Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Quote:‘If you ever stop deconstructing God and then reconstructing God, you get an idol’
Public debate on religion follows a depressingly familiar course these days. An equivalent of Godwin’s Law operates whereby the longer an online discussion continues the chances increase that someone will compare belief in God to belief in the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy or Santa.
The reply to this knock-down argument is very often smug moralising to the effect that atheists have no values and/or are being dishonest about their beliefs.
Thank goodness, then, for Richard Kearney. The philosopher is trying to move the discussion onwards through his writings and The Guestbook Project, which is described as an “experiment” in hospitality and inter-faith dialogue and is sponsored by his employer, Boston College. In his book Anatheism: Returning to God after God, Kearney rejects the notion that we must chose between either theism or atheism. This forms the basis of today’s idea: God is a symbol that constantly requires reinterpretation.
Further reading:
What is anatheism?
“It’s neither dogmatic theism nor dogmatic atheism but it’s an alternative to both of them. The word ‘ana’ in Greek simply means ‘again’. I’m with both the Enlightenment and the French revolution and the atheistic, humanist critique of the God of power and punishment – what I call the omnigod, who also died in Auschwitz – and then I ask, what’s left? Can something come back? That’s not to invent some new-age god, but can things come back that were there, that needed to crumble for something to be reborn.”
And there’s a message here for the ‘new atheists’?
“Yes, there is. Militant dogmatic fundamentalist theism is perfectly mirrored – and not all theism is that, obviously – in the new atheism of Dawkins and Hitchens, who I admire. I think it’s really healthy that they’re out there, particularly in America, challenging the dogmatism of the Tea Party, but their view of God is so restrictive. They don’t allow for any alternative. They
throw out the baby with the bathwater.”
Is part of this rethinking the word ‘God’ itself?
“Absolutely. All I’m saying is that God is a word – Augustine said it before me – for what we hope for. It is a word we use, and has been used by all wisdom traditions to try and connote this thing we hope for, this thing we long for, this surplus of meaning we call mystery.
“The interesting thing is God is a name that is constantly being revised and reinterpreted not only in different religions but within those religions. That’s the idea of ‘ana’, or ‘after’: God after God after God, and if you ever stop deconstructing God and then reconstructing God, you get an idol. So you’ve got to see God as a symbol that constantly requires reinterpretation, retrieving, reliving.”
But does religious tradition deserve such authority? Should we not just discard it?
“People have tried to do that. Robespierre tried to do that and we got the terror. Stalin tried to do that and we got the religion of the new soviet man and we got the gulags. Hitler tried to do it and we got Auschwitz, the divinisation of the Aryan man and the Germanic gods. So it’s actually a disaster to try to create a religion out of nothing.
“The bottom line for me in anatheism is genuine religion begins with the movement from hostility to hospitality, that is to say openness to the impossible stranger. That’s always been the way: Abraham to the strangers; Mary to Gabriel, who was the stranger; Jesus to the Samarian woman to the Phoenician woman.”
A critic might say you’re only picking out the nice bits from religious teaching to make it more appetising. Yours is surely a selective reading of the Bible.
“Of course it’s selective. It has to be selective, otherwise you’re uncritical, you’re a dogmatist. I grew up being taught there was one reading, and there are Protestant, evangelical sects that are even stricter than the Catholicism that I learnt.
“I also learned another kind of Catholicism from the Benedictines in Glenstal, which really taught me how to think. And I remember our first religious doctrine class was Fr Andrew Nugent, who said: Now, you are going to read Freud, Marx, Nietzsche, Simone de Beauvoir, Sartre, and if you still believe in God we can have a serious conversation, but you’ve got to begin with atheism.
“Christ on the cross was an atheist when he said: ‘my God, my God, why have you abandoned me?’ because he had to give up the idea of a god that would come down and save him from the cross. That was an idol. And then he lets go of that god and opens himself to the god of life and love.”
What is your impression of God?
“It is the vulnerable, fragile stranger who knocks and invites us to more life. And there is nothing particularly new about that. It’s not some New Age religion. It’s the three strangers knocking at Abraham’s tent. It’s Gabriel knocking at Mary’s room. It’s – as Jesus says in Matthew 25 – the person who is hungry, the person who is thirsty. Walter Benjamin has a beautiful line where he says we must consider each instant as a portal through which the Messiah must enter. It’s always knocking, every moment.”
