God on the Brain

[Tuk]

God on the Brain
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2865009.stm
By Liz Tucker
BBC Horizon


Why do people experience religious visions? BBC Two's Horizon suggests that in some cases the cause may be a strange brain disorder.


Controversial new research suggests that whether we believe in a God may not just be a matter of free will. Scientists now believe there may be physical differences in the brains of ardent believers.

Inspiration for this work has come from a group of patients who have a brain disorder called temporal lobe epilepsy. In a minority of patients, this condition induces bizarre religious hallucinations - something that patient Rudi Affolter has experienced vividly.

SNIP

So he set up an experiment to compare the brains of people with and without temporal lobe epilepsy. He decided to measure his patients' changes in skin resistance, essentially measuring how much they sweated when they looked at different types of imagery.

What Professor Ramachandran discovered to his surprise was that when the temporal lobe patients were shown any type of religious imagery, their bodies produced a dramatic change in their skin resistance.

The activity of specific neural circuits makes these patients more prone to religious belief

Prof VS Ramachandran, University of California
"We found to our amazement that every time they looked at religious words like God, they'd get a huge galvanic skin response."

This was the very first piece of clinical evidence revealing that the body's response to religious symbols was definitely linked to the temporal lobes of the brain.

"What we suggested was that there are certain circuits within the temporal lobes which have been selectively activated in these patients and somehow the activity of these specific neural circuits makes them more prone to religious belief."

snip

scientists now believe the condition provides a powerful insight into revealing how religious experience may impact on the brain.

They believe what happens inside the minds of temporal lobe epileptic patients may just be an extreme case of what goes on inside all of our minds.

For everyone, whether they have the condition or not, it now appears the temporal lobes are key in experiencing religious and spiritual belief.

this was a highly opinionated article that I found to be terribly fascinating. Comments?

[HemofHisGarment]

Yeah, I read about the God lobe, too. I was thinking that we're designed as humans to physically experience spirituality.

[Tuk]

Yesterday @ 04:49 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=46667#post46667)
HemofHisGarment:

Yeah, I read about the God lobe, too. I was thinking that we're designed as humans to physically experience spirituality.

We'll think about this. Spirituality becomes REAL! Somewhere along the line humans evolved to precieve the mystical. If this find is conclusive, for those who do not have religious experiences you should start using ALL of your brains.

[Woman]

Someone who has meditated or practiced comtemplative prayer for many years sometimes develop this. In fact, you can run an EEG on someone who has trained himself to enter a spiritual state and find very "abnormal" brain waves.

I find this fascinating.

I think we're hard-wired to find God.

This may be a challenge for real hard core atheist scientists, but it's possible that in the not too distant future there will be empirical evidence for what is commonly called "a mystrical experience." (not to be confused with common relaxed states that popular "meditators" experience)

[gladiatrix]

Yesterday @ 04:49 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=46667#post46667)
HemofHisGarment:

Yeah, I read about the God lobe, too. I was thinking that we're designed as humans to physically experience spirituality.

Good Evening, All! This is my first post. and to the above assertion I say :rofl: !
This one is one of the toughest to argue because the science investigating paranomal and religious experiences is relatively new. A caveat here is that the neurobiology and neurochemistry associated with "spiritual" experiences is a relatively new endeavor and this is by no means the last word. There is even a new word for this study, neurotheology. This one really has theists running scared though. What if scientists prove that God is just a "hiccup" of brain chemistry and/or an artifact of the "wiring"?
Here is some info that might help.................

Religious "experience" is just at trick of brain chemistry and that chemistry is rapidly becoming elucidated. To quote Tom Flynn "When Explaining is Explaining Away", Free Inquiry magazine, Volume 21, Number 4
An excerpt: (http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/flynn_21_4.htm)
Religious experience” or “mystical experience” is an altered state of consciousness in which one’s perceived relationship to the world shifts profoundly. One may feel oceanic oneness with the universe, or an eerie sense of encountering some exalted Other. Like out-of-body experiences and near-death experiences, mystical experience is valid in the very limited sense that some people genuinely have the experience. But it’s subjective—a trick the brain plays on us, not an experience of anything real in the world.

