From Pope Francis to Phil Robertson: Why are some people of faith generous — while others are nuts?

[DonViejo]

This is your brain on religion: Uncovering the science of belief

From Pope Francis to Phil Robertson: Why are some people of faith generous — while others are nuts?

D.F. SWAAB

As far as I’m concerned, the most interesting question about religion isn’t whether God exists but why so many people are religious. There are around 10,000 different religions, each of which is convinced that there’s only one Truth and that they alone possess it. Hating people with a different faith seems to be part of belief. Around the year 1500, the church reformer Martin Luther described Jews as a “brood of vipers.” Over the centuries the Christian hatred of the Jews led to pogroms and ultimately made the Holocaust possible. In 1947, over a million people were slaughtered when British India was partitioned into India for the Hindus and Pakistan for the Muslims. Nor has interfaith hatred diminished since then. Since the year 2000, 43 percent of civil wars have been of a religious nature.

Almost 64 percent of the world’s population is Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, or Hindu. And faith is extremely tenacious. For many years, Communism was the only permitted belief in China and religion was banned, being regarded, in the tradition of Karl Marx, as the opium of the masses. But in 2007, one-third of Chinese people over the age of 16 said that they were religious. Since that figure comes from a state-controlled newspaper, the China Daily, the true number of believers is likely at least that high. Around 95 percent of Americans say that they believe in God, 90 percent pray, 82 percent believe that God can perform miracles, and over 70 percent believe in life after death. It’s striking that only 50 percent believe in hell, which shows a certain lack of consistency. In the Netherlands, a much more secular country, the percentages are lower. A study carried out in April 2007 showed that in the space of 40 years, secularization had increased from 33 to 61 percent. Over half of the Dutch people doubt the existence of a higher power and are either agnostic or believe in an unspecified “something.” Only 14 percent are atheists, the same percentage as Protestants. There are slightly more Catholics (16 percent).

In 2006, during a symposium in Istanbul, Herman van Praag, a professor of biological psychiatry, taking his lead from the 95 percent of believers in the United States, tried to convince me that atheism was an “anomaly.” “That depends on who you compare yourself to,” I replied. In 1996 a poll of American scientists revealed that only 39 percent were believers, a much smaller percentage than the national average. Only 7 percent of the country’s top scientists (defined for this poll as the members of the National Academy of Sciences) professed a belief in God, while almost no Nobel laureates are religious. A mere 3 percent of the eminent scientists who are members of Britain’s Royal Society are religious. Moreover, meta-analysis has shown a correlation among atheism, education, and IQ. So there are striking differences within populations, and it’s clear that degree of atheism is linked to intelligence, education, academic achievement, and a positive interest in natural science. Scientists also differ per discipline: Biologists are less prone to believe in God and the hereafter than physicists. So it isn’t surprising that the vast majority (78 percent) of eminent evolutionary biologists polled called themselves materialists (meaning that they believe physical matter to be the only reality). Almost three quarters (72 percent) of them regarded religion as a social phenomenon that had evolved along with Homo sapiens. They saw it as part of evolution, rather than conflicting with it.

It does indeed seem that religion must have afforded an evolutionary advantage. Receptiveness to religion is determined by spirituality, which is 50 percent genetically determined, as twin studies have shown. Spirituality is a characteristic that everyone has to a degree, even if they don’t belong to a church. Religion is the local shape given to our spiritual feelings. The decision to be religious or not certainly isn’t “free.” The surroundings in which we grow up cause the parental religion to be imprinted in our brain circuitries during early development, in a similar way to our native language. Chemical messengers like serotonin affect the extent to which we are spiritual: The number of serotonin receptors in the brain corresponds to scores for spirituality. And substances that affect serotonin, like LSD, mescaline (from the peyote cactus), and psilocybin (from magic mushrooms) can generate mystical and spiritual experiences. Spiritual experiences can also be induced with substances that affect the brain’s opiate system.

more
http://www.salon.com/2014/01/04/this_is_your_brain_on_religion_uncovering_the_science_of_belief/

