Brain Surgery Linked To Sensation of Spirituality

the3stars writes "'Removing part of the brain can induce inner peace, according to researchers from Italy. Their study provides the strongest evidence to date that spiritual thinking arises in, or is limited by, specific brain areas. This raises a number of interesting issues about spirituality, among them whether or not people can be born with a strong propensity towards spirituality and also whether it can be acquired through head trauma." One critic's quoted response: "It's important to recognize that the whole study is based on changes in one self-report measure, which is a coarse measure that includes some strange items."

Comments

Frist

[Hognoxious]

Frist ... where was I? ... my brain has disapno carrier

Re:Frist

[countertrolling]

His brain is gone..

Re:Frist

[EricTheO]

Reminds me of my favorite misunderstood song lyric: "I can see clearly now my brain is gone."

Yeah, it's called blissful ignorance

[elrous0]

Yeah, you can make someone a lot happier with a lobotomy too. And stupid people who don't *use* their brains are often amused by the human equivalent of shiny keys (aka "reality television"). And people who drug themselves into a brainless stupor are are often in a complete euphoria (even a rat-infested, filthy trailer becomes paradise with just a little dab of meth).

But the rest of us, stuck with all of our fully-functional brains, are forced to sometimes contemplate serious matters that aren't so happy. Sure, we sometimes get depressed. But humanity probably wouldn't make much scientific, intellectual, or cultural progress if everyone was walking around every day drugged-up and lobotomized, with stupid goddamn grins on their faces.

Re:Yeah, it's called blissful ignorance

[Hatta]

It's not quite so simple. Remember that Newton was highly religious. It would be hard to describe him as not having a fully functional brain.

Re:Yeah, it's called blissful ignorance

[JerryLove]

Why would that be hard to do? Geniuses often have brain abnormalities leading to schitzophrenia, paranoia, depression, or autism. Why would religion be any different?

Also, it would be a mistake to confuse tendancies with hard-fast rules. That a part of the brain affects congnative decisions doesn't remove the role of cognition.

Re:Yeah, it's called blissful ignorance

[jollyreaper]

Yeah, you can make someone a lot happier with a lobotomy too.

Not me. I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy.

Re:Yeah, it's called blissful ignorance

[Demonantis]

Its all about control of the subject. Society fears people that can't be controlled. Laws work for most of us, but it doesn't for some. Think about it you don't know if the person might spontaneously kill someone. Unlikely almost all of the time. You have no idea how they will react to situations so they are labeled dangerous. They used to dose people with insulin causing convulsions to make them more sedative. That can't be health no matter how you look at it. Most of the treatments are for society's benefit not the subjects.

Re:Yeah, it's called blissful ignorance

[__aastpl2241]

at the time of newton if you were a declared atheist, you would have gone into serious serious problems, falling apples and math would have been your last concern

Re:Yeah, it's called blissful ignorance

[HeckRuler]

Well that dualism comes with playing around with mercury and working on the heretical art of alchemy.
(You probably could have chosen a better example of "highly religious" scientists)

Re:Yeah, it's called blissful ignorance

[Mister Whirly]

So I'm really suspicious of a test that says one person is "feeling" more spiritual than another person since that isn't even how it works.

Wow, a religious person having a hard time believing something that can be scientifically proven that contradicts their own personal views that cannot be scientifically proven. There's a first.

Re:Yeah, it's called blissful ignorance

[sznupi]

Newton certainly didn't have your average brain. Abnormalities which, in connection to his enviroment, made him the father of classical mechanics...could as well contribute to his religious state.

Also, remember that in his times being highly non-religions still wasn't exactly the safest thing to do...

Re:Yeah, it's called blissful ignorance

[hey!]

Well, a lobotomy reduces the patient's capacity for introspection and self-consciousness. So what you write is true of lobotomies.

That said, it's premature to characterize these results as "blissful ignorance". In fact the researchers pinpoint two areas: the right angular gyrus and left inferior parietal lobe. It's intriguing that both of these areas are related to arithmetic abilities, but that's all the result is -- intriguing. We don't know whether it's the same thing going on in both cases, or whether either case is related it any way to what we think of as "spirituality".

You can look at the things these areas of the brain are supposed to do and make all kinds of interesting conjectures, but it could be something as simple as some of these patients not being able to understand the sense of the questions being put the them, or others not being able to monitor the kinds of emotional sensations they're being asked to report on. One area is believed to be used in the understanding of metaphors, the other in terms of bodily awareness.

Re:Yeah, it's called blissful ignorance

[RevoltingX]

Yet, it is precisely this that these new Psychiatric and Psychological drugs and treatments are trying to eliminate.
However, by labeling it a science it seems the public has been fooled into accepting it.

Re:Yeah, it's called blissful ignorance

[HTH NE1]

or do you realize [God] is there and strive to live differently as a result?

Sometimes living differently isn't better, especially for those around you.

Put another way: don't make me strive to live differently; you wouldn't like me when I live differently.

I profess nothing more than what Jesus did: Love everyone even if they hate you.

Have you tried professing it without name-dropping Jesus?

Re:Yeah, it's called blissful ignorance

[5865]

What difference does scientific, intellectual and cultural progress make if everyone is happy? Isn't happiness the ultimate goal?

I blame our fully functional brains for all the problems in the world.

Re:Yeah, it's called blissful ignorance

[sznupi]

Religion is not exactly about individual spirituality; it's an organisation of many people (if I have to state the obvious...)

The sensible thing to do is not judging religions on the basis of what they (or their vocal speakers specifically) claim to represent, but by their actions - and if some pitiful affairs are a consistant element of given religion, then that is also what this religion represents deep down.

So one might say you, even when doing righteous things, are captured by colaterall damage of dishonorable things behind which your religions does stand. More, by identifying yourself with that particular organisation, you explicitly give those things support.

Also, why do you feel the need to hijack "spirituality" to fit only your purposes? Is that really a righteous thing to do?

Re:Yeah, it's called blissful ignorance

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, nothing in the study proves anything that could be construed as invalidating spirituality, that's just your biased interpretation. Personally, I think it's quite plausible that willfulness is the primary source of rejection of spirituality, and that therefore altering the brain could indeed reduce a person's resistance to spirituality. Of course, that doesn't mean we should do it. :)
It's always interesting to see how many "scientifically-minded" people have the same exact "true believer" mentality as some fundamentalists. Personally, I prefer a more balanced approach that relies more on thinking, feeling, and observing and less on blind faith.

--
Posting AC to avoid the hordes of "true believers" in science who would inevitably mod me down for not sharing their fanatical views. :)

Re:Yeah, it's called blissful ignorance

[Hognoxious]

Remember that Newton was highly religious.

He took holy orders because it was a requirement for his job, but he also dabbled in atheism.

And despite being brilliant, he was in many ways flawed.

Re:Yeah, it's called blissful ignorance

[VValdo]

Not me. I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy.

Just different ways to kill the pain the same.

W

Re:Yeah, it's called blissful ignorance

[SleazyRidr]

You must consider the times in which he lived. Other people have mentioned that not being Christian was rather dangerous, but I think it's even simpler than that.

Newton was on the search for truth. He was also quite interested in the occult. He didn't know where the truth lay, so he searched everywhere until he found it.

Of course, now we can stand on his shoulders and see further than he did but no-one should forget that he was the one laying the foundations for what we take for granted today.

Re:Yeah, it's called blissful ignorance

[gestalt_n_pepper]

Again. No universal definition of "spiritual" exists. An australian abo, a Buddhist, or a Muslim Sufi all see it differently.

I, and probably most of the people on Digg or Reddit, don't hate religious people OR Christians. I suspect that they DO hate it when small groups of "spiritual people" of sect X decide to legislate political matters based on unprovable, mythologically based views of the world. This affects everyone directly and has provably cause great harm to gays, jews, puritans and anabaptists.

Whether the universe was created by an omniscient superbeing(s) or not, does it matter? None of them have shown up this morning offering to help me with anything, any more than I would show up at an anthill 100 miles north and offer to help ant number 3432. Besides, if they DO exist, all bets are off. They can effect your memory and make you believe anything they want.

Spirituality can well be a "feeling." There's no commonly accepted criterion. Many of my spiritual moments have include "feelings."

Re:Yeah, it's called blissful ignorance

[PigIronBob]

Christiaan Huygens, a contemporary of Newton and a formidable scientist in his own right had a different view:

"The World is my Fatherland, Science is my Religion"

Re:Yeah, it's called blissful ignorance

[Narcocide]

That's very true however FWIW I read somewhere that Newton had claimed he'd gained many of his initial insights about physics and mathematics while in process of re-translating the bible to English. Only having read a couple recent popular English translations myself, it seems a bit strange as a source for that type of inspiration but I'd also read that he was not the only huge figure in science that claimed this.

I think maybe it is possible that there are times in human history when in certain societies being extremely religious may have actually been an enlightening pursuit... perhaps one of the only few available. Keep in mind there wasn't a lot of funding of public libraries or schools or even literature going on outside the walls of the church back then.

Re:Yeah, it's called blissful ignorance

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

I do have problems when you start defining "warm fuzzy feelings" as spirituality because spirituality is not a feeling.

Lol. YOU just defined it as a feeling yourself - "you realize he is there and strive to live differently as a result?"
You can disclaim that as a feeling all you want, but "realizing" something that is intangible is pretty much by definition nothing more than a feeling.

Re:Yeah, it's called blissful ignorance

[HeckRuler]

Yeah, you probably also prefer the more balanced approach of Fox News.

But you're right, in part, in that this does not invalidate spirituality. But it does explain spirituality. It's an attempt to accurately define what spirituality is. And it appears that it's chemicals in your head. It does not invalidate it any more then lightning is invalidated by knowing that it's a transfer of electrons.

Not that any of the grandparents implied that spirituality isn't real. Just your personal view of spirituality as some sort of mystic out-of-body experience.

But you know, I'm with you, fuck blind faith. In any form.

Re:Yeah, it's called blissful ignorance

[0xdeadbeef]

> It's not quite so simple. Remember that Newton was highly religious. It would be hard to describe him as not having a fully functional brain.

An overclocked processor can be spectacularly fast, and spectacularly wrong.

Re:Yeah, it's called blissful ignorance

[Mister Whirly]

Then you should have no problem that I believe that your "spirituality" is nothing more than chemicals in your brain giving you a "warm fuzzy feeling". Nothing wrong with that, I just achieve the same effects through gin, not religion.

Re:Yeah, it's called blissful ignorance

[The Abused Developer]

Yeah, bovine/porcine/avian face and attitude of the happines ... we see it all over the megapolis around the world during the rush hours in the morning and afternoon ...

Re:Yeah, it's called blissful ignorance

[BrandonBlizard]

Hey mister. Are you tall?

Re:Yeah, it's called blissful ignorance

[Grishnakh]

Spirituality is something hijacked by religion in order to control and manipulate people.

Re:Yeah, it's called blissful ignorance

[Labcoat Samurai]

Finally I'd like to conclude that spirituality is not a "feeling". I don't wake up one day and say I feel more spiritual than another day. Spirituality is your relationship with God. Do you dismiss God and go about your way, or do you realize he is there and strive to live differently as a result?

It absolutely is a feeling. People don't arrive at faith in god through logic. They may employ post hoc rationalization to obfuscate the issue and try to convince themselves and others that they did, but "realizing God is there" is a spiritual feeling, not an intellectual deduction.

I'm reminded of the study in skeptic magazine that, to paraphrase, found that people who believed in god tended to claim that they arrived at their belief in rational ways, but that they think others arrived at their faith through feelings and a desire for comfort and a sense of purpose. I thought that was interesting. It indicates that people recognize feelings as a big motivator for belief in god, but that they are also uncomfortable with admitting to being anything less than perfectly rational. Your denial of spirituality being a feeling coupled with your focus on god defining your life and how you should live it indicates to me that you're the kind of person who needs that comfort and purpose from an outside source, but is uncomfortable admitting to it.

Re:Yeah, it's called blissful ignorance

[wealthychef]

Why do you think that happiness is the same as stupidity? In my experience, many people go from blissful ignorance (childhood) to unhappy ignorance (teenagers) to arrogant unhappiness (young adulthood) to resignation (midlife crisis) to mature joy. Some people skip various steps and there are others possible, of course. I'm just saying your view is extremely narrow and not particularly accurate. There are many very intelligent people who live very happy lives, laughing and loving their lives. Just because you are serene and have deep inner peace and happiness doesn't mean you never cry or don't get upset.

Re:Yeah, it's called blissful ignorance

[wealthychef]

just achieve the same effects through gin, not religion.
Alcohol does not give you the same effect as deep spiritual practice, at least for most people. I'm assuming you are not referring to the card game here. And religion is not the same as spirituality. You sir sound like you might be ignorant of a very important and beneficial part of life. I say this as an atheist.

Re:Yeah, it's called blissful ignorance

[wealthychef]

I think it's more subtle and complex than that. Religion is like a virus that has benefits to its host. It transmits certain successful memes and in exchange it replicates itself. It cannot be denied that simply telling people to "be good" does not motivate them to act wisely. But giving a loving environment to practice kindness and support for each other is what religion excels at. As an atheist, I wish I had more such structures for myself. I turn to mens teams and personal development for finding more evolved and kind people.

Re:Yeah, it's called blissful ignorance

[Pseudonym]

[...] and if some pitiful affairs are a consistant element of given religion, then that is also what this religion represents deep down.

So if some supposedly democratic countries have a habit of invading other countries crying "freedom" and "democracy", would it be fair to say that democracy is inherently violent and imperialistic?

Re:Yeah, it's called blissful ignorance

[Grishnakh]

Yes, many churches (or other religious establishments) are basically big social clubs; a lot of "Christians" are only Christians in name, and don't really come as much for the theology as for the socializing. That probably has something to do with why there's so many more women in church than men, especially when you look at the singles.

Re:Yeah, it's called blissful ignorance

[Pseudonym]

No universal definition of "spiritual" exists. An australian abo, a Buddhist, or a Muslim Sufi all see it differently.

(Disclaimer: The term that you used to describe Indigenous Australians is considered offensively racist these days. I realise you may not have known this, but you do now. Please don't use it in future.)

Carl Jung and Joseph Campbell argued that in reality, what an Australian Aboriginie, a Buddhist and a Sufi practice are all pretty much the same if you ignore all of the culture-specific details.

Re:Yeah, it's called blissful ignorance

[gd2shoe]

Newton would have been branded a heretic, but only because he had non-mainstream beliefs about the trinity. He was deeply religious. (I thought it was in a Nova program on Hulu, but I can't find it now.)

Re:Yeah, it's called blissful ignorance

[uberjack]

As I understand, so is Donald Knuth

Re:Yeah, it's called blissful ignorance

[Eil]

But humanity probably wouldn't make much scientific, intellectual, or cultural progress if everyone was walking around every day drugged-up and lobotomized, with stupid goddamn grins on their faces.

Following that logic, we would already have the warp drive, transporter, and a democratic galactic government, all developed by pedestrians on the streets of New York City.

Re:Yeah, it's called blissful ignorance

[Mister Whirly]

If alcohol does not give you the same effect as deep spiritual practice, then you are drinking the wrong kind of gin. And cheap gin is not the same as fine spirits. You sir sound like you may be ignorant of this very important and beneficial part of life. I say this as someone with a sense of humor, who understands things like satire and tongue-in-cheek humor.

Re:Yeah, it's called blissful ignorance

[gestalt_n_pepper]

Thanks for the reminder about Australian aboriginals.

