The Brain Creates Religion

[Ierrellus]

When body parts malfunction the brain expresses pain, depression, etc., all of the negatives which require no further explanation than that they are experienced.

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

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

[Ierrellus]

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

[phyllo]

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

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

[Prismatic567]

As stated above, religions work directly for psychological benefits, i.e. soothe the existential crisis and angst.

If that were true then why would there be so much guilt and fear about eternal damnation. Why have any punishment for sin? Why have a doctrine of original sin? Why have Jesus say that "all have fallen short of the glory of God"?

If it's all about "soothing" then it would make much more sense to create a religion with a blissful afterlife in heaven and no hell.

Isn't the above obvious.

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

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

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

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

True Buddhism achieves nothing scientific because that is not the purpose of Buddhism as a religion [Ninian Smart's definition].
True Buddhism is very focused internally [explicit in the Buddha's Story and 4 Noble Truths] because psychological and life stability require very strong internal psychological foundations and stuctures to deal with the inevitable turbulences in life.

As if you can just separate science from a person's religious and philosophical beliefs. Maybe like "today I'm doing science so the world is not just illusion ... today it's real and objective with permanent laws ... until 5 o'clock when I go home."

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

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

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

[Prismatic567]

4 Noble Truths
The truth of suffering (Dukkha)
The truth of the origin of suffering (Samudāya)
The truth of the cessation of suffering (Nirodha)
The truth of the path to the cessation of suffering (Magga)


Buddhism faces reality and deal with it effectively.
The Abrahamic religions focused on an illusion [God] thus flimsy.

Buddhism makes all sort of claims about the nature of existence. Perhaps they are no more real than the claims of the other religions.

The noble truths may not be as noble or truthy as you believe.

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

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

“If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims.”

― Dalai Lama XIV, The Universe in a Single Atom: The Convergence of Science and Spirituality

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Prismatic567]

Very true, Phyllo. There exists today progressive religious sects who do not believe in the corrupt nature of man as determining some afterlife of non-punitive torture. See Matthew Fox's "Original Blessing".
In any event it makes little sense to me to anthropomorphize brain chemistry by suggesting what thoughts it can or can create without considering the genetic evolution of the brain as a source of such thoughts. Existential angst may only amount to incentive to move forward, which, if not followed, could be experienced as negative. Feeling good may, as I continue to emphasize, may only be the indication that everything is working properly. The brain is the supervisory organ for all bodily processes. When body parts malfunction the brain expresses pain, depression, etc., all of the negatives which require no further explanation than that they are experienced.

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

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

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

[Ierrellus]

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

[phyllo]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Karpel Tunnel]

When body parts malfunction the brain expresses pain, depression, etc., all of the negatives which require no further explanation than that they are experienced.

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

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

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

[Karpel Tunnel]

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

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

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

[phyllo]

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

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

[phyllo]

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

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

“If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims.”

― Dalai Lama XIV, The Universe in a Single Atom: The Convergence of Science and Spirituality

The Dalai Lama claims to be reincarnated. Correct?

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

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

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

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

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

The relationship between the Roman Catholic Church and science is a widely debated subject. Historically, the Church has often been a patron of sciences. It has been prolific in the foundation of schools, universities and hospitals, and many clergy have been active in the sciences. Historians of science such as Pierre Duhem credit medieval Catholic mathematicians and philosophers such as John Buridan, Nicole Oresme, and Roger Bacon as the founders of modern science.[1] Duhem found "the mechanics and physics, of which modern times are justifiably proud, to proceed by an uninterrupted series of scarcely perceptible improvements from doctrines professed in the heart of the medieval schools."[2] Yet, the conflict thesis and other critiques emphasize historical or contemporary conflict between the Catholic Church and science, citing in particular the trial of Galileo as evidence. For its part, the Catholic Church teaches that science and the Christian faith are complementary, as can be seen from the Catechism of the Catholic Church which states in regards to faith and science:

Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth. ... Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are.[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_a ... lic_Church

[phyllo]

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

[Prismatic567]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impulse_control_disorder

I suggest you do your own research on this topic.

[Prismatic567]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[phyllo]

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

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

[Prismatic567]

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

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

“If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims.”

― Dalai Lama XIV, The Universe in a Single Atom: The Convergence of Science and Spirituality

The Dalai Lama claims to be reincarnated. Correct?

