The Brain Creates Religion

[Prismatic567]

I'm pretty sure that religion was here before we were born and the brain didn't create it.

Religion can be a very loose term in this case in terms of its timeline.
To be specific, religion in this case refer to organized religions with a reasonable large group of followers.

"The Brain Creates Religion" do not refer to the individual brain but rather its the human brains collectively that created and sustain religions.

The critical point here is to counter the common claim, religions are created by an independent God out there. Where religions and believers are involved in killing non-believers, they insist it is because God commanded it as a divine duty for believers.

how did they create it to begin with, or was it waiting in some phantom zone of the mind and created in them the desire to create it? What part of the mind, or does the mind roam reality and its not a part of the mind at all, but the mind a tool?

I just don't agree with the thesis and I don't feel like going out of my way to disprove it.

It is the same with the game of football, any sports or any other ideology which is created by human brains collectively and not from a God out there.

[pilgrim-seeker_tom]

What part of the mind, or does the mind roam reality and its not a part of the mind at all, but the mind a tool?

Thanks Warrior

For me, your thought ... expressed as a question ... may drive this thread into a more meaningful perspective ... maybe?

The operative word in expressing your thought(s) is "mind" ... most people use the word "mind" and "brain" interchangeably.

OTH ... many people see brain and mind as distinctly separate entities.

If so, the brain as a tool becomes intuitively correct ... and Prismatic's endorsement of "soothing juices" in the brain is rational.

Hmmm!

[Ierrellus]

I. endorphins --plural- more than one. See Candace Pert's research on endorphins. She discovered their existence. From "The Three Pound Universe"--endorphins activity was the first neuroscience to appear on a tee-shirt.
2 serotonin--despite wiki's "Popular Opinion" serotonin is a mood stabilizer, not an opiate. Of course mood stabilizations may lead to feelings of well-being, but they do not affect the brain as does morphine. Serotonin is made in small vesicles near the axon end of a neuron. When the neuron fires the vesicles are broken and neurotransmitters are spread across the synapse, affecting the electrical message a dendrite will receive. A neurotransmitter is not an opiate!
3. If religion is based on beliefs caused by feel good juices in the brain, this is not evidence that the beliefs are wrong or somehow misguided.
4.the brain also creates philosophy and science. Does that fact make religion and science somehow illegitimate concerns?

[Prismatic567]

3. If religion is based on beliefs caused by feel good juices in the brain, this is not evidence that the beliefs are wrong or somehow misguided.
4.the brain also creates philosophy and science. Does that fact make religion and science somehow illegitimate concerns?

If religions are created by the brain, then theistic religions are not created nor triggered by a God which is illusory and an impossibility.

There are many religions, i.e. theistic and non-theistic.
All religions has their negative baggage of different degrees, so priority must be given to those religions who has a high degrees of negativity that hinder the progress of humanity, e.g. Islam = very high, Christianity - moderate. In the future humanity need to wean off all religions in phases to avoid religious-based evils.

The brain creates religions, but SOME religions are inherently evil, e.g. The Religion of Peace which has evil laden elements in their holy texts that inspire evil prone believers to commit evils and violence in the name of their God as a divine duty.

Note the following statistic that involve deaths;


There are loads of other evils acts by evil prone Muslims around the world.
This is evidence the belief itself is wrong. Can you dispute this?

Christianity is a pacifist and a not violent religion, but the ethos of Christian like Islam hinder the progress on humanity in term of scientific knowledge re its insistence of Creationism and deny of evolutionary theory.

[pilgrim-seeker_tom]

Every second a person dies of hunger Right now, more than 1 billion people suffer from hunger. This means that 1 in every 6 people on Earth don’t get enough food to live a healthy life. This year 36 million of these people will die of hunger!

36,000,000 people will die of hunger this year in a world where 792,104,920 people are obese.

[Ierrellus]

3. If religion is based on beliefs caused by feel good juices in the brain, this is not evidence that the beliefs are wrong or somehow misguided.
4.the brain also creates philosophy and science. Does that fact make religion and science somehow illegitimate concerns?

If religions are created by the brain, then theistic religions are not created nor triggered by a God which is illusory and an impossibility.

There are many religions, i.e. theistic and non-theistic.
All religions has their negative baggage of different degrees, so priority must be given to those religions who has a high degrees of negativity that hinder the progress of humanity, e.g. Islam = very high, Christianity - moderate. In the future humanity need to wean off all religions in phases to avoid religious-based evils.

The brain creates religions, but SOME religions are inherently evil, e.g. The Religion of Peace which has evil laden elements in their holy texts that inspire evil prone believers to commit evils and violence in the name of their God as a divine duty.

Note the following statistic that involve deaths;


There are loads of other evils acts by evil prone Muslims around the world.
This is evidence the belief itself is wrong. Can you dispute this?

Christianity is a pacifist and a not violent religion, but the ethos of Christian like Islam hinder the progress on humanity in term of scientific knowledge re its insistence of Creationism and deny of evolutionary theory.

You must be talking about Christianity as practiced in the Middle Ages. The 20th century was noted for advances in science and technology without hindrance from religion. We got nuclear weapons and used them. Even the Pope does not dismiss evolutionary theory, just the unsubstantiated idea that evolution is without teleology. Religion should have been a check on science, limiting or hindering the use of bombs or toxic chemicals on people. And science should serve to limit the extravagances of religion.