There is an assumption in some of the debate that we will eventually argue ourselves into agreement and so reach consensus on a particular religion, or non-religion. Is this a mistake?
“You will never reach the end point on either of those fronts. In other words, I believe in the equality of all religions but not the sameness. Each religion has a right to express its response to the call – the call is the call to life and the call away from death. What gives life is divine; what does not is non-divine. And what gives life is always new, and therefore it’s always strange.
“Now, that [response] is something I believe is a moment – what I call the anatheist moment – that is common to all religions, but every religion approaches it differently and honours it differently. And each religion needs the other to remain different so that it keeps reminding it of the different ways that that response to the call should be honoured. It’s like Teilhard de Chardin says: ‘Union differentiates’.”
ASK A SAGE
Question: Is it the job of science to prove God doesn’t exist?
Simone Weil replies: “A science which does not bring us nearer to God is worthless.”
“Christ on the cross was an atheist when he said: ‘my God, my God, why have you abandoned me?’
WTF??? So Jesus, is not only talking to himself, but thinks he has abandonded himself. But he should also know that this act is saving all of humanity, therefore it isn't abandonment at all and it was actually his own choice to do..... He also didn't believe he existed?
On the topic of God being a symbol, fine if that is all it is. Atheists care that this symbol is then used for power and to restrict the freedom of other people*. I would be a lot happier if religious people kept their laws to themselves, and were nice to other people. This doesn't always happen and if you base your morals on your religion, you will also vote accordingly in any democratic process.
*Yes, this isn't just restricted to Christianity/Islam, though I may argue that in dogmatic states such as Stalinist Russia/Nazi Germany/North Korea the symbols may be different, but the outcomes almost the same. Actually the symbols are similar to those of religion, with a near supernatural leader who is perfect and must be worshipped.
May 7, 2014 at 6:55 am (This post was last modified: May 7, 2014 at 6:56 am by Confused Ape.)
I agree with Kearney about God being a symbol of something. Hands up everyone who guessed I'm going back to God On The Brain. This time I'm going to quote Richard Dawkins who took part in the documentary.
Quote:DAWKINS: If you ask the question 'what's the survival value of religious belief?' it could be that you're asking the wrong question. What you should be doing is asking what's the survival value of the kind of brain which manifests itself as religious belief under the right circumstances.
DAWKINS: The human religious impulse does seem very difficult to wipe out, which causes me a certain amount of grief. Clearly religion has extreme tenacity.
Research so far indicates that humans, as a species, evolved to produce subjective experiences of something which has been given different names, including God. Humans then decided that God exists 'out there' and went on to claim that they know how God thinks and what it wants. As different groups of humans believed different things they ended up with competing religions and we all know what that has led to.
I also agree with Kearney that the symbol needs reinterpreting. Maybe neuroscience will be a very useful tool for this. This doesn't automatically mean that neuroscience will lead to the new interpretation that Kearney would like, though.
(May 7, 2014 at 6:09 am)FreeTony Wrote: *Yes, this isn't just restricted to Christianity/Islam, though I may argue that in dogmatic states such as Stalinist Russia/Nazi Germany/North Korea the symbols may be different, but the outcomes almost the same. Actually the symbols are similar to those of religion, with a near supernatural leader who is perfect and must be worshipped.
A very good point. I wonder what goes on in the brains of fanatical followers of an ideology when they're focussing on the object of their devotion. (Hope that makes sense.)
May 7, 2014 at 7:21 am (This post was last modified: May 7, 2014 at 7:22 am by Ben Davis.)
(May 6, 2014 at 11:02 pm)Kitanetos Wrote:
Quote:‘If you ever stop deconstructing God and then reconstructing God, you get an idol’
Public debate on religion follows a depressingly familiar course these days. An equivalent of Godwin’s Law operates whereby the longer an online discussion continues the chances increase that someone will compare belief in God to belief in the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy or Santa.
The reply to this knock-down argument is very often smug moralising to the effect that atheists have no values and/or are being dishonest about their beliefs.
Thank goodness, then, for Richard Kearney. The philosopher is trying to move the discussion onwards through his writings and The Guestbook Project, which is described as an “experiment” in hospitality and inter-faith dialogue and is sponsored by his employer, Boston College. In his book Anatheism: Returning to God after God, Kearney rejects the notion that we must chose between either theism or atheism. This forms the basis of today’s idea: God is a symbol that constantly requires reinterpretation.
