Neuroscientific Research on the Self: A Case for Panentheism?

TY - JOUR

T1 - Neuroscientific Research on the Self

T2 - A Case for Panentheism?

AU - Runehov, Anne Leona Cesarine

N1 - Paper id:: [email protected]

PY - 2008

Y1 - 2008

N2 - In order to obtain an interdisciplinary understanding of the world that also includes theology, I believe panentheism, as a potential explanatory model of a God relationship to the world, needs to be revisited. Naturalistic explanations leave out the possible existence of God and hence deprive millions of religious believers of a satisfactory explanation. The present paper deals with this neglect. It asks the question, if God exists, how then can we understand God's relationship to the world in a scientific age? From contemporary neuroscientific research on the self, the following explanatory models are suggested: ES((NS ¿ (SNS n STS)); STS > (NS n SNS)Where ES stands for one Emergent Self comprising a Neural Self (NS), a Subjective Neural Self (SNS) and a Subjective Transcendent Self (STS). There is mutual causation between the neural and subjective selves. Furthermore, the subjective transcendent is bigger than both the neural and subjective neural self. EU(UR ¿ (NR ¿ ES)); ES > NR and UR > (NR n ES)Where EU stands for one Emergent Universe comprising Ultimate Reality (UR; GOD), Natural Reality (NR; world) and all Emergent selves (ES). There is mutual causation between God and the world, between the world and Emergent Selves (the ES being part of it) and between God and Emergent Selves within the world. Furthermore, the Emergent Selves are bigger than the world and God is bigger than both the world and Emergent Selves. Keywords: Interdisciplinarity, self, panentheism.

AB - In order to obtain an interdisciplinary understanding of the world that also includes theology, I believe panentheism, as a potential explanatory model of a God relationship to the world, needs to be revisited. Naturalistic explanations leave out the possible existence of God and hence deprive millions of religious believers of a satisfactory explanation. The present paper deals with this neglect. It asks the question, if God exists, how then can we understand God's relationship to the world in a scientific age? From contemporary neuroscientific research on the self, the following explanatory models are suggested: ES((NS ¿ (SNS n STS)); STS > (NS n SNS)Where ES stands for one Emergent Self comprising a Neural Self (NS), a Subjective Neural Self (SNS) and a Subjective Transcendent Self (STS). There is mutual causation between the neural and subjective selves. Furthermore, the subjective transcendent is bigger than both the neural and subjective neural self. EU(UR ¿ (NR ¿ ES)); ES > NR and UR > (NR n ES)Where EU stands for one Emergent Universe comprising Ultimate Reality (UR; GOD), Natural Reality (NR; world) and all Emergent selves (ES). There is mutual causation between God and the world, between the world and Emergent Selves (the ES being part of it) and between God and Emergent Selves within the world. Furthermore, the Emergent Selves are bigger than the world and God is bigger than both the world and Emergent Selves. Keywords: Interdisciplinarity, self, panentheism.

M3 - Journal article

JO - The Global Spirit

JF - The Global Spirit

ER -