Buddhism And Agnosticism

[camerata]

Buddhism and Agnosticism

Many years ago I realized I could not accept the Buddhist doctrines of karma and rebirth. These two ideas provide the indispensable mythic foundation for traditional Buddhism. By questioning them one threatens to undermine not only the entire edifice of Buddhist ethics, doctrine and practice, but the authority of Buddha himself. For without believing in some kind of consciousness that survives physical death to be propelled by the force of its acts through a vicious cycle of rebirths, the raison d’être for embarking on the liberating path taught by Gotama Siddhartha and generations of his enlightened followers is lost. For orthodox Buddhists, this multi-life perspective is what endows the Dharma with its redemptive grandeur.

To resolve this dilemma, I opted for an agnostic position, which was outlined in my book Buddhism Without Beliefs (Riverhead, 1997). It seemed to provide an appropriately “middle way” solution to the problem. As an agnostic, I did not have to accept or reject the doctrines of karma and rebirth. In affirming that I did not know (a-gnosis) whether or not they were true, I was able to leave them open as questions to be pondered rather than dogmas to be believed or disbelieved. That I was not alone in finding this position attractive was attested to by the considerable popularity of the book. But (naively in retrospect) I was unprepared for the ensuing backlash from various quarters of the Buddhist establishment. I was accused of severely weakening the thrust of Buddha’s teaching, of subordinating the Dharma to nihilistic Western views, of rendering a revered and ancient tradition banal.

I have now come to see more clearly the limitations of this agnostic approach. While agnosticism can offer a refreshingly open-minded contrast to the closed certainties of dogmatism, as a consistent position of principle it is both too broad and too non-commital. All believers, by definition, must be agnostics. The moment you declare that you believe in God or the law of karma, you are acknowledging that you do not know whether they exist or not. For if you did know, you would have no need to believe. Only fools, fanatics and omniscient beings would claim to know such things. To not know, to be agnostic, is nothing more than an honest acceptance of the limited human condition.

The strengths of agnosticism -- tolerance and openness, on-going enquiry, acceptance of uncertainty -- turn out to be its weaknesses. For human beings cannot afford the luxury of remaining forever ambivalent. We are repeatedly confronted by challenges which force us to take a stand, make commitments, defend what we value. We have to cast aside lingering doubts and decide to act in one way or another. We must be willing to take any number of leaps in the dark.

Self-conscious life has somehow come to flourish in the biosphere enveloping this planet. That is all I know about it with certainty. Human beings like us may never have evolved before and may never evolve again in this or any other universe. As far as anyone knows, we are alone in an inconceivably vast cosmos that has no interest at all in our fate. I do not believe that I existed in any meaningful sense before my birth or will exist again after my death either here on earth, in a heaven, a hel_l or any other realm. All that will survive from my brief spell here as a rational animal will be the traces I leave behind in this world and the impact I have through my words and deeds on the lives of others.

This might strike you as a depressingly bleak picture that excludes any possibility of hope or redemption. I disagree. Such spiritual shudders of distaste are a reflex of that primal human longing for there to be more to life than just this. But this, I would argue, is where the religious quest not only begins but ends. God, the devil, heaven, hel_l, rebirth, karma are human inventions that we have projected beyond ourselves and invested with a separate reality of their own. The view of reality disclosed through the natural sciences evokes feelings of awe incomparably greater than anything religious or mystical writings of any tradition can inspire. Far from being just dumb, inert stuff, matter is wondrously, abundantly, profusely alive. The more we understand it, the less there appears any need for a divine spark or immaterial consciousness to animate it.

Let me repeat. I do not know if this is true; I just believe it is. Among all the accounts of the origin and nature of life currently on offer, that of modern science is by far the most convincing and compelling. Therein also lies its danger. One can be as inflexibly dogmatic about a scientific worldview as a religious one. Today’s understanding will probably turn out to be partial and provisional. We can no more anticipate what Copernican revolutions future millenia hold in store than our forebears could imagine the ground beneath their feet to be the surface of a globe rotating in space around the sun. How we picture the universe now may represent only a few scattered pieces of a jigsaw puzzle that we cannot possibly conceive.

