Humanist Materialist Arguments Against Christianity Were "Weakened" Over The Past Century? Not So!

In a recent WSJ review ('Fearful, Faithless', March 1, p. C7) the claim has been made that "the humanist-materialist argument against Christianity has arguably weakened over the past century" and also:

"Atheism is surely produced by a lifeless and unreasoned conformity."

These absurd extrapolations are formed by Jeffrey Collins (a professor of history at Queen's University in Kingston, Ontario) in the course of his review of  'Unbelievers: An Emotional History Of Doubt"  by Alec Ryrie.

These are also totally anticipated objections we've earlier seen creep into other forums  - like Physics Today (a general journal for physicists) - often  as lazy shots taken at unbelief and atheism.  For example by the likes of  Tom McLeish, in his specious arguments that science and religion are compatible.  See my arguments against McLeish in this 2018 post :

Response To Tom McLeish's Counter Arguments In Phy...

As well as my original letter published in Physics Today, with an excerpt below:

Readers' thoughts on science and religion: Physics Today: Vol 71, No 6

"As I see it, the most fundamental split—an irreparable one—between science and religion is that religion embraces a supernatural order and genuine science, as opposed to pseudoscience, does not.

From a scientific and objective standpoint, there is simply no way that any purportedly supernatural entity or order can be demonstrated or proven. No scientific methodologies for such exist, nor any credible instruments or measuring techniques. The rejoinder that those things can't be measured merely reinforces the argument that they are no more fit for scientific inquiry than the astrologer’s claim of “malefic” influences of Mars at an infant’s birth.

Because a supernatural domain cannot be approached in any scientific or objective way, then by my reckoning it doesn't exist. One need not even deny its existence because to all intents the supernatural entity becomes logically unnecessary or redundant. It doesn't help us make scientific predictions or explain natural phenomena—say, coronal mass ejections or auroral substorms"

At its core, this is what the entire argument boils down to: the  unthinking invocation of unproven supernatural entities to support religious beliefs, and the invocation of ultimate purpose where none is warranted.   As for the claim of  atheism as produced by a "lifeless and unreasoned conformity" that is choice given how religions uniformly adopt supernaturalism as the de facto default position with no hint of insight, or an iota of critical thought.

Let me again underscore here for the record, that the preceding applies to any religion that enlists supernatural agents to support its basis. It was not intended to be a blanket statement that modern science could find no commonality with any religion. For example, according to the Mahayana tradition of Buddhism there exist a multitude of universes and none of these harbors supernatural agents such as demons, or "Satan".  Many of them, however, may well harbor other intelligent life forms.  This view in its most rudimentary form comports with the multiverse speculations of modern physics. 

Collins also makes a big deal out of:  "virtually all of the pioneering natural scientists of the era being devoutly religious" . But why wouldn't they be?  This was four hundred years (roughly) before the advent of the quantum theory, at least Max Planck's rudimentary formulation of it.  It was, frankly, the development of the quantum theory -specifically the dualistic wave- matter aspect -  that overthrew nearly all religious presumptions, and doctrines..  The new theory, powerfully confirmed, inveighed against every aspect of Christian mythology, from introducing acausal determinism,e g.

A Look At Quantum Acausal Determinism - Its Roots...

To impacting the nature of 'free will',  e.g.

Free Will And Quantum Mechanical Brain States: Wha...

And undermining hundreds of other facets of religiously defined culture and beliefs, most of which could not withstand the onslaught of the new physics.This isn't even taking into account the most recent findings of astrophysics concerning the clear lack of order in the material universe.In cosmological terms, the whole concept of “order” has been relegated to a minor and tiny niche of the extant cosmos. For example, the balloon-borne Boomerang and MAXIMA UV measurements to do with Type I a supernovae, have disclosed a cosmic content:

7% - ordinary visible 

93% - dark component, of which:

- 70% is DARK (vacuum) energy and

- 23% is dark matter

In effect, 93% of the universe can’t even be assessed for “order” since it can’t be seen. In the case of dark matter, one can only discern its presence indirectly by the visible effects on neighboring matter. In the case of dark energy, the underlying physical basis isn’t even known – though we know the result is an increase in the acceleration of the universe (arising from a cosmic repulsion attributed to dark energy).

