Part of this was originally written in a somewhat different form in response to a statement on exChristian.net. It was in a discussion about mentally deranged people, esp. with reference to someone's neighbour who saw and heard things no one else did. One poster suggested, "Maybe the mad...know something the rest of us don't." My response:

I think all humans have the capacity for this kind of imagination and visualization. I have this theory that the only difference between them and us is that we have the capacity to divide life into the "real" and "unreal." Or the dream/imaginary and the concrete/material. With reference to the statement above re the mad might know things the rest of us don't. Historically, humans have believed that this kind of thing is evidence for non-terrestial beings such as gods and demons. I believe it all originates and ends in the human psyche. Here's one reason why I think so.

Earlier in my life, I had the opportunity to observe a degenerating brain close up. I was in my twenties and living at home part time. My grandmother lived with my parents when she was in the advanced stages of Alzheimers. Living with her helped me get some insight on the complexity of the human mind. Mom did not believe in using meds to control her mind so she (grandma) had spells when would talk compulsively in one blue streak all day and sometimes all night. What amazed me most was that she still knew some things, such as when she had to go to the bathroom, but she did not know the language for it.

She would start having this dialogue with a person that only she could see and she would "talk dirty" so I took her to the bathroom and that solved the problem. Many a time did I feel so sorry for her because she was angry at invisible people, and felt that people were mocking and torturing her. As a teenager and young woman she had gone through a lot of church-related trauma. I figured some of this was coming to the fore. Another thing that obviously was coming through was her dead baby. She had a baby that died. I understand she had not been not allowed to see her baby and that this had very seriously bothered her at the time. Also, before she got married she worked in many homes of families when they had newborns, some of whom did not live long. Thus, she had much experience working with seriously ill infants in the early decades of the 20th century.

I think some of this haunted her, too, in her old age with Alzheimers. My mother's sisters helped care for her. One day one of these aunts came out of Grandma's rooms and said, "A baby has died!" Grandma wore the long dress and apron of traditional Mennonite garb. In those times when she thought a baby had died, she would bunch up her apron and hold it close to herself like a baby. She might also cry. Thus, I know that these hallucinations, or whatever, were as real to her as real life. Her emotional response was appropriate for the situation she believed she was experiencing.

Since she was not on medication I think this is evidence that there is a part of the human psyche that experiences things not related to the concrete here and now. (I am sure there is lots of scholarly literature on the topic but I haven't read up on it.) I also remember that when I was a very young child my mother taught me to differentiate between the "real" world and the "not real" world. Most children probably go through such a stage. Different societies have different ways in which they understand this "other" part of the brain. In my opinion, this element of the normal human experience is the basis on which religion, or the idea of gods and demons, developed and continues to rest.

Since this is so deeply embedded in the human psyche, as demonstrated with my grandmother, I think this is the unshakable conviction we are up against in our struggle against fundamentalist religion. Mere arguments of logic will have no real impact. QUESTION: What can be done?

Originally posted by Ex-COG

Wasn't there some studies done once on what came to be called the God part of the brain? That somehow there is a part of us that is predisposed to belief in a god? No doubt this is stronger in some people than others.

I don't remember when I first heard that humans are predisposed to belief in God. Max Weber makes a strong argument in his book Sociology of Religion. He looks at archaic man and his knowledge about the universe. It's been some years since I read it and I don't have the book on hand at the moment. The way I remember his explanation is this: Archaic man rubbed together two sticks to start fire. He also had ceremonies to bring rain. He had no way of knowing that one--starting fire--was the outcome of natural law, while the other--causing rain--was pure coincidence.

Since the early decades of the 20th century, and possibly earlier, anthropology has done many studies throughout the world of Aboriginal peoples and their religious rituals. The course I took on anthropology of religion showed videos of some of these. That something other than ordinary everyday life was going on was irrefutable. What was going on is the big question for me.

A few years later I came across a website with a page entitled God and the Brain: Is Belief a Psychological Condition? This may be what you are referring to, Ex-COG.
There are several articles on that page. Those articles argue that there is a "God spot" on the brain. I have made the argument, based on personal experience and observation (but not formal or scientific research) that some people can more easily stimulate that part of the brain than others can. If you know of scientific research on this I would be interested to see it.

The "personal experience" part of my argument is that I can bring on the religious feeling with a conscious act of the will if I so desire. At least, there was a time when I could. The "observation" part of the argument is that in aboriginal communities there tends to be one medicine man/woman (or whatever name a specific society gives its spiritual leader) per community or tribe. Of these, some were considered to be more powerful than others. Possibly these, too, could bring on the religious feeling by a conscious act of the will.