[struggle4progress]

1. He jumps into his stereotypes pretty quickly: "There are around 10,000 different religions,

each of which is convinced that there’s only one Truth and that they alone possess it. Hating people with a different faith seems to be part of belief"

I suspect Swaab has very little personal experience or insight into the variety of views held by various adherents of those "10,000 different religions" and that in particular he is not actually in any scientific position to make such sweeping claims as "Hating people with a different faith seems to be part of belief"

He holds other probably unsupportable views as well: for example, he is a what might be termed a neuronal determinist -- holding the view that we are nothing more than our brains and in particular that: (1) there is no meaningful distinction to be made between mind and brain, and (2) there is no such thing as free will

Now, both of those views might quite plausibly be regarded as philosophically useful stances for a person to take (sometimes) in order to conduct scientific research into brain function: there's no serious question (to my thinking) that all our physical acts are mediated by brain activity, and that the "mechanics" of the brain constrain our perceptions and understandings -- so it is a natural project to examine just how far neuronal determinism can be pushed to provide useful scientific insights

But the fact that such philosophical stances might be useful to a professional brain-researcher, in helping to frame notions for further investigation, does not clearly imply that the ideas are of general utility outside the field of brain-research not does it clearly imply that the rest of us should adopt the ideas

Complete denial of free will, for example, is a very odd philosophical stance, implying that we actually have no choice whatsoever about what we do or say. And if that were actually the case, there would be no point whatsoever in attempting to persuade anyone of anything, since no one would actually be capable of anything like principled argument and everyone would simply do and say whatever it was they were pre-determined to do or say anyway, so that all discussion would be entirely meaningless. Approached from this stance, the world is a completely incoherent body of sense impressions that across our consciousness: we cannot take seriously anything anyone says or does, because it is all merely mechanical

The notion that one might somehow reduce mind to brain is also problematic. There is at present no indication any has obtained any serious in-depth information about a person's views and experiences from any physical examination of the brain

[cbayer]

2. I read some but not all of this.

He has so many early false premises and faulty analyses of data, that it's hard to read without feeling rather argumentative pretty quickly.

Because of this, it's not surprising that his conclusions are, at least to me, completely off the mark.

This is what happens when a neurobiologist tries to delve into the regions of sociology, psychology, philosophy and religion.

Nothing in his biography would indicate that he has either the training or experience to espouse on these topics.

[skepticscott]

3. Wow, this guy must really have hit some nerves

When people who normally reject critical thinking or harsh, judgmental analysis of an OP suddenly resort to them.

Need I say, it's complicated? Despite the attempts to apply black and white thinking by those who normally mock it.

I thought it was a Great Read, and that he made some Excellent Points.

[el_bryanto]

7. The Authors disdain for religion does come out

throughout the article; not sure what you are expecting as a response. But then I'm coming to the conclusion that DU Believers and DU Atheists really have nothing productive to say to each other.

Bryant

[cbayer]

8. I disagree with your last statement.

There are some great conversations that go on here between believers and non-believers.

As I have said previously, I think believers and non-believers on DU have much more in common than they do differences. I also think it is in our best interest as liberals and progressive to explore the commonalities and accept the differences.

I hope you will stick around and talk to some of the others who post here. It's not that hard to avoid the non-productive conversations.

[el_bryanto]

9. Where are these great conversations happening?

I see nothing but mutual scorn myself.

Bryant

[cbayer]

10. They are here.

I'm not saying it's a bowl of rainbows by any means, and the "mutual scorn" subthreads tend to get really long and make it appear that that is all that is happening.

Some of the most thoughtful people on DU post here at times and the conversations are generally civil and respectful, even when they become heated and intense.

That's a pretty good track record for a subject as contentious as religion.

[Leontius]

11. I have also seen a trend toward more productive encounters between the two groups.

There is however a consistent troika that shits on any attempt to do so and just letting them hang is the best response.

[cbayer]

12. They sometimes get drowned out, but I think there are some really

productive conversations going on.

