God - just a neuro-physiological ailment?

..research suggests that whether we believe in a God may be due to 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.

Scientists now believe famous religious figures in the past could also have been sufferers from the condition. St Paul and Moses appear to be two of the most likely candidates.

But most convincing of all is the evidence from American neurologist Professor Gregory Holmes. He has studied the life of Ellen G White, who was the spiritual founder of the Seventh-day Adventist movement.

During her life, Ellen had hundreds of dramatic religious visions which were key in the establishment of the church. But Professor Holmes has discovered that at the age of nine, Ellen suffered a severe blow to her head. As a result, she was semi-conscious for several weeks and so ill she never returned to school.
Following the accident, Ellen's personality changed dramatically and she became highly religious and moralistic.

We will never know for sure whether religious figures in the past definitely did have the disorder but 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.

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

I have to admit that I felt some of the bizarre claims by ardent religious believers had to be more than simple irrationality. While psychotic delusions are certainly true for some, this explanation of temporal lobe epilepsy seems to add an additional dimension.

Finding that our perceptions of God are neuro-physiological probably means that God doesn't really exist.

Another interesting article –

http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/images/new_page_2.htm

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Cris:
Fascinating research, but to be fair, aren't our perceptions of everything neuro-physiological?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I agree with Xev. Simple superstition does not need to be specially related to biology/neurology.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Xev,

LOL. No, that is confusing the action of perceiving as being neuro-physiological as opposed to the object of a perception being neuro-physiological.

 

Cris:
I stated that badly. While a mystic may well be having hallucinations that they interpret according to their worldview, does this account for the average religious person?

Certainly religious delusion is common enough in schitzophrenics. Perhaps the common religious person is simply relatively more grounded?

All in all, it's fascinating. Unlikely to shake anyone's belief, of course, but we knew that.

I give up. I'm not expressing this well.

 

If anyone would like to delve further into the physiological aspects of religion, I'd recommend Why God Won't Go Away: Brain Science and the Biology of Belief. The authors detail, among other things, an experiment they performed on a certain portion of the brain that is generally responsible for defining the limits of the self and where we relatively stand, spatially, to the things around us.

The experiment consisted of wiring (rough term) a religious fellow and having him lightly tug on a string as he was achieving some sort of meditative climax. The data they received indicated that, while he was having what he claimed was a spiritual experience, that particular area of his brain saw increased activity. In other words, it appears as if his mind had to work harder to define his own physical outline during this meditation.

Take it for what you will. The book is an interesting read, regardless.

 

All those kids who played and fell down, got hits allover their bodies including head, grown up to be mostly faithfuls.. those couch-potatoes with unshaken heads ended up mostly atheists.. how is my interpretation of temporal lobe epilepsy and faith.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Everneo,

You are doing great. But you should get some rest soon though.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Oh thanks, Cris. But you guys make me hyperactive.. but i do have enough rest.

 

Chris,

I don't tend to beleive in any of the biological basis theories. I don't think the environment is responsible for that much, rather it is merely to house us.

Darwin seemed to disagree, and psychologically speaking he saw the environment and the world around him as being hard, cruel, and forceful. I think psychology has a lot more to offer than previously thought.

Just my opinion though, and I mean in terms of biology vs psychology.

 

If you haven't read it already, you might find this from Massimo Pigliucci interesting.

 

CA,

Nice link.

The gist of which I think is -

...if we realize that mystical experiences originate from the same neurological mechanisms that underlie hallucinations from sensorial deprivation and drug-induced “visions,” I bet dollar to donut that the reality experienced by meditating Buddhists and praying nuns is entirely contained in their mind and is not a glimpse of a “higher” realm, as tantalizing as that idea may be.

 

You're making the mistake of correlation WITHOUT causation.

Besides - Yes people who are deeply religious do have abnormal disorders in the brain - it's just that simple.


Religion served a purpose in our history - now that it no longer does it's considered a disorder.

Shoot it's a diagnosable disorder in the DSM!!!

 

Very well put. What was the confusion?

All the stated research delves into our perception of things - which are currently thought to be purely neuro-physiological. It doesn't make any particular headway in determining which perception involves anything of substance as opposed to which doesn't. In fact it can't. Everything which exists to humans is due to their perception, which is... neuro-physiological? So what's the point of the text anyway? Well... we need to keep the threads going... so... that I understand.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

MarcAC,

You are missing the point. I’ll simplify it for you.

Religionists claim that their religious experiences are caused by an external spiritual force.

The research is showing that many such experiences are most probably caused by a region in the brain and has nothing to do with an external force.

 

i expected to see the "believers" commenting by now so in their absence i'll play devil's advocate (well ... god's advocate in this case

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

).

I suppose an argument would be that the part of the brain discussed could just be the interface point that god uses for communication or interaction with the faithful. I mean how can they tell it isnt an external force (god) activating this area?

ok, im all advocated out, just a thought to throw in the mix.

buff

 

How can you tell it isnt

a unicorn
a black person
a donkey
a peanut butter sandwich
the planet pluto
the cartoon pluto
etc.......


controlling it?
It merely defies all logic of the REAL UNIVERSE, which has no such mythological cartoon God

as opposed to the universe of a delusional mythopath.

You do know the believe of existance of God is classified int he DSM as a delusion????

And that those who believe a God embodies them can actually be diagnosed with delusions of grandeur?

Hurray for truth...

 

yer preach'n to the choir sister, i thought it was pretty clear in my post that im not a "believer" so the "god is a delusion" argument is wasted on me, i couldn't agree more.

my point was, if i understand whats been posted, that defining the area of the brain where "spiritual activity" (sorry, i can't think of a better term right now) takes place doesn't really argue at all against the existence of god. Im guessing one of the faithful would say it just shows the area that he/she/they/it (whatever they think god is) uses to communicate with people.

Its always seemed likely to me their might be a neurological explanation for visions and the like, its just that, as xev pointed out, its unlikely to change any minds.

BTW - the DSM has a pretty shaky history (what did it used to say about homosexuality again?) and probably isn't the best source for your argument.

 

Buffy - I wouldn't say the DSM has any poor history.


Yes it used to say homosexuality was a disorder - and it still should because homosexuality is still a disorder.

I'm not anti-homo - I've got no problem with a homosexual, neither do I wish a schizophrenic.

Homosexuality meets more than the required criteria for a disorder - therefore it qualifies as a disorder.

Simple as that.

It was only removed because when a disorder becomes so prevelant PC comes into issue and the truth gets shot down.

If the population of bipolars became big enough then bipolar would be removed too.

Homosexuality is a disorder just as religious faith is a severe yet treatable delusion.

 

And BTW buffy - the DSM is worldwide considered the best (and only one worth publishing) text on diagnosis.

It takes more people and more talks to put together this book than probably any other book in history - people from all countries, all degrees etc.....

It's a freakin marvel.