David Bowden

This is a very good question. The best way I know of to contribute to such a drug's creation would be either to master the science and engineer such a thing yourself, or become fabulously wealthy and bankroll its development.

However, I would personally not encourage this, despite the obviously benevolent intentions on the part of such a treatment's advocates.

I agree with two earlier posts, one regarding the likely "distributed" nature of religious experience in the brain and the other regarding the potential detrimental side-effects, since we're not sure how the "religious" functions of the brain tie in with everything else.

It may be (any neuroscientists in the house?) that the same aspects affected by such a treatment would impair our appreciation for, say, cinema or that awe we all get when we see an especially clear night sky. Or myriad other things that give us a sense of wonder. We do not know why our brains have adapted as they have, or what advantages would be lost along with the ability to "go religious".

So I think a simple, harmless religiophagic (?) drug is not likely to be possible. I won't pretend to know that it's certainly impossible. Perhaps a very complicated (and probably side-effect risky) chemical soup or nanotech censor network could do the job, but anything like this would seem more likely to lobotomize or similarly handicap a person - rather than set them free, intellectually and imaginatively. That is no social improvement, IMO.

And I'm not sure we know that all religions would be prevented in the same way. Perhaps a treatment that decreases our sensitivity to Christian promises of an afterlife would have no effect on the way Zen Buddhism appeals to us. And probably, given human ingenuity, superstitions would still evolve rapidly. People would still have experiences they couldn't explain rationally - and they would make up explanations, and refine and rationalize them, and find justification for what comforts them. Religion would keep coming back.

Even with an altered brain chemistry, I find it hard to believe that this process would cease; we seem wired to produce explanations that appear to us to "work", even if they're really superstitious.

And by eliminating the "religious" aspects of brain activity, we do not guarantee that rationality will replace it. I do not know what they would be left with - would the agency giving them this treatment assume responsibility for the recipient's intellectual and psychological recovery?

As for the morality of plugging a mind-altering substance into somebody without their informed consent or that of their legal caretakers - I think that's just wrong, categorically. The notion that it could be reverse-engineered and used in favor of one creed or a whole category of creeds is very disturbing to me, but this has already been articulated by others. I don't fancy seeing any of my Christian or Muslim acquaintances forced to accept a needle or a pill, any more than I'd want to see myself or my fellow infidels censored from the inside out.

So I would find myself very much opposed to the development and use of such a fixall.

-Wanderer

[ April 18, 2002: Message edited by: wide-eyed wanderer ]</p>

Automaton

Yes, any hint of unorthodoxy must be eliminated immediately.

What a horrifying proposal. Thought control is not something that should even be considered.

elwoodblues

"(any neuroscientists in the house?)"

I'm a Cognitive Science major with more than brief exposure to neuroscience. Probably the best you're gonna get here.

What you said was essentially spot-on, wide-eyed wanderer (btw; where's the name from? the only thing I can think of is, lol, The Lion King...). A drug that had such a fundamental impact as to eliminate religious feeling... We don't really know what other effects it could have. Worse, it has the potential to be different from person to person. For one, it might be utterly minimal. For another, they might lose some cognitive abilities, like spatial reasoning or inference logic. For another, it might drastically alter their mood and/or personality.

A 'magic bullet' drug that could target religious feeling... Look, I'm one of the biggest proponents and supporters of technology and science around here. But this is just ridiculous. What we KNOW about how the brain works is still pretty minimal. 40% of what's in the textbooks and profesional magazines is inference, and another 40% is just speculation. We might stumble on something that happens to do this, but we wouldn't know why, or what else it might do.

In my mind, all this, though important, still takes a back seat to the obvious ethical considerations. I'm very glad I'm not the only one very disturbed by this idea.

Metacrock

You don't have the right to decide weather I think I'm a radish or a child of God. Those are not the same kinds of questions and you know it. Maybe we should you a drug to grow you some brians?

Metacrock

Congradulations! You discovered Orwellian thinking! There's something nice and Orwellian about a "free thinker" who works on ways to do mind control.