Further reading:
[hide]What is anatheism?
“It’s neither dogmatic theism nor dogmatic atheism but it’s an alternative to both of them. The word ‘ana’ in Greek simply means ‘again’. I’m with both the Enlightenment and the French revolution and the atheistic, humanist critique of the God of power and punishment – what I call the omnigod, who also died in Auschwitz – and then I ask, what’s left? Can something come back? That’s not to invent some new-age god, but can things come back that were there, that needed to crumble for something to be reborn.”
And there’s a message here for the ‘new atheists’?
“Yes, there is. Militant dogmatic fundamentalist theism is perfectly mirrored – and not all theism is that, obviously – in the new atheism of Dawkins and Hitchens, who I admire. I think it’s really healthy that they’re out there, particularly in America, challenging the dogmatism of the Tea Party, but their view of God is so restrictive. They don’t allow for any alternative. They
throw out the baby with the bathwater.”
Is part of this rethinking the word ‘God’ itself?
“Absolutely. All I’m saying is that God is a word – Augustine said it before me – for what we hope for. It is a word we use, and has been used by all wisdom traditions to try and connote this thing we hope for, this thing we long for, this surplus of meaning we call mystery.
“The interesting thing is God is a name that is constantly being revised and reinterpreted not only in different religions but within those religions. That’s the idea of ‘ana’, or ‘after’: God after God after God, and if you ever stop deconstructing God and then reconstructing God, you get an idol. So you’ve got to see God as a symbol that constantly requires reinterpretation, retrieving, reliving.”
But does religious tradition deserve such authority? Should we not just discard it?
“People have tried to do that. Robespierre tried to do that and we got the terror. Stalin tried to do that and we got the religion of the new soviet man and we got the gulags. Hitler tried to do it and we got Auschwitz, the divinisation of the Aryan man and the Germanic gods. So it’s actually a disaster to try to create a religion out of nothing.
“The bottom line for me in anatheism is genuine religion begins with the movement from hostility to hospitality, that is to say openness to the impossible stranger. That’s always been the way: Abraham to the strangers; Mary to Gabriel, who was the stranger; Jesus to the Samarian woman to the Phoenician woman.”
A critic might say you’re only picking out the nice bits from religious teaching to make it more appetising. Yours is surely a selective reading of the Bible.
“Of course it’s selective. It has to be selective, otherwise you’re uncritical, you’re a dogmatist. I grew up being taught there was one reading, and there are Protestant, evangelical sects that are even stricter than the Catholicism that I learnt.
“I also learned another kind of Catholicism from the Benedictines in Glenstal, which really taught me how to think. And I remember our first religious doctrine class was Fr Andrew Nugent, who said: Now, you are going to read Freud, Marx, Nietzsche, Simone de Beauvoir, Sartre, and if you still believe in God we can have a serious conversation, but you’ve got to begin with atheism.
“Christ on the cross was an atheist when he said: ‘my God, my God, why have you abandoned me?’ because he had to give up the idea of a god that would come down and save him from the cross. That was an idol. And then he lets go of that god and opens himself to the god of life and love.”
What is your impression of God?
“It is the vulnerable, fragile stranger who knocks and invites us to more life. And there is nothing particularly new about that. It’s not some New Age religion. It’s the three strangers knocking at Abraham’s tent. It’s Gabriel knocking at Mary’s room. It’s – as Jesus says in Matthew 25 – the person who is hungry, the person who is thirsty. Walter Benjamin has a beautiful line where he says we must consider each instant as a portal through which the Messiah must enter. It’s always knocking, every moment.”
There is an assumption in some of the debate that we will eventually argue ourselves into agreement and so reach consensus on a particular religion, or non-religion. Is this a mistake?
“You will never reach the end point on either of those fronts. In other words, I believe in the equality of all religions but not the sameness. Each religion has a right to express its response to the call – the call is the call to life and the call away from death. What gives life is divine; what does not is non-divine. And what gives life is always new, and therefore it’s always strange.
“Now, that [response] is something I believe is a moment – what I call the anatheist moment – that is common to all religions, but every religion approaches it differently and honours it differently. And each religion needs the other to remain different so that it keeps reminding it of the different ways that that response to the call should be honoured. It’s like Teilhard de Chardin says: ‘Union differentiates’.”
