Is our Brain Pre-Wired to Believe in G-d?

[4Horsemen]

Judaism does not believe that the sin of Adam was carried by the rest of humanity until that humanity was redeemed by a suffering servant (Jesus) who was the Messiah and, in a sense, the “new Adam.” That is not the Jewish conception of the Messiah (and that topic is for another thread!). Even Christians never say that people will not commit sin again once they accept Jesus as their Savior, but rather that now they have a means of atoning for their sins through Jesus. **The Jews believe that every individual has ALWAYS had a means of atoning for their sins, namely through prayer to G-d the Father and through good deeds toward their fellow men: faith and works, as in Catholicism. (Indeed, prayer to G-d alone is insufficient on the Day of Atonement. Only sins committed directly against G-d can be atoned for by praying to G-d; however sins committed toward one’s fellow men must be atoned for by asking forgiveness of them directly.) Judaism does not view man as incapable of atonement without a Redeemer (despite man’s good intentions) because man is too depraved. **For Jews, man is not a depraved being (the idea of which some Jews would consider insulting to G-d, who created that being) and does not, left to his own devices, become a slave to sin. These are Christian ideas, necessary to support the internal logic of the faith, that the Coming of Jesus as the Redeemer changes the inner nature of man if he believes in Jesus. That’s my understanding of Christianity (from the outside); please correct me if I got it wrong. However, Judaism still says man needs G-d to lead a moral life, and the Torah is regarded as the eternal Word of G-d that tells man how to lead this kind of life. Moses states that obedience to Torah Law is not far from man’s capability: it is not regarded as something man cannot possibly do because of his sinful nature. On the other hand, much of early Christianity believed the opposite: that following the Law in its multitude of requirements is impossible for man, and therefore Jesus had to die and be resurrected in order to fulfill the Law in man’s place. This notion runs counter to Jewish teaching: namely, that any other (including the Messiah) can take on himself another person’s sins. Each person is responsible for his own moral behavior (by means of following G-d and His Torah) and salvation (not as important a notion) according to Judaism.

Fulfilling the precepts of the Law seems to be the centrality of Judaism. G-d is not personal, in other words, as the Christian God. If salvation is “not as important a notion,” what is the reward for following the Law? From reading Scripture, we find that God is a personal Deity. The Hebrew people were in bondage in Egypt for 400 years. When Moses told them of God’s promise to release them from slavery, they didn’t listen to him “because of anguish of spirit” (Ex.6:9) But God did something for them that they could not do for themselves, The Lord’s miraculous deliverance of His people foreshadowed His powerful intervention in our behalf through His Son Jesus. As St. Paul says that it was when we were powerless to help ourselves that Christ died for sinful men." (Rom.5:6).

Christians see in Isaiah 49:15 God’s unconditional love for us. God tells His people, “I will never forget you. Can a woman forget her nursing child, and not have compassion on the child in her womb?”

We know from St. Paul (particularly in Romans) that trying to follow the Law exactly is an exercise in futility. God wants worshippers “in spirit and in truth.” That’s why repentence is necessary. “Repent, for the kingdomm of heaven is at hand,” (Matt. 3:2) says St. John the Baptist (Jesus too when He began His ministry). Through Jesus’ death on the cross, Christians escape spiritual death.

Through God’s Divine Mercy (which we celebrate this Sunday), those who trust in Him and reform their lives will be saved.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

meltzerboy

**On the other hand, much of early Christianity believed the opposite: that following the Law in its multitude of requirements is impossible for man, and therefore Jesus had to die and be resurrected in order to fulfill the Law in man’s place. This notion runs counter to Jewish teaching: namely, that any other (including the Messiah) can take on himself another person’s sins. Each person is responsible for his own moral behavior (by means of following G-d and His Torah) and salvation (not as important a notion) according to Judaism. **

Granting all this, Jesus (a Jew) and the early Jews disagreed about original sin with what I suppose you would call the dominant view of Judaism through the ages. So even if it is a minority report on original sin, it is still Jewish in origin, though Gentile by adoption.

