Religion/Spirituality and the brain...

Great Debates
1

I’ve been reading various articles all over the place which seem to be saying that religious/spiritaul feelings are caused by a particular part of the brain; activity has been consistently detected in the same place when the subject is experiencing something that they would describe as spritual or religious, subjects who experience damage or have abnormalities in this region are also prone to religious behaviour.

But… is it sound reasoning to infer that this part of the brain is the explanation for why people think there is a God?

For example, it’s possible to detect activity in a specific area of the brain every time the subject smells roasted chicken, but nobody would argue that the roasted chicken is produced by the brain, rather that this particular part of the brain is the bit that deals with external experiences of smell.

Now somebody will likely invoke Occam’s razor here, because, unlike roast chicken smells, personal sprituality tends to be difficult/impossible to independently corroborate, but that’s the whole point isn’t it? - by definition, spiritual things are intangible, if we are to insist on having tangible evidence for them, anything which satisfies this test disqualifies itself as spiritual in doing so.

Am I right in sayig though, that (howrever unlikely it might seem to our educated minds) we cannot entirely rule out the idea that we have merely discovered the part of the brain that deals with external spritual influence?

2

Not really “sound” as bang, out-of-the-ballpark solid. It’s a somewhat more reasonable inference than the contrary would be, however, and yup, by that Razor. But strictly speaking, the only replicable statement is, that with certain classes of experience that people describe in X way, Y region of the brain often shows a statistically meaningful pattern of activity.

As for that contrary, I mean the argument that, since the brain supports that pattern of activity, it is therefore proof that the experiences are “real”. I think–any neurologist in the house, by all means correct me, please–that the areas of the brain correlated with visual processing will look very similar when someone
A) looks at an apple that can be independently experienced
B) hallucinates one that cannot
…will show similar patterns of activity. The pattern of activity itself is neither proof nor disproof in and of itself that something independently observable is causing it.

Apparently, it’s not. If that were accepted as the whole point, there’d be a lot less preachiness and moral high-horsedness about spirituality in general.

I’m not sure why you stress external, but I’m rather fond of the idea of immanence, so I don’t much distinguish between them. But yes, you’re right. Neither can we rule it in.

Spiritual experiences are very meaningful and special things, I’m very glad I’ve had mine, but remain thoroughgoingly agnostic about whence and whither they arise. I don’t think they’re cheapened either way, no moreso than the gift of consciousness itself is.

3

Point taken, perhaps I should have said “That’s my point”

4

What I’m really asking is “can we be sure which is the cause and which is the effect?”

5

I posted this yesterday on another thread, but it is probably one of the articles you mentioned in the OP. It even asks the exact question you are asking.

http://www.rumormillnews.net/cgi-bin/config.pl?read=9425

6

I agree that a biological basis for religious feelings does not disprove the existence of God. I cannot count times that I have been badgered by a believer who claims that they know God is real because they have felt Him. I don’t think that they are lying to me, but people also feel Him when their brains are stimulated in a way that we are quite sure has nothing to do with God. Thus, your relating the fact that you have had a religious experience doesn’t go a long way toward convincing me of God’s existence. I may have been profound to you, but I can always maintain that it is of biological, not divine, origin. Again, this is not proof that God doesn’t exist, but it, er, adds an edge to Occams’ razor.

7

The question is not, “Can we cause [blank] effect by stimulating [this] are of the brain” but, “Is there anything else that causes this stimulation?”

That is to say, we can stimulate an area of the brain and cause the sensation of, say, pain, where no such force is actually applied. But it is no mystery that when a person is cut they also feel pain.

What I wonder is if this area of the brain is subtly linked with other areas of the brain; that is, is it self-stimulating? If not, then it could very well be used as part of a proof of spirituality.

The notibly common causes of a feeling of direct connection with spirits/spirituality/gods/etc is the rituals in which they are “summoned.” So, is it the ritual or the gods? Any skeptic would quickly conclude that the ritual itself acts, in some way, to cause this sensation. Any believer in the ritual would say that it brings the gods around to cause the sensation.