Another element of the observation part of the argument is that in Western society throughout the ages there have been religious movements brought about by one charismatic leader who then tried to pass on his/her techniques to posterity or disciples. Jesus (whether real or mythical) was one such figure. The only others I can think of right now, besides some 20th century people, are Reformation leaders. In Medieval Europe there used to be Wise Women, perhaps one in a village, who were able to heal and give sage advice to those in need. Many were killed as witches. In the East, there was the Buddha.

What all of these people have in common is being a single individual in their respective societies and they tend to be without peers, meaning they had no equals in their immediate tribe or clan or community. In other words, so my hypothesis goes, these solitary individuals had access to, or could stimulate, this very creative part of their brain (God spot) by a conscious act of the will.

Let me restate and clarify: This is only a hypothesis and it is not built on scientific research.

Another point. Anthropology has studied ritual in depth and concludes that ritual of any kind can produce the religious feeling or experience.
Ritual as defined by anthropology includes singing and/or instrumental music, dance, prayer, sermon, among others. In his book The Idea of the Holy, Rudolph Otto describes the experience. William James (whom I have not yet read) is also quoted by many authors. Thus, I conclude that the masses require ritual to bring about these feelings whereas a small percentage of the human population can bring it on by a conscious act of the will.

As the reader will note, most of the items I list as rituals are part and parcel of Christian worship service. I hypothesize that the feelings brought on by the rituals of the worship service convince Christians that they are experiencing the presence of God. To them, this is absolute evidence of God's existence. Because this feeling is renewed in church and possibly nowhere else, it also serves as absolute evidence that church is an integral prerequisite of the Christian life.

These days we have many fervent Christians who do not go to church. Might their access to music and movies produce the same feelings as church rituals do? If so, this would be "evidence" that God is real but that one need not go to church to have fellowship and communion with God.

To sum up this post with the opening post, I hypothesize that mental illness or disease, as well as ordinary dreaming while sleeping, brings to the fore the "God spot" of the brain. All of this is just guess-work on my part. But it was a very important part of my own search for Truth. It is somewhat disappointing to conclude that all these fantastic super-structures of life originate and end in the human psyche. On the other hand, it is totally amazing of what stupendous feats the human psyche is capable.

Originally posted by Ex-COG


Yes, but even the Buddha was supposed to have said "If you meet the Buddha in the road, kill him"!


I'm sure that the entertainment choices in today's society offer enough stimulation to mimic what once was only available in church. This may be why some of the churches today are trying to be ultra-modern in their service, such as: singing inoffensive contemporary pop music familiar to the masses, using multi-media instead of just standing in front of the mike sermonizing, having an auditorium setting instead of a sanctuary with pews and flowers, etc. They have to become more entertaining themselves, in order to compete and draw an audience. Of course, many are discovering that they can tap into what is called the spiritual without a church experience or the guidance of a priest/minister, whether it's through reading poetry, viewing an inspirational film, or meditating. When the majority of people latch onto this, it will be the death knell for most churches. The question is; can the majority of people utilize other sources than organized ritual/religion to stimulate their "god spot"? Or is this possible for only a certain percentage, thus guaranteeing there will always be a need for mass religion?


There's been discussion on other forums whether or not fundamentalism causes mental problems or if people with mental problems are drawn to fundamentalism. Many think that it is some of both; those that remain within a fundamentalist mindset and community may have had imbalances to begin with, but they will be made worse by the environment they hang around in and the belief system they adopt.

I have seen discussion on this. I seriously question the idea. I draw the line between clinical psychosis and the ability to function in everyday life. By that criteria, I have seen very few psychotic fundamentalists. However, I suspect there is a high degree of emotional insecurity and/or imbalance but not on the level of clinical ill health. Whether there is a higher rate of insecurities and imbalances among fundamentalists than the general population is not something I would be prepared to say. I believe some people's psychological make-up is better suited to fundamentalist religion than that of others.

I believe that the psychological make-up best suited to fundamentalism is what we intellectuals would label the unthinking, mindless masses, who have been compared to cattle, sheep, and other dull-witted creatures. I think those people have a legitimate place in society because they are the street-sweepers, the construction workers, the factory workers, the nurses, the secretaries--in short, they are the people who can handle repetitive work that asks only that they obey rules and follow orders. Us creative intellectual types cannot tolerate that level of mundane labour, yet it needs to be done.

