scans and other tests.  The assumption of non-believers is that this demonstrates that it is all created by the brain, not the result of some external presence.  But consider this thought experiment: assume that with the use of electrodes or other forms of brain mapping/stimulation that one could perfectly duplicate the experience of the taste of an apple in a test subject.  This experience would be capable of being shown on a brain scan. Parts of the brain would show activity while others would be more dormant. Would the fact that electrodes could reproduce the experience of tasting an apple prove that apples do not exist?  Of course not.  Likewise, the fact that religious experiences can be recorded on brain scans does not prove that some unexplained presence does not exist.  Despite repeated assertions by non-believers that God has been disproven, nothing of the sort has been accomplished. Believers who have profound religious experiences have for themselves sufficient proof of the existence of God.  It may not suffice for anyone else, but it suffices for them. 

[Sandra Craft]

Despite repeated assertions by non-believers that God has been disproven, nothing of the sort has been accomplished. Believers who have profound religious experiences have for themselves sufficient proof of the existence of God.  It may not suffice for anyone else, but it suffices for them.

This may not be quite to the point but I'm curious -- who, on or off this board, has claimed god has been disproven?  I totally missed that, and frankly it sounds like a logical impossibility to me.

Another book, that I read many years ago, covered this topic as well: Why God Won't Go Away, by Andrew Newberg, Eugene D'Aquill and Vince Rause.  I'm going to do this on memory, but their basic conclusion was that there's an area of the brain that interprets things in a way that many consider as perception of the divine.  Whether this perception is accurate, or an illusion, is something they refused to give an opinion on as it was outside of their ability to test.

[Insoluble]

I desire a divine undo button.
I have tried reaching for it.
Wasted effort, it's not there.
Any prophets promising 'em?
I do so much welcome a visit
My larder's growing empty.

[Crow]

I rarely get into serious discussions on this forum, confining myself mainly to 3 Word Story and the Ban threads.  Here, however, I have some personal experience.  As one who has had what I consider to be profound experiences of God, I've decided to weigh in.  My personal experience of Jesus is not in a parent-infant context, but more brother-brother or friend-friend, at times perhaps teacher-student.  Maybe older brother-younger brother is the average. I don't expect anyone who has never had profound religious experiences to understand this, but these experiences are the most "real" phenomena that I can imagine. They were more prevalent when I was younger, but I occasionally have them now.  The point I want to make about them is this: since all human experience is in the brain, these experiences will always have some neurological manifestation on scans and other tests.  The assumption of non-believers is that this demonstrates that it is all created by the brain, not the result of some external presence.  But consider this thought experiment: assume that with the use of electrodes or other forms of brain mapping/stimulation that one could perfectly duplicate the experience of the taste of an apple in a test subject.  This experience would be capable of being shown on a brain scan. Parts of the brain would show activity while others would be more dormant. Would the fact that electrodes could reproduce the experience of tasting an apple prove that apples do not exist?  Of course not.  Likewise, the fact that religious experiences can be recorded on brain scans does not prove that some unexplained presence does not exist.  Despite repeated assertions by non-believers that God has been disproven, nothing of the sort has been accomplished. Believers who have profound religious experiences have for themselves sufficient proof of the existence of God.  It may not suffice for anyone else, but it suffices for them.

Well it would actually prove that the experience is a real one and not an imaginary one. The measurement does not highlight the cause but it would provide evidence for hypotheses to be written up and tested. Going by past discoveries if it is external stimulus it should be relatively easy to track but if it is entirely biological then it will be much harder but still doable. If people want to say it is a "god" they need to put their hat in the ring and develop a proper hypothesis and test for it, if they use prayer as the answer then they are going to be on a losing side due to the research into meditation and other forms of secular ritual.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

This may not be quite to the point but I'm curious -- who, on or off this board, has claimed god has been disproven?  I totally missed that, and frankly it sounds like a logical impossibility to me.