As for Jung and Campbell, phooey. I know the idea was popular in intellectual circles around the turn of the last century, but it's nonsense. The religious states are NOT all the same, either in precepts or end state. Even stripped of cultural references, dreamtime is not nirvana which is not Samadhi which is not Samyama which has nothing to do with the !Kung's concept of !Num. None of these correlate to the shamanic practices of the Amazonian native american tribes.

 

Re:Yeah, it's called blissful ignorance

[jollyreaper]

POPPIES! POPPIES!

Re:Yeah, it's called blissful ignorance

[Pseudonym]

For the record, Jung and Campbell were not talking specifically about religious institutions, and definitely not state religions, but rather the "on the ground" stuff such as the mythological archetypes, ethical codes and ceremonial practices.

Re:Yeah, it's called blissful ignorance

[amRadioHed]

I'm sure there were plenty of atheists who went along with religion enough to avoid prosecution, but that clearly was not the case with Newton. He even published some religious writings along with his scientific work.

Re:Yeah, it's called blissful ignorance

[lawpoop]

at the time of newton if you were a declared atheist, you would have gone into serious serious problems, falling apples and math would have been your last concern

That's remarkedly not the reason for Newton's interest in religion. He was interested in all sorts of mystical and esoteric subjects, such as alchemy and anagrams in the names of popes that would spell "antichrist" and stuff like that. Wikipedia says this: "Historian Stephen D. Snobelen says of Newton, "Isaac Newton was a heretic. But ... he never made a public declaration of his private faith -- which the orthodox would have deemed extremely radical. He hid his faith so well that scholars are still unravelling his personal beliefs."[6] Snobelen concludes that Newton was at least a Socinian sympathiser (he owned and had thoroughly read at least eight Socinian books), possibly an Arian and almost certainly an antitrinitarian.[6] In an age notable for its religious intolerance there are few public expressions of Newton's radical views, most notably his refusal to take holy orders and his refusal, on his death bed, to take the sacrament when it was offered to him.[6]

"In a view disputed by Snobelen,[6] T.C. Pfizenmaier argues that Newton held the Eastern Orthodox view of the Trinity rather than the Western one held by Roman Catholics, Anglicans, and most Protestants.[64] In his own day, he was also accused of being a Rosicrucian (as were many in the Royal Society and in the court of Charles II).[65]"

So for a man who might feign interest in religion to avoid scrutiny by authorities, he sure was dabbling in the wrong kinds of stuff. I think the evidence shows that he was rather a spiritual or mystical person. This is nothing more than atheists re-writing history to fit an atheist agenda. Science has scientists have had a long and intertwining relationship with religion.

Re:Yeah, it's called blissful ignorance

[sznupi]

Read more carefully what you quote. I said "of given religion", "what this religion".

If some supposedly democratic country consistently invades other countries crying "freedom" and "democracy"...then yes, that is what "freedom" and "democracy" stands for in this case. It doesn't say much about how other people or other countries use the same labels (other then in comparisons)

Re:Yeah, it's called blissful ignorance

[spankey51]

But the rest of us, stuck with all of our fully-functional brains, are forced to sometimes contemplate serious matters that aren't so happy. Sure, we sometimes get depressed. But humanity probably wouldn't make much scientific, intellectual, or cultural progress if everyone was walking around every day drugged-up and lobotomized, with stupid goddamn grins on their faces.

The thing that makes us "human" is simply the symbols that our neurological processes use to represent our 5 senses and our memories of them. Without our ego, we are no different from a tree. Spirituality for me is simply the sense of letting go of my ego to the best of my ability, to become more like a tree. I'm not interested in becoming an inanimate object but by exercising existence with less ego I find that my sense of oneness with the universe is more tangible... in fact, it would be more accurate to say that WE (or IT) find(s) that OUR (IT's) sense of oneness is more tangible.

The subjective symbols that my brain use to represent the universe are irrelevant to the rest of the universe. They were taught to me by my society or otherwise inherited by the physiological process of growth and instinct. What is it that makes me different from my rollie chair and keyboard? Why do I have this overwhelming sense of individuality from everything around me? How come my cellphone and I aren't one in the same thing? Well, it depends on your perspective... If you are the ultimate objective observer (say the infinite universe and all of it's dimensions of time and space [arguably god]) then we are indistinguishable from our rollie chair, keyboard and cellphone. To the ultimate objective observer who has no symbols attached to anything, there is no such thing as a "hand" or a "foot" or a "body," everything can be considered as being part of something else or can be considered by itself if need be (Of course no consideration would be needed)

Humans are animals, and like any good animal, we must interact with our environment such that we may survive and fulfill other functions like reproduction. In order to achieve this, evolution has caused animals to have neurological traits that help them function as an individual while they go about their day to day business of existing. These traits involve things like our 5 senses, a "sense" of individuality, memory, an ability to extrapolate concepts into the future... So when we ask the question "why do I have this sense of individuality?" or "how come I have this attachment to this hand, these feet, etc. The answer is simply because it helps us survive... By having a tangible sense of self with a self-serving ego, we fulfill our animal nature, no matter how complex or separate from the rest of the animal kingdom we may seem.

Now a tree has no ego. It has no sense of time. arguably, it has no qualia: color, smell, tactile senses, etc. It exists as the rest of the universe does: Timeless and infinite. Ultimate spiritual transcendence for me involves coming to as complete of an understanding as possible that we are all part of the same thing. That the only thing separating us is the symbols that we have been taught by our parents, teachers, books and televisions. Society acts to bring us together as people and allows us to function in large groups without excessive chaos. But it also acts to draw us apart from each other spiritually by reinforcing the symbols our brains use to define sense of self.

So elrous0, here we are... Stuck with all of our fully-functional brains, contemplating serious matters. But I'm happy. I do sometimes get depressed, but we as humanity can make as much scientific, intellectual, and cultural progress as we want. The limits of how far we can take this species is determined only by how many faces we can get those stupid goddamn grins onto :) Otherwise what's the point?

Re:Yeah, it's called blissful ignorance

[Thing 1]

That probably has something to do with why there's so many more women in church than men, especially when you look at the singles.

Yeah, not going to church is turning out to be as sexually fulfilling as going to an engineering university...

Re:Yeah, it's called blissful ignorance

[WinstonWolfIT]

The more you know, the more likely you are to be highly spiritual (Einstein) The less you know, the more likely you are to be highly spiritual (my next door neighbor Bob)

Re:Yeah, it's called blissful ignorance

[martinX]

Perhaps if Newton was Indian, he would have had mystical insights about Buddhist scriptures. Maybe his brain was 'wired' in that special way that made him liable to mathematical insights and was also attempting to draw connections between unconnected things. Fine line between genius and madness and all that.

Re:Yeah, it's called blissful ignorance

[Albinoman]

Newton was also known for his work in alchemy. He enjoyed his share of share of toxins (like mercury). Don't get me wrong, Newton was sheer brilliance. I'm able to be taught calculus, but to make that leap intuitively is absolutely amazing. That doesn't mean he wasn't damaged.

I saw a video by Neil deGrasse Tyson called "God of the Gaps", highly recommended. He points out that even the most incredibly brilliant people invoke God add the edge of their intelligence. For Newton, he managed to come out with incredible breakthroughs in motion, energy, gravitation, and math. But when Newton couldn't mathematically balance the "6 planets" in stable orbits, he decides it must be God. He quits trying to understand and explore it after that, as do a great many intelligent people in history. The disturbing thing is that it means that that once "God" is accepted as an answer, they are either unable or unwilling to explore that subject further. God is the antithesis of discovery.

Re:Yeah, it's called blissful ignorance

[sznupi]

It's still hijacking. "A loving environment to practice kindness and support for each other" is family, often quite extended. And that's governed by more basic instincts. On the "loving" level, the succesful religions are mostly tapping what's already there. It's getting a bit fuzzy on the level of tribe; religion certainly can help it to be somewhat bigger and more stable, hence giving bonuses when competing (OTOH it also gave certain level of religious tolerance when larger loose society did form - "our gods" and "their gods" was just a fact of life).

But here's the kicker: historically typical "natural" faiths of such societies aren't held in much regard by many of most succesfull religions. And since the latter emphasise unity, it gave them the strenght to outcompete native faiths, forming much more integrated societies in the process. Which ultimatelly gave us agrarian, industrial and informational revolution...

I guess organised religions somewhat loosing relevance nowadays is related to the last revolution. Absolutist worldview present at their core suddenly doesn't work nearly as well when people have access to whole world at their fingertips; when they find themselves in a world not totally unlike of "loose tribal society"...in which completelly different kind of faiths worked.

Worked, and was replaced by stronger contestants. What will emerge this time?

Re:Yeah, it's called blissful ignorance

[Opportunist]

I can easily see that. When I'm tasked with mind numbing work, I usually also have my brain wander around in pursuit for good ideas.

Re:Yeah, it's called blissful ignorance

[theshowmecanuck]

The religious right modders have spoken. Join Bush on his crusade already.

Re:Yeah, it's called blissful ignorance

[outsider007]

Religion is different from spirituality.
Really they're almost opposites.

Re:Yeah, it's called blissful ignorance

[Opportunist]

So for you, Brave New World would be an utopian novel?

Re:Yeah, it's called blissful ignorance

[genner]

Understanding satire and tongue-in-cheek humor and begin funny or clever are very different things. You are not very skilled in the latter.

Knowing when to end a running gage and to keep running with it are very different things.

Re:Yeah, it's called blissful ignorance

[erroneus]

Back in those days, to be taken seriously at all, one had to claim strong religious affiliation and belief. Hell, even today a person cannot become president of the U.S. without being Christian and attending a particular church. (Yeah, I know Jefferson was supposedly an atheist or agnostic, but some of his most famous quotes contain references to god which is kind of my point. He may have been atheist, but had to speak of god to people would accept him.)

And we all know what happens to people who cross the church... not good.

Re:Yeah, it's called blissful ignorance

[tftp]

He even published some religious writings along with his scientific work.

Let me rephrase it. Newton's scientific work included religion, since it was an integral part of the world at his time.

Re:Yeah, it's called blissful ignorance

[jc42]

... You sir sound like you may be ignorant of this very important and beneficial part of life. I say this as someone with a sense of humor, who understands things like satire and tongue-in-cheek humor.

Ah, but you should realize that the portion of the brain disabled by the article's surgery is the part that controls the sense of humor. That's where the "spirituality" comes from, since one of the main characteristics of most "spiritual" people is a lack of a sense of humor.

Re:Yeah, it's called blissful ignorance

[sznupi]

What's hilarious is that those religious girls, at least where I live, quite often loose their virginity...at pilgrimadges, etc. (well, at least not to priests or monks AFAIK)

Which is partly explained of course by, while they engage in church life, their watchers aren't watching. "Our girl is safe there", "that is a good boy, he's active in church".

I guess that is what is called an opportunity...

Re:Yeah, it's called blissful ignorance

[russotto]

After I talked to the genetic engineer (for Monsanto) in Saint Louis that told me he didn't believe in evolution

You misunderstood him. He didn't mean he didn't believe it happened. He meant he didn't believe it was a good idea. He's a Monsanto genetic engineer; he doesn't BELIEVE in God, he PLAYS God.

Re:Yeah, it's called blissful ignorance

[penguinbrat]

Wow, a spiritual person having a hard time believing something that can be scientifically proven that contradicts their own personal views that cannot be scientifically proven. There's a first.

Fixed that for you.. Other than that, I'm not so sure I would completely agree with your statement, science is changing all the time, and with the changes more and more doors are opening up - some shedding light and others opening to yet a another deep void that is left to be explained let alone theorized. Science has proven lately to show that previous scientific facts/proofs were flat out wrong because of these new doors that have opened - until 100% of everything is explained/proven and not merely theorized (and not 99.999% either as that remaining 0.001% can open yet another door to endless questions) saying that something isn't so is just plain ignorance. It's ignorant because you've stopped thinking/feeling for your self and has accepted what 'someone' else says is so...

You need to remember that 'religion' is the bureaucratic version of spirituality - two completely different things, like being human and being a corporate lawyer/politician is two completely different things (pun intended). Personally, I believe that science is looking for a needle in a haystack the size of the universe - in which the needle is sitting on your nose. The notion of "God" is so freaking simple it's ridiculous, although due to religion it has become so complicated and intricate that it is taking science to try and unravel it - aka, disprove it (which it won't)..

A simple question - whats *two* things that EVERY human being on this planet has in common, that's not biological or physical and regardless of religion or beliefs - and then ask your self what the relationship is...

Re:Yeah, it's called blissful ignorance

[Thing 1]

Hahaha, lather rinse repeat. The watchers will someday learn that not watching at some point is not at all dissimilar to not watching at any point.

Re:Yeah, it's called blissful ignorance

[GNUALMAFUERTE]

I agree 99% with you. The difference comes form the fact that when I used to be on cocaine 6 days a week I was highly productive ... and I have actually coded some brilliant pieces while high.

The only drug that is really bad for the human race is religion. All the others can be bad, or can be really good.

Re:Yeah, it's called blissful ignorance

[GNUALMAFUERTE]

There's no need to disprove "spirituality" because the very definition disproves it. It's a ridiculous, childish concept that has never been proved true. Burden of proof, etc,etc.

The best man that have ever lived, George Carlin, used to say "I was born in a christian family, and I was a christian ... well until I reached the age of reason. So I was a christian for about 2 and a half years"

Re:Yeah, it's called blissful ignorance

[GNUALMAFUERTE]

You are right, it's not a feeling. It' a disease.

Nietzsche was right. You christians truly are the poisoners and murderers of everything that is pure and beautiful about the human character.

I'm posting your faith club on /b/ ( I mean, Ebaum's, Ebaum's! ), I'm sure they'll enjoy it, and you'll enjoy their company.

Enjoy the trolling.

Re:Yeah, it's called blissful ignorance

[GNUALMAFUERTE]

You are right. Alcohol is not the same as Spirituality. The differences:

  - Alcohol is cheaper than religion
  - Alcohol will get you laid
  - Alcohol lets you sleep late on sundays
  - Alcohol doesn't judge you, your condom, or your abortion.
  - You don't have to wear ridiculous hats to drink Alcohol.
  - Alcohol produces less brain damage than religion.

Thank you, I'm here all week.

Re:Yeah, it's called blissful ignorance

[GNUALMAFUERTE]

Catholicism provides all of that already. The priests make you gay really early, the sell you overpriced lies as soon as you are born, and your pope wears prada shoes. And the hats! That's fashionable!.

Re:Yeah, it's called blissful ignorance

[wealthychef]

"A loving environment to practice kindness and support for each other" is family, often quite extended.

Not everyone is so lucky.

Re:Yeah, it's called blissful ignorance

[wealthychef]

one of the main characteristics of most "spiritual" people is a lack of a sense of humor.

If this is the funniest material you have, then you need to work on your routine, brother.

Re:Yeah, it's called blissful ignorance

[Citizen of Earth]

He was deeply religious.

And if these historical geniuses had lived today, they would almost certainly be atheists.

Re:Yeah, it's called blissful ignorance

[feathersmg]

It's not quite so simple. Remember that Newton was highly religious. It would be hard to describe him as not having a fully functional brain.

Never forget Newton discovered Gravity rules when an apple fall on his head. That may induce a kind of heavy head trauma, so it's normal that he became highly religious.

Re:Yeah, it's called blissful ignorance

[megrims]

Yeah, and also:

Because staplers can be used to kill people, staplers are the antithesis of life.

