The Brain Creates Religion

Once again you are asking me to believe your or your professors’ fable about a brain function. You will not admit that there is more than one way of interpreting the function or that there are numerous claims about the origin of religion or the falsification of scientific theory. Or if you do, you fail to see how such claims can question the basic mantra you claim as absolute truths. The fault is in the focus.

duplicate

This sentence is really confused. IF it is scientific knowledge, then it has been justified within that system. So you are being redundant. Another sloppiness is you are using the term JTB which is from philosophy as if it is used in science AND as if it is one thing. It is not used by scientists, the term is not, AND it is not one thing. JTB is a suggestion for how one conceives of knowledge. It is not a methodology, it is not a set of specific criteria. It is an idea inside philosophy and philosophical discussions about how one can and some believe should think about knowledge. Since JTB does not specfic what kind of justification, we know that we are a high level of abstraction. It is not something to be confused with the scientific method, though the scientific method could be argued to be a kind of JTB. The problem with saying that the scientific method is JTB is that science is wary of using T (truth).

But it has changed. I also think it is a poor phrase and you should define it. Generally empirically either means through experience or experiment. Of course this changes over time. We may experience things and have, in science, and also outside, that were not experiences before. Technological advances increase what can be experimented and what can be experienced. So with any common use of the word empirically you are demonstrably incorrect here.

hypothesis or speculation? That, even in science, can be ANYTHING AT ALL.

Right, and since we now know there are ‘things’ confirmed by science that we did not know earlier in time, empirically possible changes.

A square is not empirically possible since it is made up of two dimensional components. It is a non-existent abstraction. I get what you are trying to say but it shows you are confusing two realms 1) math and the empirical world 2) particles that are also waves should have been self contradictory, but it turns out their are not. Particles - like a single electron, can interfere with themselves as if they are waves. The wave particle duality WAS TREATED JUST LIKE YOU ARE SAYING SQUARING THE CIRCLE WAS, until experimentation, the slit experiments, showed it was not only possible it was the case.

So your example here 1) shows me you don’t really get what empirical means since you bring in squared circle which is abstractions has to do with deduction not empirical research, but further you seem to have no idea that things that scientific models would have once ruled out as self-contradictory HAVE TURNED OUT TO BE THE CASE.

You have a non-historical view of science and this leads to all sorts of confusions.

Yup, you have. You have repeated it over and over in threads all over the place.

Suddenly you say this.

[b][i][u]

[/u][/i][/b] And here you say it again. Again you repeat this hypothesis despite just having been show other hypotheses held within the scientific community.

YOu are impervious to learning.

Goodbye.

I thought I was the one who is stating there are many ways, e.g. giving exceptions to your sole claim.

Do you have any counter argument to my thesis?

My thesis is this;

  1. All humans has an inherent potential to suffer terrible existential brain pains.
  2. The majority suffer those pains mainly subliminally and also explicit.
  3. Being human, people are driven to seek solutions.
  4. The brain creates religions [God & no-god] as a solution to relieve those existential brain pains.

Note Philosophy as a meta view overrides Science. This is why we have the Philosophy of Science where one uses Philosophy to reinforce scientific knowledge and understanding its nature and limits.

Philosophically, scientific theories are justified true knowledge [JTB] as qualified within the Scientific Framework and System.
Philosophically, a judgement on a person as murderer is justified true knowledge as qualified within the particular judiciary Framework and System of a country.

But it has changed. I also think it is a poor phrase and you should define it. Generally empirically either means through experience or experiment. Of course this changes over time. We may experience things and have, in science, and also outside, that were not experiences before. Technological advances increase what can be experimented and what can be experienced. So with any common use of the word empirically you are demonstrably incorrect here.
[/quote]
I don’t see where I am wrong in my use of the term ‘empirical’

Empirical = based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.

Yes, it can be anything but only if can be verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.

Note empirically possible meant it is possible to be verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.

Note again,

Empirical = based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.

I did not confine the concept of square to abstraction.
A square box is an empirically possible.

A square-circle is not empirical because it is based on theory [pure reason] and pure logic or logically contradictory, not because it is a two dimensional contradiction.

Related to the above my point is;
An idea of God is not empirical [thus empirically impossible] because it is based on theory [pure reason] and pure logic or logically contradictory,

“Theists are very selfish in clinging to theism…” is a new perspective to the point.

Sounds like I MUST learn from you?
This is like a tennis game, if you return the ball, I will continue to return it to your side of the court.
It is your discretion not to return the ball and this game automatically stops.

None of the four points of your thesis can stand alone. Each requires additional considerations. Most of those have already been brought to your attention by Phyllo and Karpel Tunnel. I need not repeat them. When confronted with opposition you tweak or fudge your statements so that they fit your changing ideas. They do not confront realistic opposition, which is why folks find it difficult to hold a debate with you. Do you have a final fix on what you would offer here? Statement 4. is a supposition, not a fact. This makes 1. through 3. questionable as relating to each other in a connection for proof for 4.

