Religion a model for psychiatric delusions

[Az]

Please take this information as it was intended as information concerning current research and a better understanding of human nature. This is not an assault on any particular religion. Rather it is an attempt to understand the workings of the human mind.

From http://www.bordermail.com.au/newsflow/pageitem?page_id=612563

Full article:
----------------------
STUDYING the mechanisms of religious belief could lead to a better understanding of what goes on in the minds of people with psychiatric delusions.

An international conference in Sydney this week will hear that some religious beliefs including that a virgin gave birth to the son of God qualify as delusions.

Macquarie University PhD student Ryan McKay, who has been studying under one of the countrys leading authorities on delusions, Prof Max Coltheart, said the idea that religion was a delusion dated back to Sigmund Freud some 100 years ago.

In his presentation to the Cognitive Science Conference today, Mr McKay will outline the latest thinking on how religious belief relates to delusion.

“The line between psychosis and intense religiosity is a bit of a difficult one to draw,” he said.

He said many religious beliefs were triggered by a “religious experience”, often produced by changes in brain activity.

For example, it had been shown that when Buddhist monks went into deep mediation and experienced a sense of “being at one with the world”, they also experienced decreased blood flow to the part of the brain responsible for concepts of the “self”.
-----------------------

[molly]

1. There was a very similar article in

Psychology Today magazine several years ago.

[Az]

3. The god part of the brain

There has been growing research in understanding how the mind comes to recognise self. We now know that it is a learned process that builds itself up within specific areas of the brain. Various methods of meditation, drugs, and physical exertion can short out this area leaving one with a functional brain but no sense of these thoughts originating from the self. The brain applies these thoughts to an external source and typically adopts whatever learned explanation for such imparting of ideas would entail.

[KittyWampus]

5. Let's Not Assume That Implies "Malfunction"

The various METHODS which you say "short out" a particular area of the brain and alter our cognitive sense of self is not a malfunction.

Just as concentrating on a math question might increase blood flow or activity in one part of the brain and decreasing it in others.

There are times when having an altered sense of SELF is advantageous. Say when you are driving on the freeway and someone cuts you off. Or a natural disaster wipes out a community and outside help is necessary to rebuild.

Have an altered sense of SELF is also a big part of the difference between Reptilian behavior and Enlightened behavior.

Also, the difference between SPIRITUAL Experience (which is the term I prefer over Religious) and Delusion is that Spiritual Exeriences can be brought about intentinoally using certain METHODOLOGIES. They are voluntary and controllable.

Delusions, on the other hand, are involuntary and uncontrolled.

[Az]

11. Not sure malfunction applies

It is a function of the brain. It has advantages. It may even have a survival edge. The same is true of reason.

Think how the brain evolves evolutionarily. Does it favor belief or reason. Lets say you are in the dark. You suddenly hear a sound. The belief oriented brain may leap to a conclusion that any sound in the dark is a threat and immediately run. The reasoning brain will stop and ponder the possible sources of such a sound and promptly be eaten by a saber tooth tiger.

The crux of the matter is not the anomaly. It is the conclusions drawn from the experience of the anomaly.

[study_war_no_more]

38. pay no attention to the man behind the curtain

:tinfoilhat:

[THUNDER HANDS]

2. well, duh

A giant invisible man in the sky who's all seeing and all knowing and all powerful.

But doesn't involve himself in the day-to-day workings of the planet he created.

I never liked the idea of being some deity's science fair project, anyway.

[Trek234]

4. I think it helps people deal with reality

in a similar way feeling you are omniscent, omnipotent, or that everyone adores you when none of it is real at all.

It's all just a delusion, but sometimes people can't exist with out it...

[sangh0]

6. sigh

The article did not say that all religious beliefs were delusions. Instead, it suggested a similarity between the nuerological mechanisms of religious belief and the neurological mechanisms of delusion.

Unless one can scientifically prove the truth of their beliefs concerning the nature of reality --and no one can do that-- the beliefs of the non-religious are as "delusional" as the beliefs of the religious. Everyone of us has to "deal with reality", even though *NONE* of us can say for sure exactly what reality "is".

[Rainbowreflect]

7. For all of you who believe religion is a delusion, I have a question.

Do you believe that humans have a spirtual side, or are we simply physical/mental beings? And if you do, what does spirtual mean to you. I am honestly curious about this.

[Az]

9. First off

The issue here is not that the entirety of religious belief is delusional. What the conference is examing is what impact religious belief can have on delusional beliefs or what shared basis they may have.

As to spirituality it is dependent on how you define that. If you define it as the common traits we share in common and that which binds us together then I doubt you will find many ready to throw down and argue against that.

The real issue here is souls. If you define spirituality as an appreciation of the soul then you are going to find disagreement amongst the skeptics. I would argue that there is a very real and demonstrable connection we all share and that its joyous celebration are a worhty pursuit. But I would not say that there is a disembodied self that you or I posess that survives our body.

The exploration of the mind is the attempt to discern just what it is about the brain that gives rise to the anomaly of sentience. I encourage this pursuit and refuse to jump to any conclusive stance without supporting evidence.

[carolinayellowdog]

28. Sentience, cognition, consciousness

Hey Az,

As I understand the term it is incorrect to say that the brain gives rise to sentience. Plants are sentient in that they register sensation. It is cognition that requires a brain, and (along with emotion) is characteristic of all animals that have one. Consciousness is self-awareness, which emerges later in humans than cognition and emotion (which we're born with). Chimps and dolphins are conscious in that they can recognize themselves in a mirror; the jury is out on other species as far as I know.

Hope I'm remembering what I've read correctly,

CYD

[study_war_no_more]

40. perception of god

tends to be varied and contridictary, of course god might be all encompassing and quite able to cover all bases and then again may be a willow tree outside my window some mornings.
Some questions don't have answers which raises alot of questions.

[Az]

41. Some answers are

I don't know yet.

[NickDanger]

18. We are strictly physical, imho, the mental being a physical manifestation

'The Ghost in the Machine'

How do you define 'spiritual'?

[greyl]

20. But there is no substance. ;)

When we try to describe "substance", we can only describe properties of objects, not what "substance" is. We should all know that the subatomic particles that make up all this "substance" don't fulfill the qualities of our idea of "substance" at all.

Can you imagine that the physical being is a mental manifestation? If so, welcome to the world of quantum physics.

