Is Religion Only in Your Head?

[cbayer]

http://www.zenit.org/en/articles/is-religion-only-in-your-head

Christianity Requires Belief in the Resurrection Rather Than Neuroscience

Rome, August 26, 2014 (Zenit.org) Father Dwight Longenecker | 567 hits

In the early 1980s I visited the town of Medjugorje where a group of young people reported that they were experiencing visions of the Blessed Virgin Mary. The scientists wired the children up to machines to record their physiological responses during the apparitions. The scientists wanted to study what was going on in their brains as they “saw” the Blessed Virgin.

Religious experiences of the mystical kind occur throughout human experience and in most every kind of religion. But what is happening when visionaries see the Blessed Virgin, Hindu holy men go into a trance or charismatics speak in tongues?

Are they experiencing something real or is it just their imagination?

Neuroscientist Andrew Newberg studies how the brain responds to religion. In this fascinating article his work is explained and explored by an atheist journalist named Julia Llewellyn Smith. She submitted to some experiments with Newberg to see if a religious-type experience could be artificially activated in his brain. It didn’t work.

more at link

[Brettongarcia]

1. Here a Catholic priest insists that Catholic dogma is "objective" truth; more than neuropsychology

The present article is first of all, not by a neuro-scientist.

Who is the author? It is all third- or fourth- or fifth-hand. This article is 1) a mere fragmentary excerpt by religious defender ms. cbayer; 2) of a fuller article by "Father" Dwight Longenecker, a priest in a probably arch-conservative diocese in South Carolina. A priest who is only remotely speculating on 3) a summary of the writings by an atheist, 4) of a neuroscientist. Who is reporting 5) other researchers' results.

So whatever science there might have been there, has all been passed through a series of filtering minds. Including most significantly, as its most severe censor: the mind of a pious Roman Catholic priest. Fr. Longenecker; the credited author.

But then we come to this question: who in turn is cbayer? And what is her point of view? Cbayer appears to be a medical professional (an MD? A RN?). By some accounts is the daughter of a minister; the partner of another major blog contributor. Most importantly in any case, she is one of the biggest contributors to the “Religion” section of the blog Democratic Underground: s of August 2014 she had contributed over 130,000 of her own posts. And she has posted hundreds, possibly thousands of Opinion Posts for comment on that blog. But what is her religious affiliation? Atheists who debate here find cbayer overwhelmingly, a defender of religion, about 95 % of the time. On the other hand, Ms. cbayer recently identifies herself as an “agnostic." http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218149171#post135

Ms cbayer spends much of her time on the blog supporting religion adamantly, against atheist critics. We might remotely say that her outlook seems, like some agnostics, to be torn between two different personalities: one 1) for, and the other 2) against, religion. Between 1) faith, and 2) the science that a medical professional might be expected to support. Yet in the face of strong criticism of traditional religion, she seems compelled to defend religion, far more than criticize it. Or she seems to regard it as very helpful for others. She has stated that she doubts that she will ever entirely abandon the faith of her father.

Overall, ms. cbayer has been characterized as a “religionista.” Though she apparently presents as an objective medical professional, and consultant on psychiatric nursing/"Mental Health Information" Group for DU (http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=128614), she for example resisted at length a sustained argument by atheists and others, that showed that dozens of professional psychology articles, after Freud, called religion a “delusion.”

So what is cbayer in our present example, up to? Today she is quoting an article by a Catholic priest; offering the common religious opinion that religion is not determined by brain structure or neuropathology; but by the revelation to the Roman Catholic Church, of the “objective” truth of god.

But the problem here is that the author here after all – Father Longenecker - is not a psychologist, or a neurologist. But a priest. One who moreover, is offering not science. But only a slight variation on a shopworn and standard priestly apologetic for Religion. In this case: he is arguing rather against Science and Reason. And for something like direct spiritual apprehension of the spirit of God; by faith and revelation and Catholic dogma. Though the author Fr. Longenecker perversely asserts that what is known by this subjective/intuitive method is “objective.”

But is this priest really offering objective, SCIENTIFIC truth? Hardly.

And is ms cbayer offering scientific proof of religion? Hardly.

[AlbertCat]

64. B-b-b-but....

"The scientists wired the children up to machines...."