I just don't see much point in being aggressively adversarial in this group. I think questioning and challenging are really appropriate, though.

[Leontius]

13. I agree that discussions that challenge and question are appropriate and welcomed.

They can lead to a deeper understanding of why we believe. Forcing us to study the ideas that form our beliefs opens people to things they have not seen before and new ways of seeing those we hold as set in stone currently and never question.

[cbayer]

14. They work both ways, too.

I gained some really good insights into why some people don't believe.

And, as one would expect, everyone's path is unique, as is the place they land.

An article recently posted here made a statement in it's conclusion that really resonated with me. The danger does not lie in beliefs or lack of beliefs, it lies in certainty.

[Leontius]

15. I would have to disagree to an extent.

I am quite certain that my beliefs are true. I am also open to examination of my beliefs to expose any faults they may contain and do not expect anyone to conform to my belief if they have doubts about it. I will listen and consider all points of view some I may accept others I will reject. The danger in certainty is not in holding to it but in how one responds to others doubts and rejection of it.

[cbayer]

16. Good points.

I think the softer edge here is in allowing others their doubts and not expecting them to conform to your beliefs.

Perhaps the issue of how one responds to others doubts and reflections is the difference. You may be certain that your beliefs are true for you, but allow that that certainty does not apply to others.

[Igel]

4. Most of the nuts are generous.

But the key is that most religions are generous to those inside their group, tolerant of inoffensive groups they come into that don't challenge them, and challenge those groups that pose some sort of threat.

In this, they're rather like countries, soccer clubs, or political parties. For all the same reasons. You get a lot of social solidarity when there are reasons for the groups to pull together. Less when there are fewer reasons. Of course, "social solidarity" = "social exclusion" for outsiders.

Some groups tend to have looser boundaries and be less iron-clad in their group boundaries. Usually those are dominant groups or groups that feel confident and not threatened. Muslims firmly in charge could be tolerant; when challenged, they kill 50k Xians in Aleppo or behead Xians who are uppity and dare to speak up in Cordoba. Xians were usually tolerant of dissidents and Jews--unless the Jews were too prosperous, unless there was some challenge at the borders, unless there was a food shortage. You only got Serb atrocities against Muslims and Croates when they felt threatened; then again, you also got Muslim atrocities against Croates and Serbs (not that we like to mention them, it makes the victims into victimizers, and we can't allow people to be both--it messes with starkly binary thinking).

Consider Hamas or the Muslim Brotherhood. They both stake their claim to societal loyalty on their good works. Only to their own or those they consider their own, of course. The CPSU that killed millions was actually quite generous to the faithful.

There are exceptions. Not many, not large, and not long lasting. Typically groups that are open and generous to everybody, without asking, wind up needing help because "everybody" does not reciprocate.

[rug]

5. Swaab has come up with some peculiar ideas.

Swaab is best known for his research and discoveries in the field of brain anatomy and physiology, in particular the impact that various hormonal and biochemical factors in the womb have on brain development.[2] Another area of Swaab's work which has drawn much attention is his research on how Sexual dimorphism relates to brain anatomy, as well as research relating to homosexuality. Swaab, according to his own words through his years of research, came to the deterministic and materialistic conclusion that brains are not things we have, but rather brains are what we are: the physical and chemical processes in our brains determine how we react and who we are. Currently, Swaab is most active in the field of Alzheimer's research.[3]

Swaab's research has on several occasions produced controversy. After conducting research suggesting links between brain anatomy and sexual orientation, Swaab reports receiving death threats from individuals believing this work was attempting to 'pathologize' homosexuality and treat it as a biological abnormality or disorder.[4] Swaab's view that neither free will nor metaphysical entities such as souls or spirits exist has also caused negative reactions among various religious groups.[5][6] Swaab consistently defends his studies in the face of such criticism.[7]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Swaab

[edhopper]

6. The view that there is no "mind" outside the brain

is only controversial to those who think consciousness can exist outside the body. A premiss for which there is no evidence.