Here is the opening paragraph.
"Humans suppress areas of the brain used for analytical thinking and engage the parts responsible for empathy in order to believe in god, research suggests. They do the opposite when thinking about the physical world, according to the study.
"When there's a question of faith, from the analytic point of view, it may seem absurd," said Professor 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.""
As I considered the claims I recognized there is some truth in them, for I have often observed to others that there seems to be no correlation between one's intelligence and what one chooses to believe religiously. However, has science actually provided proof that to believe in God one must suspend analytical thinking? Has science provided proof that faith is inherently irrational?
I would argue "No, science has done nothing of the kind." Lest I be accused of suspending analytical thinking to make such a statement, and thereby prove the scientific research as valid, allow me to explain.
I know of nothing more reasonable, or more rational, than belief in God. The studies referenced in the article assume no distinction between belief in God or belief in any other supernatural being or religion. In other words, all are assumed to be equal. Yet I would make the case that all religion and belief is not equal. This case is based upon a careful analysis of religious belief, and hence is at its heart analytical.
Scripture: Reasonable, or Irrational?
The case begins with a reasoned, rational look a the Bible itself. It has to begin here, for anything we might say about God is found here. Without going into excessive detail, the Bible as we know it is simply the compilation of writings penned over a period of 1,500 years by men of various languages, education, vocation, and social status. These men recorded what they and others saw and heard with their own eyes and ears. The testimony of scripture is that everything God did, He did in the open and in the public eye.
Therefore, it is the claim of the writers that they are recording actual historical events even if their narrative doesn't correspond to the modern definition of historical writing. The modern approach of rejecting these claims simply because we do not believe them is not analytical, rational, nor reasonable.
One of the great purposes of scripture was to record for future generations the fact of a living God engaged in the affairs of mankind. This fact was presented against the backdrop of hundreds and thousands of so called gods who were nothing more than the figments of human imagination. When it comes to a scientific study of the brain and belief in God, the researchers have to take into consideration the possibility that one's belief in God is based upon one's careful consideration of things that are presented as historical facts. A person who chooses not to believe those facts cannot make the assumption those who do believe do so on some basis other than reasoned, analytical consideration.
God: Reasonable or Irrational?
The case continues with a reasoned consideration of God Himself. Belief in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is not equal to a belief in Zeus, Ishtar, Baal, or a thousand other gods. It is quite evident to the rational mind that a god that is carved from stone or wood by human hands, and whose attributes are ascribed by human imagination, is no god at all. For such a god, one has no choice but to believe without reasonable, rational reason to do so, for there is no reasonable, rational evidence of their existence. For such a god, one believes because one chooses to believe, and not because it makes sense.Leaving the ancient past and considering the modern era, those who believe in various spiritualities do so because those beliefs satisfy a desire in their heart. They may think their belief is based upon evidence, but when that evidence is analyzed it is found to be highly subjective at best. Where is the evidence that the Wiccan truly controls magical forces? Where is the evidence that crystals truly channel healing energies. Where is the evidence that people are genuinely reincarnated? Where is the evidence that the star and planets determine days and destinies? Where is the evidence that the ancient gods and goddesses who are again being worshiped have any life or power or existence?
For all these I agree with the science. For such things, people must set aside reasoned, analytical thinking, and base their choice upon something far more subjective.
But what if in all this, there is a God who has actually revealed Himself? What if, among the thousands of man made gods and religions and spiritual beliefs, there is one that was not created in the hearts of humans? The only way one will come to that determination is through a reasoned, rational analysis of the claims of those who were witnesses.
Those who were involved in the penning of scripture made constant reference to the actions of God in the plain sight of all. Unlike the gods of all the nations, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob was not limited to just His people. He was God over all, whether He was dealing with the Egyptians, the Canaanites, the Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Persians, the Greeks, or even the Romans.
Those who were appointed to be the apostles of Jesus made certain everyone understood that everything they preached they preached as eye witnesses. They were with Jesus. They heard him. They touched him. They took part in his ministry. They saw him condemned to death. They saw him buried. They saw him alive 3 days later. And it wasn't just them. Hundreds and thousands of people were all eye witnesses of Jesus. Even in their day, the claims made about Jesus were perceived as incredible and unbelievable. Yet those who did believe did so because they could not ignore the strength of the testimony.
The point in this is those who then heard for the first time about God and Jesus believed, not because they turned off analytical thinking, but because they were presented facts testified by eye witnesses. Those who previously worshiped man made gods ceased their irrational belief and embraced rational, reasoned belief.
Faith: Reasonable or Irrational?
The case also needs to consider the nature of faith. It seems to be the general assumption that faith requires a suspension of rational thinking. Unfortunately the example of many Christians seems to support that view. However, christian malpractice of faith is not the nature of faith.The word for faith in the new testament writings is the Greek word pistis which means to believe, to trust, to have faith in. It was a common every day word to describe a common, every day reality. The only difference between the apostle Paul's use of pistis and the common every day use of the people, was Paul's pointing to God as being worthy of our trust and belief as opposed to all the man made gods that were being worshiped. The Faith was that which stood upon a living, revealed God.
Faith is a very simple concept. It simply describes our willingness to trust. While it is true there are those who trust for no good reason, or who continually place their trust in the wrong things, the defect is with them, not trust. Those who are well balanced and mature in their thinking understand that trust is earned. Trust is always based on evidence. We trust the word of a close friend over that of a stranger. We trust the word of one who is vetted over one who is not.
In the same way we trust God in that we have the long recorded history of His dealing with us. He is faithful in keeping all His promises. We trust God for precisely the same reason we trust our very closest friend.
It wasn't until much later in the history of Christianity that faith was turned from simple trust in a proven God to something mystical, supernatural, and almost magical. Medieval Christianity focused faith upon the priesthood and Church rather than upon Jesus and God. Later preachers implied that power was found in faith, as though faith in faith was the key. Others tried to make faith a spiritual gift that God had to give to us before we could even believe. Still others turned faith into a defensive wall to hide behind when faced with difficult questions.
So here is finally my whole point summarized. If belief in God is equal in every respect to belief in any other god, religion, or spirituality, then the researchers are absolutely right. Belief must set aside analytical thought and be based upon something purely subjective. But if God is not like any other god and belief in Him is not like any other belief, then the researchers need to at least consider that analytical thinking and emotional thinking are to complement one another, not compete.