[rjsquirrel]

2. As opposed to where?

I tried praying to Jeebus for world peace. That didn't work either.

In conclusion, religion is a fairy tale humans tell each other so they aren't as afraid to die.

[cbayer]

3. Welcome to the religion group.

Did you mean Jesus? Or is that just some cute way of mocking people who believe?

In conclusion, I think you might want to look around and meet a few folks before attacking what they believe in this group.

Have a nice day.

[Brettongarcia]

4. Have no fear Rocket J Squirrel. Many here will defend you. - Bullwinkle

Watch out for the religious censors though.

[Starboard Tack]

5. Religions may be made up of fairy tales, but they are very real.

I think you are confusing the word "religion" with "belief"

[edhopper]

6. First

the children at Medjugorje were not having religious experiences, they were pranking the adults.

Second, do we give credence to an article that contains this:

Our religion does not rely on the validity or non validity of subjective religious experiences. It relies on the historical objective fact of the life, death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ from the dead.

What do you think of that CB, "objective fact", sounds like someone claiming something is provably true.

[cbayer]

7. Pranking the adults? You have proof of that?

I don't personally believe in miracles or visions or these sorts of things, but I do think people have experiences that seem very real to them. To accuse them of intentionally fabricating this seems unreasonable unless you have proof.

You don't have to give credence to it at all. I don't agree with him, but i thought he expressed a very interesting religious perspective. This is an ongoing debate that has not clear answer. There is a neurosurgeon who recently wrote about his near death experience and he believes he had some kind of supernatural episode.

This priest believes it is objective fact and I agree that he is claiming something is provable true. If you were to debate him, I would agree that the burden of proof would be entirely on him.

[edhopper]

8. I remember the events

and read much about it at the time.
It was a prank. It is an unimportant event and probably not worth the bother, but you could read up on it you want to take the time.
But it is such a minor thing, except the premiss of the study was hooking up these children to see the effects of a religious experience, when the religious experience is by no means a given in this case.

Agreed with the last part.

[cbayer]

9. I don't doubt your memory, but I don't think there is any proof of that at all.

I recently had the opportunity to talk to someone who went to Medjugore against his will and was totally skeptical. He had some kind of experience that he can't explain and has met with some of the children (now grownups) on multiple occasions.

I have absolutely no interest in making the case as to whether this is true of not, but you have made an assertion. And as we all know, the burden of proof is on the asserter. You can reasonably say that you think this was a prank, but you can't say it as a provable fact unless you have proof.

Just like the guy that wrote this article.

[edhopper]

10. Yes

I just don't have the time or energy to find the links and post them. Probably not worth your time to web search it either.
It is not that important, so you can just accept it as my opinion.

My main point was since they can't show this was a true religious experience, using it for this research makes the whole thing invalid.
They can't say if they are testing someone having an experience or faking it.

I know you were just posting the article, not agreeing with it.
I was pointing out at least two major problems with it.

[cbayer]

11. I will accept it as your opinion.

I have been in situations where adolescents will develop a belief that is contagious. They are not fabricating it but it is clearly not true. That is certainly a possibility in this situation.

[AtheistCrusader]

14. More than just a prank, according to the RCC. (Also, Pope Ratzinger said it was nonsense too.)

http://the-american-catholic.com/2009/10/06/medjugorje-hoax-from-the-beginning/

[cbayer]

16. The RCC has consistently ruled that they can not confirm this event

and it is therefore not an official shrine.

For every article that you can scare up that says it was a hoax, you can find another one that says it was not.

Frankly, I don't care, but a lot of people believe in it and feel they have gotten some great benefit from their visits there.

So, since no one knows for sure, everyone is entitled to their opinion….. just like so many things about religion.

FWIW, Pope Francis is supposed to give some kind of final ruling on this this year. I can't find anything to support what you say about Benedict. This continues to give the RCC a huge headache, as it is one of the most visited sites by catholic pilgrims, but has not official standing.

[AtheistCrusader]

18. And official church visitation is banned.

anyway, Ratzinger:

"From Catholic News Service 2006:
Since June 24-25, 1981, the alleged visionaries together claim to have received more than 30,000 messages.

But Bishop Peric said in his homily that "so-called apparitions, messages, secrets and signs do not strengthen the faith, but rather further convince us that in all of this there is nothing either authentic or established as truthful."

