289: The Brain, Science and Religion

In my lecture "272: Science and Supersense" I said: "Supersense helps us to understand the world, so that we are able to make decisions and choices that feel good. It helps us to feel united with others, that hold the same beliefs. (…)

Science has become more and more the fundament of our knowledge of the world. Thence you would expect that it gradually would have replaced supernatural beliefs about our world.

But it has not. And we have to face the question why people ignore what science has to tell us about supernatural beliefs. People just don't listen to scientists who say that supernatural beliefs make no sense at all.

In spite of the tremendous amount of scientific knowledge, science does not seem to get any grip on supernatural beliefs. Even worse, some people even find science a pretty suspect business."
-end quote-

Science is often regarded as cold and impersonal. Regarding our supernatural beliefs it seems to take things away from us away. And what do we get substituted for it?

According to the facts as stated in my former lecture you can cause religious like experiences by stimulating the temporal lobe by electro-magnetic field fluctuations.

Temporal lobe epileptics show in their behavior exactly those traits which are so well known from religious zealots, and saints.

Of course this doesn't apply to every person. It is like all human traits distributed over a whole population: some haven't the trait at all while other have it to the extreme, but the majority of the people are somewhere in-between the extremes.

Last time I drew your attention to a particular Webpage. And it clearly shows what science does. Let me quote:

Rutgers University evolutionary biologist Lionel Tiger thinks we can: “Religion is really made by the brain. It is a secretion of the brain,” says Tiger, who thinks the root of religious belief is an evolutionary drive

to seek this "secretion"—namely serotonin—which provides the believer with feelings of well-being. A neurotransmitter that regulates mood and appetite, serotonin is linked to feelings of well-being when it floods the central nervous system.
-end quote-

Maybe this is why astrology and clairvoyance are often questioned with respect to their reliability and religious supernatural beliefs not.

Religious beliefs have been there all the time of our evolution. The neurochemical response of religion serves a biological need for humans.

But religiosity is not just brain chemistry. VMAT2 is a leading gene among many others written into our genetic code that predisposes people to religiosity. It was identified by geneticist Dean Hamer.

From the webpage:
Believing in God generates soothing "juices" in the brain that make us feel good, says Lionel Tiger. Scientists have identified the neurotransmitter serotonin, a network of neurons in the frontal, parietal and temporal lobes,
and the gene VMAT2 as chemical, structural and genetic origin points that may be responsible for religiosity.

Interest in where the brain and belief overlap has lead to the new field of neurotheology. Some cite new neurological research as confirming a completely organic, earthly origin to religion, independent of divine inspiration.
Others say that while the research starts to explain religious experience and practice, religion itself is more than the sum of its experiences. -end webpage - http://bigthink.com/ideas/23960

To conclude, an amazingly to the point quote from my newspaper of TODAY ! It is from a bookreview…and mark the title: " Free will does not exist." subtitle: "Who is really in control in our brain." by Victor Lamme.

-quote-
Whilst reading, I think of God. Previously taken for granted and everywhere. But for centuries in retreat, driven from every domain which science got a grip on. Would this become our human fate too?

Step by step deprived of what is so uniquely human: freedom and responsibility? Despite the passion with which it is written, a cold wind blows through Lamme's book.
-end quote.



