Quizzes & Puzzles3 mins ago
Religion as Cognitive Malfunction
60 Answers
Scientific research using functional MRI has shown that religious experiences mainly involve the temporal lobes of the brain.
Epileptic seizures in the temporal lobes have also been shown to be associated with hyper-religious experiences. Some researches consider that the religious revelations of "prophets" such as Abraham and Mohammed are nothing more than epileptic seizures in this area of the brain.
Epilepsy can be induced in some people by repeated, rhythmic sensory input such as flashing lights.
Religious rituals often involve repetitive movements, repeated chants and actions. For example the nodding of the Jews at the Wailing Wall and those who study the Qu'ran, the repeated phrases and the swinging incense burners of other churches.
The parallels with hypnosis are obvious. Hypnosis is also capable of inducing the patterns imprinted during the hypnosis at other times given the right stimulus being imprinted during the hypnosis.
Is religion really about trying to reproduce some of the cognitive dysfunctionality of temporal lobe epilepsy that caused the hyper-religious experiences of the founders of their sects? Does it also imprint the triggers for those mental patterns to reemerge during otherwise normal behaviour?
Does this patterning fit what we see in the religious where they can barely string two sentences together without launching into copious quoting from their religious texts, while clearly oblivious to the irrationality of what they are saying?
Is it right that the religious should be allowed to expose children to these practices, knowing that it is specifically aimed at causing profound cognitive dysfunction?
Epileptic seizures in the temporal lobes have also been shown to be associated with hyper-religious experiences. Some researches consider that the religious revelations of "prophets" such as Abraham and Mohammed are nothing more than epileptic seizures in this area of the brain.
Epilepsy can be induced in some people by repeated, rhythmic sensory input such as flashing lights.
Religious rituals often involve repetitive movements, repeated chants and actions. For example the nodding of the Jews at the Wailing Wall and those who study the Qu'ran, the repeated phrases and the swinging incense burners of other churches.
The parallels with hypnosis are obvious. Hypnosis is also capable of inducing the patterns imprinted during the hypnosis at other times given the right stimulus being imprinted during the hypnosis.
Is religion really about trying to reproduce some of the cognitive dysfunctionality of temporal lobe epilepsy that caused the hyper-religious experiences of the founders of their sects? Does it also imprint the triggers for those mental patterns to reemerge during otherwise normal behaviour?
Does this patterning fit what we see in the religious where they can barely string two sentences together without launching into copious quoting from their religious texts, while clearly oblivious to the irrationality of what they are saying?
Is it right that the religious should be allowed to expose children to these practices, knowing that it is specifically aimed at causing profound cognitive dysfunction?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by beso. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The religious establishment tends to confuse tricks with spiritual experience. The Therevada Buddhists, who might reject the term "religion", tend to see ecstacy and other mental events of this type as delusions.
I think society is more at risk from postmodern philosophy than from religion. The idea that there is no foundation for morality or ethics and that all beliefs are equivalent is a definition of evil. The Moors Murderer becomes on a parr with you and me.
I think society is more at risk from postmodern philosophy than from religion. The idea that there is no foundation for morality or ethics and that all beliefs are equivalent is a definition of evil. The Moors Murderer becomes on a parr with you and me.
//I think society is more at risk from postmodern philosophy than from religion. The idea that there is no foundation for morality or ethics and that all beliefs are equivalent is a definition of evil. The Moors Murderer becomes on a parr with you and me.//
I tend to agree with you on this point Johnysid. Far from being a cure, religion is more a symptom (if not a cause) of the disease, a manifestation of the lack of understanding of, regard for and outright war against humanities most potent weapon, defining virtue and only hope . . . reason.
I tend to agree with you on this point Johnysid. Far from being a cure, religion is more a symptom (if not a cause) of the disease, a manifestation of the lack of understanding of, regard for and outright war against humanities most potent weapon, defining virtue and only hope . . . reason.
//Yes mibn.. the only problem is that cursed epistemic regress. At this moment in the evolution of reason it is hard to find a foundation. As Jakethepeg said of something related, we need a better understanding of time.//
Time is absolute with respect to any given observer, the basic standard for measurement being with respect to that which anyone can reasonable expect to achieve in one life-time. For many, being confined to such an absolute standard is unacceptable, in spite of the need to face this inescapable and unavoidable reality essential to any objective value one might place on life as sentient rational beings.
Time is absolute with respect to any given observer, the basic standard for measurement being with respect to that which anyone can reasonable expect to achieve in one life-time. For many, being confined to such an absolute standard is unacceptable, in spite of the need to face this inescapable and unavoidable reality essential to any objective value one might place on life as sentient rational beings.
