Wednesday, March 11, 2009 | Reason : Science of Religion | print version

Print | Comments |

Belief and the brain's 'God spot'

by The Independent

Thanks to Linda Ward Selbie for the link.

Reposted from:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/belief-and-the-brains-god-spot-1641022.html

Scientists say they have located the parts of the brain that control religious faith. And the research proves, they contend, that belief in a higher power is an evolutionary asset that helps human survival. Steve Connor reports

A belief in God is deeply embedded in the human brain, which is programmed for religious experiences, according to a study that analyses why religion is a universal human feature that has encompassed all cultures throughout history.

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.

The researchers said their findings support the idea that the brain has evolved to be sensitive to any form of belief that improves the chances of survival, which could explain why a belief in God and the supernatural became so widespread in human evolutionary history.

"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."

Scientists are divided on whether religious belief has a biological basis. Some evolutionary theorists have suggested that Darwinian natural selection may have put a premium on individuals if they were able to use religious belief to survive hardships that may have overwhelmed those with no religious convictions. Others have suggested that religious belief is a side effect of a wider trait in the human brain to search for coherent beliefs about the outside world. Religion and the belief in God, they argue, are just a manifestation of this intrinsic, biological phenomenon that makes the human brain so intelligent and adaptable.

The latest study, published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, involved analysing the brains of volunteers, who had been asked to think about religious and moral problems and questions. For the analysis, the researchers used a functional magnetic-resonance imaging machine, which can identify the most energetically-active regions of the brain.

They found that people of different religious persuasions and beliefs, as well as atheists, all tended to use the same electrical circuits in the brain to solve a perceived moral conundrum – and the same circuits were used when religiously-inclined people dealt with issues related to God.

The study found that several areas of the brain are involved in religious belief, one within the frontal lobes of the cortex – which are unique to humans – and another in the more evolutionary-ancient regions deeper inside the brain, which humans share with apes and other primates, Professor Grafman said.

"There is nothing unique about religious belief in these brain structures. Religion doesn't have a 'God spot' as such, instead it's embedded in a whole range of other belief systems in the brain that we use everyday," Professor Grafman said.

The search for the God spot has in the past led scientists to many different regions of the brain. An early contender was the brain's temporal lobe, a large section of the brain that sits over each ear, because temporal-lobe epileptics suffering seizures in these regions frequently report having intense religious experiences. One of the principal exponents of this idea was Vilayanur Ramachandran, from the University of California, San Diego, who asked several of his patients with temporal-lobe epilepsy to listen to a mixture of religious, sexual and neutral words while measuring their levels of arousal and emotional reactions. Religious words elicited an unusually high response in these patients.

This work was followed by a study where scientists tried to stimulate the temporal lobes with a rotating magnetic field produced by a "God helmet". Michael Persinger, from Laurentian University in Ontario, found that he could artificially create the experience of religious feelings – the helmet's wearer reports being in the presence of a spirit or having a profound feeling of cosmic bliss.

Dr Persinger said that about eight in every 10 volunteers report quasi-religious feelings when wearing his helmet. However, when Professor Richard Dawkins, an evolutionist and renowned atheist, wore it during the making of a BBC documentary, he famously failed to find God, saying that the helmet only affected his breathing and his limbs.

Other studies of people taking part in Buddhist meditation suggested the parietal lobes at the upper back region of the brain were involved in controlling religious belief, in particular the mystical elements that gave people a feeling of being on a higher plane during prayer.

Andrew Newberg, from the University of Pennsylvania, injected radioactive isotope into Buddhists at the point at which they achieved meditative nirvana. Using a special camera, he captured the distribution of the tracer in the brain, which led the researchers to identify the parietal lobes as playing a key role during this transcendental state.

Professor Grafman was more interested in how people coped with everyday moral and religious questions. He said that the latest study, published today, suggests the brain is inherently sensitive to believing in almost anything if there are grounds for doing so, but when there is a mystery about something, the same neural machinery is co-opted in the formulation of religious belief.

"When we have incomplete knowledge of the world around us, it offers us the opportunities to believe in God. When we don't have a scientific explanation for something, we tend to rely on supernatural explanations," said Professor Grafman, who believes in God. "Maybe obeying supernatural forces that we had no knowledge of made it easier for religious forms of belief to emerge."

Posted: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 | Permalink

Comments 51 - 98 of 98 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

51. Comment #351122 by righton on March 11, 2009 at 4:46 pm

Kell,

Maybe it is in the PNAS paper?

Other Comments by righton

52. Comment #351125 by Kell on March 11, 2009 at 4:53 pm

Also:

"nalfeshnee: Now that we have had a scientist for the public understanding of science, can we maybe have a journalist for the public reporting of it?"

Very well said, I thought the same thing several times while reading the article.

Other Comments by Kell

53. Comment #351126 by HappyPrimate on March 11, 2009 at 4:56 pm

The G spot equals the Gullible spot. We all have one or more of these spots but some of us have become much less gullible.

Other Comments by HappyPrimate

54. Comment #351127 by Bonzai on March 11, 2009 at 5:00 pm

I don't see anything wrong with the article. It is bare reporting without any value judgment. The evocative word 'God spot' is not this journalist's invention and a scientist is quoted as exactly saying that it is not a good way of describing what happens.

It seems that many of you people are complaining just because the journalist didn't go out of his way to push people towards atheism. To the 'you are either with us or the faith heads' school of atheists this is almost guilty of advocating religion.

Other Comments by Bonzai

55. Comment #351128 by shaunfletcher on March 11, 2009 at 5:03 pm

Not this shit again. "The researchers said their findings support the idea that the brain has evolved to be sensitive to any form of belief that improves the chances of survival"

Well fucking duh. If it evolved, then it evolved because it improved the chances of survivial (or at least of reproduction). Its literally implicit that the system being used to believe things must have been beneficial, its way way too strong in its effect not to be affected by selection.

However this has precisely ZERO bearing on the wild speculations they then go on to make about specific beliefs.

Other Comments by shaunfletcher

56. Comment #351131 by Eshto on March 11, 2009 at 5:11 pm

Some evolutionary theorists have suggested that Darwinian natural selection may have put a premium on individuals if they were able to use religious belief to survive hardships that may have overwhelmed those with no religious convictions.

Um... either that, or the religions that don't help survival tend to die out, leaving only the ones that do.

Why does it always come down to contrasting religion - ALL religions - vs. atheism? When there is so much diversity among religions.

And I guarantee you that, all things being equal, I have a lot more in common morally and philosophically with another American who happens to be a Christian, vs. someone from an entirely different culture, regardless of their religion.

Other Comments by Eshto

57. Comment #351132 by Mr0Joshua on March 11, 2009 at 5:12 pm

Link to the PNAS article:
http://www.pnas.org/gca?allch=&gca=pnas;0811717106v1

Other Comments by Mr0Joshua

58. Comment #351133 by Hellene on March 11, 2009 at 5:17 pm

<"There is nothing unique about religious belief in these brain structures. Religion doesn't have a 'God spot' as such, instead it's embedded in a whole range of other belief systems in the brain that we use everyday," Professor Grafman said. >

No god spot. Period.

Other Comments by Hellene

59. Comment #351135 by righton on March 11, 2009 at 5:24 pm

Bonzai,

I agree.

I think things get a little confusing when people talk about religion giving a selective advantage. Do you think believing in a religion or a god has given people a selective advantage over the last 2000 years? Other than group selection pressures or cultural adherence pressure.

Other Comments by righton

60. Comment #351137 by Alternative Carpark on March 11, 2009 at 5:41 pm

Splendid news!

Let the lobotomies begin!

For expediency, an icepick and a mallet will suffice.

Personally, I think such 'research' is a load of bollocks...

Other Comments by Alternative Carpark

61. Comment #351138 by Bonzai on March 11, 2009 at 5:41 pm

righton

I think things get a little confusing when people talk about religion giving a selective advantage

I think so too. It is not clear what they mean and in what context. My personal view is that religious beliefs and the beliefs in other spooky stuffs in general are probably the by products of some traits which are selected for survival, like pattern seeking, the tendency of ascribing agency to inanimated objects and the ability to run similations of other people's minds in your head, but they are not directly selected for.

But then again it is only my speculation.

Do you think believing in a religion or a god has given people a selective advantage over the last 2000 years?

I think society and culture are much more relevant for understanding recent history over a short time span (2000 years) than biological evolution. Obviously religion as an institution has been useful to those with power. It also promotes short term clan cohesion and reinforces the in group-out group dynamics, again that is probably most useful to the rulers. Power is an important factor in understanding social institutions.