[papau]

8. They try so hard to dump belief in God - sad

"religious beliefs including that a virgin gave birth"

forgetting that "science" - the set of beliefs and faith that they hold - says that a virgin birth is both possible, and that it occurs normally in nature - even in humans on occassion.

But the blood flow to areas of the brain - and the ability to control it - are interesting.

The post Jesus birth Mary was still a virgin after 2 sisters and a few brothers were born is a Roman Church hang-up. But who is to say they are wrong? The Roman Church trnslates the words into "kin" - a possible - but does not make sense in context - translation. Given the virgin societies of Italy were more or less a reaction to the male dump on females that came with the industrial revolution, and that until 1857 the Virgin Assumption to Heaven was not dogma, I do not see a "problem" worthy of a conference paper on blood flow to the brain.

In any case, interesting research - thanks for posting.

[noonwitch]

10. The virgin birth

My late, devout great-grandmother once said about the virgin birth
"Either it was all true or Mary had a very smart mother".

[Az]

12. Third possibility

It was a mistranslation. The ancient hebrew word for young woman is very similar to virgin. Wouldn't be the first time such mistakes were made. Won't be the last.

[ChillEB]

15. I'd just LOVE to have seen Joseph's real reaction...

Whats that? "Virgin Birth", you say?

SUUUUUUUUURE it was!

Where the hell is that milkman, anyway? He's one dead mother****** when I get my hands on him!

[akitamata]

17. But the blood flow to areas of the brain - and the ability to control it -

I agree that this is the salient point of the article. Shall we now begin to analyze the effects of various chemicals on brain/blood flow ...?

[msmcghee]

22. Just curious.

What does "The post Jesus birth Mary was still a virgin after 2 sisters and a few brothers were born is a Roman Church hang-up." mean?

[Qutzupalotl]

32. Catholic doctrine

The church couldn't deal with the thought of Mary ever losing her virginity, even though she had other children, so they created a belief that her hymen either remained intact or reformed after each birth--I can't remember which. An inelegant solution, IMO.

[msmcghee]

57. Wow - I was raised Catholic.

I quit the church at age 15 but I never heard about Jesus' siblings. Amazing. Thanks.

[jsw_81]

90. Sad?

What's really sad is seeing how many people still cling to primitive myths that were CLEARLY invented by humans.

[Stuckinthebush]

13. Interesting article, Az - thanks

My wife (Psychiatrist) has often said to her colleagues who compartmentalize their own religious beliefs that outside of the context of religion, we (meaning her colleagues) would not hesitate to diagnose individuals with intense religious beliefs as delusional or even bordering on mildly psychotic. Replace "Jesus" and "God" with some other form of invisible all-knowing, all-powerful entity, and you get some classic symptoms of delusion.

I'll share this article with her. Thanks.

[Atlant]

30. There was a great editorial on the web about this...

There was a great editorial on the web about this, but I either
failed to bookmark it or lost it among my many browsers. In essence,
the editorial said that if the person presented with similar symptoms
but claiming belief in anything other than one of the major accepted
gods, we woud have no trouble declaring them nuts. But because they
claim belief in one of the accepted gods, it's "hands off" their
psyche.

I googled for it, but couldn't find it that way either; I'd love
to have the link back again.

Atlant

[greyl]

39. iow's, sanity is culturally defined.

Furthermore, reality is culturally defined. I may have read that same piece. It was just after S-11 and the guy the wrote it wondered why people's religious beliefs should be protected from reasoned questioning?

Anyway, for further reading on it you may want to check out Robert Pirsig's Lila. Great follow up to Zen & the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance that covers much more than culturally relative insanity.

[Atlant]

58. Thanks!

> I may have read that same piece. It was just after S-11 and the guy
> the wrote it wondered why people's religious beliefs should be
> protected from reasoned questioning?

Yes, that sounds like the piece! I'm glad to have this aspect of my
sanity confirmed. :-)


> Anyway, for further reading on it you may want to check out Robert
> Pirsig's Lila. Great follow up to Zen & the Art of Motorcycle
> Maintenance that covers much more than culturally relative insanity.

Thanks! I'm actually in mid-rereading of Zen... right now, so
I'll look for Lila.

Atlant

[patcox2]

14. As the parent of an autistic child, I am struck by some things.

Its a recognized trait of aspergers/mild autism, that people suffering from it often have a difficult time dealing with metaphor, their thoughts are very "literal" and when presented with a metaphor they get puzzled, or indignant and angry, "time doesn't fly" would be a typical response.

So I am often struck by the resemblance to the attitude of many sceptics on the topic of religion, who simply refuse to accept that much religious dogma is metaphorical, not literal, and then scoff, like an autistic child, that "it can't rain cats and dogs, daddy."

Maybe someone will do a study someday about the connection between poor social skills, lack of respect for the feelings of others, impatience and frustration with metaphors, strident atheism, and high-functioning autism.

Of course, this is not a personal attack, just an effort to get the information out there so we can continue this important debate about whether the people we disagree with are mentally ill.

[greyl]

16. No, "skeptics" recognize the metaphor.

The problem is with those that take things literally. (Though it must be said that not all religious texts consist only of metaphor.)

Joseph Campbell for example is someone who is more loved by skeptics than by dogmatic delusional fanatics who believe that the god they believe in is the only authentic God.

edit: for those not familiar with Joe: www.jcf.org/about_jc.php

[Az]

19. Metaphors

There are a varities of beliefs and religions. Some take a stronger stance on positions while others are more relaxed. You will find that the more relaxed or liberal beliefs tend to be quieter (but not always) about their positions. Thus the more vocal tend to be the more extreme beliefs.

The main thing you will find atheists and skeptics reacting to are when they percieve an assault on their rights or harm being done to another. There is certainly little threat of this from the more relaxed beliefs. But the extremes present a different problem.

Consider religious beliefs that contend that prayer, touch or other acts by special individuals can result in healing. There are a number of evangelists that make their money by selling such notions to the people and robbing them of both money and life. Yet it plays upon just such a system as this study is looking into. How does belief lead one to such a destruction. What can we learn about this and better educate the people so they are less likely to fall victim to such predation.

Knowledge is a vital concern. Unfortunately it sometimes steps on long held beliefs. Which is more important, the truth or the belief? Sometimes the harm of a belief does not outweight the benefit. Sometimes it does. There are those that will always seek the truth and try to bring it to the world. They are not always appreciated.

