Religious beliefs date back at least 100,000 years. That's the time when our Neanderthal cousins began burying their dead with weapons and tools -- presumably prepping them for the world beyond the grave. And such beliefs persist today, with the vast majority of modern humans in every corner of the globe espousing some kind of religious conviction.
But why? The antiquity and universality of belief suggest that it serves some fundamental psychological purpose, but what would that be? A small but growing number of psychological scientists have been exploring these questions, focusing on the idea that religious belief may be a natural consequence of the human mind at work. According to this view, belief emerged to satisfy a basic human need to comprehend and explain a complex and unpredictable world. By allowing us to impose some sense of purpose and order on the randomness, believing in God and the afterlife helps us cope with uncertainty -- and thus relieves anxiety.
At least that's the theory of Michael Inzlicht and Alexa Tullett of the University of Toronto Scarborough, who study the cognitive aspects of religion. Inzlicht and Tullett have been testing the notion that belief quells anxiety by looking at the brain in action. The brain has a built-in monitor that is constantly on the lookout for mental mistakes, and when any such error occurs, this monitor sends off a neural distress signal. It's an important job, because it helps us detect and correct bad thinking, but too much vigilance leads to a chronic state of distress -- in short, a worried mind. The researchers wanted to see if religious thoughts might dampen this cortical alarm -- and improve mental health.
So they ran a couple experiments. In one, for example, they recruited a group of volunteers who were all strong believers in God, though they came from varied religious backgrounds. They primed religious thinking in only some of the volunteers by having them write about the meaning of their own religion. Others, the control subjects, wrote about their favorite season -- also a positive topic, but less meaningful. Then the volunteers attempted a very difficult cognitive task -- one deliberately chosen to produce a lot of mental errors. They hooked all the volunteers up to an EEG to monitor their brains' neural activity while they monitored their mental performance.
A milder signal would mean that the religious thinking somehow muffled the natural alarm, in effect calming the brain. And that's just what they saw on the EEGs: As reported online last week in the journal Psychological Science, those prompted to reflect on God were noticeably less anxious than the control subjects.
The scientists reran the experiment in a slightly different way to compare believers and atheists. This time, they had all the volunteers -- believers and atheists alike -- complete a word task designed to unconsciously prime religious thinking. As before, the religious thinking (even though it was out of conscious awareness) had a palliative effect on the believers, dampening the distress signaling in the brain. But here's the interesting part: It had the exact opposite effect on the atheists, who actually showed a heightened distress signal. Even though the religious priming was unconscious, the atheists reacted defensively, as if the thoughts of religion were challenging their system of meaning.
This cortical alarm system fires off within a few hundredths of a second following a mistake. But might these finding have long-range mental health implications? If thinking about religion causes this instantaneous calming effect, might religious people live lives of greater equanimity? Might religious people be better able to cope with life's curve balls?
Yes and no, the scientists say. It certainly appears from these studies that strong beliefs have positive, calming effects, but formal or traditional religious beliefs are not privileged in this way. Indeed, affirming any cherished values -- including any higher power, or even atheism -- should allow believers to see their world as more stable, understandable and predictable.
Matt J. Rossano: Why Religion Is Not Delusion
Krista Tippett: Religion and Science: Finding Their Kindred Spirits
Karl Giberson, Ph.D: Changing the Language of Science and Faith
Humanism's Political and Religious Beliefs
The Anosognosic's Dilemma: Something's Wrong but You'll Never Know What It Is ...
Inspiration, Spirituality, Faith, Religion.- Beliefnet.com
80% Say Religious Faith is Important To Their Daily Lives ...
Darwinian thinking clarifies and deepens religious faith - Times ...
"It's an important job, because it helps us detect and correct bad thinking"
"... wanted to see if religious thoughts might dampen this cortical alarm -- and improve mental health."
OK, so religious thoughts do dampen the cortical alarm. In other words, they foil the mental signal indicating mental mistakes. So religious thoughts enable making mistakes without the need for correction.
Interesting. Also interesting is the notion that having an accurate, but sensitive alarm is indicative of lesser mental health (according to the researchers).