The Discussion

[13:20] herman Bergson: So much for today...thank you...
[13:20] BALDUR Joubert: nothing wrong with the assumption of tiger about feel good and serotonin.. but nothing but assumptions about religion and brain..and science -there i agree.. won't liberate serotonin..
[13:21] herman Bergson: We have three belief-systems....
[13:21] herman Bergson: scientific beliefs, religious beliefs and supernatural beliefs (like astrology and tarot etc.)
[13:21] AristotleVon Doobie: "neurotheology", sounds like the sound bite "intelligent design"
[13:22] herman Bergson: May be Aristotle, but in fact it is a very bad name for what is means....
[13:22] herman Bergson: there is no theology in it at all.
[13:23] AristotleVon Doobie: the Pope will have a fit
[13:23] herman Bergson: It si what I described today...the neurobilological research on religious behavior and thoughts and feelings
[13:23] herman Bergson: He certainly will send me to hell yes
[13:23] BALDUR Joubert: religious and suoernatural is thge same..
[13:23] BALDUR Joubert: where's the difference..
[13:23] Bejiita Imako: hehe no worry I blast hiom with the LHC then a la Angels and Demons
[13:23] herman Bergson: Theoretically yes Baldur but in our culture there is a difference
[13:24] Chi Aho: Are brain secretions also the source of scientism?
[13:24] Bejiita Imako: the pope say many wierd things
[13:24] Bejiita Imako: hehe
[13:24] BALDUR Joubert: culture.. now we are getting closer..
[13:24] herman Bergson: If you regard scientism as a religion..maybe Chi
[13:24] BALDUR Joubert: so what is the connection between culture and religion
[13:24] BALDUR Joubert: can one exist without the other?
[13:25] herman Bergson: Well….Baldur…
[13:25] Chi Aho: I see reducing religious experience to brain secretions as the pitfall of reductionism; doesn't help much
[13:25] herman Bergson: the human being is a social animal...
[13:25] BALDUR Joubert: true.
[13:26] BALDUR Joubert: social and animal..
[13:26] herman Bergson: to keep the group together supernatural ideas played an effective role in evolution...
[13:26] BALDUR Joubert: not for animals
[13:26] BALDUR Joubert: who have very complex social relationships..
[13:26] herman Bergson: there are never religeous ideas or behavior observed by animals
[13:26] Willful Guardian: we don't really know that, do we baldur?
[13:26] AristotleVon Doobie: could the 'feel good' folks get from religious belief sprout from a more Freudian see, such as the seed for Fatherly love?
[13:27] herman Bergson: That is a psychological interpretation Aristotle...
[13:27] herman Bergson: And Chi....your reductionism we'll discuss later
[13:27] AristotleVon Doobie: some faux rationalization maybe
[13:28] herman Bergson: that is a complicated subject
[13:28] BALDUR Joubert: a psychological interpretation is also a supernatural belief interpretation ..
[13:28] herman Bergson: With supernatural we mean that it cant be tested and defies all natural laws Baldur
[13:28] Chi Aho: To reduce peak experiences, awe, mystery, the sense of grandeur of the universe to "brain secretions" is to miss the whole point of such experiences
[13:29] BALDUR Joubert: we can't leave religion to the neurologist alone:)
[13:29] herman Bergson: Do these experiences have a point Chi?
[13:29] Chi Aho: Self transcendence comes with identifying the self with the totality of the cosmos and the energy underlying it
[13:30] AristotleVon Doobie: I seek to understand religion only to be able to defend myself from those whose promote it
[13:30] BALDUR Joubert: with supernatural we -if we look at the brain-- it doesn't defy any law of nature.. if its origin is in the brain
[13:30] Chi Aho: Maybe you don't need to do that herman, or maydbe you lack that awareness
[13:30] herman Bergson: @Chi : that is a complex metaphysics you propose there...
[13:30] Chi Aho: not at all
[13:31] herman Bergson: What we know is that people in meditation can have the 'one with the cosmos' feeling...
[13:31] Reyne Baroque: Have to go Herman - ty
[13:31] herman Bergson: and when they have that feeling , neurobiologically it is observed that the parts of the brain that give us the spacial en temporal experiences are largely inactive
[13:32] herman Bergson: yw Reyne
[13:32] Chi Aho: The Contemplative apprehends spiritual experiences and states. Sometimes achieved through fasting, solitude, chanting, drumming, dance and yoga. Sometimes through quiet concentration, meditation and contemplation. Occasionally accompanied by peak experiences, as awe and mystery are sensed, in this state we seek interior illumination. It is in this state that the gap between the objective and the subjective dissolves. Clarity of awareness arises. There is a self-transcendence, an identification of the self with the totality of the cosmos and the spirit or energy underlying it. (See pp. 137-8 in Ken Wilber, The Eye of Spirit).
[13:32] herman Bergson: dont do this Chi...I am sorry to say....read the rules behind me...
[13:32] Chi Aho: You see herman, it isn't all science or atheism
[13:32] herman Bergson: but you are excused
[13:33] herman Bergson: I have no idea what self-trancendence means
[13:33] Chi Aho: you prove my point then
[13:34] herman Bergson: besides that the concept of the Self is a philosophical question