[Rainbowreflect]

21. Can you explain to me how scientific studies have shown that people

heal better when they are prayed for, even if they do not know they are being prayed for?
I try to avoid dogma, but I do believe that we are spritual beings, that there is a "soul" if you like, that exists beyond the physical. There have been to many things that have happened in my life that cannot be explained by science. But that is just me.

[msmcghee]

23. Could you please provide . .

. . a link to such studies.

[Az]

24. Studies

To date there have been a number of studies that have tried to prove the benefit of prayer. There have been many claims of succes that erode after the testing methodology was examined. The most recent study by the Mayo clinic shows no corelation between prayer and recovery. http://www.mayo.edu/proceedings/2001/dec/7612a1.pdf

Keep in mind that in science tests are repeated ad infinitum. This is because there can be naturally occurring anomalies in any study. The tests have to be repeated to cancel out these naturally occurring spikes. This is why tests have to be repeatable. You may occaisionally get a test that shows a positive feedback. This can be exasterbated by cutting the tests short once you get the feedback you were looking for. A single test is no guarantee of results. Merely a roadmap for the next test.

[Stuckinthebush]

25. Just engaging in friendly debate here...

When you say that there is a "soul" without concrete evidence, it can be characterized as delusional thinking (note, I'm not saying you are delusional, I am just making a point based on the original article).

So, in this respect, believing in a force within oneself that survives physical death without evidence of said force is akin to believing that gnomes live around oneself and can influence daily life without evidence of said gnomes. The former just happens to be more socially acceptable than the latter.

Now, in regard to the prayer studies, I have read some of these studies (if I remember, one was in the Journal of Parapsychology and one might have been in a medical journal). They are very interesting, however, the researchers (if I remember correctly) do not state that a soul is responsible, but perhaps energy from collective, directed energy. I don't remember the effect sizes observed on these studies, but I'll try to find them again.

However, let us be clear as skeptics, the absense of concrete evidence does not prove that a soul does not exist either.

[NashVegas]

31. About That Soul Thing

Science has lately begun to investigate consciousness as electromagnetic wave form. I recall seeing a BBC story on a newly funded project early this year or late last year.

The idea:

"There is a theory that consciousness can be experienced independently from the normal body-linked waking consciousness. The current concept in medical science, however, states that consciousness is the product of the brain. Could the brain be a kind of receiver for consciousness and memories, functioning like a TV, radio or a mobile telephone? What you receive is not generated by the receiver, but rather electromagnetic informational waves (photons) that are always around you and are made visible or audible to you by the brain and your sense organs."

http://www.iands.org/dutch_study.html

[Az]

33. Interesting idea but

It falls apart at a cause and effect level. If personality were guided by an external source then you would expect to see the brain behaving in an entirely different manner than it does. Memories can be wiped out through chemical and physical means. Personality can be altered in the same way. We are even dicovering the very method by which memories are stored. All evidence seems to indicate that the mind is the result of an organised structure of physical and electrical properties. Remove a component of that structure and chaos results. Wave forms do not hold their form without a physical source. Thus even if the waves play a part in consciousness it is still not independent of the brain.

[study_war_no_more]

45. my mind is a bad neighborhood I wouldn't want to be alone in after dark

LOL sometimes the commitee in my head is absolutely screaming yellow bonkers.

[Chovexani]

54. LOL!

I love that! I definitely understand what you mean too. :)

Thanks all for the fascinating discussion. This is the most civil religion thread I can remember in a long time.

[Skittles]

37. YES

they do MANY studies; the overwhelming majority find no difference. A couple of studies show that the person being prayed for does much worse, and a couple of studies show the person going much better. Guess which studies get reported?

[study_war_no_more]

42. english as a second language students

have the same problem as would we thrown in a culture with differnt metapores so it is not really a reflection on anything but familarity.

[TrogL]

46. I'm aspie, but religious

and I get stumped by some metaphors (but I'm ok with others).

Religious faith requires healthy scepticism, else one would fall into heresy.

[Merlin]

26. There's a BIG difference between religious delusion and belief in God.

Many believe in a God -- i.e. a prime mover, a creator, an intelligent force to which we can attribute the brilliant, unfathomable wonder of the universe.

But that is not the same at all as believing in religious imperatives, such as the virgin birth in Christianity, or transubstantiation (body & blood) in Catholicism.

In my view, it is near impossible not to concede the existence of God. Not as an "Invisible man who lives in the sky" ("and need money; lots and lots of money." -- Geo Carlin :-)), but as an explanation for the fact that we live in a world of incredible order and beauty.

On the other hand, that does not mean this God is in communication with humans, answers prayers, sent his progeny to live among us, tried his hand at writing books (with simply horrible results, I might add) and evidently gave up on it 2,000 years ago, and wants us to have "faith" in unproven mystic assertions of self-proclaimed "holy men" throughout the ages.

Further, the kind of God I believe in could not care less if we congregate together in buildings to "sing His praises." This God is utterly oblivious to such activities, and recognizes that their only purpose is to help humans re-establish a mindset that will allow them to accept their fate in life and conduct themselves in a reasonably responsible manner.

The kind of God I believe in does have rules. These rules are part of the Natural Law which is discernable by reason alone. The Natural Law says to live your life in accordance with enlightened principals. Such principals are humanitarian and ecologically sound in nature, because they say that doing what is good for others and for the earth is beneficial to all living things.

Too bad religion doesn't focus more on perceiving and defining the natural laws of the universe and less on magic and voodoo.

One should never let religion get in the way of his or her understanding of God.

[msmcghee]

27. Merlin said . .

"The kind of God I believe in does have rules. These rules are part of the Natural Law which is discernable by reason alone. The Natural Law says to live your life in accordance with enlightened principals. Such principals are humanitarian and ecologically sound in nature, because they say that doing what is good for others and for the earth is beneficial to all living things."

Here's where I have a problem. Why do you need to see a God to validate the rational sense in that statement? Or, why is it so hard just to say those rules make sense to any person who thinks about it at all.

[Merlin]

60. Because randomness is unintelligent. The universe is intelligent.

The universe follows a large number of phenomenally complex algorithms, beginning with those discovered by Newton and Einstein and extending in all directions. The principals followed by the universe are way more intelligent than humans and we have only begun to unlock them.

