Researchers Discover 'Anxiety Cells' In The Brain

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.

You have come a long way from–
Anxiety cells discovered in the brain
Religion assuages anxiety
Religion causes atrocities
To-- the atrocities committed by a minority of believers in Islam.
This does not indicate that anything in your syllogisms are reasonably connected beliefs.
Scientists locate anxiety cells in the brain–so what?
Religion assuages anxiety–so does a myriad of other beliefs and activities.
Religion causes atrocities. This may be true in Ireland ,the middle East and some African countries, but can it be said to be a universal condition?

There’s also the problem of:
religion is caused by anxiety
religion causes atrocities
take out anxiety neurons
Situation is better

He did not lay this argument out like this, but I think it is a fair summation of how it began.

Let’s assume 1 is correct and that 2 is a fair summation of religion in general. IOW for the sake of argument let’s concede a lot to focus on another issue:
Anxiety serves a wide range of functions, or to put this more neutrally, anxiety affects cognition and behavior in a variety of ways.

To stifle or remove anxiety may lead to worse atrocities. This does not necessarily mean one should not try the approach, especially if one could do it temporarily - if 1 and 2 are correct, that is - however when such simplified, mechanical modular approaches are taken to minds, then I am skeptical in the extreme that enough ecological consciousness is present to prevent terrible outcomes.

I believe it is the opposite.

Christianity has its reformation from being bastardized as a social/political tool to a more genuine religion by going back to its literal scriptural roots of compassion, love [love your enemies, love your neighbors, love this and that …].
Killing of witches, crusades, stoning a woman, are never stated in the NT which overrides the OT.

You can add lobotomy .

I remind you again, are you familiar with the Human Connectome Project [HCP].
humanconnectomeproject.org/
If not, read it up.

From the HCP there is the potential in the near future for humans to target specific sets of neurons for modulation [inhibit] and improvements via self development programs on a voluntary basis and without side effects.

Why not? Problem is you missed and did not present my premises properly, thus unable to follow through.
See below.

The discovery and identification of anxiety cells has the following potential.

Religion assuages certain specific anxiety related to the inherent existential crisis. There are other beliefs and activities that can do that but the majority are more inclined to rely on religion because believing in a religion is the most easiest way and the approach that give immediate relief.

Note:

1. Anxiety cells [existential related] drive humans to religions.

2. Religion assuages anxiety [existential related]

3. Religion causes atrocities (by SOME evil prone believers in Islam)

4. Anxiety cells discovered in the brain

5. Anxiety cells [existential related] are identified

6. Anxiety cells [existential related] identified are modulated.

7. Anxiety to being-religious is reduced and/or eliminated - no more religious.

8. Religion waned and/or disappeared

9. Religious atrocities waned and/or disappear.

Unfortunately you missed or deliberately twist my points.

Karpel Tunnel: “take out anxiety neurons”
Nope I never say take out, note my point above, I has always stated ‘modulated’ not a complete shut off nor excise them out.

There are many types of anxieties triggered from various stimuli.
For example if one is anxious before a job interview, sitting for exams, wife giving birth, self-diagnosed disease, etc. they are triggered differently.
As I had stated above the anxiety that is triggered by the existential crisis is definitely different from being anxious before a job interview and they involve different pathways/‘branches’ from the main ‘trunk’.

Therefore if we modulate the specific anxiety cells related to the existential crisis that drive people to religion, the other anxiety cells will not be effected. One can still feel anxious before a job interview [this can be separately modulate as well].

Note modulation of certain parts and set of neurons in the brain for positive and well being of the individual has been done for thousands of years, especially within the Eastern spiritual community.
One good example is the modulation of the pain pathways, e.g.

Note the techniques bolded above are adopted from the Eastern spiritual community.

There are many mental functions that are already proven to be capable of being modulated by the human mind. Most of these methods are done on a black-box approach.

With the advancements and progress Human Connectome Project, humanity will be able [in the future] to penetrate into the black-box to modulate the specific anxiety cell identified as those that are driving religions.

Anxiety is a matter of quantity–less pain equals less anxiety-- .The brain is not concerned about whether the pain comes from a bee sting or some major accident; it simply deals with the pain in proportion to the pain’s intensity. But that’s nether here nor there. The main problem I have with this thread is its insistence that religion is evil–and the term is used in general so as to see all religions as remedial by pain- alleviating functions of brains, without giving credit to the good things religion has brought into the world. It’s like shoot the thief and you will help destroy the murderer as if there are only levels of corruption among religious beliefs, which are all bad. There is no real distinction given here between pain and existential angst.
As with the problem of phrenology in assigning brain topography to specific human traits, this thesis neglects the facts of neuroplasticity, which suggests that it takes multiple brain locations to cover a single trait. Consciousness has become the “hard” problem simply because it cannot be localized in the brain, The discovery of anxiety cells in the brain is the finding of a mechanism to deal all types of pain. It is not the finding of a possible antidote for religion.

