Dear Banjo,

>>Neuroscientific research has revealed that several areas of the brain are involved in religious belief, one within the frontal lobes of the cortex – which are unique to humans – and another in the more evolutionary-ancient regions deeper inside the brain, which humans share with apes and other primates.<<

You are probably referring to the experiments and findings of Andrew B. Newberg and his followers with meditating Tibetan Buddhists or Franciscan nuns (http://www.andrewnewberg.com/research.asp).

Perhaps one could say that the brain is related to “religious belief” like hardware to software: religious beliefs (with or without a capacity to meditate) are “run” on (some of) our brains and neuroscientists are the “hardware technicians”.

>>Genetically determined receptivity provides a favourable foundation for religious belief, subsequently developed through education. <<

The same as “Genetically determined receptivity provides a favorable foundation for the ability to understand (and research) rather abstract mathematics, subsequently developed through education.”

I would not mind if some neuroscientist informed me about what was happening in my brain while I was doing my research in mathematics, as long as he/she would not want to draw conclusions from his findings about the subject of my research - logical correctness and relation to “reality” of the mathematics I was “doing”.

The same for neuroscience and (the existence or not of) the subject of religious belief or source of meditation.

Note that Newberg does not make such hasty conclusions, although some of his followers and popularisers do. Neither does he avoid the problem of reality as seen by neuroscientists, a reality which might or might not be identical to physical reality as studied by physicists (http://bigthink.com/videos/the-neuroscience-of-religious-experiences-andrew-newberg-live-on-big-think).

See also his recent book http://www.amazon.com/Changes-Your-Brain-Neuroscientist-ebook/dp/B001Y35GDS/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1370791958&sr=8-1&keywords=newberg+andrew

Dear Banjo,

Yes, Yuyutsu was a moral warrior in the Mahabharata.

There is a view that the Mahabharata is not a historical account, but an allegory of the inner battle between the elements of good and evil within one's body, mind and psyche, each character representing a particular proclivity.

<<I had no idea Hindus considered their Gods as objects.>>

Hinduism is a supermarket of ideas, intended to achieve all kinds of goals, not all even religious. Within Hinduism I take the religious path of Advaita Vedanta (non-duality).

The 'devas' depicted in the Mahabharata are commonly, but wrongly translated as 'gods' as there is no equivalent in the Western culture. A better translation could be 'demi-gods' or 'angels'. Some Hindus worship some of them, but that would be for them a secular activity with earthly goals in mind rather than part of religion.

Loving God is probably NOT in the nature of our bodies and brains, which are geared and evolved to survive and procreate, but I am not concerned with the body anyway, nor refer to some mental exercise of trying wilfully to love God. It is in our true nature, which IS God, to love God, to want to 'return', to unite with Him, to regain our awareness of being Him rather than a body, a brain or a mind, etc.

I suppose that it is likely for an evolved soul to be attracted to a body with genetic receptivity to religion (not only to religious belief). Otherwise one would be constantly fighting with their brain. In the end, however, what matters is whether YOU choose to seek God, not as much whether your body and brain assist you in that (although it helps).

We may read the story of Yuyutsu as an example of one whose body dragged him down towards evil. His physical association was with his 100 sinful brothers; his genetic pool was mediocre (a mixture of the warrior and merchant classes), but despite that pull, he used conscious effort to defect from their company and align himself with the forces of good.

.

Dear George and AJ Philips,

.

Belief and faith are largely interchangeable but there is a subtle difference which can, perhaps, best be apprehended by comparing "faithful" to" believable".

Faithful means loyal or reliable (with particular relevance to all living species as well as so-called supernatural entities).

Believable means most likely, given the circumstances (with particular relevance to hypotheses).

I hope you will find this helpful.

.

.

Dear George and Yuyutsu,

.

Thank you for your links, George. I find them quite interesting. Your comments on your maths research too.