The reason a thing "makes sense to any person" is because it is in harmony with those principals. For example, the principals of biology dictate the for a human body to have the highest chance of living out its natural lifespan without disease, it is important that its inhabitant not abuse it excessively by, say, chain smoking or heavy drinking over an extended period. Biological health follows natural laws that we, as humans, can perceive even without the intervention of science, if we have ears to listen, eyes to see, and minds to think.

The natural laws also extend to the wisdom of maintaining harmony among people. Harmony leads to cooperation, mutual support, positive feelings, a healthy environment, and on and on. That this is true is discernable by reason alone. No religious inculcation is necessary. But as people we do not open ourselves to the natural law. It is much easier to get people to observe its principals by claiming them as the teachings of Jesus, which indeed they were.

[PassingFair]

69. YooHoo, Merlin!

Sounds like somebody needs a dose of Dawkins. Check out the "Blind Watchmaker" and "River Out of Eden".

[Merlin]

75. I know. I know. It's terribly threatening for some.

I have no idea why people who are otherwise intelligent, like Dawkins, persist in the notion that Darwin and a Creator are mutually exclusive. (I use the capital "C" here only because it would seem that a creator of the universe would be worthy of a degree of respect at least equal to one of its creations.)

Nor do I comprehend how a physicist can be enamored of the idea that Newton's Law of Entropy -- postulating that it is impossible for disorder to evolve into order -- is inapplicable when it comes to the universe.

The notion that the laws of physics simply were "there" all the time, and that existence has always, um, "existed" is -- in my mind -- a real stretch. Such people do indeed believe in miracles. They are truly religious.

[Az]

71. Perception of patterns

There are patterns within the system. Sometimes we can percieve them. Sometimes they are obscured by chaos. Over time the awareness of these patterns is accumulated by society and kept alive by various means. Religions and oral traditions kept them alive for some time until such a time that a method of seperating true patterns from false patterns could be derived.

There is an old saying. If science is climbing the mountain of truth it will find religion sitting at the summit when it gets there. Well this is true in some sense. Religion takes shortcuts. It grasps at patterns in society it can make use of without knowing the hows or whys of the matter. Science is plodding and cumbersome. Always checking its footing along the path it can take nearly forever for it to take a simple step that religion bound across some time ago. However science never takes great leaps expecting the mountain to be where it has lept to. Thus you will occaisionally see a guru plummet past the plodding scientists as they make their way up the mountain of truth.

Religion grasps patterns that may have utility but it does not bring with it comprehension of why the pattern may have that utility. Thus science can learn from religion and find places to look. But in the end science keeps moving while a fixed belief is stuck believing it has already reached the summit.

[Merlin]

79. Pretty good assessment of at least a portion of the picture.

The problem is, of course, that religion goes well beyond taking entological leaps toward grasping the ultimate truths. It tries to dictate and control behavior, and invents multitudes of ways to induce people to adhere to whatever belief system is espoused.

You used a key term. You said eventually religions are "stuck believing."

We like to criticize Muslimism these days for being stuck in the 7th century. But Chrisitanity seems to me to be stuck somewhere in the middle ages. It doesn't seem to me that there has been much evolution of thought, patterns of "worship" (odd word; why does God need to be worshipped?), understanding of existence and human nature, etc. Protestantism seems a bit more advanced than Catholicism. But Catholicism seems a bit more humanitarian than most Protestant sects.

Pity that Deism, the religion of many of our founding fathers, Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Paine and others, based upon reason and growing out of the enlightenment, has all but disappeared. We could use more Deist thinking these days.

[Az]

80. Efficacy of replication

Evolution favors an ability to replicate. Not an ability to be accurate. Thus belief systems which contain superior propogation techiniques are more likely to survive. Reason based systems unfortunately are stripped of a aggressive propogations system. In fact they often reject such a system.

[Merlin]

83. This is a precious insight.

I love it! Thank you very much. You are absolutely correct.

Incidentally, your logic here tracks very closely the logic Newton used in propounding the 2nd law (entropy).

Good thread, Az.

[Az]

29. Thanks for keeping this discussion civil

It is vital that such things be discussed.

As to the comment that it is near impossible not to concede the existance of god I know of approximately 10%-18% of the population that would object to that position. That is hardly approaching impossible. Add to that the fact that throughout the world the percentages are substantially increased. I respect your right to believe but I maintain that it is not impossible (or even near impossible) to not believe in the existance of god.

Now considering that it is possible (even if nearly impossible) to believe in nonexistance of god the understanding of how the mind comes to formulate such concepts and beliefs is a worthwhile study. The similarities to other formations of beliefs are enlightening.

From the ideas you put forward you can perhaps see that even if there is a god it is possible for individuals to develop a delusional belief ragarding god. Particularly if they have some believe they are in contact with god or have some absolute belief about god bereft of evidence. A belief in god does not mean you have the right belief in god. Thus research in the process is still valuable.

[JNelson6563]

35. Amen! haha

Great thread! I am greatly encouraged by the level of dialogue here. Well done all.

Julie

[Merlin]

61. No reason a discussion of religion can't be civil.

In my experience, however, it is the non-believers who have been the least harmonious.

My beliefs are about half-way between religious and agnostic. They offend both groups. I don't care.

It is amazing to me that far more people don't want to discuss religion and god. They go directly to the most important questions of our existence.

Btw, I do not consider a poll establishing that there are many atheists (not the same as agnostics), to be any evidence that it is rational to maintain such a belief. On the contrary, I believe atheism is as much a religion as, say, Catholicism. It relies upon faith alone to sustain a belief in the unknowable. Now many atheists will take offense to that. But where is the offense? It is a simple statement of fact. It is impossible to prove a negative. That is a fundamental truth of logic. Yet atheists believe there is no God. Thus they believe in something that cannot be proven. Thus they are believers.

[Az]

66. Belief

An atheist does not maintain a belief in no god. Rather they are unconvinced by the various arguments for god. It requires no faith the realise one is unconvinced by a specific argument. To move beyond a simple lack of acceptance of a position and develop your own does require a level of faith. But I doubt measurements of who requires more faith in a particular belief is productive to increasing either sides knowledge of things.

I do agree that the nature of the universe and life itself is of vital import. It should be discussed far more than it is. I suspect that the taboo of such discussions has lead to America's general atrophy of intellectual discussion.