[13:34] Chi Aho: its like someone who doesn't know what empiricism is
[13:34] BALDUR Joubert: interior ilumination chi?
[13:34] Chi Aho: Yes, an understanding of who you are, Baldur
[13:34] herman Bergson: what is your point Chi?
[13:34] BALDUR Joubert: clayrity arises something absolute?
[13:34] AristotleVon Doobie: :) the cosmos is spinning around me, the pivot...it is very comforting to be its center
[13:35] Chi Aho: My point is that anyone who reduces these experiences to "brain secretions" lacks some really vital knowledge and experience himself.
[13:35] BALDUR Joubert: smile ari.. we are all -as individuals.. the center..
[13:35] AristotleVon Doobie: indeed Baldur
[13:36] herman Bergson: But that is an argument ad hominem where the speaker claims to have a better knowledge of reality which he doesnt proof
[13:36] Bejiita Imako: aaa true
[13:36] BALDUR Joubert: chi.. what vital knowledge..something universal and absolute?
[13:36] Chi Aho: I am not the only one with this viewpoint, herman
[13:37] herman Bergson: It is a typical claim of people who have a well defined (religious) belief and claim that their belief is the only true and right belief
[13:37] BALDUR Joubert: quantity doeswn't proof quality chi..
[13:37] herman Bergson: To refer to 'others think so too' is not a philosophical argument but a social or cultural or religious argument
[13:38] Rodney Handrick: that true
[13:38] BALDUR Joubert: third reich argument chi
[13:38] herman Bergson: In the philosphical discourse you try to establish the truth value of a statement
[13:38] Willful Guardian: has someone reduced religion simply to nothing but brain secretions?
[13:38] AristotleVon Doobie: it smacks too much of democracy being the truth validator
[13:38] herman Bergson: that is only possible when the statement can be tested...
[13:38] Ciska Riverstone: wanted to ask the same, willful
[13:38] Chi Aho: Only empirical knowledge is valid?
[13:39] herman Bergson: No Willfull
[13:39] BALDUR Joubert: well chi.. its a basis we can agree on.. doesn't exclude other possibiliteis
[13:39] AristotleVon Doobie: we alone validate presented empirical data as true or false
[13:39] herman Bergson: Only statements that can be tested on their truth value are admissible in a debate....
[13:40] Chi Aho: How about the whole realm of logical thinking, theories, philosophical systems???
[13:40] herman Bergson: If someone has a method to demonstrate the occurence of sef-transcendence, after having defined the concept, it is a valid argument in the philosophical debate
[13:41] Chi Aho: You should read Ken Wilbur, The Eye of Spirit
[13:41] Rodney Handrick: I'd like to know
[13:41] Chi Aho: read his book
[13:41] BALDUR Joubert: if you have proof that tranc
[13:41] herman Bergson: Yes that is what everyone says...you should read that or that book...
[13:41] Chi Aho: yes, read it
[13:42] herman Bergson: Be it the Koran or the Bible or Blavatsky etc.
[13:42] BALDUR Joubert: trancendendce thinking is not subject to a brain activity.. logical thinking and theories.. we will listen chi
[13:42] herman Bergson: Religion is not reduced to brain secretions at all...
[13:42] Chi Aho: Scientism, the ideology that only empirical knowledge is valid, is narrow and distorted
[13:42] AristotleVon Doobie: reading is important, but you need a baskets on each side of you as you read...one for jewels and one for trash
[13:43] herman Bergson: With all due respect Chi....
[13:43] herman Bergson: it is ok to say that something is narrow and distorted...
[13:43] BALDUR Joubert: narrow and distorted may be chi.. but not something we can ignore
[13:43] herman Bergson: but that is not interesting and begging the questions
[13:44] herman Bergson: what you have to show is that it is the case
[13:44] Willful Guardian: is the subject today the role of neuroscience in relation to religion?
[13:44] Chi Aho: I said that scientism, the ideology that only empirical knowledge is valid is a distorted view and a narrow view
[13:44] herman Bergson: but that is a completely different debate
[13:44] herman Bergson: this leads to a debate on epistemology...
[13:44] AristotleVon Doobie: yes Willful
[13:44] Willful Guardian: oh, then I'm confused...
[13:45] herman Bergson: Yes....
[13:45] AristotleVon Doobie: we diverge sometimes
[13:45] herman Bergson: the issues of today are...first..
[13:45] BALDUR Joubert: lol
[13:45] Willful Guardian: ah, I see...
[13:45] Chi Aho: You see Willful, mystical experiences are due to epileptic seizures
[13:45] AristotleVon Doobie: lol
[13:45] herman Bergson: That it looks like that science takes away a lot of our supernatural ideas...
[13:45] BALDUR Joubert: that's sh....
[13:46] AristotleVon Doobie: I suspect what a seizure creates can be interpreted in many ways
[13:46] herman Bergson: Second...that religious experiences can be provoked by stimulating the brain or be observed by Temporal lobe epileptics
[13:46] BALDUR Joubert: the development- not evolution. of culture is at the basis of religios ideas
[13:47] herman Bergson: but Baldur culture is re result of the activities of an organism with a brain
[13:47] AristotleVon Doobie: I find it very interesting that Muhammed was an epileptic, I supect Paul was too
[13:47] herman Bergson: Yes he has the symptoms Aristotle....