The fundamentalist mindset becomes dangerous when it assumes to have all the answers--to be just as intellectually brilliant and just as capable of ruling/leading the masses as the trained and creative intellectual. In my opinion, that is the weakness of democracy. I am not advocating a return to Aristotelian classes, but I am suggesting he had a valid point. Thus, I argue that fundamentalists are normal human beings mentally but that some of us creative intellectual types become psychotic when forced to live in what, for us, is severely oppressive religion.

That's an interesting point. I certainly feel that I am more mentally healthy since I left fundamentalism. I would have gone crazy if I had remained. But I had chalked it up to the belief system itself influencing me in a negative manner, rather than viewing myself as a repressed creative intellectual. So--when we see a fundamentalist that is acting in what could be called a crazy way (a la Fred Phelps, for example) are we seeing a creative intellectual oppressed by severe extremist religious beliefs? Or am I misunderstanding you?

I think you will agree that Fred Phelps is not the typical fundamentalist. Maybe I'm naive and uneducated when it comes to hard-core fundamentalists in the American South, but doesn't the typical fundy lead a very ordinary life by going to a very ordinary job every day and living in a very ordinary home with a very ordinary income, etc.? Isn't the only difference between the regular fundy and the regular citizen that the fundy is a religious zealot whose life is dominated by do's and don't's that the ordinary citizen never thinks of? And when it comes to campaigns this fundy is one name/voice in millions that attack the White House to twist federal arms to get what conservative religion wants? Like I say, I don't personally know the American fundies, so those are questions.

After what I read yesterday in Altemeyer's The Authoritarians, along with everything else I know about various types of human personalities, I don't think those people are mentally dysfunctional in a clinical sense. According to statistics of Myers-Briggs personality types, vast portions of the population want to be told what to do and how to do it. They don't want to have to think for themselves. We see evidence of this through all three thousand years of human history. Thus, they don't experience fundamentalist religion as oppressive. That is my theory.

Using Altemeyer's theory about religious power-mongerers, and what little I know about Fred Phelps, it would be easy to put him into Altemeyer's category of Double Highs--high in Right-wing Authoritarianism and high in wanting power for its own sake. I don't know if you had a chance to read the last two chapters yet. I think that is where he talks about the Double Highs.

Thus, when I wrote the part you quoted from me, I was not thinking of the Fred Phelps type, but the ordinary fundy who never-the-less takes a superior attitude toward fellow-workers because he/she has the Lord and we don't. Because they think they have the Lord they think they have superior wisdom and are therefore qualified to advise the White House on how to run the country in ways the rest of us are not. (I think that's a bad analogy but maybe you get the idea.)

I would agree with your definition of a typical fundy as being an ordinary person. Often times, if they don't open their mouths, you wouldn't even know they were a Christian (unless you were given some visual cue, strict dress codes for example).

I'd like to comment on a previous statement you made. Actually, there are many educated people who could be labeled fundamentalist or evangelical. There were many college educated folks in my former church including teachers, principals, accountants, nurses...once we had a professor from the local state university attending. Being a fundamentalist has more to do with the way that you think than with how much you know, which often isn't connected with formal education anyway. I never gave myself the label "intellectual"; I only attended college for two years before I left (and my last semester was very scimpily attended), and I presently work in a factory. I actually like a job where you don't have to think a lot, because that leaves my thought process open to what I want to ponder upon. It can almost be like a meditative experience. Otherwise, if I had to focus and analyze on my employers goals all day, by the time I got home I 'd be so worn out I would just veg out in front of the TV.

Maybe I'm just an extreme case of a person who needs intellectual stimulation. Or maybe my need is extreme because of the severe deprivation for so much of my life. I would say extreme deprivation of intellectual stimuli like I experienced is to mental health what deprivation of nutriments is to physical health. So I'm probably heavily biases that way. I would say education does not make a person an intellectual. Maybe I am over-estimating you--I tend to do that sometimes, but it seems to me you do more deep and independent thinking than most fundamentalists will apply to their religion. There are degree-granting fundamentalist universities, and I have encountered people that I would classify as fundamentalists but they hold PhDs from world-class universities like Oxford.

I'm thinking about James from the UK; he holds a PhD from Oxford. He's a sophisticated thinker and I would call him an intellectual but I also call him a fundamentalist for various reasons. A major reason is that he claims to have uncovered evidence that would turn time-tested centuries-old theories on their heads and support the fundamentalist argument that the Bible has a spheric universe. I believe his independent critical thinking is not applied to his religion, but only to the evidence he uses to support and maintain his religion. By way of analogy, I would say he expends major amounts of energy and analytical thought on how to keep all his tennis balls under water so he can delude himself and everybody else into believing there are no tennis balls. He could be one of the "Double Highs" in Altemeyer's The Authoritarians, for all I know. He certainly doesn't fit very neatly into the categories I am trying to develop.

