Neurotheology & Non-Belief

[CarlinKnew]

This also seems inadequate. To my mind, if it were simply a question of capacity, somewhere, sometime, there would have been a culture that didn't go that route. But, to my knowledge, there was not.

Are there any cultures that didn't have other superstitions besides God? The explanation seems obvious to me: they didn't know how to explain natural phenomena, and being the pattern-seeking animals that we are, they resorted to superstitious beliefs including gods.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Granted, but as we've discussed before, the spandrel does not exist in a vacuum, even if true.

I'm not sure what you're getting at.

 

[themadhair]

We, as humans, are pretty much hardwired for detecting humans. We recognise faces as a matter of biological wiring rather than a conscious recognition.
Rotating face mask
This ability for human recognition can go too far and allow use to see human traits in the world around us. This, I believe, can make us personify natural phenomena. In short, the personification of the world is religion.

 

[Storm]

Are there any cultures that didn't have other superstitions besides God?

I object to your classification of God as a superstition. I've explained before, "God" is the interpretation of a very real phenomenon: mystical experience. Now, I'm hardly an expert, so if you have a different, logical explanation, I'm perfectly willing to listen. But so far, you haven't presented one.

The explanation seems obvious to me: they didn't know how to explain natural phenomena, and being the pattern-seeking animals that we are, they resorted to superstitious beliefs including gods.

I don't deny that this is a piece of the puzzle, only that it's the whole solution. See my answer to Penguin.

I'm not sure what you're getting at.

The question of whether the spandrel alone could account for God-belief is moot. Assuming the hypothesis is true (which I do, ftr), it wasn't the only factor. Mystical experiences happen, and I don't see how anyone can deny they played a role in the development of religion.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The conclusion that we are "wired" for god is either false or some of us have evolved differently than others.

Or "wired for God" is (sloppy) vernacular for "propensity to presume Agency."

 

[Nepenthe]

IIRC Dawkins doesn't have a 'god spot'. Does that count.

For some reason the video of Dawkins in Persinger's "God Helmet' cracks me up.

I'm fascinated by Boyer's theories on evolution and religion; he's much more convincing than the overly simple Gould idea of "spandrels". I suspect that religion or experiences of gods are a collection of by products of various psychological mechanisms that evolved for other purposes. There's a whole slew of cognitive traits that compel humans to adopt supernatural beliefs; religion is an emergent property of these hardwired traits and non-belief would be an anomalous trait.
Here's Boyer's Nature article from Oct. of last year:
http://artsci.wustl.edu/%7Epboyer/PBoyerHomeSite/articles/2008BoyerReligionEssay.pdf

 

[Storm]

Or "wired for God" is (sloppy) vernacular for "propensity to presume Agency."

Not really, because the propensity to assume agency (the aforementioned spandrel) is only one part of the "wiring."

 

[linwood]

Or "wired for God" is (sloppy) vernacular for "propensity to presume Agency."

Yes, actually this is much more likely.

Some of us don`t seem to have this propensity however and I think that`s the question Storm is investigating with this OP.

 

[Storm]

Yes, actually this is much more likely.

Post #27.

Some of us don`t seem to have this propensity however and I think that`s the question Storm is investigating with this OP.

Yes, thank you.

 

[CarlinKnew]

I object to your classification of God as a superstition. I've explained before, "God" is the interpretation of a very real phenomenon: mystical experience. Now, I'm hardly an expert, so if you have a different, logical explanation, I'm perfectly willing to listen. But so far, you haven't presented one.

Trance/hypnotic/hallucinogenic/mystical experiences are real phenomena. But when one goes a step further and says God is responsible for those experiences, that is superstition. It is without evidence.

 

[Willamena]

Are there any cultures that didn't have other superstitions besides God? The explanation seems obvious to me: they didn't know how to explain natural phenomena, and being the pattern-seeking animals that we are, they resorted to superstitious beliefs including gods.

How does resorting to superstition resolve pattern-seeking?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Mystical experiences happen, ...

How do you distinguish between mystical and delusional?

 

[Storm]

Trance/hypnotic/hallucinogenic/mystical experiences are real phenomena. But when one goes a step further and says God is responsible for those experiences, that is superstition. It is without evidence.

I disagree. It is, at minimum, reasonable interpretation. May I ask, have you ever had such an experience?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

How does resorting to superstition resolve pattern-seeking?

It's the other way around ...

 

[Storm]

How do you distinguish between mystical and delusional?

The neurological activity and chemistry is different.

FTR, when I say "mystical experience," I am referring to the distinctive states studied by neurotheology. I wish they had chosen a term with less baggage, but they didn't.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The neurological activity and chemistry is different.

Really? Could you cite some evidence for this? I know of none.

 

[CarlinKnew]

How does resorting to superstition resolve pattern-seeking?

Say a tribe is dancing and it starts to rain. They want to know why it rains, so they search for a pattern. A member of the tribe notes that last time it rained they were also dancing, so they conclude that dancing makes it rain.

This is common in all animals. I forget the name of the experiment, but pigeons were trained to develop superstitious beliefs by feeding them at fixed intervals and then switching to random intervals. Some pigeons would spin in circles, some would turn their heads in a certain direction, some would peck the feeder a certain number of times. They thought their rituals were responsible for bringing them food.

Humans take it a step further. Advanced critical thinking skills enable the tribe to ask why it rains when they dance.

themadhair raised a good point:

We, as humans, are pretty much hardwired for detecting humans. We recognise faces as a matter of biological wiring rather than a conscious recognition.
Rotating face mask
This ability for human recognition can go too far and allow use to see human traits in the world around us. This, I believe, can make us personify natural phenomena. In short, the personification of the world is religion.

By personifying natural phenomena, the tribe concludes that there is a personable God up above, who enjoys it when they dance and therefore rewards them with rain for their crops.

 

[Storm]

Really? Could you cite some evidence for this? I know of none.

Unfortunately, I know of nothing conveniently online. My info comes from the book Why God Won't Go Away: Brain Science and the Biology of Belief, which I highly recommend.

Also unfortunately, I don't have the book handy and, not being a neuroscientist myself, I can't remember all of the technical details. The one hallmark I recall is altered functioning in the occipital pareital lobe, specifically the area which regulates awareness of the body's spatial boundaries and orientation.

 

[CarlinKnew]

I disagree. It is, at minimum, reasonable interpretation. May I ask, have you ever had such an experience?

I have, and they led me to some crazy conclusions, but afterwards I understood that these experiences were just the product of chemicals in my brain. The interpretation that goblins are responsible for such an experience is just as reasonable as that of a god.

 

[Nepenthe]

I'd suggest there are far better books than the pop science in Why God Won't Go Away. I enjoyed it as an introduction to the brain and religion, but the authors conclusions are unwarranted. I linked Boyle's article earlier and his book is a solid scientific study of the issue(s).

It was mentioned in another thread as well, but the link between inducing these religious experiences by meditation and drugs produces similar SPECT scans. There's most definitely something going on int he brain with religious experiences, but there's no reason to conclude it's different than similar states brought on by mescaline, LSD, MDMA, or DMT. All of these chemicals are similar to the endogenous neurochemichals in the brain like dopabite, sorotoni, norephrine and opiates. LSD and peyote invoked religious-like experiences and were a profound experience that I imagine mirrored the religious ecstasy of believers.