I suggest you read “What Makes Us Think”.–Changeux, Ricoeur. Especially noteworthy are Ricoeur’s problems with reductionism, which appears to be the modus operandi of your sources. In my 30 yr. old love affair with neuroscience, I never thought I’d agree with Ricoeur; reductionism is so enticing-- but he makes a lot of sense, whereas many speculations connecting specific thoughts to brain chemistry do not.

Anxiety is a secondary emotions from the primary emotion of fear.
‘Emotion’ is from ‘emote’ i.e. to move. The main purpose of emotions are to activate the person to action for some purpose.
Anxiety cells are also linked to the pain circuit.
Thus if there is anxiety and the person do not move in response, then there is a manifestation of ‘pain’ [mental].
In the case of religion, it is the existential crisis that triggers existential related anxieties and religion is the most effective means to dissolve such anxieties. One can read of of this in the many confessions and testimonies of converts and the born-agains.

That religion [some] is evil is so evident.
There are so many cases of evil prone religionists [especially from Islam] quoting verses from the Quran [easily verified] and being inspired by their religion to commit terrible evils and violence.
I do not deny religions has contributed good to humanity.
But given the current trend, the cons of religions are outweighing its pros. Besides other than the psychological balm for existential angst whatever good from religion can be done by the secular.
As psychological balm to deal with existential angst, there is a great potential for humanity to find fool proof secular alternatives to deal with.

Phrenology is not worth mentioning at all especially in the current state of knowledge in the neurosciences.

My thesis is since there is a link between anxiety triggering religions [in one way], there is a possibility to deal with religion [given it has an evil baggage] when we can modulate the anxiety cells via its inhibitors.

The book is from 2000 .
Nevertheless I read a review
metapsychology.mentalhelp.net/po … 494&cn=394

Note there is no issue with reductionism re the sources I quoted.
What I have introduced is one of the fundamental basis of knowledge, correlation, cause and effect, and the need to go into more details.

It appeared Ricoeur is cautious with reductionism but is into phenomenology and hermeneutics which I agree with.
The point is we just cannot rely on Science alone but must compliment Science with all other relevant fields of knowledge, philosophy, wisdom, system theory, holistic thinking and the likes.
Personally I don’t see any problem with reductionism as long as we do not take a unrealistic hasty big jump to reduce everything to the absolute first cause, i.e. God.

The limitation of neuroscience AT PRESENT is this, whatever you have learned in 30 years you have to throw away 90% of what you have gathered in the last 28 years.

Sorry for the short response.

with love,
sanjay

It is realized as wrong even now by anyone with a smattering of reading in neuroscience. As an explanation of what brains do it makes a faulty connection between normal, mechanical biological functioning and folk fables concerning beliefs. It is as close to phrenology as one can get without discovering the God gene, the grandmother cell or the ghost within the machine. As an explanation of what makes us think, it relies heavily on outmoded forms of reductionism. It is unable to explain the sources and even the conditions of existential angst. As an explanation of society’s memes it presents caricatures of traditional faiths. As a philosophical exercise, it fails by continually fudging and tweaking of statements so as to explain what was originally intended.

Note the purpose of such a philosophy forum is to provide a platform for anyone to express their ideas with reasonable arguments for discussion.

I have already provided a reasonable argument;

1. Anxiety cells [existential related] drive humans to religions.

2. Religion assuages anxiety [existential related]

3. Religion causes atrocities (by SOME evil prone believers in Islam)

4. Anxiety cells discovered in the brain

5. Anxiety cells [existential related] are identified

6. Anxiety cells [existential related] identified are modulated.

7. Anxiety driving one to be religious (1) is reduced and/or eliminated - no more religious.

8. Religion waned and/or disappeared

9. Religious atrocities waned and/or disappear.

Note I have already provided references that linked religions with anxiety. (see earlier post). From this one go into more detailed research of this connection.

Obviously the existential angst is from the brain. This is a very complex subject which I have not discussed into the details.
What is critical at this point is, the existential angst manifest existential-related-anxieties [mainly subliminally] which is reflected significantly in the Abrahamic religions with the desperation of the theist quest for eternal life in heaven [soteriology]. The existential factor is also reflected significantly in other religions like Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and others.

Note my point;
“Given the current trend of the exponential expansion of knowledge [such as the above and others] and technology, I am optimistic my thesis can be realized .”
Note I did not claim, my thesis WILL DEFINITELY be realized.
You have discount my point re the exponential expansion of knowledge and technology, of which I gave one example re the Human Connectome Project.

