This article made me shake my head a bit. Cool finding, but the article is just a bit twisted.
Seriously… did we just toss the entire “correlation does not mean causation” idea out the window to fit a motive?
I guess since they are scientists, they have to look at it that it must be that the brain changes reducing the “me” focus must be what’s causing the spiritual “feeling”…. surely it couldn’t be that the spiritual might not just be a feeling and might be what would cause the changes.
Now think about it…. for that matter, lets even play scientist and pretend that spirituality is just a feeling.
if it had been, say, the feeling of enjoying to a certain style of music that they found to cause the same changes… would they do the same and say that the brain changes caused the feelings about the music?
More than likily, they would assume the reverse… that the feelings about the music caused the brain changes…. and then we’d see articles and products all over trying to capitalize on that.
Or, with a less commercially minded scientist, we’d just get that it occurred together without saying which one caused the other, and leave readers to draw their own conclusions from that neutral, purely observational position.
The findings are interesting… but I find myself imagining how much red ink this would have come back covered in had I turned something like this in to even my most anti-religion science professors.
I suppose if you worry your findings aren’t strong enough to make their own points in the direction you think they should, then you feel like you need to prop them up in that direction.
Maybe that says more about the lack of confidence in the position truly being correct, than it does about the findings. Who needs to slant something if it clearly already says it on its own?