Brains - then and now!

If someone says: "we humans are limited, we cannot understand". Sort of like Job said: "Who am I to try to understand the Creator of the Universe?"

Well, that's where the books I recommended come in, especially “The Moral Landscape” by Sam Harris.
He is a neuroscientist, and his research focus on the development of the brain. In short (very short), what he is saying is that our brain continues to develop, not only from birth to death, but from generation to generation. In other words, we understand “reality” better now than the Neanderthals did.

My own way of explaining this is:
Imagine that reality is a square box. Let’s say it is 100 sq. m. Let’s transport ourselves 1000 years back in time. Back then, in the Nordic countries, “we” believed that when we heard thunder, the God Thor was using his hammer to make noise. Everything back then, every sq. m. of reality was “explained" by religion. Nothing happened that the priest, (or the Rabbi, or the Imam) was not consulted for an “explanation” for. A little later, real scientists realized that it was probably not a god who caused thunder, but that there were scientific explanations for thunder.
So, in my little example, the 100 sq. m. reality that could be explained by religion now shrunk to 99. Then other things happened, including Darwin and suddenly the reality square that could be explained by religion was down to 50. (That was in the 1800’s). Then we learned about DNA, then we started brain research. I would say that the square is now down to like 2, at the most. And it would be ARROGANT to say that we now “know everything” - like the idiot said in 1899 when they tried closing the Patent Office because, and I quote: “Everything that can be invented ever has already been invented” – What an idiot!

So, what is the little corner of the 100 sq. m. box that is still “held” by religion? Well, it is for sure NOTHING that has to do with Nature, Science, Technology, or anything tangible.
There is nothing in “life” – giving birth, growing up, and so on that even remotely can be explained by religion.
Now, what do the religious still claim: “Feelings” ? “Comfort”? “Trust”

Well, brain research now show that we will be able to explain those neuro-scientifically too. Maybe not today, maybe not in 5 years, but I would think that within this decade, before 2020, we will be able to explain all those things scientifically.

Then there will be no more room for religion.

So, you may ask, “Why, then, Richard, why are you running around being active in your Synagogue, being the Secretary of the Board of Trustees, active on multiple committees and so on?”

Well, there is an answer to that too.

Religion is not about Theology – and in Judaism it is almost exclusively NOT about theology. If we only “allowed” people with faith into the Synagogue the place would be virtually empty.

It is about tradition, even though people do not ask themselves what the “theological foundation” for that tradition is, or better yet, if they DID ask themselves what the theological foundation of the tradition was, they would not come!!
It is also about the music, the food (!), the jokes, the culture in general, the friendships and so on. Again, if we had a “test” on adherence to religious beliefs – how well people actually believe what the prayer book says, the place would be empty.

I see that as a difference between Judaism and other “religions” (I am not sure that even want to call Judaism can be called a “religion”).
I cannot imagine (but I am allowing for the possibility of being wrong) that I can walk into a Church and say: “No, that whole thing about Jesus, dying for our sins, resurrected, and being the only way to the Truth….” “I think that’s pretty unlikely”. “Is there any food served after the Service?”
Well, that’s what we do in a Synagogue. So, there

Science and Religion

I just want to tell you one aspect of this, and it pertains to the fact that both you and I come from the world of science and we are used to scientific studies.
The main difference between science and “theology” is this:
In science, we postulate a hypothesis (Drug A lowers the blood pressure more than Drug B). The next step is to test that hypothesis through experiential means, in this case a lab study.
Two groups of patients (with similar medical background) are selected and one is given Drug A and the other Drug B. Once the results are evaluated, the scientist abide by the findings and state either that, “Yes, Drug A is better than Dug B in lowering the blood pressure” or, the scientist says: “No, my hypothesis was wrong. Drug B was better”. In this example, Drug B was better so the scientist had to change his hypothesis.

A recent study was conducted in the theological world. The Templeton Foundation tried to “prove” that “prayers heal”.
So, in a very ambitious way, they set up test groups, control groups and so on and very extensively compared two groups of patients. One group was “prayed for” and the other group was not.
Had the results of this “Study” shown that “prayers actually heal”, we would have heard about the study all over the first page of all newspapers, and on TV and so on.
But we didn’t hear about it. Why?
Because the results showed that the patients “not prayed for” did better!
So, here is the difference between science and “theology”: The scientist accepts the test results and moves on from there and changes his hypothesis (Now, the hypothesis is that Drug B is better). The theologian, on the other hand, doesn’t like the result of the study, so they BURY the study! That is why this was never spoken about!

The scientist follows the result of the study and adjusts his hypothesis. The theologian cannot change his hypothesis and therefore is not interested in reality.

This story, that can be found in “The God Delusion” (in much more detail), is the best illustration of the difference between science and theology, and why many scientist question why “theology” even should be an academic topic.