So atheists tend to be more sensitive to error-prone thinking? They try harder to correct such errors? They don't just "go with the flow"?
Would that more religious people were inflicted with this kind of error sensitivity! Perhaps the tea-party nonsense would be less appealing and ring more alarms. Or perhaps the needless conflict our own forces in the middle east wouldn't be making the religious feel safer, but feel more alarmed because they can think more clearly.
I take issue with the idea that being more attuned to wrong thinking is somehow indicative of poor mental health! I am not an atheist, but it seems to me that mental relaxation and sloppy thinking seem to go hand in hand. I'd rather see and think more clearly, thank you.
: |
Oh yea, blabbering to everyone of how superior you are to them.
When you have an answer as to the origins of whatever created the Higgs Boson particle then you might have something to say, but until then you're in no position to tell others they're wrong until you have some proof, a theory or at least a vague guess to offer of your own.
I'd make the case that non-believers really want to demonstrate their mental abilities and are more distressed by their errors. It really matters to skeptics if the earth formed 4.5 billion years ago instead of just 6000 years ago. Correct answers matter to realists, while those of faith, tend to reflect the bumper sticker slogan - "Christians aren't perfect, just forgiven." No surprises here.
The implication here is that atheists are (generally) more defensive than believers of the invisible man who lives in the sky.
Actual wording from the study:
"All told, non-conscious exposure to religious concepts affected theists and atheists very differently. For theists, THE RELIGIOUS PRIME SERVED AS A PALLIATIVE AGAINST THE AFFECTIVE CONSEQUENCES OF THEIR OWN ERRORS as they showed low levels of distress-related neural activity. ATHEISTS, ON THE OTHER HAND, SHOWED A HEIGHTENED NEURAL RESPONSE, SUGGESTING THEY REACTED TO THEIR OWN ERRORS MORE DEFENSIVELY, responding as if the primes challenged their system of meaning and explanation."
Mr. Herbert conveniently left out the experimental conditions which specify that when you make a mental error (i.e. you are WRONG) priming religious belief buffers your mistake and allows you to feel less distressed about being WRONG. Would you rather "feel" good about being WRONG, or maybe feel not so good BUT "know" when you are WRONG?
On the other hand, if you read the introduction section of this study, it is in contention if the areas of cortical stimulation of this study (ACC & ERN) are defense or activation oriented; i.e. purely defense mechanism against anxiety, or heightened awareness in ambiguous situation; or put another way, priming an atheist with religious bull makes them more aware in ambiguous situations.
I have heard the phrase, "It's in gods hands" and "God will take care of everything" too many times from individuals who refuse to make an effort to learn complex ideas to think otherwise.
It's a cope-out, but millions of people don't see it that way.
What science are you practicing because making the statement that holding deep beliefs improves your health is completely ignorant.
I hold no beliefs in ANYTHING outside of verifiable fact yet I'm not sick, my brain power will make most people wet themselves, and as Stephen Hawkin prooves even if you have the strongest mental mind in the world it can't turn the tide of the bodies health.
Pretty much what you said.. is bullsh!t.
Sara is not the ignorant one here, you are. Vast studies on the direct relation to a belief in a higher power in cancer patients has proven that it promotes the sort of faith and attitude needed to survive and even reverse the disease. Entire hospitals have based their programs on this principle, and medical science openly admits the correlation between people of faith who have strong beliefs and those without them with regards to the immune system.
So your insulting, profane rant is the only bull here. What Sara said was right.
& no, it is not ignorant. It is MORONIC to think all these gods have been created & evolved with NO God Gene & no personal benefit for the creators at
Herbert: "The researchers wanted to see if religious thoughts ... improve mental health."
Actual wording from the study:
"Here, we propose that religious belief directly causes a dampening of distress reactions. If this is correct, theists should display significant declines in error-related distress when they ponder their beliefs—consciously or otherwise. Critically, this muted distress response should be evident in basic neuropsychological systems..."