New technologies that image blood flow and electrical activity in the conscious brain show how the trick is played. Recent studies reveal the mechanics of religious experience so fully that little room for mystery remains. University of Pennsylvania neurologist Andrew B. Newberg imaged the brains of meditating Tibetan Buddhist adepts. He found more activity in the frontal lobe, associated with concentration, and less in the parietal lobe that is thought to generate our sense of the body’s orientation in space. Result: an intensely “real” sensation of passing outside the physical world—and a powerful, purely physical explanation for the sensation of oneness with the cosmos. What about encounter experiences? Michael Persinger, a Laurentian University neuroscientist, fits volunteers with a helmet that swirls weak electromagnetic fields into their temporal lobes.About 80 percent clearly experience a luminous Other; most interpret it in religious terms. Persinger draws the conclusion any atheist would: “Religion is a property of the brain, only the brain, and has little to do with what’s out there.”

He goes on to analyse dissenting opinions, namely that of Newberg (a theist who thinks this is "proof" that God exists, even though he tries to pussyfoot around the issue, the hypocrite!) , so I encourage you to read it all, didn't want to post it all here. Newberg was featured in Newsweek...

Newsweek: Religion and The Brain (http://www.aetheronline.com/mario/Heretic/religion.htm)

This is Your Brain on God (http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/7.11/persinger.html)

Out-of-Body Experiences (OBEs) (http://skepdic.com/obe.html)

OBE Clues May Hide in the Mind (http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/09/19/coolsc.outofbody/index.html) (Misfiring brain behind bizarre sensation)

Pareidolia (http://skepdic.com/pareidol.html)(Or When People See the Virgin Mary in Taco Shell Burns)


Paranormal beliefs linked to brain chemistry
Excerpt: (http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99992589)
]Whether or not you believe in the paranormal may depend entirely on your brain chemistry. People with high levels of dopamine are more likely to find significance in coincidences, and pick out meaning and patterns where there are none.

And this one God on the Brain--Tale of a Strange Disorder (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2865009.stm) (already posted in the OP)

REVIEW OF THE DATA
1) Note that "God" was perceived AFTER electrical/magnetic stimulation of the brain.

2) One can also induce religious states (after the fact) with “entheogenic” drugs or substances which create a sense of spiritual or ecstatic experience; “they are drugs that essentially ‘create god.’ Examples would be certain hallucinogenic substances, amanita muscaria (sacred mushrooms), mescaline, LSD, peyote and other substances. NOTE: Similarly, there are “drugs which can take god away” -- anti-psychotic drugs, for instance, will often alleviate symptoms in certain patients who insist that they “hear god” or sense other supernatural beings.

3) Another way to induce "God perceptions" is by hypnosis.

4) Temporal lobe lesions can produce a form of epilespy, known to scientists for over a century, in which people suffer from extremely religious, often violent behavior. Tumors in this area also produce religious delusions that mimic paranoid schizophrenia. This is why people exhibiting delusional behavior, religious or otherwise, are CAT or MRI scanned for such lesions before putting them on any kind of anti-psychotic drug (would not really treat the "cause" in the case of a brain lesion anyway).

Let's apply the principle of Occam's (Ockham's) Razor (http://www.weburbia.com/physics/occam.html) (the simplest explanation that fits the facts is probably the correct one) to the data.

The least elaborate explanation is that God is a creation of the human brain rather that the other way around. If you can explain religious experience purely as a brain phenomenon, you don't need the assumption of the existence of God AND that what has been uncovered are really our "spiritual antennas" for perceiving God and a "spiritual other-reality (not just elaborate, but assumes facts not in evidence, i.e. God, a spiritual reality apart from the one we inhabit).


Consider that theists claim that it is God who induces the religious experience. Look at it from the frame of reference, the inducer.... If it is really "God" that does the inducing THEN:
Does that make the magnetic field (inducer) "God"?,
Is the drug (inducer)a "God"?
Is the hypnotist (inducer) a "God"?
Is the temporal lobe lesion (inducer) a "God"?
If this is really God's way of "communicating" (via the religious experience--->inducers here are meditation, prayer, ritual, etc) then how can these trivial physical inducer produce an "experience" indistinguishable from the "real thing"? How can one now be sure that what one experiences in "chapel" so to speak is really "God"?