He said in February that Pope Benedict XVI expressed similar doubts when they discussed Medjugorje during the Bosnian bishops' visit to the Vatican.

Bishop Peric told the congregation that because the church did not accept the claims of the visionaries it was illicit for priests to "express their private views contrary to the official position" during Mass, in acts of popular piety or in the Catholic media. "



The man 'channeling' mary, and explicitly asking for him as an emissary might be a clue.

[cbayer]

20. At any rate, it's an interesting story and from what I have read

no one will ever know what really happened or did not happen.

The RCC apparently has a pretty strict protocol for establishing something as a shrine and they are reluctant to do it in this case, even though hordes of people visit every year.

There are politics involved as well, of course.

I've never been and have no desire to go, but i have met people that have gone repeatedly, including some that go every year.

[AtheistCrusader]

12. "see if a religious-type experience could be artificially activated in his brain. It didn’t work."

Those experiments may not have worked, but there are well known cases of physical brain phenomena producing what felt to the subject to be a religious experiment. Even pathologies like epileptic seizures. (Dostoyevsky, an example. Whenever he had a seizure, he believed himself to be in the presence of god)

[cbayer]

13. Temporal lobe seizures can cause all kinds of really interesting

and often odd phenomenon. It is also not uncommon for those in a manic episode to feel that they are on some kind of mission from god or receiving direct messages.

These can be pretty clearly attributed to neurological events.

But what of those for which not neurological explanation is available? That is where the debate lies, and there is clearly no agreement at this time.

I thought this religious perspective was an interesting one, though I am much more likely to believe that it all comes down to neurons at the end of the day.

[AtheistCrusader]

15. For the record, that was supposed to say 'experience' not 'experiment', but I hope it made sense

either way.

"But what of those for which not neurological explanation is available?"

No such condition has yet to be demonstrated. Events at Medjugorje are painfully human in origin, even if you don't happen to ascribe to the doctrine of the RCC and how it was applied to interpreting the events alleged.

[cbayer]

17. Well, lots of people have had experiences for which there is not any

known neurological explanation. That doesn't mean there isn't one, but there is not evidence at this time.

Whether there is some true spiritual or religious underpinnings to some of these experiences, I haven't the faintest idea.

[Warren Stupidity]

22. "true religious underpinnings" is just begging the question.

There is no way to distinguish between "religious experiences" and "delusions" other than to claim one as "normal" and therefore "non-delusional".

[edhopper]

23. I question whether, let's call it,

a true emotional experience or a faked one, as is the case here.
Without that differentiation, any research is worthless.

[Warren Stupidity]

24. Perhaps with FMRI type technology one could distinguish between "true emotional experience"

and "faked emotional experience", other than that what exactly is the objective criteria for determining which is which?

[edhopper]

25. Well I think people have genuine emotional experiences

that are either brought about by a religious trigger or they interpret as religious.
Now if we wanted to study how or if these differ from similar non-religious experiences neurologically we would need to examine people while this occurred.
But if people claim to be having a religious experience, when in fact they are faking it, then the research wouldn't be worthless.

[notadmblnd]

38. Question. Are you using the word religion when you really mean spiritual?

[edhopper]

40. I'm not sure

but I am referencing the article above, which talks about research into this. Specifically if a religious experience is unique.
That they used the teens from Medjugorje is problematic to say the least. Specifically along the lines I stated.

[notadmblnd]

48. Well, I feel confident that religion is a man made thing and that

when a person practices a religion, they have a religious experience. However, I don't think that that is something that is unique or necessarily spiritual.

The article above specifically says religion of which there are many of. However, I suspect that much of the time when the word religion is used in debates between Christians and People that have other views, they really mean spiritual.

Religion does exist and people have religious experiences all the time, but it doesn't necessarily involve anything/anyone supernatural or spiritual.

So that's why I asked

[Warren Stupidity]

54. "when a person practices a religion, they have a religious experience"

well I think perhaps the experience of practicing a religion - as in attending church - is one thing while the phrase "a religious experience" is something else entirely. The discussion is about "transcendent moments" not "sitting in church".

If there is some effort to distinguish "religious transcendent moments" from other "transcendent moments" and label the former as "real religious experiences" that just seems to me to be nonsense.

