When Biblical Neurotheology Matters

As I prepare to embark on, perhaps, a lifetime intellectual and spiritual journey of developing a Reformed philosophy of mind/a robust biblical neurotheology, I received one of my regular Edge updates (July 2010, #323) in my email inbox, and it almost had me floored. Why? Because it so vividly demonstrates how important it is for Christians to develop a robust theological anthropology: depraved and lost minds are laying the bricks for tomorrow’s worldview, culture, and way of life, thinking, and educating:

By John Brockman

Something radically new is in the air: new ways of understanding physical systems, new ways of thinking about thinking that call into question many of our basic assumptions. A realistic biology of the mind, advances in evolutionary biology, physics, information technology, genetics, neurobiology, psychology, engineering, the chemistry of materials: all are questions of critical importance with respect to what it means to be human. For the first time, we have the tools and the will to undertake the scientific study of human nature.

This began in the early seventies, when, as a graduate student at Harvard, evolutionary biologist Robert Trivers wrote five papers that set forth an agenda for a new field: the scientific study of human nature. In the past thirty-five years this work has spawned thousands of scientific experiments, new and important evidence, and exciting new ideas about who and what we are presented in books by scientists such as Richard Dawkins, Daniel C. Dennett, Steven Pinker, and Edward O. Wilson among many others.

In 1975, Wilson, a colleague of Trivers at Harvard, predicted that ethics would someday be taken out of the hands of philosophers and incorporated into the “new synthesis” of evolutionary and biological thinking. He was right.

Scientists engaged in the scientific study of human nature are gaining sway over the scientists and others in disciplines that rely on studying social actions and human cultures independent from their biological foundation.

No where is this more apparent than in the field of moral psychology. Using babies, psychopaths, chimpanzees, fMRI scanners, web surveys, agent-based modeling, and ultimatum games, moral psychology has become a major convergence zone for research in the behavioral sciences.

So what do we have to say? Are we moving toward consensus on some points? What are the most pressing questions for the next five years? And what do we have to offer a world in which so many global and national crises are caused or exacerbated by moral failures and moral conflicts? It seems like everyone is studying morality these days, reaching findings that complement each other more often than they clash.

- JB

I finished reading this and thought to myself, it’s so great there are other people who are aware of these incredibly important changes…but so sad that they think the answers come from everything but God’s revelation! Where are the Christians to undertake the necessary steps in addressing these incredibly complex issues? Do we really have a robust and thorough biblical theology that can provide us a sound theology and philosophy of mind? Of anthropology? Where is the biblical polemic against the truths and absurdities being presented by the neuropsychological sciences?

I want to go back and provide a commentary in Brockman’s words from a uniquely Christian perspective.

Something radically new is in the air: new ways of understanding physical systems, new ways of thinking about thinking that call into question many of our basic assumptions

Generally true; the neurosciences and research in the social sciences have revealed a number of things that were not accessible before.

A realistic biology of the mind

Well, sort of. The human brain is still incredibly unexplored and not understood. We’ve come along way, but we’ve got a long, long ways to go.

advances in evolutionary biology

You mean recession; advancing Darwin’s theory in the biological sciences often means excluding science that doesn’t fit the paradigm; pushing a godless worldview obviously means more unbelief.

physics, information technology

Information theory? If so, let’s see a robust theory of information that explains how it can be compressed, transmitted, and expanded with the depletion of matter. In short, none of the disciplines have a universally-agreed upon theory of information, mainly since information in its most ultimate sense is not material and always comes from a conscious mind.

genetics, neurobiology, psychology, engineering, the chemistry of materials: all are questions of critical importance with respect to what it means to be human.

Yes. Very true.

For the first time, we have the tools and the will to undertake the scientific study of human nature.

Absolutely not true, as long as we exclude the Creator’s revelation. None of the disciplines listed offer anyone an adequate or accurate source of knowledge or information to define the purpose, meaning, and ultimate origin of human life. Only the Creator and the discipline of theology proper can do that. Only the Christian has the right tools and the right “will” to study; secular thought will skew the truth revealed in the sciences because of its faulty presuppositions regarding the most basic questions of life.

This began in the early seventies, when, as a graduate student at Harvard, evolutionary biologist Robert Trivers wrote five papers that set forth an agenda for a new field: the scientific study of human nature

I doubt this study is a very “new field.”

In the past thirty-five years this work has spawned thousands of scientific experiments, new and important evidence, and exciting new ideas about who and what we are presented in books by scientists such as Richard Dawkins, Daniel C. Dennett, Steven Pinker, and Edward O. Wilson among many others.

All of who deny that God exists, that the Bible is the Word of God, and that immaterial entities can directly influence the material world. None of their core ideas are exciting or new; atheism, philosophical naturalism, humanism, and neurological reductionism and materialism have simply been rahashed to confuse another generation of college students and the rest of society.

In 1975, Wilson, a colleague of Trivers at Harvard, predicted that ethics would someday be taken out of the hands of philosophers and incorporated into the “new synthesis” of evolutionary and biological thinking. He was right.

It had already happened decades ago with the introduction of Darwin’s theory. But, OK, its happening, yes.

Scientists engaged in the scientific study of human nature are gaining sway over the scientists and others in disciplines that rely on studying social actions and human cultures independent from their biological foundation.

But thanks to God’s grace, they are not gaining sway over thoughtful and informed Christians, who seek the objective standard of God’s Word for truth claims, undoubtedly in the field of ethical norms.

No where is this more apparent than in the field of moral psychology. Using babies, psychopaths, chimpanzees, fMRI scanners, web surveys, agent-based modeling, and ultimatum games, moral psychology has become a major convergence zone for research in the behavioral sciences.

This is correct. And I would go further – with others – and say that the major convergent zone is neurological studies, which is inevitably intertwined with psychology, sociology, and biology..and of course, theology, which addresses the state of man as he exists as a full human with desires and a mind that is either regenerate and oriented towards God, or unregenerate and oriented towards self and self pleasure. Neurological studies, moreover, will continue to gain more attention and be “unconquerable” since it is the most mysterious and complex biological structure known to man; to fully understand the brain, especially by non-revelational research alone, would require that man transcend himself, which is impossible. What then? We give glory to God for the beauty and sheer genius in the creature, not stand amazed at how math and matter forged the original phenomena of self-consciousness.

So what do we have to say? Are we moving toward consensus on some points? What are the most pressing questions for the next five years? And what do we have to offer a world in which so many global and national crises are caused or exacerbated by moral failures and moral conflicts? It seems like everyone is studying morality these days, reaching findings that complement each other more often than they clash.

True – but only if we exclude the reality of worldview collisions, which is constant and unending. We must, as Greg Bahnsen put it, “Push the antithesis.” We must challenge each other whole-hog, worldview vs. worldview, and not ignore the fact that facts can’t be interpreted without a religiously-oriented framework of interpretation.