Re:Yeah, it's called blissful ignorance

[Jade_Wayfarer]

Right, and lightning ball is "just a stable ball of cold plasma". Defining something is not explaining something. So, researchers found some correlation between still-mostly-unknown brain functionality and even-more-unknown human psyche. Yay, good news, seriously, but hardly an 'explanation' to me. And most surely not the 'only explanation'. Why reality of something must automatically discard reality of something else? While I accept and agree with results of mentioned research, I don't feel qualified enough to declare 'spirituality' only a physiological phenomenon.

My old physics prof used to say "There are still many things in modern science that only fresh graduates can 'explain'. Because more experienced scientists don't take them as 'explanations', they take them as 'theories' and 'axioms', nothing more." And Niels Bohr used to say "It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about nature."

Re:Yeah, it's called blissful ignorance

[Ihmhi]

There is a crowd hatred towards those who are spiritual in those places. I profess nothing more than what Jesus did: Love everyone even if they hate you. And I get lots of people raging that I'm the cause of all the world's problems. It is like they fail to read that all I profess for others is love.

Atheist here.

No, they absolutely read it. They understand all you profess for others is love. The problem is that there are lots of other Christians out there that profess their love for mankind in one sentence and yell about the homos and commies burning in Hell in the next sentence.

Christianity (like any cult* or religion) has a very vocal minority ruining it for all of the relatively sane folks who practice it (see: televangelists, Bible Belt Fundies, Westboro Baptist Church).

Now if I sat here and wrote "Everyone makes fun of me because I'm fat!" I'm sure that I would get a slew of comments telling me to get off of my ass and go exercise. So I'll do the same courtesy to you. Rather than complain about how people treat you like shit because of your spirituality, perhaps you should direct your energy towards organizing people together in a voice that will be louder and more powerful than your oppressive, idiotic brethren who are twisting Scripture to serve their own political or monetary purposes.

Go out there, do some good, and (contrary to what some Christians believe) let people know about it. Show them that not every person of faith is out to turn America into theocracy or out to buy a second Rolls Royce for their vacation home. A couple hundred years of peace, love, and goodwill to man might undo all the bad press the Crusades and Inquisition gave you guys.

.

.

* To proactively defend against downmodding: whereas cult is used in modern language as a derogatory term for religions with practices one deems to be nutty or weird, the proper usage is to describe a relatively new and/or small religious movement. Cults and nutty behavior do not necessarily go hand-in-hand. Your definitions of nutty may vary. See your local Honda dealer for details.

Re:Yeah, it's called blissful ignorance

[Nyder]

Yeah, you can make someone a lot happier with a lobotomy too. And stupid people who don't *use* their brains are often amused by the human equivalent of shiny keys (aka "reality television"). And people who drug themselves into a brainless stupor are are often in a complete euphoria (even a rat-infested, filthy trailer becomes paradise with just a little dab of meth).

But the rest of us, stuck with all of our fully-functional brains, are forced to sometimes contemplate serious matters that aren't so happy. Sure, we sometimes get depressed. But humanity probably wouldn't make much scientific, intellectual, or cultural progress if everyone was walking around every day drugged-up and lobotomized, with stupid goddamn grins on their faces.

ummm, considering how much caffeine and cigarettes, not to mention prescriptions that peeps use, I'd say there's very few peeps have a "fully-functional brain" as you call it.

Re:Yeah, it's called blissful ignorance

[Bob_Who]

But the rest of us, stuck with all of our fully-functional brains, are forced to sometimes contemplate serious matters that aren't so happy.

Thank God for the fully functional. Scientology also cures bliss and trailer infestations.

Re:Yeah, it's called blissful ignorance

[Jade_Wayfarer]

I agree with you absolutely. It's always puzzled me, how often people mix and confuse terms and definitions - 'spirituality' and' religion', 'religion' and 'catholicism', 'catholicism' and 'bat-shit crazy orthodoxal cults', piling them all together. By the way, 'agnostics' are, by original definition, spiritualists too - but 'agnosticism' and 'atheism' are mixed so badly, that now it sounds ridiculous.

I am, personally, do believe that science and scientists will someday recover and reclaim 'spiritualism' from all fanatics - religious and atheist alike. Putting emotions aside and calmly trying to understand 'how it all works' - that's what scientists do. And many great scientists of their time weren't atheists - from Newton and Leibniz to Bohr and Pauli. Quite contrary, their deep and clear understanding of nature's underlying mechanics lead them to aesthetic fascination with it's simplicity and beauty, which makes them much more spiritual people then some 'TV preachers'. If we knew more about their personalities, not only about their theories, maybe today we wouldn't spend so much time on such meaningless 'holywars'... joining our strengths in bashing Microsoft and RIAA, how it should be )

Re:Yeah, it's called blissful ignorance

[Hurricane78]

GP simply knows nothing about psychology/neurology. Religion is literally what one could call a simple form of... well... “schizophrenia”. Now this might leave some people insulted. But you have to know, that that is actually a useful tool, to keep us surviving. So if you call it “bad” depends on your point of view. (Like everything in psychology and every mutation.)

You see, humans MUST at all times have a working inner model of the outer world. Or else we are unable to predict any result of any of our actions. Which would leave us unable to follow any goal... to do anything useful. This, to the human brain, is probably the worst possible state, and literally results in the same strong fear as the fear of death. So we avoid it at any cost.

There are many ways to deal with this. Of course the most obvious one, is to try to understand it, trough playing with it, experimenting, acquiring more information about it. But what, if that it literally impossible? Like the question where the universe comes from?
Or what if we are mentally unable to make it fit with out known reality? We can’t just leave it there, because we would still know of that conflict, and stop being able to live our life.

So what to do?

Well. First there’s repression. Which basically is, when your brain shuts off one piece of knowledge from the rest of your brain. This often happens, after you experienced something so crass, that the association just spilled over, so that you link it to things it shouldn’t be linked to. Like when someone raped you and had a mustache, and now you get a sad feeling and pain down there, whenever you see someone with a mustache!
The problem is, that you will, because of that repression, not be able to remember that actual bad cause. But hate mustaches anyway, not knowing why.

But the worst-case scenario, is when you stop being able to trust the outside world, and don’t find any way to make it work or hide it. Then you end up with schizophrenia. Which is basically (simplified!), that you turn cause and effect on its head. You start to trust your inner model more, that new experiences from the real world.
Does that remind you of something? ^^
I must say that religion mostly still is a thousand times better than full scale schizophrenia. Like dangerous UV in sunlight, compared to powerful gamma rays, for your skin.

Now it’s obvious, that this is unrelated to intelligence. But to the ratio of what you know that does not fit, and what you can make fit. So a dumb person is more prone to it, because it is much harder to make it all fit. But can live a happy simple life.
Such people just have more needs for make do mechanisms, to survive. But is that bad per se? Evolution would not agree.

And someone like Newton... he likely was pretty intelligent. But my guess is, that he simply knew so much that he could not make sense of. He was able to make sense of some things. But others were just waaayyy out of everything conceivable in his time. So religion was a good way out, to not become crazy over questions he would never have been able to solve.

I, myself, can only solve the “where came the universe from” question, trough repression/ignorance. Some choose to use a “god”. Of course this still leaves the question open, where “god” came from.
Fun experiment: If you want to see this protective “Schweinehund” (as we in Germany call it) in full glory, go and try to push a religious person on answering where god came from? ^^ But please don’t bee too cruel, as I could just as well do this to your weak spots. ;)

Re:Yeah, it's called blissful ignorance

[GameboyRMH]

Reminds me of a story a coworker told me about a "highly religious" girl, she went to a girls-only Catholic school, hardly left home unattended, and was on a tight schedule. She lost her virginity in her own home, while her mother was there - through a knothole (wooden house) XD

Re:Yeah, it's called blissful ignorance

[eric-x]

Maybe you should just do what you say you do (which you obviously don't): just love them AND STFU about your hypothetical god.
You'll find a lot less resistence if you stick to my advice.

Re:Yeah, it's called blissful ignorance

[GameboyRMH]

Genetic engineer who doesn't "believe in" evolution. Wow. How does that work? That's like being an electrical engineer who doesn't "believe in" electricity. Are you sure he wasn't just messing with you?

Re:Yeah, it's called blissful ignorance

[elrous0]

And no matter how much Tom Cruise tries, it can't cure gay.

Re:Yeah, it's called blissful ignorance

[wealthychef]

Wow, I have all sorts of questions as to how that one worked. First of all, how horny was that guy? Second, how big was his penis? Third, how desperate was she? Fourth, did they do it doggy style or missionary position? Fifth, were there splinters involved?

Regarding humor, while the lack of ability to smile is a big red flag, sometimes a "sense of humor" is just resistance to new experience or confusion or embarrassment masquerading as a joke. So no, I don't think your supposed superior funny bone is necessarily something to aspire to, although there is nothing wrong with it either. And of course, don't go around thinking that just because you think something is funny everybody has to. ROTFLMAO OK

Re:Yeah, it's called blissful ignorance

[Mister Whirly]

If you honestly believe the man with "God Spoke to me" and a link to faithclub.net in his signature is spiritual, but not religious, I think it is YOU who are confusing the definitions. He may be both, but he is definitely religious. (See how I demonstrated that the two are not mutually exclusive?) Why don't you ask CrazyJim himself if he is a religious man? Care to put some money on his answer? (That is, if your religion or spirituality doesn't prohibit gambling.)

And are you actually saying that since science is "changing all the time" and nothing is 100% proven that zero scientific theories are valid? Whoa. Well, they never will be (at least to folks like you) but to me being 99.99999999% certain of something is good enough.

It's ignorant because you've stopped thinking/feeling for your self and has accepted what 'someone' else says is so...

Hey, that sound like a great definition for religion!

Re:Yeah, it's called blissful ignorance

[GameboyRMH]

1. Very!

2. Unknown

3. Very!

4. Well the hole was in the floor (many wooden houses around here are "on blocks") so it must have been cowgirl or reverse cowgirl.

5. I don't know but probably yes :S

Regarding humor, don't be offended by my sig, I just want to make would-be downmodders think twice since I like to post a lot of dry sarcasm. If they really want to, then fine, but impulse downmodding makes me a saaaad panda :(

Re:Yeah, it's called blissful ignorance

[tehcyder]

Spirituality is your relationship with God.

Not necessarily. You can experience deep spiritual feelings such as pure unselfishness, insight, calm, awe and the rest just by looking at a sunset or listening to music.

Re:Yeah, it's called blissful ignorance

[jc42]

Yeah; for some reason I never get hired to to stand-up at church retreats. I've gotta get some new material. Somehow, I don't think /. is the place to find it, though.

Re:Yeah, it's called blissful ignorance

[theshowmecanuck]

100% sure he wasn't messing with me. I thought it was a joke at first and laughed. He was stone faced. I kept thinking he has to be joking but he didn't change. He and his friends around him were too consistent for it to be a joke. Sad but true.

Re:Yeah, it's called blissful ignorance

[tehcyder]

It's "I'd rather have a full bottle in front of me than a full frontal lobotomy."

Re:Yeah, it's called blissful ignorance

[wealthychef]

or some reason I never get hired to to stand-up at church retreats.

As opposed to all those other people in your life that are uplifted and amused by your amazing sense of humor? You people who think you're funny -- you might want to check if all the people who are laughing are drunk.

Re:Yeah, it's called blissful ignorance

[wealthychef]

. Well the hole was in the floor (many wooden houses around here are "on blocks") so it must have been cowgirl or reverse cowgirl.

That's just impressive either way. I mean, wow. How... I mean why... shit, I give up. I can't decide if I miss my 20's or am relieved they're over. :-)
Don't be a sad panda -- happy pandas get more out of life. :-) The hell with the moderators, just post whatever you like. That's what I do and I get modded quite fairly.

Re:Yeah, it's called blissful ignorance

[IICV]

Newton was highly religious, but his religion was all sorts of weird shit. He wasn't the first of the modern scientists so much as the last of the ancient warlocks.

Re:Yeah, it's called blissful ignorance

[HeckRuler]

Fair enough. There are still many unknowns about the brain and there are differing theories. Just like there are differing theories for the shape of the earth, the underlying reason for gravity, and the existence of black holes. Some theories are stronger and have more weight behind them then others, and some issues still have no clear victor.

The nature of the mind is not yet to the point where everyone will laugh at you for believing in the mind-body dualism. But there does appear to be a trend in that direction. And there is a non-technical reason for existence of the mind-body dualism theory which would explain your bias against this evidence. Now, if you have weightier evidence for your theory that I'm unaware of, then by all means feel free to share. But if you have held a theory merely out of tradition, and evidence comes along that contradicts that tradition, you should re-examine why that tradition is there in the first place. Most traditions serve some sort of real-world purpose, but most have very poor accuracy.

So in short; Why do you think spirituality is anything more then physiological?

Re:Yeah, it's called blissful ignorance

[DaFallus]

I profess nothing more than what Jesus did: Love everyone even if they hate you.

Have you tried professing it without name-dropping Jesus?

Why should he have to? I'm an atheist myself, but I for the life of me cannot understand why anyone would have a problem with such a sentiment, regardless of who expresses it.

Re:Yeah, it's called blissful ignorance

[operagost]

False dichotomy. Newton is nearly as well known for his religious writings. If he wasn't so devout, it would have been perfectly acceptable for him to avoid theology or, if the scholastic attitude of the time demanded it, submit a boring, trivial paper and be done with it.

Re:Yeah, it's called blissful ignorance

[HTH NE1]

Have you tried professing it without name-dropping Jesus?

Why should he have to? I'm an atheist myself, but I for the life of me cannot understand why anyone would have a problem with such a sentiment, regardless of who expresses it.

Because name-dropping is asinine.

Re:Yeah, it's called blissful ignorance

[operagost]

What's your point?

Re:Yeah, it's called blissful ignorance

[operagost]

Because...

Re:Yeah, it's called blissful ignorance

[operagost]

He wrote papers in the subjects of theology and apologetics. And he was flawed. SHOCKING!

Re:Yeah, it's called blissful ignorance

[operagost]

Well, I never got a hangover from reading the Bible. That beats about four or five of your points.

Re:Yeah, it's called blissful ignorance

[operagost]

You are a sad, vindictive person.

Re:Yeah, it's called blissful ignorance

[jedrichards]

Until people who are capable of cultural, scientific and intellectual progress learn to tolerate those less fortunate themselves, or even those that choose to make different types of life choices then we're all going to struggle, frankly. Your comment betrays quite a bit of hostility.

Re:Yeah, it's called blissful ignorance

[GNUALMAFUERTE]

You did get a hangover, it lasts the rest of your life, and manifests itself as delusions and interest in tall hats.

There is no god. Deal with it.

Re:Yeah, it's called blissful ignorance

[HTH NE1]

If the message is so strong, why overshadow it with the name? It's practically using his name in vanity. Isn't that supposed to be a sin? "Aren't I important! I know someone famous!"

Re:Yeah, it's called blissful ignorance

[AliasMarlowe]

The more you know, the more likely you are to be highly spiritual (Einstein) The less you know, the more likely you are to be highly spiritual (my next door neighbor Bob)

Not entirely sure that I agree, but even if it's true, then the two spritualities are likely to be as different as the intellects involved. From the Wikipedia article on Baruch Spinoza:

In 1929, Einstein was asked in a telegram by Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein whether he believed in God. Einstein responded by telegram: "I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings."

The Joe Six-pack kind of spirituality often involves blind belief in any of several crude mythologies, such as a sadistic paranoid sky zombie who loves him, etc.