[patcox2]

74. Thats not atheism, thats agnosticism.

Please, these are well defined terms.

[study_war_no_more]

43. have you ever considered that God may not like you?

Fight club- just saw it again last night.
Just kidding around I believe god has a huge sense of humor- look at his followers.

[Merlin]

62. To be honest, I've never met the guy.

Unless he was that Pakistani who waited on me at the liquor store Saturday. He did have a kind of unusual glow in his eyes.

[jsw_81]

92. Incredible order and beauty?

Have you ever seen a meteor crater? There's one off the coast of Mexico that was created when a rock the size of a mountain crashed into the earth at over 50,000 MPH. Literally billions of creatures died as a result.

And what about disease? Have you ever seen a child slowly dying of cancer, AIDS, or malaria? Have you ever heard a small animal squeal and cry as it's torn apart by a hungry predator? The natural world is filled with such horrors.

Incredible order and beauty? I think not. If there is a god then he/she/it is a monster that makes Hitler seem friendly by comparison.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

34. I saw a fascinating piece...

on a young man who had a type of electrical "storm" that was triggered in the "religious" part of the brain. During a storm he was conscious and would be overcome by these intense religious episodes that involved, among other things, a direct experience of "god" so powerful he would weep with joy when retelling what happened to him.

These experiences were so profound for him that he felt even if they could find a cure, he would not want to have treatment if it would mean losing these religious reveries.

Unfortunately it was hard on those around him -- he required almost constant monitoring and was sometimes hospitalized as a result of the delusions he was dealing with.

After meeting many hardcore "evangelicals" in my life I have often felt that there was an element of mental illness involved with them. Please understand I am speaking not of folks who are simply deeply religious or spiritual, I'm talking about the type with that overly bright light in their eyes.

[Az]

36. A lot of this reseach

was initiated by looking at epyleptics. After seizures these people would have profound experiences. Their minds would have deeply emotional religious experiences. The patients refered to the sensation as being in contact with god. Others would become profoundly focused on specific objects convinced that they had a universal importance.

This lead to experiments conducted at the University of California where they deliberately attempted to trigger these episodes in peoples minds. They would effectively short out portions of the brain leaving the subject to experience their brain devoid of any reference to self. This duplcated the after effects of the seizures and profound religious experiences.

Since then research has suggested that a variety of forms of meditation can short this portion of the brain out. Physical exertion as well as drugs can have a similar impact.

It is interesting to note the difference between the early forms of monotheistic religions and their polytheistic counterparts as expressed in ancient Rome. Through ancient texts we know that the Roman pagans considered the early Christians to be a very odd sect. Very experential in comparison to the more intellectualy aloof pagan religions. That is the early Christians partook in rites that they claimed put them in communion with their god. The Roman gods were more of an externalised story and explanation of morality and ethics that all citizens must hold too. While the early monotheistic sects actually claimed to have a relationship with their deity. Early monotheistic practices were very oriented around achieving this connection. Documents show that all manner of rites and practices (including drugs and physical exertion) were involved in these rites. It may well have been that these sects were pursuing this disconnect in the brain to experience this sense of oneness with the universe/god. Having no understanding of what caused the experience they could only expound on the experience itself and what they brain was telling them. Giving rise to religions and dogmas based on direct experience.

[carolinayellowdog]

48. Why are we wired this way?

The experience of boundary disolution, hence oneness, has to do with the parietal-temporal junction where the brain stores its map of self and self's relation to the world. But another aspect of religious experience is feeling invisible presence(s), and this is based in the temporal lobes. The oceanic oneness experience does not suggest monotheism but rather pantheism. It's the sensing of an invisible presence or presences that leads us to monotheism or polytheism. Another aspect of religious experience is ecstasy, which comes from turning off the right amygdala which is the seat of fear and dread.

Your argument seems to be implicitly reductionist, and while I take no exception to your evidence and reasoning, I think there are questions left unanswered. Why, from an evolutionary POV, are we wired to have these experiences? Why do we have receptors in our brains for THC, alcohol, and a host of other consciousness-altering substances? Seems to me that the potential for religious and or psychedelic experience raises questions about the meaning of life that materialistic reductionism can't answer. Not that religion can either!

CYD

[Az]

51. Cause

Why assume that we were supposed to react to THC? What do you suppose the odds are that our brains would not react to something? It could just be that our circumstances are simply the result of the journey rather than arriving at an appointed destination.

The mind applies what it can to fill in the gaps. When we enter into this state of suspended selfawareness the mind focuses on different things based on expectations. If your teachings have included seeking oneness with the universe then this loss of self will concur with that expectation. If instead your learning suggests that there is a god then the thought processes that are occurring in your mind will be attributed to that.

Perhaps it requires a mind to apply meaning to life. If that is the case then perhaps the only meaning to life is what we make of it. What I do know is that questions such as you pose are vital to keep the process of searching for the truth honest. We are born in ignorance and do our best to find what truth we can. It is better to make the journey together sharing what we learn.

[sangh0]

53. There's a book that might answer your question

Why do we have receptors in our brains for THC, alcohol, and a host of other consciousness-altering substances?

IIRC, Michael Pollan wrote a book called "The Secret Lives of Plants" or something like that, where he explains that plants have developed a host of attributes that "endear" them to humans, who in turn, make sure that these plants survive.

[Chovexani]

55. Absolutely fascinating book

My initial exposure to The Secret Life of Plants was years ago when I first began studying nature-oriented spirituality. It really is a very interesting read, I would recommend it to everyone with an interest in these kinds of issues.

[study_war_no_more]

91. Panthism, ruby red beets, and God

Wheeeeeeeeee Merry meet. I am reminded of the Brazialians when introduced to Christian dieties immeaditely adopted them along with Baron Samadi and Erzuli and all the other dieties. There explanation was we need all the help we can get we are humans.

[Merlin]

65. But you're both saying something similar. Religion is a state of mind.

Why? Why--on these fundamental questions of existence (who are we? why are we here? etc.) do we rely upon emotion rather than reason?

We are wired screwy!

[Az]

68. Reason is a tool

not the natural methodology of our mind. Our mind is an emotional thing. We have learned to use reason as a means of attempting to govern our natural emotional attachements.

