Belief and the brain's 'God spot'

Belief and the brain's 'God spot'

www.independent.co.uk

Scientists say they have located the parts of the brain that control religious faith. And the research proves, they contend, that belief in a higher power is an evolutionary asset that helps human survival

----

A belief in God is deeply embedded in the human brain, which is programmed for religious experiences, according to a study that analyses why religion is a universal human feature that has encompassed all cultures throughout history.

(visit the link for the full news article)

I found the article pretty fascinating, and if it can be proven true, can have some pretty big implications on how we think of things. My own leanings are towards spirituality, not religion or dogma, and I've thought many times over the years that a big portion of our "evolution" in the past 7-8000 years has led to physical changes due to religious beliefs prevalent in societies.

Pretty intriguing article, and look forward to discussions on it!

(first news article i've tried to post, mods if i did it wrong, all apologies lol)

www.independent.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

This article is fascinating, I always though that human have that inherent desire to explain everything. When they don't have the answer they turn to god, wizard or unicorn.

I wonder, they say that they tested atheist also.
Where they telling them word of god or of science to see the region of the brain affected.

On a related note, I started a tread yesterday about atheism. There is an article linked in yours that was also very interresting. I linked on my thread which can be found here.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Jomina
(first news article I've tried to post, mods if i did it wrong, all apologies lol)

Well, I think you made a good job! I posted my first thread yesterday ... and I think it went well for a first. You (like I did) didn't take on the easiest subject. Religion is such a personal issue that you can get flamed just by talking about it. But a discussion is way more meaningful if there is a range of different ideas.

reply to post by grandnic


Good question re: the atheists.

This all relates to some thoughts I've had over the years relating to religion in our adaptations through history. If you take the view that religions were mainly set up as a means of keeping the priests fed, control of populations, etc, then you could reasonably conclude that via adaptation, those people who were best able to assimilate religious actions and views were the ones to gain the most. Because of that, via adaptation or evolution, the brain has developed mechanisms to allow that particular "need" to be fulfilled.

Does that make sense? not sure if i'm getting my point across as I'd like to lol


Basically, those who are the most "religious" in history tended to be the ones better served by the societies (better jobs, better food, better marriages to higher quality mates, etc), and therefore would be the ones to get the most "ahead" in terms of adaptation. Those who were more "free spirited" or non-religious would be persecuted, and in many cases in history, subjected to destruction, and therefore pushed out of the race in terms of evolution.

It's all pretty intriguing to think about! If one can set aside their religious views for a moment and think about things outside of their box, they might find some very interesting things


Again, please note that I am not out to bash religious folks. We're all on a path to the center, some of us need one path, some need another, but eventually we're all going to meet in the center. It's just interesting to think about

Originally posted by Jomina

This all relates to some thoughts I've had over the years relating to religion in our adaptations through history. If you take the view that religions were mainly set up as a means of keeping the priests fed, control of populations, etc, then you could reasonably conclude that via adaptation, those people who were best able to assimilate religious actions and views were the ones to gain the most. Because of that, via adaptation or evolution, the brain has developed mechanisms to allow that particular "need" to be fulfilled.

Does that make sense? not sure if i'm getting my point across as I'd like to lol

Basically, those who are the most "religious" in history tended to be the ones better served by the societies (better jobs, better food, better marriages to higher quality mates, etc), and therefore would be the ones to get the most "ahead" in terms of adaptation. Those who were more "free spirited" or non-religious would be persecuted, and in many cases in history, subjected to destruction, and therefore pushed out of the race in terms of evolution.

I think I get your point, reminds me of something I read about social Darwinism. Will try to find it back. By the same mechanism as natural selection, those that are more religious will be favored by the rulers of their society, they would be more likely to reproduce and to give their gene to the next generation. Can this explains that ''god-spot'' in the brain I'm sure more reaserch is needed ... fascinating indeed

As to where this leave me (as a atheist) I don't know ... are we freaks of nature ? an exception ? Do we transfer that belief in god into science ? Are we just the free thinkers that where burned not so long ago ?

What is a religious experience > Is it only that if one has a belief system ?
People are conditioned by experience and what we are told are "facts" so it is conditioning purely that creates a religious belief system .
So do we need to have a religious , imported belief to then have the "experience" which the God Spot seems to affect .
Most religious experiences are euphoric . Can drugs replicate this and do they affect the same parts of the brain ?
I have been dragged to an Evangelist event and witnessed people all whipped up in the singing and music and sermonising and hallelujahs . People were fainting . Did these people really experience God or were they just easily susceptible to the environment . I think it was the latter . But their temporal lobes were probably stimulated .
I just want a clearer definition of the two terms .

The entire article is just so much nonsense.

The referenced 'study' is just so much nonsense.

The lead in the story is nowhere near in synch with the balance of the article, some of the quotes, or the 'study'.

Read the lead...

