Neurotheology ?

[JBeukema]

Discovery of the God Module Results in New Field of Science: Neurotheology

 

[editec]

Now, given that I once had that experience when I 8 years old, the following statement is rather interesting.

A part of the woman's brain near the junction point of the temporal and parietal lobes was stimulated with an electrode, producing the experience. Every time that part of her brain was stimulated, she described the experience as floating above her own body and watching herself.

source

This leads Alpers to imply that there is no spiritual reality, no god, no soul, no afterlife, nothing that transcends or supersedes the physical realm, invalidating every brand of spiritual or religious belief that exists. The greater implication is that cognition, emotion, perception, and sensation are derived from our genetic makeup in conjunction with the environment in which these genetic potentials are nurtured. The fact that we have no control over either of these variables suggests that there is no such thing as free will.

Of course if the above is correct, it also suggests that atheists are probably brain damaged, too doesn't it? The above implies that people with normal brains aren't given any choice but to be spiritual.

But then too, it also absolves atheists of responsibility for being atheists, since they have no free will not to be, too, doesn't it?

So, if you are a spiritual person, you are both normal and mislead by your normalcy into being spiritual.

And if you are an atheist, you are brain damaged, but correctly non-spiritual due to that damaged brain of yours.

That's rather ironic, don't you think?

Of course if you don't think that's ironic, that's okay, too.

After all you have no free will NOT to think that's ironic, do you?

 

[strollingbones]

However, he sees benefits from his conclusions. As much as the religious impulse serves to bond society with mutual values and a sense of hope, it also prompts us to certain discriminatory behaviors and the commission of all sorts of hateful acts and atrocities. If religiosity is accepted as a biologically based impulse, we may be able to curb its potentially harmful excesses such as those that have led our species to acts of hostility, war and genocide. We may be able to focus our attention and energies on the here and now instead of some dubious concept of afterlife

see link above....man you are harshing my buzz

 

[strollingbones]

Carl Kinsely, an expert in psychology and neuroscience at the University of Richmond in Virginia says the implications of research investigating the relationship between the brain, human consciousness and a range of intangible mental experiences is fascinating. "People have been tickling around the edges of consciousness and this sort of research plunges in", Kinsely said. "There is the quandary of whether the mind created God or God created the mind." He believed that any conclusions are very premature.

As Ramachandran has said, "We are only starting to look at this. The exciting thing is that you can even begin to contemplate scientific experiments on the neural basis of religion and God."

 

[JBeukema]

Of course if the above is correct, it also suggests that atheists are probably brain damaged, too doesn't it?

Or the next stage of evolution

The above implies that people with normal brains aren't given any choice but to be spiritual.

It implies a possible physical/neurological explanation for 'spiritual' experiences. All sources must be considered in the context of the field as a whole, and it should always be noted that scientists- unlike religion- can easily be party correct

But then too, it also absolves atheists of responsibility for being atheists, since they have no free will not to be, too, doesn't it?

one could also say it absolves the religious of believing in deities that order genocides and religions that fuel wars and have brought so much woe to Mankind over the course of human history

 

[JBeukema]

However, he sees benefits from his conclusions. As much as the religious impulse serves to bond society with mutual values and a sense of hope, it also prompts us to certain discriminatory behaviors and the commission of all sorts of hateful acts and atrocities. If religiosity is accepted as a biologically based impulse, we may be able to curb its potentially harmful excesses such as those that have led our species to acts of hostility, war and genocide. We may be able to focus our attention and energies on the here and now instead of some dubious concept of afterlife

Has not humanity long sought to curb its nature? Like everything else, the more we understand it, the more we can curb the negative aspects and manipulate it so that all of humanity might benefit

 

[strollingbones]

dont you think the more important indications is that man must have an afterlife to believe in...is it to avoid living in the here and now or the fear of death? if one could free themselves of what he sees as the "yokes" of religion..other concepts might be more of a reality. but then the other article says there is no reality....

 

[strollingbones]

so you reconize the concept of ridding the world of religion thus ridding the world of the unity and the diversion caused by religion....

o fuck me...now hubby is singing....why the fuck is he talking about keith richards?

do you think even given that evidence that people would willing rid themselves of religion or their spiritual beliefs?

 

[JBeukema]

dont you think the more important indications is that man must have an afterlife to believe in...

actually, one can easily fit this into an evolutionary model by arguing that the shared religious experience, combined with each society's subjective experience, brought about a social phenomenon (religion in all its forms) that, through shared community and a common rallying cry, provided an evolutionary advantage in the form of a stronger social fabric and a motivation to eliminate competition (outsiders oft defined by religion as much as by other factors). Man has no need for religion; those who had religion and were willing to kill for it, however, are still here... see the abrahamic faiths

is it to avoid living in the here and now or the fear of death?

It is to prvide a social unifying factor as well as psychological comfort, motivation, and justification

if one could free themselves of what he sees as the "yokes" of religion..other concepts might be more of a reality. but then the other article says there is no reality....

Actually, there is no relaity until an observer causes one, according to modern (quantum) physics...

and it's long nbeen understood that reality is subjective in the frist place

 

[strollingbones]

so when i am alone...i do not exist?

 

[JBeukema]

so when i am alone...i do not exist?

Where did you come up with that? Are you not observing your subjective reality in order to determine that you are alone?

Hell,. self-existence remains the only thing that can be called 'self-evident' with no real objections that I am aware of.

 

[editec]

Of course if the above is correct, it also suggests that atheists are probably brain damaged, too doesn't it?

Or the next stage of evolution

YES! another possible interpretation of it.

You probably don't remember it, but recently I posited the possiblity that people with aspergers syndrome might be the next evolutionary stage of mankind?

They don't understand why we "normal" human being are so emotional. They don't really seem to have the same emotional baggage we have.

Now they might be brain damaged, but then too, depending on your outlook about humans and our emotionality, they might be brain enhanced.

The above implies that people with normal brains aren't given any choice but to be spiritual.

It implies a possible physical/neurological explanation for 'spiritual' experiences.

A distinction without much differece, that.

All sources must be considered in the context of the field as a whole, and it should always be noted that scientists- unlike religion- can easily be party correct

Science is ALWAYS partially correct, isn't it?

The beauty of scientific thinking V religious thinking is the fact that science KNOWS its limitations.

But then too, it also absolves atheists of responsibility for being atheists, since they have no free will not to be, too, doesn't it?

one could also say it absolves the religious of believing in deities that order genocides and religions that fuel wars and have brought so much woe to Mankind over the course of human history

One could say that I suppose, but it doesn't follow logically.

If there's a part of our brains that makes us feel spiritual, that won't absolve us of believing anything in particular, good or bad.

There's obviously parts of our brains that make us want to live, too.

And that prompts SOME PEOPLE to do all sorts of things that you and I might find reprensible, too doesn't it?

And the fact that we might KNOW that still doesn't "absolve" us from doing bad things.

At best it helps EXPLAIN why some of us are completely selfish dicks.