By abandoning religious cosmologies and metaphysics, one is able to see more clearly the transformative role spiritual practices can play in this life. Long before embracing agnosticism, my doubts around karma and rebirth were resolved when it dawned on me that even were they not true, that would not affect the commitment to a Buddhist practice. To live according to Buddhism’s ethical precepts, to apply its instructions on meditation, and to engage with its philosophical ideas seemed sufficiently self-validating and worthwhile in themselves. None of these activities needed to be justified or motivated by arcane theories of multiple lives and karmic causation.

Practices such as generosity, tolerance, compassion, non-violence, detachment, mindfulness, concentration and enquiry into the nature of emptiness and contingency were not only compatible with my post-Christian, secular humanism and its scientific worldview, but appeared to enrich and enhance them. In its unique configuration of these values Buddhism introduced an entirely new perspective on life and the world. It suggested the possibility of a culture of awakening. And, crucially, it provided a systematic body of practices whereby that perspective and culture could be embodied and realized. In the unfamiliar soil of a Western value system and cultural outlook, however, these practices began to yield unorthodox results. Meditation on impermanence, suffering and no-self, for example, did not -- as Buddha insisted it would -- lead me to disenchantment, dispassion and a resolve not to be born again, but to an ever deepening awareness of life’s infinitely poignant beauty.

Source: Steven Bachelor's blog.

[jumnien]

A Tibetan monk I knew many years ago in a land far away was asked, "If there is not real self, what is it that is reincarnated." He responded, "It is bad habits, that's all."

Love the Batchelor essay, thanks.

[ProThaiExpat]

I cannot escape my commitment to rational thinking and thus I am doomed to be a non-believer.

I say that in a negative way, as I must admit I have seen the positive nature of belief, regardless of whether the basis of the belief makes sense or not.

Having had a strong bout of alcoholism many years ago, I turned to AA, and like so many rational thinkers, I had a terrible time with the "higher power" concept.

I was led to a proposition that if you do not understand how electricity works, does that mean there is no electric light. As a result, I came to communicate with a power, similar to electricity in my lack of ability to understand it, that more or less floated around "out there" and it was to this not understood power that I communicated with. Prayer works, but how I don't know. Now I believe the positive effects of prayer comes from communication with yourself, whether it be with the subconscious or other parts of the brain we know nothing about. Perhaps a permutation of what affirmations are supposed to accomplish.

I do feel the facts are abundant that non-believers do far less harm that religionists when it comes to enforcing their beliefs on others (since they have none) or killing those who are not of like mind.

[reasonstobecheerful]

Prayer works, but how I don't know.

The best studies seem to show that if there is a god, he certainly doesn’t intervene in medical procedures based on the number of people who pray. (I thought I had them stored in my laptop but don't seem to have them at hand sorry).

If you think it does work for certain categories of problems where perhaps prayer is in the nature of self-talk or worthwhile contemplation then perhaps the very difference between this result and the other might tell us something.

Edited May 15, 2007 by reasonstobecheerful

[ProThaiExpat]

reasonstobecheer: one of the major mental issues that alcoholics of my stripe have to face in early recovery is to get off the concept that "your running the world". It was a great weight off my shoulders when I was able to release all that responsibility and just "go with the flow".

"Turning over" the control or responsibility to something else, whether it is labeled god, a door knob, or a high power, was accomplished for me through prayer, as at the time, many years ago, I was more willing to acknowledge that there was a "god like force" out there.

Today I just need to talk to myself, meditate or whatever you want to call it, reminding myself of the lessons I have learned about mental health and what is reality.

One of my major mental health issues is to not get angry when I see man's inhumanity to man on a daily basis around the world, usually in the guise of religious belief.