[13:47] BALDUR Joubert: yes.. but not of epilepsy:)
[13:48] herman Bergson: We never can prove it however
[13:48] AristotleVon Doobie: he fell down stricken on the Road to Damascus
[13:48] Rodney Handrick: you're referring to Saul of Tarsus?
[13:48] herman Bergson: It is a conjecture that he is describing an epileptic seizure...
[13:48] AristotleVon Doobie: yes
[13:48] BALDUR Joubert: why not because the brain - starting to observe and think-.and communicate with others.. is just confronted with forces which it can't explain..
[13:48] Bejiita Imako: I see
[13:49] herman Bergson: at least..the symptoms canbe observed today with real patients
[13:49] BALDUR Joubert: and forces.. power.. is a basic necessity ina social community..
[13:49] AristotleVon Doobie: makes one question historians
[13:49] Willful Guardian: well neuroscience might describe the physical substrate of religious experience, without fully explaining the experience itself of course
[13:49] Chi Aho: right, Willful
[13:49] herman Bergson: If that invisible force were there Baldur....who could we have knowledge of it
[13:50] BALDUR Joubert: right will.. describe. they should be careful with conclusions..
[13:50] Rodney Handrick: I'm still looking for a Jedi master...
[13:50] AristotleVon Doobie: interesting thought Willful
[13:50] BALDUR Joubert: a lighning which kills me
[13:50] BALDUR Joubert: me of the group?
[13:50] herman Bergson: Well Willful to answer your question....
[13:50] AristotleVon Doobie: you are the Jedi master Rod
[13:50] BALDUR Joubert: that wee have knowledge of.. but can't explain..
[13:51] herman Bergson: the mind is just a feature of the brain....
[13:51] Rodney Handrick: HA HA HA HA HA
[13:51] Bejiita Imako: „ã°
[13:51] herman Bergson: so experiences are just the results of that feature..
[13:51] herman Bergson: the mind is not something that has other experiences than the brain
[13:51] herman Bergson: ok..let me explain....
[13:51] AristotleVon Doobie: :) unless you are trilolgist like me
[13:52] herman Bergson: when you have a glass of water....
[13:52] BALDUR Joubert: right... without experience..-and communication with others.. to say a society.. no mind
[13:52] herman Bergson: the water may be liquid.....
[13:52] herman Bergson: but liquidity only exists as a feature of the way the water molecules are organized...
[13:53] herman Bergson: thus ..the organisation of lower lever creates specific features.
[13:53] Ciska Riverstone: so the interessting question is why do they organize like they organize
[13:53] herman Bergson: you can not have water one the one hand and liquidity on the other hand
[13:54] herman Bergson: that is simple to answer Ciska...
[13:54] Bejiita Imako: the later is a property of the first
[13:54] herman Bergson: molecules behave as they do based on the laws of nature...
[13:54] herman Bergson: Yes Bejiita but not in the Aristotelian sense
[13:54] Bejiita Imako: ah
[13:55] herman Bergson: thus the way the brain chemistry works create a specific feature what we call mind...
[13:55] herman Bergson: without a brain and its material composition there is no mind
[13:56] herman Bergson: like there is no liquidity without water molecules arranged in a specific way
[13:56] AristotleVon Doobie: :) a byproduct of biology?
[13:56] herman Bergson: Well...that is a bit to fast Aristotle...
[13:56] herman Bergson: Then you can call liquidity a byproduct of water molecules...
[13:57] herman Bergson: which makes the qualification 'by=product' trivial
[13:57] AristotleVon Doobie: the mind and the brain, is like the chicken and the egg
[13:58] herman Bergson: definitely not.....
[13:58] herman Bergson: there is first the brain....
[13:58] AristotleVon Doobie: ahh, but how do you know for sure?
[13:58] herman Bergson: and that has as a feature by its wiring and operation the mind
[13:59] herman Bergson: because...when I remove my brain...my mind is gone too Aristotle
[13:59] Chi Aho: prove it
[13:59] AristotleVon Doobie: I hear you argument and get the same from my daughter form her neurobiological classes
[13:59] herman Bergson: You would love to see that, wouldn't you Chi ^_^
[13:59] Willful Guardian: well, it's possible to have a brain without a mind, but not a mind without a brain
[13:59] Chi Aho: Well, last dThursday you said "you are your brain"
[14:00] herman Bergson: true Willful
[14:00] AristotleVon Doobie: we think that only because of regimentation
[14:00] Chi Aho: which is only YOUR OWN self-identification, not a statement of fact at all
[14:00] herman Bergson: My thesis here is a materialistic one: we are our brain
[14:01] Chi Aho: materialism is an ideology used to justify atheism
[14:01] BALDUR Joubert: so we can be mind without a brain chi?
[14:01] BALDUR Joubert: or whatever?
[14:01] herman Bergson: It would be a bit extreme Chi, but I dare to say that when I would remove all brains from this globe, that there wouldn't be a single mind anymore
[14:01] Chi Aho: It just may be that the whole cosmos is filled with consciousness
[14:01] BALDUR Joubert: may be.. or might not be chi..
[14:02] Chi Aho: and that scientists don't know the first thing about consciousness, as to what it is
[14:02] BALDUR Joubert: may be i'm god..
[14:02] herman Bergson: Those are supernatural statements Chi
[14:02] Chi Aho: hogwash