ASK A SAGE
Question: Is it the job of science to prove God doesn’t exist?
Simone Weil replies: “A science which does not bring us nearer to God is worthless.”
http://www.irishtimes.com/culture/how-at...491?page=1
[/hide]
This whole position is all based on misrepresentations of atheism. Gibberish, the whole lot of it. There's no such thing as 'dogmatic' atheism; Christ was never an atheist, especially not when he was praying to god/himself when he was dying on the cross; anatheism is a meaningless without the erroneous definition; I don't "got" to see god as anything, it's not real.
May 7, 2014 at 8:51 am (This post was last modified: May 7, 2014 at 8:54 am by Confused Ape.)
(May 7, 2014 at 7:21 am)Ben Davis Wrote: This whole position is all based on misrepresentations of atheism. Gibberish, the whole lot of it. There's no such thing as 'dogmatic' atheism;
Dawkins argues that while there appear to be plenty of individuals that would place themselves as "1" due to the strictness of religious doctrine against doubt, most atheists do not consider themselves "7" because atheism arises from a lack of evidence and evidence can always change a thinking person's mind. In print, Dawkins self-identified as a '6', though when interviewed by Bill Maher[3] and later by Anthony Kenny,[4] he suggested '6.9' to be more accurate.
The way I see it, dogmatic atheists are people who class themselves as a 7. I dislike the word God, though, when discussing a symbol because people tend to think of the Christian God. This is why I prefer the term, the Divine. From the article -
Quote:The interesting thing is God is a name that is constantly being revised and reinterpreted not only in different religions but within those religions.
Different religions have different concepts of the Divine. Maybe one concept is correct. For example, the Hindu Brahman is very different from the Christian God. Is Brahman or any other concept of the Divine nothing more than a subjective experience produced by the brain? Neuroscience cannot provide an answer to that question. Or maybe it's the case that it hasn't been able to provide an answer yet.
Our research indicates that our only way of comprehending God, asking questions about God, and experiencing God is through the brain. But whether or not God exists “out there” is something that neuroscience cannot answer. For example, if we take a brain image of a person when she is looking at a picture, we will see various parts of the brain being activated, such as the visual cortex. But the brain image cannot tell us whether or not there actually is a picture “out there” or whether the person is creating the picture in her own mind. To a certain degree, we all create our own sense of reality. Getting at what is really real is the tricky part.
Does the human race need anatheism? I honestly don't think so. God being a symbol of something is irrelevant to atheists who don't need a symbol for something they don't believe in. It's also doubly irrelevant to atheists whose brains don't produce symbols in anomalous experiences. My brain does produce these symbols but that's no reason for me to become an anatheist. On the other hand, I can't be 100% certain that somebody's concept of the Divine isn't correct so I class myself as 6.9 on the scale as well.
(May 7, 2014 at 8:51 am)Confused Ape Wrote: The way I see it, dogmatic atheists are people who class themselves as a 7.
Have to disagree there: a 7 would be an absolute anti-theist whereas a dogmatic atheist would be someone who follows the dogma of atheism. Since there is no dogma, there can be no adherence therefore dogmatic atheism doesn't exist. There are people who follow the positions of particular authorities so maybe there's a kernal of future dogma there but I think that's more to do with modern celebrity worship than the religious-style blind following that the word 'dogma' implies. To me, this mischaracterisation is an attempt to accuse atheists of 'being as bad as theists'. I've pointed out in other threads how weak, childish and admittant of failure that argument is. Consequently, my opinion of this book is very low.
Quote: I dislike the word God, though, when discussing a symbol because people tend to think of the Christian God. This is why I prefer the term, the Divine.[/quote
As long as you define your terms so that decent discussion follows, use whatever terms you like
[quote]Different religions have different concepts of the Divine. Maybe one concept is correct. For example, the Hindu Brahman is very different from the Christian God.
It's not entirely impossible however I'd phrase this the other way round: given how many obviously impossible/implausible definitions of god exist, isn't it more likely that they're all wrong?
Quote:Is Brahman or any other concept of the Divine nothing more than a subjective experience produced by the brain? Neuroscience cannot provide an answer to that question. Or maybe it's the case that it hasn't been able to provide an answer yet.
