Neurotheology is a relatively new science made possible by modern brain imaging technology. The activity of the brain during spiritual episodes is studied in an effort to explain the nature of the experiences.
Researchers have been creative. They've imaged people after they've ingested drugs like peyote or LSD and found that they operate similarly to serotonin, which is a brain chemical that affects emotions and perceptions. The idea is that a serotonin rush may cause spiritual events like seeing visions, hearing messages, getting a glimpse of eternity or having an out of body experience.
Knowing which parts of the brain to stimulate, one researcher rigged up a motorcycle helmet (complete with racing stripe) to produce electromagnetic fields. He put it on his subjects, had them wear goggles with tissue paper stuffed inside, and then activated it. His subjects experienced images ranging from what he calls "the dark of the dark" to images or faces to feeling the "Sensed Presence." The scientist, Michael Persinger, is convinced that "God and all experience are a product of your brain."
Some neurologists theorize that Paul's encounter with Jesus on the road to Damascus was a hallucination resulting from abnormal electrical activity in the brain caused by epilepsy. It's another case of of skeptics stretching to explain spirituality as something that's literally just in the believer's head.
These lines of inquiry dodge the underlying questions, which are "Why would the brain be wired like this unless it was to enable man to experience a relationship with a real and existing God?" and "If this isn't the reason, why does this ability exist at all?"
The physiological mechanism is clearly there. Our bodies have lots of mechanisms, each is designed to perform a particular function, and the wiring of the brain is no different. This particular ability enables man to experience a deep, meaningful interaction with a God who is as real as the brain itself.
Learning how the brain operates and then making it do tricks by feeding it drugs or putting it in customized motorcycle helmets doesn't show that spiritual experiences are simply the result of brain chemistry. It only explains another God-given process, just like photosynthesis, genetics and millions of other natural mechanisms we've figured out.
It does show that with certain stimuli the brain is capable of extraodinary deeds. It can be activated artificially or it can perform as it was intended to, with God's input. And the unmanipulated natural process demonstrates the majesty of the God who designed.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Swine Flu Reality Check
The swine flu has been breathlessly reported since the intitial outbreak almost three months ago. People wear surgical masks, travelers are quarantined, schools are closed and a low grade panic has been created.
If you've read The Stand by Stephen King, which described the spread of a deadly virus, you may be sitting on the edge of your seat waiting for the swine flu to sweep the countryside spreading misery and death.
This seems unlikely to happen. So far, there have been 141 deaths worldwide - which is tragic, to be sure - but significantly lower than the 500,000 lives lost every year (no, it's not a typo - the death toll is about 36,000 in the U.S. and a half million globally) to seasonal flus. The symptoms of the current edition have been markedly mild compared to typical influenzas.
In fairness to the Centers for Disease Control and the World Health Organization, this virus apparently has an ability to mutate readily and the concern is that it may modify into a truly dangerous version later on. This may or may not happen, but scientists are developing vaccines in the event it does.
In the meantime, we're dealing with a mild flu with a low mortality rate that's reported as a pandemic (everybody think 1918 and the lethal Spanish flu!). It's rarely explained that "pandemic" refers to the geographical spread of the disease, not its severity.
The media knows this, or should know it, but once it gets on a roll with a story line inertia seems to take over. The result is the reporting and repetition of misleading, hyped information tailored to promote an incorrect premise.
The media's pursuit of sensationalism reduces its credibility, which is disturbing if you really need to convey a serious message. Suppose a dangerous mutation does appear next year? How many will don surgical masks after this year's flu scare when most people don't even know anyone who got sick, those who did realized it was mild, and a statistically insignificant number of people died?
The media does this all the time, whether it's political, scientific, cultural or religious. If you watch story selection, interview editing and even non-verbal cues you can usually figure out what the bias is. And when you ask yourself, "does this really make sense?" it's amazing how often it doesn't.
Christianity is saddled with a slanted, negative story line that's been carried by the media for decades. And it's no more valid than the reporting of The Great Swine Flu Pandemic of 2009.
If you've read The Stand by Stephen King, which described the spread of a deadly virus, you may be sitting on the edge of your seat waiting for the swine flu to sweep the countryside spreading misery and death.
This seems unlikely to happen. So far, there have been 141 deaths worldwide - which is tragic, to be sure - but significantly lower than the 500,000 lives lost every year (no, it's not a typo - the death toll is about 36,000 in the U.S. and a half million globally) to seasonal flus. The symptoms of the current edition have been markedly mild compared to typical influenzas.
In fairness to the Centers for Disease Control and the World Health Organization, this virus apparently has an ability to mutate readily and the concern is that it may modify into a truly dangerous version later on. This may or may not happen, but scientists are developing vaccines in the event it does.