[patcox2]

73. We haven't read our Chomsky, have we?

"reason," what we perceive as "logic," is in the view of many structural linguists actually a hardwired part of our brains. They posit the existence of a "language organ" and a number of hardwired grammatical rules governing the way we process language. Much of what we perceive as "logic" and think are rules governing the external world, are simply the workings of the machine code governing our language processing ability. What makes grammatical sense to us in terms of the symbols we use when we "think" we tend to externalize as universal rules governing the realities our symbols represent, but of course it is a leap of faith, a form of delusion, to beleive that our perception accurately represents the reality, isn't it?

[Az]

78. Reason vs Process

Just because the mind follows a fixed process does not mean it is a reasoning machine. The neural pathways are formed based on the stregnth and number of signals passing over them. Stronger impressions leave stronger pathways. Thus memes with more emotional weight take precidence over logic. It takes time to learn empirical logic. The mind forms its own sense of the world around it building its structures from the emotional values of its growing collection of memes. If it manages to gather enough memes concerning reason it adopts that as a means of further development. There are other criteria that can be introduced that superceed reason.

[patcox2]

81. What is empirical logic?

Empiricism and logic have nothing to do with one another.

Superstitions are for the most part based on rigorous logical chains of reasoning. Their flaw is not in logic, but in the lack of empirical evidence for the results of the empeccably logical reasoning.

Its like Monty Python and the Holy Grail, "if she weighs as much as a duck, then she's made of wood, then she's a witch."

Science uses logic only as a step in hypothesis forming, the decision as to which hypotheses are true is based entirely on empirical evidence.

So, like I say, when you say "empirical logic," just what the hell are you talking about? the scientific method is about rejecting logic as the ratio decidendi in favor of empirical evidence.

You are starting to sound like the more juvenile sceptics who base their whole worldview on a false (superstitious) beleif that science is based on logic and therefore what is logical is scientific.

And you are simply on another world with this theory of yours that "logic" is a tool that must be learned, that is not at all what the science in this area suggests, rather it suggests that what we epxerience as "logic" is a function of language. Its like in Risky business, "if you can't say it, Joel, you can't do it." What we think of as logic actually derives from the deep hard wired grammar that controls the way we think, thats why so many important truths and scientific breakthroughs are described as "counter-intuitive," the world simply isn't logical, logic is something we try to impose on the world. "Reason" is an attribute of language. You sometimes speak as if you confuse science and logic and reason.

[Az]

82. Common sense

What I was trying to convey is that the learning process by which we begin to understand the world around us does not adhere to what is necissarily true. Instead our mind favors that which is useful. Thus expectations of based on false patterns can develop. Thus common sense believing itself to be logical thinking can be duped when a closer examination reveals that the operation of things is other than what was assumed.

[Merlin]

85. This is the whole idea behind many forms of therapy.

One school of psychology, for example, postulates that personality is simply a composite of accumulated minor decisions we have made over the course of our lives (when I cry, she gives me a bottle of milk). Many such decisions were made very early on when we understood little of the circumstances or our options. One way to resolve a personality defect, it is theorized, is to identify the circumstances which lead to a faulty set of decisions earlier in life, explicate the circumstances, and allow the patient to "redecide."

Though I'm not a psychologist, I believe this is a reasonable explanation of the theory, and the theory seems to be at least a reasonable partial explanation of personality development.

[Merlin]

84. Aw, c'mon. Keep it cordial.

You're down to some pretty narrow areas of belief here. Of course the mind is not a logic machine as a computer is. But it is capable of perceiving logic.

You say that perception is only because of the mind's language facility. Ok. Maybe. So what.

You say logic and reason are different. Yes. But surely they are related.

And of course empiricism and logic are related. Using logic we develop a hypothesis and test it using what we perceive to be rational methods resulting in empirical proof or disproof, of the hypothesis as a working principal. Once proven, we apply the principal using congruent thought (something a computer is not good at), extrapolation, or interpolation.

Can't we all just get along?

[Merlin]

63. Fascinating, Az

Thanx

[study_war_no_more]

44. a direct experience of god??

I have had this in spetacular ways and in very quiet ways, hopefully I strive to always be concious of the experience. I don't try to define or fit it into other beliefs which I think is a problem. I am happy being a grasshopper learning from the great sensai.

[damnraddem]

47. With all of the religiously-based beliefs underlying policy decisions --

for example, belief in the 'end times' used to justify environmental degredation and risky foreign policy -- I hardly consider a critique of belief in virgin birth to be an important issue. I'll ignore religious beliefs that don't affect our world. There are plenty that immediately threaten us.

[carolinayellowdog]

49. My naturalistic theory of the resurrection

Az and all,

I have come up with a theory about Christian origins that AFAIK is original, and will offer it here for your consideration. IMO all the historical Jesus research that assumes the resurrection story was made up well after the fact is terribly misguided. (As is the orthodox belief in a *physical* resurrection-- which does not even appear in the earliest gospel Mark or in Paul's letters.) What really happened, IMO, I hypothesize based on the research of the Rhines at Duke back in the 1930s. They did a questionnaire asking people if they had ever had a psychic experience, and found that the most commonly reported paranormal event was *apparitions of the recently departed to their loved ones*. I think that Jesus "appeared" to lots of people within the days after his death, and they all told one another stories about their experiences, and over time those stories got "better" and "better" culminating with the ultimate "can you top this" version.

But the roots of it all were sincere, not concocted legends to manipulate people as some skeptics seem to assume.

CYD

[nolabels]

50. Pharmacological reasons for psychiatric delusions

After being locked out on the other thread, I am posting this under protest of the gestapo that runs the LBN and the sugestion given to do it.


I didn’t want to upset the civil post by AZ on the other related subject, so I thought to try another post instead. There is all kind of reasons people end up doing crazy things. Outrageous as it might seem, the bent for one-mindedness is actually kind antithetical to most other human forms of behavior. It seems to more akin to reptiles which also seem to use very little cognitive devices in their quest for living.

http://www.emedia.com.my/Current_News/NST/Monday/National/20030714074316/Article/
New Straits Times » National
Man who ate own penis now under mental care

(snip)
IPOH, July 13: The 33-year-old man who cooked and ate part of his penis is now under the care of Ipoh Hospital’s unit for the mentally unstable

Tun Hisan said the incident happened at 2.30am Friday, when the man stripped and sliced part of his penis.