The latter. I forget which university hospital did it but the areas of the brain which equated to 'religious experience' were mapped and compared to scans of other brains during 'reportedly similar' non-religious experiences. As I remember, the results were 'the same' thus debunking any supernatural cause of people 'feeling god'. Have a look online. If I find it first, I'll post it.
Quote:Our research indicates that our only way of comprehending God, asking questions about God, and experiencing God is through the brain. But whether or not God exists “out there” is something that neuroscience cannot answer.
True in an absolutist sense: the claims made for gods are not solely neural however understanding the neurology goes a long way to describing the 'religious experience'. So far this has also resulted in a debunking of it.
Quote: For example, if we take a brain image of a person when she is looking at a picture, we will see various parts of the brain being activated, such as the visual cortex. But the brain image cannot tell us whether or not there actually is a picture “out there” or whether the person is creating the picture in her own mind. To a certain degree, we all create our own sense of reality. Getting at what is really real is the tricky part.
Not quite: if the person is creating the image themselves, slightly different parts light up than if they're receiving outside stimulus.
Quote:Does the human race need anatheism? I honestly don't think so. God being a symbol of something is irrelevant to atheists who don't need a symbol for something they don't believe in. It's also doubly irrelevant to atheists whose brains don't produce symbols in anomalous experiences.
Exactly how I feel.
Quote:My brain does produce these symbols but that's no reason for me to become an anatheist. On the other hand, I can't be 100% certain that somebody's concept of the Divine isn't correct so I class myself as 6.9 on the scale as well.
May 9, 2014 at 4:34 am (This post was last modified: May 9, 2014 at 4:41 am by Confused Ape.)
(May 8, 2014 at 10:23 am)Ben Davis Wrote: Have to disagree there: a 7 would be an absolute anti-theist whereas a dogmatic atheist would be someone who follows the dogma of atheism.
Quote:expressing personal opinions or beliefs as if they are certainly correct and cannot be doubted
characterized by or given to the expression of opinions very strongly or positively as if they were facts <a dogmatic critic>
(May 8, 2014 at 10:23 am)Ben Davis Wrote: Since there is no dogma, there can be no adherence therefore dogmatic atheism doesn't exist.
Atheism doesn't have any dogma but that doesn't mean that some atheists can't be dogmatic according to the above definition. For me, the term "dogmatic atheism" means people claiming that they know for a fact that nobody's definition of God is right.
(May 8, 2014 at 10:23 am)Ben Davis Wrote: There are people who follow the positions of particular authorities so maybe there's a kernal of future dogma there
The thought of 'Atheism The Ideology' makes me shudder. Is it at all possible that something like this could develop? I don't know much about Atheism+ but there are some interesting posts about it in the forum topic - Atheism+ and similar ideologies. I then found an internet article by someone who wasn't thrilled with the Atheist+ movement - What Atheism Could Have Been. The Atheism+ movement isn't about atheism itself, though. It's how atheists 'should and ought to' take a stand on certain issues.
(May 8, 2014 at 10:23 am)Ben Davis Wrote: but I think that's more to do with modern celebrity worship than the religious-style blind following that the word 'dogma' implies.
The way I see it, the human tendency for hero/celebrity worship is a dangerous weakness because it can be manipulated into a Cult Of Personality. I honestly can't see that happening with atheism but it doesn't have to. All it needs is a few vocal atheists following "the positions of particular authorities" to create a bad impression.
(May 8, 2014 at 10:23 am)Ben Davis Wrote: It's not entirely impossible however I'd phrase this the other way round: given how many obviously impossible/implausible definitions of god exist, isn't it more likely that they're all wrong?
It's very likely that they're all wrong. This includes the God Of Quantum Woo even though some of the people promoting it have degrees in physics.
(May 8, 2014 at 10:23 am)Ben Davis Wrote: I forget which university hospital did it but the areas of the brain which equated to 'religious experience' were mapped and compared to scans of other brains during 'reportedly similar' non-religious experiences.
I tried googling for 'brain mapping religious and non religious experiences' and got various results - it would be helpful if you could find the relevant information because you'll recognise it when you see it. I'm particularly interested in what the 'reportedly similar non-religious experiences' are. I was a teenager in the 60's so remember Beatlemania even though I could never get that excited over the Beatles.
Maybe that's not very different to religious hysteria.
(May 8, 2014 at 10:23 am)Ben Davis Wrote: True in an absolutist sense: the claims made for gods are not solely neural however understanding the neurology goes a long way to describing the 'religious experience'. So far this has also resulted in a debunking of it.