This is a rather amusing split, IMO, for the majority of people who play roles in these rituals are indeed imbibed with a sense of the spiritual side of things, much like the majority of people who place turkey in their mouths will also taste it. Perhaps we should all look to Crowley in such an experience, when he said “The idea of presenting a story ceremonially may have preceded the ritual, and the Gods may have been mere sublimations of eponymous heroes or personifications of abstract ideas; but ultimately it is much the same. Admit that the genius of man is divine, and the question ‘Which is the cart, and which is the horse?’ becomes as pointless as if one asked it of an automobile.” (From “Moonchild”)

But the obvious question remains: all these people do experience what they call contacting a spiritual being (even if its themselves), so until there it can be shown that this area of the brain is in some way self-stimulating, should we no longer rule out spirituality?

8

I’d also like to add that associations are not intellectually frowned upon, either. For example, say that every time I smell fried bread-like products I think of carnivals (which I do, mmm…love those elephant ears!). Now, if I smell fried bread somewhere where there is no carnival, and it causes me to think of carnivals that I’ve experienced in the past, do we say that carnivals don’t exist? Well, of course we wouldn’t because so many have experienced carnivals. But ah!- so many have experienced gods, too! Yes, but that’s different. Different how? Different because you can’t make someone have a religious experience. But you can, see previous post, as well as evidence given in Kurzwiel’s “The Age of Spiritual Machines” (where he cites evidence for the ritual/feeling of spirituality connection). Yes, but you don’t have to believe in carnivals to experience a carnival. Don’t you? Consider some horror films where carnivals are portrayed as evil, scary places. For them to have enjoyed such an experience they would have had to have believed in the fun of evil. Yes, but either way they experienced something repeatable, regardless of how the carnival operates. Much like the repeatable religious experiences had by people of all faiths all over the world; and you say that isn’t repeatable? But it can’t be duplicated in a lab. Neither can carnivals!

sigh hope someone could make sense of that two-sided/one-sided conversation.

9

I’m afraid I don’t understand what that means. An area of the brain that’s not linked with others would be surrounded by lesions. Every area of the brain is linked to all the others, directly and otherwise.

My favorite parts of “Moonchild” were where he was viciously mocking A.E. Waite’s style of writing.

10

Hmm, yes. By self-stimulating I mean: does the brain do this all on its own without external stimulii? That is, we may forgo the ritual, and do something else seemingly mundane, and yet still find ourselves in a spiritually receptive state?

I may will myself, for example, to imagine a turkey even though none is before me. If I close my eyes I can even “see” it. Can one will onesself into a spiritually receptive state without the benefit of ritual (to which Occam’s Razor is easily applied). If this is the case then it seems clear that it could never be used as proof of spirituality.

However, should it prove that one cannot consciously percieve spirituality without this part of the brain being active, then perhaps there is something there to raise the eyebrows.

For example again, when I “see” the turkey in my mind, are my visual receptors functioning, sending me an image of the turkey? Similarly, when we are feeling this religious state, is it only through this area of the brain? Or is it the stimulation of other areas which lead this area to be stimulated?

Again, the optic nerve is the source of vision, so to speak. Stimulate that and you will see something, even if the actual “seeing” part is accomplished somewhere else. So is this part of the brain stimulated by other areas of the brain, or is it in itself like a receptor?

Is this area of the brain special in any other way, physiologically speaking? Something I’ve never noticed in such commentaries are where this part of the brain is actually located. Is it in the area associated with higher thought, reflex action, sensory eprception, etc? I would think that would be a crucial piece of information to put the last nail in the coffin one way or the other.

Let it be known, however, that though I am not resolved to suggest that there are higher beings at work, I most certainly had an experience that I could only describe in terms of one, so this topic has particlar interest to me.

11

How would you ever shut off external stimuli? Spiritual experiences can most definitely happen in times of sensory deprivation just as surely as they can in full-blown rituals. Sitting quiet and still in a quiet room, eyes unfocused gazing quietly at a blank wall, can lead to some pretty intense qualia. Personal experience says, up to and including a dissolution of the perception of boundaries, of self, of everything but awareness itself. (More often in personal experience, it just leads to pain in the legs.)