Recent studies, I believe. indicate that there is no such 'God Spot'.
However, even if there were one, wouldn't the theist argue that God 'put it there', since he wants us to be able to respond to him?

Marti

I didn't see your post till just now. Marti, would you direct me to those studies? I've been wondering what more recent studies say.

You asked:



Some of them probably would argue that way but I would disagree that it made any logical sense. I would argue that if God exists then God should be able to manifest his presence without simulating himself via an artificial brain mechanism, same as any other normal being does. Take my tiny flies for instance. Not that they are welcome but they definitely found a way to manifest their presence in my apartment without resorting to dubious brain mechanisms in remote parts of my brain and they are very minute creatures. Take the world's largest creatures such as elephants or whales--same thing. Or something that fills the entire atmosphere as far as the eye can see such as a hurricane--again, same thing. The universe itself can be perceived quite readily via the senses. Why would God--and God only--be so evasive?

The flies evoke a response in me, if only to get rid of them. So would the earth's mammoths, I assume, if ever I saw them. First of all, I would try not to get in their way because I might get killed. Secondly, I might feel a sense of aw at their sheer size. Thirdly, having never seen them they might posses a characteristic that would evoke an unexpected response from me. That would be part of the surprise of seeing them for the first time. When I'm lying on the grass in the backyard and watch the tiny insects climb up one blade of grass and down the next I am challenged to see the world from their perspective and mind you, it's a mind-bending experience. So is a storm--I'm but one tiny creature of earth crushed as easily as those tiny insects crawling up blades of grass when I'm strolling through my backyard.

And the universe--when I am shown a diagram of the size of the universe, the immense size of but a tiny portion of the universe....our planet doesn't even count. And I used to think we humans on this planet are God's darlings....this universe itself is a million times larger that the Christian God of the Bible. The Bible says God holds the universe in the palm of his hand. There is something awfully and terribly wrong. Do I believe what is before my eyes in concrete reality or do I believe what is in black and white on the pages of an ancient text?

The church makes truth statements about concrete reality based on what the Bible says. This means that concrete reality agrees with what the Bible says, and that what the Bible says agrees with concrete reality. And when it does not, then either we misinterpret the Bible or the Bible is wrong. These days, fundamentalist Christians and fundamentalist Muslims insist that their holy texts carry more weight that concrete reality. The way this plays out is that children are taught lies in school in the name of science. According to the New Testament, all liars go to hell. I think this includes teachers and school boards responsible for teaching lies to children--IF God and hell were real.

Since they're not real, all this does is seriously impede social progress, and perhaps hasten the return to the superstition of the Dark Ages with its witch hunts and live stake burnings. I suppose you would relish the entertainment. So long as no suspicion touched you or your loved ones. Huh?

Let me know about those studies that prove that there is no God spot. Please provide author, title, publisher, and date of publication. Or website if it is online. Thank you.

Lol. You sound like a University lecturer I once had!

I read about some studies quite recently - I'll have a look and get back to you.


Marti

There is no single "God spot" in the brain, Canadian scientists say. A University of Montreal team found Christian mystical experiences are mediated by several brain regions. Researchers asked 15 nuns to recount mystical experiences while studying them on MRI scanners, the journal, Neuroscience Letters reported. There has been much debate about how the brain reacts during connections with God among religious followers. Some people went as far as suggesting there was a specific brain region designed for communication with God. But the researchers claim this study discredits those theories. Nuns are said to experience Unio Mystica - the Christian notion of a mystical union with God - during their 20s. Researchers asked the nuns aged 23 to 64-years-old to recount such mystical experiences and measured their brain activity through MRI scans. They found increased activity in at least 12 regions of the brain, including areas normally involved with self-consciousness and emotion. Lead researcher Dr Mario Beauregard said: "The main goal of the study was to identify the neural correlates of a mystical experience. Rather than there being one spot that relates to mystical experiences, we've found a number of brain regions are involved. This does not diminish the meaning and value of such an experience and neither does it confirm or disconfirm the existence of God."
http://www.biopsychology.com/news/index ... =41&page=1

You'll find lots more if you do a search.

Marti

Thank you Marti. This sounds like a very different type of experiment than the one I was referring to so I am not at all sure how they can claim disproving the God spot.

Because of this, presumably:

'They found increased activity in at least 12 regions of the brain, including areas normally involved with self-consciousness and emotion'.

Marti