Was this in the same study?
(May 8, 2014 at 10:23 am)Ben Davis Wrote: Not quite: if the person is creating the image themselves, slightly different parts light up than if they're receiving outside stimulus.
Quote:This forms the basis of today’s idea: God is a symbol that constantly requires reinterpretation.
Yeah - and that's what we call marketing. Don't like our God huh - don't worry, we'll change it into something more palatable.
Hey look- even atheists get to go to heaven now - according to the current Pope who'll leave no stone unturned to keep the money rolling in - keep catholic worship at the forefront.
Kuusi palaa, ja on viimeinen kerta kun annan vaimoni laittaa jouluvalot!
May 9, 2014 at 7:25 pm (This post was last modified: May 9, 2014 at 7:29 pm by Ben Davis.)
(May 9, 2014 at 4:34 am)Confused Ape Wrote: Definition of Dogmatic
Atheism doesn't have any dogma but that doesn't mean that some atheists can't be dogmatic according to the above definition. For me, the term "dogmatic atheism" means people claiming that they know for a fact that nobody's definition of God is right.
I was using definition 2 only but I'm happy to agree on your use of definition 1 as well. So I agree that dogmatic atheists (aka antitheists/strong atheists) can exist under definition 1. We'll continue on definition 2 in a moment.
Quote:The thought of 'Atheism The Ideology' makes me shudder. Is it at all possible that something like this could develop?
Me too and it's entirely possible; humans show a tendency toward developing and maintaining ideology. For adherents, it seems to be a comfort blanket to avoid having to accept the responsibility of thinking for oneself. Ideologies are most useful as a control mechanism so whenever I see one, I look to the orchestrator.
Quote:I don't know much about Atheism+ but there are some interesting posts about it in the forum topic - Atheism+ and similar ideologies. I then found an internet article by someone who wasn't thrilled with the Atheist+ movement - What Atheism Could Have Been. The Atheism+ movement isn't about atheism itself, though. It's how atheists 'should and ought to' take a stand on certain issues.
I completely disagree with their use of the word 'atheism' in their movement. It portrays the idea that 'this is the value set that atheists have'. In fact, it's a mix of humanism, liberalism, libertarianism & socialism and I wish they'd be explicit about that. I agree with their stances on many issues but not with their labelling: it seems dishonest and too much like bandwagoning to me.
Quote:The way I see it, the human tendency for hero/celebrity worship is a dangerous weakness because it can be manipulated into a Cult Of Personality. I honestly can't see that happening with atheism but it doesn't have to. All it needs is a few vocal atheists following "the positions of particular authorities" to create a bad impression.
I agree completely.
Quote:I tried googling for 'brain mapping religious and non religious experiences' and got various results - it would be helpful if you could find the relevant information because you'll recognise it when you see it...
Apologies, I haven't had a chance to look yet. I'll post sources as soon as I can.
Quote:I'm particularly interested in what the 'reportedly similar non-religious experiences' are.
This is why I used inverted commas, I couldn't remember exactly what they were. Off the top of my head, being emotionally moved by art, some group experiences... I need to look it up to give you a proper representation.
Quote:
(May 8, 2014 at 10:23 am)Ben Davis Wrote: True in an absolutist sense: the claims made for gods are not solely neural however understanding the neurology goes a long way to describing the 'religious experience'. So far this has also resulted in a debunking of it.
Was this in the same study?
I was generalising a bit here. What I meant was that 'evidence' presented for gods includes external items as well as internal (e.g. physical miracles like healing or bleeding icons). These are not subject to understanding through neurology but require other disciplines (e.g. chemistry, physics, psychology or sociology). However neurology can tell us a little about why people choose to believe that the causes of external 'evidence' are gods.
Quote:
(May 8, 2014 at 10:23 am)Ben Davis Wrote: Not quite: if the person is creating the image themselves, slightly different parts light up than if they're receiving outside stimulus.
And this?
A composite understanding from various studies. If someone is imagining a subject to the point where they're literally fooling their brain into experiencing it, I understand that not only do all the parts light up that are involved in a 'real world' experience but also certain creative areas. Studies in to the effects of hallucinogens spring to mind. Once again, I'll look them up and post.
This time I'm going to quote Richard Dawkins who took part in the documentary.
