Researchers Discover 'Anxiety Cells' In The Brain

DNA wise ALL humans has the potential for existential angst and this potential is activated in a range of degrees.
The majority of humans has a high activation of the existential angst at the subliminal level and they turned to religions to soothe the inherent unavoidable existential angst.
Those who do not turn to religion will turn to other secular activities or drugs to soothe the brain pains arising from the inherent unavoidable existential angst.

Science is Science and it cannot be Metaphysics nor religion. A scientist is a person who MUST wear the Scientific ‘Hat’ when doing Science. Thus Science has never meddled with Metaphysics nor religion. That person has to wear a specific religious hat if that person were to adopt a religion or a parent-hat when he is bring up his children.

If a Scientist study the behavior of those who are into Metaphysics or religion, they are not doing Metaphysics nor religion per se, rather they are doing Science and in conformance with the rules of Science.
For example Andrew Newberg, a neuroscientist studies the brain patterns of those who are doing religions. What is wrong with that?

Anxiety cells are discovered by Scientists and that is Science, not religion.
But from a philosophy perspective, we can wear the philosopher’s ‘hat’ to use such scientific knowledge as basis to rationalize the correlation between anxiety cells and religion and therefrom attempt to link it to causation.

That is only part of the story. The anxiety emotion has a wide range of effect [positive and negative] on the human systems.
A feeling anxiety could push person to seek medical help when they see symptoms of disease within themselves. A person could also feel anxious arising from empathy for another person.

Nah, it is an empirical fact not all humans are religious.
It is also a fact the trend of religiosity within humanity is going down since 100 years ago.

Note the chart below re USA [a google quickie] and it is the same for the whole world.

The discovery of anxiety cells in the brain may be science at work; the religious and/or philosophical implications made from the studies are not. This is the problem with translating normal chemical functions as conscious ideas. If you knew the processes involved in such a translation, you would be close to devising a robot that could pass the Turing test. The function of brains, again, is to achieve homeostasis of all physical/mental functions. To assume they do more than that is to assume ideas science has not yet begun to prove. The studies are like those in search of a “Grandmother” neuron or "God "gene. You have to know what consciousness entails before you can describe its origins in the physical world by assigning thoughts to bodily functions. This would include knowing the influences of genes and memes on what one believes to be true.

That not all humans are religious does not reinforce the notions that DNA causes existential angst, that brains create religions or that existential angst is the impetus behind the creation of a religion. So, how do atheists handle the supposed universal condition of existential angst? Would you say that Niebuhr, Tillich, Lewis, and Schweitzer., et al., suffered from existential angst or were those sufferers just the founders of the religions and their followers?

Note the OP,

The research did not mention anything about religion.

However from my philosophical perspective, I see a link between the above and religion.

From the above it is noted, anxiety[existential based] caused religions.
Therefore when we know how to turn off the anxiety cells we can turn off religions.
QED.

But obviously the actual processes are very complicated but the above indicate there is possibility it can be done in the future.

OK - one of the function.
When the existential crisis activate instability, the brain’s anxiety cells [and other functions] trigger a state of anxiety to compel the self to find solutions to maintain homeostasis of its mental state. The solution to maintain homeostasis [mental] is believing in a religion.

But because theistic-religions create and generate terrible evils and violence, we have to do something about it. One solution is to deal with the related anxieties with non-religious alternatives so that we can eliminate all religious-related evils and violence.

My thesis is this;

The existential angst is handled via the inhibition of the impulses from the existential-angst neurons.
The non-theistics deal with it in the following;

  1. Non-theistic religions - Buddhism, Jainism, etc.
  2. Using their rational minds and critical thinking
  3. Occupied themselves with secular thoughts and activities
  4. Occults
  5. Drugs - hallucinogens
  6. Opioids
  7. Gangs [tribal], criminal activities, etc.
  8. Various non-theistic approaches

The above approaches are usually combined in various degrees and forms.

As I stated ALL humans has the potential for existential angst.
If the above are religious [theistic] then their existential angst would be definitely be active in various degrees.

Note in GENERAL a baby and those up to a certain teenage age do not have an active existential angst in the brain that would drive them personally on their own to religions in its various forms and degrees.

