Is the Supernatural Natural?

So goes the evolutionary argument for religion, which finds interaction between religious practices and physiological changes and brain states. 

The stunning possibility is that religion will find its sturdiest roots in the natural, not the supernatural. Many people will reject this given the hectoring sense of their own perfection many religions have declaimed so loudly and so forever. Nevertheless, the increasingly convincing research concerning the moist meat in our skull suggests that it is so.

It's not "stunning" in the least.  There isn't any "increasingly convincing research" because all this research shows is correlation, not causation.  The evidence can be interpreted either way - the brain states are caused by engaging the supernatural or religion is caused by brain states.  The conclusion that the religious behavior is caused by our physiology is a philosophical leap informed by materialistic presuppositions rather than pure, objective science. 

It's a nice dodge to avoid the actual arguments for and against theism and the truthfulness of specific religions, dismissing the debate by presuming the conclusion.

Comments

[Richard Romano]

The argument goes both ways -- why argue the validity of evolution when our brains are physiologically predisposed towards absurdity? Even worse, why bother making any sense of anything since whatever we come up with will inevitably be meaningless. This is Sartre and Camus repackaged for a 2010 editorial in the WSJ.

[RonH]

Try this if you have trouble following the other link.

RonH

[RonH]

oops, that's no better.
first link here

http://tinyurl.com/yf466bg

[Ralph]

It would be more accurate to say, "so goes the naturalistic argument..." Regardless of a person's position on the theory of evolution, we need to recognize that some Christians believve in it. They would not be any more impressed by the argument in the WSJ article than those who do not believe in evolution. The divide is naturalism verses theism, not evolution verses "God created."

[Naturallawyer]

From the article: "Clearly, [religious conviction] depends more on the imaginative and deeply felt assertions of thinkers and advocates than on the kind of tough evidence, for example, required in a legal trial for fraud."

To Mr. Tiger: to prove fraud, you must prove that the person speaking knew that the assertion he was making was false. Thus, "deeply felt" assertions certainly are "the kind of tough evidence required in a legal trial for fraud." That the speaker believed his assertion is a defense to the charge of fraud. Thus, it is completely relevant and admissible evidence. But law doesn't sound like your thing, so stick to another subject.