Other Comments by Bonzai

62. Comment #351141 by deejay64 on March 11, 2009 at 5:45 pm

There is a G-spot , I found it , she saw God.

Now , how about a study into what synapse is blocked when a person accepts "Magic Deity did it." rather than investigate for themselves.

Other Comments by deejay64

63. Comment #351143 by righton on March 11, 2009 at 5:58 pm

Bonzai,

"I think society and culture are much more relevant for understanding recent history over a short time span (2000 years) than biological evolution."

Yes. It seems religion would have started when societies and cultures started forming and organizing things. This being well after the brain had evolved to its near present state. Before cultures and societies, it seems like only random supernatural beliefs would have been around.

Other Comments by righton

64. Comment #351144 by Bonzai on March 11, 2009 at 6:03 pm

Before cultures and societies, it seems like only random supernatural beliefs would have been around.

Yes, [orgainzed] religion is of course a socio-political institution which is much more than just supernatural beliefs per se. So, while there is probably a biological base to the tendency for supernatural beliefs, it takes a lot more to explain systematic religions.

Other Comments by Bonzai

65. Comment #351145 by Mr0Joshua on March 11, 2009 at 6:07 pm

This study doesn't seem to be providing anything new. Didn't Danniel Dennet postulate the same thing in "Breaking the Spell?" Namely that religion as a meme may have provided an evolutionary advantage to primitive human groups by creating and reinforcing socio-cultural bonds. But even if this theory were true it has no real bearing on the utility of religion in modern society.

Other Comments by Mr0Joshua

66. Comment #351146 by Butler on March 11, 2009 at 6:07 pm

Andrew Newberg, from the University of Pennsylvania, injected radioactive isotope into Buddhists at the point at which they achieved meditative nirvana.

The mental image of a scientist with a syringe full of glowing green liquid looming menacingly over a serenely meditating monk is quite hilarious.

Other Comments by Butler

67. Comment #351148 by righton on March 11, 2009 at 6:09 pm

I just think people were missing the distinction between religion and belief. Also, I think it is important to make a distinction between belief in god and having a "religious experience". This surely involves different parts of the brain.

Other Comments by righton

68. Comment #351149 by Bonzai on March 11, 2009 at 6:12 pm

I just think people were missing the distinction between religion and belief.

However, it is also true that in a society this tendency to believe in the supernatural would necessarily be channeled through existing cultural and social venues so it would probably inevitably manifest as religion of some kind in societies like those we have expreienced so far.

Other Comments by Bonzai

69. Comment #351151 by Frankus1122 on March 11, 2009 at 6:13 pm

A friend sent me this message elsewhere today:

The other day I read in the Metro that "religious people are less stressed". I read the whole article and almost burst out laughing at this finding: "The more religious they were, the less brain activity they showed in response to their own errors". "They are calmer when they make errors".

The conclusion though was that "religious people have a belief system to help them make sense of the world, so can better accept the occasional mistake".

My friend had a different conclusion.

I am reading about a theory which suggests a belief in the spiritual / god is a way to deal with the anxiety of planning for the future. We plan for the future in our daily lives and it helps us survive. We are aware of the concept of eternity and that we will die. Or we could invent a spirit world where we won't die. This relieves the stress and anxiety of facing death, which is a big thing for creatures as self aware as we are.

Other Comments by Frankus1122

70. Comment #351154 by righton on March 11, 2009 at 6:25 pm

Frankus

"I am reading about a theory which suggests a belief in the spiritual / god is a way to deal with the anxiety of planning for the future. We plan for the future in our daily lives and it helps us survive. We are aware of the concept of eternity and that we will die. Or we could invent a spirit world where we won't die. This relieves the stress and anxiety of facing death, which is a big thing for creatures as self aware as we are."

I think this is what religion has evolved into. I don't think this is how religion started out.

Other Comments by righton

71. Comment #351155 by Bonzai on March 11, 2009 at 6:30 pm

Frankus

Or we could invent a spirit world where we won't die. This relieves the stress and anxiety of facing death, which is a big thing for creatures as self aware as we are.