This is all critical, since in the past apologists of teleologism (the belief that purpose and design are part of nature) have cited a perceived “orderliness” as a revelation for the “handiwork” of an intelligent Mind, or Creator. Alas, this falls through the cracks if most of the universe is disorderly, or dark-energy-matter. Indeed, by current assessment – and discounting plasma abundance, one may reckon that even rudimentary order is evident in barely 0.00001% of the cosmos.  This is why string theorist and author Brian Greens - e.g. in his new book, 'Until The End Of Time' (see WSJ review, Feb. 15-16, p. C9) concludes that "we have no choice but to accept there is no grand design"  and "the only direction to look is inward", i.e. to forge our own purpose.   

Does this imply that the concept of “God” is outright useless, null and void? Not at all. It merely requires that we re-think the concept so that it is consistent with the absence of higher or extraneous purpose. As Bernard d’Espagnat notes [1]:

“The archaic notion that is conveyed by the words ‘Lord’ and ‘Almighty’ will presumably never recover its full efficiency for lulling the ontological qualms of mankind. For a religious mind, turning towards being should therefore become a subtler endeavor than the mere acceptance of the heavenly will stated in the Bible, formulated by the priests, and exhibited by miracles.”

The fact Collins could write such claptrap as the following:

"Atheism is not some natural implication of human progress but a contingency of a particular history"

Discloses he understands none of this. Especially when he also adds (ibid.):

"Modern atheism in the West can have an assertive and even angry quality in part because the emotions that animate it - namely anxiety and anger- were responses to the particular religious upheavals of the 16th and 17th centuries"

But that era is long gone, and no rational or modern atheists I know - mainly physicists, chemists- have any such  emotional axes to grind.   They simply see, as physicist Bernard d'Espagnat observes, that the antiquated (and naive) "Daddy in the sky"  concept of that era is now passe, and indeed, it hasn't changed much since then. Hence, atheism doesn't claim to prove God's nonexistence, only point out that the concept is superfluous to the advance of empirical science,  which like it or not is inherently materialistic.What we atheists actually say is that the whole idea of an  exterior infinite deity is redundant – logically unnecessary – because it doesn’t help us to model any physical systems or make verifiable, empirical predictions.  There is no "passion" or "anger" or even "denial" involved.    These are all 'macguffins' inserted by the religionists like McLeish and Collins.

We can also - again dispassionately-   point to the work tying belief in the existence of such an external deity to the brain: e.g. -  ''Why God Won't Go Away: Brain Science and the Biology of Belief' .  Therein the authors (Andrew Newberg and Eugene D’Aquili) trace this God concept directly to an area of the brain- the OAA or orientation association area.   More to the point here, is that such a brain is singly directed to craft its own version of rationality to support its ideations. (Ceaselessly reinforced by the particular religion to which it belongs.)  Hence, we simply cannot trust the rational expressions of believers (like Prof. Collins), or those like McLeish, who defend a religious accommodation by science. Their brains are likely hijacked in the service of the OAA to promote supernaturalist nonsense, and also efforts to interject it into modern science..

A radically different take is offered by physicist Brian Greene (also an atheist) who points out that our human aspirations are intertwined with human culture- from artistic expression to scientific discovery.  These are in turn driven by a painful awareness of our finite lifespan. This cognizance of a finite lifespan, according to Greene,  is what propels us to search for the "eternal" and to try and understand "why we are here at all."

The failure to appreciate this perspective - as well as the tendency to see all atheists as raging provocateurs and "barbarians at the gate" of Christendom, e.g.

Resides in a failure of flexibility of thought, as well as absence of critical thought, such as in Prof. Collins' review..  It would have been better for him to read Dr. Anthony Kronman's superb book ('Education's End - Why Our Colleges and Universities Have Given Up On The Meaning Of Life') on the essential relationship of secular humanism to education first. Therein we see "Secular humanism thereby enters (positively)  as a philosophical template or infrastructure whereby "students and teachers pursue the perennial puzzle of human existence through the disciplined study  of an interrelated series of works in which how a person ought to spend his or her life provides a connecting theme and organizing focus of inquiry."