As you know, the Jews at the time of Jesus were a fractured group. The Pharisees believed in the immortality of the soul, while the Sadducees did not. So is it useful to argue that the Jews never taught original sin when we see Jesus and Paul teaching it and the early Jews eagerly accepting the teaching?

Romans 5:18

“Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. 19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.”

 

[meltzerboy]

Fulfilling the precepts of the Law seems to be the centrality of Judaism. G-d is not personal, in other words, as the Christian God. If salvation is “not as important a notion,” what is the reward for following the Law? From reading Scripture, we find that God is a personal Deity. The Hebrew people were in bondage in Egypt for 400 years. When Moses told them of God’s promise to release them from slavery, they didn’t listen to him “because of anguish of spirit” (Ex.6:9) But God did something for them that they could not do for themselves, The Lord’s miraculous deliverance of His people foreshadowed His powerful intervention in our behalf through His Son Jesus. As St. Paul says that it was when we were powerless to help ourselves that Christ died for sinful men." (Rom.5:6).

Christians see in Isaiah 49:15 God’s unconditional love for us. God tells His people, “I will never forget you. Can a woman forget her nursing child, and not have compassion on the child in her womb?”

We know from St. Paul (particularly in Romans) that trying to follow the Law exactly is an exercise in futility. God wants worshippers “in spirit and in truth.” That’s why repentence is necessary. “Repent, for the kingdomm of heaven is at hand,” (Matt. 3:2) says St. John the Baptist (Jesus too when He began His ministry). Through Jesus’ death on the cross, Christians escape spiritual death.

Through God’s Divine Mercy (which we celebrate this Sunday), those who trust in Him and reform their lives will be saved.

I see I’ve detoured my own thread! I’ve sometimes heard the claim from Christians that Judaism is not a personal religion and wonder why that comment is made. It is in fact a very personal religion. Man prays directly to G-d the Father and no other. Since the Torah is the divine Word of G-d, fulfilling its commandments is direct obedience to G-d. There was even a tradition on Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement) for people to accuse G-d of major sins (natural catastrophes and the like), whereas we humans commit only minor ones. There is a kind of conversational dialog between man and G-d in Judaism. It’s hard to get more buddy-buddy and personal than that! I said salvation is not as important a notion in Judaism as living a moral life; I didn’t say it wasn’t important at all. But it is true that Judaism focuses on the here and now without too much concern for the afterlife. We simply assume G-d will take care of that for Jews and everyone else. Paul was fond of preaching the futility of following the Law; but he purportedly changed (in the Gospel) some of what Moses said about mankind’s ability to follow the Law. As I had mentioned, this was necessary for Jesus to be recognized as the Savior.

 

[samiam1611]

Granting all this, Jesus (a Jew) and the early Jews disagreed about original sin with what I suppose you would call the dominant view of Judaism through the ages. So even if it is a minority report on original sin, it is still Jewish in origin, though Gentile by adoption.

As you know, the Jews at the time of Jesus were a fractured group. The Pharisees believed in the immortality of the soul, while the Sadducees did not. So is it useful to argue that the Jews never taught original sin when we see Jesus and Paul teaching it and the early Jews eagerly accepting the teaching?

Original sin is not a Jewish doctrine. If Jews chose to believe it, they were dissenting from Jewish tradition. A person can dissent, they can eagerly accept it if they want, but they can’t claim to be following Jewish law or whatever. Jews believe that one is born into the world with original purity, not original sin.

“Science can purify religion from error and superstition and religion can purify science from idolotry and false absolutes.”

That’s a great quote!

 

[fhansen]

Paul was fond of preaching the futility of following the Law; but he purportedly changed (in the Gospel) some of what Moses said about mankind’s ability to follow the Law. As I had mentioned, this was necessary for Jesus to be recognized as the Savior.

