A previous evening’s channel-surfing session lead me to that special brand of hypocracy/decadence symbiosis found only on TCN(?), the Christian television network responsible for the release of The Omega Code, a celluloid instrument of theological persuation that would have made Torquemada blush, had he the misfortune of shilling out seven dollars to view it. For those of you prescient enough to have carved out your eyeballs years ago, TCN seems to dedicate the majority of its air time to the Christ-disgracing antics of a pink-haired woman who, judging from the mewling tone of her voice, indulges in deep drink of helium before each take, and a bespecacled middle-aged man who would be relatively unspectacular if not for his laudable ability to contain a throbbingly murderous (and quite obvious) hatred for said woman.
Their guest on the aforementioned evening was a doctor of sorts, who stated, sans any specific references, that a recent experiment revealed that the idea of a god-presence existed within the limbic region of the brain. In other words, when this region of the brain was given a shock (when the participants were forced to watch The Omega Code, that is to say), the pagan or Christian, alike, felt the presence of a higher being. This doctor seemed to interpret this as proof of God’s existance. To me it sounds like exactly the opposite. It sounds like “God” is a deep-seated psychological device…although I suppose, when I think about it…is there really a difference? Any thoughts??
I’d go with your interpretation. I think most theists would be horrified at the implication that an epiphany can be induced by shock therapy. Of course, the fact that the sensation can be induced does not necessarily mean that it is false, any more than the happiness induced by drugs negates the validity of the happiness induced by real-life circumstances.
Coming from a “fundie’s” perspective, I think its a case (if true) of science backing up the Bible. See Romans 1… say in the area of verses 18-21 - I’ll let y’all read it for yourselves BTW - here’s a link to an online Bible so you don’t have to go digging one out.
“We love Him because He first loved us.” 1 John 4:19 †
Proving my point about Gaudere on another thread, I for one am a horrified theist. Juniorbunk, would you be so kind as to make the distinction between people who happen to believe in the God that the Jesus of Nazareth who came off with lines about love and avoiding judgment of others preached and the one that TV evangelists seem to have borrowed from the Aztecs?
“Life is like a new suit of clothes. If it doesn’t fit, make alterations.”
–the old woman in Silverado
Obviously, I can’t speak for the doctor, but he might be refering to work done by Dr. V. S. Ramachandran, and published in his book, Phantoms in the Brain. I read the book just recently on Phil’s recommendation.
In it, Ramachandran documents the undeniable role that parts of the temporal lobe play in faith. He tosses around several hypotheses, but in the end draws no conclusions. He says,
I seem to recall reading(though I can’t remember where) about an experiment similar to that where individuals were subjected to electromagnetic fields of a certain intensity/wavelength. Subjects recieving this treatment on an area of the right side of their brain claimed to feel an impression of a benevolent and powerful presence. Subjects who recieved the treatment on the left side of the brain claimed to feel a similar presence, only that it was a malicious rather than benevolent one. I honestly can’t see how this could be regarded as a proof of the existence of a god however. It seems to do the exact opposite by demonstrating that religious or epiphanic experiences are merely a result of the brain, and not of some greater reality.
You’re missing the point. As Ramachandran explained, if God exists and designed man, it makes perfect sense that He would give us a specialized cranial capacity to perceive and contemplate Him.
In other words, there is a post hoc logic trauma: whereas you say that epiphanic experiences are a result of limbic activity, in can be as reasonably argued that limbic activity is the result of epiphanic experiences.
Experiments where increased limbic activity is detected during an epiphanic experience can be used as evidence that epiphanic experiences cause limbic activity.
Experiments where the limbic regions are stimulated and the subject subsequently has an epiphanic experience cannot.
Of course, we’d have to have a definition of ‘epiphany’ that was specific enough for purposes of science. (Don’t anyone say ‘January 6’, OK? ;))
I think my basic reaction is ‘so what?’ I doubt that any sort of drug or shock therapy would simulate the convincing sense of relationship I have with my God. And that’s what makes the whole thing tick (for me, at least) - not a one-time sense of having experienced His presence, but an ongoing, day-to-day sense of His being involved in, and to some extent guiding, my life.
RTFirefly- Can’t say I disagree with you on this one, but in my case, the experience of God guiding my life on a day-to-day basis followed a couple of epiphanies, one of which was pretty cage rattling.
I have to go with the form follows function argument- God installed the limbic system in our brains so that we could directly perceive and experience His presence.
The trouble with Sir Launcelot is by the time he comes riding up, you’ve already married King Arthur.
Did you know that scientists can create a strip of celluloid, and impregnate it with certain chemicals, and focus light on it, from your face. Then, they can take any person, and place them in front of a white screen, and project light through lenses, and the celluloid, and the subject will “see” your face!
This clearly shows that you don’t really exist, of course. No, wait, it shows that you ** do ** exist. Maybe it shows that they don’t exist. I don’t know, but it sure must prove something, after all, scientists did it.
<P ALIGN=“CENTER”>Tris</P>
One of the advantages of being disorderly is that one is constantly making exciting discoveries.
– **A. A. Milne **
agisofia - very true (might want to check out Poly’s thread for more discussion of such experiences).
But if I’d just had the one initial experience, with no continuation, I think that by now it would be a distant memory of something that seemed wonderful and promising at the time. I don’t think it would have amounted to much, over the long haul, despite the fact that (in my perception, at least) it was the genuine article, and not some electrically or chemically induced counterfeit.
To prove: The SDMB does not exist outside my immediate control.
Assumptions: What I can observe is all that can be shown to exist. The SDMB is not observable. All that I can detect is a representation claiming to be it that appears on my computer when I perform certain keystrokes. Therefore the SDMB is simply an artifact of my keyboarding skills. Q.E.D.