[banchang]

reasonstobecheerful

The best studies seem to show that if there is a god,

Realy? Maybe you could expand on this , maybe by "best" you meen studies done by god worshipers. It would be very helpfull if you could post some links to these studies because I havent found one that dose.

[rychrde]

Just do the practices!

Tibetan Buddhism in particular is a rich, and currently fragile, source of some of the most amazing practices in the world. I have had the privilege of meeting some wonderful Tibetan masters, who have come to understand how westerners view the world. The practices are about how to be fully human. How to develop capacities you did not have before, or rather, were unaware of before. There are similar practices in yoga, tantra, taoism and, if one looks deeply enough, is some western quarters. Religion is the outer clothing that protects the inner esoteric practices.

Having removed the metaphysical and moral precepts of buddhism still leaves the practices. Their efficacy is not diminished. But everyone who ventures down this path seems to need some reason to do so - some excuse to carry on.

Coming back to the West, Nietzsche said (from memory), "The measure of a human is how much truth they can take."

btw have never liked the term agnostic the way it is currently used. As mentioned, it strictly means "without knowledge", which although true is usually in opposition to believers (fideists), who in my opinion are equally lacking in knowledge. From an etymological standpoint I think 'infidel' is a much better word. Unfortunately it has a lot of historical baggage.

rych

[DrFisher]

I am a Chan Buddhist so that pretty much makes me agnostic very simply because I do not know the nature of the universe so I do not venture to speak for it, leaving it opened to be what it is and not filling in any blanks for my personal, political, religious or egotistical agenda. All the Thai monks I have spoken to (mostly my students) are stone cold atheists and they can't believe I am not. I explain to them I am not saying that there is or is not _______________________, I simply don't know the answer so I feel it is more Buddhist to leave the possibility opened.

[NaiGreg]

Excellent essay. I count myself as one of the Agnosti-buddhists.

[ProThaiExpat]

Help you agnostic Buddhists. I am just learning and was pleased to learn Buddhism didn't have a "god" to adhere to.

My question is: Do Buddhist monks control their flocks as mullahs do their muslim followers? What I am getting to is perhaps declaring Buddhism as a national religion placed in the Thai Constitution would not be such a bad thing if by its very nature, Buddhism does not foster oligarchy as in the Muslim religion.

On the other hand, power corrupts, so are Buddhist monks in danger of becoming despots if they ever get the power the clerics in Iran have. Yes, there are a number of clerics in Iran who feel they don't belong in politics and I admire them, unfortunately they don't have enough influence to transform Iran's government into a secular one.

[DrFisher]

I don't pretend to understand Thai Buddhism but I have been studying it for the past 3 years and my conclusion is that the monks would never run the state like the Dalia Lama in his tradition. I too believe it would in this case be a good thing to have Buddhism as a national religion and maybe it is very un-Buddhist of me to say so but if nothing else to make certain groups feel unwanted and uncomfortable as in fact they are unwanted and they are one of the large the problems and contribute nothing toward a solution. Unlike most Buddhists I am a Chan Buddhist and we believe that sometimes it is necessary to meet violence with violence because to stand by and do nothing while innocent people are harmed is bad merit.

[camerata]

My question is: Do Buddhist monks control their flocks as mullahs do their muslim followers?

Since there is already a thread running about Buddhism as state religion, let's try and keep this one on the topic of agnostic Buddhism.

Monks in the Theravada tradition are supposed to be renunciants, so they don't have the primary function of priests in ministering to the needs of lay people. They are supposed to teach Dhamma, serve as an example/inspiration, and provide the means for lay people to make merit. They don't act as an intermediary with any god, which means they don't have the kind of power a priest might have.

[DrFisher]

"Do Buddhist monks control their flocks as mullahs do their Muslims followers?"

