Monthly Archives: September 2013

Thinking Styles and Religious Belief

Jonathan Morgan

Left and right brain hemispheres sketchy doodlesDid you know you have two minds?  Over the past decade, psychologists and cognitive scientists have been slowly building a consensus around this idea.  They talk about it in different ways.  Some say we have a rational mind and an intuitive mind.  Others argue (and I think they’re right) that both minds are rational, so it’s better to say “reflective” and intuitive.  Regardless of what you call them, the theory is becoming more and more persuasive.  It’s established enough to earn the psychologist Daniel Kahneman a Nobel Prize in economics!  He, by the way, just called them System 1 and 2- not super creative.  If this is how our mind is organized, where do religious beliefs, or religious experiences, fit in?

Continue reading

Statistics on Religion- Part IV

Jonathan Morgan

World Map, World Religions MandalaAfter a couple of weeks talking about Isaac Asimov, and how cool he is, the hope and dangers of neuroscience, and the humanities (whew!), I’m back to statistics on religion.  This time, I’m looking at the Association of Religion Data Archives (ARDA), which is like a large warehouse full of information about religion.  It’d take years to really explore this site.  For example, they have stats on thirty different branches of the Pentecostal Church in the US, which is one of twenty Christian denominations in the US, which is one of 196 nations in the world.  Like I said, it’d take a while to explore it all.

Continue reading

Pursuing Truth Together: On Dan Dennett, science, & what the humanities have to offer

Jonathan Morgan

conflictDebate between the humanities and science is nothing new, so Steven Pinker’s latest manifesto for science is no real surprise.  He argues for science’s rightful place at the table discussing questions about life, morality, and human nature.  That’s a reasonable enough request; but Pinker, unfortunately, goes overboard, instead arguing that science should be at the head of the table… maybe even the only one at the table.  What a boring dinner party.  And, like any polarizing argument, he’s garnered some very strong reactions.

In fact New Republic’s editor, Leon Wieseltier, placed his defense of the humanities directly within Pinker’s article.  He argues, like many within the humanities, against the hubris of science as the exclusive holder of truth.  Other, more pragamatic, critiques of Pinker argue that his condescending attitude only deepens the rift he is, supposedly, trying to bridge.

In the midst of all this mud-slinging, it’s refreshing to hear some voices that are reasonable and nuanced.  I was more than a bit surprised to find Daniel Dennett, who is typically as vitriolic as Pinker, as one of those voices.  In his recent piece on the Edge, Dennett urges the humanities to “join forces” with science, to drop defenses and quit making itself off-limits.  I don’t think this is just a Trojan horse attempt by science to infiltrate the humanities.  I think it’s a very reasonable appeal to drop the war-ladened metaphors all together, and to again take up the mantle of pursuing truth.

Continue reading

Fong’s Neuro-Utopian Bubble

Jonathan Morgan

Social networkNearly a month ago, author Benjamin Fong wrote an op-ed for the NYTimes- Bursting the Neuro-Utopian Bubble.  Most opinion pieces about neuroscience, and there are plenty of them, flit from my memory pretty quickly, but this one has stuck with me.  Fong was the first to put into words the danger underlying our inflated hope in neuroscience.  He did so by talking about tuberculosis.

Most philosophers who’re wary of neuroscience critique it by talking about the problem of consciousness- What is consciousness?  Most commonly they point out that many neuroscientist’s solution to this question is implicit in their methods and research: they’ve already assumed that consciousness is just a product of brain juices, now the task is just to find which brain juices.  When they find the right brain juices, they then take that as confirmation of their initial assumption- that consciousness simply is those brain juices.  I tried to make that understandable by saying “brain juices,” but the point these philosophers are making is that neuroscience is side-stepping the question by assuming its answer from the beginning.

Continue reading