. . . 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 (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/2016/01/book-review-the-illusion-of-gods-presence/)
QuoteSummary: 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 . . . (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/2016/01/book-review-the-illusion-of-gods-presence/#sthash.HjjskfEp.dpuf)]
Very brief interview with the author: "The Science Behind Prayer and 'The Illusion of God's Presence'" |
Publisher's Weekly (http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/religion/article/69076-the-science-behind-prayer-and-the-illusion-of-god-s-presence.html)
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.
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.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on January 16, 2016, 03:00:11 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on January 16, 2016, 03:00:11 AM
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.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on January 16, 2016, 04:56:58 AM
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.
Quote from: Crow on January 16, 2016, 12:58:52 PM
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.
Quote from: Insoluble on January 16, 2016, 12:32:07 PMMy larder's growing empty.
Stringy and tough, I would think.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on January 16, 2016, 02:24:21 PM
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.
Quote from: Crow on January 16, 2016, 03:56:26 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Bruno de la Pole on January 16, 2016, 07:55:50 PM
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?
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on January 16, 2016, 02:19:25 PM
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on January 16, 2016, 04:56:58 AM
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.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on January 16, 2016, 04:24:19 PM
Quote from: Crow on January 16, 2016, 03:56:26 PM
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.
Quote from: Crow on January 16, 2016, 11:31:53 PM
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.
Quote from: The Illusion of God's PresenceHis theory – the illusion of the title – is that belief in God is a misfire of the brain systems that evolved to promote parent-child bonding in infancy. A baby instinctively believes, without needing any prior experience, that its crying will summon a powerful, loving parental figure.
I think Wathey is going off the road a bit here, and reading too much into a baby's cry. I don't think babies instinctively "believe" anything or are even trying to summon anyone -- they cry because that's the sole response to trouble they're capable of making.
I'm inclined to think that a belief in gods is based on things that go on at a later age, when more of the brain has developed.
Quote from: Bruno de la Pole on January 16, 2016, 07:55:50 PM
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.
It is interesting, isn't it? I couldn't add anything, even if I wanted to, I'm sitting semi-attentive in my corner, drinking a
Modelo Especial beer, and attempting to stay focus .
I have never, ever, ever, felt the presence of a god, not even while I was enduring the most horrible suffering, or on the happiest day of my life...well, so far. Maybe being able to feel the presence of a god is something one earns by doing I don't know what. I know I'm never gonna earn it because I'm at the spiritual level of an Australopithecus africanus. I'm one of those who whenever they hear thunder, look up at the sky and wonder if a god is angry. Maybe I'm not worthy of a god's divine presence because I'm a sinner, I'm a joker, I'm not a smoker, but sometimes I'm a midnight toker, and only Jesus liked my type. :grin:
Quote from: Magdalena on January 17, 2016, 06:20:50 AM
Maybe I'm not worthy of a god's divine presence because I'm a sinner, I'm a joker, I'm not a smoker, but sometimes I'm a midnight toker, and only Jesus liked my type. :grin:
Heh. There may be something in the idea that some of us just aren't wired for belief. I read about an experiment where a number of people's brains were wired up and then they were asked to pray or meditate. I should mention these were people of varying belief systems. When they were praying/meditating the part of their brain that lit up changed from dealing with reality to imagination -- all except for the meditating atheist, whose brain stayed lit in the reality center the whole time. It's hardly conclusive, but it is interesting.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on January 17, 2016, 07:04:37 AM
Quote from: Magdalena on January 17, 2016, 06:20:50 AM
Maybe I'm not worthy of a god's divine presence because I'm a sinner, I'm a joker, I'm not a smoker, but sometimes I'm a midnight toker, and only Jesus liked my type. :grin:
Heh. There may be something in the idea that some of us just aren't wired for belief. I read about an experiment where a number of people's brains were wired up and then they were asked to pray or meditate. I should mention these were people of varying belief systems. When they were praying/meditating the part of their brain that lit up changed from dealing with reality to imagination -- all except for the meditating atheist, whose brain stayed lit in the reality center the whole time. It's hardly conclusive, but it is interesting.