So “turning off” anxiety cells and bypassing the brain’s natural checks and balance systems is a good thing? I don’t know many scientists who would believe that even if it could be done. You either do not understand homeostasis or you do not see its physical/mental complexity. Tampering with such mental/physical, natural processes smacks of a Nazi agenda.

The bolded portion was my guess. Unfortunately lay science and corporate approaches to change often involve an avoidance of dealing with complexity. Now of course he says it will be foolproof in his fantasy future - but he does not seem to understand that we are ecological systems.

Somehow you are stuck with either on or off [black or white] without taking into account gradations and contexts. You have to check your impulsiveness in jumping to see the worse [Nazi, frankenstein monsters, etc.] whenever you come across issues like the above.
We need to understand ‘turn off’ do not mean completely shut off.

Note Aristotle’s re anger which is applicable in this case;

We cannot get rid of the anxiety cells but we can modulate it as in the above.
Note there are tons of research on the subject of impulse-control.

Note in real life the Buddhists [since 2500 years ago], other Eastern spiritualities and various self-development programs are targeting on impulse controls with great results. Their limitations are that they operate on a black-box approach.

The discovery of anxiety cells will facilitate greater improvements in impulse controls related to anxiety-religion connections to facilitate greater precision in taking the necessary corrective actions.

Don’t insult my intelligence on this basic point.
Actually you have a shortfall of knowledge as I had provided and shown above.

That is the problem with most theists, they have a very sensitive ‘thermostat’ to sense anything that is not within their knowledge database as a threat. Then they will associate the new ideas [even justified] as Nazi, evil, satanic and all sort of ugly and evil terms to shut the others off. Such tactics do not work because the truth will always prevails.

I was hoping you will give more solid and sound arguments to counter my approach or views.

Note I am into the idiot-proofing [fool proofing] business and have done extensive research and practical in this area. So I know what I am talking about regardless whether we are talking about machines, robots or humans. The difference is just a matter of degrees not either can or cannot be applied.

Wasn’t it you who suggested that turning off anxiety cells in the brain could rid us of those religious feelings you seem to despise?

“Turn off” was not my word. It was the article in the OP which used the term ‘turn off’ which do not mean a complete shut down. If that is the case, it would be more efficient to kill off all the anxiety cells. ‘Turn off’ is never meant to be a complete shut off.

The term I normally use is ‘modulate’ and in relation to quote from Aristotle re anger.

In the case of anxiety cells we have to look into it in greater details to ensure we avoid other side effects before we implement anything in relation to the existential crisis.

Have you read the works of Damasio and others of the likes who specialize in ‘emotions’ and they show that emotions are critical necessity for life.

When Emotions Make Better Decisions - Antonio Damasio
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wup_K2WN0I[/youtube]

But as we can see below he did not use that term. Irrelius was correct. He followed up the quote and USED ‘TURN OFF’

My bold.

This kind of not even being able to acknowledge the obvious that is a form of continued disrespect for anyone else in the discussion.

And notice the I did nto use X, but X is really OK for these reasons, but I would never use it, I use Y, which he did not.

I mean, seriously

And everyone here has read Damasio. Jesus.

Of course I’ve read Damasio; but what on earth could Damasio’s work on emotions and Aristotle’s notes on anger explain as rational refutation of religious ideologies? Your smattering of quotes is diminished by your ego. It is difficult to debate with blatant arrogance. Does your life depend on getting this particular topic reasonable or is it simply evidence of your disdain for the religions? In short there seems to be too much you in your threads and not enough substance for a reasonable debate. Good Lord, man, your topic sounds like something out of a supermarket tabloid.

Note generally there can be a few meaning to a word or term.
In a discussion forum like this, we cannot be precise all the time.
If a dispute arising, then there is a need to clarify the exact meaning that is used.

It is very philosophical immatured to catch someone on the use terms when there is so much room for clarification.

Debate?? You are the one who making noises instead of addressing the arguments I presented.

You seem to have a very short memory.
If you note, whatever I had quoted is always used to support a certain point.

You stated [implied] I used the term ‘turned off’ to mean a total shutdown.
I refer you to Damasio and others showing emotions are necessary for a wide range of process and thus cannot be totally shut down.
Thus since I have read Damasio and other, my use of ‘turning off’ do not imply a “total shutdown” and I explain why I would prefer ‘modulate’ when you raise a dispute re ‘turn off.’