[14:02] AristotleVon Doobie: I know I am god, Baldur
[14:02] Willful Guardian: yes, but that is not a helpful point of view in this particular discussion, Chi
[14:02] Willful Guardian: at least I'm not sure how it is
[14:02] herman Bergson: We can't test them...you cant prove them..
[14:02] herman Bergson: let alone that we know what consciousnesss is...
[14:02] BALDUR Joubert: lol.. i knew all the time ari
[14:02] herman Bergson: a hell of a philosophical problem these days
[14:03] Chi Aho: Most of what is important cannot be proven by empirical research
[14:03] AristotleVon Doobie: :)
[14:03] herman Bergson: and who decides what is important Chi? The Pope?
[14:03] herman Bergson: You?
[14:03] herman Bergson: Obama?
[14:03] Chi Aho: Each person decides for him/her self
[14:03] BALDUR Joubert: may be we should agree that there are two different approches to understand oneself and the world.. a scientific one and a spiritual one..
[14:04] Chi Aho whispers: more than just 2
[14:04] herman Bergson: You may say that Baldur...
[14:04] BALDUR Joubert: lets talk about the scientific one here..
[14:04] AristotleVon Doobie: but the spirtual has to have an explanation, just like science
[14:04] BALDUR Joubert: an other time about the contents of spirituality
[14:05] herman Bergson: It is not about the content of the spiritual Baldur...
[14:05] BALDUR Joubert: ari.. first lets try to understand what science knows.. and then integrate that knowledge if possible
[14:05] AristotleVon Doobie: otherwise 'why' s forbidden
[14:05] herman Bergson: it is about the question ..how comes the spiritual into being
[14:05] AristotleVon Doobie: yes, Herman
[14:05] herman Bergson: and to that we give a clear answer....by the working of the brain.
[14:05] Chi Aho: We experience the spiritual through contemplation, herman
[14:06] BALDUR Joubert: ok.. how about the lightning..
[14:06] herman Bergson: there is only the brain....and what it generates as features
[14:06] herman Bergson: That is not the issue here Chi
[14:06] AristotleVon Doobie: 'because I said so' is not proof.....data must be tendered
[14:06] herman Bergson: The brain generates what we experience as spiritual
[14:07] BALDUR Joubert: chi.. even contemplation needs a brain
[14:07] herman Bergson: what behavior such experiences cause or how it functions in culture is not our discussion
[14:07] Chi Aho: herman, did you not say the question was how the spiritual comes into being?
[14:08] herman Bergson: that question is answered....it is produced by the wiring of the brain
[14:08] Willful Guardian: the properties or capacities of the brain would constrain the experience of the spiritual
[14:08] herman Bergson: no brain ...no spirituality
[14:08] Chi Aho: of course not; if a person is dead he/she cannot have human experiences
[14:08] herman Bergson: That Willful presupposes that the spiritual is something independent of the brain
[14:09] herman Bergson: and there you are again with a kind of cartesian dualism
[14:09] BALDUR Joubert: ancient egypt disagrees with you chi
[14:09] Chi Aho: EVERYTHING we experience is a "product of the brain", so what does that prove?
[14:10] AristotleVon Doobie: 'capacities' is a good word to use
[14:10] herman Bergson: Well...I think it is time to say that we still have a lot to debate...
[14:10] AristotleVon Doobie: indeed we do :)
[14:10] Bejiita Imako: ah „ã°
[14:10] herman Bergson: and a lot of what we discussed now will return in further lectures
[14:10] Bejiita Imako: yes
[14:10] herman Bergson: So dont worry.....
[14:11] herman Bergson: I guess it might be wise now to put our brains to rest a little ^_^
[14:11] Bejiita Imako: hehe
[14:11] herman Bergson: so Thank you for this great discussion
[14:11] Bejiita Imako: ah
[14:11] Willful Guardian: I don't know that it presumes it, as opposed to marking it off as a content or object of the brain's activity
[14:11] BALDUR Joubert: not everything we experience is a product of the brain chi.. what we see for ex. is processed in the brain.. stored.. etc
[14:11] Chi Aho: so?????
[14:11] AristotleVon Doobie: Thank you, Professor
[14:12] Bejiita Imako: again very interesting
[14:12] Willful Guardian: yes, thanks
[14:12] Willful Guardian: indeed
[14:12] herman Bergson: So....we'll continue next class
[14:12] AristotleVon Doobie: great!
[14:12] herman Bergson: Class dismissed
[14:12] Beertje Beaumont: thank you Herman it was very interesting
[14:12] Bejiita Imako: yay¨'
[14:12] Bejiita Imako: YAY! (yay!)
[14:12] Bejiita Imako: ok cu soon all :)=
[14:12] herman Bergson: For those who not know.....
[14:13] herman Bergson: The basic premise of this project is that we are our brain and a materialist interpretation of reality
[14:13] Rodney Handrick: thanks Herman
[14:13] herman Bergson: Nice you were here Rodney
[14:13] Ciska Riverstone: Thank You Hermann- very interesting! thank you all
[14:13] Willful Guardian: but perhaps then it is best to assume materialism for future discussions?
[14:14] Willful Guardian: as opposed to debating it?
[14:14] herman Bergson: Sure Willful.....that is the most logical thing to do...
[14:14] herman Bergson: I should make a sign that explains our starting point
[14:15] herman Bergson: so that very new participant understands out starting position in the debates

