Deeper in: Dan Dennett’s Scientific Study of Religion at CFI
This is an eclectic traipsing through the conference in several parts.
Andrew Newburg, the first scheduled presenter on Saturday was ill and couldn’t make it. Neurotheology is his specialized area of investigation. He’s PET or SPECT scanned the brains of Buddhists in meditation and Carmelite nuns in prayer. He was high on my list of want-to-sees. I wanted to see what he thought of how evolution might have put together the neurochemicals and their receptor cells with some propensity toward religiosity or religiousness or spirituality.
Most of the presenters, I think, are opposed to anything like religion as a package deal being selected for as an evolutionary adaptation. For others, it’s a matter of onion skin layers –and the thesis and proponents of what might have evolved that can be found at that layer. Nobody thinks you could inherit, let’s say, Catholicism (or any fullblown religion). Not many think you’d inherit the worship of a supernatural being, per se. But as you keep peeling off layers, you’ll come to a level we might call a “religious impulse.” That idea has followers. See Nicholas Wade, The Faith Instinct. I believe, also, that you can consider E.O. Wilson, Sociobiology, Consilience & David Sloan Wilson, Darwin’s Cathedral, in on that one (and me).
Daniel Dennett & Pascal Boyer don’t think (and please correct me if I get this wrong: I’ve read both their books & took copious notes, but my memory is almost nonexistent) there’s continuity between the early religious behavior of hunter-gatherers and today’s religions. Boyer says they have only Religious Thought and Belief and nothing like capital R Religions. Richard Dawkins & Steven Pinker (not at the conference, but icons in the pantheon of the New Atheism) whom I admire, as well, give reasons unworthy of their intellects as to why they reject the likelihood that natural selection could have put together anything supportive of religion.
I’m not saying that evolution created a whole new brain center, large neural structure, and maybe not even anything unique or specially dedicated to support something like a religious impulse. Selection would have had the easiest time (and selection operates without any intent or purpose–results happen and they live or die –or thrive–or have a slight reproductive advantage) selecting, slowly accumulating, accreting, minor changes in what allowed the human brain to trigger neurochemicals or neurotransmitters and thereby reward itself for thinking lofty, especially pious, thoughts. Some religious behaviors would accrete over time that would coax out, in a supportive way, more of this mutually supportive neurochemical rewards and voila` you’ve got a mystical experience or, more likely, a subliminal perk when someone whispered in your ear that Jesus loves you.
That’s what I wanted to ask Andrew Newburg about. J. Anderson Thompson, MD gave the first presentation instead, The Song of Serotonin and the Dance of Dopamine and may have come closer than Dr. Newburg might have to affirming the likelihood of a heritable religious impulse–if it can largely be based in neurochemistry. Along with selection stringing together some religious behavior be it chant, dance, and/or trance, I think it might just be. When he acknowledged the contribution of Nicholas Wade to the field and work, I believe that might have been the affirmation.
Entry filed under: freethought. Tags: Anderson Thompson, Andrew Newburg, CFI, Daniel Dennett, Dennett, J. Anderson Thompson, neurotheology, Pascal Boyer, richard dawkins, Scientific study of religion.