In an analogous fashion the physical scientist pursues the perennial puzzle of human existence but via research into the nature of the cosmos - using fundamental physical principles.  Also research, including in cosmology, astrophysics, astrochemistry, plasma physics etc. which comprise an interrelated series of works. By such processes most scientists - again leaving out emotions - come to see the universe for what it is: an impersonal assembly of energy and matter for which  any ultimate design or purpose is immaterial.  

In the same light, we are the least likely of humans to interpret the SARS- COV-2 virus as any kind of "divine retribution" unleashed on a sinful humanity to force it onto the straight and narrow.  Rather we see the virus, and the resulting COVID--19 pandemic it's spawned,  as another facet of evolution. An unfolding,  impersonal process which is always delivering novel mutations and challenges irrespective of the form of life:  virus, bacteria, ape or human.  Our error, mainly in our religions, is seeing the human as a "fallen angel" as opposed to risen ape.

Has the Universe a purpose?

Is "God" The Answer To The Suicide Epidemic? Uh...No.

"The rate at which Americans have been taking their lives has been climbing for 20 years...prompting the search for novel suicide prevention practices. But one approach is as old as civilization itself: religious faith."-  Erika Andersen, WSJ,  July 11 op-ed.


The main problem with religious faith in this country, especially the Christian version peddled by the Right,  is the lack of temperance and the consequent prevalence of "god talk".   This leads inevitably to glib "solutions"  to a wide spectrum of societal problems, including:  drug abuse, crime and suicide - as embodied in the quotation above.  Religionists tend to forget that the mere existence of the noun (G-O-D) does not mean there is any existent behind it - or  that a putative transcendent is in any way understandable by a finite human mind.

We should note, however, that the tendency to posit a superior, supernatural being to account for physical existence is nearly universal in every human culture. Indeed, every major sacred book - whether Christian Bible, Talmud, or Koran, attributes a divine origin to the universe. The problem inheres in taking this literally, and then extrapolating to an entity G-O-D   that allegedly is involved in the cosmos.  This further supports the contention of philosopher Joseph Campbell[1] to the effect that:  

‘God’ is an ambiguous word in our language because it appears to refer to something that is known.."

In other words, at the root of religious faith there is a profound lack of understanding of  the underlying epistemological (and ontological) limitations  which renders all such supernatural concepts relative and flawed.. There is simply insufficient information (and percipience)  to distinguish one person’s deity as the one true God to the exclusion of all others. 

At a more subtle rhetorical level, the great diversity of deity conceptions led me early on (in studying Comparative Theology at Loyola University)  to conclude that what people really meant when they professed “belief in God”  (or investment in a generic religious faith) was a personal allegiance to a particular  subjective concept.  (Or a particular limited scripture, e.g. Torah, Koran,  that gave rise to its articulation) Invariably, the concept was flawed and limited because it was abstracted from a personal background of  limited experience, awareness and conditioning.   Similarly, the derivative religious faith is defective and limited given it is extracted from limited god concepts and scriptures.

Hence, neither belief in a deity, or adherence to a religious faith (or scripture),  can be advanced as universal  solutions to any societal issue, including suicide.  (This is apart from the fact we now know religious aspirations and beliefs arise from a specific brain region, which I will discuss subsequently.)

All of the above bears consideration when we consider an answer to the queston recently raised by Erika Andersen:  'Is God The Answer To The Suicide Epidemic?"  (WSJ, July 11)  making the core assertion that "Someone who attends religious services is significantly less likely to kill himself."  

Apart from conflating church attendance with God-belief  the author makes a number of other statistical and logical errors.   In respect to the first, merely attending a church service is no indicator one has a comprehensive belief or affinity for a deity. Indeed, given all deities are predicated on god concepts we can conclude this is a form of ideational idolatry.  Also, as I noted some 30 years ago - in a response to a Harrison College colleague (who claimed state-sponsored church services opening special 'weeks'  (e.g. "Police week")  confirmed a "sacred order" - this is a non sequitur.   As I pointed out (rebuttal letter in The Nation) : "I would point out that these exhibitions are merely a conditioned social -cultural reflex, reflecting acceptance of expected social norms in a nation permeated by religious thinking".

