Paisley's Intellectual Fortress Assailed by Actual Research
Offline Selective Brain Damage Modulates Human Spirituality, Research Reveals
ScienceDaily (Feb. 11, 2010) — New research provides fascinating insight into brain changes that might underlie alterations in spiritual and religious attitudes. The study, published by Cell Press in the February 11 issue of the journal Neuron, explores the neural basis of spirituality by studying patients before and after surgery to remove a brain tumor.
Although it is well established that all behaviors and experiences, spiritual or otherwise, must originate in the brain, true empirical exploration of the neural underpinnings of spirituality has been challenging. However, recent advances in neuroscience have started to make the complex mental processes associated with religion and spirituality more accessible."Neuroimaging studies have linked activity within a large network in the brain that connects the frontal, parietal, and temporal cortexes with spiritual experiences, but information on the causative link between such a network and spirituality is lacking," explains lead study author, Dr. Cosimo Urgesi from the University of Udine in Italy.
Dr. Urgesi and colleagues were interested in making a direct link between brain activity and spirituality. They focused specifically on the personality trait called self-transcendence (ST), which is thought to be a measure of spiritual feeling, thinking, and behaviors in humans. ST reflects a decreased sense of self and an ability to identify one's self as an integral part of the universe as a whole.
The researchers combined analysis of ST scores obtained from brain tumor patients before and after they had surgery to remove their tumor, with advanced techniques for mapping the exact location of the brain lesions after surgery. "This approach allowed us to explore the possible changes of ST induced by specific brain lesions and the causative role played by frontal, temporal, and parietal structures in supporting interindividual differences in ST," says researcher Dr. Franco Fabbro from the University of Udine.
The group found that selective damage to the left and right posterior parietal regions induced a specific increase in ST. "Our symptom-lesion mapping study is the first demonstration of a causative link between brain functioning and ST," offers Dr. Urgesi. "Damage to posterior parietal areas induced unusually fast changes of a stable personality dimension related to transcendental self-referential awareness. Thus, dysfunctional parietal neural activity may underpin altered spiritual and religious attitudes and behaviors."
These results may even lead to new strategies for treating some forms of mental illness. "If a stable personality trait like ST can undergo fast changes as a consequence of brain lesions, it would indicate that at least some personality dimensions may be modified by influencing neural activity in specific areas," suggests Dr. Salvatore M. Aglioti from Sapienza University of Rome. "Perhaps novel approaches aimed at modulating neural activity might ultimately pave the way to new treatments of personality disorders."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100210124757.htm
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
- Login to post comments
And suggest that this research implies that spirituality is volatile, differs from person to person, and in the case of atheists, ST may be reduced or not there at all. I don't believe in spirits or ghosts or invisible things. They are total bullshit. I don't believe in karma, or Gaia, or fate or any of that stuff. There's us and the undulating pastures of the projected realities we contrive inside our heads. I never really have been spiritual, despite growing up indoctrinated. I think a lot of us when arguing with theists feel we are somehow different to each other, like a hologram of the same image turned away from light. This might explain it.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
Whereas I absolutely believe that people may have (had) experiences that are hard to explain in any familiar terms, I am unwilling to accept a leap of faith as any kind of valid information in the objective sense (even though this may of course serve as a feasible way towards peace of mind for the subject in questioning). It seems inevitable that there are indeed invisible things; but only in the sense that we should be open to the possibility that much of nature may be hidden beyond the human sensory fusion frequency. For instance, we know for a fact that what we call visible light is only a very diminuitive band indeed of the total spectrum of electromagnetic radiation. There are also sounds we cannot hear, scents we cannot detect, etc. simply because they happen outside of our capacity for detecting them. In a sense, we are like Edwin Abbott's Flatlanders, because we are bound by the limitations of the dimensional space we live within, so we are really only able to discover the perhaps minute parts of extradimensional phenomenons that interact with those regions of space that lies within our fusion fequency.
Something that ought to be a dead giveaway is how unusual experiences have a tendency to be rationalised with strong symbols from the culture within which the occurences are taking place. For instance UFO's in a technological world, or various "sightings" of a religious nature, past and present, that seem to comply with ideas and images that already exist within the mind of the observer.
"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)
http://www.kinkspace.com
It would be an interesting study to see whether atheists actually do experience such feelings less, or the same, or more, than religious people. While it's a reasonable hypothesis that atheists experience less ST, I don't really buy it. I think what makes one an atheist of the rational kind is more easily explained by rationality itself.