Except Judaism didn't have a belief of the afterlife until much later when it absorbed influences from Christianity.
It also seems to be very stressful to believe in the God of the OT who has so many absurd little rules and rituals for everything you do like what fabric to wear and what food to avoid, how many times you must pray etc. Few Jewish holidays are happy and most of them seem to be reminders of what worthless beings the Jews are and their numerous sins.(My Jewish friends have confirmed that)

I can't think of a surer recipe to induce nervous break down.

EDIT I agree with righton that religion has evolved to become more theraputic. It probably started out as a way to give a name and a form to our ancestors' fear and neuroses. Most ancient gods were harsh, capricious and jealous. They were probably the embodiments of nature's unpredictability and life's contingencies: nature can withold its bounties or give generously; you could be born a king or a begger, etc. Appeasing and bribing these deities are like paying the local gangsters to avoid troubles and hopefully get some goodies from time to time.

Other Comments by Bonzai

72. Comment #351156 by AfraidToDie on March 11, 2009 at 6:43 pm

However, when Professor Richard Dawkins, an evolutionist and renowned atheist, wore it during the making of a BBC documentary, he famously failed to find God, saying that the helmet only affected his breathing and his limbs.

I’d love to hear RD’s view of what he experienced and what he thought about this exercise?

Other Comments by AfraidToDie

73. Comment #351157 by righton on March 11, 2009 at 6:52 pm

Bonzai

"They were probably the embodiment of what our ancestors fear and that appeasing and bribing these deities are like paying the local gangsters to avoid troubles."

One example of appeasing. The tendancy to correlate random good/bad events with things a group of people were doing. Say a tribe of people decided to start hunting in a different area to try and find more food. Right when they started doing this, a tree fell on their house/living area. The conclusion, god must not want us to hunt in that area, we must obey him and apologies with a human sacrifice.

This kind of thinking is still widespread today! Minus the human sacrifice.

Other Comments by righton

74. Comment #351162 by prettygoodformonkeys on March 11, 2009 at 7:25 pm

US National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke

I'm just glad these people are finally studying religion.

Other Comments by prettygoodformonkeys

75. Comment #351165 by SnowyDoc on March 11, 2009 at 7:49 pm

I suspect people should be somewhat less critical of the research, and researchers, in this case and a little more critical of the "journalism" involved.

Passions and predispositions aside, after reading the actual paper in question, it seems to me that the investigators are merely reporting a negative finding.

In a world where news coverage and gossip are both weighted very strongly toward the sensational, the horrible, the abnormal and the exciting, it is perhaps worth remembering the tenets of the scientific method and the way in which progress is, albeit sometimes slowly, made by its relentless and consistent application to the world around us and the questions we derive from observing and thinking about that world.

Elementary and simplistic though it may sound, setting up the null hypothesis and then doing your very best to demolish it with any and all evidence available is the way the west was (and is) won. The negative results just aren't as sexy as the more dashing, exciting, paradigm-shifting "positive" results. That particular foible of human cognitive processing, however, should not detract from our recognition of the equal importance such results have (if produced by a well designed study that actually answers the question it sets out to).

In this instance, the paper itself simply reports that people thinking about moral conundrums happen to use (as well as can be delineated by fMRI) the same basic neural pathways as they do when thinking about anything else, and that avowedly religious people are using the same circuitry that staunch atheists (or "teapot/tooth-fairy agnostics" if they're as honest as Richard) do when considering the same problems.

The hype is generated entirely by the so-called journalism employed after the fact. The paper suggests in its conclusion that the physiologic basis of religious thought or belief in the human brain resides in very much the same structures and processes as non-religious thought. Perhaps not a surprising result, but nonetheless an important one, if you felt the question of the existence of a "god spot" was one to which the answer should be elucidated in order to further our understanding of why some people just can't seem to engage their neurons and derive what we perceive as rationality from the process, no matter how hard we try to help them.

Other Comments by SnowyDoc

76. Comment #351169 by Lucas on March 11, 2009 at 8:01 pm

Bad sensationalistic journalism, but not bad research. You all are pouncing too quickly. This is similar to studies Sam Harris has done. Mind you, I've actually read those, and not this one just yet.

That said, and giving the study the benefit of the doubt, some things said in this article correlate with things I've thought and said here before based on other articles.

