Evolution of Religion & Nuerotheology

[Peregrine]

I'm a little confused, how can we debate on the fact that we invented God if noone is alive from when God was supposedly invented.

 

Easily. First we prove all the alternate explanations wrong. Then we present a valid theory for how it happened, then we call the debate finished. The article presents an alternate theory that is more reasonable than the existence of a god. Therefore if the article is right (which is the question of the debate), we have a valid explanation for how god was invented.

 

Wouldn't someone from Jeruselem during the time of Jesus be the only key to knowing if he was invented.

 

No, we can also simply prove that Jesus (the mythical character, not a mortal man named Jesus) could not have existed as defined in the bible. If a divine origin is not possible, then human invention is the only thing left.

 

Or are you saying the belief of God is a gene that we get from our parents, or what, we just suddenly develop this belief at an early age?

 

No, I'm saying that according to the article (which none of you have managed to prove wrong yet), the human brain can be given "religious experiences" from completely non-divine sources. Add this to the social factors that could create a religion, and it's not hard to see how religion could exist without a real god.

 

 

This is odd....humans just went through life unbeknownst to God or Christianity, and then some random person gets some shock to the head and had the idea of it, and invented the idea so the person could have an answer for certain questions?

 

Have you ever studied history? Regardless of the truth or fiction of any religion, Christianity is far from the first religion to be invented. I suggest you go study the evolution of religious belief before you make statements like that.

 

I don't know, explain this to me, because this sounds like a load of horse crap...please try and explain your ideas so i won't think there are crazy people in these forums.

 

If you'd bother to read the article and my posts, you would understand. I suggest you do so, since you clearly haven't read anything beyond the title of the thread.

[DreamOfTheRood]

Thanks, leo, for posting with some calm words. It's much appreciated.

 

As for the article, I'm having a hard time with it. It is too vague in some areas to give me a real sense of what's going on.

 

For instance:

1. Since this is a psychological study, there should be statistical significance levels posted along with the findings, or the article should have linked to a a page where the study was formally presented (these studies can usually be found on PsycArticles or PsycInfo). Without sig levels, statements such as "Sexual words were less exciting than neutral ones" and "the control group was most excited by the sexually loaded words" lose their meaning. The experimenters could have found a statistical difference of .009 (very small) or a statistical difference of .8 (friggin' huge), but we wouldn't be able to tell due to the lack of any tell-tale statistical information.

 

2. This is what really gives me pause.

 

If the abnormal brain activity of TLE patients alters their response to religious concepts, could altering brain patterns artificially do the same for people with no such medical condition? This is the question that Michael Persinger set out to explore, using a wired-up helmet designed to concentrate magnetic fields on the temporal lobes of the wearer.

 

The problem here is one called 'external validity.' The experiment is relying upon a scenario that does not occur in the natural world. By wiring up his experimental group (the group that does not display any physical symptoms of epilepsy) to Cerebro, he's invalidating his experiment to what occurs in the natural world. Magnetic fields simply do not naturally occur at the magnitude or at the proximity to the human brain to warrant the kind of perceptions that we read about in religious documents.

That is exactly why Occam's Razor applies here. The article basically gives two options: either the perceptions of supernatural events are products of magenetic interference in the temporal lobe region or they are indeed supernatural. Since I've already stated that magnetic fields don't occur in the experimental manner naturally, that rules out the former, leaving only the latter.

For those of you that don't know, Occam's Razor is the philosophical tenet, proposed by a gentleman named Occam, that says that the simplest explanation to any given problem will be more likely to be the correct explanation. In this case, the simplest explanation is that perceptions of supernatural events by people without temporal lobe epilepsy are indeed due to supernatural occurrences.

 

3. This is a nitpicky thing, but still vital.

 

Scientists like Andrew Newberg want to see just what does happen during moments of faith. He worked with Buddhist, Michael Baime, to study the brain during meditation.

 

Meditation is a fundamentally different thing from having perceptions of divine beings, which is what this is all about. Seeing the storm of Yahweh's physical presence over a mountain (Moses) is in a completely different category from going into a meditative trance, which is generally about two steps away from going to sleep.

 

Note: Peregrine's post below was finished before I finished editing this post.

Leave some feedback.

[Peregrine]

Also, I got nothing agianst relegion. Uassaully people who belive in relegious morals are pretty much nice good people. If they want to belive it, its thier choosing.

 

Irrelevant, no matter which side is right. The point of the debate is to discuss the accuracy of the specific article. Whether religious people are good or bad is an entirely different issue that is NOT going to be discussed here. One flame war on that subject was more than enough.

 

 

====================================================

 

 

Finally, a reply that actually addresses the article...

 

For instance:

1. Since this is a psychological study, there should be statistical significance levels posted along with the findings, or the article should have linked to a a page where the study was formally presented (these studies can usually be found on PsycArticles or PsycInfo). Without sig levels, statements such as "Sexual words were less exciting than neutral ones" lose their meaning. The experimenters could have found a statistical difference of .009 (very small) or a statistical difference of .8 (friggin' huge), but we wouldn't be able to tell due to the lack of any tell-tale information.

 

A valid point, but you'll notice that the article was a story on a general news site, not a formal study report. If you want to attack the conclusions as exaggerated, you'll need to find a copy of the original study (if published) and prove it.

 

Yes, it leaves questions as to the exact details, but I don't think the general point is harmed much by it.

 

 

 

 

The problem here is one called 'external validity.' The experiment is relying upon a scenario that does not occur in the natural world. By wiring up his experimental group (the group that does not display any physical symptoms of epilepsy) to Cerebro, he's invalidating his experiment to what occurs in the natural world. Magnetic fields simply do not naturally occur at the magnitude nor at the proximity to the human brain to warrant the kind of perceptions that we read about in religious documents.

 

The article actually concedes this point. The purpose of that expiriment was not to duplicate precise natual events, but to give an approximation of the altered brain patterns. The key point is not the specific details of the results, but that "religious experiences" can be created by completely non-divine methods. As shown by the expiriment, god does not have a monopoly on religious experience. This automatically puts doubt on all "religious experiences", since it can not be assumed that they were of divine origin.

 

That is exactly why Occam's Razor applies here. The article basically gives two options: either the perceptions of supernatural events are products of magenetic interference in the temporal lobe region or they are indeed supernatural. Since I've already stated that magnetic fields don't occur in the experimental manner naturally, that rules out the former, leaving only the latter.

 

You miss the point that it isn't an either or question. The expiriments obviously do not present a definite explanation for all religious experiences. What they DO do is demonstrate that what people call "religious experiences" CAN come from completely non-divine sources. The expiriment just presents one of those alternate sources, one that is easily reproduced and testable under controled conditions.

 

 

In this case, the simplest explanation is that perceptions of supernatural events by people without temporal lobe epilepsy are indeed due to supernatural occurrences.

 

Except for the tiny problem that by definition supernatural occurances contradict reality. To accept a supernatural origin for the events in the article would require countless other theories/explanations to be bent to accept that supernatural source. This is of course FAR from the simplest explanation, especially when the expiriment doesn't even provide proof of that supernatural factor. At best, it leaves it an open question as to whether it exists. That is nowhere near enough evidence to use Occam's Razor to make a supernatural explanation the default assumption.

 

Meditation is a fundamentally different thing from having perceptions of divine beings, which is what this is all about. Seeing the storm of Yahweh's physical presence over a mountain (Moses) is in a completely different category from going into a meditative trance, which is generally about two steps away from going to sleep.

 

Actually, the fundamental difference is exactly the point. Similar feelings/brain patterns to those that are part of some religious experiences can be produced by what even you concede as being a non-religious source. If that is true, we absolutely can not assume that all religious experiences come from a divine source.

[DreamOfTheRood]

The article actually concedes this point. The purpose of that expiriment was not to duplicate precise natual events, but to give an approximation of the altered brain patterns. The key point is not the specific details of the results, but that "religious experiences" can be created by completely non-divine methods. As shown by the expiriment, god does not have a monopoly on religious experience. This automatically puts doubt on all "religious experiences", since it can not be assumed that they were of divine origin.

The whole point of any scientific experiment is to produce experiments that apply to the real world. This experiment does not do that, and that is my largest complaint against it.

The experiment was designed to emulate in people without TLE the type of brain-wave patterns that epileptic patients have when they go through a period of 'religious euphoria.' The point of that is to cast doubt on the validity of personal religious experiences that happen to your average Joe. However, they failed to do that, because they created an experiment that cannot apply to real-world situations. It's bad science.

It's common knowledge that so-called 'religious experiences' are sometimes caused by electro-chemical malfunctions in the brain. Schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and hallucinogens have all been known to cause feelings of deep spirituality and euphoria. Along with that, the Catholic church has been investigating these types of things for over a thousand years. They never just accept that someone had a religious experience; they investigate it.

So, the whole idea that this experiment is suddenly going to cause everyone to step back and say, "Woah, maybe all this divine stuff should be questioned," just doesn't hold any water for me. People have always questioned these kind of things. The experiment was made as a way to disprove personal 'religious experiences,' and it fails.

[Hir_Nesta]

This program basically says that religious experiences are caused by the effect of magnetic fields (which can be caused by anything from overhead powerlines to a clockradio) on the temporal lobes in the brain and this creates 'religious sensation' as most people describe it.

Dunno if this already has been mentioned but:

 

Moses did not have any clockradio ^_^

[Dinin]

If you'd bother to read the article and my posts, you would understand. I suggest you do so, since you clearly haven't read anything beyond the title of the thread.

