In a thoughtful, balanced article entitled, "Why We See Spirits and Souls." author Michael Graziano wrestles with human consciousness and our knowledge of God. Graziano is a "neuroscientist" and atheist who is not what he calls an "anti-thesist." He considers religion to be "a fascinating human psychological and cultural phenomenon," which he has no interest in trying to eradicate.
Graziano takes exception with an idea wide-spread among atheists and scientists who are anti-theists that when they explain the biological foundations of religion that they thereby "explain religion away." That, he writes, would be like "explaining away" taste because science understands how the tongue passes information to the brain. The explanation makes taste no less real. He also argues that color does not actually exist as a natural phenomenon outside of our perception of color. That fact does not make color any less real to us. Most significantly, the structures of our brain make it possible for us to interact socially by understanding both others and ourselves in relationship to them. He asks rhetorically if we should therefore dismiss these perceptions of others and self because we can explain them. He states, "Perhaps perceptions have a validity of their own, even if they are purely constructs of the brain and do not correspond to a concrete reality." He then points out that we do not experience reality directly: "We experience our perceptions, not reality."
Apparently, Graziano sees our perceptions of other people, our self, and the relationship between them as not having a "concrete reality," that is physical. They are like color. They are real to us but have no objective existence. He concludes, "We live and move in the world of our perceptions and must take them as they are." He also concludes that the existence of an objective God that exists outside of our consciousness is not what is most important about religion even for religious people. It is the religious way of life that matters most.
Pragmatically speaking, this is where Graziano's logic takes us: "I" am a construct of my brain. "You" are a construct of my brain. "God" is a construct of my brain. I know I exist. I know you exist. So, what about God? Graziano's personal conclusion is that God is only a construction of the brain and has no objective existence otherwise. Now, if we were dealing with, say, belief in fairies, it is easy to see how he can affirm his own existence, the existence of others, and still deny God's existence. The thing is, belief in God as some form of spiritual being(s) is found in all human cultures going as far back as we can document. Prayer and meditation have measurable impacts on our physical brains. Even the anti-theists admit to having spiritual experiences. By Graziano's logic, it is reasonable to infer (putting aside personal religious experience for the moment) that I exist, you exist, and God exists. The point is that given our current state of knowledge about the brain and its relationship to the external world, it is no less reasonable to conclude that God is an objective reality than to conclude that God is just something we made up for whatever reason. Both are statements of faith based on particular readings of the data. Those of us who have faith in God as an objective reality can point to experiences that give us confidence that there is a divine reality, one that touches our hearts as much as our minds. Sure, we could be wrong, but we have faith that we aren't wrong.
Graziano is incorrect about one thing. Religious faith, at least in the Christian religion, is deeply concerned about the objective reality of God. Our faith is a sham if there is no Creator, Saviour, and Companion God who stands Beyond time and space and yet is Present in our midst. Our way of life is important but only because it is grounded in the reality of the One who creates, saves, and walks with us. It does matter that God is real.