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

It seems that he is relying on the idea that reincarnation has not been disproved by science. A fuzzy spot. A lot of claims of religions, including Buddhism are in that "we're not quite sure" fuzzy spot.
Other problems with "scientific analysis" ... it's based on some unproven/un-provable assumptions. If you don't accept those assumptions then you can reject scientific analysis.
And science can't be applied to all problems/questions. Some things are beyond scientific analysis.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The relationship between the Roman Catholic Church and science is a widely debated subject. Historically, the Church has often been a patron of sciences. It has been prolific in the foundation of schools, universities and hospitals, and many clergy have been active in the sciences. Historians of science such as Pierre Duhem credit medieval Catholic mathematicians and philosophers such as John Buridan, Nicole Oresme, and Roger Bacon as the founders of modern science.[1] Duhem found "the mechanics and physics, of which modern times are justifiably proud, to proceed by an uninterrupted series of scarcely perceptible improvements from doctrines professed in the heart of the medieval schools."[2] Yet, the conflict thesis and other critiques emphasize historical or contemporary conflict between the Catholic Church and science, citing in particular the trial of Galileo as evidence. For its part, the Catholic Church teaches that science and the Christian faith are complementary, as can be seen from the Catechism of the Catholic Church which states in regards to faith and science:

Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth. ... Consequently, methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are.[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_a ... lic_Church

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

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

[Prismatic567]

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[phyllo]

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

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

I understand Christianity and Islam has been claimed to be involved with Scientific discoveries.

Don't change the subject. You asked "Will the representative of any Abrahamic religion make the above declarations?"

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

[Prismatic567]

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

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

There is an omission here.
Generally what is Scientific knowledge is JTB or at least empirically possible in scientific theories and speculations.
Since I have aligned Buddhist theories with Science, everything that is claimed with Buddhist core principles* must be JTB or empirically possible.
* I stress on core principles because there are some Buddhist sects that deviate from the core principles into weird fantasies.

I understand Christianity and Islam has been claimed to be involved with Scientific discoveries.

Don't change the subject. You asked "Will the representative of any Abrahamic religion make the above declarations?"

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

“If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims.”
― Dalai Lama XIV, The Universe in a Single Atom: The Convergence of Science and Spirituality

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

I don't think they will voluntarily make such a declaration but were force to do so due to proof and evidences provided.

Note Christians are still fighting against the theory of evolution and others.

[Karpel Tunnel]

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

I would say most believe in rebirth and a large percentage of these think of it very much like reincarnation. Even some of the masters will avoid weighing in. YOu keep referring to Buddhism, which has many branches, and is practiced in all sorts of ways, but all sorts of people with very different understandings of Buddhism, as it if was a monolithic object. It's not.

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

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

This is considered poor justification. And even by you regarding God.

B

[Ierrellus]

I do not see how anyone can deny that feel good chemicals in the brain are there to stabilize the system whether or not the instability comes from external or internal sources. The problem here is making a fable out of a function. You expect me to research the fable?
BTW, is English your second language? You seem to have difficulty with subject/verb agreement. "Buddhism do not believe", etc.

[phyllo]

Generally what is Scientific knowledge is JTB or at least empirically possible in scientific theories and speculations.
Since I have aligned Buddhist theories with Science, everything that is claimed with Buddhist core principles* must be JTB or empirically possible.
* I stress on core principles because there are some Buddhist sects that deviate from the core principles into weird fantasies.

If I understand your post, you're saying that you have created your own version of Buddhism (let's call it True Buddhism) which excludes everything that you don't consider JTB. Some Buddhists, and honestly that could be the majority, have other beliefs but these are really weird fantasies and those Buddhists are not True Buddhists.

Is that it?

I don't think they will voluntarily make such a declaration but were force to do so due to proof and evidences provided.

I don't understand what you expect them to do. You want them to make declarations without "proof and evidences"??

The Dalai Lama said "If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then ..."

He's not making any declarations without "proof and evidences" either.

[phyllo]

Note Christians are still fighting against the theory of evolution and others.

The Catholic church does not deny evolution, nor do the majority of Protestant sects.

You're thinking of Fundamentalist Protestants in the USA and using them as the archetype of all Christians.

[Karpel Tunnel]

Some other view held by scientists about the origins of religion:
1) Children are predisposed to anthropomorphize the world. These children become adults and continued this in the past.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 103828.htm
2) Psychoactive plants gave early humans experiences of dead relatives
http://www.singingtotheplants.com/2008/ ... in-africa/
Modern users also have experiences of dead relatives seemingly in another realm, so some scientists believe that use of psychoative substances may actually be the roots of religion
3) HADD, hypersensitive agency-detecting device - this is similar to one, but comes at it more as an early adult human would find this capacity useful.
http://www.humanreligions.info/hyperact ... ction.html


Now as as a theist I do not accept the lack of a deity. But this is in response to the OP's hypothesis as being the only or even the major hypothesis about the origin's of religion.

People like Prismatic like to focus on people's fears as the source of their beliefs. This may well be projection on their part, since they cannot even seem to imagine OTHER hypotheses that are compatible with atheism.

Why?

I think, though I am not sure, that it gives people like Prismatic a sense of superiority. He doesn't believe in God. He can face the truth. Not only are theists wrong, but they are people driven by their fears. So he is epistemologically superior AND psychologically superior. He might simply not be well read in science. Even so what he is doing is perpetuating not the best atheist JTB's about why people are religious and one that denigrate most of the people on the planet. Which should be embarrassing.