I am not aware of anybody who believes in the existence of mathematics as an independent reality (but, perhaps you will correct me there). However, I agree that there seems no reason why the human brain should not have an in-built facility for mathematics and logical thought similar to that for belief in the supernatural.

I suppose the novelty in the research on religious belief is the fact the "God spot" has been located in the brain.

In any event, and unless you inform me otherwise, it seems that neither of these facilities could be construed as evidence of the existence of the supernatural or mathematics beyond human imagination.

I was alerted to the neuroscientific research on religious belief by the following article which appeared in "The Independent" a few years ago. Here is the link:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/belief-and-the-brains-god-spot-1641022.html
.

I must confess that communicating with you, Yuyutsu, is no easy task. Particularly when you declare that you " love a God who does not exist and whom you cannot imagine", or, as in your latest post:

"... I am not concerned with the body ... [but] ... in our true nature, which IS God ..."

I am afraid this is esoteric language which makes no sense to me.

You write:

"... what matters is whether YOU choose to seek God ..."

I'm afraid I realised a long time ago that it was useless "to seek God". The best I could ever hope to achieve was to settle the question as to the existence or non-existence of "God".

It took the best part of my life, but I finally made it. Some might call it a revelation. I finally understood how the idea of the supernatural germinated in the nascent conscience of primeval man and evolved down the ages to present day concepts.

That is a simple reality which I have no difficulty relating to.

I have seen the light and can now die in peace.

.

Dear Banjo,

In English, belief and faith in a religious context are interchangeable only in a superficial language, not when studied by theologians, philosophers (of religion) or psychologists. Also in e.g. Latin, the equivalents of “I believe that God exists” (expression of belief) and “I believe in God” (expression of faith) have very different meanings.

I think the terms “faithful” and “believable” do not play much of a role in a religious context. In everyday language they mean what you describe, but I am not sure whether they better describe the essential difference between religious belief and faith - and better serve as an initial insight into the serious philosophy and psychology of religion - than the description in Webster’s Dictionary that I gave.

>>I suppose the novelty in the research on religious belief is the fact the "God spot" has been located in the brain.<<

Well, “God spot” is a term used by popularizers, not by Newberg, who did research with meditating nuns (who apparently believed in God), Buddhist monks (whose “spiritual world” might or might not be part of what science can access), and outright atheists. Otherwise I agree with you: what has been located are the parts of the brain active during meditation or deep prayer. After all, that there are many mental activities or states of mind that have had their "location" in brain identified.

ctd.

ctd
>>I am not aware of anybody who believes in the existence of mathematics<<

In my article www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=14464 I referred to Penrose’s three worlds, physical, mathematical and mental, to which I would add spiritual.

Everybody (except for solipsists) believes - there is no strict “evidence” for that - that the physical world exists independent of the mental (individual or collective) world, i.e. is not reducible to it; many (not all) mathematicians believe that the mathematical world is reducible to neither the physical nor the mental world; theists or deists (like Einstein) believe that the spiritual world is similarly reducible to neither the physical nor the mental world.

Mathematicians who believe in the irreducibility of the mathematical world (i.e. its existence independent of our minds) are referred to as (mathematical) Platonists. Many, if not most, contemporary mathematicians are Platonists.

>>it seems that neither of these facilities could be construed as evidence of the existence of the supernatural or mathematics beyond human imagination.<<

I agree, this is what I wrote before referring to Newberg. Of course, neither is there “evidence” - a term when used when referring to reality, physical or otherwise, a leftover from David Hume and his eighteenth century philosophy - of its non-existence i.e. reducibility to the mental world.

May I add here that Chapter 1 and Epilogue of Newberg’s book referred to above (http://www.amazon.com/Changes-Your-Brain-Neuroscientist-ebook/dp/B001Y35GDS/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1370791958&sr=8-1&keywords=newberg+andrew) are freely available online, and contain easy to follow material about the relevance (or not) of his findings to the question of God' existence, and how a neuroscientist can interprete it.