Biological Predisposition To Faith?

[A_Wanderer]

Very interesting article from a few years ago

Whether you prefer whirling with the dervishes, participating in liturgical services or meditating with Buddhists may depend on the level of serotonin in your brain, recent research indicates.

Participation in and receptivity to certain religious and spiritual practices may be linked to the density of one of 15 serotonin receptors in the brain, said Dr. Lars Farde, professor of psychiatry at Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm, Sweden, and co-author of, "The Serotonin System and Spiritual Experiences," published in the November issue of the American Journal of Psychology.

According to Farde, the receptor neurologists call 5-HT1A "is one of the most important because it serves as a marker for the entire serotonin system." He said the connection furthers the belief that brain function may impact openness to spiritual experiences.

Using a brain imaging technique called positron emission tomography, or PET, Farde and his team have been studying neurotransmitters like dopamine and serotonin for a number of years. Their past research was the first to demonstrate the correlation between higher brain function and personality.

Recently, the researchers became interested in the serotonin system because of its relationship to depression and anxiety, said Farde. In attempting to confirm the correlation between serotonin levels and anxiety, he said they were surprised to discover a connection between the density of the receptors and spiritual acceptance.

Using the "Temperament and Character Inventory," 15 mentally and physically healthy men ages 20 - 45 self-assessed a number of personality traits, including self-transcendence, which denotes religious behavior and attitudes. The scale includes yes-or-no questions like, "I have had supernatural experiences" and, "I believe in a common, unifying force."

"We looked at how they view the existence of a spiritual realm," said Farde. "You can take the extremes. The person who scores very low might be a technician who says they believe the things they see, the things they can measure, whereas they don't believe anything beyond that. The other extreme might be the new-age type, or the person who believes that nature has a soul and views the spiritual reality as more important than the reality seen by our eyes."

The participants also underwent PET scans to determine their serotonin levels. Analyzing the date from the two tests, the researchers discovered a strong linear correlation: the higher the scores for spiritual acceptance, the lower the density of the serotonin receptors.

"There is more to say that low serotonin is linked with people who are open to spiritual or supernatural experiences," explained Farde. "Whereas the higher levels go more with people who believe what they see with their eyes and are not so open to God or other aspects of religion."

Dr. Andrew B. Newberg, an assistant professor in the departments of radiology and psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania, said this is an integral study in understanding the biology behind spirituality and religion.

"This is a big question that has been raised," said Newberg, who researches the connection between spirituality and the brain, or neurotheology. "We always talk about people that are predisposed to certain experiences, and the question is why."

According to Newberg, this research may be useful in a number of ways, including guiding people to practices that might better suit their disposition by understanding how people are spiritually different.

source

The criteria and evaluations could be a weakness but I find the predisposition of a mind to transcendental experiences possibly linking to the activity of serotonin receptors stimulating to say the least, that the feelings of profound truth and significance in thought shown by the devout, the insane and the drugged can be traced back to a material cause.

Valuable for unraveling the workings of the mind and bringing the subjective personal transcendental experience into an empirical domain.

If there is a significant element of biological determinism in the capacity for faith would that have any significant effect on you? If you could one day find out if your neurology was a bad fit for faith would it justify agnosticism or atheism? (I feel yes, I was lucky enough never to have any compulsion to religion and whatever exposure there was didn't fit and by now I am quite confident never will - I would be interested to know the role of my brain in it versus environment; I think that it has the potential to undercut charges that atheism is simply another belief on par with any other faith - I am not saying it is special, merely that it is an absence of faith, which is a different beast altogether; most people take it to be true that other people think and feel like they do, that they would believe the same thing if given the same chance - showing if that is true or not and why could help understanding).

Lastly if the capacity for faith is a biological character is it heritable and if so why would it exist in human populations.

I suspect that this need some pondering with some targeted 5-HT2A action.

 

[melon]

I think that "low serotonin" is incidental, frankly. As a measure of balance in biology, lower serotonin seemingly corresponds to higher dopamine (and vice versa). I believe it is the higher dopamine levels and the subsequent serotonin releases that go along with it that triggers higher levels of religiosity.

Thus, it is not coincidental that drug use and religious experiences (as often seen in aboriginal religious practices) often go hand-in-hand. These drugs quite clearly alter the serotonin-dopamine balance.

Frankly, all it takes is alternating supplementation of the amino acids, tryptophan (serotonin-producing) and phenylalanine/tyrosine (dopamine-producing), to trigger this. I've certainly noticed it myself, having taken both before.

 

[diamond]

u guys will contiue to change your mind as wisdom of the world and science progreesess at a snail's pace and eventually be enlightened in next life, look for me there.

in the meantime, i would encorage you to continue to love your fellowmen.

