[jillianleab]

A new study of religion and what, if any, biological/evolutional components it has is being conducted over the next few years:

In 2007, the European Commission awarded a consortium of 9 European academic partners approximately 2 million Euros to fund a 3-year international programme of research entitled Explaining Religion. The research, which is and funded within the Commission's New and Emerging Science and Technology (NEST) programme, will be coordinated by Professor Harvey Whitehouse. The proposed project is large-scale and ambitious in scope and will integrate the world's leading centres for psychological, biological, anthropological, and historical research on religion to develop a highly integrated programme of research on the cognitive foundations of religious thinking and behaviour.

Institute of Cognitive and Evolutionary Anthropology, University of Oxford

Here's a pretty lengthy article about the findings of the study so far and studies which are relevant to the project:

The science of religion | Where angels no longer fear to tread | Economist.com

What do you think this study will find? There is mention of there being a "God button" in the brain; do you think they will find it? Do you think it exists? If it is found, would that change your opinion of religion? Is this something you think scientists should just leave alone, or is it worthy of exploration? How do you feel about the study results that are mentioned in the article?

Personally I think this is fascinating and I'm eager to see the results. It certainly stands to confirm my opinion that people are born with faith or not. That being said, I think if a "God button" were found in the brain, it would have little effect on the truly faithful.

I'm looking for the opinion of anyone and everyone, so please, all are welcome to comment.

[firmbeliever]

Here's a pretty lengthy article about the findings of the study so far and studies which are relevant to the project:

The science of religion | Where angels no longer fear to tread | Economist.com

This is interesting,but do you not think that it is such a waste of money too,to spend that amount of money? And to prove what?
That there is no Almighty?And when they have the results,what will it help them with?
Surely even after knowing what happens among the faithful as a group or individual(mentally or otherwise),it will continue to happen as long as we are alive.
Is it not better that such money be spent on funding for research on cures of physical ailments?

What do you think this study will find? There is mention of there being a "God button" in the brain; do you think they will find it? Do you think it exists? If it is found, would that change your opinion of religion? Is this something you think scientists should just leave alone, or is it worthy of exploration? How do you feel about the study results that are mentioned in the article?

I'm looking for the opinion of anyone and everyone, so please, all are welcome to comment.

"God Button" as they hope to find I do not think exists,but maybe there is a part of the brain of everyone that has a connection to the Almighty.This connection may or may not be seen in the tests they are conducting for their research.

They may also not find what they are exactly looking for;-that humans evolved into belief.

The research is good for those of you who do want religion to be proven as a man made thing,but the results at the end just might disappoint ,it could turn out to be inconclusive.


Thanks for the link Jill,I will keep looking into it as they proceed.

I found this excerpt of the article interesting too.

"Dr Azari was expecting to see activity in the limbic systems of the Christians when they recited the psalm. Previous research had suggested that this part of the brain (which regulates emotion) is an important centre of religious activity. In fact what happened was increased activity in three areas of the frontal and parietal cortex, some of which are better known for their involvement in rational thought. The control group did not show activity in these parts of their brains when listening to the psalm. And, intriguingly, the only thing that triggered limbic activity in either group was reading the happy story."

I will not be surprised that at the end of the study, some of those who do the research for this project turn to belief even if they are not believers now.:)



.

[rodandy12]

Ought to be interesting. Whitehouse is a cultural anthropologist. I Googled him and he appears to be an Oxford don. When you think about it, it is a bit surprising that a study like this hasn't been done before. Religiosity is definitely a widespread human trait. From an anthropological point of view, we really don't know much about it. It will be interesting to hear what they learn. I don't see the biology angle, though. That might be media hype. When one writes an article like this one, they are probably trying to get people stirred up.

Obviously, this study has serious potential for that!

[jillianleab]

This is interesting,but do you not think that it is such a waste of money too,to spend that amount of money? And to prove what?
That there is no Almighty?And when they have the results,what will it help them with?
Surely even after knowing what happens among the faithful as a group or individual(mentally or otherwise),it will continue to happen as long as we are alive.
Is it not better that such money be spent on funding for research on cures of physical ailments?