Re:Yeah, it's called blissful ignorance

[Albinoman]

I'm sorry it offends you to be told "God is the antithesis of discovery", but your comparison isn't related whatsoever. Realize that every single scientific discovery, everything you understand about the natural world, was previously explained by God. Someone who wants to know more says "I don't know."

Re:Yeah, it's called blissful ignorance

[Jade_Wayfarer]

I haven't said that it is, I've said that it could be. But, in short - it's personal experience and beliefs. Of course, it's not a valid argument in modern science. After all, people tend to believe in more or less 'hard' evidence, proper theories and peer-reviewed articles, as it should be - we don't need any more blind faith, that's true.

But I don't have a team of brilliant scientists, proper funding, laboratory with modern equipment and connections in academical circles to present my evidence-proven theories to the world. I have only my own life, and my own 'spirituality' (which is somewhere between agnosticism and gnosticism, and not even close to any official religion), and I like how they work together )

By the way, reading articles about Newton, Leibniz, Planck, Pauli, C. G. Jung and others I think that it's not such a bad company to belong to )

Re:Yeah, it's called blissful ignorance

[HolyCrapSCOsux]

Drunkenness doesn't CHANGE your sense of humor. It reduces inhibition. Thereby allowing you to use your repressed sense of humor.

Take, for example, toilet humor. It's not funnier when you are drunk. The social safeties have been released, allowing you to laugh. If you want to know how someone really feels, get them bareley abmulatory.

Re:Yeah, it's called blissful ignorance

[megrims]

I'm not offended: God as an excuse for intellectual laziness certainly isn't a new thing. But I'm frustrated because it's not the full summation of religion either, which often also leads to the active pursuit of scientific knowledge. It depends on the person, and in the end, religion mostly irrelevant: people do what they choose to.

God isn't the antithesis of discovery, God is irrelevant to the situation.

Re:Yeah, it's called blissful ignorance

[lawpoop]

Yes, you're absolutely correct for the late. I'm not a proponent of religion, but I don't like atheists trying to re-write history any more than I do theists, or anybody else for that matter. I'll say it again, science and scientists have had a long and intertwining relationship with religion. This is apparent to anybody who has looked at the history.

Re:Yeah, it's called blissful ignorance

[Albinoman]

I have no problem with people believing they may have a soul and may go to some other place when they die. Science can't really explore that. When a belief becomes religion I think it is bad. Religions are nothing more that another government with their own laws and punishments and taxes.

Re:Yeah, it's called blissful ignorance

[wealthychef]

It also makes you stupider, which in fact changes your sense of humor, and not for the better. You become incapable of subtlety and things which are just stupid to anyone with their wits about them become hilarious. Before you accuse me of being a prohibitionist, I drink, and sometimes to excess. But honestly if you think being drunk is bringing out the comedic genius in you, uh, well, I guess have another beer and enjoy, but stay the f*ck away from me.

Re:Yeah, it's called blissful ignorance

[penguinbrat]

haha - didn't realize I was actually defending him, I was just replying to Mr Whirly - didn't even know about CrazyJim :-P And no - I'm defiantly not defending him, intentionally at least...

And are you actually saying that since science is "changing all the time" and nothing is 100% proven that zero scientific theories are valid? Whoa. Well, they never will be (at least to folks like you) but to me being 99.99999999% certain of something is good enough.

More power to ya - I'm just saying that when that 0.000000001% discovers something brand new and changes the fundamental understanding on how we understand our surroundings - at least I can say that I wont be dumb founded and lost, as I would have already known that there was still more out there.. With a search I dug up this as a quick example - http://science.slashdot.org/story/08/11/03/2229248/New-Type-of-Particle-May-Have-Been-Found

Re:Yeah, it's called blissful ignorance

[WinstonWolfIT]

But remember, it's not what you believe, it's whether you believe. To that I would add, it's best not to get caught in the middle.

Re:Yeah, it's called blissful ignorance

[Mister Whirly]

And when new discoveries are made, I can add the information to what is there already, and change my way of thinking if necessary. It isn't that difficult unless you have a bunch of religious dogma stopping you from doing that. And like in your quick example, discovering a new particle doesn't negate everything we currently know about particles up to this point. It just adds a new dimension to theories on particles. I don't think there are too many absolutes in science where anything can be 100% - but that shouldn't cause you to discount ALL science.

Re:Yeah, it's called blissful ignorance

[Mr. Slippery]

It's an attempt to accurately define what spirituality is. And it appears that it's chemicals in your head.

It is a grave and fundamental error to confuse the objective, philological correlates of an experience with the subjective experience itself. They are entities of different realms of existence. It's like confusing a velocity vector with a thrown bullet.

Re:Yeah, it's called blissful ignorance

[Mister Whirly]

Yeah, well a little bit of bible in the morning won't cure too much bible the night before, so take away those 4 or 5 points.

And what is the most common beverage mentioned in the bible again, oh yes - wine. So you can read about alcohol in the bible, but thankfully, there are no bible passages on my booze bottles. Another score for alcohol!

Re:Yeah, it's called blissful ignorance

[0xC2]

If you press your closed eye with your finger and see a light, you haven't explained light. That requires physics. Or if you stimulate the correct part of your brain and experience a salty taste in your mouth, you haven't explained salt. That requires chemistry. So how can you say:

But it does explain spirituality. It's an attempt to accurately define what spirituality is.

These experiments do little or nothing to explain the object of our senses. They do however explain the biology which allows us to experience them.

Re:Yeah, it's called blissful ignorance

[0xC2]

Mahatma Ghandi, Jesus, George Washington: they could have saved a lot of wear and tear on their knees by drinking gin.

Re:Yeah, it's called blissful ignorance

[Mr. Slippery]

The best man that have ever lived, George Carlin, used to say "I was born in a christian family, and I was a christian ... well until I reached the age of reason. So I was a christian for about 2 and a half years"

Carlin also said, "That's what all the big ones, all the big religions said, 'Love yourself, Love your God, Love your neighbor, because you're all basically the same person. We just don't have uniforms yet, that's all.'"

Carlin was a very spiritual man, at least in his earlier work; I'm not sure if he himself, or just his work, became more curmudgeonly over the years. After all, this is the same guy who both gave us the "Seven Dirty Words", and did narration for Thomas The Tank Engine. Pigeonhole him at your peril.

Point is, spirituality and religious dogma are orthogonal concepts. Spirituality is about developing a comfortable relationship with yourself and with the universe. One can be a spiritual person and an atheist or an agnostic. See, for example, Aldous Huxley, or Percy Bysshe Shelley, or Richard Feynman, or Carl Sagan.

Re:Yeah, it's called blissful ignorance

[wealthychef]

I think you miss an important point and make a mistake many atheists make about religion. It's not just a "Social club" but a network of people that support a person in achieving what is important to them. It's not just about relating with other humans, it's about support and purpose. These two things without a doubt let a person live a more successful and happy life. The person is also expected to contribute to the religion and participate in rituals, both of which have positive and reinforcing psychological effects. A simple social club does not provide such tools and resources usually. In terms of replication, the person also has to parrot the party line and try to accept that it's "true," which is the vector of virus dispersion. I personally do not partake in religion because it's so myth-based, but you can see its powerful constructive effects in the lives of its practitioners if you pay attention. Instead, I'm interested in societies without mythology but containing all the other elements.

Re:Yeah, it's called blissful ignorance

[martinX]

More musing than point making. I was musing that perhaps the "mystical" part of some people is hardwired in them, and they build a culture-specific framework around it, in his case a mystical Christianity. Smart people seem to be able to draw connections between previously unconnected things. Unfortunately, crazy religious people and schizophrenics do the same. A bit of peer reviewing might sort all that out.

The church

[Dyinobal]

Earlier today the Vatican issued a statement recommending this procedure for all individuals who are having independent thought. Claiming this will bring them closer to god.

Re:The church

[ircmaxell]

More news from the Vatican, "spreading the word of Christ" now involves a sledge hammer...

Re:The church

[Vendetta]

Hasn't it always?

Re:The church

[RevoltingX]

Earlier today, the national psychiatric association labeled any non-conforming thought as an illness and has made their medication mandatory.
They claim to know how you're supposed to feel.

Re:The church

[Alinabi]

More news from the Vatican, "spreading the word of Christ" now involves a sledge hammer...

Not a sledge hammer. An orbitoclast.

Re:The church

[Chris Burke]

Yeah, but there was always the question of whether it inspired true spirituality rather than simply aping it just to avoid the hammer.

Now we know there's no worries on that account, so let the hammering continue!

Re:The church

[amirulbahr]

Some people around here seem to think the Pope is in charge of all of the Christian world. A post like that getting modded insightful shows the audiences ignorance in this regard. The truth of the matter is that the most fervent bible bashing, science hating, ultra-conservatives come from the ranks of American new age evangelicals.

The Catholic Church does not preach creationism. I went to Catholic schools and there was no blurring of the line between religion and science education.

I too am worried when people start giving scientific reasoning and religious dogma equal weight. I hate when people think they can solve their problems just by saying a prayer. Worst of all is when people look to trivial tricks and oddities and claim they are miracles as though the universe around them isn't miraculous enough as it is. I am not however too worried about the Catholic Church trying to take down science and reasoning as it doesn't have a recent history of doing so and even if it did most Catholics would resist that because they haven't been brought up that way.

Re:The church

[bill_mcgonigle]

Back on the intercision kick again, are they?

Re:The church

[youngone]

You're right about Catholics. My kids go to Catholic schools, and there's no doubt at all about where R.E. fits into things. I can't help thinking of the Pink Floyd lyrics when ever I have to go to Mass: Far away across the field The tolling of the iron bell Calls the faithful to their knees To hear the softly spoken magic spells. Christianity seems like a bunch of magic spells to me.

Re:The church

[joebagodonuts]

Catholics started it. Those Evangelicals you disparage are merely standing on shoulders, following a path blazed by the Holy Roman Church.

In terms you might understand better, remove the beam from your eye. You don't get a pass because your speech is more polite and reasonable today.

How is it the Church doesn't admit past mistakes, and ask forgiveness? Not just empty talk, but showing some genuine contrition. No one is impressed by this "Oh, look how reasonable WE are compare to those crazy fill-in-the-blanks". The day the church sells all of it's shit to pay reparations for harms the institution has inflicted on the world, I'll be impressed. Till that happens, the church and it's apologists can fuck off. The fake understanding and reasonableness is just as phony as anything ever espoused by the Church.

Re:The church

[budgenator]

LOL that's not likely, most of the highly-spiritual people I know are pretty oppositional to big organized religion; even Christ had problems with religion.

Re:The church

[paxcoder]

You're right, the Church should apologize for the awful things it has done: founded first universities, preserved the western thought after the fall of the Roman empire, educated (educates), done(does) charitable work in poorest of countries, where people know the true meaning of not having anything to eat. It's common knowledge that Inquisition killed millions, right(hint: take a look at total population at those times, and also compare the influence of Inquisition, with say plague or wars) - never mind that heretics and others were linched at the time prior to Inquisition without being given any trial. Oh, and Crusades - lest we forget, it's all church's fault - who cares about historical reasons, and what kind of people really went to war.

>How is it the Church doesn't admit past mistakes, and ask forgiveness? Not just empty talk, but showing some genuine contrition.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0003/12/sm.06.html - empty talk, right? Because we all know that's not really a true Scotsman.

Re:The church

[ndogg]

I am not however too worried about the Catholic Church trying to take down science and reasoning as it doesn't have a recent history of doing so and even if it did most Catholics would resist that because they haven't been brought up that way.

You sure about that?

Flamebait

[Hatta]

So, this is proof that religious people aren't using their whole brain then?

To be less inflammatory, this doesn't really change anything. For a religious person, they would accept that God created the brain in such a way that makes the spiritual experience possible. Why would there not be a physical substrate for that experience?

Re:Flamebait

[CorporateSuit]

FTFA: "But spirituality does not seem to involve exactly the same regions of the brain as religion."

I'm guessing it's more of a "lighted, windowed room at night" effect. Sit in a lighted room at night, and you can't see out the windows, because the information you're receiving is much more effective. Turn out the lights, and you can begin to see what's outside of your windows (perhaps a whole city). Perhaps our kinetics and structure (the part of the brain they were cutting up) keep us more grounded in immediacy? Perhaps that keeps us more worried and less "transcendant"? It sounds like they're just scratching at the surface, so it'll be interesting if they study this further.

Re:Flamebait

[JerryLove]

It begs the question anyway: which brain is right?

Does the theist have an underactive brain portion, or does the atheist have an overactive one? It's subjective.

Re:Flamebait

[Ethanol-fueled]

It's possible for theists to become atheists and vice-versa. Born-again Christians, after all, are among the most rabid religious fanboys.

It's not a predisposition to religion so much as it is predisposition to zeal.

Re:Flamebait

[CorporateSuit]

Plus it would help with the prejudice that religious people have against atheists.

Take a look at the comments for this article, keeping in mind that the article points out that its definition of "Spirituality" is neurologically different from "Religious" and let me know what the atheist club looks like.

Re:Flamebait

[IorDMUX]

So, this is proof that religious people aren't using their whole brain then?

You keep using that word.

I do not think it means what you think it means.

Re:Flamebait

[sznupi]

If somebody would look up similar effect in animals - that would get fun.

Sometimes I do have the impression that my cat has a form of what we call spiritual life; certainly some occasional behaviours are difficult to explain only by higher specced hearing apparatus.

Re:Flamebait

[cjb658]

It's just a metaphor.

Re:Flamebait

[cjb658]

So, this is proof that religious people aren't using their whole brain then?

It would explain Mac users...

Re:Flamebait

[Dread_ed]

Most "religious" people I know, and know of, do not "feel spiritual." They learn about their religion as a self-help course directed by God, as a guide/law book for morality, or as a compulsion ingrained into them as a child and reinforced with inner feelings of guilt.

The people I know who tell me thay have "felt spiritual" are dope-heads, "chrismatic" worshippers, new-age spiritualists, kooky weirdos, and psychics. This observation matches much better with your first statement of people who feel spitirual not using their whole brain.

Re:Flamebait

[JerryLove]

Not any more than any other forms of mental disease.

OK. So which is diseased? The one with belief or the one without? Support.

Which is diseased: the high-function autistic who is brilliant and focused but has trouble with social cues, or the non-autistic who cannot hope to match his concentration or intellectual accomplishment?

Are people who like space disordered, or those who like crowds?

They are just functions. They can be more or less common. They can be more or less useful to a given target/goal (say: reproduction).

So if your brain has a more active section X, that trends your personality towards A. If less active then B. There's no such thing as an objective "better".

Re:Flamebait

[izomiac]

It's all framing:

Atheists: Spirituality associated with having less brain matter!
Theists: The devil's cortex discovered and removed!
Slightly more physical theists: Sin found to be a cancer of the mind!
Neurologist: The parietal cortex seems to inhibit the attachment of meaning to mundane events.

Re:Flamebait

[npsimons]

Take a look at the comments for this article, keeping in mind that the article points out that its definition of "Spirituality" is neurologically different from "Religious" and let me know what the atheist club looks like.

slashdot is one site out of what, millions? Take a look at how many other websites that will insta-ban you for life for even *hinting* you are an atheist. slashdot is tame and /extremely/ tolerant of superstition by comparison. Granted, it would be nice if there were *no* bigotry on slashdot, but slashdot is leagues ahead of most religious sites, and it is one of the few places you can express a dissenting opinion (whether for or against atheism) and not get kicked, threatened or severely mocked.

