David Limbaugh's commentary on the "God Gene" reminds me of this topic in general.
Unfortunately for people who want a definitive answer, the presence of a gene that promotes religious or spiritual experiences doesn't prove anything one way or the other. Many will point to this gene, and its effect on brain chemistry, as "proof" that our perceptions of the divine have no component outside the material realm.
On the other hand, Dennis Prager has made the case that God provided us with a sense that would be capable of perceiving him. Just as our sense of vision corresponds to real things out there to see, our sense of religion corresponds to something real out there to be religious about.
The problem with this argument is twofold. Firstly, there are many things out in the universe that we're just not equipped to sense without artificial aids. We cannot directly perceive radio waves, for example, despite having been bathed in such waves from all over the universe for as long as we've been around. Secondly, our senses sometimes misreport. Many optical illusions have their basis in the way our eyes are wired, others in the way our brains are designed. For the most part, our visual sense does a great job at sorting out the information coming in, but sometimes the short-cuts lead us astray. The same thing happens with all of our senses.
The presence of a religion gene has no bearing on God's reality or lack thereof.
Sorry.
No comments:
Post a Comment