Feeling 'at one' with the universe is something most people experience at different points in their lives. Whether it's when going camping in nature, when climbing a mountain or skydiving, when contemplating the vastness of the universe as revealed by science, or when performing certain rituals in a church, it's all the same. The difference is that we atheists don't jump to the conclusion that it *means* anything 'spiritual'.
In your comment I quoted, notice that none of the things you reject (spirits, karma, Gaia, fate, etc.) depend on ST (self-transcendence). They are perhaps different types of interpretations of ST, but they do not automatically follow from ST. If you experience ST while walking in the park, you don't suddenly say, "Ah ha! Ghosts exist! It all makes sense now!" Likewise, you might rarely experience ST, but still believe in things like ghosts. All those things you mentioned are cultural inventions based on flawed intuitions about the world (like spirits and gods). If you grew up in an Arab country, instead of jumping to the conclusion of ghosts, you might jump to the conclusion of 'djinn'.
The reason I belabour this point is that I'm unwilling to give up any concessions to the claims of religious people and other 'spiritual' people. They do not have a monopoly on ST, nor wonder, nor love, nor hope, etc. This is a major reason why I call my philosophy wonderism, rather than some more abstract 'philosophical' term. It's also why wonderism focuses to a significant degree on 'fuzzy' things like intuition and emotions. I'm specifically trying to rescue these natural, human emotions/feelings like ST and wonder from the 'spiritual' ghetto. Anyone with any understanding of the reality that we've discovered through science is aware that such things as wonder are in fact more closely allied with science, rationality, and free thinking than they are with closed-minded faith-based religion. It remains to be seen whether there are clear differences in these emotions between believers and non-believers. Until the science is in, though, I'm not going to let the believers get away with trying to usurp those emotions for themselves.
Religion and 'spirituality' offer nothing that atheists don't already have (or can have if they desire to pursue them). We don't have to believe in anything unreal in order to experience the 'transcendent' or the 'numinous' or the 'wondrous' or the 'awe-inspiring'.
As such, I would even take issue with the article's use of the word 'spirituality' in the first place. Unfortunately, it appears that we don't yet have a good secular substitute word to replace 'spirituality'. The best idea I've come up with so far is 'inspirituality', with connections to 'inspiration', 'in-' as a negative like 'inactive' implying 'not spiritual', and 'in-' like 'internal' implying 'whatever spirit might be, it can only exist embodied *in* physical entities like brains; it is not disembodied, or supernatural, or non-physical'. This article, in fact, provides good evidence in favour of 'inspirituality' and against supernaturalist interpretations of 'spirituality'.
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!
Certainly lumping all the things that are labelled spirit in all their sujective diversity and connecting them with ST does not join those things together in fact but for me they're all related feelings of the human being and connected in that manner. I think it's possible people prone to strong feelings of ST are more likely to be spiritual and to believe in unproven and possibly unprovable spiritual things. You'd have to agree that feelings of conversion, of being uplifted, saved, enlightened - surely the things that form the core of the personal experience of religion must be connected to a person's propensity to feelings of ST. And theists use these feelings as further proof of the existence of god, and as a proof of the veracity of otherwise unprovable elements of their faiths.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
Think this could be connected?
Seventh-day Adventists believe that Ellen G. White (born 1827, died 1915) possessed what they “have accepted as the prophetic gift described in the Bible.”1 When she was nine years old, an angry schoolmate threw a stone, which struck her on the nose and caused significant injury. Some have alleged that this blow so severely damaged the temporal lobe of her brain as to cause her to have a type of epilepsy known as partial complex seizures (also called complex partial seizures). Thus, it is argued, her visions were not divine revelations from God, but due to temporal lobe epilepsy.
Same here. I only believe in Yoko and me, that's reality.
Religion Kills !!!
Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/
Anyone notice how the elevated ST seems to be caused by brain damage...
That explains mum and the promise of the rainbow, anyway.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
you guys obviously haven't watched the video
I appreciate what you're saying here Marquis and I think we could blanket apply this all our perceptions of reality, the universe, the anthro gods we insist on, whose very ability to be perceived by us ratifies the self-created nature of our spiritual worlds. Trouble is if I admit that there's a whole lot of freaky shit out there that could be beyond human sensory fusion frequency, then Pais will insist that freaky thing is spirit, and he'll probably say it only seems weird because of our sensory limitations. Even though in admitting this he'll be saying he can have no possible experience of it, somehow our inability to prove the invisible freakshow doesn't exist will count for the opposition...
