Revisión crítica de neuroteología como metateología y megateología

El artículo pretende ser una revisión de los conceptos: metateología y megateología utilizados por el neurocientífico Andrew Newberg en su obra Principles of Neurotheology. Para esto, en primera instancia, se hace una revisión del término teología, desde su origen griego, y reflexionar sobre si es aplicable o no a las demás religiones. En segundo lugar, se evalúa el concepto de neuroteología como una metateología o teología universal para todas las religiones. Y por último, se analiza el término de megateología, como una neuroteología que pueda ser utilizada conceptual y terapéuticamente por todas las religiones en cuanto que engloba elementos comunes de estas. En este análisis se trata de resaltar los peligros en que puede caer esta propuesta como son el sincretismo religioso y una comprensión errónea de lo que es y persigue la teología del pluralismo religioso.

Use and misuse of neuroscience in the philosophy of religion

The article elucidates in what way neuroscience and in particular neuroimaging can contribute to the clarification and empirical underpinning of theories in the philosophy of mind and the anthropology of religion. Its initial hypothesis is that there are two principal ways in which neuroscientific data are relevant to philosophy, exhibiting the unconscious processes in the generation of phenomenal and intentional consciousness, and complementing semantic and phenomenological approaches in the analysis of complex mental phenomena. Whereas the first kind of relevance is widely recognised, contributions of neuroscientific data to the analysis of complex mental phenomena are often rejected as involving a kind of "category mistake." The article argues that imaging studies can in fact contribute to a better understanding of the nature of certain complex mental states and processes and exemplifies this by recent brain imaging studies on religious experience. Finally, theories like those of Andrew Newberg are taken to task for misrepresenting "neurotheology" as a new form of theology.

What Is Gnosis? An Exploration

The word “gnosis” is widely used in contemporary scholarship in a range of fields including not only the study of the historical phenomenon of Gnosticism, but also in more unexpected areas like translations of Buddhist texts, where the term has taken on a fairly specific collectively understood meaning. Broadly speaking, in the developing consensus visible both in scholarship and in popular culture, gnosis refers to knowledge that transcends ratiocinative, discursive, or dualistic forms of knowledge. Gnosis, broadly understood both in scholarship and to some extent in popular culture, refers to knowledge understood as the transcendence of self/other dualism. Authors discussed include Edward Conze, Theodore Roszak, Carl Jung, Andrew Newberg, April DeConick, Peter Carroll, Andrieh Vitimus, Ken Wilber, and Christopher Bache.

On Neurotheology? Why Engage Empirical Studies on Theological Concepts

Neurotheology can open new spaces of exploration and synthesis for human understanding. In his systematic book, Neurotheology (2018), Andrew Newberg compiles research of science that touches upon the sacred, making a strong case for an approach open to both neuro- and -theology. The following paper deals with the insights, methodology, and implications of this multidisciplinary approach. The first portion defines ‘neurotheology’ and its current scope for research. The second portion argues for the benefit of this systematic approach, which utilizes the scientific method and Hegelian sublation. The final portion explores the implications for humanity and for epistemology, particularly in the post-modern, post-religious milieu and for science as an emerging amicus theologiae. The hope of this project is to engage our ‘big questions’ once more in their complexity – to curiously explore experiences and creation, in order to peek into the efficacious Mystery we call God.

Medjugorje’s Uniqueness

Cognitive sciences like neuroscience have been used to study more common, cultivated, or induced religious experiences like states of meditation or prayer; however, in Medjugorje, it is the first time that spontaneous and extraordinary mystical experiences, such as visionary experiences in the form of Marian apparitions, have been studied by neuroscience as they are transpiring: pointing to Medjugorje’s uniqueness and importance. The chapter systematically considers the prominent interpretations of scholars who have tried to re-diagnose and explain extraordinary religious experiences as cases of epileptic seizures, hysteria, or hallucination, observing the work of Jean-Martin Charcot, Michael P. Carroll, Richard Dawkins, Andrew Newberg, and concluding with an analysis of Sigmund Freud’s interpretation of the “oceanic feeling” (i.e., mystical experience) and of his understanding of religion as a neurosis. The chapter explains how the scientific studies in Medjugorje substantially challenge the universal applicability of such reductionist theories.