[Karpel Tunnel]

3. If religion is based on beliefs caused by feel good juices in the brain, this is not evidence that the beliefs are wrong or somehow misguided.
4.the brain also creates philosophy and science. Does that fact make religion and science somehow illegitimate concerns?

[If religions are created by the brain, then theistic religions are not created nor triggered by a God which is illusory and an impossibility

You did not include his point 4 when you responded. You skipped over that point while, oddly, quoting it.

The brain creates religions, but SOME religions are inherently evil, e.g. The Religion of Peace which has evil laden elements in their holy texts that inspire evil prone believers to commit evils and violence in the name of their God as a divine duty.
There are loads of other evils acts by evil prone Muslims around the world.
This is evidence the belief itself is wrong. Can you dispute this?

Don't take this as my being a fan of Islam, but here you are saying that YOU know what evil is. You are an objective judge of what evil and I presume good actions are. That's problem 1, just like the theists you know what objective good and evil are. Problem 2 is that you say that if some Muslims perform evil acts then the belief is wrong. Islam is a complicated set of beliefs, so it is sloppy to refer to it as a belief when it is many. It is also many believers.

The statement: in any given belief X, if some believers of X commit acts of violence, that belief is incorrect. That just does not work. It would undermine every system of belief including those underpinning science. In fact it is used by Muslims in relation to many Western beliefs and it is also fallacious when they use it.

Christianity is a pacifist and a not violent religion,

[/quote]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.

[Ierrellus]

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.

[Uccisore]

1. The theists' dogmatic view is, religion is from a God.
2. This OP view is, NO, religion is not from a God but from the brain of humans.
So 2 is a counter [alternative] view to and disagree with 1.

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.

[Prismatic567]

You must be talking about Christianity as practiced in the Middle Ages. The 20th century was noted for advances in science and technology without hindrance from religion. We got nuclear weapons and used them.

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.

Even the Pope does not dismiss evolutionary theory, just the unsubstantiated idea that evolution is without teleology.

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

Religion should have been a check on science, limiting or hindering the use of bombs or toxic chemicals on people. And science should serve to limit the extravagances of religion.

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.

[Prismatic567]

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.

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.

[Prismatic567]

3. If religion is based on beliefs caused by feel good juices in the brain, this is not evidence that the beliefs are wrong or somehow misguided.
4.the brain also creates philosophy and science. Does that fact make religion and science somehow illegitimate concerns?

[If religions are created by the brain, then theistic religions are not created nor triggered by a God which is illusory and an impossibility

You did not include his point 4 when you responded. You skipped over that point while, oddly, quoting it.

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.

The brain creates religions, but SOME religions are inherently evil, e.g. The Religion of Peace which has evil laden elements in their holy texts that inspire evil prone believers to commit evils and violence in the name of their God as a divine duty.
There are loads of other evils acts by evil prone Muslims around the world.
This is evidence the belief itself is wrong. Can you dispute this?

Don't take this as my being a fan of Islam, but here you are saying that YOU know what evil is. You are an objective judge of what evil and I presume good actions are. That's problem 1, just like the theists you know what objective good and evil are. Problem 2 is that you say that if some Muslims perform evil acts then the belief is wrong. Islam is a complicated set of beliefs, so it is sloppy to refer to it as a belief when it is many. It is also many believers.

The statement: in any given belief X, if some believers of X commit acts of violence, that belief is incorrect. That just does not work. It would undermine every system of belief including those underpinning science. In fact it is used by Muslims in relation to many Western beliefs and it is also fallacious when they use it.

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 ] 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:
https://www.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.

Christianity is a pacifist and a not violent religion,

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.

[Prismatic567]

1. The theists' dogmatic view is, religion is from a God.
2. This OP view is, NO, religion is not from a God but from the brain of humans.
So 2 is a counter [alternative] view to and disagree with 1.

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 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].

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.

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.

[Uccisore]

I agre, IF religion was from God, then it is possible believing in God will still produce positive brain chemical.

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'.

In the case of God, there is no proof God exists as real within the only credible empirical-rational reality.

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.

First mathematics is not something that is inherent and independent of human conditions.

I didn't say it was.

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

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

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.

You've not provided any evidence of this.

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

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.

[Prismatic567]

I agree, IF religion was from God, then it is possible believing in God will still produce positive brain chemical.

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'.

In the case of God, there is no proof God exists as real within the only credible empirical-rational reality.

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.

First mathematics is not something that is inherent and independent of human conditions.

I didn't say it was.

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

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

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.

You've not provided any evidence of this.

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

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,

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.

You've not provided any evidence of this.

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

[Ierrellus]

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.

[Uccisore]

I had agreed, while the brain-created-religion produce good feelings, this do not conclusively prove God do not exists.

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.

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

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.

I have provided evidence it possibly psychological.

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

[Prismatic567]

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.

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].

[Prismatic567]

I had agreed, while the brain-created-religion produce good feelings, this do not conclusively prove God do not exists.

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.

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

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

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.

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

I have provided evidence it possibly psychological.

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

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

[Ierrellus]

5. 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.

[Karpel Tunnel]

5. 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.

[Uccisore]

Point is because it is not conclusive, that itself open it up for alternatives.

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.

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

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.

[Prismatic567]

5. 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.

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.

[Prismatic567]

5. 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.

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

[Prismatic567]

Point is because it is not conclusive, that itself open it up for alternatives.

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.

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

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 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.