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
Of course, but that doesn't alter my point. The fact that they interpret them as supernatural doesn't mean they actually experience them more and atheists experience them less. It just means that they interpret them supernaturally, and atheists don't. Because we don't attach any 'special' significance to them, we don't go around preaching about how 'special' we are, and how 'special' we feel.
The non-theist equivalents of those words are things like
- conversion - becoming deeply convinced of a new idea, paradigm shift, mind blowing experience
- being uplifted - a sense hope, joy, ecstasy
- saved - confidence, hope, gratitude, sense of belonging, contentment
- enlightened - coming to an understanding, Ah ha! experience, Eureka moment, sense of wonder, even (yes) enlightenment in the secular sense, consciousness raising
All the more reason to debunk that fallacy with our own Arguments from Wonder/Emotional Experience. "Oh, yeah, you felt a deep sense of gratitude? I get that feeling sometimes, too. All humans can experience gratitude. But I'd rather feel gratitude for what's real than what's imaginary. For example, if a loved one is cured of cancer, I don't thank God, I thank the doctors and nurses and scientists, and all the other people who contributed to the treatment. I feel that's a more authentic gratitude than thanking some imaginary friend." The emotions don't actually prove anything except the emotions themselves. At the end of the day, the theist still has to explain why they believe in their god. They don't have a monopoly on those emotions, and atheists can feel them just as well as they can.
As I've said many times, I believe the Argument from Wonder/Religious Experience is the last refuge of religion in modern society. Arguments with theists will always come back to that, in the end. "Well, I experienced *something* and you can't deny my experiences. So there!" To which I reply, "I don't deny that you *had* an experience, I deny your interpretation of it. I've also experienced those feelings, but I don't interpret them the same as you do. The fact that you had an experience doesn't prove anything supernatural."
I've experienced "feelings of conversion, of being uplifted, saved, enlightened", though I might use slightly different words to describe those. Especially 'saved', which has obvious doctrinal meanings; but who hasn't experience gratitude from someone helping you, or the confidence that "Everything's going to be okay," etc.?
I can even make a pretty good argument that by not sullying these experiences with make-believe interpretations, I actually experience a cleaner, superior version of those feelings. I may not actually have better experiences, but neither I nor they will ever be able to tell for sure anyway, and I do feel that being intellectually honest about my experiences is subjectively 'better' from my perspective, so who is the theist to argue that I'm wrong?
The best they can do is to say, "You don't actually experience wonder/love/awe/whatever!" To which I reply, "You think just because I don't believe in Jesus/whatever that I'm not fully human? What kind of sicko are you?" At which point, anyone who's watching will see clearly the extent to which some theists become depraved and dehumanizing due to their religious convictions.
I see no reason to concede any ground on the issue of 'spiritual' or 'religious' feelings/experiences. They are not 'spiritual' or 'religious'. Believers don't have a monopoly on those feelings/experiences. I've even seen a 'ghost' when I was in university. It was actually a hypnagogic hallucination as I was waking from a nap, but it was a very clear and vivid perception/experience of a girl in a rocking chair, laughing (completely silently, which was creepy). I can understand how people could interpret such an experience as a 'spirit' or 'ghost', but that doesn't make it either real or exclusive to believers in spirits/ghosts. It just means humans can experience all sorts of amazing things, even if they aren't really real. In fact, I find it more amazing to contemplate the power of the mind/brain than to imagine that there's some spooky spirits out to haunt our university dormitories.
So, believers have no shield in the Argument from Religious Experience, and I don't let them pretend that they do. I can experience mind blowing stuff too. I do, frequently, in fact. Knowing this, the Argument from (Whatever) Experience flips from being a refuge for belief into being one of the better arguments *against* belief.
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!
That's really interesting.
I doubt it would make a dent on Paisley though. He has a way of just ignoring things he doesn't like and telling you what you believe despite your protests.
Zen-atheist wielding Occam's katana.
Jesus said, "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division." - Luke 12:51
It is pretty logical, that brain is an outlet for spirituality in physical world, and therefore spirituality depends on it's quality. This is why there is a lot of shitty mediums, but only a few mediators.
But why the hell is spirituality studied on pathological cases - like brain tumor? I know it's convenient, but the samples are damaged. Studying it on religional people is not the best option either. Their spirituality is based on emotions. There are better things than emotions. Spirituality is essentially a trans-intellectual phenomenon. Religional people try to jump over the intellect to get there, but today it's getting into fashion to develop spirituality through developing intellect first.
Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.
You're making a good point here. These are feelings that belong to all of us and should not be mistaken at their core for their religious facsimiles and rejected out of hand but instead be recognised and owned for what they are.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck