Physical differences in the brain's of believers?

[TenDimensions]

While I am in no way suggesting this is the "be all and end all" explanation for supernatural belief I do strongly think that further research into this is definitely important.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2865009.stm

It also kind of ties into a free will debate I'm having with TheFiveSolas over here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=45942#post45942)

I'm interested in hearing opinions from believers about this article. Is it offensive to think that the brain's wiring makes it more plausible that you might strongly believe in the existence of God? Beyond the ramifications this information may have on free will, it has been demonstrated that wiring in the brain affects how a person behaves - is it so strange to think that supernatural belief could stem from wiring in the brain as well?

I imagine it is important to make this note - there are obviously varying degrees of religious devotion ranging from "Yeah, I think there is probably a God" to "Not only is God's existence is as plain as the nose on your face, but he regularly engages me in conversation". Presumably, the temporal lobe plays a role in this degree of devotion and that's what the research is pointing out.

What I would find fascinating is a difference in the temporal lobes between moderate believers and atheists. Heck, if the scientific evidence points to it, I'd be willing to accept that atheists have some kind of wiring in the brain that prevents them from believing.

[Butters]

I believe that atheists DO have a difference in their hard wiring. It is all connected, so when a thought leads to a logical conclusion, some people must accept it, wether they like it or not. However, a great many people have loose wiring, which allows them to believe contradicting things at the same time. I.E. Although there is a massive amount of evidence foer an old earth, they can ignore this and call it "inconclusive" when at the same time believing the Bible is a true accurate discription of creation, with NO EVIDENCE at all! I'm sure it is a difference in brain structure, or chemical levels, or a combination.
I also think that eviroment may have a lot to do with it. How many stories of people being "saved" start out with, "I was at my bottom" "I was so lost and confused" etc. etc. It could be that these people have embraced religion instead of medication, or counsoling. The more devout they are, the crazier they seem, just look at this board for examples.

[Socratism]

Today @ 02:36 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=48618#post48618)
Butters:

I believe that atheists DO have a difference in their hard wiring. It is all connected, so when a thought leads to a logical conclusion, some people must accept it, wether they like it or not. However, a great many people have loose wiring, which allows them to believe contradicting things at the same time. I.E. Although there is a massive amount of evidence foer an old earth, they can ignore this and call it "inconclusive" when at the same time believing the Bible is a true accurate discription of creation, with NO EVIDENCE at all! I'm sure it is a difference in brain structure, or chemical levels, or a combination.
I also think that eviroment may have a lot to do with it. How many stories of people being "saved" start out with, "I was at my bottom" "I was so lost and confused" etc. etc. It could be that these people have embraced religion instead of medication, or counsoling. The more devout they are, the crazier they seem, just look at this board for examples.

This above line of reasoning is very common among people who have a great emotional attachment to their ideas, to the extent that they can not conceive of any alternative to their own that "sane" people might believe.

It may be instructive for some here to read the classic work on this subject, "The True Believer"by Eric Hoffer, which discusses many different "movements" such as communism, religions, etc. Of late the evolution and ecology movements would also appear to fit the pattern described.

[TenDimensions]

Today @ 03:26 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=48649#post48649)
Socratism:
This above line of reasoning is very common among people who have a great emotional attachment to their ideas, to the extent that they can not conceive of any alternative to their own [idea] that "sane" people might believe...Of late the evolution and ecology movements would also appear to fit the pattern described.

I should hope, Socratism, that you are not implying that anyone who is an evolutionist or an environmentalist automatically fits the pattern. By your own words this type of mental state only applies to those who are at the extreme end.

I find it absolutely FASCINATING that you wrote "can not conceive of any alternative to their own [idea]" considering I have been under the distinct impression this is exactly the position you take in many of your posts. Are you hereby admitting that Christianity is not the only possible religion that is valid?

