NYT
May 13, 2008
Op-Ed Columnist
The Neural Buddhists

By DAVID BROOKS

In 1996, Tom Wolfe wrote a brilliant essay called “Sorry, but Your
Soul Just Died,” in which he captured the militant materialism of some
modern scientists.

To these self-confident researchers, the idea that the spirit might
exist apart from the body is just ridiculous. Instead, everything
arises from atoms. Genes shape temperament. Brain chemicals shape
behavior. Assemblies of neurons create consciousness. Free will is an
illusion. Human beings are “hard-wired” to do this or that. Religion
is an accident.

In this materialist view, people perceive God’s existence because
their brains have evolved to confabulate belief systems. You put a
magnetic helmet around their heads and they will begin to think they
are having a spiritual epiphany. If they suffer from temporal lobe
epilepsy, they will show signs of hyperreligiosity, an overexcitement
of the brain tissue that leads sufferers to believe they are
conversing with God.

Wolfe understood the central assertion contained in this kind of
thinking: Everything is material and “the soul is dead.” He
anticipated the way the genetic and neuroscience revolutions would
affect public debate. They would kick off another fundamental argument
over whether God exists.

Lo and behold, over the past decade, a new group of assertive atheists
has done battle with defenders of faith. The two sides have argued
about whether it is reasonable to conceive of a soul that survives the
death of the body and about whether understanding the brain explains
away or merely adds to our appreciation of the entity that created it.

The atheism debate is a textbook example of how a scientific
revolution can change public culture. Just as “The Origin of Species”
reshaped social thinking, just as Einstein’s theory of relativity
affected art, so the revolution in neuroscience is having an effect on
how people see the world.

And yet my guess is that the atheism debate is going to be a sideshow.
The cognitive revolution is not going to end up undermining faith in
God, it’s going end up challenging faith in the Bible.

Over the past several years, the momentum has shifted away from hard-
core materialism. The brain seems less like a cold machine. It does
not operate like a computer. Instead, meaning, belief and
consciousness seem to emerge mysteriously from idiosyncratic networks
of neural firings. Those squishy things called emotions play a
gigantic role in all forms of thinking. Love is vital to brain
development.

Researchers now spend a lot of time trying to understand universal
moral intuitions. Genes are not merely selfish, it appears. Instead,
people seem to have deep instincts for fairness, empathy and
attachment.

Scientists have more respect for elevated spiritual states. Andrew
Newberg of the University of Pennsylvania has shown that transcendent
experiences can actually be identified and measured in the brain
(people experience a decrease in activity in the parietal lobe, which
orients us in space). The mind seems to have the ability to transcend
itself and merge with a larger presence that feels more real.

This new wave of research will not seep into the public realm in the
form of militant atheism. Instead it will lead to what you might call
neural Buddhism.

If you survey the literature (and I’d recommend books by Newberg,
Daniel J. Siegel, Michael S. Gazzaniga, Jonathan Haidt, Antonio
Damasio and Marc D. Hauser if you want to get up to speed), you can
see that certain beliefs will spread into the wider discussion.

First, the self is not a fixed entity but a dynamic process of
relationships. Second, underneath the patina of different religions,
people around the world have common moral intuitions. Third, people
are equipped to experience the sacred, to have moments of elevated
experience when they transcend boundaries and overflow with love.
Fourth, God can best be conceived as the nature one experiences at
those moments, the unknowable total of all there is.

In their arguments with Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins, the
faithful have been defending the existence of God. That was the easy
debate. The real challenge is going to come from people who feel the
existence of the sacred, but who think that particular religions are
just cultural artifacts built on top of universal human traits. It’s
going to come from scientists whose beliefs overlap a bit with
Buddhism.

