From: "Mario Goveia" <mgov...@sbcglobal.net>
I think such endless discussions in the past have clearly established that
a) the hypothesis that a supernatural being exists cannot be proven
conclusively by the rigorous standards of science, whereas, b) science is
unable to prove conclusively that a supernatural being does not exist.
***You are right. Science cannot prove nor disprove God. Therefore, I am
not saying that neuroscientific experiments prove the existence of God. But
the following points emerge from neuroscientific experiments:
1. All neuroscientists, whether materialist or nonmaterialist, investigating
the
neural basis of mental processes-thoughts, emotions, volition,
consciousness-
are actually experimenting with nonmaterial entities. For instance, we
cannot see
a feeling such as love and empathy. Yet, love has the power to completely
change our lives and relationships.
This situation is very similar to that in quantum physics, where physicists
are
constantly working with nonmaterial concepts, such as fields and strings.
2. The mystical state activated a dozen brain areas (including the temporal
lobes)
involved in self-awareness, positive emotion, and body representation within
space.
The conclusion by Dr.Mario Beauregard was that mystical states and
experiences are
supported by a complex network of regions widely distributed in the brain.
This conclusion stands against the notion of a single "God spot" located in
the temporal lobes.
3. Neuroscience can inform us about what is going on in the brain during
RSMEs (religious,
spiritual, mystical experiences), but cannot teach us anything about God or
the supernatural.
We come to know about a unique experience and contact with a reality outside
the mind.
Otherwise, it will be "delusion" and "hallucination".
4. If "supernatural reality" is accepted on the grounds of faith in God's
Revelation,
materialistic atheism is based on "pure faith", not on Science. Agnostic
should reveal his/her
ignorance of the Mystery of God, and not state that God is a "figment of
mind", or "delusion"
or "hallucination"... If a neuroscientist affirms it, he goes beyond
Science.
However, as a defender of free speech, I have absolutely no objections to
being perversely entertained if I so choose, or move on to some other
topic when I have been entertained enough by this one:-))
***That is your choice. The same happens to us when you are engaged in the
discussion of different topics under the sky. The menu is vast. Enjoy
whatever you wish, provided that you provide vital space to others too.
Thank you!
Regards.
Fr.Ivo
