Scientists seek religious experience – in subjects' brains

[rug]

▼ Can the same basic brain circuitry produce Mother Teresa and 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta?

▼ A growing number of scientists are aiming their most sophisticated machinery at religious cognition

▼ Neuroscientists hope to find out how believers' brains experience religious moments

January 7, 2015, 3:00 AM
Reporting from Salt Lake City
By Geoffrey Mohan

At the push of a button, the gurney holding Auriel Peterson slides slowly into the pale blue glow of a magnetic resonance imaging machine. Soon, all that's visible are the shins of her black track pants and the chartreuse-and-white soles of her running shoes, angled like the fins of a torpedo..

Behind a window in an adjacent room, a splayed-out cauliflower pattern appears on a computer screen in black and white. It's Peterson's brain. And it's probably the last thing about this exercise that will be so simply shaded.

From Peterson's perspective, the next hour will be spent in service, like the day she packed donated eyeglasses to send to Zimbabwe. But the ardent Mormon also knows she could be adding to a centuries-old debate about God and science.

So she says a silent prayer: "I hope they get what they need."

http://www.latimes.com/science/la-sci-c1-religion-brain-20150107-story.html#page=1

1:45 video at link.

[Shivering Jemmy]

1. Hopefully they find a way to block it.

[rug]

2. That's not rational.

[cbayer]

3. Maybe we could just find that part and cut it out!

What do you say?

[bvf]

10. *rimshot* n/t

[littlemissmartypants]

4. Have you seen this?

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289611000912

[rug]

7. No, I hadn't.

Abstract

High levels of religiosity have been linked to lower levels of intelligence in a number of recent studies. These results have generated both controversy and theoretical interest. Here in a large sample of US adults we address several issues that restricted the generalizability of these previous results. We measured six dimensions of religiosity (rather than just one or two), along with a multi-scale instrument to assess general intelligence. We also controlled for the influence of the personality trait openness on facets of religious belief and practice. The results indicated that lower intelligence is most strongly associated with higher levels of fundamentalism, but also modestly predicts central components of religiosity such as a sense of religious identification and private religious practice. Secondly, we found that a higher level of openness – often assumed to lead to lower religiosity – is weakly associated with reduced fundamentalism but with increased religious mindfulness, private religious practice, religious support, and spirituality. These new results provide a framework for understanding the links between reasoning and faith.

But without paying the $36 to read it, I would have a question.

It compares self-described religious subjects with self-described nonreligious subjects. There are other studies that compare the economic and educational status of believers and nonbelievers. The usual results are that nonbelievers, as a group, are more economically and educationally advantaged than nonbelievers, as a group. There are many factors, not pertinent here, that explain this.

So my question is this: would a study, blind to belief or nonbelief, of an economically and educationally advantaged group yield similar results in comparison to a less economically and educationally advantaged group?

I doubt there is as much a correlation between belief (or lack thereof) and intelligence (or lack thereof) as there is between economic privilege (or lack thereof).

In any event, attempting to draw conclusions about human groups based on intelligence testing is generally an odious enterprise.

You would not be suggesting believers are stupid, would you?

[Jim__]

5. It sounds like interesting research.

I expect it will be a long time before they find out much about the bullet points that lead your post. MRI can just give hints as to where to begin.

[rug]

8. I agree.

Defining the structures and functions of the brain is a necessary task but I'm not convinced it can or will answer those questions.

[bvf]

6. Seems like a pointless exercise.

I appreciate the promise of neuroscience, but this line of research seems irrelevant in the absence of results of similar studies of subjects with varying or dissimilar beliefs in the existence of unicorns, or with particular views on racism, misogyny, war, etc.

[haikugal]

9. Maybe

They'll see the same area of the brain light up, but I agree....there doesn't seem to be any point.

[pinto]

11. I disagree. You're framing it in a particular set of other parameters.

Don't think it is irrelevant because it doesn't take into account unicorns, whatever the importance that could hold, or views on racism, misogyny, war, etc.

I don't think it is pointless. There are probably at least three realms that our science still works to understand - The deep sea oceans of our world, the far reaches of space and our own brains. Surely there are others, but these three come to mind.

I have a seizure disorder that's fortunately been well treated medically. Yet, prior to treatment I had occasional seizures. The "aura" just prior to a seizure was brief, visual, physical and perceptual. It was just "Oh..." for me. A white out of sorts. A few moments at the most. Not really uncomfortable, an odd experience though. The danger, of course, was the falling and the seizure thrashing about. Fortunately that was covered by friends and neighbors, assorted strangers and EMT's when it did happen. So all that is OK.

Yet I want to give a big shout out to neuroscience research. Some one you love may benefit from it one day.

[bvf]

12. As I said quite clearly, I appreciate the promise of neuroscience.

Seems to me you're confusing a particular realm of science with avenues of active research within that realm.