I would say no not generally in any tradition of Buddhism with the exception of Tibetan Buddhism. However, just like with everything else there is alway someone who is the least bit tempted for power and fame and might be a threat. When I was a monk none of my fellow monks were the least bit interested in politics, power, money or even world affairs we lived where we were strictly in the moment and governed each other equally and fairly but did not interfere or try to influence our followers in these matters.

[rikpa]

"Do Buddhist monks control their flocks as mullahs do their Muslims followers?"

I would say no not generally in any tradition of Buddhism with the exception of Tibetan Buddhism. However, just like with everything else there is alway someone who is the least bit tempted for power and fame and might be a threat. When I was a monk none of my fellow monks were the least bit interested in politics, power, money or even world affairs we lived where we were strictly in the moment and governed each other equally and fairly but did not interfere or try to influence our followers in these matters.

I think you paint too dim a view of the Tibetans and too generous a view of the Thais in this regard. I believe the truth, as it were, lies someplace in between. If you look at the history of the Thai sangha, it has always been deeply entwined with the government in one way or another. The founding of the Thammayut sect, the anointing of the leader of the Thai sangha, all very political moves. There is a long-standing connection between the Thai sangha and the government and monarchy as I am sure you are aware. I don't want to add more as it is against forum rules, but it is less savory than may be imagined.

[jumnien]

The nice thing about buddhism is that agnostics and non-agnostics can happily meditate on neighboring cushions and support each other. Many westerners are adamantly agnostic as they came to buddhism on the run from a non-agnostic structure and are seeking refuge or alternative. Many Thais are perhaps more non-agnostic believing in a "higher power" behind much of buddhist practice which is entwined with a rich mysticism. Everyone seems content under the same roof. Many westerners seem to be more intellectual and egg-headed about the "rules" and historical literature of buddhism; Thais much less so. I love living in a buddhist culture!

[Huw]

The nice thing about buddhism is that agnostics and non-agnostics can happily meditate on neighboring cushions and support each other. Many westerners are adamantly agnostic as they came to buddhism on the run from a non-agnostic structure and are seeking refuge or alternative. Many Thais are perhaps more non-agnostic believing in a "higher power" behind much of buddhist practice which is entwined with a rich mysticism. Everyone seems content under the same roof. Many westerners seem to be more intellectual and egg-headed about the "rules" and historical literature of buddhism; Thais much less so. I love living in a buddhist culture!

I have read this thread with interest, however I don't altogether understand why believe many people feel that rationalism (or a scientific determinism) and faith are in some way mutually exclusive. On the contrary, I see nothing contradictory between science and religion/faith. Perhaps that is odd and I am happy to discuss it but in my view both enrich the lives of people who study them together, much more so than those who refute one in order to become a devotee of the other.

H

[ProThaiExpat]

To believe in something based on "faith", one doesn't have a fact to support the belief.

To be rational, one must have a fact upon which to base a belief.

Arguing a belief based on fact makes sense as one can examine and debate the facts supporting the belief.

Arguing with a faith based belief is fruitless as there are no facts to support the belief.

Most religions are based on faith, not rational thought.

I don't know much about Buddhism, except to suggest that it is an excellent rule of life and by following it one can have a very happy and fruitful life and enjoy rational though without requiring faith.

Agnostics, Deists, Atheists and Universalists pride themselves on rational thought, not faith.

[Alf Witt]

Suggested reading for anyone who wants to put religious belief into perspective:

"The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins - available in Asia Books now. factual and well argued - a brilliant read.

[Huw]

To believe in something based on "faith", one doesn't have a fact to support the belief.

To be rational, one must have a fact upon which to base a belief.

Arguing a belief based on fact makes sense as one can examine and debate the facts supporting the belief.

Arguing with a faith based belief is fruitless as there are no facts to support the belief.

Most religions are based on faith, not rational thought.

I don't know much about Buddhism, except to suggest that it is an excellent rule of life and by following it one can have a very happy and fruitful life and enjoy rational though without requiring faith.