Religions that speak of our love and acceptance of each other are not based on negatives such as existential angst. Some are based on a belief that altruism is as much of an incentive for religious feelings as are fear and dread. IMHO, a religion that is based on negatives will produce negative results.
From an evolutionary POV, one either believes in the teleology behind evolutionary changes or does not. Belief in purpose and meaning for existence enhances man’s potential for creativity. It does not spend precious time wallowing in the mire of selfish despair.
Nothing negates an atheist’s joi de vivre like ridicule or psychoanalysis of believers in religion.

I agree.
To get to the point with steadiness I believe I need to write perhaps 3-5 books for each premise to get the point across.

Making noises in not equivalent to presenting any justified counters. I noted the points raised by Phyllo and Karpel but they are very flimsy. I would definitely welcome counter arguments [good for me and philosophy as a whole] that are solid and rigorous.

In my argument all the premises are deductive and follow to 4, the brain creates religion which produce soothing juices to relieve the existential brain pains.

There are lots of research on the relation between various religions and the production soothing juices in the brain, e.g.

I suggest you do your own research [just google] on the above subject.

I have spent a lot of time doing proper research on the subjects I participate in and I am a very voracious and responsible knowledge seeker.

Why should I research a fable about what brains do?

  1. Is the potential to suffer existential pains proof that everyone experiences them? If not this is a special case about which universals cannot be claimed.
  2. What majority? This has not been proved. Are there some who do not suffer in this way and yet their brains produce feel good juices for various reasons?
  3. Not all seek solutions to something as complex psychologically as existential angst.
  4. If the brain can create both God and no God as religious solutions to the problem ,it has little to do with creating religion except in the special case as noted above.
    Your theology is akin to Milton’s who claimed God allowed us to be sinful in order to give us a redeemer–all part of a cosmic salvation plan based on felix culpa. So, apparently our brains are constructed in such a way that their chemical activities can be seen as giving theistic solutions to existential problems.
    Looking at the brain with its neurons, neurotransmitters and endocrines, it seems almost comical to suggest that Some God has emerged from the hardwire and software interplay of mental/chemical activities. Nice fable, but no real proof. A good atheist will not accept your spurious proofs from googled ideas.
    As one critic neatly put it, there is nearly a 100%correlation between storks and babies arriving at the same time in Stockholm. So beware of the ramifications of supposed correlations such as between neurochemical activity and psychologized theology.

Fable??
I gave you links to scientific evidence and it is not practical to provide you every thing there is on this research. I know there are lots of research going on re this topic thus my suggestion you research on it to establish its truth.

The potential is a universal one because it is embedded in the human DNA.
That the majority of humans are religious i.e. 6+ billions out of 7 indicate they had to rely on religion’s soothing juices to relieve those existential pains [majority subliminal and otherwise].

Note my point above re majority.
As I had stated the brain has an independent function that produce feel good juices for various reasons, i.e. sex, food, security, existential, etc. Religion is related to the existential reason.

The potential of the existential angst is universal and it is active in the majority of humans. The majority of these tend towards religions while others resort to secular work, etc. and many turn to various drugs, hallucinogens and this is why there is an abuse of opioids to relieve the brain pains which cannot be pin pointed precisely.

The brain creates God and the related feel good juices to relieve the existential angst. The brain do not create a no-God state but rather it is just indifferent to a God-solution. Those who are indifferent to a God idea turn to other means as stated above to relieve their mental pains.

The point is there is no pre-existing real God waiting out there for humans to believe and cling to it.
The real thing is humans invent the idea of God to relieve their inherent and unavoidable psychological pains.

Note it is very common for people with mental discomforts to invent imaginary beings to relieve the discomfort [children imaginary friends] or promote pleasure [sexual fantasies in the mind] and also cling to various beliefs and ideologies.

Note your alternative, i.e. God exists as a real being out there and for a majority, God is a being who can promise them eternal life in Paradise and for some with a bonus of virgins thrown in. From there the claims for God get more and more ridiculous, irrational and absurd.
Top it all no one has been able to prove God exists convincingly since the idea of God emerged.

As I have shown with proofs and evidences the idea of God was conjured to trigger soothing juices to relieve the inherent existential pains.

Angst causes feel good juices. Feel good juices cause religions. There is nothing to connect these two as cause and effect. You have presented no real proof that these conditions rely on each other in these singular ways. How do the studies you’ve presented as research fare before scientific peer scrutiny? Have you read any counter arguments to the ones you’ve pieced together? They appear to be a random collection of pseudoscientific assumptions with about as much authority as National Enquirer articles.
You have no idea about what my alternative is so why state it amounts to the tripe you suggest. My beliefs are not on trial here.

I mean, what can one say when someone just keep celebrating things they have not done as if they have. He is presented with logical problems with the OP argument. Repeats OP arguement. He is presented with other hypotheses held by the scientific community. He repeats his assertions as if he was not presented with anything. It is disingenous, dishonorable participation.

