If God Is Real

fair enough okie, but i dont think you addressed how biological factors can influence your religion.

i can't see how any biological factors could influence religion. like i said before, this is something that is 100% determined by our environment (also geography has alot to do with the local customs and values etc.)

i would also be careful about defining god as a certain energy, because that is something that can be observed and studied by science.

 

You're right. That will be a longer story, and I have too many things going on to do it justice right now. But I'm planning to get too it asap.

 

Our genes are a mechanism that adapts to an environment. What you know as culture and learned knowledge is at a fundamental level the expression of your genes. You are designed to feel, so to speek. And why wouldn't you be? An intuitive understanding of our immediate surroundings would be tremendously advantageous.

 

First, a couple of caveats. I don't believe in determinism of any kind--biological or environmental. Nor do I believe in one-way causal arrows. On the basis of current research on brain physiology and chemistry, it's impossible to say for sure whether the brain creates religious phenomnea, or is simply receptive to inputs from some transcendent realm. I also don't think there's a "God gene" or a "God spot" in the brain. Dean Hamer's study The God Gene based on research for the National Cancer Institute simply identified the relatonship between the gene VMAT2 and "self-transcedence"--one aspect of spirituality. Yet the study does show the role of the vesicular transporter monoamine on chemicals in the brain--serotonin, dopamine and norepinephrine--that are associated with feelings of connectedness to the universe and readiness to believe in things unseen. Brain imaging research to date shows that religion is built upon existing brain structures involving multiple areas of the brain that evolved for other purposes than religious belief but facilitated religion.

1. Frontal lobe, Imagination and Perception: multiple realities, pattern-seeking and agency-attributing perceptions: The frontal lobe is responsible for abstract ideas, theoretical thinking and imagining alternative scenarios. In Religion in Human Evolution, Bellah emphasizes the role of cognitive processes allowing humans to imagine multiple realities different from their everyday existence, including such things as chimeras (imaginary creatures combining characteristics of human and non-human beings) and gods. Humans also developed a capacity for seeking and detecting patterns in their environment, including ones that weren't there. and to attribute agency to environmental objects. This was an important survival mechanism: if something looked like either an alligator or a log, better assume it's an alligator unless proven otherwise; and better to assume an object is animate with the potential to harm than inanimate. Better safe than sorry.

2. Dreaming: Dreams are a universal phenomenon, obviously biological in nature, although the content of dreams may vary from one culture to another. The memory-related regions of the medial temporal lobes, as well as occipitor temporal visual cortex, are highly active in REM sleep. Early humans thought they traveled in their dreams, and encountered creatures and dead relatives and loved ones. Belief in a spirit world was a reasonable inference. Among the Australian aboriginees, the word djugurba (dreaming) also means myth and is the basis of sacred knowledge--reinforced by group ritual.

3. Ritual and conditioning: the Amygdala and brain chemistry. Ritual is a means by which group myths and shared spiritual experiences are reinforced and imprinted on neural networks. The amygdala of the brain becomes engaged, as do various brain chemicals. Oxytocin and endorphins are of interest because of its bonding properties, but neurotransmitters (sertatonin,dopamine, epinephrine,norepinephrine) and endorphins are also released during rituals. Slow rituals and chants (Gregorian chant, etc) simulate quiescent systems that affect the higher brian systems, while fast rituals involving lots of body movement and noise stimulate arousal systems. NIcholas Wade, in his book The Fifth Instinct, notes the importance of ritual in generating awe and group bonding. Higher dopamine levels and lower serotonin levels seem to be associated with religiosity. Repetition reinforces neural connections.

4. Prayer and meditation: Parietal lobe. Catholic nuns and Buddhist monks have become subjects of neuro-imaging studies by Newberg, who found that in both cases, there was a marked decrease in activity in the parietal lobe--the part of the brain governing boundaries of self. When activity in this region decreases, we feel disconected from our earthly moorings.

