Biotheology

[pamela]

well now that you put it that way...:shrug:

I can accept the "whatever" as being applicable here, based upon a higher reality. This has peaked my curiosity and I will investigate further and of course , let you know my thoughts.

[Galapagos]

I expect that is taken into account in the studies so far conducted. I'll do some looking if you don't beat me to it. :shrug:

 

Simple? No. Nevertheless many things about the brain's hardwired functions are cross cultural. For example Noam Chomski's study of language in children reveals that all babies, regardless of culture or parentage, coo & babble in exactly the same way. Again, if you don't beat me to references on this I will return to it.

 

Looking at other brain structure studies oriented to behavior extremes such as criminal behavior demonstrate just how powerful an influence it is. Yes there are all manner of other influences but it is a matter of predisposition in regard to the hardwired structure. For a different body structural consideration think "white men can't jump", and add "no matter how hard they train."

 

I find it interesting that for as long as this thread has been here that neither 'side' has the taste for it. I presume the believers don't like it because it suggests that a proper real-time brainscan while they pray would demonstrate a brain activity pattern previously identified by the the bio-theologists as 'highly religious' or some such categorization. Bummer.

 

I'm partial to the cognitive/evolutionary explanations offered by Boyer and Atran and others in similar camps. They are both anthropologists who study culture and cognition with an evolutionary perspective, in a way similar to how thinkers like Steven Pinker have expanded upon the innate language ideas of Chomski with an evolutionary perspective.

 

The article in the OP has much interesting information about extreme spiritual experience, but according to Atran(in "In Gods We Trust") these are not the experience of your average religious believer. Most people do not experience seizures, practice meditation or trance states, or have fits of glossolalia.

Here is the summary/conclusion of Atran's chapter "Waves of Passion" addressing the frontal lobe theories of Persinger etc..:

Summary: Mystical Episodes Inspire New Religions, but Don't Make Religion

Stressful personal episodes become religious experiences by instantiating publicly relevant schemas. Within such cultural schemas, even the eccentric voices and visions of clinically diagnosed schizophrenics and epileptics can become publicly sanctioned revelations, as they are in some societies. The religious hallucinations and delusions of schizophrenics, the sensory enlightenments of temporal lobe epileptics(possibly the Apostle Paul, more likely Saint Theresa de Avila), and the mystical visions and voices of persons are at the extreme end of the "normal" distribution(Jacob, Jesus, Mohammed, Paliau, Maharishi Yogi?).

 

In historically seminal moments, their unpredictable, "miraculous" revelations have undoubtedly inspired common belief in divine intention and grace. Malfunctioning or hyperactive theories of mind and intentional agency are cognitively and emotionally ripe for supernatural co-optation. Revivalist and starter cults are more likely than established religions to acknowledge the divine character of these more extreme mystical experiences. As Adam Smith noted, this is because such religious sects aim to radically reform or recreate religious obeisance "by carrying it to some degree of folly or extravagance". A startling episode of intense sensory arousal in a face-to-face encounter with the supernatural may prove unforgettable and emotive enough to permanently inculcate religious belief in a person, and perhaps jump-start new belief in society.

 

For the most part, however, relatively few individuals have emotionally arousing mystical experiences, at least in our society, although the overwhelming majority of individuals consider themselves to be religious believers. Neither is there any evidence that more "routine" religious experiences have a characteristic temporal lobe signature or any other specified type of brain activity pattern. The neuropsychological bases that commit the bulk of humanity to the supernatural remain a complete mystery.

 

For the believer haters, if they allow that the believers literally can't help themselves then their beating up on them for their beliefs looks like what it is; simple bullying and cruelty. Quite possibly both extremes have some manner of structure that predisposes them. Bummer.

 

Boyer recently published an article in Nature about the inevitability of religion. Here are a couple of blog responses from Wilkins at Evolving Thoughts and Razib at GXP. I agree with points made by both of them. One made by Wilkins is that religious fervor does fluctuate historically, and that a skeptic society is ripe for invasion by religious ideas. Denmark and Sweden may end up becoming more religious in the future, America may become more non-religious, and then bounce back.