He said that the latest study, published today, suggests the brain is inherently sensitive to believing in almost anything if there are grounds for doing so, but when there is a mystery about something, the same neural machinery is co-opted in the formulation of religious belief.

The first part of this correlates with the idea that one neural system (I won't say "part of the brain") developed early on to sense and avoid danger. This trait was passed on successfully. So even if we don't know there is a tiger in the bushes, those who go ahead and believe that there might be survive better. The second part correlates with the idea that another neural system evolved to makes us able to determine the difference between chaotic arrangement and intentional order. Together, these two abilities help us to avoid danger and read signs left by other humans, which may also help us avoid danger. These existed long before religion, and perhaps religion is just mythology mapped onto these survival traits.

EDIT: Sorry Bonzai and righton, I didn't read all the posts before I wrote that. You guys pretty much nailed it already.

Other Comments by Lucas

77. Comment #351243 by John Desclin on March 12, 2009 at 2:34 am

"When we have incomplete knowledge of the world around us, it offers us the opportunities to believe in God. When we don't have a scientific explanation for something, we tend to rely on supernatural explanations," said Professor Grafman, who believes in God. "Maybe obeying supernatural forces that we had no knowledge of made it easier for religious forms of belief to emerge."

In other words: the less you know, the more likely you are liable to (or the more easily you) believe in gawd. This also explains why the religulous so loudly object to science.

Other Comments by John Desclin

78. Comment #351293 by flying goose on March 12, 2009 at 5:17 am

righton 44

I agree that the wiring is pre religious, but then pattern recognition is pre writing etc.

If writing is an epi phenomenon of pattern recognition,then religion could be an epi phenomenon of the the altered states of conciousness that arise from certain mechanisms of the brain.

This serves to explain religion, not excuse it or justify it.

So far as we know Religion is a natural phenomenon not a supernatural one.

Other Comments by flying goose

79. Comment #351296 by owen375 on March 12, 2009 at 5:22 am

I tried to start a thread in the forum, discussing a similar idea I think (haven't got time at the moment to read the whole article):

http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=60471

Other Comments by owen375

80. Comment #351421 by SomeDanGuy on March 12, 2009 at 10:47 am

Another over-interpreted fMRI study? What a surprise!

Other Comments by SomeDanGuy

81. Comment #351501 by youmemeyou on March 12, 2009 at 12:55 pm

They overlooked one of the most important aspects: whether these biological traits are good for God memes.

Other Comments by youmemeyou

82. Comment #351520 by notsobad on March 12, 2009 at 1:29 pm

Religious belief and behaviour are a hallmark of human life, with no accepted animal equivalent...

Sheep?

Other Comments by notsobad

83. Comment #351534 by Plissken on March 12, 2009 at 2:37 pm

"The researchers said their findings support the idea that the brain has evolved to be sensitive to any form of belief that improves the chances of survival"

The survival of the individual (this i doubt) or the group (this would be group selection)?
Where's the hijack theory of the selfish genes here? I smell heresy...

Other Comments by Plissken

84. Comment #351537 by righton on March 12, 2009 at 2:48 pm

fg,

"If writing is an epi phenomenon of pattern recognition,then religion could be an epi phenomenon of the the altered states of conciousness that arise from certain mechanisms of the brain."

I don't think you can say "religion" is an epi phenomenon of the altered states of conciousness. You could say believing in supernatural things or a god is an epi phenomenon of that. Religion seems to be more a result of culture and society.

Tendancy to believe plus society/culture = Religion

EDIT: "I agree that the wiring is pre religious, but then pattern recognition is pre writing etc."

Point being?

Other Comments by righton

85. Comment #351562 by Goldy on March 12, 2009 at 4:49 pm

Letters in the Independent

Message from a non-existent god

If, by providing us with a God spot, God is trying to prove His existence (letter, 11 March), why is He making it so difficult for us to find Him that most of us in the end give up' Surely, that cannot be His aim, if He exists. Could He have another (ulterior) motive: He does not exist and He is making fools of most of mankind.

H D Shah

Harrow, Middlesex

Most brain activity – sight, hearing – responds to genuine phenomena. So does mathematical ability, which is more obviously an evolutionary human trait. What is the evidence for Richard Dawkins' demonstrated insensitivity to religious experience not being equivalent to other people's colour-blindness or weak maths'

I wouldn't expect him to believe that mathematical structures don't exist just because I'm not very good at perceiving them.

