Guest guest Posted May 5, 2001 Report Share Posted May 5, 2001 http://www.msnbc.com/news/566079.asp Religion And The Brain In the new field of " neurotheology, " scientists seek the biological basis of spirituality. Is God all in our heads? By Sharon Begley NEWSWEEK May 7 issue Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 5, 2001 Report Share Posted May 5, 2001 Hi Hur and List, I read the article. Isn't it just like science to reduce everything to biological functioning? It's totally one-sided... the observed is all that matters, the observer doesn't even get considered. Subject and object are one. Subject arises with object, and also vice-versa. Quantum physics is just beginning to discover this -- it's forced to, it has reached the end of its rope in " external-only " exploration. Here's a quote from the article to consider: " As a neurologist, he accepts that all we see, hear, feel and think is mediated or created by the brain. Austin's moment in the Underground therefore inspired him to explore the neurological underpinnings of spiritual and mystical experience. " Consider the first sentence above, and substitute the word " accepts " with the word " believes. " Science is a religion, a faith. Now consider the second sentence, and reverse it: " Shankara's lifetime aboveground therefore inspired him to explore the spiritual underpinnings of worldly and bodily experience. " .... and for whoever is reading, draw your own conclusions ;-). Namaste, Tim Nisargadatta, " Hur Guler " <Hur1@a...> wrote: > http://www.msnbc.com/news/566079.asp > > Religion And The Brain > > In the new field of " neurotheology, " scientists seek the biological > basis of spirituality. Is God all in our heads? > By Sharon Begley > NEWSWEEK May 7 issue Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 5, 2001 Report Share Posted May 5, 2001 " Omkara " <coresite > Hi Hur and List, Hi Tim, > I read the article. Isn't it just like science to reduce everything > to biological functioning? It's totally one-sided... the observed is > all that matters, the observer doesn't even get considered. Well, actually, no. As I stated in my earlier post, Austins research is actually much more open to a non-biological interpretation than the earlier work I cited. There are two things to be borne in mind about Austin, firstly, he's addressing a group who are predomentantly materialistic (though the neurosciences probably has the largest ratio of open minded scientists compared to any group) and, secondly, he is into Zen. Consider what his research is saying - and, more importantly, what it's not saying. He's not saying he's located an area of the brain responsible for the mystical experiences (like Persinger is), he's saying 'this is what consciousness is like when these bits of the brain are inhibited'. That, in many ways, is the anti-thesis of a biological model. You see the bits he's saying are inhibited (the amygdala, the parietal, frontal and (interestingly) temporal lobes) are the bits that essentially maintain the 'ego'. Austin's showing us what happens when these bits aren't active not what happens when they are active - which is doubly interesting since it is in the temporal lobe that Persinger locates the mystical module of the brain. > Subject and object are one. Subject arises with object, and also > vice-versa. Quantum physics is just beginning to discover this -- > it's forced to, it has reached the end of its rope in " external-only " > exploration. Absolutely, there is no doubt in my mind at all that we are At-One with manifest reality as well as its Source. > Here's a quote from the article to consider: > > " As a neurologist, he accepts that all we see, hear, feel and think > is mediated or created by the brain. Austin's moment in the > Underground therefore inspired him to explore the neurological > underpinnings of spiritual and mystical experience. " > > Consider the first sentence above, and substitute the word " accepts " > with the word " believes. " Science is a religion, a faith. Well, yes, but try to be charitable. Consider the way Austin has done his research. Instead of proving that the brain creates the mystical experience, as an 'event' of sorts, Austin has demonstrated that a mystical 'State' is quite natural when the brain isn't creating the 'person' - it's quite a difference and, ultimately, Austins conclusions are just like Nisargadatta's claims. I'd say the good Dr. is obviously quite influenced by his Zen practices but endevouring, perhaps wisely, to introduce his views to his more materialistic collegues in a gentle way. > Now consider the second sentence, and reverse it: " Shankara's > lifetime aboveground therefore inspired him to explore the spiritual > underpinnings of worldly and bodily experience. " If matter is spirit then there is, really, no difference. Kind regards, Stephen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 5, 2001 Report Share Posted May 5, 2001 Hi Stephen, No knock on Austin himself. I don't even consider " persons " and personalities (these are of no consequence to the subject matter), but was 'examining' only the magazine article and what it stated. I have no argument " pro or con " with your theories as to how this specific person/incident happens to reflect on things. The possibility that " one person " is presenting something differently... it doesn't change the thousands of others who absolutely state that everything is based on biology, and his research is not going to affect their beliefs. Science in general *does* tend to look only outward, and ignore the subject. That said, thanks for the additions to 'my comments', they're appreciated :-). Namaste, Tim Nisargadatta, " Stephen " <user@p...> wrote: > " Omkara " <coresite@h...> > > > > > Hi Hur and List, > > Hi Tim, > > > I read the article. Isn't it just like science to reduce everything > > to biological functioning? It's totally one-sided... the observed is > > all that matters, the observer doesn't even get considered. > > Well, actually, no. As I stated in my earlier post, Austins research is > actually much more open to a non-biological interpretation than the earlier > work I cited. There are two things to be borne in mind about Austin, > firstly, he's addressing a group who are predomentantly materialistic > (though the neurosciences probably has the largest ratio of open minded > scientists compared to any group) and, secondly, he is into Zen. > > Consider what his research is saying - and, more importantly, what it's not > saying. He's not saying he's located an area of the brain responsible for > the mystical experiences (like Persinger is), he's saying 'this is what > consciousness is like when these bits of the brain are inhibited'. That, in > many ways, is the anti-thesis of a biological model. You see the bits he's > saying are inhibited (the amygdala, the parietal, frontal and > (interestingly) temporal lobes) are the bits that essentially maintain the > 'ego'. Austin's showing us what happens when these bits aren't active not > what happens when they are active - which is doubly interesting since it is > in the temporal lobe that Persinger locates the mystical module of the > brain. > > > Subject and object are one. Subject arises with object, and also > > vice-versa. Quantum physics is just beginning to discover this -- > > it's forced to, it has reached the end of its rope in " external- only " > > exploration. > > Absolutely, there is no doubt in my mind at all that we are At-One with > manifest reality as well as its Source. > > > Here's a quote from the article to consider: > > > > " As a neurologist, he accepts that all we see, hear, feel and think > > is mediated or created by the brain. Austin's moment in the > > Underground therefore inspired him to explore the neurological > > underpinnings of spiritual and mystical experience. " > > > > Consider the first sentence above, and substitute the word " accepts " > > with the word " believes. " Science is a religion, a faith. > > Well, yes, but try to be charitable. Consider the way Austin has done his > research. Instead of proving that the brain creates the mystical > experience, as an 'event' of sorts, Austin has demonstrated that a mystical > 'State' is quite natural when the brain isn't creating the 'person' - it's > quite a difference and, ultimately, Austins conclusions are just like > Nisargadatta's claims. I'd say the good Dr. is obviously quite influenced > by his Zen practices but endevouring, perhaps wisely, to introduce his views > to his more materialistic collegues in a gentle way. > > > Now consider the second sentence, and reverse it: " Shankara's > > lifetime aboveground therefore inspired him to explore the spiritual > > underpinnings of worldly and bodily experience. " > > If matter is spirit then there is, really, no difference. > > Kind regards, > Stephen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.