Our best understanding of how brains develop understanding
is called CONSTRUCTIVISM.1. In short, it suggests that each person uses their own experiences to construct for themselves understanding. This implies that because each person has a different set of experiences, each person's understanding is somewhat different.
Some philosophers have suggested that this means that because all science is constructed in our brains, nothing is necessarily TRUE in SCIENCE or any other part of our understanding. But the world is REAL and provides most of us (i.e., who are not blind) with common experiences: e.g., we see
the color of the sky and feel
pain. Those common, shared experiences help us build a consistent understanding of the REAL world. But not all experiences are identical; not all ideas we hear
or read
are experienced by others. So as a result we all construct partially varied understandings. No person experiences everything, so it could be said that no single person has a complete GOD's view
of reality.
The brain constructs all understanding, therefore the ways we learn and understand science are also the same ways we learn and understand all other subjects, even religion. So we should expect much in common between SCIENCE, RELIGION and all our other understandings.
When I was a little boy I was taught in Sunday School that nobody has a complete GOD's view
of GOD, or CHRIST. GOD was bigger than any human mind could comprehend! (Of course you've noted the parallel :)
Some people get very touchy when others propose ideas about religion that are different then their own. It might be helpful to appreciate again that if constructivism is correct, then no two people will have totally identical understandings about religion (or any other subject). It follows that some of my ideas below about religion will likely be different from your views. The intent is not to shock you, convert you, or destroy your religion. But by considering different views, you may gain a deeper understanding... i.e., understand science better and be deeper in your own religion.
Many of the greatest scientists such as Kepler, Newton, and Einstein were deeply religious. But our current understanding of the world is more complete than theirs: for example, we now know how the molecule we call DNA controls much of life. And perhaps environment controls much of the rest. So today many people see less need of a God.
To me the question about God is easier if I choose not to search for direct evidence of a God, but rather search for the nature of God.. Before science, ancient peoples view Gods as controlling all the aspects of their world beyond human control. That changed greatly when Newton introduced a self running mechanical universe governed by forces, laws, and principles; God became the masterful creator who engineered the clockwork universe, but rarely if ever intervenes. Theologians explained that since we really can't know all about God, it was OK if our view of God changed with our improved understanding of the universe. Perhaps if human understanding of God had to be revised in the past as scientific understanding improved, we could expect our current understanding of God might further change as our understanding of the universe improves. This suggests a search for direct evidence of a God is probably handicapped. It is a bit like looking for a valuable gem in a hay stack, only to later find that what was valuable in the hay stack was a rare molecule that could stop cancer; finding the real gem (of a molecule) would be unlikely if we searched for a small stone.
So I adopt the a priori method found valuable in science: I assume (temporarily at least) the existence of God and search instead for what God might be like consistent with a modern understanding of the universe.
In Sunday School I heard that in the beginning Adam and Eve committed the first sin resulting in humans feeling shame when they thought they did wrong. This supposedly explained why most of us feel guilty from time to time. It seems that this sense of guilt or shame is often a handicap, preventing us from attempting things that might cause more guilt or shame. Accepting the Adam and Eve explanation may be optional, but the sense of shame is something I do experience: for example, if in a rush getting dressed in the morning I forget to close my pants zipper, I get very embarrassed when I discover my faux pas. It makes little difference if anyone else noticed, nor that I wear underwear less revealing than my swimsuit. In general if I think I might have offended someone, that sin
keeps me from becoming all that I might be.
2
I also heard in Sunday School that God had provided COMMANDMENTS to help people live good lives, but that people still sinned. But along came Jesus who suggested that better than the COMMANDMENTS would be LOVE and CONCERN for others. After he was killed, his followers suggested that even his death was part of the scheme of God: that his death removed the original sin and that somehow those who believed this would be empowered to become all that they might be.
In short if I believed, and if I TRIED to act out of LOVE and CONCERN for others' best interests, that I need not fear that I often failed or that once every few years I forgot to zip my pants. If I realized that my sins had been forgiven by God,
I would not be paralyzed by my shame, and would be empowered to keep on trying!
Apologies to those who are not Christians, and to those Christians who found my paraphrasing of Christianity different from their own understanding. You don't need to agree! But one of my points is that TO ME this Christian view of life is empowering and that empowerment could be considered an aspect of Christ/God. So in a very limited way this is an INSIGHT=REVELATION for me about the nature of God
provided by the a priori method.
Seemingly very different, PLEASURE provides a second a priori INSIGHT/REVELATION about God for me. Unlike the satisfaction that comes from LOVE and CONCERN for others, PLEASURE is a very personal phenomena. Our senses provide experiences that sometimes bring PLEASURE: viewing something beautiful, hearing great music, tasting delightful food, or even making love.
3. It is likely that we will soon understand all the nerve interactions and chemical reactions involved in such pleasure, but the existence of the process, just like the existence of our universe might be viewed as a REVELATION of the nature of God.
Again, the above are a priori procedures for understanding or defining the nature of God
rather than providing proof for or against the existence of a God. It points out how brains work to develop understanding. As in science, sometimes we choose to ignore questions we can't answer. (Does æther exist? Is there a God? What created the Big Bang?). but choose instead to try to understand related answerable questions:. (What is the nature of light? What is the nature of God? How did the universe develop from the Big Bang?)
1.. George Bodner, Michael Klobuchar (Purdue University) and David Geelan (Curtin University) describe THE MANY FORMS OF CONSTRUCTIVISM .
2.. The paralysis due to sin may have aspects in common with the fear of falling that paralyzes me while hiking when I encounter a section of trail with a shear drop off.
3.. Apostle Paul in the 14th chapter of his letter to the Romans addressed the relation of PLEASURE to LOVE of others: I am absolutely convinced, as a Christian, that nothing is impure in itself; only if a man considers a particular thing impure, then to him it is impure. If (for example) your brother is outraged by what you eat, then your conduct is no longer guided by love.
