The Brain Creates Religion

Failure to address points 1 and 2, Prism, shows your ignorance of how the brain actually works; and yet you would tell me what it is capable of doing. The old anthropologist you quote should stick to his field of expertise.

1.) Yes.

2.) Those two things don’t conflict. If religion was from God, it would still produce positive brain chemicals when believed, because that’s how brains work. You just finished agreeing with me about this: we just finished agreeing that atheism and theism both have to demonstrate the truth of their points irrespective of positive brain chemicals.

I’m sure mathematicians get positive brain juice rewards when they solve a complex equation. That doesn’t mean the brain creates math or that math is bullshit or any other cynical baloney you want to extrude from it. It simply means that a part of how humans work is that we feel rewarded when we discover the truth.

So no, 2 isn’t a counter to 1 at all. It’s an ignoratio elenchi.

Christianity and Islam itself has always been hindering science and technology in specific areas [not all of Science] ever since it emerged.
Where Science has advanced it is not because these religion did not hinder Science but rather Science advanced on its own steam and overrides religions.

What is critical with Science is it drives advancing of whatever knowledge at all times, thus naturally the advent of the knowledge of atomic and nuclear physics. The emergence of nuclear weapons [i.e. war] and its use in one war [even it has a positive result of stopping WWII re Japan] was ultimately morally wrong and thus need to be addressed morally. Note there is the natural drive of morality, i.e. MAD, to deter a full nuclear war and this naturally happens without any imposition from a God.
The danger is the doctrines of the Islamic God will encourage the use of nuclear weapons to exterminate the human species for the Muslims has nothing to lose since they will end up in heaven faster than usual and not hell.

The use of nuclear weapon in a war need to be addressed within a moral issue and thus independent of the advances in Science in this case. Note this advance of Science like any others has its present and potential pros. One of the most significant potential of nuclear power is its potential to deal with a rogue meteor that appear out of nowhere which could decimate Earth into smithereens. There is a lot of other potentials for nuclear power and we can exploit it fully when the potential dangers are taken care of.

The point is the Pope could not dismiss fact as truth will always prevails.

I agree religions has their optimal usefulness relative to time and conditions but all religions has various period of shelf-life. The Abrahamic religions are at present are near to the expiry date.

Nope Science should not be imposed on religions but rather philosophy-proper with its tools i.e. moral [with Science where necessary] should modulate religions and their expiry dates.

I agree with your points 1 and 2 and I do not want to waste time on them. I have read Candace Pace’s Molecules of Emotion.
I will quote old and new where relevant.

Addressing point 3 alone is sufficient to support the main point of the OP, i.e. the ‘Brain Creates Religion.’
The points in 4 don’t seem to follow, i.e. philosophy and science to religion and science.

Note I have spent almost 3 years full time researching and analyzing on Islam, so I have a reasonable knowledge of Islam - the ideology [a belief].
I am also doing a project on What is Evil?

The credibility of my views that Islam is inherently evil starts with real evidences, i.e.

and many others loads of evil acts committed by SOME Muslims [within a potential pool of 300 million :astonished: ] who are evil prone [a natural %] quoting directly from the holy texts from God.

There are many reasons why Muslims commit evil acts on non-Muslims. We have the intellectual onus to break down all the various reasons and trace them to their ultimate root cause in terms of criticalness. I have done so and found out the ultimate root cause is the inherent elements of evil in the doctrine itself.
If we were to analyse the statistics [30K+] I linked above, the majority of them are related to politics on the surface. But a deeper analysis will lead us to its link to the doctrines of Islam as represented in their holy books from God.

I have quoted reference from evil prone Muslims themselves who declared the main reason why they kill non-Muslims is not political but rather it is theological, i.e. the are disbelievers.
Read this to be informed of the truth:
mirror.co.uk/news/world-new … ns-8533563

I can understand why you raised your questions which are very superficial and that is because you lack the relevant knowledge. I suggest you read the whole Quran at least 20 times and research on what is Evil in relation to its anthropological, neuroscientific, psychological and other elements.

OK, In my universe this is not correct. Do you have any idea, for example, how many Muslim children have been killed by Christians? A little history going further back in time also might be useful. Though you don’t have to go back in time far at all to answer my question about kids.
[/quote]

[/quote]
As I had stated, Christianity in essence and its ethos has an overriding pacifist maxim, i.e. 'love your enemies, love your neighbor, give the other cheek, etc.
Those Christians whoever has killed Muslim children or anyone will face God’s wrath when they meet God or Jesus on Judgment Day, i.e.

Say God or Jesus: WTF … I told you in the Bible to love your enemies and Thou Shalt Not Kill. You are now punished in Hell

I presume the Christian killer will plead for mercy and give his justifications. Being a merciful God, the killer will be punished relative to the severity and the justifications.

I agre, IF religion was from God, then it is possible believing in God will still produce positive brain chemical.
Example, IF Mr. Y fell in love with Miss. Z, the brain will produce brain chemicals that activate good feelings. But in this case we can prove Miss. Z exists as real.

In the case of God, there is no proof God exists as real within the only credible empirical-rational reality.
Since God does not exist [my argument], therefore it is the brain that create the idea of God [theistic religion].

First mathematics is not something that is inherent and independent of human conditions. This is covered by various philosophical debates.

Mathematics is created by brains collectively which is the same as religions are created by brains collectively.

The brain/mind has an independent neural circuit and when triggered in any way [even evil acts, falsehoods] will produce good feelings.

As I had argued DNA wise ALL humans has the potential to suffer existential psychological angst. When this is inhibited it triggers the good feeling circuits by endorphins and various neurotransmitters, e.g. serotonin, dopamine, etc.

Religion [leverage on the ideal of God] was invented by the brain [collectively] to inhibit the existential psychological angst accompanied by the oozing of soothing juices.

