The Brain Creates Religion

Ah, but go to a Western doctor and he/she orders some tests. If the tests show “nothing”, then you are dismissed as a hypochondriac. Your pains are imaginary.

If the doctor or medical team is sensitive enough to localize a body site of distress, they may be able to relieve it. I’ve see many “demons” exorcized by modern meds. Besides, hypochondria indicates something is amiss in the brain’s normal functioning. The something does not have to be labeled a demon.

Success in adapting causes “feel good” juice" experiences. Failure to adapt prompts experiences of existential angst. Why would anyone relegate this experience of angst to a religion based on humans as rotten to the core?

The point is that “the tests” establish whether you are sick or not … your personal experience is dismissed. That’s why people turn away from Western medicine … they don’t feel like they are being heard.

Isn’t the above obvious.

The existential crisis generate all the existential angst related to
guilt and fear about eternal damnation.
Instead of explaining the real cause i.e. Christianity use the concept of the original sin to invoke the natural guilt and fear of eternal damnation [existential extermination]

The above problems are actually and fundamentally driven by human psychology.
Religion thus use the idea of God to neutralize the above problems psychologically.

Example;
If a group of people are trapped 1000 feet in a diamond mine and knowing they are facing certain death [existential crisis], they will surely be triggered psychologically, i.e. worry, be anxious, in despairs and suffer all sort of terrible existential fears. But if they get actual news help is on the way very soon comprising the latest rescuing technology, they will get immediate relief and all the terrible existential fears will disappear immediately except for maybe the minimal reservation until they are really safe above ground
Note when they get the news help is on the way, there is no certainty yet, it is only information and what works is only based on belief, trust and faith that things will work well.
From the above the principle is this;
The problem started psychologically as triggered by an existential crisis and it is psychology [belief help is on the way] that resolve the initial psychologically driven existential fears.

The above is the same with religion;
Theists as human suffer from an inherent existential crisis that generate terrible existential psychological states. [guilt from sins, threat of hell, etc.]
It is religion and their beliefs [eternal life in heaven] that can give immediate psychological reliefs inhibit those existential angst.

In the sense those activities of Science and religion are from the same mind of a person, we cannot separate them.

But it is a fact, Science and religion are conditioned to their respective Framework and System.
There is no way Mendel can make genetic claims insisting God said so and nothing else. The only way Mendel theories can be accepted is because they complied with the Scientific Framework and System and they are not based on the Bible as an authority for Science.

Thus the Framework and System of Science and religions are independent of each other in terms of scientific knowledge and doctrines respectively.

Whatever claims made by Buddhism as truth they have to be JTBs, i.e. justified true beliefs.

Here is one point from the Dalai Lama reflecting the essence of Buddhism re knowledge.

Will the representative of any Abrahamic religion make the above declarations?

The 4 Noble Truths is a generic problem solving technique.
What can be wrong about that?

Note this;
Buddha’s 4NT-8FP -A Life Problem Solving Technique
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=187395&p=2516030&hilit=4NT#p2516030

Whenever there is a problem in life we apply the 4NT, i.e.

  1. Identify, recognize and define the problem.
  2. Identify the origin and root cause of the problem.
  3. All human-based problems can be resolved
  4. Herewith the guidelines for the solution.

The above is the generic model and within the sutras many alternative detailed approaches are provided for each of the above main elements.

Note ‘feeling good’ is activated by an independent modular function in the brain.
I agree feeling good is generally related to something positive to survival but in reality
anything of either good or evil can trigger one to feel good.
Note Nero when Rome burnt.
Hitler felt good in killing millions of Jews.
Even pain can trigger feeling good, e.g. the masochistic.
So you have to throw your theory
Feeling good may, as I continue to emphasize, may only be the indication that everything is working properly.” down the drain.

The basic theory re religion [especially theistic] is this;
Due to an inherent existential crisis, terrible existential psychological pains are generated in the brain/mind.
Religions and its beliefs [an all powerful God exists] trigger the feel good neurons to provide soothing juices that immediately provide immediate relief to the above terrible existential psychological pains.

The approach of the non-theistic religions are different. They do not rely on ‘soothing juices’ generate by faith and beliefs in illusory things. Rather they develop neural modulators [like dams across a violent river] to modulate the primal impulses of the terrible existential forces.

Prism, I think you need to dig a bit deeper into genetic human evolution before you attach ought to the is of biochemistry.
Nero and Hitler are prime examples of well-being within wrong doing. They prove nothing of what your feel good juices are trying to accomplish within a single brain. Your atheism is apparently highly indebted to the theism of fundamentalist Christians.
Evolutionary wise, altruism is the prime example of ought derived from is.
Where did you get this info on neuro-modulation? It seems a bit outdated when applied to ethics in general.

If you have a general fear of death, then an obvious solution is to “invent” an eternal afterlife. That gets rid of the fear. But if the afterlife includes eternal torment in hell, then you introduce a new fear. This basically wrecks your original clever invention.

The religion gives you a set of assumptions and principles which you apply in life. If your religion says that the universe is rational, ordered and knowable, then a pursuit of scientific knowledge is a reasonable activity. If your religion says that the universe is chaotic and unknowable, then you won’t bother pursuing scientific knowledge. Why would you? It’s essentially a waste of time based on your religious beliefs.