It could simply be that we are mistaken in our interpretation of the experience and it there is really no God (spirit, fairy, whatever spiritual entity one assumes that one has communion with). Think about it.....


THE NEAR DEATH EXPERIENCE(NDE)==>Proof of Life After Death?

Consider another phenomenon, dear to the hearts of theists, the near death experience (NDE). An NDE can be duplicated with the drug ketamine. Ketamine, a chemical relative of the infamous PCP(angel-dust), was developed as a human anesthetic Unfortunately some people awoke from anesthesia terrified by the "NDE" they had just experienced as the result of the anesthesia (they thought that they had "died" and been "revived" ) . This drug is no longer used alone (other drugs can eliminate the "NDE" experience) or simply not used at all (now used primarily on children).

Another way to duplicate an NDE is by subjecting people to multiple G-forces (gravity) by placing them in a centrifugal field. The multi-G environment deprives the brain of oxygen and voila! brings on the NDE! Potential astronauts often wash out of astronaut training programs because some of them can't maintain their composure after such an experience (they just lose it!) even though they are forewarned that such an episode is possible.

Model for NDE (http://www.jochenbarth.de/nde.htm)

Using Ketamine to Induce an NDE (http://www.mindspring.com/~scottr/nde/_ketamine.html)

Theories of the NDE (http://www.near-death.com/experiences/experts1.html) (presented from a theist POV, but covers the scientific theories simply)

Needless to say, all the stuff about NDEs is controversial and most will swear up on side and down the other that this is a vision of life after death, but is it?

Seeking for God in the Machine (http://www.factsource.com/cut/tle.html)

http://users.adelphia.net/~ybechor/sig_occam.gif:rofl:

[HemofHisGarment]

ANCIENT PHENOMENON Man's relationship to the world shifts profoundly as he experiences something out of this world...MODERN SCIENCE proves that the human brain is wired to perceive the spiritual realm, some call it the "Spiritual Antenna"

We all create our own reality...this doen't prove or disprove anything; in fact, one would have to choose to experience the spiritual realm unless drugs or psychosis left him without control over his/her choice. Just because there isn't proof doesn't prove that we don't inhabit a spiritual universe.

For those who are interested in NDE that cannot be duplicated, read Return From Tomorrow and/or Embraced By The Light.

[Woman]

Gladiatrix,

Good reply, lots of references too. I was actually talking about something much more profound than oxygen deprived NDE's.

I dismiss 99% of pop "ologies." And this one too because of the way it will play out - trying to say that either all mystical experiences are brain farts or you too can find God in 10 easy lessons.

The Truth is much deeper, requires much more work and is experiences by few.

Read Ken Wilber and get back to me. Not all of him. That took me years. He's not light reading.

[Socrates]

AiG has an article on Near Death Experiences www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4327.asp. It is quite skeptical, and also points out that they are irrelvant to Christianity. So all of the stuff Gladiatrix mentioned, even if her citations were accurate, aren't the slightest threat to the historical evidence for the Resurrection of Christ.

[gladiatrix]

Today @ 04:32 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=47806#post47806)
Socrates:

AiG has an article on Near Death Experiences www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4327.asp. It is quite skeptical, and also points out that they are irrelvant to Christianity. So all of the stuff Gladiatrix mentioned, even if her citations were accurate,

You haven't shown that my citations are flawed. And I find your posturing about my citations hilarious in light of the fact that you site AIG which is NOTHING but religion and NOT science.

"Creation science" is really the quintessential oxymoron. Creationists are doing a brand of fundamentalist Christianity that they are desperately trying to disguise as science so that they can use the schools as yet another forum to indoctrinate people with their particular flavor of Christianity.

With creationism (I refuse to dignify that term with the word science) it certainly is a matter of faith considering that creationists organizations like Answers in Geneisis and the Creation Research Society swear an oath to accept the literal interpretation of Genesis as true and reject any evidence that falsifies it. This is NOT science, in fact it is the OPPOSITE.

