- Joined
- Nov 24, 2018
- Messages
- 13,199
- Reaction score
- 2,896
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
Religion and spirituality are all about things our physical senses don't perceive. They are also about aspects of our own minds that are normally hidden from us (called the unconscious or subconscious in psychology).
Some people are very focused on the perceptions of their physical senses. And some identify only with their conscious minds, and are not introspective.
If you are introspective, and if you sense that most of what goes on is behind the scenes or under the radar, then you might be more likely to be religious or spiritual.
Science and education are also factors. If you have been educated into thinking science and spirituality are opposed (even though they most definitely are NOT opposed), then you might shut down and deny your intuitions about the unseen.
Religion and spirituality are all about things our physical senses don't perceive. They are also about aspects of our own minds that are normally hidden from us (called the unconscious or subconscious in psychology).
Some people are very focused on the perceptions of their physical senses. And some identify only with their conscious minds, and are not introspective.
If you are introspective, and if you sense that most of what goes on is behind the scenes or under the radar, then you might be more likely to be religious or spiritual.
Science and education are also factors. If you have been educated into thinking science and spirituality are opposed (even though they most definitely are NOT opposed), then you might shut down and deny your intuitions about the unseen.
Religion and spirituality are all about things our physical senses don't perceive. They are also about aspects of our own minds that are normally hidden from us (called the unconscious or subconscious in psychology).
Some people are very focused on the perceptions of their physical senses. And some identify only with their conscious minds, and are not introspective.
If you are introspective, and if you sense that most of what goes on is behind the scenes or under the radar, then you might be more likely to be religious or spiritual.
Science and education are also factors. If you have been educated into thinking science and spirituality are opposed (even though they most definitely are NOT opposed), then you might shut down and deny your intuitions about the unseen.
My personal belief is that it is all genetics. People are genetically inclined to have faith and follow religion. Some people, like myself, do not. Even as a kid going to sunday school, I never believed. It was just something I had to do. Fortunately my dad gave me the option once I was confirmed to go or not, and I never went again.
I think this explains why seemingly intelligent and rational people can throw away all logic and reasoning and believe in made up stories without any evidence. You even have scientists that go to church, so to me, that points to a genetic predisposition to believe. There probably are many more that don't really believe but religion has been ingrained in them.
This is Dawkins theory I believe (The God Gene- haven't read) that this is an evolutionary trait in humans to help them cope with the increase brain activity, ideas of self, and meaning of life. REligion helps them cope with this higher intelligence and some of the issues that can come along with it
If you are truely introspective, and honest with it, then you will be able to be spiritual, to have strong emotions associated with art and with human experiences of all of the universe.
The claim of the religious that only they are spirtual is as much a blatant lie as most of their claims.
The key difference is mostly about confidence and honesty. The dishonesty required to be religious suits many people.
I think it may be partly genetic, or inherited somehow. However, we are NOT ignoring logic and reasoning! If I experience things it is logical to think they could be real! And atheists like Dawkins have NO science or evidence showing spiritual experiences are delusional.
I don't think that is true. Human senses are notoriously flawed, and our brain fills in gaps in our senses, which doesn't necessarily mean its real. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable. 10 people can witness and event and their stories could all be different. They might have heard different things, put their own bias into what they perceived happened. A
All the religious people's so-called experiences or spiritual events can be explained by human physiology. Everybody has moments of clarity, or experience coincidences. Faith-based people will make a claim that it was god or a spiritual event. They put their own meaning into a normal event and claimed it must be god. Most of it is neurotransmitters in the brains firing. You can replicate spiritual events with psychadelic drugs. Native Americans would eat peyote or go into sweat lodges to stimulate spiritual events.
Everything religious people claim to be spiritual event can be easily be explained physiologically, even the white light and near death experiences
I don't think that is true. Human senses are notoriously flawed, and our brain fills in gaps in our senses, which doesn't necessarily mean its real. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable. 10 people can witness and event and their stories could all be different. They might have heard different things, put their own bias into what they perceived happened. A
All the religious people's so called experiences or spiritual events can be explained by human physiology. Everybody has moments of clarity, or experience conicidences. Faith based people will make a claim that it was god or a spiritual event. They put their own meaning into a normal event and claimed it must be god. Most of it is neurotransmitters in the brains firing. You can replicate spiritual events with psychadelic drugs. Native Americans would eat peyote or go into sweat lodges to stimulate spiritual events.
Everything religious people claim to be spiritual event can be easily be explained physiologically, even the white light and near death experiences
Can we 'create' God on demand?