Or how about the real world, where an *elected* US president actually said that he didn't think that atheists should be considered American citizens. slashdot is one of *very* few havens that atheists and other freethinkers have where we vent a bit against what we can only perceive as a neurological disorder, brainwashing or failure of logic and/or the imagination.

You almost sound like one of those white people who says "what racism? I don't see any racism, therefore it must not be a problem! All you people complaining about being discriminated against are the real racists!"

BTW, there is no "atheist club"; most atheists are independent thinkers by definition, otherwise they'd probably be Unitarians (joking, joking). One of the few things that most atheists can agree upon is that there is nothing wrong individual spirituality or religion, as long as it isn't forced on anyone. It's when organized religion tries to force its opinions on everyone that people take issue. Sort of like when the RIAA forces through legislation we don't agree with then uses their clout as a large organization to legally bully you into submission.

Re:Flamebait

[CorporateSuit]

BTW, there is no "atheist club"; most atheists are independent thinkers by definition, otherwise they'd probably be Unitarians (joking, joking). One of the few things that most atheists can agree upon is that there is nothing wrong individual spirituality or religion, as long as it isn't forced on anyone. It's when organized religion tries to force its opinions on everyone that people take issue. Sort of like when the RIAA forces through legislation we don't agree with then uses their clout as a large organization to legally bully you into submission.

In theory, this is true. In practice, it is not. If I dare to call myself a "free-thinking, religious individual" then 95% of atheists will roll their eyes and offer up some ridiculous strawman, as if on command. This is not tolerance, and it is not due to their oppression. It is due to hatred, groupthinking, and the manipulation of high-profile persons in this camp. There is a noticeable difference between a man who is raised without a god in his life, and a man who would label himself an atheist.

For starters, by definition, an atheist must grant that that their belief "that there is no God" is not based on scientific principle. It is based on faith. "Uncertainty" is the scientific approach to a lack of tangible, repeatable observation. To go forward with the inference "I have never seen God before, therefore the men who claim to have seen him must either be lying or crazy, and anyone who listens to them is wrong" is nothing but faith. Atheism is the faith that you will not stand accountable for your actions. It is a gamble made in convenience.

Most importantly, however, is that there IS an atheism camp. Atheism and theism simply cannot coexist as entropic states. The entropy is agnosticism, which atheism abhors for being its logical counterpart.

Ah, but I'm rambling on for too long, to the point where I won't even get to the moral of the story: The morally dead will choose atheism. The baby-killing, wife-cheating, porn-addicted, sociopathic, sexual-experimenting person will choose atheism as an attempt to escape their guilt. For example, the larger and more deviant your porn collection, the harder it is to believe in God. (The reverse is not neccessarily true-- one does not have to be morally damaged to question the existence of God) It is interesting from a psychological standpoint, if not a religious one.

And don't even bother to go telling me how pornography is now thought to be a good thing. So are abortion and divorce, yet here we see how they all cause moral ambiguity in ones' own conscience. Religion has known this as a "deading of the soul" for thousands of years, but to call it such, after the last paragraph, would be too close to circular reasoning for your comfort, I'm sure.

Re:Flamebait

[fishexe]

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Inconceivable!!!

Re:Flamebait

[tehcyder]

It's like with a car - if you just put diesel in your tank instead of unleaded your car will go further

Makes you wonder why they bother with unleaded then doesn't it?

Re:Flamebait

[tehcyder]

slashdot is leagues ahead of most religious sites, and it is one of the few places you can express a dissenting opinion (whether for or against atheism) and not get kicked, threatened or severely mocked.

Just so long as you don't criticise Linux or praise Microsoft, you're OK here.

Re:Flamebait

[ceoyoyo]

Try putting diesel in your gas tank next time you fill up your gasoline car and you'll find out.

Re:Flamebait

[alexo]

For starters, by definition, an atheist must grant that that their belief "that there is no God" is not based on scientific principle.

you seem to be confusing atheism with anti-theism.

Similarly to the difference between immoral (not moral) and amoral (unrelated to morals), atheism is not "a belief that there is no god", it is "a lack of belief that there is a god" (plural included).

Atheism is the faith that you will not stand accountable for your actions.

That's a crock of hope and change.

Atheism is the belief that the choice of your actions, and therefore the responsibility for them, is ultimately yours.

The morally dead will choose atheism.

Tell me, who is the more "moral" person, the one who chooses morality because they fear a punishment or expect a reward from an ultimate authority, or the one that does so just because they feel that it is the right thing to do?

The baby-killing, wife-cheating, porn-addicted, sociopathic, sexual-experimenting person will choose atheism

And yet the atrocities committed in the name of religion vastly outnumber those committed in the name of atheism (or anti-theism).

Re:Flamebait

[npsimons]

In theory, this is true. In practice, it is not. If I dare to call myself a "free-thinking, religious individual" then 95% of atheists will roll their eyes and offer up some ridiculous strawman, as if on command.

Then I will say, "these people do not speak for me; I do NOT consider them to be rational freethinkers." Do you have the have the same integrity to speak against those who identify themselves as religious and spew forth hate?

For starters, by definition, an atheist must grant that that their belief "that there is no God" is not based on scientific principle.

Strawman: "atheism" = "a" (without) + "theism" (belief in a deity). Atheism is not a belief; it is a lack of belief; they are NOT the same. There is no faith in atheism, by definition.

The morally dead will choose atheism. The baby-killing, wife-cheating, porn-addicted, sociopathic, sexual-experimenting person will choose atheism as an attempt to escape their guilt.

Fuck. IHBT. Too bad that research shows exactly the opposite of what you claim (that is, those most likely to engage in sick sadistic, baby-killing, wife-cheating, sociopathic tendencies are the religious).

An Ig Nobel Prize candidate?

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Removing a part of brain makes you sensitive to things that AFAWK aren't there... Hemispherectomy, anyone with guru ambitions?

Ragu Soul

[handy_vandal]

The soul is to the body as "Italian-ness" is to Ragu Spaghetti Sauce: "It's In There!"

Did you mean Prego?

[tepples]

I'm having trouble understanding your analogy, given that "It's in there" is the strapline for Prego, not Ragu. Is Ragu supposed to have or to lack "Italian-ness"?

Re:Did you mean Prego?

[__aastpl2241]

mmm usually "Prego" is used as response when someones says "Grazie", as you would say "Thank you", "You're welcome" so it doesn't make any sens either... Anyway, just ignore research done about religion coming from us (Italy), please...

Yes, Prego

[handy_vandal]

Yes, I meant Prego. I mean, I meant Ragu, but I remembered it was wrong -- it was Prego.

Re:Yes, Prego

[HeckRuler]

So when my wife gets pregu, is the soul in there too?

I'm sorry, perhaps I'm confused. Could I have a car analogy?

Re:Religion = beeing out of the mind

[CorporateSuit]

FTFA: "spirituality does not seem to involve exactly the same regions of the brain as religion."

No, but it gives religious people the chance to say that atheists love to jump to conclusions ;)

What conflict?

[Matey-O]

You are a thing. A Marvelous machine. If you are poked and prodded we can illicit love, hunger, fear...why NOT spirituality? It does not make the phenomena any less real, you've just figured out how to manipulate the machine to do it on command.

Re:What conflict?

[HeckRuler]

Agreed.
Simply because we've found the switch to turn it on doesn't lessen it's meaning. It puts a damper on the whole mind-body-soul trifecta, but that's been a wash for a while now. People are a sub-set of animals, your mind exists as a configuration of your brain, and those warm fuzzies you get from spiritual enlightenment will one day be regulated with a drug. The original purpose and meaning of spiritual enlightenment remains, just without the mysticism. Kind of like sex after it was discovered that it makes babies.

Of course, I'm a little worried about the day that religious nuts can literally over dose on god.

Re:What conflict?

[smaddox]

No one said spirituality is not real.

Spirits are not real.. There's a difference.

Re:What conflict?

[TheIzzy]

I'll take it a step further. We can manipulate people's ability to see better or worse by messing with their eyes, optical nerves, and occipital lobes. Certainly no one would contend that the "real" world therefore doesn't exist.

Re:What conflict?

[ignavus]

I'll take it a step further. We can manipulate people's ability to see better or worse by messing with their eyes, optical nerves, and occipital lobes. Certainly no one would contend that the "real" world therefore doesn't exist.

Strictly speaking a solipsist would. And anyone else who considers the "real" world to be an illusion. Some kinds of metaphysical idealists would, for instance.

Although, you could argue that there is a difference between calling something an illusion and saying it doesn't exist. Mirages are illusions, but mirages (as opposed to the things we imagine mirages to be) do exist.

Re:What conflict?

[LS]

those warm fuzzies you get from spiritual enlightenment will one day be regulated with a drug

It has already been happening for millennia, in Africa, the Americas, Ancient Greece and India, and in the last 100 years throughout the whole world through modern psychedelics.

Re:What conflict?

[HeckRuler]

Sure, but solipsism is a useless philosophy. It's one of those childish things that you have to move on from. You're assured you exist in some form, that you exist wherever you're at, and everything else is conjecture. Full stop, that's it, there is no more to that philosophy. Yeah yeah, we can't be philosophically assured that the world is real and this isn't all some sim-sense dream, but so what? It appears that the world is real and reacts in a logical way. Where it doesn't act logically, there's been a high statistical trend that I simply don't know enough about it yet. You will also never be philosophically assured that anything in the past actually happened. Grow up and live in reality. Or at least what appears to be reality, if that floats your boat.

Some book starts with the comment that the first philosophical question is that of suicide. Live in the world, or GTFO. If you choose to live in the world then you can move on from there. Solipsism is the pussies suicide. Rejecting reality without actually leaving it.

Not a new idea

[Idiomatick]

Neuroscientist VC Ramachandran (sp?) a bunch of years ago was dealing with patients that had temporal lobe epilepsy. The temporal lobe is in control of 'meaning', it is the part of your brain that recognizes objects for their significance. He found that after an episode the patients had overwhelming feeling of spirituality. The idea is that they were seeing meaning and importance in everything down to individual blades of grass. One of his patients refused any support since he believed he was a prophet and that it was his link to god. (I since have read that many prophets historically have been epileptics such as Ezekiel and Mohamed).

You can find the guy in NOVA (secrets of the mind). He also gave a talk or two on www.TED.com .

Re:Not a new idea

[Anonymous Coward]

And then there's the God Helmet...

Re:Not a new idea

[sznupi]

I can certainly vouch for this.

In my early teen years I was diagnosed with a form of this epilepsy. The thing not mentioned in the post above is that such form of spirituality goes away somewhat if the condition is dealt with quickly, as happened in my case. Few years later I stumbled upon some info and came to realize that I'm almost a textbook example (for short summary, see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geschwind_syndrome )

What many of you can't really grasp, without experiencing it, is how real it feels - basically the question about existence of spiritual part of reality doesn't come into it at all; it's just present, that's...obvious. Only after it lessens the grip, you might ask yourself "what was that all about"?

The thing that it's often exploited by religious "guidance" certainly doesn't help to escape. And with TLE being one of more underdiagnosed forms of epilepsy (heck, it was almost a chance in my case), I wouldn't be surpised if statistically significant number of deeply religious people had a mild form. In case of such, you end up arguing against what is...very much real.

Re:Not a new idea

[warriorpostman]

The temporal lobe is in control of 'meaning', it is the part of your brain that recognizes objects for their significance.

The idea is that they were seeing meaning and importance in everything down to individual blades of grass. One of his patients refused any support since he believed he was a prophet and that it was his link to god. (I since have read that many prophets historically have been epileptics such as Ezekiel and Mohamed).

Great poets and other artists have always seen radical importance (or sometimes radical unimportance) in everything "down to individual blades of grass". William Blake for one:

To see a world in a grain of sand / And a heaven in a wild flower, / Hold infinity in the palm of your hand, / And eternity in an hour.

Re:Not a new idea

[Idiomatick]

Glad you lucked into help. Beyond that it is interesting that you chose to be helped! I think many people would find it irresistible; to give up that kind of added richness.... Like a greater sense of 'real'. I suppose it could harm things that ACTUALLY matter though.

And yeah, things that effect that part of your brain directly feel completely real because it bypasses your higher functions, directly feeding you hormones and such to give you the no holds barred experience.

I think it seems completely reasonable that lighter versions of TLE got labeled from a very young age as highly spiritual, prophetic kid and raised from there to be a religious leader.

Re:Not a new idea

[LS]

Perhaps there has been a point in evolution where epilepsy was the trade-off for enhanced sensory perception, similar to how the survival of sickle cells is a result of malarial immunity.

No flaming please folks, this is just idle speculation. I make no claim to scientific theory or fact. But I do confess to believing that there is obviously more to the world than meets the eye, and future scientific research will uncover other phenomenon that would currently be considered in the realm of pseudo-science. Take a point in history during the last few hundred years, and if a person made claims for things we know have scientifically verified, they would be called quacks or heretics. What I'm getting at is that a subset of unexplained currently untestable phenomena may be testable in the future with.

LS

Re:Not a new idea

[Idiomatick]

It isn't a bad idea it is just.... untestable, so until it is provable it will be dismissed. The reason scientists get mad at pseudo-scientists or quacks w/e is the persistence. An idea that disagrees with current theory is simply dismissed without aggression. Pseudo-science is something like homeopathy, it has been around for decades. Their claims have been repeatedly disproved yet they use the same claims.

BTW an idea that has been around for decades and hasn't been disproved (due to it being impossible to disprove) is simply philosophy. And science has nothing against that at all! Your point fits perfectly under: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_(philosophy_of_mind)#Types_of_mind-body_dualism

Offtopic but the reason scientists get mad at the religious although their beliefs are unprovable is that well... lots of things in religious arguments have been disproved for centuries and yet are repeated.

Re:Not a new idea

[Idiomatick]

Doubly offtopic: Wow... re-reading this I come off sounding like a preaching douchebag. Didn't mean to come off that way @_@

My hypothesis

[frog_strat]

is that a lot of cognitive activity creates noise that frustrates the 'transcendent' receiver. I can say from experience that successful meditation practice (where the mind gets really quiet) produces a vastly different experience of the moment to moment passage of time, than my normal consciousness. Perhaps increased intelligence means increased neuroticism, up to the point where you cognitively learn to turn down the cognition. Hence the athletes, coaches, woodworkers and musicians that strangely bring up Zen while discussing their work.

Re:My hypothesis

[Slur]

I concur!

Try LSD

[Anonymous Coward]

It does the same thing.

Re:Try LSD

[xealot]

I think most intelligent people who have used psychedelic drugs would attest to this. There's definitely certain things hardwired into our brains, and certain drugs can open up those areas for exploration. LSD and psilocybin both induce a predisposition for religious and spiritual thoughts, as well as many of the patterns and images found in the earliest of art.

Re:Try LSD

[notoriou5]

I really liked this from The Atlantic Monthly Online: The Nitrous Oxide Philosopher.

"HE has short hair and a long brown beard. He is wearing a three-piece suit. One imagines him slumped over his desk, giggling helplessly. Pushed to one side is an apparatus out of a junior-high science experiment: a beaker containing some ammonium nitrate, a few inches of tubing, a cloth bag. Under one hand is a piece of paper, on which he has written, "That sounds like nonsense but it is pure on sense!" He giggles a little more. The writing trails away. He holds his forehead in both hands. He is stoned. He is William James, the American psychologist and philosopher. And for the first time he feels that he is understanding religious mysticism. "

Should we change that old saw to "Happiness is...

