Quote:
Originally Posted by pamela
hmmmnn....I wonder, if this part is actually just the place for higher consciousness. Religion, having been fed into memory, is pulled to the forefront, hence these experiences occur. I find it difficult to accept that we are wired to religion, this should be a choice and not a predetermined biological function.
|
Well, I did not list a source near the top of my search that takes the view that neurotheology is bunk because spiritual awareness is an experience of an higher reality. As I earlier referred to
Noam Chomski's work on how we are hard-wired for language, it is after having read some of his work in detal that I have no such difficulty as have you, with the idea of neuro/bio-theology as a legitimate hypothesis. That said, I expect the predisposition to either extreme of 'religious' or 'spiritual', or whatever-name-one-cares-to-apply experience - as well as the middle
- fits some well described statistical distribution.
Here's the link to that opposing view I mentioned: >>
Mindful Hack: "Neurotheology": Bad neurology and bad theology?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Denyse O'Leary
Yuh. Mario and I discussed a number of these schemes in The Spiritual Brain, and they all have one thing in common: They aim to explain religious experiences away rather than explain them.
It is as if someone were to explain Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel in terms of infighting at the Vatican. If infighting at the Vatican in those days explained the Sistine, no one would bother with it now.
Coles also talks about another favourite subject - the apparently sudden emergence of human consciousness, especially as expressed in art, literature, music, and spirituality: ...
|