Given that the neurological roots of religious experiences can be traced so accurately with the help of the latest neuroscientific technologies, does this mean that we could — in principle — "create" these experiences on demand?
parietal lobes during meditation
Decreased activity in the parietal lobes during meditation is shown here in yellow. Image credit: Dr. Andrew Newberg.
This is not just a theoretical question because in the 1990s, Dr. Michael Persinger — the director of the Neuroscience Department at Laurentian University in Ontario, Canada — designed what came to be known as the "God Helmet."
This is a device that is able to simulate religious experiences by stimulating an individual's tempoparietal lobes using magnetic fields.
In Dr. Persinger's experiments, about 20 religious people — which amounts to just 1 percent of the participants — reported feeling the presence of God or seeing him in the room when wearing the device. However, 80 per cent of the participants felt a presence of some sort, which they were reluctant to call "God."
Speaking about the experiments, Dr. Persinger says, "I suspect most people would call the 'vague, all-around-me' sensations 'God' but they are reluctant to employ the label in a laboratory."
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/322539.php
Oh he SUSPECTS vague all-around me sensations are the experience of god. What a pile of utter BS.
And we know that mystical experiences can result from hallucinogenic drugs, which have been used in many tribal societies for that purpose. That doesn't mean the drug creates the experience. It modifies the brain in some way that makes these experiences more likely.
Similarly, if it turned out that electromagnetic stimulation makes people experience the presence of supernatural beings, that would not mean the electromagnetism created the experience.
But the research xygwyg linked has usually failed replication and is not generally accepted. But he linked it anyway, because to him everything that claims to support materialism must be absolutely true.
And we know that mystical experiences can result from hallucinogenic drugs, which have been used in many tribal societies for that purpose. That doesn't mean the drug creates the experience. It modifies the brain in some way that makes these experiences more likely.
Religious euphoria has been known for thousands of years to produce similar effects.
OM
Ignore the evidence, as usual. Who is xygwyg?
These subjective experiences do not prove that a god or gods exist.
And we know that mystical experiences can result from hallucinogenic drugs, which have been used in many tribal societies for that purpose. That doesn't mean the drug creates the experience. It modifies the brain in some way that makes these experiences more likely.
Similarly, if it turned out that electromagnetic stimulation makes people experience the presence of supernatural beings, that would not mean the electromagnetism created the experience.
But the research xygwyg linked has usually failed replication and is not generally accepted. But he linked it anyway, because to him everything that claims to support materialism must be absolutely true.
So you actually think everything claimed by every researcher must be true? Replication doesn't matter? Every experiment tests exactly what the researcher thinks it tests? Experiments never have any defects?
There are many thousands of parapsychology experiments with positive results, but you won't accept any of them because they don't agree with materialism.
You select the evidence that you think supports materialism. You believe the researchers you agree with already, and ignore or deny the ones you don't agree with.
So you actually think everything claimed by every researcher must be true? Replication doesn't matter? Every experiment tests exactly what the researcher thinks it tests? Experiments never have any defects?
There are many thousands of parapsychology experiments with positive results, but you won't accept any of them because they don't agree with materialism.
You select the evidence that you think supports materialism. You believe the researchers you agree with already, and ignore or deny the ones you don't agree with.
Personally, most of the ardent atheistic materialists I have met are above average in terms of being introspective, so I hesitate to conclude that is a major factor. Temperamentally though there does seem to be something at play. I also disagree, it is be categorized as being ‘unseen’ as the unconscious is always seen one way or another in the metaphors/methods of the person.If you are introspective, and if you sense that most of what goes on is behind the scenes or under the radar, then you might be more likely to be religious or spiritual.
Science and education are also factors. If you have been educated into thinking science and spirituality are opposed (even though they most definitely are NOT opposed), then you might shut down and deny your intuitions about the unseen.
The crux of where I believe we (e.g. Good4Nothin & I) split from skeptics here (e.g. Sampson Simpson).All the religious people's so called experiences or spiritual events can be explained by human physiology.
I think it may be partly genetic, or inherited somehow. However, we are NOT ignoring logic and reasoning! If I experience things it is logical to think they could be real! And atheists like Dawkins have NO science or evidence showing spiritual experiences are delusional.
Occam's Razor suggests that the simplest explanation is probably the correct one. It is possible that psychedelic drugs unlock hidden senses to see into other realms, but for that to be true you need to assume the existence of hidden senses and other realms without any evidence for such. Isn't it simpler to assume that the drugs themselves are altering one's brain and that this alteration of our neural activity is what is creating these emotional subjective experiences, since we already know that altering neural activity can do this?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?