[notjustchalk]

...a state of mindlessness?"
...a stateless mind?"
...a mindless state?"

On a different note, when did "inner peace" = "spirituality"?

Evolution

[AmonTheMetalhead]

I've always held the opinion that religion is a result of evolution, religious groups with the same beliefs tend to do their best to oppress smaller groups & groups with other beliefs, individuals will even kill themselves for those religions if they think that it'll further their 'god's cause'.

Well, if that were to be true, it'd be quite ironic that the very reason why creationists oppose the acceptance of evolution would be evolution itself.

Re:Evolution

[benjamindees]

Religion, perhaps. But religion without the social component is mere spirituality. And it seems that many religious-types tend to fall back on spirituality when faced with the failure of religious doctrine to achieve group benefit, such as in the face of scientific progress. The evolutionary strategy is to keep the essential component of religion (spirituality) while fitting into the more successful competing group (science). The result is pseudoscience, mysticism, scientology, etc..

Do you see God?

[Gandhi of War]

*whack*
How about now?

Well, duh

[Conchobair]

I could have told you that, after all, this isn't brain sur... er... nevermind.

TED Talk Covers Similar Case with Stroke

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.ted.com/talks/jill_bolte_taylor_s_powerful_stroke_of_insight.html

Re:TED Talk Covers Similar Case with Stroke

[joebagodonuts]

Thank you! I immediately thought of her as soon as I read the summary.

Not quite precise...

[Anonymous Coward]

He painted himself into a corner logically when he thought about religion. It wasn't that he was blissfully spiritual. He came to the conclusion that it was better to bet there being a God than there being no God. His reasoning was, if there is no God and he follows the bible, then there is no loss. However, if there is a God and he doesn't follow the bible, then he is doomed to eternity in Hell.

Re:Not quite precise...

[XanC]

You're thinking of Blaise Pascal.

Re:Not quite precise...

[Anonymous Coward]

This assumes that the Bible is the word of God. We have only men's word that it is, and what lowlifes they are. If only God would swing by every couple thousand years to refresh our memories but, of course, that will never happen, will it.

Re:Not quite precise...

[Artifakt]

He's thinking of Pascal, and he's using the simplified version of Pascal's wager, as the whole argument is more about whether you can still calculate probabilities if some of the terms are infinite than it's just about heaven and hell. Pascal practically invented the standard probability theorems, and explored the extremes of them pretty well for his era. Trivialising his accomplishments there is like explaining relativity as "Einstein proved everything's relative.".

Re:Not quite precise...

[Thing 1]

You're thinking of Blaise Pascal.

Ha, I heard the last two words of your post in the shrilly faux-female Monty Python voice, and am now thinking of the drunk philosophers skit. Thanks!

Re:Not quite precise...

[XanC]

That's not Picasso, it's Kandinsky!

Re:Not quite precise...

[Golddess]

If only God would swing by every couple thousand years to refresh our memories

Maybe he does? Personally, I'm an atheist, so I may have some things a little mixed up, but it has only been a little over 3000 years since he's basically done something like that (Moses died around 1271 BC, and God seemed pretty active during Moses' lifetime).

please define spirituality

[RockyPersaud]

Spirituality is one of those non-words that doesn't actually mean anything because you cannot define it without a circular reference to itself.

Backward...

[clone53421]

Removing part of the brain can induce inner peace, according to researchers from Italy.

That sounds a lot more interesting when you say it like this:

Spirituality can induce inner peace without drugs or surgery.

Re:Backward...

[CorporateSuit]

It causes me to wonder if the "transcendental meditation" that Ralph Waldo Emerson was always raving about was functionally disabling this portion of the brain through meditation -- which would raise a greater question like: how/why that's possible.

Re:Backward...

[warriorpostman]

I would argue that "functionally disabling this portion of the brain" is analogous to mental discipline.

I would also argue that being able to do this, allows humans to engage in actions based on long-term goals. Unless you're capable of making a connection between abstract meaning and a series of short-term unrelated activities, you may not be able to build Cathedrals, henges, Mayan pyramids, great works of art, (and war machines?).

Answering how/why though, is above my paygrade. ;)

This is my favourite

[Cryacin]

people can be born with a strong propensity towards spirituality and also whether it can be acquired through head trauma

I need spirituality like I need a hole in my head!

Weeellll... that's one way to get it I guess.

Re:This is my favourite

[Narcocide]

Yep, sounds awesome. Someone needs to manufacture a drug that mixes this effect with that of MDMA and we'll have ourselves a winner!

Re:This is my favourite

[Mister Whirly]

They already have it. It is called MDMA, which you already seem to be aware of. Get some of the pure crystalline form and I guarantee you a religious experience. (Not just some random pill that could contain any number of substances.) Listening to the first Stone Roses album also helps.

Re:This is my favourite

[oztiks]

I wonder if it has anything to do with Pineal Gland.

In any case I wonder if people who suffer the removal of this area start getting visions via touch, then start working for the police in an attempt to circumvent the approaching Apocalypse brought on by a corrupt politician .... oh wait ... I've seen this before somewhere :D

Re:This is my favourite

[Mal-2]

Eat some shrooms or smoke some DMT. Now THOSE drugs will produce spiritual experiences...

I tried, but the machine elves kept laughing at me. DMT, at least smoked, does not last very long. In the form of ayahuasca, it can go on for hours.

Don't forget 2-CB (and relatives), mescaline, and peyote for this kind of effect, though they are phenethylamines rather than tryptamines. Some phenethylamines have a decidedly speedy edge (after all, amphetamines are phenethylamines) but other ones are much more laid back. Not all of them cause E-dick either. 2-CB sure as hell doesn't.

Mal-2

Re:This is my favourite

[Arthur Grumbine]

people can be born with a strong propensity towards spirituality and also whether it can be acquired through head trauma
Weeellll... that's one way to get it I guess.

Definitely adds a very interesting potential to the story of Saul (St. Paul) who was famous for persecuting the Christians before he was thrown from his horse on the road to Damascus, and saw "a light from heaven", after which he heard Jesus speak to him and was converted. The official story is that he saw the light first, and was then thrown from his horse - but head trauma has a funny way of messing with the memory of the sequence of events...

Re:This is my favourite

[budgenator]

Wow the last time I heard that album I saw three tornadoes. Earlier that night one of the instructors from pulse came down and invite us up to see the tornadoes on the PAR, on the CWAR we were seeing doplers up to 700 MPH! After school we drove out to a friend's house to see if he was all right and that's when I saw the three tornadoes dancing on the ground. When we got back to Redstone arsenal I headed down to the dayroom to get some cokes and saw the weather radar on the television showing a tornado, I said "shit that fuckers almost on top of us" and headed for cover but only made 3 steps before the shit hit the fan, that was April 4 1974 and the tornado that skipped over my head by 500 feet was an F5 that tore through Marshal Space Flight center, bounced over Redstone then touched back down in Huntsville. On that surreal night my youthful and naive sense of immortality died before my twentieth birthday. There were 148 official tornadoes in 13 states that night and none of the tornadoes I actually saw were official.

Re:This is my favourite

[crazycheetah]

Seems related to the Paul being the anti-christ theory that some are fond of. Definitely an interesting line of thought you can continuing adding on other points to (there's plenty out there, going several directions).

Re:This is my favourite

[LS]

MDMA is a great experience, but hardly strong enough that it could be considered spiritual, at least from my own experimentation. It took LSD/mushrooms + a balloon of NO2 to finally get a fully-conscious out-of-body experience for my logical positivist materialist ass.

Re:This is my favourite

[hazem]

Here is an interesting lecture by Robert Sapolsky, "Evolution, religion, schizophrenia and the schizotypal personality", http://www.boingboing.net/2009/06/06/evolution-religion-s.html

It's an interesting talk about how while schizophrenia may be the result of a full expression of a recessive gene, the schizotypal may be a mild expression of the same gene, leading to people like shamans. That would tend to support your "born with a strong propensity"...

His recent graduation day talk at Stanford was, while not related (on the uniqueness of humans), even more interesting:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrCVu25wQ5s

Re:This is my favourite

[AliasMarlowe]

my logical positivist materialist ass.

Wow - a donkey with education and attitude!

Re:This is my favourite

[eric-x]

Hmz lol, I can't say shrooms give me inner peace.

Re:This is my favourite

[KDR_11k]

Now it doesn't come as a surprise that someone named Mal-2 would know that much about drugs but I'd have thought you would recommend Black Alamout.

Re:This is my favourite

[KDR_11k]

Wouldn't he qualify more as the false prophet than the anti-christ?

Re:This is my favourite

[Mister Whirly]

For the record, I never said "spiritual". And I am also not talking about pills, I am talking about pure MDMA in it's molecular form (Molly) - little crystalline like wafers. Pills are generally rubbish and you never know what or how much of anything is in them. I am also not talking about being ripped off your tits so much you don't know which way is up - I am talking about feeling something bigger than yourself, and being wrapped in a warm, happy, euphoric glow. "Trooming" while doing nitrous hits will definitely get you discombobulated, but it also could cause some confusion and possible paranoia.

Re:This is my favourite

[sirdiggity]

Paul was actually a religious "zealot" (in his own words) before this experience.

Re:This is my favourite

[operagost]

Paul was a religiously devout Jew before his conversion-- not an atheist. Therefore, already most likely spiritual.

Car Analogy

[handy_vandal]

The soul is to the body as "Excitement" is to a car built by whatever car manufacturer asserts that "We Build Excitement!"

Re:Car Analogy

[Grishnakh]

The soul is dead? Pontiac shut its doors recently. And their cars were almost never "exciting", they were crap.

Re:Car Analogy

[pluther]

So we finally have a perfect car analogy!

If there was a definition of spirituality ....

[gestalt_n_pepper]

One that everyone could agree on, I might take this study seriously.

But the quote in the article "It's important to recognize that the whole study is based on changes in one self-report measure" is quite telling. We see a change in a trait, commonly associated in some religions traditions as "spiritual." Interesting, certainly. Meaningful? Probably not.

PROFIT!

[YouDoNotWantToKnow]

1. Research 2. Simulate 3. ??? 4. Profit!

Re:PROFIT!

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Research 2. Simulate 3. Lobotomy 4. Prophet

Re:Enough of the faith bashing

[notjustchalk]

...Just because people believe in God(sorry, but he does not exist and only a fool would attempt to "prove" otherwise)

There, fixed that for you. Seriously though, shouldn't the burden of proof be on those that seek to change others and not the ones to be changed?

Since a majority of humans believe a creator, or some entity/force outside of humanity(essentially, the spirituality this study links to), then I would tend to believe that the minority is missing something.

Belief != truth. If it was, we would still be flat-earthers (just one example).

I will agree with one thing though, belief or non-belief does not give anyone the moral high-ground from which to denigrate others.

Protesters

[HTH NE1]

I can see the picket signs over this now: "God is Not a Tumah!"

Re:Enough of the faith bashing

[cyphercell]

I can see you're frustrated, I also agree that this thread is a bit more bold than usual, but do you realize you just sunk to their level?

Kooky

[ShakaUVM]

>>So, this is proof that religious people aren't using their whole brain then?

Err, no.

If there's a part of our brain devoted to religion/spirituality (and since it's such a large part of human experience, I wouldn't be surprised by it), then it means that *atheists* are not using their whole brain.

In fact, over time, the neural map for this region in strict atheists ought to atrophy, making them incapable of being spiritual. Which may or more may not be a good thing, depending on your perspective. But I'd bet that in most atheists this region would start getting used for religious-ish things that aren't precisely religions, like belief in ghosts or aliens (more atheists believe in alien abductions and ghosts than Christians), or Gaia ("The earthquake in Haiti was Mother Nature's way of punishing us for global warming!" --Danny Glover) or any one of a number of other ideas that are much less likely to be true than Christianity.

"Originally," my atheist friend told me, "there were four elements, earth wind water fire, that since then became self-conscious and then divided into all the elements of the periodic table." Ok, I said, what was water made of before we had hydrogen and oxygen? He couldn't answer that.

As much as atheists like to make fun of Christians believing in kooky notions like the beginning of the universe and universal human rights, it's nice to see that Cog Sci can explain why atheists believe in even kookier stuff.

Re:Kooky

[Grishnakh]

But I'd bet that in most atheists this region would start getting used for religious-ish things that aren't precisely religions, like belief in ghosts or aliens (more atheists believe in alien abductions and ghosts than Christians), or Gaia ("The earthquake in Haiti was Mother Nature's way of punishing us for global warming!" --Danny Glover) or any one of a number of other ideas that are much less likely to be true than Christianity.

Whoa... you think Christianity's mystical claims are more likely than the existence of aliens? Christianity's claims are entirely supernatural. Aliens are not; that's just the supposition that intelligent life evolved on another planet, just as we've already seen it has on Earth (we are its product). Given the number of stars in the galaxy (billions), and the number of galaxies in the observable universe (billions), and the fact that planets around other stars appear to be fairly common, the idea that aliens do not exist is frankly absurd. The only questions are how common are they, are there any near us, how advanced are they, and have they achieved spaceflight and bothered to visit us. Given that all these things are completely possible under our understanding of physics, and the claims of Christians are not possible without resorting to the supernatural, any supposition about aliens is far more likely than Christianity's claims.

Ghosts and Gaia are another matter, however, but they're still no more unlikely than Christianity's claims. Even ghosts are slightly more likely; many ghost-fans claim that ghosts are basically some sort of energy manifestation that's currently not understood, and that ghosts absorb energy from the environment, leading to cold spots in their vicinity. Far-fetched? Sure. But not as much as the idea of parting the Red Sea, resurrection, and a supreme being who has an interest in our everyday lives.

"Originally," my atheist friend told me, "there were four elements, earth wind water fire, that since then became self-conscious and then divided into all the elements of the periodic table." Ok, I said, what was water made of before we had hydrogen and oxygen? He couldn't answer that.

That's no atheist, that sounds like some kind of Gaia-fan or a follower of some kind of naturalistic religion, even if he doesn't want to admit it.

Re:Kooky

[ShakaUVM]

>>Whoa... you think Christianity's mystical claims are more likely than the existence of aliens?

Well, specifically, alien abductions, ala X-files, including cow mutilations and crop circles. Things which are pretty much proven to be false by anyone with a modicum of critical thinking.

I'm not strawmanning, either. These are all beliefs espoused by my atheist friends, who ostensibly believe in the primacy of science and logic.

Ooh, and one atheist chick friend of mine is firmly convinced that she's psychic. And that I am too, for that matter, because I can "look at a photo and know what the people in it are like." Yeah.

My premise, which apparently got me flagged as a troll by the sheep-like moderators on Slashdot, is that if this article is correct, and we do indeed have a region of the brain devoted to the supernatural or spiritual elements of our existence, is that when it's not being used by atheists because they've given up on religion, they start adopting other, less plausible elements
instead. Or it atrophies, and they become a sort of hollow, bitter person like Christopher Hitchens or Richard Dawkins.

>>That's no atheist, that sounds like some kind of Gaia-fan or a follower of some kind of naturalistic religion, even if he doesn't want to admit it.

That's sort of my point. He can somehow hold both ridicule for Christianity and his belief in an obviously false creation myth side by side in his head. I think this article might explain why.

Ooh, here's another great one I heard - for billions of years, there were only females. Men were a mutation. So in Africa there were just female zebras and monkeys and such, and evil (men) didn't enter the world until very recently, and are the cause of all the suffering and war we see.

True story. The presenter told this to a room full of elementary school teachers during a professional development workshop in San Diego. To be fair, I don't know if she was an atheist, but her creation myth is funny enough to be worth relating.