In science one forms a hypothesis that is testable, i. e., one can show where it might be flawed or that the evidence can contradict it. One does not look for evidence that "proves" a hypothesis to be correct, one just hopes that the evidence does not disprove it. In other words, a hypothesis should be "falsifiable". What falsifiability means:

The rule of falsifiability is a guarantee that if the claim is false, the evidence will prove it false; and if the claim is true, the evidence will not disprove it (in which case the claim can be tentatively accepted as true until such time as evidence is brought forth that does disprove it). The rule of falsifiability, in short, says that the evidence must matter, and as such it is the first and most important and most fundamental rule of evidential reasoning. (From James Lett's article below)

One very good reason for this approach is that it cuts down on dishonesty on the reseacher's part (the temptation to acknowledge only that data which verifies a hypothesis). That is why outfits like Answers in Genesis and the Creation Research Society are not doing science. They have already make up their minds that Genesis is the "truth" and swear that they will ignore any and all findings that contradict Genesis (their interpretation of it, anyway). Creation Research Society Creed (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/crs-creed.html) AIG Statement of Faith (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/about/faith.asp)Furthermore, there is no way to "falsify" the contention by creationist or IDists that "God did it". Which God? Christian God, Jehovah, Allah, Vishnu, Cronos, Odin, who?(I have yet to see an American IDist/creationist that didn't assume that it was the Christian God who did the "poofing/designing.")

To prove the existence of an Intelligent Designer/Creator one must assume one exists without ever giving any definition or evidence for such a Being. This is one whale of an assumption. It is a perfect example of a type one undeclared claim that is not verifiable by empirical methods, a MUST for conducting science. Science only evaluates empirical evidence and any claim that ventures beyond that boundary means that one is no longer doing science.

What is meant by the principle of falsifiability is explained under that topic in:
A Field Guide to Critical Thinking (http://www.csicop.org/si/9012/critical-thinking.html), by James Lett

The scientific method and empirical evidence are defined HERE (http://www.carleton.ca/~tpatters/teaching/climatechange/sciencemethod.html)

So anyone who uses AIG as their "science" reference really doesn't have any credibility when it comes to criticizes the validity of other references.

aren't the slightest threat to the historical evidence for the Resurrection of Christ.


Coming back from the dead is an extraordinary claim.

I await your extraordinary evidence supporting this extraordinary claim. As Carl Sagan said---"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs".

It would also be interesting to see your evidence supporting the historicality of the resurrection. In other words, do you have any extra-Biblical support for this claim. You can't use the Bible to verify itself.

Since you claim these are true, the burden of proof is yours.

[gladiatrix]

Today @ 04:09 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=47501#post47501)
Woman:

Gladiatrix,

Good reply, lots of references too. I was actually talking about something much more profound than oxygen deprived NDE's.

I dismiss 99% of pop "ologies." And this one too because of the way it will play out - trying to say that either all mystical experiences are brain farts or you too can find God in 10 easy lessons.

The Truth is much deeper, requires much more work and is experiences by few.

Read Ken Wilber and get back to me. Not all of him. That took me years. He's not light reading.
You seem to have overlooked the vast majority of what I wrote which had to do with more to do with the new findings in neurobiology (which you ignore and imply that the thrust of my post was the NDE, oh contraire!).

You claim that God is hard-wired into the brain. The least elaborate explanation is that God is a creation of the human brain rather that the other way around. If you can explain religious experience purely as a brain phenomenon, you don't need the assumption of the existence of God AND that what has been uncovered are really our "spiritual antennas" for perceiving God and a "spiritual other-reality (not just elaborate, but assumes facts not in evidence, i.e. God, a spiritual reality apart from the one we inhabit).

BTW, then one runs into the additional thorny question of which god(s? why assume a Committee). Since no one has any verifiable evidence on the exact nature of God(s?)[ most probably because god(s?) isn't /aren't there to leave any evidence', on what basis are you going to determine which "faith" claim is the right one (if any are?).

Your assumption that "God (which one)-did-it" has a whole lot of what I call "assumption fallout" (a virtual infinte regress of further assumptions, used to try and explain the first one). Some of the assumptions are: There is a reality outside this one That our brain physiology was created to perceive this "realm along with its god(s?) That there is/are god(s?) Assumptions about the characteristics of god(s?), i.e., immaterial, "transcendental", omnipotent, omniscient, etc (how would you know this let alone be able to verify it?) There are a number of descriptions of god(s?), so the question is which god(s?) This is the short list of assumptions made by theists. This gets even more elaborate when launching into fantasies about the nature of the alleged inhabitants of the supernatural realm and all the preposterous speculation on God(s?) purpose for creating it all or more "assumption fallout"
I'll stick with the simplest explanation that fits the facts and makes no assumptions, namely that God is the creation of humans to explain these phenomena, in other words==>God(s? why not creation by Committee) is an artifact of the wiring.