 

I like how you clearly know what i have read and haven't. The topic was about people having a magnetic experience where the result was they had hallucinations and they thought it was a spiritual experience.

 

I in no way implied that Christianity was the first religion. I was simply asking that if you followed what the topic meant, then that meant Christianity came about because a person had a "spiritual experience" and invented the Bible, jesus, the whole theory of God all because of a hallucination. I was simply confused because people are so easily accepting this idea, i'm just not used to the concept, settle down.

 

How come people had these experiences way back when and took action upon it, whereas nowadays you hear near to nothing about magnetic waves that cause hallucinations. Unless of course you're talking about the odd folks that claim they were abducted by aliens and probed, perhaps that was a sideffect of a magnetic wave <_< .

 

I mean, the fact that someone thought up of a religion, (i'm making sure i'm not saying christianity here...) and wrote an entire basis and rules pertaining to that religion, is just, well, too uncanny. How can something so small as a magnetic wave, produce something so huge as Religion.

[Darnoc]

When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

 

--- Sherlock Holmes

 

 

I suggest using this method to find a result for this debate.

 

 

 

Now, first we have to define the situation.

 

A study tells that even an average person may have a religious experience when coming in contact with a magnetic field.

 

The study also suggest that religious leaders known for having visions and similar experiences (e.g. Mohammed, Moses) may have been TLE and therefore hypersensitive too those magnetic fields which can cause such experiences.

 

 

 

What are the facts of the study?

 

The study has proven that magnetic fields can cause an experience similar or equal to a normal religious experience like a vision or religious sensation.

 

 

 

What are suggestions of the study?

 

That also in a normal case of a religious experience, a magnetic field is the cause.

 

That religious leader known for having such experiences are or were hypersensitive to such magnetic fields.

 

 

 

Conclusion of the study:

 

The study has proven that magnetic fields can cause what is normally refered to as a religious experience. The study therefore suggest that all religious experiences are caused by magnetic fields and that persons known for having a lot of such experiences are just hypersensitive to such fields.

 

 

 

 

There is a question remaining. The fact that a magnetic field can or does cause religious experiences doesn't mean that a magnetic field is a always the cause when a religious experience occurs. In order to prove that this theory acctually is correct, you had to prove that a magnetic field able to cause such a religious experience was present in every major religious experience in history (I am talking now about religious leaders known of having such experiences).

 

Since this is impossible (because we lack the ability to go back in time), this may be a fine working theory, but it doesn't represent reality.

 

Therefore we have the duty to look critically at this study and try to find proof in reality that this theory is correct or not correct. We also have the duty to look for alternatives which might also be true and then compare those alternatives with the present theory.

 

 

Present conclusion: This theory works fine at the moment, because it acctually does explain some things. But since it lacks proof besides the experimental, it remains only a working theory which must still be proven with more facts and also must undergo a harsh critisism. It is also the duty of science to study this matter further and try to find new evidence and new alternatives.

 

Since I am not a neurologist, I am of course not able to do such a kind of research. But I am, as always, very critical of every new theory. I am also very critical of most scientists, since they mostly lack the necessary self-critism which is needed to truly research something. Must scientists just jump to conclusions too easily and then they stand firmly by their theory without critising it themselves.

 

It is also clear that the evidence is too small at the moment to really strike out the impossible. There are too much possibilities at the moment.

 

Even when god cannot be proven to exist (and vice-versa) he remains an unproven possibility. Final truth can only be found when all the possibilities have been excluded and only one remains.

[ImmortalSnafu]

The whole point of any scientific experiment is to produce experiments that apply to the real world. This experiment does not do that, and that is my largest complaint against it.

If I'm not mistaken, the point was that religious experiences can occur without any divine power. Surely a divine being would have chose a method of inspiring its believers that is impossible to copy?

[dunmer_jediknight]

Being a pagan and also being very scientific in thinking I found both the artical to be very amusing and the posts to be very interesting. as to the artical in question I can't put much weight in it ( was going to put faith but that would have just been wrong ^_^ ) mainly because it was more of a experiment to prove that many of the religious leaders are not what they appear to be. I myself believe in what many pagans call the great unconsiousness were all living beings are linked in some way or another.If alot of people start to believe in one thing and really work at that belief then they, throu this link that we all share, can cause real world effects throu it. So with that in mind I have to say that the religious leaders of the past, present, and future are really what they say because people put their faith and belief ( two very different things) into them and in so giving them the power that they claim to have.

[tyjet3]

I have come up with a way to find out many things at once... It will require one thing that many people will not like... cloning.

 

Ok, here's what you do. Clone one person. Take the original and the clone to two seperate homes/lifestyles. Put one in a family that is very religious and put the other in an atheist envirnment. By doing this you prove two things:

 

-Is religion created from experiences in childhood?

&

-Do experiences determine a person's personality?

 

This may be extreme but is foul proof. You finish this experiment and you have proven several theories of phycology and theology wrong or correct.