A point Razib makes well is that supernatural beliefs are inevitable given the way our minds are set up, but institutionalized religion may not be.

Personally, I try to be optimistic, but given the cultural history of America and the competitive market of religions/cults I am not sure if we will ever end up like Sweden or Denmark.

 

As far as "haters" "beating up on" believers and not wanting to address the neuroscience of belief... I point you to the recent work of prominent atheist and neuroscientist Sam Harris'(currently working on a Phd at UCLA) recent work on belief and the brain:

http://www.samharris.org/images/uploads/Harris_Sheth_Cohen.pdf

Review by Oliver Sacks:

http://www.samharris.org/images/uploads/Sacks_Hirsch_Editorial.pdf

Recent interview in which his research and views of religion are discussed:

The Science Studio > Facts, Values and a Place for the Profound

 

For an overview of studies of religion as a natural phenomenon, I would recommend Daniel Dennett's "Breaking The Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon". Dennett discusses the group selection ideas of D. S. Wilson, the rational-choice models of Starke etc, the cognitive models of Boyer/Atran, and proposes some other interesting ideas. For an in depth look from the cognitive/evolutionary anthropology perspective(a bit more heavy of a read than Dennett's book) I would highly recommend Atran's "In Gods We Trust". This book was highly enjoyable to me, and there is damn near a college education in it. So many interesting scientific facts, and a lot of cool research done by Atran on cognition and innateness.

 

Here is an additional article covering the work of Atran, Boyer, Wilson, and others over at GXP:

Gene Expression: Levels of analysis of religion, Atran, Boyer & Wilson

[Moontanman]

I've read this thread and so far it would seem no one is aware that a deeply religious experience can be triggered simply by stimulating the temporal lobes of the brain with a certain electromagnetic field. This would seem to show that religion and god both originate in the brain.

 

The God Experiments | The Rational Response Squad

 

Electromagnetic spirituality: Seeing God and becoming one with the universe using the “God Helmet” The Frame Problem

 

Erowid Mind Devices Vaults : Magnetic Brain Stimulation

[Galapagos]

My son has a history of seizures although non epileptic in origin. Last year, after a lengthy convulsive seizure, something odd occured. He would pray constantly. .....

I'm a bit curious-- has anyone ever responded to him while he was praying? I mean, has he ever hallucinated any voices, had any "miraculous revelations" etc...

[pamela]

hi Galapagos,

No he has not heard any voices. He does though at times, refers to something that he calls "daymares". He sees a vision that he states comes out of his eyes.Now these are unpleasant images that mainly involve someone being hurt or killed. Quite disturbing, and they seem to follow a pattern, triggered by stress. As long as he remains relatively calm and happy, they are nonexistant.

[Turtle]

The article in the OP has much interesting information about extreme spiritual experience, but according to Atran(in "In Gods We Trust") these are not the experience of your average religious believer. Most people do not experience seizures, practice meditation or trance states, or have fits of glossolalia.

Here is the summary/conclusion of Atran's chapter "Waves of Passion" addressing the frontal lobe theories of Persinger etc..: ...

 

Well, we appear to have rung your gong G! :evil: It will take me some time to get to all your interesting references in even a cursory manner, but I do agree about the "...not the experience of your average religious believer..." line. It is the unfortunate cargo of so much of psycho-neurology that the majority of data comes from pathological subjects, and so too seems the case for using the new real-time brain imaging technology so far. I suspect that the 'average Joe' professing a belief in God (some 60 to 70% of Americans according to many polls asking the question "Do you believe in God?") has a range of distinctive brain activity that is separable by its form from the zealots on either end of the curve.

 

Well, off to do some reading then. :) I'll make haste slowly. :shrug:

[HydrogenBond]

Religion is based on subjectivity, since many of the affects can not be viewed with the sensory systems for objective verification. Science specializes in the objective sides of reality. Science and religion are the two specialists for humanity, since humans are both subjective and objective.