[Butters]

Thanks for the tip Socratism,
I would like to recommend Michel shermers "Why People believe weird things" As well as Dr. Parks "Voodoo Science".
BTW, I don't have any strong emotional attachment to any particular idea, execpt maybe one, go where the evidence leads. I was really intrigued by a freinds comments on creationism, he put forth some arguments I hadn't thought about. So I had to check out both sides, wouldn't bother me a bit if the earth was 6000 years old, but what I found was misinformation and lies.
(My freind is having a fit though, I have certianly shook up his world view.) Thanks again for the tip, I will check it out.

[Tycho]

Today @ 01:26 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=48649#post48649)
Socratism:
This above line of reasoning is very common among people who have a great emotional attachment to their ideas, to the extent that they can not conceive of any alternative to their own that "sane" people might believe.
So, is there a scientific alternative to evolution yet? Surely the Institute for Creation Research is doing some actual research and not just quote-mining, right?

[Blake Reas]

I have heard this tossed around quite often, it is very interesting to me. As I think the FiveSolas will point out if he hasn't already this really does not affect someone in the Reformed Faith at all.

On to my question about this study. How do we know that belief does not cause this to happen in the Temporal Lobe (correct me if I am wrong about the area of the brain)? I think that there needs to be more studies done if my question is valid. Just my 2 cents worth

By His Grace For His Glory
Blake

[Socrates]

Butterball:I believe that atheists DO have a difference in their hard wiring. It is all connected, so when a thought leads to a logical conclusion, some people must accept it, wether they like it or not.Except where the evidence leads away from materialism or towards an Intelligent Designer, as I've doumented at www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=48377#post48377. Because far from accepting this "whether they like it or not", this would mean they would actually be accountable to their Creator, and we can't have that now, can we?! :bonk:

As Aldous Huxley admitted (Ends and Means, pp. 270 ff.):


I had motive for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics, he is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do, or why his friends should not seize political power and govern in the way that they find most advantageous to themselves. … For myself, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation, sexual and political.

[Socrates]

10:
While I am in no way suggesting this is the "be all and end all" explanation for supernatural belief I do strongly think that further research into this is definitely important.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2865009.stm

....

I'm interested in hearing opinions from believers about this article. Is it offensive to think that the brain's wiring makes it more plausible that you might strongly believe in the existence of God? Beyond the ramifications this information may have on free will, it has been demonstrated that wiring in the brain affects how a person behaves - is it so strange to think that supernatural belief could stem from wiring in the brain as well?It's not, because there are believers like me who do NOT claim to have had dramatic religious experiences, but believe that the historical EVIDENCE for Jesus's resurrection is overwhelming, e.g. as Dr Craig shows in The Bodily Resurrection of Jesus (http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/bodily.html). Conversely, people with loose brain wiring like Butterball and Gladiatrix disbelieve because of a DOGMA against it.

[Socrates]

Butters:
I would like to recommend Michel shermers "Why People believe weird things":doh: Shermer :rofl:

See this demolition of this cheapshotmeister at www.tektonics.org/shermer01.html

[Woman]

I thought the article was simplistic. Clearly temporal lobe problems could produce religious delusions, but I'll bet they produce non-material delusions of all kinds.

I find it perfectly normal that someone who is religious would have a galvanic skin response to words or pictures that evoke their spirituality.

I also think the article was facile and condescending when it suggests that childhood head injuries might have the same effect.

Gimme the evidence in 20 years!

[Tycho]

Butters:
I would like to recommend Michel shermers "Why People believe weird things"Socrates:
See this demolition of this cheapshotmeister at www.tektonics.org/shermer01.html
Er, was this supposed to be a demolition of James Patrick Holding or of Shermer? The author appears to be Holding, but I've never seen anyone put up a website deliberately to mock themselves.

[TenDimensions]

Today @ 02:01 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=49133#post49133)
Blake Reas:
On to my question about this study. How do we know that belief does not cause this to happen in the Temporal Lobe (correct me if I am wrong about the area of the brain)? I think that there needs to be more studies done if my question is valid. Just my 2 cents worth

That is an excellent point! :thumb:

That really is at the core of all brain studies that attempt to determine if behavior is caused by the brain or if behavior changes the way the brain is wired. It's the classic chicken or the egg problem.