I would like to able to explain how it feels to not feel the presence of a god, but it's not that easy. I would say that it feels as if I have a god repellent sprayed all over my body. I think it's pretty strong because it's capable of bending the divine light, away from me. I don't think that's bad, that's just how I was designed. :smilenod:
Quote from: Magdalena on January 17, 2016, 07:38:09 AM
I would like to able to explain how it feels to not feel the presence of a god, but it's not that easy. I would say that it feels as if I have a god repellent sprayed all over my body. I think it's pretty strong because it's capable of bending the divine light, away from me. I don't think that's bad, that's just how I was designed. :smilenod:
I lean to Frank Lloyd Wright's quote: I believe in god, only I spell it n-a-t-u-r-e.
I don't think anything misfires for those who sense God's presence or for those who don't. I think some are wired to experience and some are not. I'm not wired to want to give birth to a baby and have no sense of what that experience is like. Same for the presence of God, perhaps. Whether there is an objective referent for the experience somewhere out there is not possible, IMHO, to establish. It is what it is and we do what we do. As long as we get along it shouldn't be a problem. But humans rarely get along for long. Better to keep each other at a distance, or at least have an escape route planned.
^^
"Better to keep each other at a distance, or at least have an escape route planned."
That's why it's called, The illusion of God's Presence, thread. It's just an illusion, even the Pope knows this, this is why some popemobiles are open air, while others have bulletproof glass. The illusion is one thing, reality is another.
God's presence is a reality, not an illusion, for many people. Is it conceivable that they might have some faculty that we do not? I do not believe that to be the case but I can not dismiss it at a hundred percent level. To do so would be close minded, which is a trait
that we accuse the ultra religious of harboring.
I am a staunch atheist but I am willing to learn about cosmic truths that I do not understand at this time. Meanwhile, I have little patience with the vast army of people who honestly believe that prayer is affective, or that their god will protect them while they handle venomous snakes, or that god puts images of Jesus or Mary on grilled cheese sandwiches.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on January 17, 2016, 12:05:53 AM
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.
What feeling/experience is it that leads you to perceive it as a god, a feeling of a presence of some sort or of being observed? A combination of a specific emotions?
Quote from: Crow on January 18, 2016, 10:27:34 AM
What feeling/experience is it that leads you to perceive it as a god, a feeling of a presence of some sort or of being observed? A combination of a specific emotions?
It is different at different times, but for the most part it consists of a sense of a presence of another person. The presence is loving, not judgmental. Sometimes, a set of circumstances or events seem to reveal the presence, as if to say "here I am". It ties my existence together, makes it coherent, gives it meaning. It makes me think there is a goal, a plan. Sometimes I get a sense of gratitude about something good that happens. It's varied, like most relationships, except that it's on a higher or deeper level. I identify the presence with Jesus.
I never had any negative connotations associated with Jesus, so perhaps that's why he seems so accessible to me. I'm glad I didn't grow up Catholic or in some cult - that would have probably ruined it for me. But my childhood Sunday School days were more benign - coloring pictures of Jesus or acting in a play about the Good Samaritan. Overall quite positive. None of the "God's gonna get you" stuff. Maybe that's why I relate to him. I can't see him rejecting anyone.
So Jesus is an actual historic figure that represents what God is like to me. He existed, whether God does or not. He puts a face and hands on God, even though I've never actually seen Jesus. It makes it easier to comprehend an abstract concept.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on January 16, 2016, 10:27:20 PM
Quote from: Bruno de la Pole on January 16, 2016, 07:55:50 PM
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?
Masala Chai...30 minutes on the stove, whole house smelled divine at the time.
I wonder how those who claim, and truly believe they have been abducted by aliens would compare...is the perception the same as the one Bruce claims to have?
I would equate my perception of contact or closeness I feel at times when I visit my father's grave as I described earlier as probably no different than that of those who feel or claim to have felt a presence of god or Jesus, with the one exception I guess, I'm aware the perceived feeling is only that, perceived and not grounded in reality.