What God does to your brain

I thought you all might find this interesting.

It is a long article so I won't quote it here otherwise it's all you'll have on your screen.

Please find the link here

The basic jist of it is that activity in the certain areas of the brain appear to be responsible for producing the feelings associated with religious experiences. Therefore those with less sensitivity in those areas are less inclined to these experiences. For this reason, a neuroscientist has been able to replicate some of these feelings by using a helmet which stimulates the certain areas of the brain (although apparently not on Richard Dawkins).

It's much more complicated than that so I advise reading the article.

If it is the case that feelings of religious euphoria etc are caused by activity in the brain, I'm actually not surprised (given what I study in my spare time), although it won't change of my personal beliefs.

Just a thought…

Perhaps some people are engineered that way because it is for them to follow a religious path? Many peoples throughout history have ways of explaining how we and our destinies are predetermined for certain things. The fates are one example of this.

I’m also curious as to why things are the way they are. And I think the more we learn; the closer we get to figuring it out… or being able to prove it.

It's interesting for sure.

I've felt feelings of religious euphoria (we called it spiritual experiences) while listening to a particular church hymn. Yet I also felt the same type of feelings when I heard Metallica's "No Leaf Clover" the first time. And again when I listened to tchaikovsky 1812 overture.

I guess I'm more prone to it yet I'm pretty much just a believer in the Force now, no personal Gods for me.

Agreed, LTK. I have had about three or four major religious experiences in my life. (All of them to do with music, of course!). Some of them restored my faith in God, and others destroyed it.

What I've come to learn is: Spirituality is only connected to the mind in that they are the same thing. We cannot comprehend things of the spirit in the mind. We can cohabit with and be aware of them. But, we cannot "understand" and deduct to find proper reasoning for them.

Rather than spend my life at the mercy of the limitations of the mind, I take the easy way and accept that there are things I can accept without understanding. What this means though, is that I have to be careful not to create limitations from this.

Often, I would hear something beautiful in the name of God, and I would believe that God is real. Knowing the difference can be very difficult in this society.

Living life in conclusion is only making the world smaller. I choose to live in question. I allow the world to come to me as it will, in its own time. And, I accept what is. Then, I can choose to not make conclusions. This is the best way I know to cohabit the earthly with the spiritual.

My own opinion, my very own, is that this "god" take credit for alot of things the force and nature has a hand in. the "god" guy is a face to controll those who are week. most churches ive entered have been run by man and it is man who make desissions fot the mass. just my opinion, ive studdied at seminary and am fully aware of doctorine and theology, but the more i read and study the more i see man pulling strings like puppetteers. there are some good reliogious people dont get me wrong. i know a few. FEW. we need to fear the things that take credit for things they did not do, hence forth "god" in a lot of times is man and man is decitfull to a fault. just my own opion from all ive experianced.

I found it interesting that the neuroscientists results from religious people weren't replicated in those who had become 'born again'.

I used to be religious, but over time have generally shed those feelings. I had a long conversation with another member about the feelings I had as a Satanist, a kind of 'inner passion' I suppose, that are absent for me as a Jedi. Perhaps my brain has rewired? Or perhaps I was deluding myself

Or perhaps, given that the genetic an anatomic makeup of humans apart from medical conditions is about as identical as it gets in a sexually reproducing species, this whole idea that people's brains are wired differently depending on what they waste their time on is simply put (though not exactly elegantly) sheer and utter bollocks.

There is a reason why attempts to replicate Persinger's results were completely unsuccessful (and a paper documenting the study and its results, of course). Of course, had they been, it would suggest that there is likely nothing quite supernatural about spiritual experiences people report having, so at least it wouldn't help those who claim there is either way and in fact would perhaps give something more solid into the hand who claim there isn't. Since science however doesn't care for preferred conclusions, but rather for truth, honesty and intellectual integrity, it must restrain itself to actual results and admit that people of faith are so because of their upbringing or later conversion rather than any particular pattern in their nervous system that they happened to be born with without having had a say about it.

Gisteron wrote: ...this whole idea that people's brains are wired differently depending on what they waste their time on is simply put (though not exactly elegantly) sheer and utter bollocks.

Are you saying that what one does does not change brain chemistry, or that brain chemistry doesn't reflect on what one does?