<>

 

[melon]

u guys will contiue to change your mind as wisdom of the world and science progreesess at a snail's pace and eventually be enlightened in next life, look for me there.

in the meantime, i would encorage you to continue to love your fellowmen.

<>

This is completely irrelevant, frankly. There is a chemical component to feelings of religiosity that are completely separate from the existence or nonexistence of God. This could help describe, for instance, why there are those who prefer dry, intellectual faiths versus titillating, charismatic faiths.

Since these neurotransmitters help determine whether we are happy or sad, it stands to reason that they could contribute far more to our personality, as well.

 

[diamond]

Are neurotransmitters the part of our organic system that cause
"warm and fuzzies" or "goose bumps"?

Serious question here.

<>

 

[melon]

Are neurotransmitters the part of our organic system that cause
"warm and fuzzies" or "goose bumps"?

Serious question here.

<>

They involve everything that allows our nervous system to function. Without them, we are dead.

It stands to reason, as such, since they are involved with everything in our nervous system, that, yes, those two things would be included.

 

[diamond]

They involve everything that allows our nervous system to function. Without them, we are dead.

It stands to reason, as such, since they are involved with everything in our nervous system, that, yes, those two things would be included.

Seriously speaking, I get warm and fuzzy goose bumps when I see or hear truth where ever it may come from. It's like an "inner teacher" inside of me going off, lgoing ching ching ching and pulsating through out my system.

It happens frequently in meditation and prayer.

This is a barometer on how I measure a lot of my decisions in life.

I have this phenomonen happen when listening to polictical speechs by either a Republican or Democrat-as long as the words are heartfelt, sincere and are in tune with light or goodness.

Winston Churchill's "Never Surrender" speech comes to mind.

It happens while listening to a sermon regardless of which church it hails from.

If I listen to music, good music-from the good side: it feels like I'm being joyfully electrocuted, somtimes I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

This happens at good movies, I can go on and on here, but I won't.

Do any of you guys have this?

Ok lock me up.



dbs

 

[BVS]

Seriously speaking, I get warm and fuzzy goose bumps when I see or hear truth where ever it may come from. It's like an "inner teacher" inside of me going off, lgoing ching ching ching and pulsating through out my system.

But your "truth" may not be everyone's "truth" therefore is not really true at all, but just your opinion or belief.

 

[diamond]

BVS-

Has anybody told you that they loved you today?

If not may I be the first?

I love you mr bvs.

<>

 

[BVS]

BVS-

Has anybody told you that they loved you today?

If not may I be the first?

I love you mr bvs.

<>

Many people have today, some friends at church, my fam, but now I can add you to the list thank you and I love you too.

But I hope you realize what I was getting at, I wasn't trying to attack you, just clarify...

 

[A_Wanderer]

But your "truth" may not be everyone's "truth" therefore is not really true at all, but just your opinion or belief.

Perhaps that is the case but goosebumps are a relic of our rather hirsute past.

 

[diamond]

Argeed.

I believe God's children, us ppl on earth are at various different levels of spiritual growth; so what may ring true and give one person warm goose bumps won't give another.

I feel my sweet wife get goose bumps at the encore of an opera show applause and is almost frigid while Bono is screaming Miss Sarajevo.

What gives?

That said maybe we wage some intervention and watch her melt at an unplugged BVS musical set, what do you say?



<>

 

[BVS]

Sweet...

 

[yolland]

Perhaps that is the case but goosebumps are a relic of our rather hirsute past.

I always thought it was odd that the emotion of awe would cause a fight-or-flight response. Not that that's really relevant but...

I agree with what melon seems to be saying, though; the author of the study appears to be suggesting connections more to particular worship styles (as the article puts it, "certain religious and spiritual practices") than to the more baseline yes-or-no supposition as to whether there's any'thing' beyond material reality or not. Plenty of people who'd say 'yes' to that have zero interest in following any kind of "spiritual practice," and plenty of people who'd say 'no' are still interested in trying meditation for example.

Also 15 is a very small sample.

 

[diamond]

Yolland-

Do you too sometimes get the warm fuzzy goosebumps, or is this relegated to those that occupy the diamond sphere, just a stone's throw a way from and- east of Shoel?

<>

 

[yolland]

Oh sure, I think everyone gets goosebumps. Seldom if ever from speeches in my case, but when hiking in really sublime surroundings, occasionally from music, occasionally while meditating...

 

[diamond]

Actually there are some that do not, which leads to other questions, like their belief system, if they're in harmony with their universe etc etc.

The better news is that we're not alone in this kid.


For political speeches try on Jesse Jackson or MLK.



<>

 

[A_Wanderer]

This is completely irrelevant, frankly. There is a chemical component to feelings of religiosity that are completely separate from the existence or nonexistence of God. This could help describe, for instance, why there are those who prefer dry, intellectual faiths versus titillating, charismatic faiths.