 

Where problems often occur is when either specialist tries to move into the other's area of specialty. The most obvious is when some members of religious groups attempt to define the objective aspects of evolution out of subjectivity. Religion systems are designed to explain and regulate the subjectivities of human nature. They are not there to objectively define physical nature.

 

But the affect also occurs the other way around when science enters the subjective realm of religion speciality. For example, probability is a system of math that can induce subjectivity before objectivity. Say we had a basket of equal amounts of various colored balls. We can calculate the odds of picking any given color and they are all the same. After that, a group of people are sitting around placing their bets. Before the winner is picked, different people will place their bet on different colors based on their subjective feeling. Once we pick, we have objective reality again. Nobody was exactly objective until reality returned the objective result.

 

Let us change the experiment and add the buzz word "risk". Risk is one of the colors in the barrel. People will place their bets, with the buzz word risk, helping to subjectively stack the subjective way people will bet, because it will induce fear, which is the strongest subjective emotion. That will become the most popular color to bet on, because it will induce the strongest subjective feeling for betting.

 

One will never see science say, brand-x increases the odds of y by 5%. That means that Y is a long shot, since we have 19 yellows and 1 red in the basket. If I was a betting man and used probability, in an objective way, I would pick pick yellow because of 19 to 1 odds. Instead, middle men take over the booking and will present the long shot with subjective fear (risk) knowing it is not an objective probability bet. This allows the house to win more.

 

Where religion comes it, since it specializes in subjectivity, it will try to teach one to lower the fear, so the subjectively implied fear doesn't slant betting toward the long shot of the odds. With the fear lower, one has more options, as to how they will place their bet. There will still be losers, but the bookies can't make as much.

 

The odds makers of science are giving everyone good data for betting. But the middlemen give a subjective hint for betting. They enter the subjective realm where they are less qualified. If science could get rid of religion, culture could increase betting on many long shots, using either fear or desire as sort of subjective insider information. Religion is a nuisance to this. For example, faith healing is not always the winning bet, but it makes one less likely to instinctively pick the fear long shot, on cue. But from the subjectivity of science, faith healing will not be seen as using the most probable bet. Rather it will think in terms of long shot examples, due to the fear. Science is not equipped to deal with the subjectivity, even if its own objective odds pick the path that is not based on the fear long shot.

[Turtle]

Who'd a thunk it? Believers are apparently wired to not admit mistakes. ;)

 

Brain Differences Found Between Believers In God And Non-believers

(Mar. 5, 2009) — Believing in God can help block anxiety and minimize stress, according to new University of Toronto research that shows distinct brain differences between believers and non-believers.

...

Their findings show religious belief has a calming effect on its devotees, which makes them less likely to feel anxious about making errors or facing the unknown. But Inzlicht cautions that anxiety is a "double-edged sword" which is at times necessary and helpful.

 

"Obviously, anxiety can be negative because if you have too much, you're paralyzed with fear," he says. "However, it also serves a very useful function in that it alerts us when we're making mistakes. If you don't experience anxiety when you make an error, what impetus do you have to change or improve your behaviour so you don't make the same mistakes again and again?"...

[Turtle]

Something new from science on the nature of religious hardwiring in weuns' widdle bwains. :) :) :)

 

 

Our brains are wired up for god | The Australian

Our brains are wired up for god

THE brain of every human being, from believers to atheists, has been revealed to contain at least three "god spots", all linked to religious beliefs and thoughts.

 

A team of US researchers has obtained strong evidence that religiosity is managed by the same parts of the brain that are used every day to interpret other people's moods and intentions and to analyse experiences.

 

Moreover, the spots exist in the brains of ordinary people, not just those whose extraordinary religious experiences have been triggered by brain injury or neurological conditions like epilepsy. ...

[Theory5]

Just now listening to this author on the radio. This is what I keep talking about.

The GOD Part Of The Brain - Matthew Alper

 

Will post commentary later. Enjoy. :)

"BioTheology" thats an oxymoron like "Cristian Scientist"

I wouldnt necessarily call it the "god" part...