The idea of God is merely a thought [an illusion and impossibility] and not something empirical-rationally real.

This is another reason why “believing in God produces a positive brain chemical” doesn’t provide an alternative to theism. IF religion was ‘from God’, it would still produce those chemicals, therefore “It produces those chemicals” gives us no reason to think religion is not ‘from God’.

So you’re here to present a circular argument? “Since God doesn’t exist, this shows God doesn’t exist”? No thanks. You can do better.

I didn’t say it was.

If your only point here is that the presence of brain chemicals makes religion as valid as mathematics, that’s fine.

You’ve not provided any evidence of this.

Or that. I’m well aware that you would like very much to leap from “Religion produces pleasant brain chemicals” to “Religion was invented to produce pleasant brain chemicals”. The reality is, that leap is illogical, on the grounds that plenty of other things- atheism and now we’ve agreed mathematics- produce positive brain chemicals and apparently were not invented for that reason.

I had agreed, while the brain-created-religion produce good feelings, this do not conclusively prove God do not exists.
However this possibility discount it is conclusively and exclusively that God created religion.

In this case, there are other reasons how the idea of God emerged and is claimed to create religion. As stated,

I have provided evidence it possibly psychological.
See this; viewtopic.php?f=5&t=193697

Prism,
So you have read Candace Pert but still can’t see the distinction between opiates and mood stabilizers? Serotonin and dopamine are neurotransmitters. Their purpose is to ensure the functioning of neuronal communications. The good feeling that comes from these “juices” may just be the pleasure of having something work as it should. A well-oiled machine may be a pleasure to experience. A functional brain/mind may exhibit feeling good as evidence that it is working properly.

Not only does it not conclusively prove it, it doesn’t even argue in that direction. It’s irrelevant. That’s why it doesn’t present an alternative.

This is mostly gibberish, but insofar as I understand it, you are pointing out that there are other hypothesis of where religion comes from other than “God did it”. Yes, no shit. The particular thing you presented in this thread is not one, though.

No more than anything else; math, science, reason, etc.

I agree endorphins are opiates and their source is from the body.
Earlier I did not focus on the sources but my earlier point was both endorphins and neurotransmitters has their ultimate effects within the brain to produce ‘good’ feelings.

The main point is the brain/mind creates/sustains religions, and religion is not created by a God [illusory and an impossibility].

Point is because it is not conclusive, that itself open it up for alternatives. The question is what alternatives and what are the justifications.

Instead of ‘shitting’ all over, it would be more effective to present your counter arguments and justifications.

This is a philosophical forum, present your counter arguments and justifications why I am wrong.

  1. production of feel good juices in the brain may just indicate that the mind/brain is functioning properly. The brain serves as supervisor of all bodily functions. Repeat point, not addressed,. The other 4 points have not been refuted.

Yes, feel good juices get triggered by perceiving all sorts of things that Prismatic considers real. One gets tired of people who think they are rational but do not argue honorably.

That is just an inherent feature of empiricism- you know, that thing you’re always stumping for? Every empirical case will always be open to alternatives.

Already done, and you already agreed with all the key points. Since all sincerely held beliefs or intellectual activity seems to produce positive-brain-goo rewards, the fact that religious belief produces positive brain goo rewards says nothing about the truth or falsehood about religion. It contributes nothing.

The production of good juices in the brain indicate the brain is functioning accordingly not necessary properly.
If the brain produce excessive amounts of any juices [good or ‘bad’], it may not be functioning properly.

Some part of the bodily functions act upon instincts not necessary from the brain.

Not sure what you meant not addressed and no refuted?

The relevant point is the brain creates religion and there is no God existing as real that direct the emergence of religions.

How can you claim to argue honorably when you do not provide any justifications to the above assertion?

The brain produces soothing juices when triggered by certain beliefs [not all].
The OP established the correlation between religions and soothing juices produced by the brain.

The issue here is theists claim religions are created and directed by a God.

However the OP also state, there is no evidence to prove the reality of the beliefs, e.g. a real Buddha as told, a real God as claimed exists and other supernatural claims.

I have provided arguments elsewhere the idea of God is an illusion and an impossibility and that the idea of God is driven by psychological forces deep within the brain.

Religions have never been “created and directed by God”. They amount to human assessments of what God is and does, assessments that have evolved over the centuries. In the evolution of ideas, old ones may hang around even though outdated because they have meaning for some folks.
It is the old ideas that are presented here for refutation. New ideas, such as that the brain creates feel good juices as evidence of its stability are currently being examined in the psychiatric community, which in general would deny any feel good, God is real type connection. The feel good comes from good brain functioning regardless of the nature of ideas the mind is thinking. One can be an atheist and can get feel good juices in the brain following or during the thinking of certain ideas such as God does not exist.

What I meant is theistic religions are ultimately linked to a God via beliefs and holy texts supposedly from a God [illusory and impossible]. Theistic religions do not exist without a God.

As I had stated humans are by default infected with psychological desperation. This is recognized by Eastern religions like Buddhism, i.e. Life is Dukkha [translated as suffering] but that is basically psychological desperation and dealt as such.

But for theists, to soothe the above psychological desperation the majority [theists] discover theistic religions do produce soothing juices in the brain which are very effective to inhibit the associated angst. Religions follow from this discovery as organized religions.

Note the brain has a modular neural ‘feel good’ function represented by a specific circuit connected to various other parts of the brain like a spider web. This neural circuit can be triggered from various sources [sex, food, security, love, etc.] which can be good or evil [e.g. sadism].
Theistic religion happened to be one stimulus that trigger this ‘feel good’ function in the brain.

“The Brain Creates Religion” but there is a complex process and processes behind it.