In unexpected ways, science and mysticism are joining hands and
reinforcing each other. That’s bound to lead to new movements that
emphasize self-transcendence but put little stock in divine law or
revelation. Orthodox believers are going to have to defend particular
doctrines and particular biblical teachings. They’re going to have to
defend the idea of a personal God, and explain why specific theologies
are true guides for behavior day to day. I’m not qualified to take
sides, believe me. I’m just trying to anticipate which way the debate
is headed. We’re in the middle of a scientific revolution. It’s going
to have big cultural effects.

"Lance"  a écrit dans le message de news: 
336733fe-c316-4f6f-b0f6-e63b39967caa@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...

> "Researchers now spend a lot of time trying to understand
> universal moral intuitions. Genes are not merely selfish, it
>  appears. Instead, people seem to have deep instincts for
>fairness, empathy and attachment."

> Scientists have more respect for elevated spiritual states".

etc

Well parts of that article will make all those involved in the field of 
evolutionary psychology shudder ...

> "Second, underneath the patina of different religions,
> people around the world have common moral intuitions."

Indeed, but not necessarily for the reason suggested. The simplest 
explanation imo is that our moral framework has evolved with no 'sacred' 
prompting whatsoever.

>Over the past several years, the momentum has shifted away from hard-
>core materialism. The brain seems less like a cold machine. It does
>not operate like a computer. Instead, meaning, belief and
>consciousness seem to emerge mysteriously from idiosyncratic networks
>of neural firings. Those squishy things called emotions play a
>gigantic role in all forms of thinking. Love is vital to brain
>development.

>Researchers now spend a lot of time trying to understand universal
>moral intuitions. Genes are not merely selfish, it appears. Instead,
>people seem to have deep instincts for fairness, empathy and
>attachment.

Clearly the writer needs to read up about reciprocal altruism, and the 
evolutionary advantages it is claimed to engender. Perhaps David Brooks 
might take a look at game theory (a good Wikipedia expose here 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma)

pga

On May 14, 8:14 am, "PG"  wrote:
> "Lance"  a écrit dans le message de news:
> 336733fe-c316-4f6f-b0f6-e63b39967...@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > "Researchers now spend a lot of time trying to understand
> > universal moral intuitions. Genes are not merely selfish, it
> >  appears. Instead, people seem to have deep instincts for
> >fairness, empathy and attachment."
> > Scientists have more respect for elevated spiritual states".
>
> etc
>
> Well parts of that article will make all those involved in the field of
> evolutionary psychology shudder ...
>
> > "Second, underneath the patina of different religions,
> > people around the world have common moral intuitions."
>
> Indeed, but not necessarily for the reason suggested. The simplest
> explanation imo is that our moral framework has evolved with no 'sacred'
> prompting whatsoever.
>
> >Over the past several years, the momentum has shifted away from hard-
> >core materialism. The brain seems less like a cold machine. It does
> >not operate like a computer. Instead, meaning, belief and
> >consciousness seem to emerge mysteriously from idiosyncratic networks
> >of neural firings. Those squishy things called emotions play a
> >gigantic role in all forms of thinking. Love is vital to brain
> >development.
> >Researchers now spend a lot of time trying to understand universal
> >moral intuitions. Genes are not merely selfish, it appears. Instead,
> >people seem to have deep instincts for fairness, empathy and
> >attachment.
>
> Clearly the writer needs to read up about reciprocal altruism, and the
> evolutionary advantages it is claimed to engender. Perhaps David Brooks
> might take a look at game theory (a good Wikipedia expose herehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma)
>
> pga

You score lots of points - I'm sure you are right.

Still I thought the article was also commenting on a change in science
over the last 30 years. Tiopics that were formerly taboo or off limits
are now regularly debated by scientists.

Lance

> >moral intuitions. Genes are not merely selfish, it appears. Instead,
> >people seem to have deep instincts for fairness, empathy and
> >attachment.
>
> Clearly the writer needs to read up about reciprocal altruism,

He needs to take logic 101 and biology 101 first, or maybe cut back on
the alcohol to give his brain a chance to work. A terrible example of
anthropomorphising genes, typical gutter trash journalism.