Studies toward a model of laterality effects for picture and word naming

Experiments requiring the naming of bilaterally presented nouns, picturable nouns, consonant-vowel-consonant (CVC) nonwords, and line drawings are reported. In order to eliminate order of report strategies and facilitate comparison across experiments, the stimulus to be reported first was cued by underlining at presentation of each trial. Large right visual hemifield (RVF) superiorities were found to arise from both first and second reports for naming nouns and CVC nonwords. Drawings and picturable nouns, however, produced only a small RVF superiority arising entirely from subjects' second reports. It is proposed that hemispheric laterality effects for naming visually presented stimuli can arise from three principal sources, and the application of this model to existing studies is outlined.     

CRITICAL AFTERWORD

This Afterword looks back over both parts of the discussion of “God and the World of Signs”—“Semiotics and the Emergence of Life” in the previous issue of Zygon and “Semiotics and Theology” in this issue. Three central questions in this extended debate are identified: What is the nature of biological organisms and biological evolution? What is the relationship between the natural world and the Triune God of the Christian theological tradition? What should be the goals of Science/Religion Studies? I summarize the answers that Christopher Southgate and Andrew Robinson have given in their program and the challenges raised by their critics. Their strengths and weaknesses are assessed. In the conclusion I ask readers to imagine that this particular research program were to be taken as a model program in science‐and‐religion research (with some tweaking) and then consider the features of the program that could function as standards for scholars working in other areas of the dialogue.     

“LANDSCAPE PLOTTED AND PIECED”: EXPLORING THE CONTOURS OF ENGAGEMENT BETWEEN (NEURO)SCIENCE AND THEOLOGY

This article—the first of a linked set of three outlining the development and practice of a different approach to science/religion dialogue—begins with an overview of some persistent tensions in the field. Then, using a threefold heuristic of encounter, engagement, and expression, it explores the routes taken by James Ashbrook and Andrew Newberg to develop a dialogue between theology and neuroscience, discussing some of the problems associated with these and their implications for attempts to further develop neurotheology. Finally, it proposes a different way of thinking about this enterprise and points toward a new methodology for supporting this endeavor.     

Neuroscience in Pursuit of the Holy: Mysticism, the Brain, and Ultimate Reality

Eugene d'Aquili and Andrew B. Newberg's The Mystical Mind: Probing the Biology of Religious Experience presents a core theory regarding the neurophysical nature of mystical experience; extensions of this theory, focusing upon near-death experiences and the nature of religion itself; and buttressing arguments proposing that genetically based neurophysical "operators" within the brain compel human beings to think in certain ways. On the basis of this work, the authors pose a "metatheology," suggesting that certain brain operations may underlie all the religions of the world. The core theory, its extensions, and related arguments are discussed in turn, concluding with commentary on the authors' constructive theology.     

Mysterium Tremendum

In recent years, interest in the scientific basis of religious experience has resurged. In particular, research and publications by V. S. Ramachandran and by Eugene d'Aquili and Andrew Newberg have sparked considerable curiosity and debate over the reality and basis of religious experience. This article puts such research into a broader context and examines the extent to which scientific research supports or undermines particular religious and theological claims. I argue that such experiments show that religious experience has some biological basis and is not simply a product of cultural suggestion. At the same time, such experiences are not completely self–interpreting, so that cultural context, including theological claims, are needed to make sense of such experiences. By itself, scientific research does not prove or disprove the reality of religious experiences generally, but it does shape how we think of the possibilities and interpretations of such experiences.     

Patterns of spontaneous recovery in aphasic groups: A study of adult stroke patients

The recovery of 31 aphasic stroke patients in the first three months postonset was investigated. Improvements on eight comprehension, repetition, and expression tasks were documented for four groups. These groups, retrospectively defined on the basis of initial scores on a fluency and a comprehension task, were: Low Fluency/Low Comprehension (LFLC), Low Fluency/High Comprehension (LFHC), High Fluency/Low Comprehension (HFLC), and High Fluency/High Comprehension (HFHC). Examination of each group's recovery revealed (1) equal improvement on nearly all language tasks for the two High Comprehension groups and (2) a more selective improvement largely in comprehension and imitation tasks for the two Low Comprehension groups. Implications of this selective improvement in initially low comprehending aphasics are discussed.     

Comments on the interpretation of lateral asymmetries in the naming of words and line drawings

Young, Bion, and Ellis (Brain and Language, 11, 54-65, 1980) found no visual hemifield differences for right-handed subjects' first reports of bilaterally presented picturable nouns and line drawings, and small RVF superiorities for second reports of these stimuli. Levine and Banich (1982), however, found no visual hemifield differences for line drawings, and a substantial RVF superiority for picturable words. Two procedural factors are identified as responsible for this difference in results; namely the lack of control of order of report in Levine and Banich's (1982) study, and their use of vertically aligned words. Levine and Banich's (1982) attempt to explain findings of side of presentation X report interactions in terms of directional scanning and reporting preferences is shown to be untenable. Explanations in terms of cerebral asymmetries are more convincing, but they must be related to explicit theoretical models.     

INTRODUCTION TO THE SYMPOSIUM ON SCIENCE,RELIGION, AND THE RISE OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM

This is an introduction to the Symposium on “Science, Religion, and the Rise of Biblical Criticism,” which has been designed as a thematic section for Zygon: Journal of Religion and Science. The Symposium demonstrates the importance of and need for greater interdisciplinary collaboration between philosophers, theologians, scholars of religion, and historians in tracing the origins and development of the “conflict thesis” between science and religion. Often neglected is the role biblical criticism played in guiding and constructing narratives of conflict. This series of articles thus attempts to redress this gap in the scholarship by explicitly focusing on the advent of historical‐critical scholarship of the Bible and how it changed perceptions about “science” and “religion.”     

FROM DIVINE ORACLES TO THE HIGHER CRITICISM: ANDREW D. WHITE AND THE WARFARE OF SCIENCE WITH THEOLOGY IN CHRISTENDOM

Historians of science and religion have given little attention to how historical‐critical scholarship influenced perceptions of the relationship between science and religion in the nineteenth century. However, the so‐called “cofounders” of the “conflict thesis,” the idea that science and religion are fundamentally and irrevocable at odds, were greatly affected by this literature. Indeed, in his two‐volume magnum opus, A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom (1896), Andrew D. White, in his longest and final chapter of his masterpiece, traced the development of the “scientific interpretation” of the Bible. In this article, I argue that developments in biblical criticism had a direct impact on how White constructed his historical understanding of the relationship between science and religion. By examining more carefully how biblical criticism played a significant role in the thought of White and other alleged cofounders of the conflict thesis, this article hopes to relocate the origins, development, and meaning of the science–religion debate at the end of the nineteenth century.