Does this matter?
I sugggest you focus on the argument rather than getting emotional about it with the wrong perception I have a disdain for religion.

Note I linked this in the OP, i.e.

My focus on religion is mainly due to the above, and being a very concerned citizen of humanity I am trying to contribute what I can to resolve the terrible threat at present and in the future.

You don’t seem to be empathic to the people who had been killed, maimed and oppressed in the name of religion.
Why I am trying my best to get to the proximate root cause, you are trying to shut me up.

I can understand your typical [very common from theists] very negative responses toward my finding a solution to deal with the negative and evil of religion because you have a vested psychological interest in religion and theism. Obviously you sensed [subliminally] my views are a threat to your psychological security.

Note I have provided references that there is a link between religion and anxiety.
I believe it is the existential anxiety that led the majority to religion and religion is the proximate cause of all religious based evils and violence.
Therefore if we understand the mechanics of the existential anxiety [this OP] and can link it to religion, then we can do whatever is necessary to control religion [prevent or eliminate] to that we can eliminate all religious-based evils and violence.

Note this again [just in case you are still wondering why I discuss on religion];

and the whole loads of other religious evils and violence that is driving my postings on theism and religion.

In the first place you equate all religions with Islamic terrorism. If that’s your main concern you might have a point. They are a paranoid group for whom I have no sympathy. Where are the Christians nowadays who can match such senseless killings? Yet the Islamic killings have become your poster child for reference to atrocities committed in the name of religion. If you want to know the why of this Islamic attitude toward the West, you must go back to the Crusades.
I would not aim to shut you up; I just aim to show how unreasonable you often are. Your views in no way threaten my religious convictions, nor explain them.
Anxiety cells in the brain already have a function that outweighs their propensity to cause certain persons to indulge in certain beliefs. I think you know what that function is.

NOPE! I did not and do no equate all religions with Islamic terrorism.

My definition of ‘what is a religion’ is based the research of Ninian Smart, where what is to be considered religion necessarily conform to 7 shared dimensions.
www2.kenyon.edu/Depts/Religion/F … evendi.htm
For more details see;
prezi.com/bjyy9j3vws6m/7-dimens … -religion/
or read up Smart’s book on the subject.
Note theism is not one of the dimension because there are non-theistic religions e.g. Buddhism, Jainism, etc.

In terms of have inherent evil elements within the holy texts, there are degree from high e.g. Islam [60%] to lower, Christianity [20%], Judaism [?%], Hinduism [10%] to ZERO, Buddhism and Jainism [0%].
So, No! I do not ‘equate all religions with Islamic terrorism’. Problem is you jump too fast to the conclusion.

While the essence [doctrines and principles] has varied evil elements, the organizational aspects of all religion [not the religion per se] has their negatives committed by their evil prone followers, e.g. scandals, corruption, sex abuse, pedophiles, murders, etc.

As such I had proposed humanity need to wean off religiosity [institutional] and replace them with spirituality [of wisdom].

You are short on this point.
The very antagonistic Islamic attitude toward the West emerged from the day Islam came into being and even before that in the mind of the founder or group of people who compiled the Quran.

Note this evidence;

If you want to show how unreasonable I am, then give me reasonable arguments. So far you have not given any reasonable arguments. More often you are too hasty and jumping to conclusion and having the wrong perception of my intentions and I have to explain.

If you are familiar with Damasio, Ledoux and others who specialized in Emotions, you would have noted the amygdala [two walnut size parts in the brain] is claimed to be responsible for the fear emotion. Since fear is such a terrible emotion, then the simple logic is to excise the amygdala, then everyone will be fear-free.
But with the current knowledge of neuroscience it is definitely as simple because even the amydala is a small part it has very complex and intricate connections to other function of the brain/mind.
The fact is the amydala is relatively small, but it has millions of neurons each with up to 10,000 synapses connecting to various parts of the brain.
As such simply cutting away the amydala may get rid of fear but there will be many side effects.

The amydala mainly responsible for generating fear is also connected to the anxiety cells. As with the amydala, there would be thousands and probably millions of neurons that are responsible for anxiety and its various forms of expressions.