Anyone who has used hallucinogens has likely had at least one transcendent moment, or they should get their money back. Same with lots of other activities, star gazing, mountain climbing, marathon running, etc.

[notadmblnd]

58. Well then shouldn't the word to use be- spiritual?

Some people may claim to have a spiritual transcendence as a result of practicing their particular religious rituals. However, not every one who may practice those same religious rituals ever do have a spiritual transcendence. Then there are those who have no religion that claim to have spiritual transcendence and those that have no religion that ever do.

Which is what I was asking, are people using the words spiritual and religion interchangeably? Your answer leads me to believe it is yes, people are using those two words interchangeably.

I think they are two separate things.

[Warren Stupidity]

59. perhaps, if only to avoid confusion with "sitting in church"

and you have to again use "spiritual experience", and mean something other than "being spiritual" which many people seem to use to mean "don't participate in organized religions but have new-agey ideas and beliefs".

[Starboard Tack]

63. I agree. People tend to use the two words interchangeably and it is confusing.

For me they are very different. I subscribe to no religion or deity, yet I am completely open to the "spiritual" experiences that are so common to many of us. What is often referred to as the "supernatural" I see as part of the natural sphere of existence, which is still beyond our understanding, and may always be.
It is logical that anyone who subscribes to a religion would associate these experiences with their particular beliefs. For those of us with no religion, they remain but wonderfully mysterious, which we are free to interpret or not.
The fact that some insist on labeling everything with simple scientific explanations does nothing to change the personal experiences of each individual.

[edhopper]

55. Sounds about right.

[rug]

19. I'd like to see if the results in the limbic system and the parietal lobe are replicated

in other higher order primates.

BTW, Fr. Longnecker writes for Patheos. He was raise Evangelical, went to Bob Jones University, became an Anglican priest and then a Catholic priest. He's very conservative theologically and politically. Not my cup of tea. Still, this is interesting but I don't know how they could reliabvly establish parameters for this experiment.

http://dwightlongenecker.com/about-fr-longenecker/

[cbayer]

21. There is much work to be done and I would also be interested in findings

in higher order primates.

Thanks for the info on Fr Longnecker. I did some research on him, but find it all rather vague. He has a few articles out there that I found interesting, but I agree that he seems very conservative.

Still, this is a discussion I am interested in and I found his take on it noteworthy.

[Peacetrain]

26. More likely in the heart.

As a deeply committed Christian.. it is fellowship, community, feeling of being part of something larger than oneself, and that I am sure would trigger endorphins in the system that contribute to a feeling of contentment. Would that lead to a mystical feeling? Good question!

My guess is that people can have that experience in other ways and organizations.. I found it in the church.

[edhopper]

27. Sounds right

I seriously doubt their is a unique religious experience physiologically.

Though it is hard to compare because of the subjectivity, but I think I felt the same thing as people when they describe a religious experience, though mine was brought on by art or nature.

[Peacetrain]

29. It is music for my son..

It brings a peace to him.

[edhopper]

34. Definitely music

as well. Music has some unique neurological properties.

Great book on the subject is This Is Your Brain on Music.

[Peacetrain]

41. I will definitely check that one out

I have seen him start playing his sax or clarinet.. and the change on his face is hard to describe.. he finds this place with his music.. totally at peace with the world.. thank you for book title

[edhopper]

42. Your welcome, good book

enjoy.

[cbayer]

30. Well said. I think there are many opportunities for having that experience, and

church is just one of them.

We should all take what we can get when it comes to having those kinds of feelings.

[Peacetrain]

31. I think so too cbayer..

Its different for all of us..

[cbayer]

37. Your post made me think about where I find mine.

Right now I am in a place where I wake in the middle of the night to a spectacular venue. I think it is at it's best when I am half asleep. Whether it be the dark of night or early sunrise, there is a comfort there that I find nowhere else.

It is, indeed, different for all of us, and my wish is that everyone find their space.

[Peacetrain]

43. I can almost see that cbayer.

the visual.. that place between sleep and wakefulness.. the mind runs free.. have a good holiday if I don't get to chat with you again.

[AtheistCrusader]

32. Why would that come from a fluid pump?

[Brettongarcia]

36. For that matter, even the Bible warns about the heart: "The heart is deceitful above all things"

Even if we for purposes of discussion accept the false assertion that the heart is the seat of emotions (and not the brain), then there is still this classic biblical warning, even there. Whatever is the source of emotions ... is deceitful.

