Religious Belief Is Primarily Emotional, Not Logical

Post Reply New Topic

I am genuinely interested/curious here.
Contrary to popular beliefs, I am not perfect...
And I do like to add to my understanding of "life, the universe and everything..."

What is your faith based on if not some existential/emotional need...a need for meaning?
And where did this need to embrace theism come from?
Why not simply adopt scientific methodology?

From my perspective, if you press some electro-chemical buttons in the brain...
...if your senses are stimulated in a certain way...
...you could gain *enjoyment* in some form as a result of embracing certain concepts...
...wouldn't this explain an attraction that some have towards spirituality/religion?

Interpersonal love, for example, is very enjoyable and/but has been known to "irrationalise" personal perspectives...
In this case to befuddle the mind so as to encourage procreation...
Why isn't it possible to "fall in love" with a concept in a similar way with it's reality twisting consequences?

Alternatively, if you are driven to find alleviation from existential anxieties...
...or if you simply have some emotional yearnings which you need to satisfy/counter a *feeling* of emptiness/incompletion...
...wouldn't this also explain a motivational stimulus?

Also from the article that Pepe linked to:



I think that is what is happening here. Religion may be a response to emotions in some people . Religion may be an uncritical acceptance of culture in some people . Religion may be an attempt to explain life, the universe and everything in some people . It could also be an encounter with a person who goes under various aliases including 'God'. Different people could being seeing 'God' in different ways, in different times and places.

Spirituality seems to be a trait shared by very many people. It isn't something than can be stuffed into a test tube. It is something that is experienced but is not of this world. That makes it difficult to talk about (kind of like talking about being ASD with an NT and vice versa). Look, I just resorted to a metaphor. It is with metaphor that we have to talk about religions because they are talking about things that are not of this world. So what kind of logic can you apply to that?

I don't recall the details, but I swear somewhere along the way I came across a documentary that said something along the lines that brain activity associated with so-called "spiritual" perceptions and experiences have been tracked to a certain small area of the brain. Like somewhere in the frontal cortex (if I recall).

The subject of the documentary was a teenager with a rare condition wherein he had an debilitating predisposition to perceiving spiritual significance in almost everything. As in almost bordering on schizophrenia.

So to me, that suggests that even "normal" levels of activity within this area of the brain likely occurs within a range of functioning. The result would be that individuals naturally have different brain-structure related predispositions to perceiving and experiencing "spirituality".

Apologies for the size of the following quote.
It all seems very relevant:

"Spirituality is defined as a sense of being connected with something greater than oneself. That something can be a supernatural entity, nature, a social group or a family. Different studies show that a wide range of factors that influence temporal lobe function can produce hallucinations, paranormal, spiritual, mystical, and religious experiences. These factors include the electrical stimulation of the temporal lobes; spontaneous temporal lobe epilepsy; trauma; psychedelic drugs; and the severe anoxia of near death, G-forces and carbon dioxide inhalation. Studies of the very short acting psychedelic drug DMT, which exerts its effect by binding to serotonin receptors in the temporal lobes, show that even highly rational subjects can be absolutely convinced that their induced experiences of being in contact with non-humans beings were absolutely real. This suggests that hippocampal memory cannot always distinguish between external real experiences and internally induced spiritual experiences. Twin studies show there is a significant genetic component to spirituality while religion and church going are more cultural. It is likely that the genes for spirituality were selected because the social cohesiveness that spiritually fosters has a strong survival value. The neurobiology of spirituality suggests that our rational brain occasionally needs to step back and give the spiritual brain some space to have beliefs and feelings that do not always make rational sense."

http://www.neuroquantology.com/index.ph ... rticle/355

@ Pepe

That is an abstract that doesn't really say anything- especially without references provided to the studies. It sounds more like a theoretical piece than a research paper.

There is going to be biochemistry involved. Humans are physical as well as spiritual beings. We have body and soul.

"temporal lobe"...

I don't understand...
Why can't we consider abstracts?
What is wrong with "throwing" ideas around to stimulate concept building?

Please tell me what you think my intention is?
What is the premise/s of your comment?

Regarding souls:
*It is your *opinion* that there is such a phenomenon...
*It can't be proven, hence it is an opinion rather than a fact...

"Of course, most spiritual people view the soul as emphatically more definitive than the scientific concept. It's considered the incorporeal essence of a person, and is said to be immortal and transcendent of material existence. But when scientists speak of the soul (if at all), it's usually in a materialistic context, or treated as a poetic synonym for the mind. "

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/bi ... e-says-yes

Abstracts are a summary not evidence based arguments. You have to read the full paper for that. Therefore it is little more than opinion without the reasons why the author holds those opinions. I note the author uses words such as 'suggests' because they are developing a theory based on some finding rather than having proofs something is so. Do you have another source?

Regarding Souls: I can't prove scientifically that there are or are not souls because they are non-material by definition. Therefore science is the wrong paradigm to discuss them. I think it is a mistake to say "most spiritual people view the soul as emphatically more definitive than the scientific concept" because they are not material things

To discuss souls "it's usually in a materialistic context, or treated as a poetic synonym for the mind" is to use the term in a different sense to theology or religion.