>>Sure. But not as much as the idea of parting the Red Sea, resurrection, and a supreme being who has an interest in our everyday lives.

Or is it more far-fetched to say that the universe created itself, that while there should be nothing at all there is, and that we all pretend like we have certain unalienable rights endowed by a creator even from those who don't believe in a creator?

Re:Kooky

[ShakaUVM]

>>Uh, what? Is your friend 6 years old, or are you simply lying in order to paint atheists in a bad light? Hmm, I wonder-

Nope, these were all hard-nosed college friends of mine who believe in the primacy of science and logic.

I just noticed a trend in them to believe in all sorts of things which contradicts this notion of primacy, and I think this article might explain why - there's a region of the brain that is otherwise not being used, so when they don't have a religion that is at the very minimum consistent with cosmology (i.e. Christianity) they start believing in all sorts of very strange stuff.

It's like there's a basic human need for religion/spirituality.

But this results in, as with one friend, believing she could talk to plants, and could hear the Oleander on the I-5 in San Diego screaming from all the CO2 pollution being inflicted upon them. "I can feel them choking!", she said.

And no, there's no way I could make something like that up. See my reply to Grishnakh below for some more of my favorites.

Re:Kooky

[ShakaUVM]

>>* unless you happen to be black (up until the 1863), female (up until 1920), an interracial couple (up until 1967) or are a homosexual (ongoing), of course.

One of Jesus' core messages was on the concept of Universal Charity. Human societies up until that point had believed in loving one's family, or one's country, or even one's neighbor, but Jesus' rather revolutionary message was that you should love everyone.

It's a easy concept to grasp intellectually, and a very hard concept to execute in real life.

Over time, you see the very reason that issues like slavery lose on philosophical grounds is because it contradicts the doctrine of Universal Charity. *Because they couldn't argue against Universal Charity*, the people in the South were pushed into the position of arguing that slavery was good for the slaves. Which caused the notion to collapse.

Re:Kooky

[StrategicIrony]

"Originally," my atheist friend told me, "there were four elements, earth wind water fire, that since then became self-conscious and then divided into all the elements of the periodic table." Ok, I said, what was water made of before we had hydrogen and oxygen? He couldn't answer that.

I'm sorry, what?

That's not athiesm, that's.... uhm..... I dunno. Pokemon-ism.

There's seriously no scientific basis for that, which makes it (somewhat by default) a "faith" based issue.

Again, absolutely nothing to do with "athiesm" bu more with "you-have-weird-friends-ism"

Re:Kooky

[StrategicIrony]

You're a tool.

You're spouting absolutely absurd crap in this post... completely absurd crap that's not supported by ANYONE. I've never seen ANY of these claims EVER written down before.

Seriously. Females for millions of years? I've never even HEARD of that. Never once even heard someone mention it... but you trot it out like it's some serious topic?

guess what? Uhm... I once met a Christian who ... well he said that Noah had a brother named uhm... George... and he was a vampire and that's where all the vampires went. See... Christians are nutjobs. (this is what you sound like)

God, your friends are freaks, but it has absolutely NOTHING to do with anything "rational" or anything involved with "science" and it has NOTHING to do with "athiesm".

WTF are you (and your friends) smoking?

Sheesh.

Re:Kooky

[Grishnakh]

Well, specifically, alien abductions, ala X-files, including cow mutilations and crop circles. Things which are pretty much proven to be false by anyone with a modicum of critical thinking.

Ok, yes, I agree these things are getting pretty far into left field. I don't think alien abductions are a completely ridiculous concept, after all we "abduct" other animals on this planet all the time and perform horrific experiments on them. Who knows, maybe it's happened once or twice. However, it seems that everyone and his brother now wants to claim he's been abducted and had an anal probe or whatever.

Ooh, and one atheist chick friend of mine is firmly convinced that she's psychic.

This is another one of those things where I think there might be something to it in a few cases (after all, there's a lot of things about the mind and physics we don't understand yet), but again it seems like everyone and her sister claims to be a psychic, so I don't buy their claims unless they can provide some serious evidence (which no one does).

My premise, which apparently got me flagged as a troll by the sheep-like moderators on Slashdot,

The moderation on this site is very bad. Just ignore it.

Ooh, here's another great one I heard - for billions of years, there were only females. Men were a mutation. So in Africa there were just female zebras and monkeys and such, and evil (men) didn't enter the world until very recently, and are the cause of all the suffering and war we see.

Wow, that's pretty funny, and downright ludicrous. What's the point of a vagina if there's no males around to fertilize it? She has a point with the suffering and war thing, though, but that's a modern thing. Male aggression was needed in the past when humans were hunters and tribal. Now it's mostly a hindrance. I think some people might be right when they say the civilized world would be better off without men. After all, with modern medicine and genetic engineering, women won't need men to reproduce pretty soon.

Or is it more far-fetched to say that the universe created itself, that while there should be nothing at all there is, and that we all pretend like we have certain unalienable rights endowed by a creator even from those who don't believe in a creator?

I think the creation of the universe is a question that science cannot answer at this time, if ever. It can (and does) make theories about what happened in the early history of the universe, based on observable evidence. But what happened before that point is anyone's guess.

I personally think it's less far-fetched to say that some intelligence force created the universe to see what would happen, than the idea that this force is personally involved in the everyday lives of mortal humans, doing things like parting seas to help them out from time to time, but somehow disappearing altogether (or at least not doing any more large-scale spectacular miracles) for a couple thousand years now.

Re:Kooky

[ShakaUVM]

>>Wow, that's pretty funny, and downright ludicrous. What's the point of a vagina if there's no males around to fertilize it?

It was all vag/vag sex back then. As she said with a straight face to a group of elementary school teachers.

But yeah, this isn't to bag on atheists in general, but I have heard a lot of really kooky theories, and I suspect there is something to the notion that humans need to have a belief in some higher power.

Re:Kooky

[ShakaUVM]

>>God, your friends are freaks, but it has absolutely NOTHING to do with anything "rational" or anything involved with "science" and it has NOTHING to do with "athiesm".

I love your use of capitals. They make you so much more convincing. Especially since you're trying to convince me that the people I've talked with over the years are just figments of my imagination. No, most of them weren't my friends. The lady who thought that there were just women for millions of years was a speaker at a professional development workshop at Linda Vista Elementary School circa 1995 or so. The woman who could talk to plants (and told me she could sense the oleander "choking" on the CO2 emissions) was a cute Hawaiian girl who did Judo with me. She told me this while we were having smoothies at the Jamba Juice near UCSD, which is above the I-5. After she told me this, I quickly lost interest in her. The one who told me I was psychic because I could tell things about people in photographs was a girl named Jessica T., who was a raver and was a good friend of mine. She was also very good looking. She also believed in aliens. An acquiantance of mine in high school was the one who firmly believed in the four essences of the universe, or whatever you want to call them.

The fact that you've never heard of them doesn't surprise me, because they are indeed nutty ideas. But all are from people I knew in real life.

My point is, atheists are supposed to disbelieve in all sorts of "supernatural crap", but from my experience, quite a few of them (but not all, not by a long shot) have substituted a belief in God with some sort of kooky nonsense, and if there is indeed a region of the brain devoted to religious or supernatural thought, this might be the reason why.

+1 Mod-bomb

[Singularity42]

Prepare to be modded up--perhaps you can be the next Slashdot approver. Anything pro-religion gets modded way up on Slashdot.

Re:+1 Mod-bomb

[Grishnakh]

It's true, anything that puts down religion frequently gets modded down.

Also, anything that puts down Microsoft usually gets modded down.

Re:+1 Mod-bomb

[Singularity42]

It's some sort of overcompensation. Somewhere, a Microsoft Christian has admin access.

Alternative

[crevistontj]

Being High As Fuck Linked To Sensation of Spirituality

Re:Religion = beeing out of the mind

[Singularity42]

Religious people tend to have more "social karma" and seem to get the last word in a group situation. Atheists tend to think they are more intelligent. However, atheists actually are more intelligent. Actually, as well, the majority is not always correct.

New Westboro Baptist Church sign

[StefanJ]

GOD HATES BRAINS!

Re:New Westboro Baptist Church sign

[imakemusic]

However, his son was a zombie so probably loved them.

"Spiritual"

[mqduck]

They use the term "spirituality" like its a defined psychological term. They just chose some arbitrary ideas and declared them to be a measurement of spirituality. Perhaps the worst is "belief in a higher power". If "spiritual" is a basic mental state, then whether or not one agrees with the proposition that X exists is hardly a measure of that state. It would make more sense, but still be utterly bogus, to take belief in angels and an invisible man in the sky as a measure of psychosis.

Re:"Spiritual"

[mqduck]

Of course its not a hard science. The term was created specifically to exclude sciences like psychology and sociology. Anyway, yes: there are many defined psychological terms. For instance, every recognized psychological disorder is spelled out very clearly in the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.

Obvious

[sznupi]

There is no "right" or "wrong"...there's just survival. Fact is, a certain level of spirituality was beneficial for most of organisms with complex neural system - oversensitive alertness helps survive. False positives in noticing things end up better than false negatives.

There was always a sweet spot of course - too much "internal stimuli" and the organism also was less succesfull in passing its traits. On human level you have complications with fullblown religions and societal dynamics, but it's still essentially about being convinced there might be something which is not there.

Not that usefull in many places now, sure. But still succesfull when it comes to passing it on.

Re:Religion = beeing out of the mind

[Slur]

I suppose, if you're that sort of Atheist. But some of us think there is something psychologically valuable in practices like meditation, even if we think it's silly to believe in gods or adopt ideologies centered around gobbledygook.

Re:Enough of the faith bashing

[copponex]

(sorry, but he does exist and only a fool would attempt to "prove" otherwise)

Alright, I'll accept that he exists. Now, what does he want? When does he want it? How do you know this? Why should I trust your hearsay over the hearsay of others?

The existence of God is the beginning of your problems, not the end. Now you have to prove that he approves of you, and the only thing separating you from a lunatic on the street is hygiene, and the willingness to keep your unfounded beliefs to yourself, at least for most of the time.

Unless we all want to be assaulted with the crackpot theories of every personal delusion, from believing you're a reincarnated Roman Emperor to believing that a burning bush just talked to you, or that ants can talk, or that the Infinite and All Knowing God is terrified of menstruating women and big penises, I'd say why don't you keep your beliefs to yourself. Only a fool is really convinced that he knows the will of God better than another.

Ezekiel 23:19
Yet she multiplied her whoredoms, in calling to remembrance the days of her youth, wherein she had played the harlot in the land of Egypt. For she doted upon their paramours, whose flesh is as the flesh of asses, and whose issue is like the issue of horses.

The Cow 2:222
They question thee (O Muhammad) concerning menstruation. Say: It is an illness, so let women alone at such times and go not in unto them till they are cleansed. And when they have purified themselves, then go in unto them as Allah hath enjoined upon you. Truly Allah loveth those who turn unto Him, and loveth those who have a care for cleanness.

Robert Sapolsky on Religion

[slasho81]

If you're interested in a quick introduction (19 minutes) to the neurobiology of religion, check this out: Part 1 Part 2.

Religious epiphanies from temporal lobe seizures

[__roo]

It's pretty well known that religious epiphanies and other feelings of religiosity, spirituality, or sensations of a "presence" can sometimes be linked to neurological events such as some temporal lobe seizures. (Wasn't this the plot for an episode of House?) It's common enough that there's a section on religious and paranormal experiences in the temporal lobe epilepsy Wikipedia page. There was a good BBC documentary a few years ago on this called "God on the Brain" (here's a transcript).

Re:Should we change that old saw to "Happiness is.

[5865]

On yet another different note why is spirituality always equated to Christianity?

Picture = 1000 words

[200_success]

Put more simply...

Reverse Phrenology

[nitehawk214]

So Terry Pratchett was on to something when he invented the concept of reverse phrenology. Hitting someone in the head enough times will change their personality.

Re:Reverse Phrenology

[fishexe]

So Terry Pratchett was on to something when he invented the concept of reverse phrenology. Hitting someone in the head enough times will change their personality.

Which was known for a fact since the time of Phineas Gage, at least.

Re:Enough of the faith bashing

[Slur]

Actually, we now know that homosexuality is attributable to differences in the amygdala, and that those differences are developed while in the womb. Homosexual men tend to have amygdalas that resemble those of straight women, while homosexual women tend to have amygdalas that resemble those of straight men.

You're missing some awesome footage.

[copponex]

Of course, I'm a little worried about the day that religious nuts can literally over dose on god.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STFT0C5Hu8M
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2STDH14aJVk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjMRgT5o-Ig

Re:Just another emotion?

[Slur]

Buddhism uses the word "illusion" in English, it's true, but not in the sense we usually mean it. In the Buddhist sense a spiritual high - or any other experience - is not so much an "illusion" as it is just another conditioned sensory phenomenon, and it's the qualities of sensory phenomena that are risky to get attached to.

Closer to what you're talking about is what Zen refers to as "makyo" that arise in meditation practice. These are considered hallucinations that should not be pursued.

Duh...

[firewrought]

This raises a number of interesting issues about spirituality...

Snooze... it is only "interesting" if you believe the human mind to be some sort of mystical phenomenon.

A Slanted Conclusion

[b4upoo]

Does it not occur to them that a lack of ability to be spiritual can be due to injury, birth defect, or illness? They are seeing the problem in reverse due to bias.

Re:Enough of the faith bashing

[Labcoat Samurai]

Since a majority of humans believe a creator, or some entity/force outside of humanity(essentially, the spirituality this study links to), then I would tend to believe that the minority is missing something.

Excellent! So in theory, all we have to do to make something true is convince a majority of humans that it is true! I think the easiest way to do this is to kill people who disagree with you. Before long, you'll have a majority, and you can change the fundamental nature of the universe!

Good to know...

[bobdotorg]

Good to know that I might finally reach Zen nirvana, at least for a moment, as the zombies gnaw through my brain.

Re:Ezekiel and Mohammed?

[Grishnakh]

i'm pretty sure they are pretty clear about having a divine experience.

I thought Ezekiel was pretty clear that he was seeing an alien visitor.

this is news?

[Eil]

Newsflash: damaging or disrupting brain cells gets you high. Film at 11.

Objective spirituality?

[greg_barton]

It's important to recognize that the whole study is based on changes in one self-report measure, which is a coarse measure that includes some strange items.

As opposed to an objective, fine measure of spirituality?

Re:Enough of the faith bashing

[Labcoat Samurai]

It is not a theory; it is a fact.

Wow, that's a staggering lack of reading comprehension. I am staggered, sir.

I expect people to respect my right to believe that God is real and for them to do so without trying to claim I suffer from retardation.

You get that a lot, do you?

Re:Ezekiel and Mohammed?

[Idiomatick]

Epilepsy isn't exactly subtle. So yeah, it was recorded.

And I imagine the books are based in fact or have chunks of fact in them. There probably was some jesus type guy and mohamed guy. Doesn't say much for there being magical gods and all but still. Ancient religious texts are often referenced by archaeologists due to their accurate dates (for certain leaders and events).

So it is interesting to note that the leaders the stories are based on had epilepsy... And seems to be a reasonable explanation, while clearly not conclusive.