Ms. Andersen, indeed, admits to her experience of similar responses when she's gone on lecture circuits "speaking about the ability of church plants to help fight suicide".  And being told by "naysayers"  that "it is the community aspect of the church service rather than faith which is the reason for its effectiveness".  In other words, the communal services - however often conducted - break through the peculiar  American disease of social isolation and lead to better psychological health.  My psychologist great niece Shayl also fully endorses this view: "That's pretty much a no brainer! When people have more community and social associations they are less likely to lack psychological support or kill themselves in despair".

So it has little or nothing to do with belief in a deity, which again - is merely acceptance or belief in a subjective god-concept.   This brings up a citation that Ms. Andersen makes which bears the key defects of selection bias as well as confirmation bias.   She cites a 2016 study from JAMA Psychiatry which "found that American women who attended a religious service at least once a week were five times less likely to commit suicide".

That's amazing! But let's explore it further.   It turns out that an earlier 2015 Pew Research center poll-survey found pretty much the same thing which I pointed out in an April 15, 2016 post.  Therein we learned:

- Globally, more women than men identify with a religion, pray daily and say that 'religion is very important' to them.

- Quantitatively, there are 100 million more religiously -affiliated women than men

- Men make up 55 percent of the world's religiously unaffiliated people

- In the U.S. the religious gender gap is most pronounced with 64 percent of American women expressing religious conviction by praying daily, vs 47 percent of men. (This compares to 15% of women vs. 9% of men in France),

- Most stunning of all, 68 percent of all atheists are men in the U.S.

I noted at the time "all kinds of hypotheses" to explain these findings but referenced one in particular from a salon.com article which asserted:

"Women are more devout because they have to be. Women’s religiosity is directly related to economic security. The lack of a social safety net means that women, who are still responsible for the bulk of elder and child care, often need to rely on religious organizations to support themselves and their families."

I noted that this was basically true and one reason the preponderance of female atheists hailed from higher socio-economic strata, many in the $75 k - $100k  range. Thus, they did not have to concern themselves with  projecting a "halo" say to keep their jobs or get better ones. Further, the probability was low they'd ever need to rely on religious charity.  

I also put forward another powerful argument for the propensity of women to attend church services, as well as participate in religious communities more generally. I had written at the time (same post):

"In most cases, women are raised to be less aggressive than males, and to avoid being confrontational. But the very nature of most areligious people or atheists  is to be confrontational because we are challenged often on our unbelief and have to be able to respond. The very adoption of the term "atheist" is a form of verbal confrontation, and explains why many more passive folks are unable to use it - even though they are atheists in every other  respect.

I surmise women are very aware of the negative perception of atheists as well and because of this they are inclined to avoid any associations with atheism. This may also explain the large proportion of American women who are religious to the extent they actually pray daily. Author Barbara Ehrenreich.[1] has shown that American mass culture is saturated by a saccharine “cult of positivity.”  Women as the "avatars"  of social polity and decorum would be much more prone to the culture's socially positive signals and hence avoid anything perceived to undermine it. In this case culture and biology probably play a dual role in not only atheism avoidance, but active religious embrace ("See I definitely am no atheist! I pray!")

Lastly, females are the "guardians" of societal morality more than men. Statistics show they are far less  sexually licentious than males in U.S. society - with fewer partners outside marriage - and also are much less drawn to things like porn or violent movies, say like Quentin Tarentino's  'The Hateful Eight' - which wifey refuses to see despite the fact its was mostly filmed in Telluride  - which she's visited a number of times. (There is a reason for the embrace of "chick flicks"!)

If females are more active (i.e. demonstrative) moral arbiters it stands to reason they'd also be more religious, pray, go to Novenas, attend Mass daily etc. as well as espouse  non-negotiable moral positions in line with assorted religious edicts. They'd also avoid atheism because it would be seen in the societal perspective of a moral blight or threat. It is important to note this last moral element cuts across all economic and class levels and hence one finds as many or more higher social class- income females in this group as lower."

