Belief and the Brain's 'God Spot'

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]ephrem wrote:
Sloth wrote:
ephrem wrote:
Sloth wrote:
What’s the debate? We’re religious-orientated (at least a good many of us). This religiousphobia is futile. It can only be a doubt in one’s non-religious orientation. A closeted religious, if you will.

…that may be true for the vocal and convinced person on either side, not just the non-religious orientated [as if believers don’t doubt]. But there’s a larger group out there who are on the fence, and you and i have an opportunity to offer an alternative if they are so inclined…

They’re “on the fence orientated.” It would be “on the fence”-phobic to try and convince them either way.

…nah, it doesn’t work that way. People have a tendency to make their own mind up, so i’m not out to convince anyone. That would be, as they say, an exercise in futility…

[/quote]

Sure, they can ‘make up their minds’ to match their orientation. Like a “on the fence until later in life” orientation. Maybe making up one’s mind is an illusion. But, maybe none of us can actually make up our minds about anything. Maybe our minds have been “made up” for us. And we can’t help but go where we HAVE to, and not where we’ve CHOSEN.

82

…that is true, but let’s save that for another discussion, mkay?

83

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…that is true, but let’s save that for another discussion, mkay?

[/quote]

I’ll try, but my “bring it up now” spot is firing like mad.

84

[quote]Sloth wrote:
ephrem wrote:

…that is true, but let’s save that for another discussion, mkay?

I’ll try, but my “bring it up now” spot is firing like mad.[/quote]

…i suspect you have been down that road before, haven’t you Slothje?

85

[quote]ephrem wrote:
Sloth wrote:
ephrem wrote:

…that is true, but let’s save that for another discussion, mkay?

I’ll try, but my “bring it up now” spot is firing like mad.

…i suspect you have been down that road before, haven’t you Slothje?

[/quote]

Why, I don’t know what you could possibly mean!

86

[quote]forlife wrote:
pat wrote:
There is no way to confirm that NDE’s and electric brain stimulation created the same effect. Secondly, it does little to explain those NDE’s whose experiences involved seeing and accurately reported things that were going on while they were flat lined and could not possibly have known them otherwise…
Here is the good news to all of this, one day we will all know the answers. All we got to do is die.

Sure there is. Put people that have reported NDE’s in a lab, stimulate their brain, and ask them how similar the two experiences are. Again, people fail to account for random chance and other potential explanations in determining the probability of “miracles”, like reporting something that happened while you were flatlined. Sometimes really, really rare things do happen by chance alone.

Unfortunately, if there is no life after death, you will never realize your mistake in believing as you do. Not that your belief is necessarily unhealthy, as long as it doesn’t hinder your happiness or that of other people.[/quote]

Have those same people had real NDE’s…Would they test it on somebody who had one to know for sure?
It still does not account for people knowing facts about things that occurred outside of themselves while in that state.

As for me, don’t worry about me after death. If I am wrong, there was no harm or foul. If you are wrong, then you’ll answer for your vitriol. However, not knowing your heart and not being God, I cannot judge. Soon enough, we will all know, I am not in a particular hurry at the moment.

[EDIT]
I said that it’s not a big surprise that there would be a physical component to religious faith, not that it is necessary for it.

Logic 101.5: Learn how to link premises to one another and further to their conclusion. Don’t draw conclusions out of thin air.

87

[quote]forlife wrote:
This reminds me of the research on near death experiences, where people see their life flash before their eyes, move through a path of light, etc. By stimulating a certain section of the brain, these same experiences can be replicated.

As a believer, it gave me a bit of a sick feeling in my stomach to think about my religious experiences being replicable by brain stimulation. Still, I insisted that my experiences were special and were evidence of god speaking to me.

People underestimate the power of the subconscious brain, just as they exercise faulty reasoning in determining the statistical probability of events that they label as “miracles”. These “spiritual experiences”, along with rare events that people refuse to attribute to anything other than the divine, allow them to justify and rationalize their faith.[/quote]

Chocolate can replicate the feeling of love, does that make you not believe in love? Drugs can make you feel like youâ??re flying, does that replace airplane travel?

88

[quote]ephrem wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:

“That means that our brains can’t tell whether we believe in the god of Abraham, in Krishna or Jesus.” IÃ?¢??m not sure exactly what you mean by that. That brain structure doesnÃ?¢??t biologically predict a belief in a specific god? Because my brain knows the specifics of what god I believe in.