Helen Cooper

Cambridge

Other Comments by Goldy

86. Comment #351831 by Miller on March 13, 2009 at 9:17 am

I am taking Psychology with Dr. Persinger @ Laurentian U this year! It's cool to see your professors in the "news"...

Other Comments by Miller

87. Comment #351841 by Mark Jones on March 13, 2009 at 10:03 am

Comment #351562 by Goldy

Re the first letter, there is a similar idea in this blog entry.

I think it demonstrates why the second letter is a little muddled; the point is that a *fair* god wouldn't go out of his way to convince us that he doesn't exist, as he seems to! He would make the 'god sensing' facility reliable in everyone, otherwise we wouldn’t all have a fair chance of eternal life.

In any case, colours as such, I believe, don't actually *exist* but are simply phenomena. Is she suggesting that gods are simply phenomenal, not noumenal?

And being good at maths has nothing to do with sensing the *existence* of maths; it's simply a result of the skill set one's genetic history hasn't given one.

In other words the flaky nature of the ‘god spot’ is consistent with an evolutionary trait, but inconsistent with a gift from a fair and benevolent god.

Other Comments by Mark Jones

88. Comment #351949 by crabsallover on March 13, 2009 at 2:40 pm

Jordan Grafnam PNAS article: http://tinyurl.com/atazd2. Abstract is free, full article $10.

Other Comments by crabsallover

89. Comment #351951 by righton on March 13, 2009 at 2:46 pm

crabsallover,

Ugh. Don't pay $10 for it. Send me a PM and I could email a pdf of the article. I can download these things for free.

Other Comments by righton

90. Comment #352045 by crabsallover on March 14, 2009 at 12:12 am

Comment #351951 by righton on March 13, 2009 at 2:46 pm Don't pay $10 for it. Send me a PM and I could email a pdf of the article. I can download these things for free.

Drat! I've already forked out my $10. Double drat!

Stephen Law at the Center of Inquiry, London has a seminar in London next Saturday 21 March entitled 'God in the Lab'. Everyone here welcome - cost £10 or £5 consessions.

http://www.meetup.com/Centre-for-Inquiry-UK/calendar/9719407/

"Description: A day with some of the World's leading scientific researchers into faith, many from Oxford University. We'll be looking at hearing voices, possession, etc. What goes on the brain of someone hearing voices? Come and see the MRI scans. Is religious belief hard-wired into us? Yes, says one of our scientists, and provides the empirical evidence. One of our speakers was recently featured in NEW SCIENTIST magazine: Born believers: How your brain creates God.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126941.700-born-believers-how-your-brain-creates-god.html

A unique opportunity to hear and question those working at the cutting edge of this growing field of scientific research. Presented by CFI London and the Ethical Society."

Other Comments by crabsallover

91. Comment #352052 by Jesus86 on March 14, 2009 at 12:30 am

Two traits would have been adaptive in the smallish (150-member) tribes that humans evolved in:

1. Since everyone in the tribe would have been either genetically related or good candidates for reciprocal altruism, a tendency toward generalized benevolence toward members of the tribe would evolve (superimposed upon, and driving into the subconscious without ever completely defeating, a more directly selfish tendency).

2. Since the coordination of efforts among members of the tribe would have been very important for hunting and defense, a tendency toward conformity to community expectations and respect for authority would tend to evolve.

Hypothesis: The human brain evolved a moral centre, rather like our speech centre, that incorporates the above two traits (and possibly others). Later, when humans became linguistic world-view builders, they needed a belief-system that reinforced and "explained" (in a way that was cosistent with their level of understanding of the world) these moral tendencies.

The god hypothesis was a good candidate. It could explain the tendency toward intra-tribe cooperation as the imperative of looking out for gods' chosen people, our tribe; and it could explain conformity and respect for authority in terms of following gods' directives as received by the tribal chief or elders. (Julian Jaynes hypothesizes that the original gods were probably the first dead elders of the tribe, whose voices people could still hear in their heads. Idols were physical representations of the dead elders, which evoked the voices by association with the physical likeness.) Hence proto-morality became inextricably intertwined with proto-religion - so early on in our evolution that this type of brain-centre was transmitted throughout the global population. Those tribes that "successfully" transmitted morality through religious adherence prospered, while those tribes that failed to find a belief-system that propagated the central tennets of tribal morality to emerging-thinking individuals tended to be less cohesive and therefore less successful.