I’m not sure how/where Paul changed what Moses said. I’m not saying he didn’t, but could you direct me to it? In any case, my understanding is that the major difference between what Christians call the Old and New Covenants is in the way the Law is to be fulfilled, rather than whether or not it’s expected to be fulfilled at all. So, taking the full scope of his writings in context, Paul continues to call for righteousness, but one initiated by, coming from, and enabled by God rather than one of ourselves, or one executed under our own steam, so to speak.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Meltzerboy

Is there anywhere in the OT that reference is made to life after death?

 

[4Horsemen]

Getting back to the OP, I just want to add that it is not our material brain that is pre-wired to believe in God or anything just because there are a bunch of neurons zipping along neural pathways and stimulating nerve endings or synaptic connections. I’m not a neuro-scientist, but it seems that our brains have functions that store what we learn and remember. It is the source of the central nervous system and sensory apparatus. But it is still a mystery how the brain actually works. We’d have to believe that the brain contains a numbers of pathways that could store at least as much as all the events and memories of our lives, which seems unreal.

Then what about the abstract concepts like numbers, geometric figures, the ideas of justice, kindness, love. Various philosophers explained these ideas in theories as diverse as Plato’s Forms. Materialists or determinists would explain the ‘events’ of our human condition considering only the factor of the brain’s efficiency. They leave out the immaterial part of man – the soul – which is the seat of the intellect and will. If we are ‘pre-wired’ to believe in God, it is through the Holy Spirit working in our souls calling us to a love of God and neighbor.

 

[meltzerboy]

Getting back to the OP, I just want to add that it is not our material brain that is pre-wired to believe in God or anything just because there are a bunch of neurons zipping along neural pathways and stimulating nerve endings or synaptic connections. I’m not a neuro-scientist, but it seems that our brains have functions that store what we learn and remember. It is the source of the central nervous system and sensory apparatus. But it is still a mystery how the brain actually works. We’d have to believe that the brain contains a numbers of pathways that could store at least as much as all the events and memories of our lives, which seems unreal.

Then what about the abstract concepts like numbers, geometric figures, the ideas of justice, kindness, love. Various philosophers explained these ideas in theories as diverse as Plato’s Forms. Materialists or determinists would explain the ‘events’ of our human condition considering only the factor of the brain’s efficiency. They leave out the immaterial part of man – the soul – which is the seat of the intellect and will. If we are ‘pre-wired’ to believe in God, it is through the Holy Spirit working in our souls calling us to a love of God and neighbor.

My question does not preclude the pre-wiring of the brain due to a spiritual process or entity–the soul, the Holy Spirit–rather than a merely biological (materialistic) pre-wiring. Our understanding of abstract concepts (or even the idea of non-existent concepts, such as a square circle) is an interesting connection to the spiritual nature of the brain. Thanks for your insightful comment!

 

[levinas12]

Well, we are much closer to Pelagianism than to Saint Augustine.

I don’t mean to continue diverting the thread but you raise an interesting point. Christians read the Hebrew Scriptures as detailing one catastrophe after another - all stemming from the failure to keep the Law. But not just Christians. This was also how the Hebrew prophets saw it.

Pelagius doesn’t cut it. Humans on their own can’t be good.

Or, as John Barth once said, freely paraphrasing Oedipus Rex: Self-knowledge is always bad news.

 

[tonyrey]

No. That’s why I’m active where I can be, and support financially where I cant be.

Then you believe we’re not just valueless freaks of nature which exist by chance!

 

[4Horsemen]

My question does not preclude the pre-wiring of the brain due to a spiritual process or entity–the soul, the Holy Spirit–rather than a merely biological (materialistic) pre-wiring. Our understanding of abstract concepts (or even the idea of non-existent concepts, such as a square circle) is an interesting connection to the spiritual nature of the brain. Thanks for your insightful comment!

So. . . if I may ask, what is your thinking about the brain, whether or not it is pre-wired to believe in God? You don’t negate a “spiritual process or entity – the soul, the Holy Spirit.” But do you also consider “biological (materialistic) pre-wiring” as a possible pathway to God? If so, what would be the connection of the spiritual with the material? It’s true we are both soul and body, but I don’t know if anyone has fully explained how these components, that make us who we are, work together.