The man claimed he had seen visions and heard voices, adding that it was very noisy at the time of the incident.

High on drugs, he claimed he heard voices instructing him to cut off his penis, wrap, grill and eat it.(snip)

Oh yea thanks AZ for posting on that other one and I can guarantee you that real life ones are a lot more frightening than any kind of mock up would ever be, even if they could figure out how to do it (that is unless you can also tell me that the life we are all living with * around is also one of them)

[Az]

52. NPR did a peace on schitzophrenia

some time ago. It is difficult for some to imagine what it is like to be constantly assaulted by voices and images that originate inside your head. The ability to distinguish reality from aberation is heroic in the face of such an assault. The peace on NPR talked about research being done to try to convey this existance to caregivers so its not just a diagnoses in a book. They created a simulator which allowed caregivers to virtually experience the onslaught of messages in the brain. Its shocking. http://www.npr.org/programs/atc/features/2002/aug/schizophrenia/index.html

[nolabels]

56. This was part of what I was also trying to point out

From that article
(snip)
Janssen Pharmaceutica, a company that makes aug treatment for schizophrenia created a multimedia simulation that it says lets a participant see the world through the eyes and ears of a person with schizophrenic illness. Janssen created the simulation as an education tool for doctors and others who want a more visceral understanding of the illness
(snip)
(snip)
Dr. Sam Keith, medical advisor on the virtual reality project, is a veteran psychiatrist who’s heard thousands of patients describe schizophrenic episodes. Still, after trying the simulation, Keith said, “When it’s real, it’s different -- it’s very frightening, it’s very scary."
(snip)
(snip)
Even though schizophrenia patient Frey consulted on the project, he found the simulation too disturbing to sit all the way through. When Silberner tells him she was terrified by the experience, Frey responds, “Yeah, you ought to be… Imagine not being able to take off the goggles,(and) the helmet."(snip)

There was a recent study I heard about where they have found the people that get prescribed into using the many types of psychotropic drugs often regress (to what some are even saying is a worse) conditions then they previously experienced. As with almost all drugs that people use to alter consciousness, the various types of drugs they want to sell is mostly only to line their pockets and not any real cure or lasting quality.

I remember quite a few years back when the medical establishment was even under the assumption (delusions) that the brain would never heal once damaged. The other recent story about that man in a coma for 19 years that came out of it and is getting better, would also give that one pause too.

There are many degrees and types of schizophrenia as with most any physiological condition that some would describe as a Illness or disorder (what I would describe as a learning experience, its all relative. Weaning myself off all those drugs they wanted to give for this diagnosis of my schizophrenia, was at times worse than what it was supposed to be working on. (23 years ago)

Another point I was getting at was this thing they call "soul" could possibly be altered by inductions of chemicals, but is might also revert back somewhat to where it was before such episodes took place. This is could also be a way to acquire more knowledge through things. To understand the consequences but not fully understand it in it’s entirety, if applied correctly can lead to better understanding of each other for mutual benefit is in part, philosphy. The thing that can be known but not fully described only experienced. The Indians in the southwest didn't take peyote and sit in sweathouses because it felt good, they went there for knowledge of the unknown


Belief can and many times does outweigh reasons for ones actions and that is not to say that I think they are wrong. Its just more cause and effect, and really not to much mystery about any of it, if one really puts intent in involvement to understand what they might be observing.

[TankLV]

59. rothlmao! Boy is THAT redundant!

Great Headline!

[Sirius_on]

64. Whats the point of the study?

What can be gained by studying this topic? I honestly think that this thread is full of crap. Saying that 80% of the U.S population is under some mass delution is absolutely B.S. Wouldnt the majority define the natural mental state? Why would you use the far minority of the population as a litmus to being "Normal".


This thread has no value at all. If you want to compare religion to delutions, go right ahead. Although have some respect and keep it to yourself. Why is there a need to find others that agree with your beliefs? Do you need validation?

[Az]

67. The subject is not that religion is deluded

We are trying to understand how the mind works. Religions have impact on the mind. Looking to them helps us to understand the natural means by which we come to believe things. Sometimes believe things beyond all seeming reason. There is nothing to suggest that being religious means you are insane. But conversely there is nothing to suggest that just because a majority of people believe a thing make it true.

Religion is a common state of social development for human society. Studying what effects come from its affects helps us to understand ourselves. If you feel there is nothing to be learned from religion and its effect on the mind then you are of course free to have your opinion.

[patcox2]

72. Hey Az, ever listen to Stevie Wonder?

He has a song called "superstition" which contains a great little piece of wisdom (I assume you are familiar with the distinctions between knowledge, intelligenc, and wisdom, if not, I direct you to The Simpsons Mensa episode). What Stevie sings is "when you believe in things that you don't understand its superstition."

Now you have to think about that. It means that you can believe in something thats true, but if you don't understand it and really just take it on faith, its a superstition to you, its not knowledge.

I think this is relevant to the discussion you started, because although it is likely true that there are similarities between certain varieties of religious belief and delusion, there are just as many similarities between various other beleifs and opinions and delusion. Some religious people have no real deep understanding of theology and the nature of god and the limitations of human consciousness and the necessity for a metaphoric understanding of religious texts, and they therefore, because they beleive in something they do not understand, have a superstitious beleif ansd it resembles delusion. Likewise, some disbeleivers base their disbelief not on a real understanding of religious beleif, but rather on a simplistic, rigid, stereotyped belief about what religion is all about, and these people too are mired in their own delusion (the corollary I would posit to Stevie is that "If you disbelieve in a thing that you don't understand, its superstition.")

Likewise, some people have encountered philosophical works or scientific works that somehow resonate with them, they find them appealing, but they truly don't understand what science is or what its limits are, they have a simplistic, superstitious beleif in science, and thats delusional too.

And some people, have a shallow superstitious level of understanding of political philosophy, and there are probably similarities between those people and delusional people. Beleiving that Dean is a progresive, for example, is an act of faith, or delusion.

So anyway, the study of the human mind is endlessly fascinating, and I don't think this similarity between "delusional" beleifs and religion is in any way limited to religious beleifs, there are many people who hold beleifs in things that are true, but they hold them in delusional ways.

Look at the faith of the conspiracy theorists, their absolute unshakeable beleif that they have proven that an ultra-secret energy beam weapon shot down Wellstone's plane, do you honestly beleive these people are less delusional than religious people?

