Neurotheticism: Counterpoints and Clarifications

Neurotheticism challenges traditional debates about the existence of God by positing that the very question arises from cognitive processes evolved for survival, not for discerning metaphysical truths. By examining the mental mechanisms that lead humans to perceive agency and intention, Neurotheticism suggests that beliefs in deities are byproducts of our brain’s pattern-recognition and social cognition systems. This post explores common misconceptions about Neurotheticism and addresses critiques, aiming to clarify its stance within the broader discourse on religion and cognition.

“Is this just another form of atheism?”

No. While Neurotheticism aligns with atheism in rejecting theism, it departs in one crucial respect: atheism still engages the God-question as meaningful, whether to affirm or deny. Neurotheticism denies the question’s epistemic validity. It does not answer the question; it deconstructs it.

“What about non-theistic spirituality?”

Neurotheticism applies the same critique to concepts of universal consciousness, divine energy, or pantheistic unity, insofar as they rest on intuitions or metaphors mistaken for ontological insight. It does not deny the experiences often labeled “spiritual,” but sees them as neurocognitive events, not evidence of external metaphysical realities.

“Isn’t this just eliminative materialism in disguise?”

Neurotheticism shares materialist commitments but is not merely eliminative. It does not seek to deny the value of human experiences, only to recontextualize them. Wonder, awe, meaning, these remain, but decoupled from metaphysical scaffolding.

“Does this mean we can’t talk about God at all?”

We can, but we must recognize such discourse as narrative fiction, not philosophical inquiry. Like myths and metaphors, it may serve emotional or cultural purposes, but not epistemic ones. Neurotheticism aims to demote theological language from ontology to anthropology.

“Is this nihilism in a lab coat?”

No. Neurotheticism affirms that meaning is possible, it simply arises from within consciousness, not from beyond it. It seeks a mature engagement with meaning-making that does not require metaphysical externalities. It is not the absence of value, but the transvaluation of inherited illusions.

“Isn’t the God-question still meaningful to many people?”

Subjective meaning is not the same as philosophical coherence. Neurotheticism does not deny that the God-question feels meaningful to billions, it asserts that this feeling is the result of evolved cognition, not reliable insight. Mass intuition does not imply conceptual legitimacy.