There is a reason why attempts to replicate Persinger's results were completely unsuccessful (and a paper documenting the study and its results, of course).

Do you have a link to anything? I can't seem to find anything (not saying there isn't, just haven't found anything).

Since science however doesn't care for preferred conclusions, but rather for truth, honesty and intellectual integrity, it must restrain itself to actual results and admit that people of faith are so because of their upbringing or later conversion rather than any particular pattern in their nervous system that they happened to be born with without having had a say about it.

One person finds one set of results, another finds another conflicting set, so you keep going until you get closer to the truth. Finding some results for and some results against doesn't make the former any less a possibility, therefore 'admitting' that it isn't to do with brain chemistry would be against the nature of scientific research and a kind of 'preferred conclusion' in itself.

I think the individual designs their own neural architecture to some extent through thought and behavioural reinforcement... all that neuroplasticity stuff but also its just how neuron's work - the more a connection gets used the stronger the connection becomes, and the less a connection gets used the more likely it will cease to exist at some point. Perhaps people born into religious traditions do develop a greater capacity to experience a mystical experience just because they've been inadvertently training for it for years!!! Hence why they say its good for brain health to exercise the brain I guess.

Perhaps spiritual work is brain intensive in a unique way, which makes me wonder if the results wouldn't match other types of deep thinking. Perhaps the difference is linking heightened emotional state to it... as a type of supercharged positive reinforcement style of thought (through belief and degrees of religious ecstasy) ie; a 'light' path!?

Edan wrote: Are you saying that what one does does not change brain chemistry, or that brain chemistry doesn't reflect on what one does?

There is a distinction to be made between brain chemistry and brain physiology. As far as I know the chemical processes involved in signal evaluation and conduction are identical in all mammals and probably almost identical in all vertebrates in general although this is a claim I'd have to look up and verify before I'd be willing to defend it, so don't quote me on it just yet.
Now, the hormones that have an effect on neural activity obviously do depend on what you are doing and the frequency to which one experiences them is likewise influenced by one's activities. Although, again, one could say that the chemical makeup of any particular hormone is virtually indistinguishable from one person to the next.
In either case, I was referring to the proposition that there is actually a spiritual module in the brain, much less one that is anyhow different from that in less or non-spiritual people. If that were so, one would expect scans or disections of dead brains to reflect this. In fact, even chemical differences should be identifiable if there were any and yet they aren't.

Do you have a link to anything? I can't seem to find anything (not saying there isn't, just haven't found anything).

Why, of course I do

Here is the abstract of the paper I was referring to, as published in issue 1 of volume 379 of Neuroscience Letters. Also, if you copy the title into Google, you'll quickly find a more direct link where you can purchase the rest of the paper if you wish to review it.

Now, the two parties did maintain contact during the studies. In order to not suggest anything, I present to you this page of email exchanges for your review and evaluation, if you so need.

FYI, I went on to Wikipedia to find a paragraph with a number of references right in the article on that experiment and device. Its not a good place to end your search, but sure a decent one to start.

One person finds one set of results, another finds another conflicting set, so you keep going until you get closer to the truth. Finding some results for and some results against doesn't make the former any less a possibility, therefore 'admitting' that it isn't to do with brain chemistry would be against the nature of scientific research and a kind of 'preferred conclusion' in itself.

There is no reason to prefer that conclusion however, and I'd argue that some of that camp would actually prefer the opposite conclusion that would make it easier to argue that spiritual experiences are natural rather than supernatural in origin. If anything, that would be the preferred conclusion. But of course the fact that people find different data and draw different conclusions from them tells us nothing about the veracity of any of them. I would like to quote what was said that the negative result came from an actual double-blind experiment and that there was no apparent correlation between the reported experiences and placebos used in the devices' stead, but I haven't read those papers and I don't need claiming those things so I'll be modest and won't do that.
I will say however that Dr. Persinger made a positive claim and as with all claims, the default position is to disbelieve them until such time that the likelihood of them being true has been demonstrated sufficiently to justify belief. So its not so much the debunking that must be flawless but the evidence for the claim to be believable. Thus, I disagree. It may be unscientific to claim that there is no correlation only because none could be demonstrated yet (and a case can be made to the contrary of that even), but it is perfectly scientific to disbelieve for the time being. The burden of proof is on the one who makes the claim.