This research studied effects of religious priming on the effect of a brain self-error monitoring signal; i.e. when you make a mental error, your brain signals that fact to you. Guess what, when primed with religion, religionists' brains could ignore self-error better than an atheist brain! There is nothing in this study suggesting that religious belief improves "mental health" as compared to atheist belief.
Herbert states, "...but too much vigilance leads to a chronic state of distress -- in short, a worried mind."
WHAT? There is nothing in the study about chronic states of distress or a resultant "worried mind," Herbert made this up.
http://www.utsc.utoronto.ca/~inzlicht/research/publications/Inzlicht & Tullett, in press.pdf
"...In other words, when people think about one of their cherished values—be it when an environmentalist ponders their ideological commitment to the environment, when an atheist discusses their certainty that God does not exist, or even when a biologist waxes about the inherent superiority of the scientific method—they may become less defensive and anxious as a result. Meanwhile, when an avowed conservative considers the potential advantages of liberal ideologies, the hackles will likely go up. THE POINT HERE IS THAT RELIGION MAY NOT BE SO SPECIAL; many varieties of beliefs could serve a palliative function if they allow people to feel that their world is stable, understandable, and predictable."
"The brain has a built-in monitor that is constantly on the lookout for mental mistakes, and when any such error occurs, this monitor sends off a neural distress signal. It's an important job, because it helps us detect and correct bad thinking, but too much vigilance leads to a chronic state of distress -- in short, a worried mind."
IF the brain has a "mistake monitor," then trust me, mine goes off when Im asked to make a grammatically-correct sentence using words like, divine, angel, saint, holy, unborn, sacred, etc.
http://pewforum.org/Religion-News/Study-Devout-are-less-stressed-than-non-believers.aspx
Hmmm. Might make a start for one of those dime store detective novels.
However, we should not forgot that in the not so distant past religion created fear, worries and anxieties. Now for the majority of people worries and anxieties are a by-product of the fast pace and chaos of modern day life. In the 'olden days' religious institutions – with their messages of sin and guilt, the devil, hell and an afterlife in purgatory – instilled great fear into most people’s minds. As a consequence the ordinary human being was left with insecurity, anxiousness, and fear of eternal pain and anguish.
Scholarly literature illustrates a horrific picture of the everyday anguish and anxiety that existed in people because they were made to believe that their sinful lives would lead, as a consequence, to an afterlife with demons and the devil. There is no doubt that even today such fears exist in extreme fundamental religious beliefs, but they are unlikely to cause widespread, deep-seated anxiety.
So I am wondering what has changed? Why is it that for those who believe religion nowadays seems to be much more soothing for the worried mind than it used to be?
Christine Maingard, Author of "Think Less, Be More" www.thinklessbemore.com & www.mindfulstrategies.com.au
God will judge iniquity. Unless you are saved of course. If you are saved, you seem to have a free pass in today's theology. Everyone else who doesn't believe like you will get eternal fire and brimstone while you enjoy heaven and the right to exult in triumph.
Go to a typical Baptist church. You will not hear sermons on the sins of the people in the congregation. You will hear sermons on the sins of the lost. God hating gays, people who get abortions, liberals, what have you. God forbid that gluttony or greed or hatred or other sins indulged in by the people should be talked about. They'd up and go to another church!
So, "Think less, be more"? Strange title. My own opinion, of course. To my way of thinking, more thought, more understanding, more wisdom, more knowledge should be the goal. To see the marvelous connections in life and realize its beauty.
Everyone seems to equate stress with "bad." But it isn't stress that is bad, but how one reacts to it. One can use stress as a way to grow stronger, as in a gym. One can vary the kinds of stress or challenges one faces to see differing perspectives.
Comfort is good, but reality is better.
Thinking less is all about letting go of negative and futile thinking. It is about creating space in our minds and hearts to experience our true nature. Without constantly entertaining an internal dialogue that serves no purpose, it is indeed about "more understanding, more wisdom and more knowledge".
