Scientific studies done until now had shown that
analytical thinking always discourages belief in God. As per this a scientist
cannot be expected to be a believer of God whereas the available data shows
that nearly 90% of the Nobel laureates had faith in God. It has always been
believed or rather hypothesised that the brain has two conflicting centres of
function, one that does analytical thinking and the other that makes one
religious.
In this background the current study done by the researchers
of Case Western Reserve University and Babson College had shown a
marginally different result. This study shows that analytical thinking does not
give rise to disbelief in God. On the contrary it was found that those who
exhibited empathy happened to be more religious or spiritual. This means that
one can be analytical and at the same time empathic and therefore spiritual. In
other words there is no tension or conflict between those regions of the brain
that support analytical ability and belief in God.
The confusion was due to the existent belief to some
extent in the western countries and in agnostic and atheistic societies that
religion and religious beliefs are absurd and unscientific. But coming from the
background of Vedantha that forms the basis of Hinduism, we have no confusion
between analytical approach and religious thoughts, for, Hinduism is based on
logical concept of God and evolution of man to Godhood. The basic tenet is
compassion which is signified as Sattwic Guna which is what the Almighty is
personified as. The basic approach is analytical or what is known as inquiry
into the nature of both material world (prakruthi) and consciousness (Purusha
or the Individual self and the Universal Self known as God). So this requires
the use of both parts of the brain that the researchers have subjected to
analysis.
A nutshell of what this Vedanthic religion requires
us to do has been given in the 1st verse of “Vedartha Sangraha” – a
collection of Vedic thought given as lectures by Acharya Ramanuja in front of
Lord Venkateswara in Thirumala. It runs as follows:
“The individual self is subject to beginning-less nesceince, which has brought about an accumulation of karma, of the nature of
both merit and demerit. The flood of such karma causes his entry into four
kinds of bodies – heavenly, human, animal and plant beginning with that of
Brahma downwards. This ingression into bodies produces the delusion of identity
with those respective bodies (and the consequent attachments and aversions).
This delusion inevitably brings about all the fears inherent in the state of
worldly existence. The entire body of Vedantha aims at the annihilation of
these fears.
To accomplish their annihilation, they teach the
following:
(1) The essential nature of the individual self as
the transcending body.
(2) The attributes of the individual self.
(3) The essential nature of the Supreme that is the
inmost controller of both the material universe and the individual selves.
(4) The attributes of the Supreme.
(5) The devout meditation upon the Supreme.
(6) The goal to which such meditation leads.
Vedantha aims at making known the goal attainable
through such a life of meditation, the goal being the realisation, of the real
nature of the individual self and after and through that realisation, the direct
experience of the Brahman, which is the nature of bliss infinite and perfect.”
The conviction about these views and the practice of
the same require a logical and analytical mind tinged with sattwic attitude of
which compassion and empathy are supreme attributes. When one is tuned with
compassion and empathy, one is indeed Godly at that moment.
Rama, the most adored God of the Hindus, had once
expressed to Sita that compassion was his supreme
Dharma.
Sita expressed this to Hanuman in Ashoka Vana - आनृशंस्यम् परो धर्मः त्वत्त एव मया श्रुतः (Valmiki
Ramayana – 5-38-41).
(anR^ishamsyam parO dharmaH. Tvatta Eva mayA shrutaH.)
Meaning
“You yourself (Rama) told me (Sita) that kindness is the best Dharma” The part
of the brain that induces one to be kind to others cannot run repellent to
analytical thinking.
I wish these researchers take practicing Hindus for
their study!
Related articles:-
*********
From
The conflict between science and
religion lies in our brains
The conflict between science and religion may have
its origins in the structure of our brains, researchers at Case Western Reserve
University and Babson College have found. Clashes between the use of faith vs.
scientific evidence to explain the world around us dates back centuries and is
perhaps most visible today in the arguments between evolution and creationism.
To believe in a supernatural god or
universal spirit, people appear to suppress the brain network used for
analytical thinking and engage the empathetic network,
the scientists say. When thinking analytically about the physical world, people
appear to do the opposite.
"When there's a
question of faith, from the analytic point of view, it may seem absurd,"
said Tony Jack, who led the research.
"But, from what we understand about the brain,
the leap of faith to belief in the supernatural amounts to pushing aside the
critical/analytical way of thinking to help us achieve greater social and
emotional insight."
Jack is an associate professor of philosophy at Case
Western Reserve and research director of the university's Inamori International
Center of Ethics and Excellence, which helped sponsor the research. "A
stream of research in cognitive psychology has shown and claims that people who have faith
(i.e., are religious or spiritual) are not as smart as others. They actually
might claim they are less intelligent.," said Richard Boyatzis,
distinguished university professor and professor of organizational behavior at
Case Western Reserve, and a member of Jack's team.