And thank you for the author!

[Woman]

Yo Glad,

Yer preachin' to the wrong side! I'm not religious. I just don't happen to be an atheist.

[Socrates]

Gladiatrix spouts aan emotional tirade without the slightest regard for facts or the logical relationship between them.

She also commits the genetic fallacy, i.e. trying to discredit something by tracing it to its source. By her "reasoning", benzene can't really have a hexagonal structure because Kekulé thought of it after waking up from a dream where a snake bit its tail and formed a ring.

So even if she were right that some people base their belief in God on some brain activity, it would not disprove the belief. Similarly, she can't disprove a creationist's scientific argument by showing that it's motivated by belief in the Bible. Imagine her squeals if we tried to disprove her pro-evolutionary and her pseudo-psychology by pointing out her rabid God-hatred that motivates her! I've documented the atheistic BIAS that overrules the evidence at www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=48377#post48377

And it would be too much to expect that she would try to take on the massive amount of historical evidence for Jesus' resurrection, e.g. The Bodily Resurrection of Jesus by William Lane Craig (www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/bodily.html). Craig presents EVIDENCE FOR the Resurrection, while Gladiatrix just has a DOGMA AGAINST it! And she has to propose even more ludicrous evidence-free scenarios to explain away the hard evidence.

[gladiatrix]

03-30-2003 @ 08:32 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
Socrates:

Gladiatrix spouts aan emotional tirade without the slightest regard for facts or the logical relationship between them.

She also commits the genetic fallacy, i.e. trying to discredit something by tracing it to its source.

1. Note that Soc just claims this is so WITHOUT showing that I in fact committed such a fallacy.

2. Also note that Soc doesn't explain what a genetic fallacy is or how it applies to my detailing just why AIG and CRS weren't doing science. Here (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/genetic-fallacy.html) is the explanation of a GF:
A Genetic Fallacy is a line of "reasoning" in which a perceived defect in the origin of a claim or thing is taken to be evidence that discredits the claim or thing itself. It is also a line of reasoning in which the origin of a claim or thing is taken to be evidence for the claim or thing. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

1. The origin of a claim or thing is presented.
2. The claim is true(or false) or the thing is supported (or discredited).

It is clear that sort of "reasoning" is fallacious. For example: "Bill claims that 1+1=2. However, my parents brought me up to believe that 1+1=254, so Bill must be wrong."

It should be noted that there are some cases in which the origin of a claim is relevant to the truth or falsity of the claim. For example, a claim that comes from a reliable expert is likely to be true (provided it is in her area of expertise).

In my case, I was demonstrating why the pundits at AIG and CRS weren't doing science: The most telling argument against them is that they take an oath, swearing that the literal interpretation of Genesis is the "Truth™" and further swear to ignore any and all evidence that contradicts their interpretation of science. Too bad that assuming something is true before accumulating evidence that confirms that it REALLY is true (in the cas or true science the evidence should not DISPROVE a hypothesis, one NEVER sets out to prove a hypothesis is true). Science only considers empirical evidence (God-did-it! is NOT empirical evidence. For an explanation of the rules for evaluating science and the rules governng critical thinking, I offer into evidence the following websites explaining what these are plus the AIG and CRS statements of "faith":

Rules for Critical Thinking (http://www.csicop.org/si/9012/critical-thinking.html)

Scientific Thinking and the Scientific Method (http://www.carleton.ca/~tpatters/teaching/climatechange/sciencemethod.html)

