Neurotheology/Biotheology

I'm quite new to this forum, and this is my first topic, so I hope I'm doing this right, and that I'm not posting something that have been discussed to death in previous topics.Anyway, I was watching a documentary the other day about neurotheology, which in short terms is explained like this: This is a description taken from The "God" Part of the Brain (an introduction to Matthew Alpers book: The "God" Part Of The Brain)The documentary showed the work of Dr. Michael Persinger, working at Laurentian University, in Sudbury, Ontario, Canada. He has pioneered a method for inducing the religious, spiritual experience. Without drugs, herbs, hypnosis or invasive surgery, he can quite literally flip a switch and induce the experience of "god."Using an ordinary striped yellow motorcycle helmet purchased at a sporting goods store, which he has modified with electromagnetic coils, he can place the helmet on your head, connect the wires to a device he has constructed that generates the proper signals, and when the magnetic fields produced by the coils penetrate the skull and into the temporal lobes of the brain, the result is the stimulation of those lobes and a religious experience results.The thousand plus people who have undertaken the experience produced by Dr. Persinger's helmet have had some very profound experiences. Four out of five say that they've had experiences so profound they would be life-changing had they not understood the mechanistic underpinnings of what they had experienced. And that include atheists.I won't drag this topic on forever by explaining the whole documentary, but I would just like to say that the theory it brought up, fascinated me, and would like to hear other viewpoints on this topic. Could all religion boil down to biochemistry in the brain?And...oh...probably stupid of me to start this topic now. I'm of to bed soon. But I hope others will discuss in the meantime, and I'll promise to answer as soon as I can...Cheers,
SkepticScand{Removed a light blue background color, and indented the block of text instead. Also added blank line between some paragraphs - Adminnemooseus}[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 04-19-2004]

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.I did make some formatting changes in message one (as noted there). The was no editing of content.Adminnemooseus[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 04-19-2004]

---

WHERE TO GO TO START A NEW TOPIC (For other than "Welcome, Visitors!", "Suggestions and Questions", "Practice Makes Perfect", and "Short Subjects")Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
too fast closure of threads

This is what I believe, essentially. Humans, being descended from social animals, are basically social creatures. But, being intelligent, we don't have the intense instincts that other animals do, the ones that "tell" us exactly how to behave. I think it is quite possible that humans have an innate tendency to "feel connected" to something larger than themselves, the social unit, the world, the universe, God, whatever, to reinforce social cohesion in a flexible manner.

I have heard similar to this before, and have also heard there is a "love locus" in the brain that can also be stimulated.that article seemed a little simplistic for explanations (the beehive is hexagonal because it is naturally efficient - bubbles will make hexagonal patterns when the same size on a surface) rather than evidentially based. I'll wait for more info.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Thanks for the reply, Chiroptera.
I agree SkepticScand

Hi Abby,Sorry about the article I chose. It didn't explain to much other than the viewpoint of a bookwriter. Here are some more links on the subject:
NewsWeek
Corante – The Latest News & TrendsRegards,
SkepticScand

The second one didn't load. Newsweek article adds some flesh to the bones. I have always felt that the similarities of religious experiences, particularly of those from ascetic experiences, were evidence of an experience that transcends each particular religion and thus were more universal than the religions would have one believe. This is more evidence along those lines.Other articles I have been through are: The Neuropsychology of Religion, by Scott Atran (I think I picked this one up on one of these threads) Psychology of Religion, by Acharya S (note this webpage has several articles on it, one after the other)The later is a little disjointed imho.enjoy

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Why couldn't evolution make it so that we did not become aware of death? You see - to me, this is almost like asking "Evolution, what did you do to solve this?" This seems like evolution is a "mind" in this context.If rabbits are also fearful, why don't they develop a religion? As for unceasing anxiety - I thought anxiety prepared/helped the body to survive? -Unceasing anxiety is a common occurence amongst those with anxiety disorders, phobias etc. Yet it is not life threatening, why didn't evolution - being a "mind" as you imply it to be, come up with a solution for these people? Surely these people are in grave danger - them being in a constant state of "fight or flight".Also - I am still aware of death - so that's still obviously a problem. What about Atheists? How do they cope if they have this "God-sense" then they would believe in God, and if they don't have it, then surely (like your link implies) - they would have a constant anxiety.Also, if we did have a religious experience and it was natural - big deal, I have lots of natural RE's. I don't claim nor do I think they are anything other than natural -If evolution says we "need" God, then I am happy that evolution preaches this good message. Now do as evolution says and be a good boy - believe in God! or keep suffering from this constant anxiety that all atheists must suffer from, and if they don't then they must all secretly pray to higher forces when they go away from the forum [This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 04-20-2004]

Hello, Mike.

quote:

---

In humans, however, once we became aware of the fact that death was not only inescapable but that it could come at any moment, we were left in a state of constant mortal peril, a state of unceasing anxiety - much like rabbits perpetually cornered by a mountain lion from which there is no escape. With the emergence of self-awareness, humans became the dysfunctional animal, rendered helpless by an inherent and unceasing anxiety disorder.