"Our
studies confirmed that statistical relationship, but at the same time showed that people with faith are more prosocial and
empathic," he said.
In a series of eight experiments, the researchers
found the more empathetic the person, the more likely
he or she is religious. That finding offers a new explanation for past
research showing women tend to hold more religious or spiritual worldviews than
men. The gap may be because women have a stronger tendency toward empathetic
concern than men.
Atheists, the researchers
found, are most closely aligned with psychopaths—not
killers, but the vast majority of psychopaths classified as such due to their
lack of empathy for others.
The new study is published in the online journal PLOS
ONE.
The other authors are Jared Friedman, a research assistant and recent graduate
in Philosophy and Cognitive Science who will begin his PhD in organizational
behavior at Case Western Reserve in the fall, and Scott Taylor, assistant
professor of organizational behavior at Babson College.
Brain structure
The research is based on the hypothesis that the
human brain has two opposing domains in constant tension. In earlier research,
Jack 's Brain, Mind & Consciousness lab used functional magnetic resonance
imaging to show the brain has an analytical network of neurons that enables us
to think critically and a social network that enables us to empathize. When
presented with a physics problem or ethical dilemma, a healthy brain fires up
the appropriate network while suppressing the other.
"Because of the tension between networks,
pushing aside a naturalistic world view enables you to delve deeper into the
social/emotional side," Jack explained.
"And
that may be the key to why beliefs in the supernatural exist throughout the
history of cultures. It appeals to an essentially nonmaterial way of
understanding the world and our place in it."
Friedman said, "Having empathy doesn't mean you necessarily have
anti-scientific beliefs. Instead, our results suggest that if we only emphasize analytic
reasoning and scientific beliefs, as the New Atheist movement suggests, then we
are compromising our ability to cultivate a different type of thinking, namely
social/moral insight."
"These findings," Friedman continued,
"are consistent with the philosophical view, espoused by (Immanuel) Kant,
according to which there are two distinct types of truth: empirical and
moral."
Experiments and results
The researchers examined the relationship between
belief in God or a universal spirit with measures of analytic thinking and
moral concern in eight different experiments, each involving 159 to 527 adults.
Consistently through all eight, the more religious the
person, the more moral concern they showed. But no cause and effect was
established.
They found that both spiritual belief and empathic
concern were positively associated with frequency of prayer, meditations and
other spiritual or religious practices, but neither were predicted by church
dinners or other social contact associated with religious affiliation.
While others theorize that mentalizing—interpreting
human behavior in terms of intentional mental states such as needs, desires or
purposes—has a positive association with belief, the researchers found none.
Like other studies, these experiments showed that analytic thinking discourages
acceptance of spiritual or religious beliefs. But the statistical
analysis of data pooled from all eight experiments indicates empathy is more important to
religious belief than analytic thinking is for disbelief.
So why can the conflict between science
and religion become so strong?
"Because the networks
suppress each other, they may create two extremes," Boyatzis said.
"Recognizing that this is how the brain
operates, maybe we can create more reason and balance in the national
conversations involving science and religion."
Using both networks
The researchers say humans are built to engage and
explore using both networks. "Far from always conflicting with science, under the right
circumstances religious belief may positively promote scientific creativity and
insight," Jack said.
"Many of history's most famous scientists were
spiritual or religious. Those noted individuals were intellectually
sophisticated enough to see that there is no need for religion and science to
come into conflict."
They refer to Baruch Aba Shalev's book 100 years of
Nobel Prizes, which found that, from 1901 to 2000, 654 Nobel laureates, or
nearly 90 percent, belonged to one of 28 religions. The remaining 10.5 percent
were atheists, agnostics or freethinkers. "You can
be religious and be a very good scientist," Jack said.
The researchers agree with the New Atheists that suspension of analytical
thinking—at the wrong time—can be dangerous, and point to the historical use of
religious differences to persecute or fight wars.
"Although it is simply a distortion of history
to pin all conflict on religion," Jack said. "Non-religious political
movements, such as fascism and communism, and quasi-scientific movements, such
as eugenics, have also done great harm."
The researchers suggest, however, that taking a
carefully considered leap of religious faith appears be an effective route to
promoting emotional insight. Theirs and other studies find that, overall,
religious belief is associated with greater compassion,
greater social inclusiveness and greater motivation to engage in pro-social
actions.
Jack said the conflict can be avoided by remembering
simple rules: "Religion has no place telling us
about the physical structure of the world; that's the business of science.
Science should inform our ethical reasoning, but it
cannot determine what is ethical or tell us how we should construct meaning and
purpose in our lives."
To dig deeper into belief, the researchers are
planning studies to learn if individuals who increase their empathy then
increase their religious or spiritual belief, or vice versa.
Source: Case Western Reserve University [March 23,
2016] Posted by TANN on 4:00 PM.