He does not understand the difference between correlation and cause.
He does not understand that since brain juices are released in relation to things already accepted by sciences, the presence of brain juices when people think about God, proves absolutely nothing. It is not even evidence of anything except that brain juices get released.
He confuses absence of proof with proof of absence.
He uses the term ‘proof’ incorrectly, since proofs are relevent in math, but not in science.
He believes there is no mind independent reality WHICH 1) completely undermines his brain juices argument - I mean, are the brain juices real or only when he thinks about them? If there is a no mind independant reality ‘real’ means something other than what he argues God is not and 2) goes against mainstream science consensus.

He thinks that by asserting ‘God is not real’ in an argument he does not need to justify this.

The logic is as follows;

Psychological angst causes brain pains.
Feel good juices relieve brain pains.
Religions generate feel good juices.
Thus feel good juices from religions relieve brain pains.

Note I have spent years researching on this subject.
Since I can only produce a few links in a post, I have suggested you do some research on the subject.

The main subject is religion, i.e. theistic and non-theistic.
The main point for you is you are a theist [correct me if I am wrong] and the basis of your belief is psychological and not that there is a pre-existing God waiting out there for believers to believe.

Unless you address the specific points I raised, your accusations above are merely babblings.

Note, whatever I stated in here and in such a limited forum cannot be conclusively proof.
Whatever links and references are merely indication to the wider available evidences, this is why I suggest one should do further research to understand [not necessary agree yet] to my point. If one do not research and understand the point then one’s view has no credibility.

What I listed i.e.

Brain Scans on Mormons Show Religion Has a Similar Effect to Taking Drugs
sciencealert.com/brain-scan … king-drugs

tandfonline.com/doi/full/10. … 16.1257437

is qualified with a limitation.
I did not state specifically the above is a conclusive proof.

My the other ‘God is an impossibility’ is a deductive proof based on reason.

It must be nice to be privy to such logical understandings that seem denied to us ignorami. Tweak and fudge, the squirming of one caught in an enormous lie, is all too evident in your repetitive defenses. You ask of us to research a thesis that is illogical. Where is the rigor produced by peer approval on this topic? Why does it smack of tabloid presentations? You seem to know little about how brains work and less about cause and effect. Your thesis is defended by reference to folk theories, not by scientific rigor. So if this is all babble to you, I doubt you could learn from your mistakes even when they are pointed out to you. The “scientists” you quote or would have us read would be better off sticking to basic science than opining about God or religion.

Note at least I have provided some links to justify the lead [not necessary conclusive.] I have no problem providing more references if necessary.

OTOH, what you have stated is pure babbling to defend your existential psychological problems. You have not even provided any link [even as a clue] to give me an idea of the integrity of your claims.

What is most obvious of the theists’ claim, God exists is pure conjecture and without any inkling of direct proofs since the idea of God emerged.
The root cause of theism is fundamentally psychological and all the defenses given by theists is to secure this very flimsy barrier to the truth within the theist.

What have been pointed out to me by theists are merely ‘shooing’ and hand waving against my arguments and has no substance at all, e.g.

you seem to know little about how brains work and less about cause and effect.
Where are your arguments?
Re cause and effect - are you claiming you are a better philosopher that Hume or Kant?

The only point re the brain was I avoided to state endorphins are from the body rather than from the brain. I have done very extensive research on the various aspects of Neurosciences. I don’t believe you have done much?? What books and areas of neuroscience have you research into?

On a minimal list I have read Crick, Cosmides and Tooby, Damasio, Changeaux, Ricoeur, Dennett, Dawkins, Wilson, Humphry, Rorty, etc., etc-- all first hand, not in splices of podcasts or googled excerpts. This is a minimal list which includes dozens of works on neuroscience, post analytic philosophy, comparative religions and genetic evolution. This extensive reading does not make me an authority on any of these matters, but it does serve to help me detect pseudoscientific fables such as those you propose.

OK, noted and I will take those readings you have done into account but I think you will be quite defensive with many of the above authors.

Other than Changeaux, Humphry [which, Davy?] I have read all the above.
I agree my reading of the above do not make me an authority of their views.
I only claim a very reasonable expertise where I have spent full time 2-3 years on certain philosopher and philosophies, e.g. Buddhism, Kant, Islam and some other minor areas.

I would suggest you read Kant [to understand not necessary agree], which I believe represent the center core of Philosophy.

Besides depth, to widen to the side on neuroscience, try Oliver Sacks, V.S. Ramachandran, Ledoux, Andrew Newberg, and many others, especially note the Human Connectome Project.
humanconnectomeproject.org/

What I have presented is not “pseudoscientific fables” but proper research and that paper qualified its limitations. I have provided a lead here and if we are to get more serious [I don’t have the time] then we can do a literature review and try to exhaust all research that has been done in this area.