sullster

The discussion of anti-depressants has me thinking about the idea that someday a drug may come about which targets the area of the brain which is stimulated or pleasured by the illusions of religion. I am not talking about some drug producing a "high" which turns off the religious impulse but a drug which acts in way that a person would not feel anything but indifference to all things religious.

Are there not areas of the brain, which neuro-science has indentified as being the areas which generate the irrationalities and suseptibilites to religious illusion and delusion? If this area could be reached and altered with a drug, we may be able to end religion once and for all.

Does anyone think this can be done? and how can I contribute to the drug's creation?

Corwin

It already has been.

Haloperiadol should do the trick nicely.

Mageth

I think someone's performed experiments where they've stimulated parts of the brain to induce euphoric religious experiences, so it makes sense that they might be able to supress such activity. I don't know if that would get rid of religion; after all, religion is more complex than just something that arises from a certain region of the brain.

Further, I can't think why it should be done. Religion is not the only thing that may come from/take advantage of such an area of the brain. We might all end up like a bunch of Stepford Wives.

elwoodblues

Am I the only one here who finds this, not only scary, but more than a little offensive?

Samhain

*Raises his hand in answer to elwoodblues' question*

Um, I think we should be discussing freedom of the mind, not mind control. While we may hold that theists have ridiculous and unsupportable notions, showing them the truth is always better than forcing it upon them. Consider the alegory of the cave. What if there was a drug which was used to cause people to become religious? You would meet that with opposition, yes? It's basically the same thing, only tables have turned. We focus our ideas upon knowledge, logic, reason, and some in science. They focus theirs upon emotion and blind faith. While I may be an avid anti-christian I would oppose the creation of such a drug whole-heartedly.

Edit: Had trouble placing apostrophe in elwoodblue's/elwoodblues'/elwoodblueseses/elwoodbluesi. Uh, yea.

[ April 17, 2002: Message edited by: Samhain ]

[ April 17, 2002: Message edited by: Samhain ]</p>

Corwin

When people reject reality we medicate them.

Do people have the 'right' to think they're a radish? Even when presented with a mirror?

-RRH-

Try to be careful about this. Research that shows how to reduce religious belief could easily be used to increase it, and there are a lot more people who want to make everyone religious. The market will direct the research.

[ April 17, 2002: Message edited by: RRH ]</p>

Daydreamer

Ah, but the problem is, in this case, both religionists and non-religionists see themselves as the doctor with the mirror, and their opponents as the radish-people. If we go by majority rule, as in your example, we infidels would be the first under medication, followed closely by non-Abrahamic religionists.

I agree with Samhain, as nice as it sounds, the implications are too scary for it to be considered. These ends, I'm afraid, do not justify these means.

Corwin

Facts can be proven. Facts are objective.

As an example, Creationists reject scientific 'fact' right and left. The fact that most people don't realize they're doing it, (because they're sneaky about it... which implies that deep down they KNOW they're full of it...) doesn't change anything.

Samhain

One cannot disprove or prove the existence of any god or gods completely. We can only search for the most logical and reasonable possibility in the given situation: life. Just because we, the infidels, do not believe in the Jesus-cult or any other cult for that matter, doesn't mean we are 100% sure that Abramaic religions aren't correct in their assumption of God. Maybe we will burn in hell for our transgressions (which I personally find more favorable than being a robot in heaven), even though it is probably the most doubtful of all situations. Like I said, we structure ourselves on "reasonable" or "factual" faiths, logic leads us to our rejection of the possibility of any god(s). Theists are rooted in their emotions and in blind faith, but since no one has ever come back from death, we do not know what is "factual" only what is most probable.

Edit: Also, can you prove that I am factually wrong for believing myself to be a radish?

[ April 17, 2002: Message edited by: Samhain ]</p>