Agnostics, Deists, Atheists and Universalists pride themselves on rational thought, not faith.

I dont disagree with what you say but what you say does not explain why science and religion might be incompatible. Any thoughts?

H

[Huw]

Suggested reading for anyone who wants to put religious belief into perspective:

"The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins - available in Asia Books now. factual and well argued - a brilliant read.

I read this book a while back. Richard Dawkins is clearly a good scientist but he appears to understand very little about religion. For someone of his calibre to have written what is basically a rant with a level of knowledge no higher than one would expect from a man in the street is disappointing.

His personal convictions, which fulled his rant, are based on a paucity of knowledge and even less understanding of the subject he rails against; anyone with any understanding of religion or the human need for religion could demolish most of his book with very little effort..

So there - my opinion.

H

[ProThaiExpat]

Huw: I really don't know how to put it more plainly. Perhaps you can explain what you mean by "religion". Most refer to religion as a faith based belief system.

If you have a religion that is scientifically based or a religion that is based on fact or rational thinking, please let us know.

[jdinasia]

Claiming to have ultimate knowledge ie: "there is no god" re athiests .... is a FAITH ...

and assuming that Athiests etc are practitioners of rational thought and others are not is silly The same could be said about Deists etc.

Agnosticism does make sense in the ultimate arena though ... since mostly the whole subject is by nature unprovable.

I am not opposed to any people of faith ... including the athiests deists and unitarians or Universalists

[rychrde]

Religions are instruments of control, like governments, corporations and any structure guided by 'thou shall not...' You either buy into those structures, or you do not. If you are a believer, you have absolutely no idea of what it is like to be an infidel - no idea. If you are a non-believer, you perhaps hae a memory of what it was like to believe - or maybe not. I personally have no idea of the psychic make-up of a person who believes in these metaphysical tyrants, or gods. I remember breaking my indoctrination when a young child, it took a lot of effort, but the sense of relief was enormous. My parents have never really forgiven me, but that's more their problem than mine.

The control-religions are very powerful because humans do have what can best be called psychic abilities. Control-religions abuse these abilities by creating closed systems that most people cannot go outside. A whole range of internal states are closed off to believers. They worship an idol posted on a locked door. They cannot open that door to look inside. They do not even see the door, they see the idol.

To put labels on what we are discussing, I wish to separate the sciences into exoteric and esoteric - outer and inner. Most of what we regard as science is exoteric, it deals with verification through second and third parties. Esoteric science deals with experiences and internal states from our own points of view. Still, valid science as internal states can be verified through mass data. If one looks closely at Tibetan Buddhist literature, there are many practices with very specific results. However, much of the text that the masters do not tell the sudents are a mass of data of different experiences and what happens when the practices work and when they don't work. These are esoteric scientific texts. This is also why many buddhists have no problems with science. They see that the exoteric sciences - looking at psychic experiences in a laboratory from the outside - will merely prove and give balance to their esoteric experiences.

The rest of religion, those parts that do not support personal growth, are just prisons. Some pretend to support such human evolution, but do so within their narrow dogma, so are ultimately just larger prisons.

rych

[rychrde]

oh btw, have met Richard Dawkins, he was also tutor to some friends of mine. He is a terrible proponent of the scientific analysis of religions. I think he has stopped being invited on TV and radio in the UK because he always ends up shouting and sqwuaking like a village priest! He also always comes across as even more dogmatic than the believers, which is really bad science. He is rude, cold, arrogant, snobbish and very much up himself. Perfect as a cult leader

Control-religions thrive on conflict, it makes them stronger. The best attack against them is to totally ignore tham, as is happening in Europe. Unfortunately Europe is at the same time being swamped by immigrants of other faiths so that faith wars are starting again.

[Huw]

Huw: I really don't know how to put it more plainly. Perhaps you can explain what you mean by "religion". Most refer to religion as a faith based belief system.