We are in agreement, though. More study needs to be done not just because of this, but because it's important to understand if brain differences lead to behavioral differences. I suspect, like all things in life, the truth is somewhere in the middle.

[Butters]

Socrates, oh yes what a demolition job! I'm sure Michael Schermer is totally devastated by that withering critique!

[Solly]

Today @ 08:40 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=49210#post49210)
Woman:

I thought the article was simplistic. Clearly temporal lobe problems could produce religious delusions, but I'll bet they produce non-material delusions of all kinds.

I find it perfectly normal that someone who is religious would have a galvanic skin response to words or pictures that evoke their spirituality.

I also think the article was facile and condescending when it suggests that childhood head injuries might have the same effect.

Gimme the evidence in 20 years!

Well said Woman.

Can there be a link between brain structure and conceptual beliefs to the extent that they produce those beliefs? I think they are confusing the issue here. The old philosphers used to think of "categories" by which we pigeonholed sensory data, but not an actual conceptual centre as far as I remember.

The article rests its claims on the "religious" experiences that one would usually call delusional (said delusions obviously having a cultural basis - after all, the man who thought he was in hell was in the Christian hell, not the Islamic or Buddhist one), and the obvious and long held delusion that religion has its foundation in experience.

The idea proposed is simplistic if

There is only brain material, which no Christian would accept.
Religious experience is all the same thing - a by product of mental stimulation unrelated to the way things really are, and happen regardless of religious structure; and that all religions rest on non-propositional experience as a foundation - something Judaism and Christianity do not hold, since they see themselves as objective historical religions
The mechanism is a genetic mutation perhaps, like synesthesia, yet is to be discounted because others don't find it acceptable, or that it does not actually reflect reality. However, what if it is a genuine mutation, and an advance as Homo Sapiens Sapiens continues to evolve - could it be discounted then? What if, though we might have to re-evaluate our ideas of religion, it is the way ahead, and atheists are the new dinosaurs? Uh oh, shades of X-men.

[TenDimensions]

Today @ 08:31 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=49302#post49302)
Solly:

There is only brain material, which no Christian would accept.
Religious experience is all the same thing - a by product of mental stimulation unrelated to the way things really are, and happen regardless of religious structure; and that all religions rest on non-propositional experience as a foundation - something Judaism and Christianity do not hold, since they see themselves as objective historical religions
The mechanism is a genetic mutation perhaps, like synesthesia, yet is to be discounted because others don't find it acceptable, or that it does not actually reflect reality. However, what if it is a genuine mutation, and an advance as Homo Sapiens Sapiens continues to evolve - could it be discounted then? What if, though we might have to re-evaluate our ideas of religion, it is the way ahead, and atheists are the new dinosaurs? Uh oh, shades of X-men.


As for item number 2: But don't deeply religious people claim to have results from prayer? These results can run the gamut of possibilities, but a large set of these results can be complete constructs of the brain. And if there is no God that is exactly what they'd have to be, correct?

And as for that comment about atheists being the new dinosaur... I've been thinking it's the atheists who are advanced having shed the ancient superstitions and embracing the new worldview of humanism. :rofl:

[Solly]

04-01-2003 @ 12:21 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=49757#post49757)
TenDimensions:
And as for that comment about atheists being the new dinosaur... I've been thinking it's the atheists who are advanced having shed the ancient superstitions and embracing the new worldview of humanism. :rofl:

Well, you would say that. But where did the religious impulse come from? The apes don't appear to have it; so it evolved in us, and you athiests are a throwback.

:rofl:

[Warcraft3]

Thought id throw out an interesting book on this topic. The title is "Why God wont go Away" i think the subtitle is "the brain science of belief" but Im not sure. Although this book isnt written from a Christian perspective, it is very interesting and I think makes some good points.:thumb: