pz

Sure, why not? I suspect that these phenomena are classic examples of spandrels, and that we could very well find a wide range in the degree of their instantiation in people's brains. These patterns could also be subject to other side effects. To use the 'awe' example of someone getting overwhelmed with input, some people who aren't as bright as others might encounter this phenomenon more often, at lower thresholds, and have less capacity to cope with it rationally, and so might be more prone to lapse into the 'god' kludge. (OK, now I've pissed off a few theists...but at least I think I can get away with it on II.)
Nope. Not even close. We barely understand the neuronal activity in the crustacean stomatogastric ganglion, which has about 30 identifiable neurons. We don't have a clue about what's going on in the C. elegans nervous system, and that whole animal has less than 1000 cells total. For my graduate work, I thought I was picking a simple and comprehensible nervous system when I focused on teleost embryos, and estimated that their spinal cords only had about a thousand functioning neurons at the pharyngula stage...boy, was I disillusioned.

It's going to be a while before we can do more than guess at what's going on in these sorts of higher level functions in the human brain, especially since people are so darned picky about letting us experiment with them.

The Lone Ranger

I doubt very much that anomalous and "mystical" experiences can provide a complete explanation for religious beliefs, but I don't think they're irrelevant.

If I recall correctly, in How We Believe Michael Shermer claims that only a minority of religious people have directly had a "mystical" experience. However, the majority of them claimed to know someone who had had such an experience, and claimed this as evidence for their belief.

I've seen this any number of times, myself. When I've asked someone what makes them believe, very often they reply along the lines of "My sister/mother/brother/father/best friend/etc. had an experience which cannot be explained rationally; it could only have been a sign from God . . . "

Of course, then you get into the entire chicken/egg thing. Do they believe the "mystical" experience is evidence for the existence of god(s) because they already had such a belief, and the experience in question simply reinforced and "legitimized" it; or do they believe because they think that "mystical" experiences are sufficient evidence to warrant such belief?

Cheers,

Michael

Gurdur

Part of this is self-reporting (and we both know how people do this one up); and part of it falls into the further-cognitive-development I was briefly mentioning.

I grasp your point; however, for a counter-example, I'ld point out the long hostility of organized religion towards mysticism, and its attendent denial of such experiences.

[ December 16, 2002: Message edited by: Gurdur ]</p>

emphryio

I doubt the majority have a good genetic excuse for being theistic but,

From Gurdur:


Just wanted to suggest that without this "mystical minority", the various forms of theism, polytheism, etc, may not have ever existed.
And if such people ... "disappeared" (or sought medical help) their religions would probably fade away. (Although certain powerful people would try to keep them around for their own uses.)

If this is true, then you can't dismiss this minority as unimportant.

Beyond that, sorry scigirl, over my head.

Gurdur

yes, this is the point - hinted at maybe by The Lone Ranger too - that would destroy my own argument. Well-put !

However, after studying much comparative religion, I don't think it applies to many religions - the old Greek gods and goddesses were rather notoriously non-mystic, and i think the development of a God-concept flowed in small steps in a series of imaginative developments - and was stuck with owing to getting small warm fuzzies from an acceptance of the ideas; e.g. relying on a God or Goddess so one could stop worrying about something.

Note that the Delphic Oracle - the closest thing to genuine mysticism then and there - was ranked lower than the rather earthy Gods and Goddesses.

Living Dead Chipmunk

Um.. if you already KNOW how to defeat your own argument, why do you put up the argument in the first place?

ps418

I think everyone has made some good points here. I'll add my 2 cents on a couple of issues. I may miss some of the points that have already been made.

I dont think there is any single biological explanation for theism, or why some people are theists and others not, or why some people interpret their 'religious' experiences one way of they other. For a few people, it may be something dramatic like a vision that convinces them that invisible people exist. For others it could be a simple intellectual matter of trusting the people who tell them that such things exist, or coming to the intellectual conclusion that such things exist. I'm sure alot of people believe in god for the same reason they believe that Columbus discovered America or (insert example here).

On the other hand, I do feel that our brains in some way predispose us to attribute consciousness or intentionality or personhood to things that do not really possess these traits (e.g. volcanoes, the moon). Maybe it would be more correct to say that we tend to overattribute these traits. My 4 year old daughter thinks the moon follows her around, for instance.

And I definately agree that our brains often lead us to connect events in time and space that are not really connected. As an example, I used to study cabbala, which is sort of like a glorified numerology. I was always on the lookout for numbers of significance, for instance 418. Whenever the numbers popped up, I knew that it was significant, that it had meaning, that it was a message of some sort that I had to interpret. It was utter bull, of course. Same thing with tarot readings.

Clearly not all such experiences are evoked by the same mechanism, e.g. temporal lobe activation. Mystical and religious experiences are highly varied, and I doubt that they can all be tied to one specific brain area. For instance, meditative states and visionary states are very different in both their phenomenology and brain activity correlates. And I agree with Gurdur in that mystical experiences are quite rare, and are not a big factor for most believers.

However, it is also clear that temporal lobe seizures can produce profound mystical experiences. Persinger is on to something, but he's overgeneralizing quite a bit with the temporal lobes, I think.

Regarding our immediate senses lying to us, I have a great example of that. However, I was tripping on LSD, so that weakens the relevance. Anywho, I was standing on a hotel balconey watching a storm roll in over the Ohio River. It was about 6 in the morning. At first, all I saw was the clouds. But slowly, the clouds began changing into horses. I knew this was an illusion, but I deliberately suspended disbelief, and allowed the illusion to become more intense. And it did. This went on for about 15 minutes. The clouds were tranformed completely into horses, some of which had riders. It was an entirely compelling perception. The interesting thing is that even though the shape of the clouds was constantly changing, my brain kept imposing the same forms on my perceptions. Also interesting is that my 3 friends who were with me saw the clouds transformed as well, not into horses, but into different things. Its like the clouds were a perfect background onto which to project an illusion.

[ December 17, 2002: Message edited by: ps418 ]</p>

scigirl

Thanks everyone for your input and ideas...I love this neurobiology stuff!

Speaking of neuro...time to check my grade (test results should be posted...)

scigirl

[edited to clarify-I started this thread after I had already taken my test. I was in no way soliciting answers for it or anything! ]

[ December 17, 2002: Message edited by: scigirl ]</p>

pz

...as if spacy speculations by a bunch of nerds on the internet could possibly be of any assistance in a med school neuro exam.

Gurdur

I live for such rare moments. <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />
___________

I guessed you missed where I showed how the evidence defeats the argument that might have otherwise defeated mine ?

Plus valid scientific speculation is always very useful in advancing development of thinking.
Reviewing all arguments and evidence for and against is an essential scientific and philosophical discipline.

[ December 18, 2002: Message edited by: Gurdur ]</p>