If you have a religion that is scientifically based or a religion that is based on fact or rational thinking, please let us know.

Religion needs to be defined either in terms of orthodox religion (ie Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism etc) or a personal derivation of any or all of these.

Dawkins rails against aspects of the orthodox religions which he personally dislikes. Fair enough, bvut had he known more he would have understood that all religions have at least 2 levels of teaching: that reserved for the priesthood and that allowed the mass congregations. He knows about the latter but not the former, and it is in the former where the real value of any religion actually lies.

I am a scientist by upbringing, and I understand the value and methods of science, but they have their limits. Because religions and religious experiences cannot at present and may not ever be empirically demonstrated is no scientific reason whatever to deny that they are substantial and real. I am reminded of the advice given in the 19th Century by Lord Kelvin, that students should not study physics because everything was already known and all that was left was to improve the decimal point accuracy. Then came Einstein, relativity (which was actually discovered but not expressed 2 centuries before), and quantum theory. Kelvin was guilty of scientific arrogance and Dawkins in his turn is also guilty of scientific arrogance.

And yes I do have a religion which does not conflict with science, and which is rational. It isnt scientifically based for obvious reasons but then I didnt claim it was.

Cheers,

H

[Huw]

Claiming to have ultimate knowledge ie: "there is no god" re athiests .... is a FAITH ...

Indeed it is. As much so as the faith stance that atheists scorn that 'there is a God'.

and assuming that Athiests etc are practitioners of rational thought and others are not is silly The same could be said about Deists etc.

Quite so.

Agnosticism does make sense in the ultimate arena though ... since mostly the whole subject is by nature unprovable.

Dont agree. At least not entirely. An agnostic (according to my dictionary) is someone who believes that nothing can be known the existence or nature of of God or anything beyond material phenomena. This definition isnt even sensible when applied to theoretical physics, and indeed, depends upon a definition of the word 'know'. For example, I know (not 'believe') many things that are not physically measurable because I have experienced them. The whole concept of agnositicism in this definition excludes experiential but not measurable knowledge, which as people we base a large part of our behaviour upon.

H

I am not opposed to any people of faith ... including the athiests deists and unitarians or Universalists

It is said that 95% of the people in this earth believe in a supreme being of one kind or another. That makes a lot of people stupid in the eyes of agnostics and atheists. For myself I think it is prima facae evidence of a psychological need and I think it would be interesting to explore what gives rise to this majority view.

H

[Huw]

Religions are instruments of control, like governments, corporations and any structure guided by 'thou shall not...' You either buy into those structures, or you do not. If you are a believer, you have absolutely no idea of what it is like to be an infidel - no idea. If you are a non-believer, you perhaps hae a memory of what it was like to believe - or maybe not. I personally have no idea of the psychic make-up of a person who believes in these metaphysical tyrants, or gods. I remember breaking my indoctrination when a young child, it took a lot of effort, but the sense of relief was enormous. My parents have never really forgiven me, but that's more their problem than mine.

The control-religions are very powerful because humans do have what can best be called psychic abilities. Control-religions abuse these abilities by creating closed systems that most people cannot go outside. A whole range of internal states are closed off to believers. They worship an idol posted on a locked door. They cannot open that door to look inside. They do not even see the door, they see the idol.

To put labels on what we are discussing, I wish to separate the sciences into exoteric and esoteric - outer and inner. Most of what we regard as science is exoteric, it deals with verification through second and third parties. Esoteric science deals with experiences and internal states from our own points of view. Still, valid science as internal states can be verified through mass data. If one looks closely at Tibetan Buddhist literature, there are many practices with very specific results. However, much of the text that the masters do not tell the sudents are a mass of data of different experiences and what happens when the practices work and when they don't work. These are esoteric scientific texts. This is also why many buddhists have no problems with science. They see that the exoteric sciences - looking at psychic experiences in a laboratory from the outside - will merely prove and give balance to their esoteric experiences.