This hypothesis would explain the observations in the study reported here. It would explain why god and morality light up the same areas of the brain. It would explain why god, though not a universal concept, is nevertheless one that people are naturally inclined to glom onto - just like each person has to learn how gravity works through experience, but our brains are wired to accept this way of understanding the world.

Other Comments by Jesus86

92. Comment #352111 by Travis576 on March 14, 2009 at 7:25 am

So in short what this article is saying is that those with religious belief have faulty brains and they can't help it. So religion could be cured with drugs?

Other Comments by Travis576

93. Comment #352120 by qomak on March 14, 2009 at 8:55 am

@prettygoodformonkeys:

I'm surprised nobody else found it funny.

Other Comments by qomak

94. Comment #352288 by notsobad on March 15, 2009 at 3:17 am

@qomak
Maher said this some time ago

Other Comments by notsobad

95. Comment #353417 by esau on March 18, 2009 at 11:46 pm

I would like to draw attention to the fact that there are religions in this world which do not recognise the existence of a personal god or indeed a god of any kind. Eg: Buddhism which can at best be described as agnostic, or Jainism, an Indian religion which is frankly atheistic. Even within the 'mainstream' six orthodox schools of "Hindu" philosophy the doctrine of Advaita can be considered as nothing more than a monistic world view. So where does this leave the so called God spot'' Á huge section of this world seems to have done very well without a Judeao Christian tyrant.

Other Comments by esau

96. Comment #367296 by Johnny5 on April 20, 2009 at 9:10 pm

Proffessor Dawkins,

If a murderer stands before a judge and he has a scientist as his lawyer. And the judge askes the man, "Why did you kill that person." Then the lawyer scintist says to the judge, "The reason he killed this person is because this neural coalition fired in his cortex and these modulating chemicals inhibited these neurons." For a "rational" person this should be an adequate explanation. But, it's not. Then the judge looks at the murderer and says, "No, now tell me why you really killed that person." The fact is; the experieces are subjective, and what I find to be even more baffeling is, he had the power to veto his actions at the last second. Benjamin Libet gave 500 milliseconds for conscious will to intervene. He found this because nearal coalitions were sometimes completely abaondoned before the action was complete. Infact, recent findings on plastic changes within the brain depend on acts of conscious will. (Doidge, 2007)Same thing with this "God spot". People who have an experience can either accept and reinforce or veto it. This is an act of free-will. Even if we reduced free-will to neural activity in the frontal lobe, the fact is, it's still free. Why neural activity gives rise to anything is an utter mystery. Step 1, neurons fire, step 2, modulating chemicals shuffle, step 3? Step 3? What happens? A miracle? Chrisof Koch coined "Zombie agents" and they act. They do what they please, BUT! there seems to be a central convergence zone which has the power to dominate over these zombies. Ramachandran did a split brain test where he asked both sides of the brain if it believed in God. One side said, "Yes." The other side said, "No." Same person though. There is a central convergence zone that accepts and reinforces or vetos. This is an act of free-will. I sometimes have the words of the Pope linger through my mind when he said, "No one goes to Hell, but that of their own free-will." I have to think about what he means when he says this? What do you think Proffessor Dawkins? What does he mean?

Other Comments by Johnny5

97. Comment #367298 by Goldy on April 20, 2009 at 9:14 pm

Comment #367296 by Johnny5
And what do you think this free will is composed of?
BTW - 1 f in professor

Other Comments by Goldy

98. Comment #374385 by djwray on May 9, 2009 at 1:12 am

"Eventually the brain made an important breakthrough. It 'learned' how to survive beyond its natural life. It learned how to retain its most important information using a special kind of feedback. It learned how to pass its higher functions not back to itself, but to a replacement of itself.

Over a person’s lifetime, external influences are programmed into the higher functions as enhancements. These enhancements become part of a library of higher functions.

A most interesting question is “How did the God circuitry get there in the first place?”. The obvious answer is that it is part of the library of higher functions. It is a path to the “real” reality. There is a reason for everything, including religion."

D J Wray
http://atotalawareness.com

Other Comments by djwray

Reload Comments | Back to Top

More Comments: First | Previous | 1 2