Their findings show religious belief has a calming effect on its devotees, which makes them less likely to feel anxious about making errors or facing the unknown.

...maybe we can call it the "sheep" part.

 

Believing in God can help block anxiety and minimize stress

Which part allows you to block the memories of what that priest did when you were 4? :-P

 

"I believe there were no gas chambers... I think that 200,000 to 300,000 Jews perished in Nazi concentration camps but none of them by gas chambers," Richard Williamson told SVT television in an interview that was recorded in Germany last November. "There was not one Jew killed by the gas chambers. It was all lies, lies, lies!"

Or to belive that the holocaust never happened?

 

A decision this week by the Kansas Board of Education to delete the teaching of evolution from the state's science curriculum has angered the mainstream science community in the United States.

How about that push to brainwash young children?

 

I dont think this is true. These "scientists" look for "cures" to lifestyles and preferences. They belive they can "fix" people's "sins" through a form of "science". They engage in brainwashing and mass uneducation (sort of like our public schools except this is geared towards religion rather than consumerism). At first your religions killed anyone who belived something different than the church. Ever heard of gallaleo? Killed because he decided the church was wrong on something. Religion is for sheep, for people who can't belive in themselves. I have no problem with you and your delusion until you start interfearing with science and other people.

 

LOOK! Saint Ted is on my post: :( *GASP*

[Turtle]

"BioTheology" thats an oxymoron like "Cristian Scientist"

I wouldnt necessarily call it the "god" part...

 

When you write your own book, you can call it want you want. :hihi: Biotheology, however, is a scientific term, not a religious one, and sometimes called neurotheology. :) >> Neurotheology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Neurotheology, also known as biotheology or spiritual neuroscience[1], is the study of correlations of neural phenomena with subjective experiences of spirituality and hypotheses to explain these phenomena. Proponents of neurotheology claim that there is a neurological and evolutionary basis for subjective experiences traditionally categorized as spiritual or religious .[2]

 

Here's an interesting resource page for biotheology/neurotheology: Center For Cognitive Liberty & Ethics >>neurotheology article

[Theory5]

Early studies in the 1950s and 1960s attempted to use EEGs to study brain wave patterns correlated with "spiritual" states. During the 1980s Dr. Michael Persinger stimulated the temporal lobes of human subjects with a weak magnetic field. His subjects claimed to have a sensation of "an ethereal presence in the room"...

But this is part of what I am trying to say. They use science to explore the brain and the body, but when something does not make sense or if it can't be explained by current science then it is labeled as "spirits" or "demons" or the "devil" and most recently "god".

Back when religion and superstition ruled, when people got headaces and migranes a "doctor" would cut a hole in the skull. If the pacient survived the procedure then they got to wear the peice as a necklace. They did this to "open a hole in the head to let the demons out". How are these "god spots" different? You cant explain them with current science so you try to explain them theologically.

[Turtle]

But this is part of what I am trying to say. They use science to explore the brain and the body, but when something does not make sense or if it can't be explained by current science then it is labeled as "spirits" or "demons" or the "devil" and most recently "god".

Back when religion and superstition ruled, when people got headaces and migranes a "doctor" would cut a hole in the skull. If the pacient survived the procedure then they got to wear the peice as a necklace. They did this to "open a hole in the head to let the demons out". How are these "god spots" different? You cant explain them with current science so you try to explain them theologically.

 

Mmmmm...erhmmm....no. Not even wrong.

 

Please refrain from posting unsupported psuedo-scientific babble to this thread.

[Theory5]

Mmmmm...erhmmm....no. Not even wrong.

 

Please refrain from posting unsupported psuedo-scientific babble to this thread.

