Re: [asa] Sam Harris: Your Brain on Faith

Hello all,

Alas, I can't access the link from work...will have to
try and get access to it over Christmas break...

Nevertheless, to clarify...Pim, I understand that the
study can really only speak to understanding how
brains process beliefs--I did not mean to suggest
otherwise or go beyond that...however, in my original
post, I was not so much responding to the underlying
science but rather to Harris's statements (as quoted
in the article). He essential drew the conclusion that
this supported the idea that there are no objective
and subjective beliefs (as you say it), but that
"belief is belief is belief". My point was that by
saying that, it seems to me that he is shooting
Atheism in the foot...Atheists generally have an
aversion to faith and almost universally appeal to
reason/science as the foundation of their philosophy.
Yet, by saying what he did about the study, Harris is
putting the belief in 2 + 2 = 4 on the same playing
field as religious beliefs...if we "know" that 2 + 2 =
4 in the same way that we "know" something
metaphysical, than that requires you to validate the
means of knowing in both cases or in neither case. He
is essentially, by implication, saying that our
religious/philosophical beliefs (faith) have just as
much (or as little) a claim on reality as our belief
(faith) in math. Thus, I found Harris's conclusion
ironic and somewhat self-defeating, and perhaps
helpful to Theism if anything.

In Christ,
Christine

--- PvM <pvm.pandas@gmail.com> wrote:

> I do not think that this is a valid conclusion. What
> Harris showed is
> that objective and subjective beliefs are very hard
> to distinguish in
> the brain.
>
> See the full text of the research at
>
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/117858891/HTMLSTART?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
>
>
> On Dec 17, 2007 8:08 PM, Christine Smith
> <christine_mb_smith@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Yes, I read this earlier today. I find it highly
> > amusing that an Atheist concluded on the basis of
> a
> > scientific analysis that "faith is essentially the
> > same as other kinds of knowing or thinking."
> Doesn't
> > this support our claim that faith is just as
> > *trustworthy* a means of coming to understand
> > "reality" as the means by which we "know" that 2 +
> 2 =
> > 4? I highly doubt that because our belief in 2 + 2
> = 4
> > is an "operation of the brain" that he would
> suggest
> > disavowing such knowledge. So why the double
> standard
> > for religious "beliefs"? Perhaps all he was going
> for
> > was to attack dualism? But in the process, I think
> he
> > helped theism...
> >
> > Would anyone else agree with this assessment?
> >
> > In Christ,
> > Christine
> >
> > --- John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > This is a very interesting article on the front
> page
> > > of CNN today.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > John
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > What Your Brain Looks Like on Faith
> > >
> > > Friday, Dec. 14, 2007 By <javascript:void(0)>
> DAVID
> > > VAN BIEMA
> > >
> > > Brain scan
> >
> > >
> > > A scan of a brain.
> > >
> > > Owen Franken / Corbis
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Sam Harris is best known for his barn-burning
> 2004
> > > attack on religion, The
> > > End of Faith, which spent 33 weeks on the New
> York
> > > Times best-seller List.
> > > The book's sequel, Letter to a Christian Nation
> also
> > > came out in editions
> > > totalling hundreds of thousands. Last Monday,
> > > however, the combative
> > > Californian produced a shorter (seven pages) and
> > > seemingly calmer
> > > publication that will be a hit if it reaches
> 10,000
> > > readers: "Functional
> > > Neuroimaging of Belief, Disbelief and
> Uncertainty."
> > > It appears in the
> > > respected journal Annals of Neurology. And
> Harris,
> > > 40, claims it has little
> > > if any connection to his popular two books.
> > > Believers, however, may draw
> > > their own conclusions - and may want to read his
> > > subsequent neurological
> > > studies even more carefully.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The current paper recovers Harris's identity as
> a
> > > doctoral candidate in
> > > neurology at UCLA, his occupation before he
> > > commenced what he calls his
> > > "extramural affair jumping into trenches in the
> > > culture wars." It is an
> > > addition to the growing field of brain scan
> trials,
> > > and Harris thinks it may
> > > be the first to detail how the brain processes
> > > belief. At first read, it
> > > seems less dangerous to Christianity than to
> another
> > > cherished pillar of
> > > Western thought - that "objective" beliefs like
> "2 +
> > > 2 = 4" and "subjective"
> > > beliefs like "torture is bad" belong to entirely
> > > separate categories of
> > > thought.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Harris and two co-authors ran 360 statements by
> 14
> > > adult subject whose brain
> > > activities were then scanned by functional
> magnetic
> > > resonance imaging (fMRI)
> > > devices. It suggests that within the brain pan,
> at
> > > least, the distinction
> > > between objective and subjective is not so
> > > clear-cut. Although more complex
> > > assertions may get analyzed in so-called
> "higher"
> > > areas of the brain, all
> > > seem to get their final stamp of "belief" or
> > > disbelief in "primitive"
> > > locales traditionally associated with emotions
> or
> > > taste and odor. Even "2 +
> > > 2 = 4," on some level, is a question of taste.
> Thus,
> > > the statement "that
> > > just doesn't smell right to me" may be more
> literal
> > > than we thought.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Harris tested how the brain responded to
> assertions
> > > in seven categories:
> > > mathematical, geographic, semantic, factual,
> > > autobiographical, ethical and
> > > religious. All seven provided some useful data,
> but
> > > only the ones relating
> > > to math and ethics produced results clear enough
> to
> > > give a vivid picture of
> > > the way the simple and the complex, the
> subjective
> > > and the objective
> > > intertwine. Regardless of their content,
> statements
> > > that the subjects
> > > believed lit up the ventral medial prefrontal
> cortex
> > > (VMPC), a location in
> > > the brain best known for processing reward,
> emotion
> > > and taste. Equally
> > > "primitive" areas associated with taste, pain
> > > perception and disgust
> > > determined disbelief. "False propositions may
> > > actually disgust us," Harris
> > > writes.
> > >
> > > Is there a practical application here? He
> speculates
> > > that if belief brain
> > > scanning were sufficiently refined it could act
> as
> > > an accurate lie detector
> > > and help control for the placebo effect in drug
> > > design.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Harris says there is no critique of faith hidden
> > > somewhere in his brief
> > > paper. But his next neurological enterprise may
> be
> > > another matter. He is
> > > planning an fMRI run that will concentrate
> > > specifically on religious faith,
> > > which Harris thinks he now knows how to plumb
> more
> > > deeply. He also plans to
> > > set up two different subject groups - the
> faithful
> > > and non-believers. "That
>
=== message truncated ===

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Dec 19 14:02:38 2007