Our emotions, our "desires" after all, include lust, envy, lies, vanity, etc.

The heart is endlessly deceitful.

With that in mind, let's take a look at a few of the things it is asserted here that the heart - and allegedly, even neuropsychology - "knows." About being one with the universe, etc..

[AlbertCat]

65. Why would that come from a fluid pump?

Besides, aren't they supposed to give their heart to Jesus. He's got their heart!


Seriously, it's metaphoric stuff like "in the heart" that must be defined. I suspect it has to do with an emotional experience of some kind. Y'know like "Groove is in the heart". But all emotional experiences are generated in the brain... as is their interpretation as being "spiritual" ...an interp applied to many different emotional states. A vague term. And spirits are a made-up idea from the very distant past. Why rush to some Stone Age interp? "Spiritual" is just another name for some types of euphoria.

No supernatural anything required.

[AtheistCrusader]

66. That's good, because there exist people who no longer have a biological heart at all. Not even

a pulse. And they do quite well, considering.

http://gizmodo.com/5812002/life-without-a-pulse-is-possible

[rug]

67. Geez, if I never knew what prosaic meant before, I do now.

I need an antidote.

[AtheistCrusader]

72. Unlikely.

That water is super cold.

[cbayer]

68. Actually, there are a few calves without a pulse, but no people yet.

Early stages for this device, but a very interesting concept.

[AtheistCrusader]

73. "So far, the turbine heart has been installed in over 50 young cows and 3 humans."

"The first human patient was a man named Craig Lewis. Suffering from a laundry list of diseases, he was given just 12 hours to live before the doctors set to work giving him the first ever beat-less human heart. Within 48 hours of the surgery, Lewis was able to sit up and speak normally, and lived for a further 5 weeks before the rest of his body shut down from causes unrelated to the artificial heart."

[cbayer]

75. Well he didn't make it long without a pulse.

[AtheistCrusader]

76. Long enough to prove the theory.

If I had a prognosis of 12 hours to live, and an impeller-type heart gave me 5 weeks of, not just same, but improved quality of life, I'd be pretty stoked.

Time enough to get my affairs in order, at least.
I've seen too many people struck down in similar circumstances, that didn't get a chance at all. Last two friends to go to the hospital, never came out of the ICU.

Not above room temp anyway.

[cbayer]

77. Prove what theory?

It's a device. I am always hopeful that these kinds of things succeed, but there is much work to be done before that is the case.

And the cost, at least initially, is going to be astronomical. I'm not sure there is an advantage over other mechanical hearts, but the risks and outcomes are likely to be the same.

I'm sorry about your friends.

[AtheistCrusader]

79. That the pulse itself isn't necesssary.

That's been the core stumbling block of mechanical heart design. Simulating a natural pulse in a mechanically reliable device. An impeller on a synthetic sapphire bearing is infinitely simpler, and the human circulatory system, with all its check valves and other systems, seems to accept it ok.

Long term, this will likely reduce the cost of a mechanical heart, and in cases where the patient was likely to survive with a different type of mechanical heart, this will improve long-term reliability of the device, obviating follow-up surgeries, replacements, etc.

Just the cost reduction alone is astounding.

[cbayer]

80. It doesn't prove that at all.

It shows that one individual was able to live for a brief time with circulation that does not include a pulse, but no one would find that surprising.

The machines used in bypass surgery don't create a pulse.

The question would be about what would happen in the long run. Is a pulsating blood flow important in some way that we don't know? Perhaps, but we can only answer that question when a significant number of cases has been reached.

It's a hypothesis and I hope they are successful, but, again, they are far, far from showing that.

I'm not sure how it would reduce the cost, but that is also a long way off. This will never be an inexpensive treatment by any definition.

[AtheistCrusader]

82. Five weeks isn't brief.

Also, the design is a little more widespread than you might think, as a booster, as well as complete replacement by impeller.

http://www.uwhealth.org/news/new-heart-pump-could-benefit-thousands-of-heart-failure-patients/26467

"Patients in the trial had severe heart failure, which often means they have less than a year to live. But after two years, 47 percent of the people with the new pump met the goal of two years without a stroke or a device failure, compared with 11 percent of those with the older pump."