BY the end of Ms  Andersen's piece one wonders if she is at all familiar with the work of Andrew Newberg and Eugene D’Aquili:   'Why God Won't Go Away: Brain Science and the Biology of Belief' wherein the authors trace the emergence and attachment to  God concepts directly to an area of the brain- the OAA or orientation association area.   This is critical because, frankly, unless an individual has a brain tuned to religious faith  there is little chance of inducing it and by extension attendance at any church services. To expect otherwise is to put the "cart before the horse."

The authors’ investigated  how the brain’s OAA translates an image,  for example,  into a religious reality is also described in detail[2].This is in connection with a person given an image of Christ and asked to focus on it. Within minutes, neurological measurements, i.e. from PET and SPECT scans showed electrical discharges spiraling down from the right attention area (right OAA) to the limbic system and hypothalamus “triggering the arousal section of the structure”. The authors’ test results and measurements revealed the activation of both the left and right association regions as their subjects focused on an image of Christ. As assorted cortical thresholds were crossed, a maximal stimulation (given by spikes in the SPECT scans) produced a neural “flood” that generated feedback to the attention association area.

To make a long story short, the visual attention area of the OAA was seen to begin to deprive the right orientation area (responsible for balance)  of all neural input not originating with the contemplation of Jesus. In order to compensate, and thereby preserve the neuro-spatial matrix (in which the self could still exist) the right orientation area had to default to the attention area focusing on “Jesus”.  As the authors describe the situation:

It has no choice but to create a spatial matrix out of nothing but the attention area’s single-minded contemplation of Jesus

Newberg and D’Aquili observed that as the process of re-cerebralization continued, all irrelevant neural inputs were stripped away until the only reality left was Jesus. That reality (actually a pseudo-reality confected by the right attention area) thereby took over the entire mind. Or, in the words of the authors, “it was perceived by the mind as the whole depth and breadth of reality.”   This is a profound insight, and fully explained why it was essentially impossible to wean believers away from their objects of worship or devotion based on logic and reason alone.

But conversely it also explains why those of us lacking the particular  OAA  triggers, thresholds for God belief will not be swayed to "join the fold" merely out of a claim we'd have a better chance to avoid suicide.  What we have then is a "Mexican standoff" of sorts between the churched and the unchurched - mainly atheists.   Rather than condemning us or seeking to proselytize us, the religious would do better to maybe research why we don't have the brain chemicals, synapses or structures (or genes for them) and hence no incentive to pursue god belief or church services like they do.  

Erika Andersen, to her credit, is correct when she writes:

 "People living in our increasingly secular culture are hungry for spiritual wisdom and transcendent purpose"

But that doesn't mean "practicing a shared faith" can be a universal solution, as she suggests in her next sentence.  It may well be for a certain subset of humans but educational advantage (awareness of linguistic and comprehension limits) coupled with gender and brain differences ensures her "recipe" can only be limited like the artifacts that underpin  all religious faiths.

---

[1] Campbell.: The Power of Myth, 56

[2] Newberg and D’Aquili., pp.  121-22.

Brain Studies Show Religious Absolutism Can't Be Defended

In the image shown, from 'A History Of Torture Through The Ages',  designated torturers from the Holy Inquisition are fervently applying assorted torments to a witch (far left), a generic "non-believer" (center) and a heretic. Their reasoning is simple:

They are so emphatically certain of their own religious truths, that they cannot abide any expression of anything contrary.  Hence, the witch who professes belief in Magic must be disembowelled, the unbeliever must have molten silver poured over his body, and the heretic - professing "untruths" - must have his ears, tongue cut out.  Now, by comparison, we examine below the words of a modern Fundamentalist Christian, from his blog - who saw my earlier blog on my niece who has cancer and how her spiritual  support system is Eckanckar.

"Eckankar is just another Satan-led religion to lead many well-meaning, albeit 'blind' souls to hell. The main reason that people cling to these false religions is mainly due to the fact that they seldom - if ever - talk and teach their followers about hell. They'll call us true Christians "hateful," "intolerant," "insensitive," and worse. Why? Because we tell them the truth...GOD'S TRUTH! ("Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?" - Gal 4:16). However, what they miss is its because we love them as God's creations that we tell them and speak of hell. We would be remiss in our obligations as Christians if we did not!"

