"Taken together, the neurological states evoked by the questions are known to cognitive scientists as the Theory of Mind: They underlie our understanding that other people have minds, thoughts and feelings."
OK, so our thoughts about God are related to our understanding that others have minds, thoughts and feelings. Doesn't this mean that people who believe in God relate to God in a similar way that they relate to other human beings? No real surprise here then. So, believing in God works under fundamental processes. The only "strange" thing about it is that this relationship is with someone (imagined or not) who is not visible. Researchers could go on and demonstrate that children who have a relationship with an invisible friend have the same parts of the brain activated. What this means is that we are perfectly able to consider ourselves in relationship with a being that is not physically present.
The problem with the article (especially the title) and much of the reported comment is that it starts by assuming that the physical is the only thing that exists. This is an interesting assumption, but is an assumption nonetheless. Good science starts by stating assumptions.
How about starting instead with the assumption that the material is not all that there is? How about if we start by assuming that there is a consciousness that we can't measure physically? Once we do this we come to totally different conclusions (although these would still support the existence of evolution), and I would argue that we do not have tests that can rule out this premise. I am not saying that this one is right, just that it is a valid alternative that should not be dismissed. For more information from a philosophical perspective, I recommend "Why There Almost Certainly Is A God" by Keith Ward. A well-thought out book that doesn't require you to believe impossible things!
OK, so our thoughts about God are related to our understanding that others have minds, thoughts and feelings. Doesn't this mean that people who believe in God relate to God in a similar way that they relate to other human beings? No real surprise here then. So, believing in God works under fundamental processes. The only "strange" thing about it is that this relationship is with someone (imagined or not) who is not visible. Researchers could go on and demonstrate that children who have a relationship with an invisible friend have the same parts of the brain activated. What this means is that we are perfectly able to consider ourselves in relationship with a being that is not physically present.
The problem with the article (especially the title) and much of the reported comment is that it starts by assuming that the physical is the only thing that exists. This is an interesting assumption, but is an assumption nonetheless. Good science starts by stating assumptions.
How about starting instead with the assumption that the material is not all that there is? How about if we start by assuming that there is a consciousness that we can't measure physically? Once we do this we come to totally different conclusions (although these would still support the existence of evolution), and I would argue that we do not have tests that can rule out this premise. I am not saying that this one is right, just that it is a valid alternative that should not be dismissed. For more information from a philosophical perspective, I recommend "Why There Almost Certainly Is A God" by Keith Ward. A well-thought out book that doesn't require you to believe impossible things!