I colored “spiritual nature of the brain” because I would surmise that the soul is the source of our spiritual nature and not the brain. The brain is just a material, physical, biological part of the body which becomes unworkable when the soul leaves the body.

As for the concept of square circles and the like, these ideas stem from imagination which houses creativity and don’t really exist in reality, unless in some dimension we are unaware of (as yet?). I think the imagination stems from the intellect. I don’t really know how the brain works with spiritual properties.

 

[Faith1960]

tonyrey

**I agree with you. If our brain is prewired to believe in God people who are brought up as pagans would also believe but many of them don’t… **

Unless the pagan wiring has short-circuited.

Dr. Fazale Rana says on the Reasons To Believe website says this: ---- These results are intriguing in light of the question, “Do beliefs somehow become mapped into our bio-structure and then passed on to our children?” Although there is no indication of this yet, could it be that what we are taught as children is so profound it alters epigenetic profiles in the brain, that are then, in turn, passed along to offspring? It seems such a genetic inheritance is at least possible based on the rat studies.

Could these provocative implications provide a biological explanation for passages like Exodus 20:5? Epigenetic patterning may well be the means by which God punishes several generations of children for the sins of their fathers and blesses thousands of generations of children for parental faithfulness.

The reversibility of epigenetic patterning could also provide the biological rationale for passages like Ezekiel 18:14–17: ----

 

[atheistgirl]

Then you believe we’re not just valueless freaks of nature which exist by chance!

I believe we are part of an evolutionary process that did not have us ‘‘in mind’’.

That in no way diminishes our value or sense of self worth. To do so, would be to fly in the face of evolution!

 

[fhansen]

I believe we are part of an evolutionary process that did not have us ‘‘in mind’’.

That in no way diminishes our value or sense of self worth. To do so, would be to fly in the face of evolution!

How would evolution care?

 

[atheistgirl]

How would evolution care?

It doesnt. Thats what I said. Evolution didnt have us in mind.

Sarah x

 

[fhansen]

It doesnt. Thats what I said. Evolution didnt have us in mind.

Sarah x

What I was getting as was, how does our sense of self-worth, whether positive or negative, fly in the face of evolution?

 

[atheistgirl]

What I was getting as was, how does our sense of self-worth, whether positive or negative, fly in the face of evolution?

All life has evolved to survive adapt and propagate. That’s the force that ‘‘life’’ is. By valuing life, protecting and nurturing it, we are ensuring our survival and development. All of nature is driven to do this. All humans are intrinsically worthy of the life they have. This is part of my virulent opposition to abortion. When we hurt the most vulnerable of us, we hurt all of us as a species. Evolution is not about survival of the fittest, its about survival of the most adaptable. Studies show at one point in our evolutionary history, we were down to a couple of thousand people. We could have been wiped out and just been one of the 99.9% of life forms that have lived and died out since the earth was formed. But we were adaptable. And we continued to evolve and adapt. The intrinsic worth of all human life is something inate to our nature. Without it, we could have easily died out. Coupled with our hugely evolved sense of empathy, we take care of the sick, the vulnerable and the unborn - because we recognoze that essence, that basic right to life, in all humans.

But 10 million years ago, the evolutionary process did not know we would be the end product of a particular line of simian evolution. And interestingly, we are still evolving. Studies from HHMI have shown the human brain is still evolving, and it’s only in the last 5000 years or so populations built up a lactose tolerance. The fact that we all now life long enough to have children, coupled with masive advances in medicine mean the rate is slowed to a total crawl, but those ambovolent forces are still at work

Sarah x

 

[fhansen]

All life has evolved to survive adapt and propagate. That’s the force that ‘‘life’’ is. By valuing life, protecting and nurturing it, we are ensuring our survival and development. All of nature is driven to do this. All humans are intrinsically worthy of the life they have. This is part of my virulent opposition to abortion. When we hurt the most vulnerable of us, we hurt all of us as a species. Evolution is not about survival of the fittest, its about survival of the most adaptable. Studies show at one point in our evolutionary history, we were down to a couple of thousand people. We could have been wiped out and just been one of the 99.9% of life forms that have lived and died out since the earth was formed. But we were adaptable. And we continued to evolve and adapt. The intrinsic worth of all human life is something inate to our nature. Without it, we could have easily died out. Coupled with our hugely evolved sense of empathy, we take care of the sick, the vulnerable and the unborn - because we recognoze that essence, that basic right to life, in all humans.