286: The Brain and Religion 1

"The recognition that the brain lies at the center of the human world—as organizer and interpreter of incoming information, as constructor and communicator of outgoing ideas—is revolutionizing the humanities and social sciences.

In fundamentally restructuring traditional understandings of human thought and behavior, cognitive science is bringing provocative new insights and methods to traditional areas of specialization, including anthropology, archaeology, linguistics, philosophy, psychology, sociology, and others."

says Ted Tremlin in the preface of his book "Minds and Gods: The cognitive foundations of Religion (2006) Around the world and throughout history, in cultures as diverse as ancient Mesopotamia and modern America, human beings have been compelled by belief in gods and developed complex religions around them.

But why? What makes belief in supernatural begins so widespread? And why are the gods of so many different people so similar in nature? His book tries to answer these questions, like we make our first attempt here today.

In the US 95% of the Americans believe in God, 90% prays, 82% say that God can do miracles and more than 70% believes in an afterlife. Remarkable however is that less than 50% believes in hell.

Compare this with the fact that among the top scientists of the National Academy of Science of the US only 7% believe in God, that among Nobel-prize winners religiosity is almost nil. Only 3% of the members of the English Fellows of the Royal Society of Science is religious.

These are remarkable figures. It seems that the level of atheism in a populations depends on intelligence, education, scientific achievements and a positive interest in science.

As we already learned in the lectures on supersense, our brain is wired so that we have a natural drive for spirituality. Spirituality is the receptivity to religion.

It is even proven that spirituality is determined genetically for 50%. The environment does the rest. Dean Hamer wrote in 2006 the book "The God Gene".

Small variations in a certain gene determine the degree of spirituality of a person. Probably there are more gens involved, tho this one showed to be significant.

After birth the religious programming of the brain of a child begins. The evolution biologist Richard Dawkins finds it absurd to talk about christian, islamic or jewish children. Children have no religious beliefs at all.

He points out that in society it would be regarded as unacceptable when we also would talk about atheist, humanist or agnostic children.

Dawkins regards indoctrinated religion as a by-product of another feature of the child brains that has a great evolutionary advantage.

Children have to respond immediately to warnings of parents and other authorities without debate and follow their directions, if they don't want to be put in constant jeopardy.

As downside of this property children are gullible. Indoctrination at a young age is then easy. This could be an explanation of the permanent presence of a belief, a religion…..generation after generation.

With the evolution of modern man there have emerged five characteristic behaviors, which you find in all cultures: language, the making of tools, music, art and religion.

Of all these behaviors we have found predecessors in the animal kingdom, except religion. Yet, mankind survived, so we only can conclude that religion must have had an evolutionary advantage for the homo sapiens.

We'll discuss that next lecture….thank you!