Re:Enough of the faith bashing

[cyphercell]

Do you respect the first amendment? Am I really a fool? Does a belief in God indicate a man of superior morals? Are you going to tell my children I'm going to hell? Are you going to tell me I'm going to hell? Do homosexuals have a right to the legal benefits of marriage? Are abortion doctors murderers or are they doctors performing a medical function within the bounds of the law? If it's the law you disagree with, can you refrain from inciting the lunatic fringe to murder medical professionals and instead take the moral high road by addressing the issue in the medium provided? Can you respect science as the discipline it is, without letting your insecurities lead you to deliberate and overt attempts to sabotage the progress of humanity? Can you make the distinction between a war on terror and a war on Islam?

Tell me again, what does it feel like to be put down by atheists?

Be careful about what you take away...

[O('_')O_Bush]

While it may be that spiritual feelings can be manipulated in the brain with surgery (just like they can be with LSD), it would be ignorant to trivialize or dismiss those experiences.

Quite simply

[countertrolling]

"The mind is what the brain does" - National Geographic March 2005

Re:Does that explain Catholocism?

[commodore73]

That doesn't explain anything to me. I am not an atheist - I am more agnostic (what we do is more important that what crazy things we believe, so why argue about beliefs? That just causes division, which is only in the interest of the few, specifically the powerful elite). I did go to Catholic school though, and I definitely see the worldwide damage done in the name of this "universal"ly EXCLUSIVE religion (do your history research before you check the splinter in my eye). I actually picked that religion because I also saw Italy in the summary, but really anything based on the premise that man wrote down everything he needed to know a few thousand years ago and never messed it up in years of manual reprinting and translation (often with specific intentions) has got to be misleading. Anybody that believes that crap can't think critically; I have actually talked creationists out of their beliefs.

spirituality through head trauma?

[Rick Bentley]

> ...whether or not people can be born with a strong propensity towards spirituality and also whether it can be acquired through head trauma. I didn't think there was any other way.

spirituality through head trauma?

[Rick Bentley]

"...whether or not people can be born with a strong propensity towards spirituality and also whether it can be acquired through head trauma."

I didn't think there was any other way.

That is dumb...

[brunokummel]

I mean , if someone had to go through a brain surgery, it implies that his life was in danger somehow...
People always tend to get more linked to religions if their lives are at stake...
I know so for personal experience...

The decrease on the number of pirates is not causing global warming! Correlation is not causation...

spiritual causing brain? brain causing spirtiual?

[peter303]

One could argue both ways. On one hand there may be a spiritual world out there and the brain is developing an inner sense to perceive it. This not yueat a fully developed sense like sight, but a start. Ont he other hand, one could take the opposing stance that the spiritual is an artifact arising from the brain and does not exist independently. Perhaps religion is some social-evolutionary phenomena and not real.

Re:Enough of the faith bashing

[dissy]

Wow.

While I do not look for opportunities to attack people who do not believe in God, I have had enough of this shit.

So you don't look for such opportunities, yet are making one right now.

Just because people believe in God(sorry, but he does exist and only a fool would attempt to "prove" otherwise), it does not mean they have an "altered mental status".

Are you sure? What is 'altered' to you? Just different from what you believe?

What you feel you believe does not change reality.
When doctors poke a piece of brain and consistently get the same reaction, it doesn't at all matter what you 'feel'. Either you agree with reality and are called 'right', or you state that what is happening in front of your eyes is not actually happening, and people call you 'wrong' (Among other bad names no doubt)

This sounds like someone's attempt to demean a group of people.

Well, sorry you read it that way, but it is not. "Action A gets reaction B" is all it is attempting to say.
And really not even that, only that in their very small sample and crude methods this can be inferred but is not enough to be considered 'proof'

Far from demeaning anyone, they are stating the results of a freaking survey!
Would you prefer they LIE about what their subjects told them to say?

What if I decided to go out and prove that homosexuality was from brain trauma? I will guarantee that people would ask for my head on a plate.

Actually almost every church in America would be behind you 110% and even help you try to prove that.

Since a majority of humans believe a creator, or some entity/force outside of humanity(essentially, the spirituality this study links to), then I would tend to believe that the minority is missing something.

Well, the majority of humans also felt slavery was perfectly OK. Guess the majority is right.

Another majority of people felt before that a specific minority shouldn't even exist, and began rounding them up for mass extinctions. You feel that is OK too since the majority must be right?

Most people also thought the sun orbits the earth. Guess since the majority thinks it, reality will bend to make it true.

As you admit to being one of those types who feels the mob is always correct no matter if they actually are or not, that says way more about you than if you believe in a god or not.
You are a horrible human being, and it has nothing to do with your belief in god, but how little you care about your fellow man.

Now go ahead and mod this as the flame it is (Because just like you, I've had enough of this shit as well)

Re:Does that explain Catholocism?

[commodore73]

Nor am I an anonymous coward. And you are wrong - I am extremely tolerant. It takes humor to achieve tolerance in this world. People that can't take a joke are intolerant of humor.

Re:Enough of the faith bashing

[Yosho]

Just because people believe in God(sorry, but he does exist and only a fool would attempt to "prove" otherwise)

Well, of course it's foolish to try to prove that "God" doesn't exist. That makes as much sense as you trying to prove that I don't have an invisible unicorn in my back yard.

On the other hand, if you want to be taken seriously, you should prove that he does exist, just like how I'll have to present some solid evidence to convince anybody that I have a unicorn.

Very thought-provoking finding.

[FiloEleven]

Let's start with a quote from the article, since I know you won't read it =p

The authors pinpointed two parts of the brain that, when damaged, led to increases in spirituality: the left inferior parietal lobe and the right angular gyrus. These areas at the back of the brain are involved in how we perceive our bodies in spatial relation to the external world. The authors of the study in the journal Neuron1, say that their findings support the connection between mystic experiences and feeling detached from the body.

The first thing I thought was that these areas must be somewhat responsible for the sense of self. If we are in a deterministic universe, then we are all automatons and our sense of being is if not exactly an illusion then inconsequential--everything must take its course and "we" are simply what must happen next. By having those areas of the brain damaged, those people's individuality routines are diminished. The same thing can reportedly be obtained temporarily but to a much greater extent with LSD, with some users experiencing a complete "ego-death."

My next thought was, "Hang on, I don't believe in a clockwork universe." I may be a materialist, I haven't settled that question yet, but if so I am certain that the stuff of the universe is far stranger than science has discovered thus far, and may never discover. Given that belief, it reasonably follows that what these people experience is as externally motivated as sight or sound--after all, it is external stimuli for those senses that trigger electrochemical changes in the brain causing us to see or hear something, even if nothing is there. The troubling difference is that it takes extra stimulus (via electrode or abnormal brain activity) to trigger visual or auditory hallucinations, while "extra" spirituality is triggered by a lack of brain matter (or presumably less/no activity there). I have ideas that resolve this difficulty for me, but they need to simmer a while longer before being spoken.

If nothing else, the study gives legitimacy to the sensation of spirituality, which is a very good thing. Sensation is a very different concept from belief, and this sensation is different from religion (as stated in the article). Hopefully the study of spirituality will extend beyond direct manipulation of the brain. It has from time to time before, but it's generally been a taboo topic for the laboratory--it was viewed as the domain of pseudo-science to even peek.

Worked for Stephen

[weston]

http://www.biblestudytools.com/bible/passage.aspx?q=Acts+7:54-60

Well, OK, it's not completely clear they hit him *before* he had the vision. They may have just bit him. ;)

Radiohead

[Flere Imsaho]

Or as Thom Yorke put it in There There, "Just 'cause you feel it doesn't mean its there"

That's actually well-documented

[fishexe]

It does the same thing.

You were probably joking, but there is actual research that suggests you're correct (second link is about psilocybin but its effects are known to be quite similar)
http://books.google.com/books?id=mGscSLMA_P4C&lpg=PA199&ots=JOhFdkh5qu&dq=study%20lsd%20spiritual%20experience&lr=&pg=PA202#v=onepage&q=study%20lsd%20spiritual%20experience&f=false
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=visions-for-psychedelics

Science vs. Religion is beside the point

[russbutton]

It has been said that science is the attempt to know all there is (God) by thinking without feeling, and that religion is the attempt to know God by feeling without thinking. Each path is equally limited. To declare either path better than the other is simple vanity because each will take you places the other cannot.

Re:Enough of the faith bashing

[StrategicIrony]

Just like Russel's teapot.

Russel:

"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 an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."

Re:Religious epiphanies from temporal lobe seizure

[Evtim]

There is an interesting chapter from this book - "Phantoms in the Brain: Human Nature and the Architecture of the Mind" about the "God's part of the brain". The author promised to write a separate book with recent developments only on this subject; I hope he will.

To me, as someone deeply interested in biology and having a degree in chemistry it was always no brainier that our biochemistry (there is not really a proper term that comes to mind - I mean not only biochemistry but the whole interplay between genes, biochemistry, evolutionary history, and so on...) plays crucial role in what we are as individuals/characters. There are chemicals out there that can make you do things you never though you could. You can't fight the biochemistry. Well, the best is not to see it as a "combat" but to learn what you are, why are you what you are and just make the best of it. Sure, upbringing , education and society are also very important, but often, when there is a conflict between software and hardware (very broad metaphor) the hardware wins or at least makes the life of the software hell.

As for spirituality I always thought that the different philosophies, religions and so on are all pointing to one direction, all seeking to achieve the same state of enlightenment (which might very well be a certain chemicals in you brain in the right place at the right time). For some it works via yoga, for others martial arts, for yet others prayer, you name it. And it is interesting that most practices recommended by the different approaches (m.arts, religion, meditation, esoterica) all include making you "ego" silent for a while and achieving clearer communication between the "I" and the "Me". It seems we are all "Me" which includes "I" and lot more than that, which goes unnoticed normally - the so-called subconsciousness (I do not like the term and its present day associations - often people would think that the "me" is some kind of different person inside us, animal, savage, sub-something, something to be feared or combated).

Historically I believe (believe as in "after reading what I can on the subject this is the conclusion I could derive") that the first practice that requires the "I" to go silent for while is hunting. Sure, the reasoning abilities of the I are very helpful in hunting but you also need to be Me for while. Ask any sportsman, ask any actor (especially) - everyone will tell you how the I steps aside when you have to perform great feats on the stage or on the pitch. And this is the state that gives us satisfaction and sense of enlightenment.

So yhea, I am not surprise from such scientific findings. And I can imagine that it might outrage religious people somewhat. But hey, the problem is not in yes/no for existence of god (that is also no brainier, the answer is "may be"), the problem is when spirituality and faith becomes religion with agenda.

Re:Enough of the faith bashing

[Nyder]

While I do not look for opportunities to attack people who do not believe in God, I have had enough of this shit. Just because people believe in God(sorry, but he does exist and only a fool would attempt to "prove" otherwise), it does not mean they have an "altered mental status". This sounds like someone's attempt to demean a group of people. What if I decided to go out and prove that homosexuality was from brain trauma? I will guarantee that people would ask for my head on a plate.

Since a majority of humans believe a creator, or some entity/force outside of humanity(essentially, the spirituality this study links to), then I would tend to believe that the minority is missing something.

I know this is flamebait, but it makes me think.

I don't believe in god. not the christian idea, or the jewish, or the arabs, nor the indians, nor any culture diety. Why? Because of human history. Man has been the same since the dawn of time. We lie, we deceive, we abuse power, and best yet, we lie to ourselves. For whatever reasons the various religons started, they all were created by man to give their life some sort of meaning.

Basicly, i would call the the "leap of faith" that religious peeps usually make.

Maybe thats what seperates me, the non believer over you, the believer. I can't make that leap. My mind stubbornly refuses to allow myself to believe in stories as, well, evidence that some greater power exists.

It's possible I'm a minority, with some sort of mental damage to my brain that doesn't allow me to believe what you do. Wait, i got that wrong. Sorry, my bad. I forgot, it's you religious peeps that apparently have the damage.

lol, i kid, really i do.

To add to the fun, i'm going to throw out something you won't live. evolution. ya, i know, it's a sin or something to even think that. but here's how it is. Religions are destroying the world. Religons have proven time and time again to cause wars, hatred, and forced beliefs on other cultures. And while you don't want to admit it, religons are losing their place in the mindsets of humans. I can't make the "leap of faith" because my brain has evolved past the point that it needs to accept such ideas to have some self worth.

I don't have to live my life for some reward when I die. I am more then happy accepting that when I die, that's it. It does not scare me, nor does it motivate me to live my life in any paticular way. I choose to be a nice person because I like how it makes me feel. I think for myself. I follow what I want. And guess what? It works.

Truth is, your scared to live on your own. Scared to think on your own, scared to consider that there is no point to life, other then living it. No greater power, no plan, nothing laid out with someone in charge knowing all and seeing all. Not sure why that is so scary, but whatever, I guess we all have our fears (i'm a bit afraid of heights, but I don't let it stop me), and guess our own ways of dealing with them.

My question is, how come I am tolerant of you, yet you aren't tolerant of me?

There's a kit for that...

[MasterOfGoingFaster]

I'll be offering a kit, soon. It will include a ball peed hammer, a sticker and a map. Simple - easy to use:
1 - place sticker on head at location indicated
2 - Aim hammer at sticker
3 - strike briskly - repeat if necessary
4 - bliss - if not for you, then perhaps others

Order one today at w w w . I want to strike myself in the head with a hammer to achieve bliss . com

Re:Enough of the faith bashing

[pkphilip]

Just because scientists can manipulate the brain to cause the person to feel "spiritual" (whatever that means), it does not immediately imply that spirituality is just a construct of the mind.

That would be equivalent to arguing that since it is possible for scientists to stimulate the human brain to see a dog, then surely dogs are only a result of the brain being manipulated and don't really exist.

Bible bashing...

[Demonoid-Penguin]

gets new converts

Just saying....

Re:Just another emotion?

[Demonoid-Penguin]

Closer to what you're talking about is what Zen refers to as "makyo" that arise in meditation practice. These are considered hallucinations that should not be pursued.

Except breathing right makes those hallucinations go away...

Mod Parent double plus +++

[neurospyder]

Somebody needs to mod this up.

Studies of people ACTUALLY experiencing "God"

[SteamDot]

Unlike experiments which try to induce the sensation of "God" through the deft turn of a knob or a drop of a pill, experiments have been done on individuals who already experiencing a supernatural personage (apparition).

According to one of the many websites and books searched for some information on the studies "The reported apparitions in Medjugorje are the first apparitions in history to be thoroughly investigated by science. The regularity of the apparitions has made for consistent and extremely reliable findings."

Scientific experts have defined the phenomena "as a state of active, intense prayer, partially disconnected from the external world, a state of contemplation with a separate person whom they alone can see, hear, and touch."

Some scientifically inexplicable events occur during the time that they are having the vision.
-- the larynx (voice box) shuts off even though all muscles continue to operate normally with the exception during the time the alleged visionaries will be heard simultaneously praying, "Who art in heaven, hallowed be Thy name..." When later asked, they report Mother Mary is leading them in the Lord's Prayer."
--No brain response is detected when a 1000 bulb is placed near the visoneers eyes. Likewise loud sounds, pin pricks or burns are not being noticed / responded to either until the visitation disappears.
-- Brain waves are predominantly of a normal beta rhythm conscious attentiveness before the visitation. During the apparition almost uninterrupted alpha rhythm predominates, which is previously measured in states of sleep, meditation or relaxation. Oddly, the visioneers eyes remain open.

Re:Enough of the faith bashing

[cavebison]

That's an excellent point which should have at least been mentioned in such a "controversial" study. I personally think we're going to continue this sad argument, as a species, until Google starts to index all users' neural pathways and we can sort this out once and for all.