Scientists searching for the neural "God spot", which is supposed to control religious belief, believe that there is not just one but several areas of the brain that form the biological foundations of religious belief....
"Religious belief and behaviour are a hallmark of human life, with no accepted animal equivalent, and found in all cultures," said Professor Jordan Grafman, from the US National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke in Bethesda, near Washington. "Our results are unique in demonstrating that specific components of religious belief are mediated by well-known brain networks, and they support contemporary psychological theories that ground religious belief within evolutionary-adaptive cognitive functions."Well, I am not entirely sure how one would ever be certain that there is "no accepted animal equivalent". We can be pretty confident that cats are atheists, but a good case could be made for dogs worshipping their owners.
But really, why does anyone really think that this research is worthwhile or beneficial? There are surely many psychiatric illnesses which are worth investigating very thoroughly with MRI and other probes; why waste time and money on research which is always going to be inconclusive and of no potential benefit?
5 comments:
Perhaps to find a way of getting a "famed pastor" to stop thinking that God talks to him.
You will, of course, never find proof that a particular configuration of firing neurons was not caused by God.
Which is why believers are not interested in the pursuit of this line of research Steve.
Just as "near death experiences" can be explained by the firing of synapses and shared culture, religious faith might be nothing more than a particular brain configuration, a quirk of biology no more compelling than a sneeze.
No surprises that many people don't want to find out.
I think the last piece I read on this topic suggested that 50-something percent (still a majority) of people had the inherent religious impulse. The rest could try all they liked, but still wouldn't get it.
Not sure how that percentage will hold up with numerous generations being raised sans religion. Guess there will come a time when there will be sufficient untainted subject to truly assess nature versus nurture, at least for religion.
Caz, I reckon that the problem is that this will be never result in anything conclusive. It's too connected to the whole "hard problem" of consciousness.
To the extent that using expensive equipment to probe the brain might be useful, I would much rather have time devoted to studies of people with an actual clear mental illness. As you know, psychiatric medication is just a pure gamble at the moment, and how it works is very poorly understood. I wouldn't mind betting that there is a lot of work that could be done with brain imagining in this area, rather than a pointless task of seeing if there is "god spot".
Quite agree with you Steve.
Any findings, if sound, testable, repeatable, conclusive, would be unusable for anything. It would be "so what" stuff. Unless we're going to start treating people to cure religiosity.
Apart from the appalling, ongoing mass hit & miss experimentation with drugs / humans, of which MIR technology might one day help to address in a positive manner, I'd be just as happy if they went in search of the "stupid spot".
Post a Comment