​

Why couldn't evolution make it so that we did not become aware of death?

---

First, I don't quite agree with the quote you provided. I don't believe, personally, that religion evolved as a means of coping with death. But I don't have any data one way or the other, so I guess I do have to consider the possibility.Anyway, to answer your question, evolution does not have a goal in mind. All it does is act on naturally occurring variations, and those more likely to reproduce leave greater numbers of progeny behind. Now suppose that an increasing awareness of death caused mental anguish, and the early hominids were dysfunctional. This would, perhaps, lead to lower survival rates. So, consider two scenarios:(1) A sequence of mutations would arise that would "blind" the individual to awareness of death. This would obviously be beneficial, and individuals with these mutations would be more likely to pass this characteristic to their progeny.(2) A sequence of mutations arise that cause a tendency toward spirituality, including mechanisms for coping with death (either through belief in an afterlife, or an ability to accept death as a natural part of the universe). Again, this would mitigate the dysfunctionality, and such individuals would presumably be more likely to leave behind children with this trait.Now evolution doesn't just look ahead into the future and decide which is better. It just works on which ever variations just happen to arise at that time. It seems that, of the two scenarios provided (if, indeed, coping with death is the reason, or part of the reason, for a natural tendency toward religion), it was the mutations for spirituality that arose first, and not the ones for death-unawareness.Why? Maybe it is too difficult to render a individual unaware of death without disabling the other beneficial aspects of intelligence. Or maybe it was just random chance which was the first mutations to come about; like why when you rolled a dice did you get an even number that one particular time rather than an odd number.

How would that work, exactly? The unique human ability is the power to make inferences about the future from observation, not just experience. How could you have both that ability but not the ability to concieve of your own death?And wouldn't the inability to predict your own death be disadvantageous? What's gonna keep you from jumping off a cliff if you can't imagine that you'll die as a result? We're generally smarter than other people. I dunno. I guess being atheist is something that not everyone can do - it takes an ability to manage that death anxiety, an ability that not everyone can or does develop.

does "hard-wired" include non-metalic electron transfer covalently or inonically? If so, I can reason --true, next clause NOT TRUE. Would you like me to show you how?

Hi Brad,I just used the word "hard-wired" as taken from the article I referenced to. I think what they are trying to explain, is that by controling the bloodflow to specific parts of the brain, it is possible to induce "God" experiences. And that there is a part in every human brain where the religious neurons lie.I don't know too much about the subject, and am not able to tell whether it is non-metalic electron transfer covalently or inonically. I was just curious if anyone else knew more about it. And if you can show me, GREAT Cheers,
SkepticScand

yeah, mike, I had trouble with that too. I think a lot of animals could have that awareness too. Certainly they can have an "Oh sh** I'm gonna die" experience.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Ahaha.Isn't it needed evolutionarily? Fight or flight helps to survive, not the other way around. If a fish is infested with a tapeworm, it becomes dossile, and cannot fight or flight, or just maybe "flight" in this case. So the fish is eaten and the tapeworm survives, because the tapeworm removes the "fight or flight" response.An anxiety about death is almost a necessity. I feel it would be too dangerous evolutionarily, to cull the trait therefore - evolution's mind would be thinking it advantagous to risk the loss. But if we swanned around ladedah, with no fear of the lions, well......that's a big risk. I fear we would have became like the fish - stuck in the mellow twilight zone.Also - Crash said some may have learned to deal with the anxiety. If you can learn to deal with it then what use is the natural "God" part of Crashfrog's brain, if this part of the brain can be manipulated in anyone, yet we can deal with death anyway, why have this religious trait?(taking into consideration Chiroptera's post)Also, we have another reality. I myself have never had any kind of anxiety about death, I might have had a slight eeedybeedy worry, but there is no way it was ever an anxiety...and this was also before I was a believer.[This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 04-20-2004]

Denial could be overloaded circuit shutdown when things get too personal. There is also the tendency to disregard things not directly experienced - seeing as I've never died before I don't believe it will happen ... (so far so good). Is the religious experience just from overloaded cicuits ... or a {chance \ gift} to explore beyond physical sensation? Perhaps more. Don't know.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}