Scientists say they have located the parts of the brain that control religious faith. And the research proves, they contend, that belief in a higher power is an evolutionary asset that helps human survival

The mechanics of the 'study' (the lastest study ) shows no such thing. All the study using the MRI did was locate a section of the brain that becomes more active when a certain type of thought is activated.

There is NO WAY any conclusions as sweeping and as definitive can be extrapolated based on the limitations of the methodology... The MRI.

MRIs only show relative activity, no the content of the activity, not the ACTUAL significance of the activity.

You might want to denote the ACTUAL significance... versus the perceived (or projected ) significance.

It's kind of ironic because that is EXACTLY what one of the quotes states in the article.

"There is nothing unique about religious belief in these brain structures. Religion doesn't have a 'God spot' as such, instead it's embedded in a whole range of other belief systems in the brain that we use everyday," Professor Grafman said.

Silly quacks... MRIs don't reveal thoughts.

Just another goofy self-fulfilling 'psychology' theory/premise in search of its own proof.

A brilliant example of 'Science', not science.

reply to post by grandnic


Let's be careful not to be concede to total biological reductionism. If religion itself can be seen as a replicator, then social functions and institutions would act as a vehicle for its the replication of that religious sentiment over time. Religion flourishes because it corrects some form of short-term deficiency in rationality that early humans were afflicted by, thereby allowing those populations to overcome challenges, which might not have been possible otherwise-and ultimately, allowing them to reproduce more than those who didn't.

So it's not like certain populations become more conducive genetically to religion, rather that certain cultures, who benefited from religious institutions, propagated at a greater rate than those who did not. That's why you see such a full and rich history of religion in the early part of human civilization. Our values have changed, however, and objectivity is a better replicator of cultural progress, which allows us to develop better technologies, and ultimately allows our society to flourish and people to be healthier and live more enriching lives. Capitalism has been key in this human paradigm shift, from religious faith to some form of scientific objectivity.

[edit on 10-3-2009 by cognoscente]

I think this may also go back to the purity of bloddline back to Adam. Some of us have DNA from the lines of Adam that may be more pronounced leading us to want to be reunited with our true Creator. Hey sorry the post didnt get much play Jomina but hey I flaggered it for ya

Time Magazine did a cover article on this awhile back. It states that the "god" part of our brain is dictated by our DNA...literally hardwired in there for us to seek a higher power.
www.time.com...

[edit on 28-4-2010 by AccessDenied]

reply to post by AccessDenied


And now you know why the government is so keen to get your DNA. Imagine that in the end of days the living water is poured out on the earth as promised by Yeshua. What if it were to switch on all the latent potential your DNA has? There could be all kinds of what the tv calls mutants that inherited stronger DNA from thier Nephilim ancestors that may be switched on. But what if the switch of the God genes are turned on? Sounds like the luciferian PTB could have problem on thier hands. I know pure speculation but hey, a question not asked is a road not explored. btw thats an old saying I just made up.

Originally posted by cognoscente
reply to post by grandnic

 

Let's be careful not to be concede to total biological reductionism. If religion itself can be seen as a replicator, then social functions and institutions would act as a vehicle for its the replication of that religious sentiment over time. Religion flourishes because it corrects some form of short-term deficiency in rationality that early humans were afflicted by, thereby allowing those populations to overcome challenges, which might not have been possible otherwise-and ultimately, allowing them to reproduce more than those who didn't.

So it's not like certain populations become more conducive genetically to religion, rather that certain cultures, who benefited from religious institutions, propagated at a greater rate than those who did not. That's why you see such a full and rich history of religion in the early part of human civilization. Our values have changed, however, and objectivity is a better replicator of cultural progress, which allows us to develop better technologies, and ultimately allows our society to flourish and people to be healthier and live more enriching lives. Capitalism has been key in this human paradigm shift, from religious faith to some form of scientific objectivity.

[edit on 10-3-2009 by cognoscente]

I feel you on about 90% of what you said up there, except for the fact where objectivity allows people to lead more enriching lives.

Happiness is not an objective quality. No level of objective condition can bring about happiness. Objectivity can assist in the longevity of life, and in some cases maybe even an easing of pain, but enrichment of a life is not something that comes through objectivity, it comes through subjective orientation to life in any of its forms.

Objectivity goes a long way to satisfy the will to power, yet it can do nothing to quench the thirst of the will to meaning. Meaning is completely found within the realm of the subjective, and is the sole place one can find actual enrichment of life.

Yes, science is a good thing. It helps us reach our goals. But science does not set the goals... human desire does... which once again lies completely in the realm of the subjective.

No matter what happens, as long as humans are involved with science, it will always be the objective tool of the subjective human desire.

Originally posted by Barkster
reply to post by AccessDenied

 

And now you know why the government is so keen to get your DNA. Imagine that in the end of days the living water is poured out on the earth as promised by Yeshua. What if it were to switch on all the latent potential your DNA has? There could be all kinds of what the tv calls mutants that inherited stronger DNA from thier Nephilim ancestors that may be switched on.

Hrmmm.... ever notice how close to Niflheim the word nephilim is?

Just sayin'