What is the commonality between the examples? Obviously,  the primary difference is that in the case of the devout Inquisitors - who fervently wish to save the trio they're working on from Hell's fires via physical torment (to get them to change before they die)-  their victims perish. In the case of the fundie's target, she merely gets dispatched to Hell, no pain in the current life. (Fortunately, Hell is a myth, but such overt oral-written consignment typically wreaks mental havoc on the less secure.)

The commonality, however, is the sense of absolutism : the conviction or firm belief that what the attacker upholds as "truth" is the final, absolute truth and there can be NO alternative. Nor can any remote difference be accepted. Thus,  the heretic, witch or unbeliever must be taken apart piece by bloody piece, just as the Eckanckar devotee must be consigned to Hell fire. Absolutist belief allows no wiggle room! "God" or whatever the engrained brain embolism is, has spoken! Now, check again the fundie's further words on Eckanckar:

"It is clear from the outset that this (Eckanckar) is a “religion” created by Satan, the father of lies. But it differs from the many other false religions in its dangerous practices of giving an opening to demonic forces. Satan is "your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour"


We also see here the emergence of an adjunct belief, in each case. To the Inquisitors, steadying their firm hands to rip flesh, castrate, scald or disembowel there was the underlying conviction that witches, unbelievers and heretics were each driven or possessed by "Satan". To the fundie, the follower of Eckanckar is opening herself to "demonic forces" and hence can be used by "Satan".

Now, it is possible to coolly analyze each of the examples, based on recent brain research, using actual scans from positron emission tomography (PET) or single photon emission tomography (SPECT) .  The data, results provide a look inside the brains of the believers forcing their agendas and dogmas, pet credos on others. The advantage of PET and SPECT scans is that they show the effects of active, resident beliefs in real time on the brains of firm believers. Not merely a static image. We see where the brain activity lights up as it were, and where it becomes more muted.

Much of the work has been published in the 2002 book Why God Won’t Go Away: Brain Science and the Biology of Belief,   by neuroscientist Andrew Newberg and Eugene D'Aquili. Their main findings have to do with the OAA (orientation association area)  brain region. The authors note that in normal circumstances:

The OAA helps create a distinct, accurate sense of our physical orientation to the world. To do its job well….depends on a constant stream of nerve impulses from each of the body’s senses. The OAA sorts and processes these impulses virtually simultaneously during every moment of our lives”

However, in abnormal situations, or when abnormally strong beliefs are held, the OAA can be distorted. For example, a fundy given an image of Christ and asked to focus on it has his OAA go into overdrive within minutes.  Neurological measurements, i.e. from PET and SPECT scans, show electrical discharges spiraling down from the right attention area (right OAA) to the limbic system and hypothalamus “triggering the arousal section of the structure”. The authors’ test results and measurements actually revealed that as the subjects focused on an image of Christ, both the left and right association regions were activated. As assorted cortical thresholds were crossed, a maximal stimulation (given by spikes in the SPECT scans) produced a neural “flood” that generated feedback to the attention association area.

To make a long story short, the visual attention area of the OAA was seen to begin to deprive the right orientation area (responsible for balance) of the OAA of all neural input not originating with the contemplation of Jesus. In order to compensate, and thereby preserve the neuro-spatial matrix (in which the self could still exist) the right orientation area had to default to the attention area focusing on “Jesus”. As the authors put it :

“ It has no choice but to create a spatial matrix out of nothing but the attention area’s single-minded contemplation of Jesus”

In other words, belief in Jesus (and by proxy, his offer of "salvation")  became a matter of life or death. Newberg and D’Aquili go on to note that as the process of "re-cerebralization" continues, all irrelevant neural inputs are stripped away until the only reality left is Jesus. That reality (actually a pseudo-reality confected by the right attention area) thereby takes over the entire mind. Or, in the words of the authors, “it is perceived by the mind as the whole depth and breadth of reality.”

