Halfway to Chile

As some of you may know, I am taking classes in Spanish in the mountain capital of Santiago. While I am there, I might as well use this space to talk about my experiences there.

However, I am not there yet (I'm in Dallas on layover for another four hours and fifteen minutes), so I might as well talk about something else.

Avid readers of Scientific American will no doubt recall to mind the surprising article on page 38, written by a certain Michael Shermer, editor-in-chief of Skeptic Magazine, and a professing atheist. Shermer devotes the full page opinion piece to what one might call the "triumph" of emergent materialism; as reductionist/limitedist cognitive psychology is being pushed further and furth back into the recesses with the results of recent studies at major universities. The studies in themselves are not what occupies Shermer's mind, instead, Shermer discusses what the studies bode for Philosophy of Mind and the religious experience.

As it is becoming apparent that though the mind is of physical components, and is influenced by phsyical treatment (e.g., giving medicine to treat various psychological problems, sending electrical pulses can give a subject quale experiences), it is equally becoming apparent that the mind cannot be reduced to physical components. These means several things, though is not limited to:

1. Hyper-religious people can rest assured that their "soul" is not challenged by taking pills. And now there is room for supernatural possibilia affecting the mental, such as demonic possession and 'God' talking to you, yet still pay respect to natural phenomena affecting the mind, such as genuine schizophrenias.
2. All mental causation is natural yet more important that just that.
3. Extreme limitivists are wrong (e.g., Dan Dennett).
4. The 19th century German Gestalt psychologists have been vindicated.

Of course, the jury is still out on the matter; Shermer simply acknowledges that emergentism is enjoying a high point in popularity. Shermer even goes on to acknowledge that under emergentism, deities are worthy of worship once again. Of course, the editor is still an atheist and there is probably little changing that. Shermer ends his article with what should be by now a trademark bit of skepticism, questioning the validity of worshiping an outdated, Bronze Age Jewish war God. Yet why stop at the skepticism of Shermer? I am reminded of what Hume once said in regards to Bishop Berkely's proof for God, that while "I [Hume] have no answer for him, [the proof] produces no conviction at all." How can we remain a skeptic and avoid solipsism? But I digress.

Two years and several thousand miles away from this airport in Dallas, in the papers of British news source The Guardian, Lord Winston wrote a short essay defending the evolutionary reasons for belief in God. Winston, himself a devoted Jew, spent the good portion of the essay discussing the parts of the mind that nearly demand divine attention. In other words, there is, Winston argues, a spiritual side to our brains that needs to be given heed.

Winston relates to us an example of a psychology test during the mid-century at the University of Minnesota. The study's aim was to see if religious zeal correlated to psychological disorders. Several groups of various religious backgrounds were assembled: Charismatics, monks, wealthy Protestants and Catholics, even snake-handlers. In fact, the test did show a direct correlation between religiosity and psychological problems. But it's the reverse of what might be expected. The less involved someone is (in other words, the less passionate [and do not read crazy] a worshipper is) the more likely they will suffer from mental disturbances. Snake-handlers had few problems, same with monastics; the wealthy were far more likely to need psychological help. Perhaps our minds do demand spiritual attention.