I should clarify that.  I wasn't referring to specific people on this board.  But part of Recusant's quote in the OP says "Why do human beings believe so strongly in a supernatural deity, even in the face of ample contradictory evidence?  I encounter this position a good bit in other forums, such as the Sam Harris forum.  It's the "strong atheist" position, not just that "I don't believe in gods", but that "gods affirmatively do not exist."  Frankly, I don't think there's any actual evidence one way or the other, and like you I think it's a logical impossibility to assert that there is no intelligent creator.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

If people want to say it is a "god" they need to put their hat in the ring and develop a proper hypothesis and test for it ....

To my knowledge no such hypothesis exists and I cannot formulate one.  That is why, for me, the issue of the existence of God remains in the realm of faith, not knowledge.  It's something that I can feel personally strong about based on my subjective experience, but it's not something that I can convince anyone else of.  So I don't attempt to prove it - I just mention it to offer other alternatives to interpretation of evidence. I think it is just as fallacious to assert conclusively that God exists as it is to assert conclusively that he doesn't.  It is simply something that is not currently in the realm of human knowledge.  One can have faith, or not.

[Recusant]

My larder's growing empty.

Stringy and tough, I would think.

[Crow]

To my knowledge no such hypothesis exists and I cannot formulate one.  That is why, for me, the issue of the existence of God remains in the realm of faith, not knowledge.  It's something that I can feel personally strong about based on my subjective experience, but it's not something that I can convince anyone else of.  So I don't attempt to prove it - I just mention it to offer other alternatives to interpretation of evidence. I think it is just as fallacious to assert conclusively that God exists as it is to assert conclusively that he doesn't.  It is simply something that is not currently in the realm of human knowledge.  One can have faith, or not.

If there is no attempt to find a solution to answers through nothing more than guesswork then the work of those that pursue evidence based answers render those opinions redundant. A hypothesis can be easily formulated for a god based on the principle that it should be within the confines of reality but exempt from other stimulus, X happens without being chemically induced or reactively induced such as high levels of cortisol from stress or a by-product of another action such as meditation then at the very least it can be flagged up as a real "gap". There is no interpretation of evidence outside of a hypothesis by removing the ability to test you have created a barrier to hide behind, if the religious want to place their belief within the discoveries made by science then they need to engage with the process. In this case as you state a god would work with reality and therefore observable thus it should be testable.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

In this case as you state a god would work with reality and therefore observable thus it should be testable.

And it may be eventually, but I don't know how.  If I am affected by a presence that is external to me then perhaps it could be tested and detected, but perhaps we don't have the tools.  That's why it remains in the realm of faith.  But consider this: if I go out at night and observe the Milky Way on a clear night in the West Texas desert, just the sight of it creates a sense of awe and wonder.  I remember just looking at my first granddaughter as an infant and being overcome with a sensation of love.  What tool or measuring device could measure the effect those two sights had on my brain?  What passed between the Milky Way or my granddaughter and me?  To my knowledge, there was no transfer of energy from them to me, but I experienced the effect.  Perhaps it was a "transfer" of information, but I'm not sure.  I looked at the Milky Way and experienced awe, and at my granddaughter and experienced love.  So in some sense, I look at the world and certain circumstances cause me to experience what I call "God".  That's a placeholder name - it means whatever the person experiencing it decides.  It comes across as something conscious, intelligent, personal and loving. But how could you test something like that?  Sure, you could scan my brain and see the effects, but how do you test the way certain perceptions or encounters transfer information to a brain that creates experience?  I don't know. 

[Biggus Dickus]

I wanted to add that this is a very interesting conversation you all are having, and even if I don't have anything to add currently, I am sitting very attentively in the corner drinking tea and listening.

[Sandra Craft]

I wanted to add that this is a very interesting conversation you all are having, and even if I don't have anything to add currently, I am sitting very attentively in the corner drinking tea and listening.

What kind of tea?

This may not be quite to the point but I'm curious -- who, on or off this board, has claimed god has been disproven?  I totally missed that, and frankly it sounds like a logical impossibility to me.