Yes, this can happen, but it doesn’t contradict Phyllo’s point about being labeled hypochondriac and/or mentally sick. IN my experience doctors want to categorize. If they cannot find something they know as a disease or condition, they seem reluctant to think it might be a disease or condition they have not encountered or has not been confirmed within current medicine. But even more important, when we are talking about emotional problems, as you were in the previous post, isolating all emotional problems and pain in the individual is pathological, though very common in the current psychiatric/pharmacological model. Right now so many people get their ‘conditions’ treated that the normal person has one or another disorder. Emotions are affected by the environment and the disease model is limited. Yes, some can get helped, but nowadays EVERY problem gets treated as if it is in the body, rather than a response to something outside the body. And this is cutting off a huge feedback about what modern life is like. We just shut it off. You have a mental problem, not ALL OF YOU ARE REACTING TO SOMETHING. This is very dangerous.

And/or they are skeptical about the effects of the treatment itself which is often dangerous.

To be fair, one should not expect medical treatment to be without risks or side-effects.

The Dalai Lama claims to be reincarnated. Correct?

Has scientific analysis shown that reincarnation is what happens after death?

It seems that he is relying on the idea that reincarnation has not been disproved by science. A fuzzy spot. A lot of claims of religions, including Buddhism are in that “we’re not quite sure” fuzzy spot.

Other problems with “scientific analysis” … it’s based on some unproven/un-provable assumptions. If you don’t accept those assumptions then you can reject scientific analysis.
And science can’t be applied to all problems/questions. Some things are beyond scientific analysis.

You seem to be unfamiliar with the history of science and religion in Europe. The church has accepted scientific findings. Science and religion are not incompatible.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_a … lic_Church

This is very general. The devil is in the details.

Not all problems can be resolved. This may be due to a lack of knowledge or a lack of resources, or a lack of will or the fact that a solution would create another problem.

Note the two main primary motivators of human actions to facilitate survival [evolutionary] are

  1. pain - actions of avoidance or
  2. pleasure - actions of attraction

To ensure survival, the attractive actions are accompanied with ‘good juices’ in the brain to generate pleasure [feel good] to motivate repetitions.

Nature is never perfect, thus to ensure it achieves its ‘purpose’ it rely on large numbers and % to increase it chances of survival. As a result there are defects and exceptions, e.g. synaethesia - cross wirings of the 5 senses.

Whilst pleasure [from feel good juices] is to promote survival, it also has its defects, i.e. pleasure also lead to the problem of addiction which lead to deaths thus contradicting its purpose of survival.
I gave the examples of masochists and others whose pleasure circuit is triggered by immoral acts, e.g. Hitler, Nero and the likes.
The pleasure circuit can artificially triggered by drugs and other chemicals which could end up with good or evil acts.

With the above counter examples, you have to throw your theory
“Feeling good may, as I continue to emphasize, may only be the indication that everything is working properly.” down the drain.

Neuro-Modulation.
Note research on impulse control.
news.vanderbilt.edu/2011/08/30/ … e-control/

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impulse_control_disorder

I suggest you do your own research on this topic.

That is why theists has to believe in an all powerful God [illusory] who can ensure they don’t go to hell as promised.

I agree many scientists in the past and even the present do make reference to God’s creation to initiate their scientific discovery, e.g. Newton.
But my main point is Science is Science as to Art is Art, they are like oil and water. It is the same with Science is not Religion.

Does this statement actually make sense to anyone who reads it???

Nah, Buddhism do not believe in the Hindu concept of reincarnation [transmigration].
Some Buddhists believe is rebirth which is different from reincarnation.

What the Dalai Lama [his Tibetan Buddhist sect] is a human being is a bundle of energy/waves where the waves fully interacted within the universe.
The person continuously emit energy and waves from its body and receives energy from external to its body.
When a person dies, that bundle of waves dissipate to the greater body of energy/waves.

Accordingly, some of these smaller bundle of waves may enter into another human body or self, thus this is a type of reincarnation in the Tibetan Buddhism perspective. This is an empirical possibility and has not been demonstrated to be false via Science.

Btw, that is the Dalai Lama’s belief and I do not agree with it.

I understand Christianity and Islam has been claimed to be involved with Scientific discoveries.
Many religions has been involved in non-religious things like politics, health, economics, etc. but this do not conclude these non-religious things are religious.
My point is Science is Science, Religion is Religion, and in terms of theory and practices they are distinctively different.

We hear it very often, to booster its self-esteem, Muslims will claim Islam has contributed to Science by listing various Muslim scientists of old.
The fact is those were scientists who happened to be Muslims who were scientific inclined and it is not because that the doctrine of Islam directly contributed to Science. For Science to be, there must be a Scientific Framework and System which Islam or Christianity are not.
Since religions are not based on a Scientific Framework and System, ‘Religion’ cannot be ‘Science’.

What is critical is one must have a model to start with, otherwise one will easily get lost.

Note I mentioned,
within the sutras many alternative detailed approaches are provided for each of the above main elements.
This will require one to spent years of studying and practicing utilizing the generic model above.

Yes, not all problems will be resolved but with a model and system, one will understand specifically and objectively where the shortfalls are where one has to look more aggressively for solution or accept them till new knowledge and resources are available.

Example note my problem with how to resolve the terrible evils arising from religions especially Islam.
From the model and system I used, I understand the mechanics and processes of the problem but due to lack of knowledge and resources I am aware the problem cannot be resolved immediate or even the near future but only possible [based on trend] in the further future.

Call it what you want, it’s not justified true belief, is it? So your claim that everything in Buddhism is JTB is refuted.

Don’t change the subject. You asked “Will the representative of any Abrahamic religion make the above declarations?”

And I showed you that Catholicism has done that repeatedly and that they don’t see any problem with scientific discoveries.