Note even in the ancient days, the primitive people could modulate ‘pain’ with natural opioids, then with expansion of knowledge and technology we did it with chemical opioids. Subsequently with neuroscience we understand the workings of the neural pain circuits. The limitations of the above is because it is based on the black-box, input/output, trial & error and very general methods.
With the realized advanced knowledge from the Human Connectome Project we will be able to trace more precisely the specific neurons [individually and groups] that trigger the existential related anxieties that drives a person to be religious.
You tell me why the above is not possible?

Note, a “smattering of reading in neuroscience” is not sufficient to help you to counter the above point.

Why theists [like yourself and others] are so defensive to my views and thesis is because the possibility I have presented is sensed [subliminally] as a threat to their psychological security from angst despite the evident inherent evils [range] within religions.

This is your opinion. You have submitted no evidence which shows it to be true. You have no evidence that it’s applicable to the posters in this thread.

There is no good reason to be making such unfounded personal statements in a philosophy discussion.

Note I have provided reference that linked religions with anxieties re the existential threat.
The point is all theists exist along a continuum of theism in terms of their various sensitivity to the existential threat and other variables.

Note this and point 5;

The existential crisis generate terrible psychological trembling and terrors within at the subconscious level and effect the self subliminally -90% rather than consciously -10%.
Religions and theism provide the crutch [instantly] to soothe the terrible psychological trembling and terrors within the psyche.

This is why any sign [explicit or implicit, conscious or subliminal] will trigger a sense of threat [mentally painful] to the theists psychological security [at the primal level] and most will instantly react in various degrees depending on the psychological state of the theists; i.e.

1. A theistic group when perceived [generally a misperception] a threat to their security [psycho-religio] they will immediately counter attack and at the worst it is genocides where their religion give sanction to kill non-believers, e.g. as in the so-claimed “The Religion of Peace.”

2. Even the slightest as drawing the cartoons of their founder will trigger terrible evils an violence. This is so evident.

3. Even worst, non-believers are killed merely because their existence itself is perceived as a threat to the psychological security of the theists. Thus the coinage of the derogatory term ‘atheist’ in the 16th century.

4. The stake of the theistic psychological stake is so primal, strong and high that its needs will override all other faculties, e.g. intellect, reason, rationality, wisdom, compassion, etc. Note the case of Abraham instant willingness to kill his own son for God’s sake; since God is illusory, actually that is only for his own selfish psychological sake to stabilize his internal psychological security.

5. In more subtle cases where theists are not members of a religion, they will still lash out at those who critique theism as criticisms are perceived instinctively and subconsciously as a threat to their psychological security. This is so evident in forums, discussion and debates.

I would not agree the above is mere opinions.
It is a personal belief with conviction but I agree it is not ‘yet’ objective knowledge since I have not provided full evidences and other references to justify my points [yet].

Listening to music, exercise. enjoying art. There are many human activities that release dopamine in the brain thus assuaging doldrums. Why don’t you list these things as needing to be done away with by modulating the anxiety cells? If your entire thread was not based on loathing for religion, I might have found some credibility in it. Yet you continue to bounce between seeing religion in general and in particular; and always you see it as if it were a type of mental illness.
Apparently, it is more fun to join in the pseudoscientific hoopla over feel good chemistry than to take the complex brain activities involving homeostasis seriously. The fact that you read reviews of “What Makes Us Think”, is not impressive. It’s a short book, which you could probably read in a couple of hours.
It is not outdated, as you would suggest, but speaks to the foibles of oversimplification that characterize most reductionist views about brain chemistry and its use in the economy and ecology of mind/brain functions. Your reductionism here shows little understanding of cultural or societal memes.

Sure, you say that here but in most of your posts you treat theists as a homogeneous group. In fact, you do it in the subsequent paragraphs of your post.

That’s just another restatement of your thesis.

No, they won’t “immediately counterattack”. You choose to ignore all the times when they don’t counterattack … when “threats” are ignored, when disputes are amicably resolved, when confrontations are defused. That doesn’t make the news so it appears not to happen.

Most of those cartoons were intended to mock them, theirs beliefs and the people who they respect. So their negative reaction can be explained as being offended by mockery and ridicule rather than some kind of religious psychology.

Who was killed for his mere existence? You present no actual evidence that it happened and that psychological security was the cause.

The word “atheist” goes back to ancient Greece.

There is no evidence that the story of Abraham is anything more than a story. Why are you treating it as a fact? And how would you know the (real or fictional) psychology of Abraham?

Interestingly enough, religions often state that compassion, reason and rationality ought to overcome baser human instincts.

That’s your opinion. It appears that in this forum and in your threads in particular, you have been criticized for having weak arguments and for not responding adequately to the opposition arguments. I don’t see “lashing out” because of some threat to psychological security.

Well, at least you realize that much.