[cbayer]

83. Five weeks is very brief in terms of survival after a transplant.

In fact, it is generally considered a failure.

The link you provide will not open for me, but based on what you quote, it is apparently about an entirely different device which is being developed for an entirely different reason.

Look, this is a silly argument. I'm not even sure what we are arguing about. It's good stuff. I hope it succeeds and that it is eventually affordable enough to have some widespread use.

[AtheistCrusader]

84. The HeartMate II is a similar device. Sometimes used to bridge to transplant, sometimes as a replace

ment.

People using it have lived for years, without detectable pulse or blood pressure.
I refer you to post 68 where the disagreement in this thread fork started. Multiple humans have used the one in the original link I provided, thousands have used a similar product for bridge to, or complete replacement.

[notadmblnd]

50. I found it in a stainless steel refrigerator

it was beautiful.

And you probably think I'm am making fun, but it's true! I had just cleaned it and the sun was shining on it just right and some of my favorite music was on the stereo and it was just such a beautiful moment, I was overcome with such happiness that it tickled me inside and I laughed out loud.

[phil89]

78. Feelings come from the brain

Not the heart. It's all a brain state and the metaphors are meant to muddy the waters and promote emotional thinking

[cbayer]

81. What have you got against emotional thinking?

Metaphors are great things and can be very useful and illustrative.

I'm pretty sure he knows that feelings come from the brain. He's a very smart guy.

[phil89]

86. I don't think it's useful when

It changes meanings or portrays metaphors as being real. How is emotional thought useful? And what's the point of saying it comes from the heart when one knows it doesn't? It's to add a manipulative, needless emotional element.

[cbayer]

87. Emotional thought is very real and can be very useful,

Again, the member was using a metaphor. He is smart. He knows that emotions don't literally come from the heart.

The world would be a very, very dull place indeed if we eliminated what you call the "needless emotional element".

No thanks.

[Brettongarcia]

28. One "miracle" explained

There is at least one alleged miracle at this location, that can be simply explained. In this one, a priest and others look at the sun, and then see things. See the sun change color and other things too. But guess what? If anyone directly at the sun, he or she will see such things; spots, changing colors, etc.

One priest seems unaware of this common perceptual phenomenon. And implies that a miracle has taken place:

"Many have reported visual phenomena including the sun spinning in the sky or changing color and figures such as hearts and crosses around the sun. Some visitors have suffered eye damage while seeking to experience such phenomena.[19][20] Jesuit Father Robert Faricy has written about his own experience of such phenomena, saying, "Yet I have seen rosaries which have changed colour, and I have looked directly at the sun in Medjugorje and have seen it seem to spin and turn different colors. It would be easier to report that it is just hysteria except that I would then have to accuse myself of being hysterical, which I was not and am not."[21]" (Wiki)

No indeed, in this specific case of the sun-starers, there is not much hysteria; just a priest who does not understand a very common aspect of human visual perception: if you look directly at a light, you will see colored spots. And things you look at will appear to be different colors.

Thank you, religion. For failing to understand the simplest perceptual facts. And then declaring a miracle.

All it takes to see countless miracles, is just to be ignorant of common facts.

Like in this case? "Afterimage" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afterimage

[AtheistCrusader]

33. Anyone who stares at the sun and sneezes is a heretic.

[Brettongarcia]

35. The neurology of the sense of joining to the universe, might be reexplained too:

Note that the neurophysiology cited here involved 1) intensifying the emotion centers, and 2) weakening the sense of location in time and space.

Well? What happens if you wish very emotionally for something, shutting out the world, and concentrating on your deep, inner feeling? You feel an intensification of your emotion centers ... and a weakening of your sense of being located relative to anything outside yourself.

In effect, you experience your self as all; everything. The universe.

But what is happening, is not that you are "becoming one with the universe"; that is precisely an illusion or delusion. Rather you have done the opposite. You have merely, vainly gone so far into your self, your wishes, that you now "shut out the world"; and experience your subjective self as if it was the entire universe.

So you think that you are the universe.

But what are you experiencing really?

Massive Vanity and Pride; experiencing your self as the whole of everything.