Anyway, none of that invalidates an human-like god. I’m not arguing that there god in man-like, just that this study doesnÃ?¢??t come close to tackling any issue related to it.

Maybe we have different definitions of invalidate. “to make or show (an argument) to be faulty”?

The actual truthfulness of our beliefs aren’t contradicted by the brain’s propensity for religious beliefs… (see what I did there?)

Not prove and invalidate are entirely logically different.

…the brain is a container that favors religious beliefs [from an evolutionary standpoint]. How that container is filled does not matter, e.i. the beliefs that container is filled with can range from the occult to humanism, from christianity to hinduism, it does not matter…

…the subject of the beliefs does not matter, it is the result of those beliefs [survival of the tribe] that counts. This weakens [invalidates] the actual truthfulness of the beliefsystem because it is interchangeable. Okay? [/quote]

You can say that for any abstract thought. A predisposition for something doesnâ??t make it false. I donâ??t even know how you jumped so far to that conclusion.

89

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
ephrem wrote:

…the subject of the beliefs does not matter, it is the result of those beliefs [survival of the tribe] that counts. This weakens [invalidates] the actual truthfulness of the beliefsystem because it is interchangeable. Okay?

You can say that for any abstract thought. A predisposition for something doesnâ??t make it false. I donâ??t even know how you jumped so far to that conclusion.[/quote]

…one can be predisposed to believe anything, that’s the point. Just look how many religions there were: Ancient Religions And Myths If all people believed, independantly of eachother, in the same god and formed a similar religion, then it’d be a different matter…

90

…you can attribute a cause to such feelings; in this case a feeling is caused by chocolate and love is a matter of chemicals in the brain. One can also attribute certain religious feelings to a cause, namely the belief one has towards a deity or religion. It’s a feedback loop without the grand instigator that’s god, see?

91

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…that doesn’t matter if the result of the religion is a cohesive tribe that stands a better chance of survival. Religious wars aren’t exactly beneficial either for species propogation, yet christianity and islam done okay, don’t you think?[/quote]

Yeah, it matters - religions are not uniform in their priorities, and those differences would certainly affect their impact on “survivorship”.

Secondly, you are refuting your own argument - you are showing that certain sections of humanity go on to successful species propagation in spite of their religion, not necessarily because of.

Nothing decimates your population like starting and waging a holy war against infidels - the fact that Christians and Muslims passed through that phase and yet didn’t extinguish themselves is evidence that damns your thesis rather than supports it.

92

[quote]pat wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Sloth wrote:
ephrem wrote:
Ironic don’t you think: God is the result of evolution, lol.

Some of us maintain the belief that evolution is the result of God. Not to turn this into a discussion of theology and doctrine. Just want to be clear that not all of us reject evolution. Hey, I’m taking a college biology course this semester, and it’s the first subject I’ve actually looked foward to.

But then who created the Creator?

By definition, the creator cannot be created. If it is the first cause, it cannot therefore be caused and exists outside the causal chain.[/quote]

Nearly as lazy as irreducible complexity. Is it so hard to just admit we don’t actually know yet?

93

“Isn’t it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to bleieve there are fairies at the bottom of it too?”

What is it with religious people and gaps? It’s like a weed, you jump into any gap that science currently has. Gaps in science do not have to be filled by God, temporary mystification and admission of ignorance are part of good science and part of progression.

Yes, you can replicate feelings in a lab with chemical reactions, it doesn’t mean the atheist somehow feels any less than you, you’re not a special snowflake - get over yourself.

94

[quote]Makavali wrote:

“Isn’t it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to bleieve there are fairies at the bottom of it too?”

What is it with religious people and gaps? It’s like a weed, you jump into any gap that science currently has. Gaps in science do not have to be filled by God, temporary mystification and admission of ignorance are part of good science and part of progression.

Yes, you can replicate feelings in a lab with chemical reactions, it doesn’t mean the atheist somehow feels any less than you, you’re not a special snowflake - get over yourself.[/quote]

The same ravenous curiosity that drives religious inquiry drives scientific inquiry - the desire to know.

That you haven’t the capacity to ask good questions in both camps makes you as ignorant and limited as the Paleolithic Evangelicals you claim to despise.