Thus even when we have identified the anxiety cells, we still need to zoom into the specific circuits which activities lead to religion. Anxiety cells in this case is not DIRECTLY responsible for religiosity but there are other elements involved.

Btw, are you aware of the Human Connectome Project, the objective of this project is to map all the neurons connections in the brain.
humanconnectomeproject.org/
The actualization of the so thought impossible Human Genome Project, inspired the Connectome Project. There are already progress in this direction.

It is very possible in the future, we will be able to track the relevant and critical circuits that enable religion to emerge in the minds of humans.
Btw, don’t be hasty to jump to conclusion that I am suggesting we take a scissors to snip off the relevant neurons.

The functions of the brain is conditioned by the activation and inhibition of the various neurons and they works in degrees of strength and many other variables.

It is possible in the future for humanity to deal with religion [noting the worst with their terrible evils] at the neural level but we need to take into account the above complexities I raised so to avoid side effects and ensure it is fool proof.

Note the approach where I have always provided very reasonable views and arguments in reasonable details. I have lots of reserves in my knowledge base if you ever get deeper and deeper.

On the hand, what you have done is merely giving one liner retorts & condemnations, jumping too fast to conclusion [not considering Principle of Charity - you know what this is?] and bit and pieces of information. How can you show I am reasonable with your above scraps?
I am on a mission to collect more information, so give me more reasonable counter arguments.

So you will stop posting the Islamic terrorist’s killings as your only indication of evils of the religions? Name the current Christian atrocities against humanity.
Christians in the West send food, clean water, clothing and other necessities to many people in third world countries. So you would deny that caritas based on altruism has any religious causes?
Fear is also an adaptation necessity. The emotions you are discovering to be caused by brains are all part of dealings with the evolving human contact with what is other than the self, the this that must interact with the that in order to survive. How Self views what is Other is dependent on genes and memes.
You have not proved how religion is detrimental to any form of altruistic behavior. You simply ask us to accept this.
I hope Damasio has clued you in about the fallacies of assigning belief systems to brain topography.

I have never stated Islamic terrorist’s killings as THE only indication of evils of the religions.

There are a wide range of religious based evils and I viewed ‘Islamic terrorist’s killings’ as one of the worst evil acts of religion followers as inspired by the holy texts of religion.

Why I post this

is because it is the easiest available reference of religious evil to retrieve.
(the above statistics need some polishing but it has the main point of evil within religion).
So I will not stop posting this statistics.

I have never claimed Christianity per se condone the worst evils acts of genocides or killing. I have always stated Christianity has an overriding pacifist maxim, i.e. love your enemies, love your neighbors, give your right cheek, etc.
If any Christian commit murders and killings, it has nothing to do with Christianity but the motivation is from their inherent evil tendencies.

Altruism has its own motivators [survival] which has nothing to do directly with religions.
However religions do indirectly motivate followers to do charity and caritas.

Nevertheless Christianity has some lesser evil acts of hindering the progress of mankind, e.g. in education and knowledge by insisting on its creationism and condemn evolution [I understand the Pope is changing his view on this].

I have no serious issues with the above.

This is not an issue of the OP.
I believe all religion indirectly trigger the altruistic function of the brain in a limited and qualified form. I believe the ‘altruistic’ acts from Christianity [for many] has an ulterior motive of proselytizing [advertizing] the religion with the hope that out of the millions the Christians help, some will convert to Christianity.
As for Islam [according the the Quran], generally, all “altruistic” charity etc. acts are limited to Muslims only. Non-Muslims must pay jizya [extortion money] to Muslims with a feeling of subservience.

As usual you are not providing any arguments at all.

Note,

Emotions arise from the activities of brain topography.
Damasio has clued me to why emotions are critical to all [mental and physical] human behaviors [except spontaneous instincts].
Religious beliefs are human behaviors [menta].
Therefore Damasio has clued me to the the link between religion and brain topography.

If you counter the above, give details and counter arguments, not just blasting one liners.

Why do Christians no longer believe in killing witches or in stoning a woman found in adultery? It is because for most Christians such memes have evolved from literalistic readings of scriptures to a more humanistic approach to most human differences and needs. So, perhaps, the anxiety cells are assuaged by social memes which mitigate eye for an eye? In any event the literalistic take on brain topography and topology is risky business reminiscent of the belief in phrenology.