At least that’s the idea behind some new research on the effects of belief in God on the brain. Apparently, people suppress the areas of the brain used for analytical thinking and engage those parts of the brain used for empathy in order to believe in God. The clear message of these research “findings” is that you have to stop thinking in order to believe in God. Belief in God is about how you feel, not about what you think.
I have not read the actual research, and probably couldn’t make much sense of it even if I had. But I don’t need to review the research in order to know that this research is irrelevant to the question of whether God exists. First, it commits a logical fallacy known as the genetic fallacy. This fallacy is committed any time one attempts to invalidate the truth of some X because of the origin of X. Since belief in God has its origin in our feelings rather than our thinking (the origin of X), God (X) does not exist. He’s just a product of our personal feelings.
Secondly, to claim that belief in God is based on feeling rather than thinking requires that one be ignorant of the entire field of the philosophy of religion, and Christian apologetics in particular. Thousands of books have been written providing rational reasons to believe God exists.
Thirdly, it’s just empirically false that people have to suppress their thinking and tap into their feelings in order to believe in God. Way too many people who lacked belief in God came to believe in God precisely because they began to think hard about the question. It was the rational evidence for God’s existence that convinced them that God existed, (in some cases) despite their lack of feelings. While some people may believe in God based on their feelings, that’s not true of all theists, and more importantly, feelings are not the justification for theism.
Brain studies such as this one are interesting, but they can never tell us whether God exists. And when they are used to imply that God does not exist, or that belief in God is just a product of our emotions, they should be used in philosophy classes as textbook examples of fallacious argumentation, not taken seriously as contributions to the debate over God’s existence.
Thinking to Believe 
March 25, 2016 at 7:18 pm
Sounds like a study done by misogynistic half-wits.
LikeLike
March 26, 2016 at 6:59 am
It is unfortunate that neither one of you took the time to actually read the research article. Yes, its a difficult read, but because of the technical jargon and not the content. I read it and came away with a positive understanding about the correlation between moral empathy and religious belief, which in no way detracts from those who prefer a more naturalistic approach to understanding their place in the world. I have bit my tongue on a number of occasions with regard to some your posts these past few months, but your lack of scholarship in this case, in failing to actually read the article in question, is just plain embarrassing.
LikeLike
March 26, 2016 at 7:51 pm
Bob,
What’s embarrassing here is how propaganda passes for scholarship amongst some people. No I haven’t read the research article and don’t intend to based upon the lack of integrity of their premise it would be a waste of valuable time. Want to give it a test? Just go to any reputable Bible search engine (I used http://www.blueletterbible.org) and enter the word “think”. You’ll find verse after verse counseling us regarding the use of our capacity as human beings made in God’s image to THINK. I don’t speak for anyone other than myself so I’ll tell you directly; I don’t shut down my analytical faculty when I think and consider my reasons for believing in God.
For through the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think more highly of himself than he ought to think; but to think so as to have sound judgment, as God has allotted to each a measure of faith. (Romans 12:3)
I hope your tongue gets better soon.
– Frank
LikeLike
March 27, 2016 at 7:58 am
Allow me to summarize. The article in question is a review of several neuroscience studies on the differences between analytical thinking skills and morality/empathy behavior, with an emphasis on how those brain function differences apply to Asberger and high functioning autistic individuals. As it so happens, I have a particular interest in such things as I have an autistic 6 year old grandson. At the special school he attends 52 weeks a year he has already worked through the material that they teach the 8 year olds and constantly confounds his teachers by performing flash card vocabulary exercises in English and Spanish, even though he seldom speaks otherwise and when he does so it is in only 1-3 word sentences. Despite such limited vocalization, that doesn’t stop him from attempting to help his younger sister when she gets hurt in the backyard or on the playground. I have no idea how this research will help my grandson integrate into society 15-20 years from now. What I do know is that this has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with proof that God exists. What Jason has done is take an article on autism brain research, which he didn’t even bother to read, and twisted it into a sophistic rant about the existence of God.
I visit this website because it is a never ending source of reading and internet research ideas on the interaction of science and religion. I try to look at both sides of the issues, although, admittedly, I lean toward the critical thinking, scientific method side of the equation. What I find astounding and frustrating at the same time is that there are those on both sides who would try to debate the issues without making any effort to understand the other side, usually because they already “know” the premise of the opposing arguments. What usually follows are arguments they think are clear and rational, but are in fact scholastically dishonest. That’s fine for sermons and books but such arguments will never, ever make it through critical peer review.
LikeLike
March 27, 2016 at 9:18 pm
Bob,
Thank you for summarizing. Although I did not read the research papers themselves I did read the article in question. If the article had been more forthright in its emphasis as to the application of the research I would have inquired more deeply into its details. It was no help for first thing to be hit in the face with Michelangelo’s Creator of Adam blaring its headline as I came to the text. My understanding (and I do acknowledge I may be mistaken) of the publishers of this “Independent” article is that they do lack objectivity. Perhaps they have a certain inclination thus attempt to appeal to a particular readership as evidenced by their comments section. It does make the best sense for highly technical especially medically related research studies to quarantine themselves to critical peer review and not allow manipulation based on ulterior motives. That only fosters misinterpretation resulting in loss of credibility.
I appreciate your being so open and generous in your summary. Surely your grandson is the apple of your eye. From your recounting his progress it’s clear your love for him proves a sturdy foundation. Hopefully with more and more evidential understanding we’ll figure out how to fortify our interactions to give the greatest benefit and receive the best promise.
Thanks for increasing my understanding,
Frank
LikeLike
March 27, 2016 at 10:57 pm
Bob, unless the news article about the research is a poor representation of the research itself, then I stick by what I said about not having to read it to know that it is irrelevant to the question of God’s existence, ignores the fact that much analytical thought goes into the question of God’s existence, and is empirically false since a lot of people come to believe in God based on thinking rather than feeling. And if it is a poor representation of the research, then my post is a commentary on the article. Either way, apply the post to what it fits.
Jason
LikeLike
March 28, 2016 at 2:21 pm
Jason:
Regarding your post “Atheists may lack belief in God, but they do not lack beliefs about God” which Post has become unresponsive most of the time because there are too many comments(more than 250) and WordPress does not seem not fast enough to load and de-load each time…….
So my question regarding that particular Post on Belief and the Theist/Atheist definitions
The Atheist does not believe that God exists;
or,
The Atheist believes that God does not exist.
Do you find any difference in the two definitions other than the one says atheists believe and the other says atheists do not believe, but is there any difference in the meaning of the statement? and if so to what end?
why do Theists seem to prefer to use the definition that says Atheists “believe” instead of atheist does not believe?
do not the negative phrases “does not exist” and “does not believe” amount to the same thing?
Can you please describe why the niggling over this definition? Is it because the Theist wants the Atheist to be drawn into (down) to the Theist level of belief or non-knowledge, as it were; or, is there some other. underlying reason? I can’t quite put my finger on it so maybe you can enlighten me from Theist side.
Thanks
LikeLike
March 28, 2016 at 4:05 pm
https://www.blueletterbible.org/study/hta/hta.cfm#s=21_190_1887_1535
LikeLike
April 5, 2016 at 7:01 am
Therefore Pilate said to Him, “So You are a king?” Jesus/Yahshua answered, “You say correctly that I am a king. For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.” Pilate said to Him, “What is truth?” And when he had said this, he went out again to the Jews and said to them, “I find no guilt in Him.” (John 18:37-38)
https://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/jfb/Jhn/Jhn_018.cfm?a=1015037
LikeLike