95

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
The same ravenous curiosity that drives religious inquiry drives scientific inquiry - the desire to know.[/quote]

Don’t give me that shit. Where are the endless hours of rational inquiry into the ridiculous claims of religion? It’s nothing more than the easy way out, it gives lazy people answers - people wanting something for nothing.

96

[quote]Makavali wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
The same ravenous curiosity that drives religious inquiry drives scientific inquiry - the desire to know.

Don’t give me that shit. Where are the endless hours of rational inquiry into the ridiculous claims of religion? It’s nothing more than the easy way out, it gives lazy people answers - people wanting something for nothing.[/quote]

You gone full-bore Hitchens, tough talking, no-nonsense, “I’ma gonna lay the verbal smack down on some believers! That’s right, I gotta darwin fish, eating a Jesus fish, on the back of my ride!,” atheist on us?

But you have me on the lazy part! Sloth wasn’t just random. Kind of pissed you inspired me to spend this much energy responding, truth be told.

97

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
ephrem wrote:

…that doesn’t matter if the result of the religion is a cohesive tribe that stands a better chance of survival. Religious wars aren’t exactly beneficial either for species propogation, yet christianity and islam done okay, don’t you think?

Yeah, it matters - religions are not uniform in their priorities, and those differences would certainly affect their impact on “survivorship”.

Secondly, you are refuting your own argument - you are showing that certain sections of humanity go on to successful species propagation in spite of their religion, not necessarily because of.

Nothing decimates your population like starting and waging a holy war against infidels - the fact that Christians and Muslims passed through that phase and yet didn’t extinguish themselves is evidence that damns your thesis rather than supports it.[/quote]

…let’s recap for a moment, and focus on what was said:

Me - “…the subject of the beliefs does not matter, it is the result of those beliefs [survival of the tribe] that counts. This weakens [invalidates] the actual truthfulness of the beliefsystem because it is interchangeable. Okay?”

You - “Hogwash. Many religions have promoted human sacrifice and other religious practices that discouraged procreation (which stands in direct contrast to species propagation). The belief systems are hardly interchangeable, even if we indulge in your basic assumption, it is clear that all religions are not the same for these “survival” functions.”

Me - “…that doesn’t matter if the result of the religion is a cohesive tribe that stands a better chance of survival. Religious wars aren’t exactly beneficial either for species propogation, yet christianity and islam done okay, don’t you think?”

…and then we come to your current post. My point was that the brain’s propensity for religious beliefs evolved like that because religion gave people [the tribe] a better chance of survival through cohesion and shared goals/background…

…it doesn’t matter if that religion, or those beliefs, aren’t exactly beneficial to species propogation because 1; that was never my argument to begin with and 2; aside from the odd fringe cult suicide, mankind procreates like bunnyrabbits inspite of ritual sacrifice or holy wars…

…let’s look at the crusades for a moment to illustrate how people can bond together due to religious beliefs to fight a common enemy, quite powerful init? Crusades - Wikipedia I don’t think you are argueing against war as being beneficial to a people/tribe, are you? As long as they win ofcourse…

…so what you are left with is a brain that has evolved to be sensitive to religious beliefs because time has proven that religious cohesion is beneficial to the species, and that it doesn’t matter what form or shape those beliefs have, e.i. it doesn’t matter what the tribe believes, as long as they all believe it…

…this is why i said that the result of this study invalidates the truthfulness of any religion, not just christianity [to be fair]…

98

[quote]ephrem wrote:
…this is why i said that the result of this study invalidates the truthfulness of any religion, not just christianity [to be fair]…[/quote]

It doesn’t invalidate any religion…

99

[quote]Sloth wrote:
ephrem wrote:
…this is why i said that the result of this study invalidates the truthfulness of any religion, not just christianity [to be fair]…

It doesn’t invalidate any religion…[/quote]

…reading comprehension people! Ofcourse it doesn’t invalidate religion Sloth, if i wanted to say that i wouldn’t have written: this study invalidates the truthfulness of any religion…

100

[quote]ephrem wrote:
Sloth wrote:
ephrem wrote:
…this is why i said that the result of this study invalidates the truthfulness of any religion, not just christianity [to be fair]…

It doesn’t invalidate any religion…

…reading comprehension people! Ofcourse it doesn’t invalidate religion Sloth, if i wanted to say that i wouldn’t have written: this study invalidates the truthfulness of any religion…
[/quote]

Well, if I have to be precise, it doesn’t do this either…