The rest of religion, those parts that do not support personal growth, are just prisons. Some pretend to support such human evolution, but do so within their narrow dogma, so are ultimately just larger prisons.

rych

I agree with some of this but not with all. One needs to have a clear distinction in view: that being the difference between an esoteric religion and the way that people have practiced the exoteric religion. They are not the same thing and because atrocities have been committed by people in the name of a religion, does not devalue the religion at all. IMHO.

H

[Huw]

oh btw, have met Richard Dawkins, he was also tutor to some friends of mine. He is a terrible proponent of the scientific analysis of religions. I think he has stopped being invited on TV and radio in the UK because he always ends up shouting and sqwuaking like a village priest! He also always comes across as even more dogmatic than the believers, which is really bad science. He is rude, cold, arrogant, snobbish and very much up himself. Perfect as a cult leader

This pretty much confirms my view, His book was a rant and not even a well thought out rant. he came across as being a Class A bigot.

Control-religions thrive on conflict, it makes them stronger. The best attack against them is to totally ignore tham, as is happening in Europe. Unfortunately Europe is at the same time being swamped by immigrants of other faiths so that faith wars are starting again.

A surfeit of enthusiasm is always a bad thing, as is a surfeit of anything. Unfortunately it is in the nature of zealots to take the 'one way - my way' approach to religion. Often with catastrophic results.

H

[ProThaiExpat]

Man has a natural self-preservation motivation that kicks in whenever he faces danger and quite clearly a corollary of this is his desire to have an after life. Most religions provide this as part of their dogma and in my view, this explains why man's desire to believe in a religion is so prevalent, as he can rest easy that it is not all over upon death and is reassured that this is so by the clergy of most religions.

[Huw]

Man has a natural self-preservation motivation that kicks in whenever he faces danger and quite clearly a corollary of this is his desire to have an after life. Most religions provide this as part of their dogma and in my view, this explains why man's desire to believe in a religion is so prevalent, as he can rest easy that it is not all over upon death and is reassured that this is so by the clergy of most religions.

I take the point and I can see a reasonable logic behind it. But I dont agree with it, partly because you propose that religion is only a feature of a persons desire not to be obliterated at death. This takes a small part of religious experience and belief, derives an explanation for this small part of the phenomoenon and then applies that explanation to a much wider set of experiences and beliefs. I dont believe this is a valid approach. The explanation may well be a part of the picture but it is surely not the whole picture.

You may know that neurologists have now found a centre in the brain which becomes active during religious experiences, and some scientists believe that this 'God Spot' is also responsible for activating a number of other areas in the brain during such experiences. Each of our functions corresponds to an area in the brain which does this. Is it really the proposition that of all of them, the only part of the brain that produces a redundant or illusory response is this one? Personally I find this hard to believe. Rather I believe that religious experiences are a natural part of our psyche. The question then follows, why? What evolutionary function could possibly be served by this?

A secondary question is what role these parts of the brain have. Are they to create experiences? Obviously not. They are the mechanism by which experiences can be processed, or rather (I propose) a matrix between our ability to perceive stimulus (eg from the optic nerves) and our consciousness. In that case, we have a discrete part of our brian whose function is to process religious experience and interface it with our consciousness. Why? What function could it possibly serve?

Psychologists know that we all have an inbuilt drive to self-actualisation as expressed by Maslow's hierarchy of needs and other concepts. What is it and why do we have this? More importantly, why do we *all* have this, albeit it with different emphases?

I conclude that not only are humans able to experience religious ecstasies, but we are able to for a purpose, though I dont know what that purpose is.

Also, remember that, as another poster implied, we are unable now to demonstrate the existence or otherwise of a Supreme Being. Therefore, whether you are Atheist, Deist or Buddhist, any view on the matter is a faith stance.

H

Edited May 26, 2007 by Huw