Stephen BarrThe thesis of the conflict between science and faith is a myth generated by the polemics of the end of the 19th century".What are new age and pseudo religions?"In transhumanism we have to distinguish science fiction from what we will be able to see."Javier Bernácerneuroscientist and expert in philosophy of mind, has dedicated his career to exploring the relationship between the brain, ethics and decision-making. Next week he will participate in the XVII Theological-Didactic Conference of the University of Navarra: "Science, faith and AI challenges.".
In this interview, we discuss with him the impact of neuroscience on the understanding of religion, social polarization and education, as well as the ethical challenges that arise in a world increasingly influenced by knowledge of the human brain.
What can psychology contribute to avoid social polarization?
- A few years ago, we did a social psychology study in which we found how Spanish society had become polarized as a consequence of the pandemic. This was, interestingly, before the term 'polarization' became so fashionable. The indicator of polarization that we saw was that the beliefs of right-wing voters had strengthened, as had those on the left. The same was true of those who believed in God and those who did not.
What can psychology contribute to avoid social polarization?
The silver lining is that virtually everyone, regardless of political ideology, shared common beliefs that all human beings deserve respect. Social conciliation should go that way: trying to moderate extreme views by reinforcing common beliefs. Taking paradigmatic cases of extreme right and extreme left voters, and assuming that for both of them all human beings deserve respect, it is necessary to show the former that it is contradictory to believe that and treat immigrants as nuisance merchandise, and the latter that it is also incompatible with the defense of abortion.
How does neuroscience influence our understanding of spirituality and religious experience?
- Neuroscience should be seen as one more field of knowledge within the sciences that study the human being. For neuroscience to be really useful in this sense, it has to take into account its limitations and its field of action. Frankly, I do not think that neuroscience can say anything really important with regard to the spirituality or religious experience, but rather anecdotal things that may be more or less striking, such as "these are the areas of the brain that are most active when you pray".
Turning the argument around, I don't think the average citizen (especially the believer) should worry too much about what neuroscience says about religiosity. I recommend that, upon reading the typical "Neuroscience proves that God does not exist" or even "Neuroscience proves that God exists" statements, one should let out a hearty chuckle and move on to the next news item.
What are the most pressing ethical dilemmas posed by the advancement of neuroscience today?
- In my opinion, neuroscience must undergo an ethical revolution that comes from the bottom up. Let me explain: in international neuroethics forums, a vision of the human being is generally taken for granted in which the nervous system, and in particular the brain, plays a predominant and almost unique role. In other words, it is usually assumed that we are our brain. If you have this "cerebrocentric" and "neuroessentialist" anthropological view, you will approach the ethical dilemmas of neuroscience in an inadequate way.
This is what I mean by an ethical revolution that comes from the base: we must have a holistic vision of the human being, in which the brain plays an important role, but always integrated and understood in the rest of the body and the life history of the individual, including the role of the environment. For this, researchers must be trained in an interdisciplinary way, both in neuroscience and in the humanities, in order to pave the way for the growth of brilliant people who can have an overall vision of the different aspects of the human being. In this way, the particular ethical challenges will be addressed in a much more appropriate way.
What are the risks and benefits of applying neuroscience to education and moral formation?
- Also in line with what was said above, if it is not used in an adequate anthropological framework, it can be very dangerous. Although it is not moral education, but education in itself, I like to mention the following case: a few years ago it was reported that in certain schools in China electroencephalography headbands (to measure brain electrical activity from outside the skull) were used to check whether the child was attentive or not: in the center of the headband there was a light that changed color according to the degree of attention of the child. This information was collected in the teacher's computer, integrated with the other performance indicators, and could even be viewed in real time on the parents' cell phones.
Put this way, I don't know how intrusive or permissible this may seem, but the crux of the matter, for me, is that this headband was absolutely useless: it had only three electrodes and, from a technical and neurobiological point of view, it is useless for measuring attention. This is an ethical drama. Anyway, as a teacher, I know exactly which student is attentive to my explanation, which one is thinking about the Netflix series of the moment, and which one is watching it at that moment on his laptop: I don't need to see a blue light between his eyebrows to know it. With regard to education, educators know much better than neuroscientists what is important for children to learn: it is the latter who have to listen to the former.
Do you believe that advances in neurotechnology may come to compromise human dignity or mental privacy?
- I believe that human dignity and mental privacy are already compromised, and it is not because of neurotechnologies. With respect to dignity, there is not much to say: one need only take a quick look at the Declaration of Human Rights to see that the first five are not fulfilled in almost any country, and that some countries, such as France, presume to encourage their citizens to breach the right to life within their constitutions.
With respect to mental privacy, there are records of our Internet searches, of all our economic movements, our medical history, our car trips... Turning to neurotechnologies, there is an important movement in current neuroscience ethics that proposes a discussion of "neuro-rights", i.e. the creation or rethinking of human rights in the face of the possible advance of neurotechnologies.