[AlbertCat]

74. I would then have to accuse myself of being hysterical,

But y'are Blanche, y'are hysterical..... a laugh riot in fact.

[Jim__]

39. It does raise some interesting questions.

If there are brain circuits that give us religious experiences, what larger neural systems are they a part of? Is religious experience an anomalous response to some type of over-stimulation? Or, is there some selective advantage to religious experience? Or is it just some sort of free-rider trait?

I believe this is the article by Llewellyn Smith. An excerpt:

Would Newberg find something similar if he scanned my brain? I, too, am an atheist. This is largely the result of my upbringing (my father is a theoretical physicist, who, as a former director general of Cern, set up the Large Hadron Collider that is searching for the Higgs boson, or so-called “God” particle – though many physicists loathe that phrase), but also of prolonged investigations into other religions to see if I was “missing” something central to billions of people worldwide.

In this spirit, several years ago, I attended an “Alpha” course, a 10-week introduction to evangelical Christianity. It utterly failed to convince me but, during a service, another “recruit”, Mark, fell to his knees, babbling “in tongues”. When he came round, he was convinced he had been possessed by the Holy Spirit. I watched, bemused. Why had he entered this transcendental state, while I was completely unmoved? Was he deluded, or was he genuinely a conduit of God? Or were our brains simply wired differently?

“When people speak in tongues, they’re gone, they’re in a completely altered state. But most of the time they’re ­normal people like us, with jobs and children – they don’t show any sign of being delusional,” says Newberg. “Scans of their brains – when they’re ‘possessed’ – show very different results to scans of Buddhist monks or Carmelite nuns in prayer or meditation. There you see increased frontal lobe activity in the areas concerned with concentration, but the speakers in tongues had decreased activity in the same area, which would give them the sensation that someone else was ‘running the show’.”

And what about me? “I wouldn’t be surprised if you have a harder time letting go of frontal lobe activity, so you tend to observe and take a more critical eye of events, while other people’s brains allow them to simply surrender to events around them.”

There is a 16 minute video with the article. I didn't find the video particularly interesting.

[Brettongarcia]

45. I'd say that thanks to externals allowing almost ANYTHING,they surrender to events INSIDE themselves

To false inner spirits. Illusions and delusions.

One common naturalistic reading of "speaking in tongues" by the way, is that it is just a misunderstood phrase for "speaking in a second language that you have previously learned." Many people in the apostles' time were bilingual.

No doubt music, art, a good sunset (if you don't look directly into the sun), is a nice experience. But consider the different, present example: the religious experience of Medjugorja.

Medjugorja as it turns out, is around Serbia. And it is indeed a very, very, very uneducated and religious place. Indeed, it's a place near where for quite some time, major conflicting religions (Serbian, etc.) existed. And out of their sense of religious outrage, they have met to often ... slaughter each other. In the definitive religious act: genocidal murder. Medjugorja is basically the same region and culture that lead to some local mass killings c. 1941; then lead to the more recent religion-based genocides in the 1980's or 90's. With Serbia and Bosnia and so forth. (Not the ones unreliably reported by Mart Bax, which have been discredited; we are referring instead to the entire religion, of the larger Servian/Bosnian etc. conflict).

So here in Medjugorja in other words, we do indeed have the whole picture of Religion. We have: 1) a very, very religious culture. 2) Conflicting with other religions. 3) Leading to genocides. Because they are in the habit of 4) taking optical "illusions" and "delusions" as realities.

[edhopper]

46. All the times I have seen video speaking in tongues

it just looks like bad acting to me. Like Cid Ceaser without the talent.
The language is obviously made up, with few syllables repeated over and over.

[Brettongarcia]

49. Yes. Or at most, half-remembered fragments of another language they were exposed to

Today, 1) when people fall to the floor and claim to be speaking in tongues, they are just acting out a confused idea. And usually their "languages" are babble.

People today think that "speaking in tongues" is just a magical thing that happens to you suddenly, out of nowhere, by miracle. And that suddenly you are speaking a magical language that seemingly, some say, everyone understands.

But likely 2) such people have simply misunderstood the original passages. Where the Bible was actually just describing a moment when the Apostles began explaining their beliefs not just in say Hebrew; but also next, in whatever other second languages the apostles knew. So that they began to explain things to a wider range of people. In languages or "Tongues" that some of the others around them did not understand.