I don't think this would disprove god, all it could do is show that people are predisposed to belief or not, that there is a part of the brain which causes these sorts of thoughts. It doesn't prove religion wrong, but certainly could lead more to think of a diest approach; it's harder to say "My religion is right" when there is the same biological mechanism in all theists that tells them the same thing. Who knows, maybe this will be the key to unity among theists - maybe if they see they are all the same on the inside when they think about religion, they will have more respect for one another.

I think the money is well spent because it's further exploring the human brain, something we really know little about. And as far as dollar amounts go for research, this is minimal.

They may also not find what they are exactly looking for;-that humans evolved into belief.

The research is good for those of you who do want religion to be proven as a man made thing,but the results at the end just might disappoint ,it could turn out to be inconclusive.

True, it could be inconclusive, but there will still likely be knowledge gained about how the mind works. That's valuable information. And again, this doesn't really prove religion is man made, only that faith/belief and the feelings associated with it are biological. To me that doesn't disprove god - couldn't god have "made" us that way?

I found this excerpt of the article interesting too.

"Dr Azari was expecting to see activity in the limbic systems of the Christians when they recited the psalm. Previous research had suggested that this part of the brain (which regulates emotion) is an important centre of religious activity. In fact what happened was increased activity in three areas of the frontal and parietal cortex, some of which are better known for their involvement in rational thought. The control group did not show activity in these parts of their brains when listening to the psalm. And, intriguingly, the only thing that triggered limbic activity in either group was reading the happy story."

I will not be surprised that at the end of the study, some of those who do the research for this project turn to belief even if they are not believers now.:)

I saw that too, but it didn't come as a surprise to me. Since theists think their belief is rational, it comes as no surprise when they read about their belief the part of the brain which shows rational thought lights up. Likewise, when the control group (non-theists) listen to it, it means nothing to them, it's not going to cause them to think, so the rational part stays dark. It would be more surprising to me if the same part of the brain lit up in BOTH groups!

Thanks for your comments, firmbeliever! :)

[Capuchin]

That being said, I think if a "God button" were found in the brain, it would have little effect on the truly faithful.

The scientists will just claim the results they set out to look for regardless of the actual results. That's how science works, right? :rolleyes:

[jillianleab]

The scientists will just claim the results they set out to look for regardless of the actual results. That's how science works, right? :rolleyes:

Well you would know, Mr. Science Expert! :D

[firmbeliever]

all it could do is show that people are predisposed to belief or not, that there is a part of the brain which causes these sorts of thoughts.

Hmmmm,now that would be part of what I believe... that everyone has that knowledge in them when they are born.:)To believe or not to believe.
I am just not sure this knowledge will be visible in these tests,maybe there is a trigger (incident or experience) which makes a person incline towards belief,but until then lies dormant within.

It doesn't prove religion wrong, but certainly could lead more to think of a diest approach; it's harder to say "My religion is right" when there is the same biological mechanism in all theists that tells them the same thing. Who knows, maybe this will be the key to unity among theists - maybe if they see they are all the same on the inside when they think about religion, they will have more respect for one another.

I think the money is well spent because it's further exploring the human brain, something we really know little about. And as far as dollar amounts go for research, this is minimal.

It may not be trying to prove religion wrong,but they are also talking about "evolution of religion"(sorry can't quote the article as I can't seem to load the page right at the moment).Evolution of religion is not something I believe in... (you know that topic all too well me thinks;))
And they are also looking into the economic aspects of religion that a group follows one path only because it involves certain benefits.It might be true for some,but not all believers.

Do you really think that all theists will get on the same platform after such a study?:)That will be a tough job for anyone to do.

True, it could be inconclusive, but there will still likely be knowledge gained about how the mind works. That's valuable information. And again, this doesn't really prove religion is man made, only that faith/belief and the feelings associated with it are biological. To me that doesn't disprove god - couldn't god have "made" us that way?

This is as you said an interesting research into the mostly unknown human brain and knowledge gained will be good for something.
Maybe the study will help people with psycholgical problems.

Yes the Almighty could have made us in a way that makes us feel different when we are following the True path.