This is a profound insight, and fully explains why it is essentially impossible to wean believers away from their objects of worship or devotion (including their "good books")  based on logic and reason alone. What has happened, in other words, is the subject’s whole existence and identity has become bound up with the focus of his brain’s OAA- or more specifically – the right attention area’s focus on his specific belief,  which channels nearly all neural inputs to that region. (As shown by the PET SPECT scans lighting up)

In the mind of the professed believer, focused on Jesus as his “Savior”, there is no possibility of leaving that focus behind because his OAA brain areas are now exclusively dependent on it for him to survive. Take them away, say by surgically removing the right attention areas of the OAA, and the person will die. He’ll either commit suicide, unable to ground himself in any continuous or recognizable reality, or he will go mad.

In other words, on having their brains' OAA regions adversely stimulated to negate their beliefs (or so they thought) both the Inquisitors and the Fundie were constrained to act in order to eject the challenging meme. The Inquisitors did it via tortures, and the Fundie by mentally dispatching his target to "Hell" - a lurid fairytale confected originally by the Mithraists but later plagiarized in Christian scriptures. (Lauran Paine, in his book, ‘The Heirarchy of Hell’ , observes that the Christian copyists did add further refinements in terms of a number of further denizens of Hell, including: wights, imps and demons. Of course, this compounds the nonsense of it all by the fact of wholesale confabulation and addle-pated frivolity.)

A more recent take on this hyper-belief dynamic has been provided by Michael Shermer in his (2011) book, The Believing Brain, wherein he uses an impressive compilation of research - from neuroscience, to biochemistry to evolutionary psychology- to show that belief inevitably trumps reason. Also, that in many ways, the unchecked brains of believers are like those of drug addicts run amuck...say on meth, or crack. As Shermer puts it:

“Our believing brain dictates what we are seeing!"

Thus, if a person doesn't wish to believe any contradictions exist in his bible he won't see them. He will simply explain any or all objections away by whatever rationalizing arguments he can muster. As an extension of this tendency, according to Shermer, the brains of believers actively seek out any and all sources and information which confirm their pre-existing beliefs. Meanwhile, they actively avert their eyes (and brains)from any information or sources that appear to controvert those beliefs. In this way, they protect their self-running program loops, and auto-approving brain dynamic while keeping irritating skeptics at bay.

Thus, sowing countervailing evidence or presenting rational counter arguments to either Fundie or Inquisitor would have no effect, because in order to accept them, each believer would have to get off his respective belief 'crack pipe'. But if they did that, their very existence would be threatened, since their undermined OAA brain regions would then reduce them to vegetables or total zombies. In other words, to preserve their identities via the OAA brain regions, they need to retain those absolutist beliefs.

Of course, since the beliefs are based in brain dynamics, they aren't real, and all end up as relative. The tragedy is neither Inquisitors or Fundies seem aware of how their own brains have played them.  In the end, the heretic's beliefs are no better or worse than the Inquisitors' Catholic ones, nor are the Eckist's beliefs (say in reincarnation)  any worse than the Fundie's. Though I will say they likely are since the Eckist makes no condemnatory word or gesture toward the Fundie, like he does to her. She then understands  - unlike the Fundie- the fragility and relativity of beliefs. Of course, the Fundie will insist he got his truths from the "Bible" but as we know that invention has multiple belief defects of its own, see e.g. http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2010/05/conversation-about-spirituality-with.html

More to the point, the biblical writers' own OAA brain regions were culprits, or if you prefer, accomplices, in the manufacture of their imaginary confections, like a whale swallowing a man and retaining him alive for 3 days, or Joshua stopping the Sun with his horn. Hence, when the biblical believer alludes to his bible as the fount of truth it's like a leader allowing 2,000 -year old "inmates" to run the asylum--- of his brain!

Will the Fundie accept any of this? Not likely! It would mean having to remap his OAA region of the brain, and that would be impossible without....probably some deep brain surgery and neural rewiring! In her wonderful book, A History of God, Karen Armstrong writes:


"A personalized God can become a mere idol carved in our image. A projection of our limited needs, fears and desires. We just assume then that he loves what we love and hates what we hate, endorsing our prejudices instead of compelling us to transcend them."

It would be well for all the religious, biblical, Deity absolutists in our midst to process this, and learn the degree to which their own brains manufacture their gods as often cruel mirror images of their own  personalities! Listen to them for their "helpful" truth? We'd do better to run as fast and as far as we can!

---