Hick Questions 1. Two different types of religious modes are "experiencing aspects of the natural world" and "the sense of presence" (Hick 29). The first type of mode is known as an individual experiencing God through physical world, which usually involves some for of nature. In this subsection of the chapter, Hick lists several examples of people's experiences through the natural world. Jonathan Edwards clearly saw God's love and excellence "in the sun, moon and stars, in the clouds and blue sky..." (Hick 29). The second type of mode is individuals sensing that they are in the presence of God or something God-like. These people cannot actually see God, but they feel his spirit there, and sometimes the presence compels individuals to do something
…show more content…
A neuroscientific, materialistic explanation for religious experiences is "the sense of unity with all reality is caused by closing down the awareness of the bodily boundaries of the individual" (Hick 66). This basically means that the individual is having an oneness experience within their consciousness, and is not even aware of the natural world during this time. People reach this state through meditation, but it is often rare. It is hard for people to have a blank consciousness since humans are so easily distracted. According Newberg and D'Aquili, Tibetan monk mediators, said that there is "'a slowing'- of activity in the brain (the posterior superior parietal lobe) concerned with spatial orientation" (Hick 78). However, Hick does not necessarily agree with this statement because he states this: "whether they are authentically religious is not determined by the character of the experience itself but by whether it contributes to long-term effects in the experient's life and, if so, the nature of those effects" (Hick 79). Hick brings up other neuroscientists beliefs about what they think is going on in a person's brain during religious experiences. People should not settle on just one belief because many factors can trigger a religious experience to occur. Also, the big question that Hick raises is if brain activity produces religious experiences or vice versa. Hick states that it is impossible to conclude either belief, but he list many other philosophers evidence and …show more content…
I would consider myself more of a dualist than a materialist because I believe that the mind and the brain work together to accomplish a task. I do not argue against materialism because it is a fact that the brain is matter, and apart of the physical world. Materialist think that the word mind is just another name for the brain, and I do not totally agree with that statement. Materialist believe in the mind/brain identity, which "is the theory that consciousness simply is neural activity" (Hick 82). Hick argues that this type of thinking is not correct because there is so much evidence from other philosophers that they have their own entities. Also, the consciousness is a mirror to the brain because it does what the neurons tell it to do. If someone however, that is another debate because some people think that the mind controls what the brain does. For example, when someone gets sad, does the brain tell the person to have that emotion, or does the emotion tell the neurons in the brain to fire? After reading Hick, I realized that I have similar beliefs as him in terms of mind/brain identity. Here's a good question for materialist: if the mind and brain are not separate, how do people have free will? Despite a person's brain activity, they are able to think and act on their own. In terms of religion, people who meditate experience a sense of oneness. Their body is still present, but their consciousness takes them on a journey while the neurons on their brain are
A neuroscientific, materialistic explanation for religious experiences is "the sense of unity with all reality is caused by closing down the awareness of the bodily boundaries of the individual" (Hick 66). This basically means that the individual is having an oneness experience within their consciousness, and is not even aware of the natural world during this time. People reach this state through meditation, but it is often rare. It is hard for people to have a blank consciousness since humans are so easily distracted. According Newberg and D'Aquili, Tibetan monk mediators, said that there is "'a slowing'- of activity in the brain (the posterior superior parietal lobe) concerned with spatial orientation" (Hick 78). However, Hick does not necessarily agree with this statement because he states this: "whether they are authentically religious is not determined by the character of the experience itself but by whether it contributes to long-term effects in the experient's life and, if so, the nature of those effects" (Hick 79). Hick brings up other neuroscientists beliefs about what they think is going on in a person's brain during religious experiences. People should not settle on just one belief because many factors can trigger a religious experience to occur. Also, the big question that Hick raises is if brain activity produces religious experiences or vice versa. Hick states that it is impossible to conclude either belief, but he list many other philosophers evidence and …show more content…
I would consider myself more of a dualist than a materialist because I believe that the mind and the brain work together to accomplish a task. I do not argue against materialism because it is a fact that the brain is matter, and apart of the physical world. Materialist think that the word mind is just another name for the brain, and I do not totally agree with that statement. Materialist believe in the mind/brain identity, which "is the theory that consciousness simply is neural activity" (Hick 82). Hick argues that this type of thinking is not correct because there is so much evidence from other philosophers that they have their own entities. Also, the consciousness is a mirror to the brain because it does what the neurons tell it to do. If someone however, that is another debate because some people think that the mind controls what the brain does. For example, when someone gets sad, does the brain tell the person to have that emotion, or does the emotion tell the neurons in the brain to fire? After reading Hick, I realized that I have similar beliefs as him in terms of mind/brain identity. Here's a good question for materialist: if the mind and brain are not separate, how do people have free will? Despite a person's brain activity, they are able to think and act on their own. In terms of religion, people who meditate experience a sense of oneness. Their body is still present, but their consciousness takes them on a journey while the neurons on their brain are