But then some are inclined to follow misguided paths too,now that would be an interesting study. To study followers of the same religion,but different sects and to compare them using these tests,as each of them will be thinking they are following the true path.

I also do wonder that those who are more truly faithful in their beliefs in following it to to a T,will there be a difference between them and those who just follow the basics or just mouth the word religion but are not really affected by what they follow.

Would such a difference show up in these tests?

It would be more surprising to me if the same part of the brain lit up in BOTH groups!

Now that would be something for sure.
I am very interested in the results of further similar tests.

[jillianleab]

I am just not sure this knowledge will be visible in these tests,maybe there is a trigger (incident or experience) which makes a person incline towards belief,but until then lies dormant within.

That would be interesting indeed; though, like you, I'm usure of how it would be tested for, or if it could be tested for.

It may not be trying to prove religion wrong,but they are also talking about "evolution of religion"(sorry can't quote the article as I can't seem to load the page right at the moment).Evolution of religion is not something I believe in... (you know that topic all too well me thinks;))
And they are also looking into the economic aspects of religion that a group follows one path only because it involves certain benefits.It might be true for some,but not all believers.

What I got from the article is that they are theorizing that religion has a use in evolution, so yes, one must believe in evolution for that to be so. And I know, that's not part of your belief system, but it's interesting!

Do you really think that all theists will get on the same platform after such a study?:)That will be a tough job for anyone to do.

I don't know, I suppose it's possible. If every theist in the world has the same part of their brain light up in the same way when they pray or read from their holy book, or think about their religion, I would think that would make some people more likely to accept (or at least respect) others. It would be a concrete unifying trait; not the love of god (because theists will argue others worship the "wrong" god, and love is subjective), but a physical reaction present in all believers. I think that's pretty powerful, myself. Then again, there are wacko theists out there who will come up with a reason that your brain lighting up is fake, while theirs is real! So maybe not...

But then some are inclined to follow misguided paths too,now that would be an interesting study. To study followers of the same religion,but different sects and to compare them using these tests,as each of them will be thinking they are following the true path.

I also do wonder that those who are more truly faithful in their beliefs in following it to to a T,will there be a difference between them and those who just follow the basics or just mouth the word religion but are not really affected by what they follow.

Would such a difference show up in these tests?

I agree, all of that would be fascinating. Do the people who carry out violence in the name of their religion light up in a different way than those who follow scripture word-for-word? Do the casual religious people still light up, or do they light in a different way? I guess the only way those sorts of things would show up is if it can be established there is one part of the brain that lights up when religion is mentioned; if that's proven, other aspects can be evaluated.

But that raises the question - if there is a "god spot" that lights up when reading your holy book, what happens if it's removed? If an electrode is stuck into it? If an electrode is stuck into the spot on a non-believer?

[razor96]

Hmmm, I always thought that God chose you and was not in your brain but in your heart, we are taught in the Bible that we are prone to evil and by his grace we are saved.

[Fr_Chuck]

Well not the long posts with a lot of links, my opinon, God is not a object to be studied, but someone to be believed in. Man in his wisdom will never find God, he is only found if you are actually looking to find him.

It is a waste of tax payers dollars for a study that will not effect the belief or disbelief of anyone.

[jillianleab]

well not the long posts with alot of links, my opinon, God is not a object to be studied, but someone to be beleived in. Man in his wisdom will never find God, he is only found if you are actually looking to find him.

It is a waste of tax payers dollars for a study that will not effect the beleif or disbelief of anyone.

From the sounds of it, you didn't read the articles I posted. If you had, perhaps you would realize it's not a study to disprove god, or to find god.

And how do you know it won't have an effect on anyone's belief? Especially if you didn't read the article or the following posts made?

[firmbeliever]

Jill,
Could you do me a favour and link me to another site where I can read on new developments of this research project.
The Economist takes ages to load and sometimes it times out and I haven't been able to access it in a while now.

Thank you

[jillianleab]

firmbeliever, here's a link to the Oxford site, the school which is conduting the research:

Institute of Cognitive and Evolutionary Anthropology, University of Oxford

From there you can click on each of the aspects of the project and see what they hope to prove and/or study. I haven't seen much about their findings so far; my guess is it will be released at the end of the study, but if there are updates, they should be on this site. If you go to the link I provided, and click on "News and Events" then on "Recent Publications", there are a few summaries of books on the subject; if there are any further publications as the study goes on, you should find them there.