In the meantime, we're dealing with a mild flu with a low mortality rate that's reported as a pandemic (everybody think 1918 and the lethal Spanish flu!). It's rarely explained that "pandemic" refers to the geographical spread of the disease, not its severity.
The media knows this, or should know it, but once it gets on a roll with a story line inertia seems to take over. The result is the reporting and repetition of misleading, hyped information tailored to promote an incorrect premise.
The media's pursuit of sensationalism reduces its credibility, which is disturbing if you really need to convey a serious message. Suppose a dangerous mutation does appear next year? How many will don surgical masks after this year's flu scare when most people don't even know anyone who got sick, those who did realized it was mild, and a statistically insignificant number of people died?
The media does this all the time, whether it's political, scientific, cultural or religious. If you watch story selection, interview editing and even non-verbal cues you can usually figure out what the bias is. And when you ask yourself, "does this really make sense?" it's amazing how often it doesn't.
Christianity is saddled with a slanted, negative story line that's been carried by the media for decades. And it's no more valid than the reporting of The Great Swine Flu Pandemic of 2009.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
A Tale of Two Murders
On a recent Sunday morning a gunman approached his victim, pulled the trigger and killed him with one shot. The shooter was arrested and jailed, and then the finger-pointing started. You see, the deceased was one of a handful of late-term abortion specialists in the U.S. who terminated healthy nine-month old fetuses. The assailant was a radical anti-abortionist.
The response from Christians was widespread, condemning the murder as "a gravely wicked thing." Operation Rescue, the militant anti-abortion organization that had picketed the doctor's office, issued a statement that denounced "vigilantism and the cowardly act that took place."
On the following day a gunman shot two army recruiters with an assault rifle, killing one of them. The assailant was a Muslim convert who was born in Tennessee and came to the attention of the FBI while in terrorist-friendly Yemen. He had ties to a terrorist-connected school and obtained a Somali passport. The FBI noted that the passport enabled the killer to enter the U.S. with his American passport not showing stamps indicating where he had traveled. He returned virulently angry and acted on his rage using one of the several guns found in his vehicle.
The silence of the Islamic community was deafening.
In the doctor's case, the outrage was immediate and intense. According to columnist Michelle Malkin, "news anchors and headline writers abandoned all qualms about labeling the gunman a terrorist. The legions of finger-pointing pundits happily convict(ed) the pro-life movement and every right-leaning writer on the planet of contributing to the murder." The President condemned it and the Justice Department dispatched marshalls to protect abortion clinics, as though Christians were marching down the street with torches and pitchforks.
Abdulhakim Muhammed's assault rated no such coverage. He was regarded as a lone gunman acting independently, the President issued no statement, and the term "terrorist" was studiously avoided in the media.
This isn't about abortion. It's about our culture's eagerness to expand an un-Christian act perpetrated by one person into a subtle smear that gives a negative impression of the faith in general. Linking Christians to terrorism while ignoring the terrorist leanings of an Islamic killer provides an unusually rich contrast that emphasizes the point.
The response from Christians was widespread, condemning the murder as "a gravely wicked thing." Operation Rescue, the militant anti-abortion organization that had picketed the doctor's office, issued a statement that denounced "vigilantism and the cowardly act that took place."
On the following day a gunman shot two army recruiters with an assault rifle, killing one of them. The assailant was a Muslim convert who was born in Tennessee and came to the attention of the FBI while in terrorist-friendly Yemen. He had ties to a terrorist-connected school and obtained a Somali passport. The FBI noted that the passport enabled the killer to enter the U.S. with his American passport not showing stamps indicating where he had traveled. He returned virulently angry and acted on his rage using one of the several guns found in his vehicle.
The silence of the Islamic community was deafening.
In the doctor's case, the outrage was immediate and intense. According to columnist Michelle Malkin, "news anchors and headline writers abandoned all qualms about labeling the gunman a terrorist. The legions of finger-pointing pundits happily convict(ed) the pro-life movement and every right-leaning writer on the planet of contributing to the murder." The President condemned it and the Justice Department dispatched marshalls to protect abortion clinics, as though Christians were marching down the street with torches and pitchforks.
Abdulhakim Muhammed's assault rated no such coverage. He was regarded as a lone gunman acting independently, the President issued no statement, and the term "terrorist" was studiously avoided in the media.
This isn't about abortion. It's about our culture's eagerness to expand an un-Christian act perpetrated by one person into a subtle smear that gives a negative impression of the faith in general. Linking Christians to terrorism while ignoring the terrorist leanings of an Islamic killer provides an unusually rich contrast that emphasizes the point.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