[Az]

76. It is the nature of how we come to believe a thing

Reason is a tool. We have learned to use it to guide our understanding of the world around us. However our brain works by emotional weighting. It does not have to understand a thing to have an emotion about it. Thus there is a constant stuggle that takes place to balance our beliefs. Reason is a tool our mind has adopted but it is not entirely integrated in even the most rational of minds. Our beliefs take precidents over our reason. A strong application of reason can eventually override a belief. But it is not instant.

There is an annual skeptics event where people gather to dare the fates. They smash mirrors. Walk under ladders. And violate all manner of supersticions. A person that rejects such beliefs can still experience a moment of doubt and uncertainty because there are a host of memes competing within their mind for dominance. It is how this struggle plays out that determines what we currently believe.

[Sirius_on]

77. Consider this

I would doubt that you would disagree with the fact that most religious people are born into there religion. That fact alone should dispute all claims to a dilusional onset of religion. If the exposed youth chooses to follow the religion is another situation all together. While I would disagree that religion is a mental state, I would also agree that many people do not question there beliefs enough.

I have spent more time then you could ever imagine thinking about the way life came about. There was a brief time in my life that I would have considered myself an agnostic. I didnt really care to answer the question that seemed unanswerable. Eventually I came to the conclusion that God does exist. When I tried to disprove that idea with myself, I found more answers that pointed to God then did not.

Do I believe every word in the bible as literal? No, but I also know that the bible wasnt intended as a answer session for sceptics in the year 2003 either.

EDIT: I replied to the wrong post. I assume this will be read regardless and thus its placement isnt that relivant.

[nolabels]

88. I can see that you are reasoning with it, the trick is to not get stuck...

in the dialectic (either / or) considering the crude joke about three blind men having a hard time describing an elephant they had their hands on, or the forest from the trees analogy. The ideal of being born into something is another valid point.

I don't have any real axe to grind with any religious organization, but sometimes letting the evidence be borne out, is better than trying to shoot the messenger

http://www.mayanmajix.com/art_mc.html
http://www.mayanmajix.com/art024.html

An Overview of the
Mayan Calendar


(snip)
The Mayan sacred books of astronomy and prophecy are painted on pages of processed bark of the Amate tree. Many thousands of these books, called codices, were burned during the early 15th century by Catholic priests. Much knowledge was lost, which is the first step in cultural annihilation. Maya Priests were pushed far into hiding. They could only practice their culture in the most remote areas of Central America. Those who were caught were murdered.
This practice continued up to the late 1980’ s
The Maya knew this 500+ year period of horror and devastation was coming.
It was written in their prophecy over 2000 years earlier...
Dr. Carl J. Calleman PhD is a biochemical scientist from Sweden; he has for 30 years worked in labs performing microbiology experiments. Most of his work was investigating how pollution causes disease to proliferate. 8 years ago he trained his attention on the Mayan calendar to see what correlations or sets of facts could be proven not just “studied” as the archeologists have done. What he uncovered with his new found “hobby” is quickly changing the world and the way we live with it.
(snip)

[nolabels]

70. What was that about a natural state of consenus

http://www.religioustolerance.org/dc_jones.htm
THE PEOPLE'S TEMPLE,
LED BY JAMES WARREN (JIM) JONES
(snip)
During the late 1970's, Jones had been abusing prescription drugs and appears to have become increasingly paranoid. Rumors of human rights abuses circulated. As in most high-intensity religious groups, there was a considerable flow of people joining and leaving the group. Tim Stoen, the Temple attorney and right-hand man to Jones left to form Concerned Relatives who claimed that Jonestown was being run like a concentration camp, and that people were being held there against their will. This motivated Leo Ryan, a Congressman, to visit Jonestown in 1978-NOV for a personal inspection. At first, the visit went well. Later, on NOV-18, about 16 Temple members decided that they wanted to leave Jonestown with the visitors. This came as quite a blow to both Jones and the rest of the project. While Ryan and the others were waiting at Port Kiatuma airfield, the local airstrip, some heavily armed members of the Temple's security guards arrived and started shooting. Congressman Ryan and four others were killed; three were members of the press; the other was a person from Jonestown who wanted to leave. 11 were wounded. Fearing retribution, the project members discuss their options. They reach a consensus to commit group suicide. 914 died: 638 adults and 276 children. Some sources say 911 died. Most appear to have committed suicide by drinking a grape drink laced with cyanide and a number of sedatives, including liquid Valium, Penegram and chloral hydrate. Some sources say it was Kool-Aid; others say FlaVor-Aid®. Other victims appear to have been murdered by poison injection.
(snip)

[dArKeR]

86. FAITH - A PSYCHOLOGICAL DISORDER?

Millions around the world profess a faith in religion or believe in mystical forces, realms, and beings beyond our comprehension. Skeptics and atheists, who turn toward a science that fails to explain the metaphysical, oppose faith or belief in such unscientific ideas. Even with the widespread dissemination of scientific knowledge and technological advancement, people still turn toward the supernatural to explain what they cannot understand. Stealth aircraft become reverse-engineered extraterrestrial spacecraft. Mediums are more popular than ever as millions turn to them for advice, predictions, and to contact deceased loved ones. Christian faith healers are still packing auditoriums. Most people follow some type of faith-based religion. There are even those who lobby to include creationism in science classes. Even though many popular mystical beliefs have been thoroughly exposed as fraud or misunderstood natural phenomenon, even exposed as pure myth, believers continue to cling to speculative hypothesis. Why? And does it really matter what people believe? Is faith in the unknown a harmful thing?

http://www.xproject.net/archives/paranormal/faith.html

http://darkerxdarker.tripod.com/

[Az]

87. Not a disorder, a property of the mind

No it doesn't matter what you believe (as long as you are not hurting anyone). But it is worth studying how the brain comes to believe things and what we can learn from this. Thus it is that religion is serving as a model to understand how other belief structures which may be desrtuctive manage to take hold.

[farmboxer]

89. Bush And Religion?!

Rev. Moon friend of Bush family, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Gary Bauer, Jimmy Swaggert, Jim Baker, Jim Jones, and the rest of their ilk!

[nolabels]

93. Just wanted to give this a little kick for Pat Robertson

He has kind of been in the news lately, wanting to everybody to pray for the deaths of members of the SCOTUS