Seriously, on the assumption that there is a God who created the universe and has some interactions with it (which is that advanced by most theists), does it not seem reasonable that He would have some mechanisms for performing that interaction? You want hot and cold running miracles on demand? I’m not sure whether it was George Burns or Bill Cosby, but the line was, “I don’t work like that.”
I rememeber reading about the limbic shock thing in a psychology textbook. When I get home tonight I’ll look it up.
Oliver Sacks, teh Neurologist who wrote “Awakenings” talks about temporal lobe distrubances during migranious headaches in “The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat.” Dr. Sacks believes Hildegard, the mystic nun and composer, was suffering SEVERE migranes which caused her “visions.” And explains why. It’s a cool book, I highly suggest it.
Here’s my take on it: I beleive in a higher being because it makes me feel safer. It makes me feel less alone when I am utterly alone. Does it really matter to me that my belief is caused my irregular electrical impluses in my limbic region? Nope, not one whit. Because reality is individual. There’s also evidence that the uphoria connected with love can sometimes be confused with autonomic reaction to fear. (ie: rapidly beating heart, etc…) Doesn’t mean I don’t believe in love.
One must have chaos in oneself to give birth to a dancing star. -Nietzche
On a tangentially related note, I recently read an interesting theory on UFOs, more specific, the recent upswing in abduction/close encounters of the third kind. I think that, if you close one eye and stand far, far away from your monitor, you’ll find that the aforementioned theory could (possibly) apply to the god-question.
The authors of this book I read were able to explain away UFOs (and encounters with their “occupants”) w/o resorting to the ETH (extra-terrestrial hypothesis) in quite a convincing fashion. They noted the similarities between medieval faerie mythology and this sudden “alien gray” mythology that has sprung forth, probably not coincidently, from a largely paranoid, post-Christian society. Because, in a nutshell, science “killed” God, and because man absolutely requires a mythological paradigm to exist, alien abductions enter the vacuum quite nicely by combining the supernatural aspect (beings from the skies, a la angels, over which the abductee is powerless) and mankind’s recent love affair with technology (flying crafts far exceeding existing aeronautic devices).
The authors went on to explain how a number of abductees, by all appearences trustworthy people who genuinely believe they’ve undergone experiences beyond their comprehension, demonstrate tremendous life-changes following their encounter. They become more artistic, more “spiritual,” more reliant on the right side of their brain. Thus, paraphrasing these authors, perhaps supernatural interaction (within the individual’s mind, of course) is nature’s way (possibly via the limbic region of the brain) of unlocking the profoundly creative potential each and every one of us has.
Perhaps we, as humans, have this god-code lodged in the epicenter of our brains for a reason: spiritual events expand our mind.
That sounds strangely like Joseph Campbell’s theory that man lives by his myths, and that the acceleration of human social experience has “run us ahead of our myths” so what is needed is the evolution of a mythical structure appropriate to our day and age.
If so, I suspect we’ll get one. (And David will be prepared to debunk it. :eek: ) I have a feeling, though, that it will include commonly held opinions, not “fringe theory” ones.
I think it is a bit interesting that we should have a discussion wondering if stimulation of any certain part of the brain will induce a response, (regardless of the type of response). Since all that we experience is processed by some part of the brain and sorted into some type of meaningful experiential compartment for us to “get our hands on it” then it also makes perfect sense that if you stimulate that part of the brain that is responsible for assimilating and categorizing that particular sort of data, then you may quite possibly be able to duplicate that type of response; eg. epiphany.
Since G-d created the brain of all creatures to be able to accomplish their highest possible tasks, it only makes sense (to me anyway) that there must be a part of the brain (possibly temporal lobe) that is specialized in being able to experience the things of G-d or “touch the infinite.” It also makes sense to me, that if that capability has been placed in the brain by G-d, then if tapped into, man with his technology, might be able to duplicate those same “feelings or responses.” To the one experiencing them it will appear to them no different than the real thing, but the experimentor will know that they have been artificially induced.
Now, this leads to another interesting thought: How many “religious experiences” are induced by the “infinite” coming into contact with the finite and how many have been induced by some other mechanism working on the brain, e.g. Scrooges’ comment that his visions were the result of a bad piece of meat in his pooridge? Now that would be a truly interesting experiment, howbeit, one hard to duplicate in a laboratory setting.
When I was a child and thought as a child I used to say, “A person with an experience is not at the mercy of one with a good argument.” Now that I am a man, and have put away childish things, I realize that an experience (feeling, vision, epiphany - whatever) can be a counterfet and can delude if it is not based on some kind of solid evidence (proof). Good argument (debate) always will place experience in its proper place.
Time for another thought provoking article, this one is from the November newstand issue of Wired (v 7.11).
This Is Your Brain on God - Michael Persinger has a vision - the Almighty isn’t dead, he’s an energy field. And your mind is an electromagnetic map to your soul.
Which came first, the chicken or the egg? These kinds of questions always remind me of that age old riddle. I sometimes wonder how much of who we are is due to the structure of our brain and how much of the structure of the brain is due to who we are…
Classical example: We’ve all heard how Einstein’s brain had some significant differences than the average brain, most notably in the number of “connections” This is often attributed to his ability to see things differently than the rest of us. But how do we know that Einstein didn’t just look at problems in a different way and this difference built up these extra connections over his lifetime? How do we know that if Einstein had aspired to be merely a french fry guy at McDonalds, that his brain might not have been any different than the brains of mere mortals?
My point? Maybe people who exercise their faith muscles tend to cause changes in the limbic region of their brain. Is it cause? Is it effect? Chicken? Egg? I think we’re a long way from knowing.
BTW - 