| ABOUT US | ARCHIVES | LINKS | RSS FEED | MONDAYS | |

3quarksdaily

An Eclectic Digest of Science, Art and Literature

« In the Mirror of Abu Ghraib | Main | A Conversation with Ahmed Rashid »

June 28, 2008

A religious history of American neuroscience

Leigh Eric Schmidt in The Immanent Frame:

Not long ago, researchers wired up the atheist Richard Dawkins with a helmet that would create magnetic fields partially simulating the brain activity of temporal lobe epilepsy, which they linked to dramatic visionary religious experiences and to less dramatic feelings of sensed presences. It turns out, though, that hooking up a hardboiled atheist to a machine, known as the transcranial magnetic stimulator, produced no such experiences. “It was a great disappointment,” Dawkins related after 40 minutes on the machine. “Though I joked about the possibility, I of course never expected to end up believing in anything supernatural. But I did hope to share some of the feelings experienced by religious mystics when contemplating the mysteries of life and the cosmos.”

As my own mind was being massaged with images of Richard Dawkins having his temporal lobes stimulated, an odd notion popped into my head: namely, when it comes to religion, history and culture trump neurology. I quickly noticed that the same neuroscientists who were experimenting on Dawkins, among other more amenable test subjects, were also enfolding American religious history into their neurotheological data. One of the neurologists involved in the Dawkins stunt suggested in an interview, for example, that Ellen G. White, nineteenth-century prophet of the Seventh-day Adventist movement, suffered a childhood head injury that affected her temporal lobes in such a way as to produce her subsequent religious visions.

That example immediately struck me as a curious incursion of history into the laboratory. To be sure, even as an outsider, I was aware that a thriving set of conversations exists on the borders of neuroscience and religion. There are the theological questions, the God-spot questions: can the places of divine-human encounter, or, at least, the places of the felt-experiences of divine-human encounter be scanned and visualized? There are the ethical questions: for example, can the lying brain be mapped, detected, and exposed? Or, can compassionate affects be imaged and reproduced—in effect, is altruism a mental skill that can be trained? There are also, of course, innumerable psychotherapeutic questions; prominent among them is whether prayer and meditation are effective allies in the healing arts and medical sciences. But, here was the prolific visionary, Ellen G. White, suddenly thrust into the speculations of a pediatric neurologist studying temporal lobe epilepsy, all because she had been hit in the face by a rock when she was nine years old. Perhaps there is, indeed, a conversation to be had not only between religion and neuroscience, but also, more specifically, between American religious history and American neuroscience.

Posted by Robin Varghese at 11:07 AM | Permalink

Comments

© 2008 The MIT Press
The Seductive Allure of Neuroscience Explanations
Deena Skolnick Weisberg, Frank C. Keil, Joshua Goodstein, Elizabeth Rawson and Jeremy R. Gray
Yale University
Reprint requests should be sent to Deena Skolnick Weisberg, Department of Psychology, Yale University, P. O. Box 208205, New Haven, CT 06520-8205, or via e-mail: deena.weisberg@yale.edu.
Explanations of psychological phenomena seem to generate more public interest when they contain neuroscientific information. Even irrelevant neuroscience information in an explanation of a psychological phenomenon may interfere with people's abilities to critically consider the underlying logic of this explanation. We tested this hypothesis by giving naïve adults, students in a neuroscience course, and neuroscience experts brief descriptions of psychological phenomena followed by one of four types of explanation, according to a 2 (good explanation vs. bad explanation) x 2 (without neuroscience vs. with neuroscience) design. Crucially, the neuroscience information was irrelevant to the logic of the explanation, as confirmed by the expert subjects. Subjects in all three groups judged good explanations as more satisfying than bad ones. But subjects in the two nonexpert groups additionally judged that explanations with logically irrelevant neuroscience information were more satisfying than explanations without. The neuroscience information had a particularly striking effect on nonexperts' judgments of bad explanations, masking otherwise salient problems in these explanations.

That's my opinion...

Posted by: Felix E F Larocca MD | Jun 28, 2008 3:26:28 PM

Post a comment






Subscribe to this blog's feed  

PayAnywhere with iphone credit card swiper

Android Tablet

Bluetooth Headset

2013 New Style Dresses

Compare Car Rental Prices

DHgate.com Wholesale

3QD on Facebook

3QD on Kindle

3QD by Daily Email

Receive all blogposts at the same time every day.

Enter your Email:


Preview 3QD Email

3QD on Twitter

Miscellany

Lijit Search

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Add to Google

Recent Comments

Elatia Harris on Here He Goes Again: Sam Harris’s Falsehoods

Brad Wilson on Here He Goes Again: Sam Harris’s Falsehoods

Ben Schwartz on Here He Goes Again: Sam Harris’s Falsehoods

X on Physics’s Pangolin

jo smith on What is ‘smart’ and how does it fit our consciousness?

Jesse M. on NAPOLEON CHAGNON: BLOOD IS THEIR ARGUMENT

David Clausen on Psychiatry’s mistaken manual

Abbas Raza on Poetry in Translation

musafir on My Father: A Veteran's Story

roger gathmann on NAPOLEON CHAGNON: BLOOD IS THEIR ARGUMENT

Norman Costa on Physics’s Pangolin

Norman Costa on Physics’s Pangolin

prasad on What is ‘smart’ and how does it fit our consciousness?

Frans on The Epistemology of Hatred: A Case Study of Irish Bogs

jh on Moving books

Sundar on What is ‘smart’ and how does it fit our consciousness?

Brad Wilson on Physics’s Pangolin

Brad Wilson on What is ‘smart’ and how does it fit our consciousness?

dr h s saini on the pao of love (part one)

joyce marie costa ingraham on My Father: A Veteran's Story

X on Physics’s Pangolin

Gaddeswarup on What is ‘smart’ and how does it fit our consciousness?

Raza Husain on Physics’s Pangolin

gaddeswarup on What is ‘smart’ and how does it fit our consciousness?

nogodrod on messages sent from the dawn of history

Acclaim For 3QD


"I couldn't tear myself away from 3 Quarks Daily, to the point of neglecting my work. Congratulations on this superb site."—Steven Pinker, Johnstone Professor of Psychology, Harvard University.

"I have placed 3 Quarks Daily at the head of my list of web bookmarks."—Richard Dawkins, Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University.

"Just wanted you to know I’m one of many who reads and enjoys 3 Quarks....almost daily."—David Byrne, musician, former lead-singer of the Talking Heads, artist, intellectual.

Read more here.

The 3QD Prizes

Subscribe to this blog's feed