Why not? Look at all those Soviet dissodents who were mentally ill right?

Gurdur

Well, I was referring to Samhain's point that your post happened late in the day in this thread, did not take the other posts into account, and had an unfortunate tone - most especially your second post.

sigh, I could I suppose go into details about how many regular posters there are on SecWeb, and how many would support such a view as in the OP of this thread (a very tiny minority, IMHempiricistO), but all I want to stress is that a very small but very vocal minority do not represent freethinkers en masse; that, and my other point was your own counter-productive behaviour - in other words, I see you as going straight for unproductive conformist theist/atheist battle lines.

Yeah well, I was being provocative myself in trying to ram home a point. OK ?

No worries.
Sorry to be provocative myself.
Just try to stay clear of unproductive stereotypical battlelines, please.


__________________

You're joking, right, ElwoodBlues ?

sigh, probably, not.
I gave a brief sketch of my qualifications in my Introduction thread; I'm aware of at least 3 habitués of the serious forums who are more qualified than I am in this area, IMHO, and, pardon me, I'm qualified.

_______________

Pointedly ignores Metacrock's completely unproductive and counter-productive additions, very late in the day indeed. *Sigh*

David Bowden

Argh. No, that wasn't the intended reference. I'm not good at picking aliases. When I joined the forums, I drew a complete blank for like half an hour, and so when I finally thought of this one I quit trying. It pretty well reflects my sense that reality is so freakin' awesome, along with my seemingly incurable wanderlust.

I really wasn't thinking about Elton John or dancing warthogs at the time.

Taking it in a slightly different direction (perhaps splitting a few hairs along the way):

I'm actually glad that sullster brought it up. What would really disturb me is if, after presenting such an idea to the public, and after hearing objections like those we've given, some government agency or other group or an individual decided to use it despite the problems we've pointed out.

The insistence that we apply the idea would be disturbing, to me. But the idea itself is stimulating; I think it'd inspire a really neat SF story, at least...

...but I sure wouldn't want to live in the world created in that story.

-Wanderer

[ April 18, 2002: Message edited by: wide-eyed wanderer ]</p>

pug846

To say that the idea suggested in the OP sickens me would be an understatement. It’s beyond unfortunate that we still live in a culture where such a thing would even be suggested.

Samhain

Kenny:

No offense, but your original post was in entirely bad form. Your second post didn't seem much better stating that "so many" would advocate this. Considering the consequences of said action, I doubt any true free-thinker would consider using such a form of mind control. I personally expressed my disgust at such, as did others. Your post trying to stimulate emotional response by making generalizations will not fly here. I doubt there is one amoung us who would not condemn the drug's use in its entirety when presented with reason against it as a form of mind control. Many of us expressed this, and your absurd post ignored this, you didn't give the majority credit, but took what was said by the few as face value and generalized it to the rest of us. It was, as I said, a tad bit late for your sanctimonious preaching, especially considering what harm your religion has caused in general and how it's been used as a form of mind control for thousands of years. It seemed really rich having the pot call the kettle black. My statements regarding theism were facts in history, your statements were generalizations based on opinions of a minority. I doubt you'd find one of us who would burn someone at the stake or induce mind control on others, and yet you blatantly used this in your post, obviously to produce some kind of emotional response against atheists and free-thinkers. Do not be so quick to make absurd statements unless you're willing to be called out on them.

elwoodblues

"You're joking, right, ElwoodBlues ?

sigh, probably, not.
I gave a brief sketch of my qualifications in my Introduction thread; I'm aware of at least 3 habitués of the serious forums who are more qualified than I am in this area, IMHO, and, pardon me, I'm qualified."

My apologies, Gurdur. It wasn't meant that way. I only meant to say that, in all likelihood, I was the closest thing to a neuroscientist that was going to stumble across this thread. There just aren't many people who are informed in that area of science; if there are as many as 3 neuroscientists on this board, that's far and away in excess of the general population.

If you're better qualified than I, I certainly bow to your superior knowledge. If you think any of what I said was off-base, please share.