That is not to say that religions and theologians do not use art, poetry and stories to talk about souls. That is because we resort to metaphor. We can say a soul or something spiritual is like something we know in the material realm. But 'like' is not the 'same as'. So metaphors tend to break down as we try to explain something beyond description. We have to make do as we would have no language to use otherwise.

Also from Pepe's last link:

That is at the centre of the problem.

Pepe, I've got rather older this year, but I'll try to explain a few things. If you look for evidence of the spiritual then you may see effect but not the cause. If science could see then probably certain parts of the psyche or body would be seen at work. That does not deny an origin of spiritual experience. You may also come across the fact that sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. There are possible explanations for that, although going into them here would probably be a waste of time. I see mankind as having certain needs, both emotional and spiritual. They are not quite the same thing.

I'd like to see what Boston University made of the people on this website. There seems to be a compelling need for many people with aspergers to see things in terms of logic. I am a creative who failed miserably in science subjects. However, I have found physics fascinating and have tried to understand it at a layman's level. So being intuitive comes naturally to me. I am empathetic, although it seems contradictory I often fail at reading people facial expressions. No doubt in my mind, there are two different things at work there.

Maybe we can forget upbringing as a cause of following a religion as being of no interest to this discussion. I became a Christian at the age of 25. Lets also forget go the hell preaching based on fear. I do think there is a felt need for the spiritual which is in some people, but not others. Certainly many see religion as an answer to things such as loneliness, or wanting to be loved. I don't see that as a bad thing but let us not confuse those emotions with a desire for spiritual things. As a believer I may want to use my faith to meet certain emotional needs, but let us not think that is the purpose of faith. I may experience awesome spiritual power, but that must not be seen as an end product, or essential of faith.

As I get older I begin to see faith not just in being able to bring on good things and enjoyable experience. I see the deepest faith in those who suffer, for example those in prison in places such as China, at least in past times. Faith has helped me to cope with the pain of life some of us here know full well, faith has helped me find that focus to have that special brush stroke and the instinct to know which colour to use. It has helped me find the zone that so many artists and sports man know. It can be difficult to determine where spiritual and natural experience are active. Many artists will deny it, but it is just possible that painting can be a naturally spiritual thing.

I think the spiritual is part of what we are. Some people feel more secure without it and others feel the need. The development of science has made much of that need to be seen as unnecessary, but why deny the Renaissance brought the foundation for some some good things.

And what do you think about this?:
"Mystics throughout history have claimed to experience visions and trance-like states they say come directly from God. There's now speculation that these visions may have been hallucinations brought on by epilepsy. "

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/pro ... sm/5956982

About 30 years ago there was a news article about the soul being weighed...
A person on the verge of death was weighed before and after death...
If the result is to be believed, there was a measurable loss of weight after death with the speculation that the discrepancy was due to the soul leaving the body...

Personally I don't find this convincing...

You still seem to misunderstand where I am coming from...
I am not trying to *prove* anything...
I am not trying to convince those who don't want to be convinced...

You on the other hand seemed to be fixated on trying to discredit me and my contributions...

Not every conversation in the forums has to be in the form of a debate.
I am simply *sharing* ideas...for the enjoyment of concept building/solidification...

Agreed...
The nature of many humans...
But not all...
I used to be a committed christian until around 20, btw...
Simply because I was initially brought up in that sort of environment before I had the facility to think for myself...



Very much so to the point we aspies have been referred to as "little professors".
But surprisingly, there seems to be an inordinate number of those on the spectrum who embrace religion and spirituality...
Possibly/probably family/social conditioning could explain that, as in my case...



We are all individuals...
There are some autistic characteristics, for example, which don't apply to me, yet there is no question I am on the spectrum...



For me personally, I can't recall anything which I would call "spiritual"...
I never felt any connectedness towards a higher being...
I simply acted out what I was taught...

All I felt was abject confusion which didn't ameliorate until I engaged/embraced logical thinking...
For me, science/reason was my saviour from the pit of despair I had been forced to endure for much of my life...

To each their own...

I will say that various conditions may encourage or make possible the spiritual experience. Take psychotic schizophrenia as an example. This is said by he medical profession to be due to chemical production in the brain. It is not necessarily spiritual. I do not claim to know how spiritual things work in the physical sense, but accept that there can be a physical component caused by the spiritual. I also accept that the mind and body are powerful things. Running ten miles a day I used push through the pain barrier to have my body produce those endorphins said to give the runners high. This, however, was nothing like my spiritual experience. One day I was at the Probation Office when officers from the drug squad came to give a talk. The DS lit up a huge chunk of grass and passed it round for us all to take a sniff. That did seem to open up the spiritual faculties, but did not involve a spirit. I hope you will see a profound difference there.



Fair enough, however, I am willing to listen to an ambulance driver who says he senses some kind of change or loss when people die. I wouldn't know what NDE's are about, but know the experience can depend on the individuals culture. I think the experience is genuine, but wouldn't know how it can relate to the Christian faith.

I am finding it difficult to describe spiritual things in a way which will be meaningful to you. There is power, deep joy, a peace which transcends any natural experience and life changes in many good ways. I also found the challenge of having to accept problems which brought me through to maturity. Avoidance was no longer an option.

Hallucinations brought on by particular kinds of meditation. It was an acquired skillset in the cases of people like Theresa of Avila, John of the Cross, Jacob Boehme, I don't know enough about Swedenborg but from what I understand life situations drove him to deep introspect as well.