FAQs About Evolution and the Nature of Science (http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/evolution98/evol5.html)

~~~~~VERSUS~~~~~

Creation Research Society Creed (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/crs-creed.html)

AIG Statement of Faith (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/about/faith.asp)

3. Now note the part of the definition iof a genetic fallacy in bold that explains when and why the source of the information may indeed be used as a disqualification. In this case AIG and CRS are overtly religious sites using as the basis for their "science", a Bronze Age religious text. This disqualifies them as scientists and exposes them as the deceitful religionists that they in fact are!. You've just been "hoisted on your own petard" (the correct application of the fallacy you sited against my argument actually DOES disqualify yours!):rofl: :rofl:

My case is proven. And one is justified in veiwing anything that proports to be science from an AIG or CRS (or any creationist/IDist site for that matter) with extreme skepticism.

So even if she were right that some people base their belief in God on some brain activity, it would not disprove the belief.
I am not trying to disprove belief, which always "rests" on the "sand" foundation of "no proof" to start with. No amount of evidence can disprove faith (belief without proof)

Similarly, she can't disprove a creationist's scientific argument by showing that it's motivated by belief in the Bible.
I just did that. Your religious explanations garnered from the Bible have no confirming evidences and are false.

Imagine her squeals if we tried to disprove her pro-evolutionary and her pseudo-psychology by pointing out her rabid God-hatred that motivates her! I've documented the atheistic BIAS that overrules the evidence at www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=48377#post48377
As others have pointed out, science is not in the "God-business", nor is evolution. They have nothing to say pro or con. The claim that evolution is atheistics is not valid for this reason and more especially so, considering the multitude of theists who also are evolutionists.

And it would be too much to expect that she would try to take on the massive amount of historical evidence for Jesus' resurrection, e.g. The Bodily Resurrection of Jesus by William Lane Craig (www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/bodily.html). Craig presents EVIDENCE FOR the Resurrection, while Gladiatrix just has a DOGMA AGAINST it! And she has to propose even more ludicrous evidence-free scenarios to explain away the hard evidence.

I don't think that you have actually read this article because it is a discussion by Craig arguing against the doctrine known as Docetism, explained HERE (Catholic view) (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05070c.htm) and HERE (http://www2.evansville.edu/ecoleweb/articles/docetism.html).

Docetism denies the full humanity of Christ, claiming that Christ's divinity was irreconcilable with his actually having been physically born. The word ‘Docetism’ is a derivative of the Greek word “dokeo” which means “to appear or seem”. Proponents claim that Christ only appeared or seemed to be human and that his ressurection was spiritual as opposed to actual physical ressurection (a bit over-simplified, but you get the idea).

The writings of Paul serve as a foundation for this doctrine. Craig claims that docetists are really misinterpreting Paul and that the Gospels , which CLAIM that Jesus, in His human incarnation, actually died and that this physical incarnation actually rose from the dead are the correct view. Most Christians, needless to say, regard docetism as a heresy (stamped out in large part by the Catholic church).


The whole point of the article was to demonstrate that the docetic POV was not scripturally sound. At NO time does Craig give ANY extra-biblical support for the CLAIMS of physical resurrection touted in the Bible. For this reason the assertions of resurrection REMAIN as nothing but totally unsupported extraordinary claims.

Where's the "beef" (evidence confirming the claims made in the Bible), Soc?.

[Jimmy Higgins]

03-29-2003 @ 11:32 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
Socrates:

AiG has an article on Near Death Experiences www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4327.asp. It is quite skeptical, and also points out that they are irrelvant to Christianity. So all of the stuff Gladiatrix mentioned, even if her citations were accurate, aren't the slightest threat to the historical evidence for the Resurrection of Christ. Man, I'm amazed at how well you know AIG's site, as much as it really is so far outside reality, that it hurts my brain.

If I didn't know better, you were looking at it everyday and studying it. You certainly take it so seriously. I've got to atleast respect that.

[Snarf]

Hello all,
I was looking through some of the ancient manuscripts of TWeb, and this one had an interesting OP; maybe it could be resurrected (pun intended) with a new cast? Bonus, for those of you who remember, there's even a couple of Socrates postings.

[bandecoot]

Hello all,
I was looking through some of the ancient manuscripts of TWeb, and this one had an interesting OP; maybe it could be resurrected (pun intended) with a new cast? Bonus, for those of you who remember, there's even a couple of Socrates postings.