5. Temporal lobe stimulation and temporal lobe epilepsy. In four- fifths of subjects, the felt presence of a superior being can be invoked by specific patterns of weak transcerebral magnetic fields applied across the temporoparietal region of the two hemispheres. This has led to speculation that temporal lobe epilepsy might account for the visions of prophets and mystics. Atran found transient focal epileptic-like changes in the temporal lobes of persons speaking in tongues.

6. Brain Hemisphere differences: In an earlier post, I mentioned E.O. Wilson's theory that opposing selection pressures during the genetic evolution of humans may account for our inner struggles between sin and virtue. Research by Professor Brick Johnstone at the University of Missouri lends some support for this. He found that the right hemisphere of the brain is associated with self-orientation, whereas the left side is associated with how individuals relate to others. Impairment on the right side of the brain decreases the subject's focus on the self.

7. Shrinking Hippocampus and "born again" experience. Then there's the Duke University study that found a positive correlation between atrophy of the hippocampus (affecting memory) and religiosity in elderly subjects who were either non-religious or "born again". The nominally religious seem to do better than the atheists and the "born again" Christians. The investigators acknowledge that the sample is small and the findings are hard to interpret. They think it's probably not the religious experience itself but the stressed state of mind that led up to it or was associated with it that is the determining factor. Since I'm in the "born again" category, I may be a test case.

So these are some of the observations that led me to question that "science has shown" that religious behavior is entirely determined by environmental factors. I assume that they're biological because they seem to be characteristic of all humans, regardless of location or culture. The role of physical environment, culture, social pressure and politics have certainly been important, too--especially in accounting for the vast differences among particular religions. And maybe God has played a part, too. It's far too early to jump to conclusions or to say that we have it all figured out.

 

@heeh2
how is your culture an expression of your genes?

why are we talking about this?

if you forgot its because i was suggesting that religion is not something we need as humans or as a society. the reason why we see it in just about every culture is because it was a necessary step in the ladder up to our current knowledge. in other words, before we had logic, what we had was not logical.

this "pre-logic" can be seen in many other areas of science, for example:

- in medicine we have examples like ancient people drilling wholes into their head, blood letting, putting heroin and opium in just about any syrup for just about any ailment, and homeopathy.
- in chemistry there was alchemy
- and in astronomy we have ptolemy, and ancient stories about gods pulling the sun and the moon on chariots.
- creation myths that try to explain humans and animals are just attempts of explaining life before we had modern biology, which is obviously more accurate.


so in conclusion, religion and the idea of god has served us well, but now we have outgrown its need and there is no reason why we can't live without it. in fact, i would say that holding on to any form of "pre-logic" now that we have logic can only interfere and inhibit further growth in that field.

 

yo okie, that was a really cool post, i had to pack a fresh bowl just to read it and im only like half way thrugh. its really entertaining and i feel so high and philosophical lol.

 

Thanks. Now you know why I said it would take awhile for me to get back to you!

 

well im no scientist but according to you the "VMAT2" gene is basically a transporter for chemicals that are associated with feelings we associate with spirituality.

i agree with you that this gene is does indeed affect our spirituality but i have to point out that religion/god is not required for the existence of the gene or anything it produces.

i think the brain regions that you listed can facilitate any kind of spirituality but not any specific religion. maybe this is precisely why we see religion in all cultures, because we have a need to be spiritual, but it does not mean we need a "religion" and we definitely don't have no need to invoke a deity to experience spiritualism.

we are all universally spiritual, but religious behavior is only determined by your environment.

everything you pointed out about the regions of the brain affects our spirituality and that means we can all feel spiritual and have subjective experiences, but you will notice that spiritual practices are very different from region to region, which is exactly what you would expect if religious behaviors was environmentally determined.

so in other words we are all spiritual but every region has its own little brand of spirituality which is labeled a religion and tied to a specific deity and other beliefs and values. depending on where you are born, which is pretty random, determines your brand of spirituality and therefore your values etc.


i think that using the fact that our minds are vastly creative and have the capacity for spirituality, does not mean we need a god, or to believe in any specific religion.

also, if you think about it, it means that science is more spiritual than religion itself! with religion, you have to believe in a whole bunch of mumbo jumbo that is not true, while with science, we work hard and are rewarded with knowledge that we can verify to be true. what can be more spiritual than knowing we all came from a single singularity? we were all together in stars and now we are scattered around the universe, but we still have that connection. pfft, beat that religion!

 

I'd be wary of making such blanket statements as your first assertion. I don't think having the gene necessitates the phenomena. For instance, we may possess a gene for vision but we may not all see and I think spirituality is a much more nebulous phenomena than vision.


I can't tell if you are conceding your arguments of "not being able to see how biological factors influence religion" and "science suggesting our cultural and social values are enviromentally determined" or relying on a discrepancy between spirituality and religion and maintain your position.

If we are to ascribe to the notion that the VMAT2 points to spirituality being a biological phenomena (which is not necessarily my position) doesn't it follow that one is influenced towards religion from this predispostion?

Even if I grant you the discrepancy, you suggest spiritual practice varies from region to region, is this not cultural and social as well?

If you have or can highlight some links/studies that support your position, that may be helpful for clarity.

 

I think I see the problem now, and it is semantic. When I say religion is influenced by biology/genetics and not entirely by environmental factors, I'm referring to religion in the generic sense--or more accurately, the capacity for religion, rather than the specifics of a given religious tradition. If we define religion narrowly, to refer to a specific body of beliefs, doctrines and practices, of course those are environmentally/ culturally determined. The existence of general patterns across distant cultures, however, suggests the operation of biological constraints. Jung's "collective unconscious" and archetypes addressed this aspect of religious belief as an expression of human biological commonalities. The particulars are a function of cultural memes. And as I said, biology influences, not determines, religion. I specifically said that VMAT2 and the neurotransmitters associated with it did not "cause" belief in God, but just a feeling of "self-transcedence, which is associated with spirituality and can find expression in religion, as well as environmentalism or other idealistic movements.

 

The problem you two are having is that your talking about nature vs nurture like they are discreet, or opposite things when they are not.

When you talk about one thing, you must consider its relationship with other things also.

Try not to think of it as "this way" or "that way". Everything that exists works together.

 

This is something I threw out there earlier in the discussion...

Perhaps ultimately, making a distinction between Nature vs Nature may be a vain attempt to escape determinism, however it is a distinction that is made by some brilliant minds and it is apropos coming on the heels of discussing free will and the idea that there are no intrinsic thoughts, beliefs, behaviors innate in humans which is the basis of the idea "blank slate."

Science has acknowledged a difference as well, so presumably the distinction of Nature vs Nurture has practical implications too. This dichotomy allows for applications ranging from gene therapy to after school programs, to understanding cultural norms and much more.

 

Participating in a superfluous argument like nature vs nurture does not avoid Determinism.

Only awareness avoids what is determined.

 

I don't follow...

 

I never did see the discussion as nature versus nurture: I was just pointing out it's not all nurture.

 

I suspect you do not understand determinism, and I suspect you do not understand nature vs nurture.

Perhaps you do not understand your self, and are looking for enlightenment?

We can inspire you, but it must come from within. You are, after all, surrounded by inspiring things at every moment in your life.

I suspect that you just choose not to be inspired.

What is impairing your focus?

 

Your 2nd statement seems vapid

Like what does this awareness you speak of mean if we are to discuss for instance why some people gravitate towards religions while others don't, or account for variability among religions, which is not covered by nature vs. nurture?

 

Religious folks are confused. Plain and simple.

Are you asking what awareness has to do with confusion?

 

You suggest Nature vs. Nurture does not avoid determinism, only awareness does.

What shape does this awareness or lack thereof take? You go on to suggest that religious folk are confused, so I assume you have some sort of tangible, observable measures to support your statements.

It goes without saying that religious folks would take objection to with what you say, I don't necessarily take objection but you certainly need some supporting evidence or a more fully developed response for me to be on board with a sweeping generalization like that.