To some, it sounded like babble. But to those who understood the second language, it was a clear. And great advantage. To hear from the Apostles in a language they knew better: like say, Greek.

Nothing as magical or miraculous as people rolling on the floors imagine today. It was all just the apostles suddenly turning to speak to foreigners, in a second or third language. So that various people heard things in the language they best understood; each one in his own language.

[edhopper]

51. Thanks for the summary

it's hard to imagine that fundamentalist get the Bible wrong.

[phil89]

85. Which is an unsupportable claim

There's no evidence there was a second language or that people understood it. Just another bible story

[Warren Stupidity]

52. what is the difference between "speaking in tongues" and psychotic babbling?

[edhopper]

53. Psychotic babbling

from illnesses like schizophrenia is troubling and tragic behavior by people in real pain.

Speaking in tongues is play acting by pathetic people who need to prove how God has touched them.

[Warren Stupidity]

56. and yet they would likely appear very similar

and I don't think you can really prove that "speaking in tongues is play acting by pathetic people" - that is that all such people are being consciously dishonest. Instead I think it quite likely that many are engaged in ......


mass delusionary behavior



.... I had to go there.

[edhopper]

57. If you watched videos of the two

you could see how different they are.

The closes thing I've seen to psychotic babbling, is Sarah Palin.

[Warren Stupidity]

60. I'm sure she thinks she is having a religious experience.

[AtheistCrusader]

62. That's the meth talking.

[Brettongarcia]

70. Psychologists mention something called "acquired" disorders. See also epilepsy

Last edited Thu Aug 28, 2014, 06:38 AM - Edit history (2)

This is not my specialized area. But my quick impression is that it is possible for normal people to think their way into, or be lead by (mental and traumatic) events, into what appears to be rather like "psychosis" and so forth. A mild case might be say, PSD: Posttraumatic Stress Disorder. Here a rather normal person can be lead by the stress of combat, into psychological disability.

Speaking in tongues might therefore be something like this kind of acquired disorder. How is it acquired? Possibly in part by mimicry.

Hypothesizing here? Speaking in tongues looks a lot like fairly normal people having learned to respect and mimic something like epileptic fits. In many cultures, the mental state we see in epilepsy, was considered divine revelation. Eventually people tried to imitate it.

In effect though, they have been taught to imitate disability. This is why is seems similar to, but not quite identical with, genuine organically-caused problems.

Here's one random source acquired disability linked to psychosis . I'm sure there are better ones: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24012075

"Speaking in tongues" looks to me most like 1) a learned/taught imitation of shamanistic and epileptic fits. An emulation of that, inspired in turn by a 2) a literalistic misreading of Bible readings on the importance of translating languages - or "tongues." Following the holy "spirit" on Pentecost.

[edhopper]

44. This does call into question

how reliable a subjective emotional experience is when it is used to accept larger concepts.

[rurallib]

47. Had a Catholic priest tell me once

"don't eat for five days and eat a couple of magic mushrooms and you can be a holy man too"
He was an ex-priest about 5 years later. Married the mother of his children.

[Brettongarcia]

71. Ironically, that's the foundation of RFRA: the troublesome Religious Freedom Resortation Act

Passed in Billy Clinton's administration, this is what is largely causing all these recent, radically pro-religious Supreme Court Decisions.

The original case was from a group of American Indians (Mescalero Apache, etc.?). Whose religion allowed eating peyote/mescaline.

The law makes taking peyote illegal. But the Indians appealed to the US Supreme Court; on the grounds of religious freedom. And eventually they in effect, won.

So it was literally a bunch of stoned Indians and their friends, that started the new religious revival.

[AtheistCrusader]

61. What is your opinion?

My impression is, this would dovetail nicely with a sentiment that you have expressed, that faith is internal, and unique to the individual, and real to the individual, because it is personal.

[cbayer]

69. I honestly don't know.

The scientist part of me thinks it's all neurology, but I'm not sure about that. There are states of emotion that are so complex that if is hard to imagine that we will ever be able to simplify them down to explanations of circuitry.

Faith may be one of those things.

There are neurosurgeons that believe that there is something spiritual that goes beyond brain wiring.

It is a good idea to keep looking, but I'm not convinced that we will eventually "know" everything.