However, we should not forgot that in the not so distant past religion created fear, worries and anxieties. Now for the majority of people worries and anxieties are a by-product of the fast pace and chaos of modern day life. In the 'olden days' religious institutions – with their messages of sin and guilt, the devil, hell and an afterlife in purgatory – instilled great fear into most people’s minds. As a consequence the ordinary human being was left with insecurity, anxiousness, and fear of eternal pain and anguish.
Scholarly literature illustrates a horrific picture of the everyday anguish and anxiety that existed in people because they were made to believe that their sinful lives would lead, as a consequence, to an afterlife with demons and the devil. There is no doubt that even today such fears exist in extreme fundamental religious beliefs, but they are unlikely to cause widespread, deep-seated anxiety.
So I am wondering what has changed? Why is it that for those who believe religion nowadays seems to be much more soothing for the worried mind than it used to be?
: |
Welcome to the new progressive party.
People of faith need not apply.
Nothing in what you said qualifies as a counterargument to my initial comment. Try responding on a point-by-point basis or by launching some form of opinion.
Sarcasm need not apply.
I liked this comment: "Even though the religious priming was unconscious, the atheists reacted defensively, as if the thoughts of religion were challenging their system of meaning."
Now i wonder what would happen if atheism was primed unconsciously, or ability to do well in a stressful situation? Conscious or unconscious, believers get defensive when their belief is challenged, i guess they didn't want to test for that, although this would have nailed down if they were really studying cognitive effects of religion or something else.
This study was not well designed.
______________________
So do atheists. Point out to an atheist that his view is in no way founded in science, and that he can no more prove a deity does not exist anymore than the theist can prove one does, and watch the flame war begin.
The real question that you as an atheist ought to be asking yourself is "what am I, an atheist, doing in a religious blog 'challenging' the faith and beliefs of others?
Since we know the theist cannot prove their beliefs, why am I, an atheist, here constantly demanding that they do?
Why wouldn't I be in a thread NOT dedicated to religion?
Why am I here, insulting people of faith?"
: |
When you can answer that, then you'll be on your way to real knowledge.
Most atheists I know don't claim that no gods exist.
If you make the claim the onus is on you to prove it.
Religious beliefs should not be afforded special protection in society. Because of religious beliefs there has been real oppression of people: slavery, hatred of women, hatred of gays, etc.
Merely challenging someone's claims is not a personal attack. Asking someone to prove his or her assertions is not insulting. Any adult should be able to handle the challenge.
>...an atheist... can no more prove a deity does not exist... than the theist can prove one does...
This argument has already been taken care of around a century ago:
Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of skeptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. - B. Russell
>The real question...
I disagree, i think the real question concerning this particular thread is, why is "someone" twisting the words of research attempting to validate religion.
>Why am I here, insulting people of faith?
You can encourage any emotion in yourself you please. If logical reasoning and factual data causes you to indulge in feeling insulted, you can only hold yourself accountable.
>When you can answer that, then you'll be on your way to real knowledge.
Self knowledge brings freedom, try it sometime.
Wrong. That's the usual atheist dodge when asked to prove their beliefs the same way they demand theists prove theirs. In absence of some even remotely plausible hypotheses as to the origins of Higgs Boson, effectively pre plank epoch pre big bang, then there is no more evidence for your belief that there is no supreme intelligence, than there is for theirs that there is.
______________________________
"You can encourage any emotion in yourself you please. If logical reasoning and factual data causes you to indulge in feeling insulted, you can only hold yourself accountable"
_______________________________
Nice. I've seen strawmen arguments before but never two in one like that.
Strawman number 1: First, mocking someones sacred beliefs as "absurd superstitions" or referring to believers as "fools, ignorant children" etc in no way constitute "logical reasoning and factual data". A quick peruse of this and other threads here in the "Religion" section shows an overwhelming majority of atheist comments and most of them simply juvenile insults and a "my non-gods bigger than your god" neeener neeener attitude.
How many times can you tell a believer they're wrong? This is NOT "logical reasoning and factual data". This is just mean spirited self righteousness.
Strawman number 2. I'm not a religionist, Therefore there are no beliefs for you to mock, so your atheist insults don't hurt me personally.Other people are hurt by them though, and driven off.