That’s not quite like floating in a specialized deprivation tank, but zazen is still a lot less “busy” both in terms of sensory activity and narrative-creation than something like the Ritual of the Neophyte. But all in all, I’d say ritual is just a tool for triggering those changes in consciousness, regardless of spiritual realities outside of it.

Robert Anton Wilson has some entertaining writings in “Cosmic Trigger” about his own spiritual (and/or simply odd) experiences. He lumped the process of having them and dealing with them by terming the whole shebang, probably during an arthurian kick, Chapel Perilous. I’m rather fond of his conclusion that there’s exactly two ways one eventually emerges changed out of that place–you either emerge as a paranoid in one degree or other, or as a stark raving agnostic. Fond of it, but not firmly committed to it.

I also doubt that it’s an area of the brain in quite the way the occasional media report simplifies it as. A neurologist can give a long and exact explanation that during experiments X with volunteers Y describing experiences in the class of Z, brain imaging techniques showed pieces of the parietal lobes and amygdala (or wherevere) to be quite active. That kind of thing doesn’t sell magazines, but packaging it as “Scientist Discovers the Brain’s God Circuit!” will, which is pretty much the whole problem with a lot of science reporting I think.

I don’t think the coffin is anywhere close to having its last nail.

12

It isn’t a matter of sensory deprivation, its a matter of doing something different and achieving the same thing. Such as, imagination in the case of the turkey. I can see it, even though I’m receiving stumilii from my eyes.

Probably not. sigh Damn media is no fun without Cecil.

13

Did anyone bother to read the article that I cited? If so I don’t understand your posts, if so I still don’t.

14

Ah, but what about if so?

15

Yes, I did read it, in fact it was you posting this in another thread that prompted me to start this one. So after reading the article, there was no point in me posting this question, right? - Wrong! - I wanted to have a discussion on the subject.

16

Well, it’s not too surprising that atheists react to this by saying “Aha! It’s all in your head! Just like we’ve been saying all along!” and theists by saying “No, see, this is the part of the brain which a benevolent deity has created/has caused to evolve to allow us to interact with Him.” I have to say, though, that I find it a bit odd to talk about a specific region of tissue in our brain being the piece (or pieces) of tissue that deal with “intangible” “spiritual” things.

17

Yes, I read the article. It amounts to saying “different area of the brain are doing stuff (or not doing stuff) and this results in a religious feeling”. I wasn’t doubting that.

Well, fantastic, we affirmed that the perception or feeling of a spiritual experience occurs in the brain. It took a neuroscientist to say that for it to be true?

It hasn’t changed the core question, or even answerd it, which is does this brain activity indicate spiritual influence apart from the person?

That is, does the turkey exist? The link used an apple pie as an example, which is tastier and has ties with Twin Peaks, but makes it no better an example.

The most interesting line is this, however: “This tells you that consciousness does not need an object, and is not a mere byproduct of sensory action.”

At any rate, the matter is still open for debate.

18

Hey, that’s nothing, I find it odd that such a thing as the brain, nothing more than a cleverly arranged collection of molecules, can give rise to consciousness, but hey.

19

(I’m not saYing that I don’t believe it, merely that I find it odd)

Somebody told me once that consciousness is not real, it’s an illusion (like passing the Turing test with flying colours), but so complete and convincing an illusion, that we ourselves are taken in completely.

20

True. We can correlate brain activity in specific region with a wide variety of sensory input, both external (the smell of a roasted chicken, etc.) and internal (remembering a smell, imagining a smell, etc.). However, from what I understand of the linked articles and those I’ve read elsewhere, the spiritual feelings in question are associated with a lack or at least suppression of activity in some areas of the brain. And no additional or increased activity. This hardly fits with the “stimulus causes activity in the brain” model you are proposing. Nor do I know of any other sensation which correlates with a lack of activity. If there is a lack of brain activity, then wouldn’t you, based on this understanding, think there is no reason to look for a causative stimulus? (Other than a cause for the suppression. And we already know that that was brought on intentionally, in most cases, through meditation or similar technique.)

The question, in my opinion, should be “does this lack of brain activity indicate…”. I think this is more in keeping with the actual data, and doesn’t lead one to make innaccurate analogies of the sensation causes stimulus type.