Since these neurotransmitters help determine whether we are happy or sad, it stands to reason that they could contribute far more to our personality, as well.

I am not sure that it is completely separate, taking an phenomena that has in the past been hoisted as a proof of God and putting it into a natural domain removes the necessity of God. While it can't answer the question of God as a first cause or a guiding hand acting through probabilities it does remove God from the direct workings of the world.

Understanding how the brain work has as little to do with the existence of God as evolutionary biology.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Actually there are some that do not, which leads to other questions, like their belief system, if they're in harmony with their universe etc etc.

The better news is that we're not alone in this kid.


For political speeches try on Jesse Jackson or MLK.



<>

Now that is offensive, your boxing people that don't feel the same way as being out of kilter with the universe.

If somebody is dull to oratory and deaf to music that doesn't raise questions about their belief system or how their living their life.

 

[diamond]

Now that is offensive, your boxing people that don't feel the same way as being out of kilter with the universe.

If somebody is dull to oratory and deaf to music that doesn't raise questions about their belief system or how their living their life.

Actually deaf and blind people are the most spiritually sensitive and get the warm fuzzies goosebumps in a higher proportionality to those people with all of there senses functioning properly.

So you can:

a) question why and then look how the ppl regardless of their senses all functioning properly -why they get these warm fuzzy db9goosebumps (deaf ppl feel the beat to music and even dance I hear shock!) and look at their lives and if they are good ppl with a good value system-try connecting the dots that way.

or

b) arbitrarily start picking on them for having warm and fuzzie feelings with goosebumps when you think they shouldn't.

<>

 

[A_Wanderer]

Are you ascribing a physiological response from something in the pleasure center of the brain to spiritual sensitivity? Where is the peer reviewed study on the experience of the deaf and blind experience?

If I want to feel more love and I would just take MDMA.

 

[melon]

I am not sure that it is completely separate, taking an phenomena that has in the past been hoisted as a proof of God and putting it into a natural domain removes the necessity of God. While it can't answer the question of God as a first cause or a guiding hand acting through probabilities it does remove God from the direct workings of the world.

Understanding how the brain work has as little to do with the existence of God as evolutionary biology.

It's not an all-or-nothing proposition here. If brain chemistry can influence whether one is religious or atheist, it can most certainly influence one's flavor of religiosity too. And keep in mind here, I'm not talking at all about deus ex machina workings here; just the science.

This level of nuance may not be what the scientists here had in mind, but hey...that's science.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Oh I am all about the nuance, that last sentence in the quote has a few very deliberate meanings in there and at least one of them rather complementary to you.

I didn't respond to the spectrum of faith on account of a misplaced delete key. But the general gist was going to be that if I was raised Christian, lived in a more religious society then I may well have a faith in God and it would potentially be reinforced by some of those Christian apologetic arguments. Arguments why you should believe in spite of doubts are not out there to cater for a simple faith. People can always find a religion to fit their temperament and it would make sense that it a consequence of how their brains work.

I think one overlooked thing is that if a certain proportion is always lukewarm to belief then there will always be the faithful. Any utopian ideals about forging a purely atheistic society ultimately demand force or a suitable substitute entity for deification. I have no interest in such a society, it demands undesirable means to reach an undesirable end.

 

[diamond]

I think it's funny watching a Darwinian proponent and near agnostic debate the finer points of this subject.

 

[diamond]

MDMA.

That's fake love brother.

<>

 

[A_Wanderer]

I think it's funny watching a Darwinian proponent and near agnostic debate the finer points of this subject.

Naturally funny, to the untrained eye perhaps

But both Melon and I have some comprehension of where the other is coming from (which is basically the same point on this topic). I know that we are both perfectly comfortable with what we believe and would never be as impolite as to expect the other to change.

And isn't it interesting that the atheist in this argument is cast as the Darwinian proponent, are you incapable of understanding that materialism and atheism are separate from the evolutionary biology. Melon by virtue of not being a moron can view evolution as being a means to a divine end. I have the luxury of unbelief and can simply marvel at it's splendor. But pity the poor fool who is so married a simple faith that demands a simple God for being the reason for his simple existence; he could never actually have a stimulating conversation about anything of significance.

 

[INDY500]

And isn't it interesting that the atheist in this argument is cast as the Darwinian proponent, are you incapable of understanding that materialism and atheism are separate from the evolutionary biology.

But atheists have taken the theory of evolution -- injected their own philosophies and politics into it -- to create their own 100% materialistic version of Genesis. Which is then masqueraded as 100% science, which it most certainly is not.

Nothing in the theory or science of evolution is hostile or disproves in anyway a supernatural Creation or Design. That is only the atheistic spin on Darwin. Evolutionary science does explain why older fossils show less complex forms and accounts for the unity of all life on earth. But evolution and biology alone can never explain the origin of life, how the unconscious became conscious, human morality or what happens after death.