The Discussion

[13:18] Qwark Allen: very interesting
[13:18] Bejiita Imako: aaa yes
[13:18] Bejiita Imako: indeed'
[13:19] Qwark Allen: religion can be so different from culture to culture
[13:19] herman Bergson: If you have any questions or remarks...feel free...the floor is yours
[13:19] Aphrodite Macbain: why does being religious=believing in god? uddhists dont lieve in an external god.
[13:19] Aphrodite Macbain: Buddhists
[13:20] Aphrodite Macbain: Can the gene make you spiritual but not god-fearing?
[13:20] Daruma Boa: i think its not all the same
[13:20] herman Bergson: In the first place there is spirituality....
[13:20] Aphrodite Macbain: yes
[13:20] herman Bergson: the inclination of the mind to believe that there is more between heaven and earth...
[13:20] Aphrodite Macbain: why is there that leap then?
[13:21] herman Bergson: the next step is to give this belief body...
[13:21] Daruma Boa: there is nothing really more i guess.
[13:21] Aphrodite Macbain: from spirituality to a god
[13:21] AristotleVon Doobie: Mr Dawkins then is of the opinion that the inclination for religion is not innate?
[13:21] Daruma Boa: its all in us
[13:21] herman Bergson: or an other next step..to institutionalize this belief even
[13:21] Daruma Boa: but most humans are too lazy to find that out^^
[13:21] Aphrodite Macbain: that is shaped by society, the culture
[13:21] Daruma Boa: or are afraid of
[13:22] Aphrodite Macbain: different religions for different cultures
[13:22] herman Bergson: No Aristotle...it is innate...Dawkins agrees on that
[13:22] Aphrodite Macbain: It is a socializing thing not a genetic thing, surely?
[13:22] herman Bergson: and yes it shaped culture and society...
[13:22] Aphrodite Macbain: yes
[13:23] Aphrodite Macbain: which I suggest is most powerful in order to survive in society
[13:23] herman Bergson: But for the good or the bad..that is questionable...
[13:23] AristotleVon Doobie: one would have to have a laboratory filled will parentless children to ascertain it origins I think
[13:23] herman Bergson: we'll discuss that next lecture
[13:23] herman Bergson: the brain is the origin Aristotle...
[13:24] AristotleVon Doobie: understand that is the consensus
[13:24] Aphrodite Macbain: Can you tell us any more about the "spiritual gene"?
[13:24] herman Bergson: children develop supernatural ideas by themselves....before culture kicks in
[13:24] Aphrodite Macbain: how was it identified?
[13:24] AristotleVon Doobie: but where have there been children without adult influence to study?
[13:24] Aphrodite Macbain: who gave it that name?
[13:24] herman Bergson: Piaget did a lot of experiments....
[13:25] Aphrodite Macbain: the wild child
[13:25] herman Bergson: animism is a basic child attitude towards nature
[13:25] Aphrodite Macbain: acts like any other animal
[13:26] Aphrodite Macbain: then society comes along and shapes the child
[13:26] herman Bergson: yes Aphrodite..there have been found totally wild children....so mentally damaged...
[13:26] Aphrodite Macbain: Does that mean all our ideas about religion are learned?
[13:27] herman Bergson: I forgot the name...but there was that american girl...now a woman in het 50s...
[13:27] Aphrodite Macbain: In a basment for years
[13:27] herman Bergson: to some extend yes Aphrodite....
[13:28] Beertje Beaumont: i think she was raised by dogs
[13:28] herman Bergson: the capability of spiritual ideas is wired into our brain....
[13:28] Aphrodite Macbain: did the dogs become gods to her?
[13:28] herman Bergson: institutionalized religions shape it ..
[13:28] Aphrodite Macbain: and the parents
[13:28] Aphrodite Macbain: and the schools
[13:28] herman Bergson: yes...what Dawkins calls indoctrination ^_^
[13:29] herman Bergson: But don't underestimate the mind....
[13:29] Aphrodite Macbain: hard to get an original thought in this system
[13:29] herman Bergson: In china ...any religion was forbidden....
[13:29] AristotleVon Doobie: the only way to really know if there is a 'god gene' is to isolate a large quantity of newborns fro any adult influence and study their behavior until puberty
[13:29] Aphrodite Macbain: and look at their genetic makeup
[13:30] Aphrodite Macbain: at the beginning
[13:30] herman Bergson: I dont think so Aristotle.....that cant be done...
[13:30] Aphrodite Macbain: They would not be happy campers - being isolated from society
[13:30] herman Bergson: The mind of a child believes that her doll gets hurt when you hit it...
[13:30] AristotleVon Doobie: I know :) but anything else would be conjecture I think
[13:30] Aphrodite Macbain: Really?
[13:30] herman Bergson: Believes that there are fairies...
[13:31] Aphrodite Macbain: I thought kids were cruel to animals because they didn't know it had any effect
[13:31] Aphrodite Macbain: Empathy is learned, no?
[13:31] herman Bergson: I dont think you can undo the basic animistic phase a mind goes through in its development
[13:31] AristotleVon Doobie: yes
[13:32] herman Bergson: Yes Aphrodite...
[13:32] Bejiita Imako: ah
[13:32] AristotleVon Doobie: maybe a computer model someday will reveal it
[13:32] herman Bergson: but empathy with physical pain is easier learned than with eamotional pain...
[13:32] Aphrodite Macbain: yes?
[13:33] Aphrodite Macbain: Only if you have experienced either pain can you truly empathize
[13:33] Aphrodite Macbain: (walk a mile in my moccasins kind of thing)
[13:33] herman Bergson: Yes ..seems that the organism easier understands when another is in physical pain, than when he is in emotional toruble...
[13:33] AristotleVon Doobie: empathy must have the seed of 'right and wrong' instilled by nurturers
[13:33] Aphrodite Macbain: how so aristotle?
[13:34] herman Bergson: I think I understand Aristotle...
[13:34] AristotleVon Doobie: unless we believe that 'right and wrong' is innate
[13:34] herman Bergson: When you see injustice done to somebody...that is about right and wrong...
