From AwayPoint on YouTube: Why The God Hypothesis is Obsolete

Youtube - God Through the LensChristianity Through the Lens of Cognitive Science, Part 8.  (Last in Series)

Brain science is remarkably close to offering a full naturalistic explanation of individual religious experiences, everything from certain belief to moral indignation to mystical rapture to spiritual transformation. More and more, we can explain Christian belief with the same set of principles that explain supernaturalism generally:  childhood credulity, hyperactive agency detection, theory of mind, group hypnotic processes, misattributed transcendence hallucination, viral transmission, and more.

YouTube:  http://youtu.be/IFD_DUsSLOk

If you like this, watch the whole series, Christian Belief through the Lens of Cognitive Science at AwayPoint–Life After Christianity.  And subscribe!

Valerie Tarico is a psychologist and writer in Seattle, Washington.  She is the author of Trusting Doubt: A Former Evangelical Looks at Old Beliefs in a New Light and Deas and Other Imaginings, and the founder of www.WisdomCommons.org.  Her articles can be found at Awaypoint.Wordpress.com.

Read the Text: https://awaypoint.wordpress.com/2009/11/12/christian-belief-through-the-lens-of-cognitive-science-part-8-of-8/ 

Advertisements

About Valerie Tarico

Seattle psychologist and writer. Author - Trusting Doubt and Deas and Other Imaginings. Founder - www.WisdomCommons.org.
Gallery | This entry was posted in Cognitive Science and Christianity and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to From AwayPoint on YouTube: Why The God Hypothesis is Obsolete

  1. veraersilia says:

    I am reading ” The mind in the cave ” and ” Inside the Neolithic mind ” by David Lewis-Williams, with David Pearce for the Neolithic mind. Lewis-Williams explores the neurology which is hard wired in the human brain and gives rise to the “religious” experience. Applicable to all religions. Thanks for your interesting article. Vera

    Like

  2. John. says:

    I don’t think that it is “brain science” that is “remarkably close to offering a full naturalistic explanation of individual religious experiences.” Rather it is brain scientists who are “remarkably close.” Naturalistic philosophers of mind have had an explanation for decades – finally, the scientists are catching up. Too bad scientists often make for lousy philosophers!

    The only thing that is missing now is a naturalistic explanation of “individual naturalistic experiences.” Which would include everything from “certain belief (in naturalism) to moral indignation (toward religious abuse, etc.) to mystical rapture to spiritual transformation (as promoted on this blog).”

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s