[inthebox]

The Economist article shows us studies that:

- faith is RATIONAL - Dr Azari's pet scan study
- religious communes last longer than secular ones.
- the group with the belief in the 'supernatural' are less likely to cheat



"behaviour that promotes the group over the individual. That is the opposite of Darwinism as conventionally understood. But it might be explained by an idea that most Darwinians dropped in the 1960s—group selection.

The idea that evolution can work by the differential survival of entire groups of organisms, rather than just of individuals, was rejected because it is mathematically implausible."




The whole question is that people have to THINK about what benefits their own and their own group's survival. These are then codified or passed from generation to generation, and changed to suit survival.

Which brings up the whole nature [ genetic, and thus subject to natural selection ] versus nurture [ behavior, which is harder to quantify as heretible ] debate.

Jilleanleab.

Thanks - that was a good read.


YouTube - Evolution of Dance

Its long , but NOW THAT IS EVOLUTION :D

[firmbeliever]

firmbeliever, here's a link to the Oxford site, the school which is conduting the research:

Institute of Cognitive and Evolutionary Anthropology, University of Oxford

From there you can click on each of the aspects of the project and see what they hope to prove and/or study. I haven't seen much about their findings so far; my guess is it will be released at the end of the study, but if there are updates, they should be on this site. If you go to the link I provided, and click on "News and Events" then on "Recent Publications", there are a few summaries of books on the subject; if there are any further publications as the study goes on, you should find them there.

Thanks for the link.

[N0help4u]

I agree with Firmbeliever
What would it prove and if they 'prove' it of course it is going to be biased to some degree.
I thought they did say that something was proven about God and the brain already.
AOL Search results for "god and the brain"

I agree with you too about it being pre-determined [It certainly stands to confirm my opinion that people are born with faith or not.] in a sense --(but not destined since we do have free will.

[Credendovidis]

A new study of religion ...

1-What do you think this study will find? There's mention of a "God button" in the brain;
2-Do you think they will find it?
3-Do you think it exists?
4-If it is found, would that change your opinion of religion?
5-Is this something you think scientists should just leave alone, or is it worthy of exploration?
6-How do you feel about the study results that are mentioned in the article?
7-It certainly stands to confirm my opinion that people are born with faith or not.

I'm looking for the opinion of anyone and everyone, so please, all are welcome to comment.

There is nothing really NEW to this Economist article. Similar reports have been done many times before.
The link to the Institute of Cognitive and Evolutionary Anthropology, University of Oxford failed.
But if they have excess funds, why would they not do another study? Personally I have better targets for that money, anyway!

Replies :
1-What do you think this study will find?
That the biggest part of humanity has a need for some format of mental help or guidance through life.
.
2-Do you think they will find it?
As indicated under point 1 we already know the reply to that question. Nothing new to be found.
You did not specify what you mean with it. That puts a bias on this entire topic.
If you intended it to mean "a need for some format of mental help or guidance through life" I agree.
.
3-Do you think Do you think it exists? exists?
As indicated under point 1 we already know the reply to that question. Nothing new to be found.
It all depends on what one means with "it". That puts a bias on this entire topic.
If you intended it to mean "a need for some format of mental help or guidance through life" I agree.
.
4-If If it is found, would that change your opinion of religion? is found, would that change your opinion of religion?
As indicated under point 1 we already know the reply to that question. Nothing new to be found.
It all depends on what one means with "it". That puts a bias on this entire topic.
If you intended it to mean "a need for some format of mental help or guidance through life" there is no reason to change my personal view, as that outcome is already known for many years.
.
5-Is this something you think scientists should just leave alone, or is it worthy of exploration?
Personally I don't need this research. But if certain people like to research that, why not?
.
6-How do you feel about the study results that are mentioned in the article?
Nothing really new. The main parameter seems always the personal bias towards the drawn conclusion. Logical with metaphysical research, specially with unclear standards - as your own 7 partly unclear questions already confirmed!
.
7-It certainly stands to confirm my opinion that people are born with faith or not.
.
Incorrect. The relevant part of the question should be faith in what? Not if people are born with faith - without clearly specifying what sort of faith is meant, as my replies to your questions 2, 3, and 4 already clearly showed. The selection into having faith in "whatever" results from upbringing, education, and (in some cases even) brainwashing, and not from some build-in failure or preset of human self-confidence.
:rolleyes:

