Neurotheology and God

I'll have a try at this one. But since Affable Geek gave a Great answer to the direct question, I allow myself to tackle the question on a broader spectrum. Is neurology a threat to Christianity? Assumes that science and Christianity is opposed to science or vice versa.

But if you that a look in history you will find that the same question was asked during the enlightenment. Could rational reasoning replace God? But rational reasoning proved that it could not save the human being. Then modernity came along? Science or technology would save us. But that also failed in the end. Now we live in post-modernity, and what next.

My point is simply that the next kid on the block is neurology, where is used to be psychology. The problem is not the new scientific discovery but the premises behind the study. For the atheist neurologist that is the greatest threat to any kind of belief system. For the believer just an other way to praise God the creator. (Understand that all of the philosophy come with some good in them. They are not a total affront to Christianity. And the good part in them should be redeem.)

My answer is greatly influence by Ravi Zacharias' book Deliverus from evil.

Is neutrology a threat to Christianity? that really depends on the premises you hold.

EDIT How does rational reasoning try to save us? If I take the first point of the westminster confession of faith the shorter catechism:

Q. 1. What is the chief end of man?

A. Man's chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever. source

The way some thinkers have looked at the rational reasoning was to bring them a purpose in life and a joy in life. That could be compared has the salvation in Christianity René Descartes used rational reasoning to get to God, because of is Catholic premises. But Voltaire on the other end express the following :

The world embarrasses me, and I cannot dream that this watch exists and has no watchmaker Voltaire / 1694-1778 / Les Cabales, 1772 source

The both of them look to rational reasoning, but they only proved their thesis or premises. Therefore, rational reasoning failed to bring everlasting joy, eternal life and all the questions.

What to I mean that science and technology failed in the end? A bit like rational reasoning, if one look into it for everlasting joy, eternal life and the answer to all the questions, well I believe that the old saying : the more I learn the more I learn how little I know (Socrates ?)

The problem with the human heart is that it tries to be free from God. Our hearts create all kind of divinity to worship. (Jean Calvin idea of our heart as a idol factory, Tim Keller Counterfeit Gods).

This being said, I am in no way implying that Christianity have all the answer, and at is core it understand human limitations. How could a finite being understand fully an infinite one.

• Ps 115.3
• Isaiah 55:8 and following

Note : I am in no way saying the christian most switch off their brains. We should push in science and technology, and thinking hard about all the issues of life. Think by John Piper would express that though more. But we should not look in to those field has a place to receive everlasting joy, freedom from sin, peace, everlasting life. Our final hope must be in our Lord and Savior Jesus-Christ.

Edit 2 I left the previous post unchanged to allow you to follow the discussion. After talking with @Marc Gravell. The idea in this post what to present that the philosophy of the time could not dismiss the idea of God. Not the technical/scientific method. Thanks Marc for the discussion.

In its present form, neurotheology is not a threat to Christianity (though a few specific beliefs may be overturned). The reason is that regardless of what is found about the neural basis of spiritual experiences, this only tells you what is there not why it is there.

Thus, either one can view these findings as the way in which God imparts certain types of spiritual experiences to us (much like he created our eyes to deliver visual experiences); or one can view these findings as further confirmation that a material explanation exists for human experiences, rendering God even less necessary as an explanation than before.

Depending on the details of what is found, the evidence may lean one way or the other, but since there will be no proof that it is one way or the other, people who already have made up their minds will likely not feel compelled to change their minds.

(It will, however, provide extra impetus for those Christians who are uncomfortable with the brain's causal connection to the mind to think deeply about why they find this troubling, since neurotheological research has, so far, only strengthened the connection between the two.)

I'll take "threaten the Christian beliefs" to mean that neurotheology's future findings might make some who are Christian change these beliefs to something else.

I'd say there is a reasonable chance. More strongly, of all scientific enterprises, if any can do it, neurotheology probably has the greatest chance.

Take free will, as you mentioned, as one example. There are already studies that suggest that our actions are already decided in our brain prior to our conscious awareness of making a decision to act (discussed here). This suggests a different view of will than the free one that Christianity proposes.