Lionel Tiger, a professor of anthropology at Rutgers, had an op ed piece in the Wall Street Journal on March 27 commenting on brain science and religion. His premise is that religion is a belief in the supernatural world, but brain science might prove that religion is part of the natural world. He suggests the possibility of attacking religion, not by dealing with the truth or invalidity of each of the specific statements of theology, but categorically by making the supernatural natural.
Plato long ago distinguished between the physical and the meta-physical, that is, the natural and the supernatural. Today the physical includes everything in the here and now, such you and me. The meta-physical includes real things not in the here and now, such as our memory of Charles Darwin, the "truth" of evolution theory, the number 5, and of course, God.
Following Lionel Tiger's logic, brain science might show that the supernatural is natural, or in terms used by philosophers, that the meta-physical is physical. My point is that such a sweeping attack on religion takes out much more, including the memory of Charles Darwin, the truth of evolution theory, and mathematics. None of these things have physical existence; none refer to physical brain events; none refer to abstract ideas (see Wittgenstein's "Philosophical Investigaton").
Lionel Tiger's remarks added nothing important to Julien Offray De La Mettrie's 1748 book, "Man a Machine." De La Mettrie pointed out that the heart is an organ that needs to be nourished like any other. He thought his observation disproved religion. Now more than 250 years later, Lionel Tiger and his colleagues suggest that new brain research may disprove God. Different details but basically the same argument made by de La Mettrie. Everything is part of nature, nothing transcends nature, hence there can be no God.
Let's agree that without a brain, there would be no religion. For that matter, there would be no religion without a heart. Not only does religion require brain activity, but so does science, including the theory of evolution. Belief and reasoning both require brain activity. Not only is "God" a concept that is not referring to natural events, but so is the concept of "truth."
You may think you can distinguish between science and religion, but to win the argument against my position, you need to make the distinction based on brain science. Your argument needs to go like this, "Religion is activity in this part of the brain; science is activity in that part of brain; beliefs that stimulate this part of the brain are invalid; beliefs that stimulate that part of the brain are valid. " Such an argument would seem impossible to prove.
I am not arguing that science and experience are invalid. I am arguing that the same logic by which some people disprove religion based on brain science can be applied to disprove science and experience. The argument must be flawed by reduction to absurdity.
I agree with Plato: God is supernatural, truth is supernatural, and mathematics is supernatural. All are in the realm of "meta-physics"; there is no physical event we can point to and say "This is God, " "this is truth," "this is the number 5." If you categorically deny the supernatural as natural brain events -- which is what Lionel Tiger is talking about doing -- by implication you deny God, you deny the validity ("truth") of evolution, and you deny the validity of mathematics. Embrace the supernatural and you can pick and chose (God, truth, mathematics) what you accept versus reject based on the specific merits of the case at hand.
God is not a physical being and neither is the number "5". Do you know where the number 5 can be found? Chicago? France? Does the number "7" have a page on Facebook? Of course not, because like God, like symbolic concept of truth, numbers are not "natural" things, that is, they do not exist as physical objects in nature.
A long time ago Plato concluded that ideas are not part of the natural world because they do not decay and perish. So if someone were to conclude there is no God because beliefs about God are beliefs in the supernatural, and supernatural does not exist, we also should conclude that mathematics isn't true because numbers are not natural.
Where is Darwin's theory of evolution? Upstairs? In the basement? Please don't say "abstraction" because, post-Wittgenstein, we know that isn't true. In the past? Where is the "past"? Theories aren't names for brain events; numbers don't refer to brain events; God doesn't refer to brain events. We know concepts aren't names for brain events because Wittgenstein proved they aren't names. We know concepts aren't names for abstractions because they aren't names.
Brain science is interesting for what it tells us about the brain. It will never tell us anything about God. The brain is necessary to believe in God, but that doesn't mean God is a brain event. You can embrace God, or deny God, but for heaven's sake make your arguments without bringing in brain science which has nothing to do with the issue of whether or not God exists. As for me, I just wrote a book chapter titled "The Case for Spirituality," so you know where I stand.