[jillianleab]

The Economist article shows us studies that:

- faith is RATIONAL - Dr Azari's pet scan study
- religious communes last longer than secular ones.
- the group with the belief in the 'supernatural' are less likely to cheat

I'm not sure the study shows faith is rational - sure, it lights up the rational part of the brain, but as I said to fb, that makes sense. People thinking about their religion think it's rational, it stands to reason that part would light up. I'd like to see further study done to that regard; do conspiracy nuts light up in the rational part of their brain when thinking about their specific conspiracy? For example, if someone believes aliens are sending radio waves through space to read our thoughts (REALLY believes this, I mean), when they think about, or read about, or talk about such things, does the rational part of their brain light up? I think it might. I'm only putting out a hypothisys here, of course, but I don't think the one study mentioned in the article "proves" faith is rational. I think it might demonstrate that rationale is subjective, at least, in the way our brains respond to it.

But yes, the article does indicate religious communities last longer, and really, I'm not surprised by that either. People in a religious community have at the very least, one SOLID thing to unite them - ALWAYS. And, in most cases, it's something very, very important to them.

I think the study with the belief in the supernatural and cheating is a little skewed, or at least, was not reported well in the article. Of the people who cheated, how many were theists? How many atheists? It doesn't say. So, do people who believe in the supernatural only abstain from cheating when they are reminded of their belief in the supernatural? From the way it's reported in the article, it sort of seems that way. Now, if there had been control groups done with all members of the same faith (or no faith), and people had performed consistently, I think the study would have a bit more merit. Maybe it was done this way and the article didn't reflect it, but there's no way to know based on the info we have.

Jilleanleab.

Thanks - that was a good read.

Glad you enjoyed it! :)

YouTube - Evolution of Dance

Its long , but NOW THAT IS EVOLUTION :D

Oh my! :D

[jillianleab]

I thought they did say that something was proven about God and the brain already.
AOL Search results for "god and the brain"

I heard about that study a while ago, and I thought of it when I read this article. I'll have to read up on some of the links you provided, as I don't remember much. I do remember there was the ability to evoke a religious experience through a seizure, thus, indicating there might be a "god button" or "god spot" or whatever you want to call it.

I agree with you too about it being pre-determined [It certainly stands to confirm my opinion that people are born with faith or not.] in a sense --(but not destined since we do have free will.

I think we have a different idea about it being pre-determined, but yeah, we're still on the same basic page. :)

[jillianleab]

You did not specify what you mean with it. That puts a bias on this entire topic.

Had you read my post more carefully, you would realize by "it" I mean a "god button" in the brain, hence the semi-colon in the sentence, not a period. Care to adjust your replies? Care to read my sig again? :rolleyes:

7-It certainly stands to confirm my opinion that people are born with faith or not.
.
Incorrect. The relevant part of the question should be faith in what? Not if people are born with faith - without clearly specifying what sort of faith is meant, as my replies to your questions 2, 3, and 4 already clearly showed. The selection into having faith in "whatever" results from upbringing, education, and (in some cases even) brainwashing, and not from some build-in failure or preset of human self-confidence.
:rolleyes:

Ok, my turn, INCORRECT! Not that this was the original intent of my post but... how can you, someone who says you can't believe disagree with this? It is my opinion people are born with the capacity of faith or not. One is born with the ability to entrust in a supernatural being, or they are not. I was not born with this ability. Like you have stated in other threads, I cannot believe, it just doesn't work - goes against every fiber of my being. However, there are people for whom it seems to come naturally, people who feel incomplete, even unsafe without belief in a supernatural being. Those people, it is my opinion, must have been born with that capacity to "let go" (read: faith). Those who cannot "let go", were not. So in sum, people are born with faith or not.