Ah, so its YOU who has been digging up these long dead threads, and setting the zombies staggering down the corridors.

Mind you It was nice to see soc get a spanking, I had never seen that poster Gladiatrix since I joined, what a pity I missed her.

But Honestly, Gladiatrix did a pretty Thorough job of coveing the topic. I could not think of a thing to add to all that.

[geochron]

Ah, so its YOU who has been digging up these long dead threads, and setting the zombies staggering down the corridors.

Mind you It was nice to see soc get a spanking, I had never seen that poster Gladiatrix since I joined, what a pity I missed her.

But Honestly, Gladiatrix did a pretty Thorough job of coveing the topic. I could not think of a thing to add to all that.


1) Note that "God" was perceived AFTER electrical/magnetic stimulation of the brain.

2) One can also induce religious states (after the fact) with “entheogenic” drugs or substances which create a sense of spiritual or ecstatic experience; “they are drugs that essentially ‘create god.’ Examples would be certain hallucinogenic substances, amanita muscaria (sacred mushrooms), mescaline, LSD, peyote and other substances. NOTE: Similarly, there are “drugs which can take god away” -- anti-psychotic drugs, for instance, will often alleviate symptoms in certain patients who insist that they “hear god” or sense other supernatural beings.

3) Another way to induce "God perceptions" is by hypnosis.

4) Temporal lobe lesions can produce a form of epilespy, known to scientists for over a century, in which people suffer from extremely religious, often violent behavior. Tumors in this area also produce religious delusions that mimic paranoid schizophrenia. This is why people exhibiting delusional behavior, religious or otherwise, are CAT or MRI scanned for such lesions before putting them on any kind of anti-psychotic drug (would not really treat the "cause" in the case of a brain lesion anyway).



I don't think any of this is very conclusive. Of course experiences can be induced "artificially" by fiddling with the brain somehow. The observation that religious experiences can be induced in itself no more invalidates religious experiences than the observation that visual effects can be induced invalidates visual experiences.

[Jorge]

Science only considers empirical evidence (God-did-it! is NOT empirical evidence).
Gladiatrix's entire post is chock-full-of-nuts (like the coffee except that, in this case, it's 'nuts' like those found in the psycho-ward).

Not wishing to spend much time on that much nonsense, I decided to select just one - the one above.
I've heard this 'God-did-it' stupidity so many times that my ears hurt. Here we are told that "Science only considers empirical evidence (God-did-it! is NOT empirical evidence.)"

Okay, so what about the 'Nature-did-it' that Naturalists constantly employ (mostly without realizing what they're doing)? Examples are countless : ask any materialistic Naturalist/Atheist to describe in detail the process by which lifeless matter became alive and the answer, essentially, is : "Well, we don't know that yet ... give science time to find out and we'll then be able to answer ... but we do know that somehow it happened ... Nature must have somehow done it since, after all, here we are."

That's an example of their 'Nature-did-it'. These same people go ballistic when they ask a Christian "How did God create something from nothing?" and we respond "We don't know how God did this." Immediately they'll bleat out "Aha, there's the 'God-did-it!' - that's NOT empirical evidence." Yet they shamelessly employ their own version (with their 'god' - Nature) without batting an eye.

At that point I'm reduced to frantically reach for the medicine cabinet and a big bottle of aspirin. :smile:

Jorge

[oxmixmudd]

Ah, so its YOU who has been digging up these long dead threads, and setting the zombies staggering down the corridors.

Mind you It was nice to see soc get a spanking, I had never seen that poster Gladiatrix since I joined, what a pity I missed her.

But Honestly, Gladiatrix did a pretty Thorough job of coveing the topic. I could not think of a thing to add to all that.

I'll play:

I just skimmed over the Soc/Glad dialogue, but the opening volley brought this to mind:

I've often thought that since we are physical beings with a spirit and connection to the spiritual, there may very well be a physical system or set of systems that serve as a spiritual/physical interface. Such an interface would appear to us as having only physical components - as the spiritual remains unobservable. IOW, I doubt the spiritual element of the interface could be observed or proved, but something would have to be there to let us experience the spiritual as physical beings.

That said, it again boils down the the same old same old:

a) For those with faith, if a portion of the brain is found that 'experiences' the spiritual, it will not prove the spiritual is not an underlying element of what it happening. Further, it will serve as a real physcial evidence of the spirtitual reality.

b) For those w/o faith, this will be yet another proof that spirtuality is only a fabrication of the mind.

Again, 'without faith, it is impossible to find Him (God)"

Faith is a requirement to know and experience God. This 'evidence' does nothing but reinforce what one already believes.


Jim