What? Which part of what i posted is unsupported? The holes in the head thing is called trepanation. Oh I see now what you mean:

Voluntary Trepanation

Although considered today to be pseudoscience, the practice of trepanation for other purported medical benefits continues. The most prominent explanation for these benefits is offered by Dutchman Bart Huges (alternatively spelled Bart Hughes). He is sometimes called Dr. Bart Hughes although he did not complete his medical degree. Hughes claims that trepanation increases "brain blood volume" and thereby enhances cerebral metabolism in a manner similar to cerebral vasodilators such as ginkgo biloba. No published results have supported these claims.

 

That is not what i am talking about.

 

Trepanation was carried out for both medical reasons and mystical practices for a long time. Evidence of trepanation has been found in prehistoric human remains from Neolithic times onwards.

The bone that was trepanned was kept by the prehistoric people and worn as charms to keep evil spirits away.

This is more on track. Also, I never said I support or belive "voluntary trepanation". I was giving an example of the practice in prehistoric times to explain how people can be led to belive almost anything if they do not understand it.

Religion has always been threatened by science. Why now are you guys so interested in it? Why does it work now when it didnt work in the 18th and 19th century? Why does the everything revolve around the sun NOW when you said it didn't while you killed galileo?:)

Instead of trying to find a "gay gene" to fix peoples "sins" how about you try to find the gene that makes most people brainless sheep, and try to swap it with the uncommon leader gene (also called the think-for-yourself gene)?

[Turtle]

What? Which part of what i posted is unsupported? The holes in the head thing is called trepanation. Oh I see now what you mean:

 

 

That is not what i am talking about.

 

 

 

This is more on track. Also, I never said I support or belive "voluntary trepanation". I was giving an example of the practice in prehistoric times to explain how people can be led to belive almost anything if they do not understand it.

Religion has always been threatened by science. Why now are you guys so interested in it? Why does it work now when it didnt work in the 18th and 19th century? Why does the everything revolve around the sun NOW when you said it didn't while you killed galileo?:)

Instead of trying to find a "gay gene" to fix peoples "sins" how about you try to find the gene that makes most people brainless sheep, and try to swap it with the uncommon leader gene (also called the think-for-yourself gene)?

 

:) :hihi: Unsupported as in you offer no scholarly evidence, i.e. no links. For the record, Galileo was sentenced to house arrest and died of old age, not killed as you say. Had he not been such a smart *** and lampooned the Pope publicly, he likely wouldn't have had that house arrest. Sometimes the bright can be very dim. >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair

 

Who is "you guys?" Either you do not understand this thread & my position, or you can not clearly express your ideas on it, or both. Please stop posting speculation and opinion here without supporting references. Dank. ;)

[Moontanman]

But this is part of what I am trying to say. They use science to explore the brain and the body, but when something does not make sense or if it can't be explained by current science then it is labeled as "spirits" or "demons" or the "devil" and most recently "god".

Back when religion and superstition ruled, when people got headaces and migranes a "doctor" would cut a hole in the skull. If the pacient survived the procedure then they got to wear the peice as a necklace. They did this to "open a hole in the head to let the demons out". How are these "god spots" different? You cant explain them with current science so you try to explain them theologically.

 

Theory5, I don't think anyone is trying to explain these God spots theologically, the name god spots is very much tongue in cheek. It is not meant to show anyone believes God is really coming into these spots or the spots are associated with any supernatural being. The so called God spots are really places in the brain that seem to cause a odd feeling of presence that in some people is seen as the presence of god, in some it's the presence of aliens, should we call those spots "alien" spots? These places do not cause anyone to think that god is anymore real they do show that the brain can be manipulated to cause the person to have these odd sensations by an outside source that has nothing to do with god and everything to do with the way the brain is wired. It gives some insight in to how certain brain disorders can cause people to see and feel the presence of god or aliens or succubus or incubus. The brain can be manipulated by technology to fool a person into having God or alien like experiences. No theology is being used to explain anything.

[HydrogenBond]

"If" such a thing as a god spot existed, I would expect the god spot to be in the center of the brain and not on the surface. The thalamus is a possible place since it is the most wired place of the brain. The surface stuff is to too limited in any particular place and may be more of an thalamus-cerebral loop.