I should clarify that.  I wasn't referring to specific people on this board.  But part of Recusant's quote in the OP says "Why do human beings believe so strongly in a supernatural deity, even in the face of ample contradictory evidence?  I encounter this position a good bit in other forums, such as the Sam Harris forum.  It's the "strong atheist" position, not just that "I don't believe in gods", but that "gods affirmatively do not exist."  Frankly, I don't think there's any actual evidence one way or the other, and like you I think it's a logical impossibility to assert that there is no intelligent creator.

Well, good, I was starting to get that nobody-ever-tells-me-anything feeling again.  I'm going to have to read that book review Res linked (I admit it, I was skimming) but I think declaring there's contradictory evidence of a god, or the supernatural in general, is a bad move -- what in the world would that even look like?  It's enough to say there is no supporting evidence, and never will be given the claim is for something that exists outside of nature.

[Crow]

In this case as you state a god would work with reality and therefore observable thus it should be testable.

And it may be eventually, but I don't know how.  If I am affected by a presence that is external to me then perhaps it could be tested and detected, but perhaps we don't have the tools.  That's why it remains in the realm of faith.  But consider this: if I go out at night and observe the Milky Way on a clear night in the West Texas desert, just the sight of it creates a sense of awe and wonder.  I remember just looking at my first granddaughter as an infant and being overcome with a sensation of love.  What tool or measuring device could measure the effect those two sights had on my brain?  What passed between the Milky Way or my granddaughter and me?  To my knowledge, there was no transfer of energy from them to me, but I experienced the effect.  Perhaps it was a "transfer" of information, but I'm not sure.  I looked at the Milky Way and experienced awe, and at my granddaughter and experienced love.  So in some sense, I look at the world and certain circumstances cause me to experience what I call "God".  That's a placeholder name - it means whatever the person experiencing it decides.  It comes across as something conscious, intelligent, personal and loving. But how could you test something like that?  Sure, you could scan my brain and see the effects, but how do you test the way certain perceptions or encounters transfer information to a brain that creates experience?  I don't know.

There has been a massive amount of research done using fMRI and PET through various stages of peoples interactions to look at changes in the brain and the effects these have on people. There are many social and behavioural studies looking at the importance of particular emotions and which chemicals are at play. If you look up cognitive theories on emotion there are a few solutions to the questions you raise. God in the case you are highlighting would be the neurochemicals dopamine, noradrenaline and serotonin. We know there are other chemicals at play but these are the three primary ones that are found in all emotional states at different levels, when experiencing love we know these are at different levels than they would for anger but the type of love felt for a daughter would be different than for a wife as chemicals such as testosterone would be at play in the later. No transference of energy is necessary outside of the physical system (chemical) which is provided by food and radiant energy which is providing the visual.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

There has been a massive amount of research done using fMRI and PET through various stages of peoples interactions to look at changes in the brain and the effects these have on people. There are many social and behavioural studies looking at the importance of particular emotions and which chemicals are at play. If you look up cognitive theories on emotion there are a few solutions to the questions you raise. God in the case you are highlighting would be the neurochemicals dopamine, noradrenaline and serotonin. We know there are other chemicals at play but these are the three primary ones that are found in all emotional states at different levels, when experiencing love we know these are at different levels than they would for anger but the type of love felt for a daughter would be different than for a wife as chemicals such as testosterone would be at play in the later. No transference of energy is necessary outside of the physical system (chemical) which is provided by food and radiant energy which is providing the visual.

I probably am not clearly articulating my position.  God in my case is not dopamine, noradrenaline and serotonin, any more than my granddaughter or the Milky Way are.  Those chemicals are in my brain, and are responsible for my experience of my granddaughter, the Milky Way, and what I call God.  Those three things are all things that I perceive "out there".  In the case of my granddaughter and the Milky Way, there are identifiable physical objects.  The sight of them (or in the case of people, the sound, feel, smell, etc.) causes the chemicals in my brain to cause an experience.  With God, the perception is based on some event, some circumstance, some thought, perhaps music or something else, excites the experience.  More later, going to eat.