Not that we shouldn't try anyhow. By all means, let's fill in the details. We're all just seeking the truth right?

 

[diamond]

Also Darwin was not an Atheist.



<>

 

[melon]

But atheists have taken the theory of evolution -- injected their own philosophies and politics into it -- to create their own 100% materialistic version of Genesis. Which is then masqueraded as 100% science, which it most certainly is not.

Nothing in the theory or science of evolution is hostile or disproves in anyway a supernatural Creation or Design. That is only the atheistic spin on Darwin. Evolutionary science does explain why older fossils show less complex forms and accounts for the unity of all life on earth. But evolution and biology alone can never explain the origin of life, how the unconscious became conscious, human morality or what happens after death.

Not that we shouldn't try anyhow. By all means, let's fill in the details. We're all just seeking the truth right?

Science--and, by extension, evolution--is inherently disinterested in theistic explanations, not because they are hostile to religion (and Darwin, as you have loosely implied, was not hostile to it either; but you also didn't see "God" being plastered all over "The Origin of Species" either). It is because science is inherently uninterested in what is not material. You may make some kind of trite, coy slur that science is "materialistic"; but it is what it is. Religion does not conform to reality any more than science conforms to notions of faith; and it is fully within the rights of man to mix the two privately. That man, however, should always know that they are still two different subjects. Darwin certainly understood it, as did the medieval intellectual giants--many of whom were Christian and Islamic clerics in their own right--before him.

 

[diamond]

Naturally funny, to the untrained eye perhaps

But both Melon and I have some comprehension of where the other is coming from (which is basically the same point on this topic). I know that we are both perfectly comfortable with what we believe and would never be as impolite as to expect the other to change.

And isn't it interesting that the atheist in this argument is cast as the Darwinian proponent, are you incapable of understanding that materialism and atheism are separate from the evolutionary biology. Melon by virtue of not being a moron can view evolution as being a means to a divine end. I have the luxury of unbelief and can simply marvel at it's splendor. But pity the poor fool who is so married a simple faith that demands a simple God for being the reason for his simple existence; he could never actually have a stimulating conversation about anything of significance.

Actully you and Melon are more connected at the hip and I'm not bothered.

It may behoove both of you gentleman to know that the LDS faith believe in evolution to a degree more that Orthodox Christianity and was part of Joseph Smith's struggle.

It was revealed to him, by God that the ex nihilo creation was inaccurate, a long held belief of Orthodox Christianity.

Here's what he said it the early 1800s as it was revealed to him regarding matter, the universe and the creation:

God created the universe out of chaos, "which is Element and in which dwells all the glory"

"God is related to space and time, and did not create them from nothing. Change occurs through intelligence. The universe is governed by law. There were two creations: All things were made "spiritually" before they were made "naturally" (Moses 3:5). Through his Son, God is the Creator of multiple worlds. God is the Father of the human spirits that inhabit his creations. His creations have no end".

"the Creation is placed in a much larger context of ongoing creations of innumerable inhabited earths with their respective heavens.... "And worlds without number have I created…for mine own purpose;....... And as one earth shall pass away, and the heavens thereof even so shall another come; and there is no end to my works"

Also Joseph Smith was granted knowledge that the whole nebulous idea of the Trintarian doctrine was man made, that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost were 3 seperate holy beings or enities united for 1 purpose, another idea refuted that had been forced down the throats of post 1st century Christians giving every believer of God a rubics cube only understanding of their Creator at very best.

Here's what i could find on that subject:

The doctrine of ex nihilo creation has been the traditional Christian explanation. In recent discussion of the subject, many Jewish scholars agreed that the belief in an ex nihilo creation is not to be found before the Hellenistic period, while Christian scholars see no evidence of this doctrine in the Christian church until the end of the second century A.D. The rejection of ex nihilo creation in the teaching of the Latter-day Saints thus accords with the evidence of the earliest understanding of the Creation in ancient Israel and in early Christianity. Similarly, Latter-day Saints have understood such biblical passages as John 9:2 and Jeremiah 1:4-5 to refer to individual premortal existence, with implications for subsequent earthly existence. In support of this, it may be pointed out that various Christians and Christian groups in the early Christian centuries taught the same doctrine (cf. Origen, De principiis 1:7; 2:8; 4:1), and that it is also to be found in Jewish belief of the same period, including Philo (De mutatione nominum 39; De opificio mundi 51; De cherubim 32); in some apocryphal writings (Wisdom of Solomon 8:19-20; 15:3); and among the Essenes (Josephus, Jewish War 2.8.11, as well as in the Jewish Talmud and Midrash).

So, my evloutionist and agnostic friend ponder those thoughts and get back to me.

<>