[13:34] Aphrodite Macbain: now there's another good question - what is virtuous?
[13:35] Aphrodite Macbain: How do we learn right and wrong? Just or unfair
[13:35] herman Bergson: that is a very nice question Aphrodite...
[13:35] Aphrodite Macbain: Are they innate?
[13:35] AristotleVon Doobie: I supspect we are instructed
[13:35] Aphrodite Macbain: or taught?
[13:35] herman Bergson: I would say....no....
[13:36] herman Bergson: In fact ...altruism isnt innate...selfishness is....
[13:36] herman Bergson: let me give you a remarkable example....
[13:36] Aphrodite Macbain: but a sense of being unfairly wronged is innate- perhaps that' just the ego crying for satisfaction
[13:36] herman Bergson: On the radio I recently heard an interview with somebody about neuromarketing
[13:36] Aphrodite Macbain: yes?
[13:37] Aphrodite Macbain: selling brain cells?
[13:37] herman Bergson: neuromarketing or neuro economics means...
[13:37] herman Bergson: show a consumer a product and scan his brain....
[13:38] herman Bergson: depending on what you see you can see ..good or bad product....in the sense...he is willing to buy it...
[13:38] Aphrodite Macbain: who does this?
[13:38] herman Bergson: That man said something remarkable...
[13:38] herman Bergson: Was about a campain on becoming organ donor...
[13:39] herman Bergson: He said....the mistake these campains make is to emphasize altruism...
[13:39] herman Bergson: that is not innate...not wired in the brain by nature...
[13:39] herman Bergson: so change the slogan and say....would you accept an organ from a donor if it would safe your life?
[13:40] Aphrodite Macbain: How depressing. Don' we have an alturistic gene. Sounds like Hobbes theories
[13:40] Qwark Allen: very nice point of view
[13:40] Aphrodite Macbain: Smart
[13:40] Bejiita Imako: ah' yes
[13:40] herman Bergson: Yes Aphrodite...we'll look into that indeed....
[13:40] herman Bergson: altruism is a very special feature of human behavior...
[13:40] Aphrodite Macbain: a big discussion -why people do things.
[13:41] AristotleVon Doobie: but that only supports the fact that we are selfish indeed
[13:41] herman Bergson: Are we samaritans or hobbessian
[13:41] Aphrodite Macbain: Hobbes would say people do what they do to satisfy their needs
[13:41] Aphrodite Macbain: even when they re being generous
[13:41] AristotleVon Doobie: of course altruism is an idealistic notion
[13:41] Aphrodite Macbain: ? why of course?
[13:41] herman Bergson: We'll keep it on the list of future subjects...
[13:42] AristotleVon Doobie: fundementally we are all selfish and required by nature to be
[13:42] Aphrodite Macbain: I think it's wrapped up with that spirituality gene!
[13:42] herman Bergson: Yes Aphrodite..that could be a good point
[13:43] Aphrodite Macbain: wonder what Freud would say
[13:43] herman Bergson: but...somehow altruism seems to be in our genes too...
[13:43] herman Bergson: there are examples in nature where animals sacrifice their life for the group...
[13:43] Aphrodite Macbain: I'd like to think so. We can't survive well without a society
[13:44] Aphrodite Macbain: we are mutually dependent
[13:44] AristotleVon Doobie: it is a sweet and romantic thought
[13:44] Bejiita Imako: yes
[13:44] Aphrodite Macbain: Am I being romantic?
[13:44] herman Bergson: The human being is and always will be a social animal Aphrodite...
[13:44] AristotleVon Doobie: well, we are much better folks if we believe it
[13:45] herman Bergson: He'll never be something else
[13:45] Aphrodite Macbain: are our lives short mean and brutish?
[13:45] Aphrodite Macbain: brutish?
[13:45] AristotleVon Doobie: our survival requires us to be social at least to one other
[13:45] Aphrodite Macbain: yes. I agree
[13:46] herman Bergson: I wouldnt say that..but related to eternity our lifes are just a flash in the dark ^_^
[13:46] AristotleVon Doobie: any additional joy in society is created by ourselves
[13:46] herman Bergson: Well...ok....
[13:47] herman Bergson: Next lecture we'll see who religious behavior can be interpreted from an evolutionary point of view...
[13:47] herman Bergson: May I thank you for you participation again...
[13:47] Daruma Boa: thank u herman
[13:47] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
[13:47] Beertje Beaumont: thank you Herman
[13:48] Bejiita Imako: another interesting nice time
[13:48] herman Bergson: class dismissed :_)
[13:48] Bejiita Imako: ㋡
[13:48] AristotleVon Doobie: after all Darwin was from a religious family
[13:48] AristotleVon Doobie: Thanks you, Professor
[13:48] bergfrau Apfelbaum: THANKS you all! that was very much interssant
[13:48] bergfrau Apfelbaum: ***** APPPPPPPLLLLAAAUUUSSSSEEEEEEE***********
[13:48] bergfrau Apfelbaum: herman
[13:48] Bejiita Imako ♪♥♪APPLAUDS!!!♪♥♪
[13:48] herman Bergson: thank you Bergie ..
[13:48] Beertje Beaumont: *•.¸'*•.¸ ♥ ¸.•*´¸.•*
[13:48] Beertje Beaumont: .•*♥¨`• BRAVO!!!! •¨`♥*•.
[13:48] Beertje Beaumont: ¸.•*`¸.•*´ ♥ `*•.¸`*•.¸
[13:48] Daruma Boa: *+*+*+*+*+*+*
[13:48] Daruma Boa: Holla die Waldfee
[13:48] Daruma Boa: *+*+*+*+*+*+*
[13:49] AristotleVon Doobie: Bravo!.....Bravo!!!
[13:49] Daruma Boa: so i hope 2 be here again on thursday^^
[13:49] herman Bergson: You are most welcome Daruma...
[13:49] Aphrodite Macbain: That was great. Thanks everyone!
[13:50] Beertje Beaumont: see you all on thursday
[13:50] herman Bergson: My pleasure Aphrodite
[13:50] AristotleVon Doobie: Good bye everyone.....thanks again Herman :)
[13:50] Bejiita Imako: ok cu
[13:50] bergfrau Apfelbaum: iFAITH in you all! : -))) see u thursday
[13:50] Aphrodite Macbain: Same time on Thursda?
[13:50] herman Bergson: dont collide with particles Bejiita
[13:50] AristotleVon Doobie: lol
[13:50] herman Bergson: Yes Aphrodite
[13:51] Aphrodite Macbain: Bye!
[13:51] Qwark Allen: was very interesting class hermman
[13:51] Qwark Allen: thank you
[13:51] Bejiita Imako: \o/
[13:51] Bejiita Imako: || Hoooo!
[13:51] Bejiita Imako: / \