But 10 million years ago, the evolutionary process did not know we would be the end product of a particular line of simian evolution. And interestingly, we are still evolving. Studies from HHMI have shown the human brain is still evolving, and it’s only in the last 5000 years or so populations built up a lactose tolerance. The fact that we all now life long enough to have children, coupled with masive advances in medicine mean the rate is slowed to a total crawl, but those ambovolent forces are still at work

Sarah x

But why would anyone have to decide such a thing-to be pro life, pro self-worth, if evolution’s already taken care of it-already decided, so to speak. If we’ve evolved in such a way that a positive sense of self worth is right, in terms of or as a result of evolution, how could anyone ever be negative?

 

[atheistgirl]

But why would anyone have to decide such a thing-to be pro life, pro self-worth, if evolution’s already taken care of it-already decided…

We are highly evolved and suited to our conditions - we have developed the technology to fill in the gaps - we dont have to decide - but we are now in a position that we CAN decide!

If we’ve evolved in such a way that a positive sense of self worth is right, in terms of or as a result of evolution, how could anyone ever be negative?

Because we are biological mechanisms - things go wrong - we get electrical and hormonal and chemical imbalances - the reasons are now well understood. Our lifestyles and pressures are a huge factor. And we can medically treat today - we no longer think a person suffering from depression must be possessed with some kind of evil spirit!!!

Whole branches of medicine and science have developed to deal successfully with mental health issues. This is also a particulalry expensive branch of science and medicine. But still, as a species we continue to push boundries back in our understanding of human psychology and psychiatry to better work out how things work and why they go wrong, and to fix them. This is not being driven by any church or faith. This is being driven by science. Because ultimately we value and respect every life and we recognise it is in the interest of the whole species to undersand and be able to support or repair mental/psychological illnesses.

I would contend, if we were a perfectly created seperate species, it’s highly unlikey we would have so much in common with every other living creature on the planet.

We’ve learned a lot about ourselves on every level by studying other species.

And interestingly, medicine is based on the very fact we are an evolved species, and we use this fact to make predictions in terms of what interventions will and wont work by looking at how they work on other species.

 

[fhansen]

Because we are biological mechanisms - things go wrong - we get electrical and hormonal and chemical imbalances - the reasons are now well understood. Our lifestyles and pressures are a huge factor. And we can medically treat today - we no longer think a person suffering from depression must be possessed with some kind of evil spirit!!!

But why such a huge disparity? Why are so many millions pro abortion, for example?

Whole branches of medicine and science have developed to deal successfully with mental health issues. This is also a particulalry expensive branch of science and medicine. But still, as a species we continue to push boundries back in our understanding of human psychology and psychiatry to better work out how things work and why they go wrong, and to fix them. This is not being driven by any church or faith. This is being driven by science. Because ultimately we value and respect every life and we recognise it is in the interest of the whole species to undersand and be able to support or repair mental/psychological illnesses.

It certainly hasn’t always been that way. Seeing everyone as an enemy to be conquered has been more the way of the world than loving ones enemy. I mean, altruism is a relatively recent innovation. And what goes wrong in the case of mass genocide? Do things “go wrong” in one little part of the world, evolution somehow not getting its way so to speak on a grand scale?

I would contend, if we were a perfectly created separate species, it’s highly unlikey we would have so much in common with every other living creature on the planet.

It’s not that we’re perfectly created-or perfectly separate-but there appears to be allowance for so much less diversity within other species then there is with humans. In any case it’s hard to support the notion that evolution has determined that we all be consciously pro life/pro self worth.