Surely religion can not be dismissed as a cognitive malfunction simply because you have concerns that some religious practices may cause them.
I think one mst distinguish between which practices the thread refers to before discussing whether it is right for children to be involved. This thread seems to have the making of a lot of confusion, maybe deliberately.
I think one mst distinguish between which practices the thread refers to before discussing whether it is right for children to be involved. This thread seems to have the making of a lot of confusion, maybe deliberately.
Mibn, according to QM Decoherence Theory we live in a world that is selected onto a template, a particular ordering of events, from an infinity of possibilities. The template formed at some time in the past as the most probable outcome in our part of the multiverse as a result of an anthropic principle. This selection would have created space and time in such a way that an observing mind were possible... So all we need to know is how an observing mind differs from taking measurements (simply transferring energy from place to place would not create an anthropic effect).
If you conform to God’s thinking on this matter, we will also appreciate that life is no less sacred because a person may be very old or very young. God’s Word shows that even the life of an unborn child in its mother’s womb is precious to Jehovah. (Psalm 127:3) And yet millions of abortions are performed throughout the earth each year.
In the Media A study ofJehovah’s Witnesses fare better after cardiac surgery
Read more: http://
beso@ In all the world people know that the religious systems, through their leaders, have hated and spoken evil of Jehovah’s witnesses. More than that, they have incited political action against the Witnesses, and, by misrepresenting them, have even brought about mob action to stop them, if possible.
But Jehovah’s witnesses are undaunted. They continue to call to help people, trusting in Jesus’ words to his disciples, as set out in his prophecy concerning the “conclusion of the system of things,( Matt 24:14)
In the Media A study ofJehovah’s Witnesses fare better after cardiac surgery
Read more: http://
beso@ In all the world people know that the religious systems, through their leaders, have hated and spoken evil of Jehovah’s witnesses. More than that, they have incited political action against the Witnesses, and, by misrepresenting them, have even brought about mob action to stop them, if possible.
But Jehovah’s witnesses are undaunted. They continue to call to help people, trusting in Jesus’ words to his disciples, as set out in his prophecy concerning the “conclusion of the system of things,( Matt 24:14)
Goodlife, what is the answer to my question? A child is refused a blood transfusion because the belief of the parents is that it is God's will that the child die (unless of course some other treatment is available which does not involve blood ). No other treatment is available. A Court intervenes and orders that the child be given a blood transfusion. Is that God's will ? The child lives and lives on. Is that God's will?
If you are under the impression that the parents actually wanted their child to die,You are wrong.
Jehovah’s Witnesses are life-oriented. They have no desire to die. They want to live so they can praise Jehovah and do his will. That is one reason why they go to hospitals and take their children there for treatment. They ask physicians to treat them, and when they are told blood is the standard or medically indicated course of treatment, they ask for alternative nonblood medical management. There are many alternatives to blood. Experienced physicians are using them. Such alternative management is not quack medicine but consists of medically sound treatments and procedures that are documented in leading medical journals. Thousands of physicians around the world are cooperating with us in providing good medical care without the use of blood, although it is still a problem at times to locate physicians who will treat Witness children without using blood.
And what the court needs to know is that, although you are refusing blood on deeply held religious grounds, you are not refusing medical care. The judge needs to see that you are not neglectful or abusive parents but, rather, loving parents who want their child treated. You simply do not agree that the alleged benefits of blood outweigh its potentially lethal hazards and complications, especially when medical alternatives that do not carry any risks.
Jehovah’s Witnesses are life-oriented. They have no desire to die. They want to live so they can praise Jehovah and do his will. That is one reason why they go to hospitals and take their children there for treatment. They ask physicians to treat them, and when they are told blood is the standard or medically indicated course of treatment, they ask for alternative nonblood medical management. There are many alternatives to blood. Experienced physicians are using them. Such alternative management is not quack medicine but consists of medically sound treatments and procedures that are documented in leading medical journals. Thousands of physicians around the world are cooperating with us in providing good medical care without the use of blood, although it is still a problem at times to locate physicians who will treat Witness children without using blood.
And what the court needs to know is that, although you are refusing blood on deeply held religious grounds, you are not refusing medical care. The judge needs to see that you are not neglectful or abusive parents but, rather, loving parents who want their child treated. You simply do not agree that the alleged benefits of blood outweigh its potentially lethal hazards and complications, especially when medical alternatives that do not carry any risks.
Surprise, surprise, folks - goodlife can't even come up with anything individualistic on the above:
http://
http://
Goodlife -
I understand from 'Dtcrosswordfan' that the words in your above post [07:36 Fri 06th Jul 2012] are not your own. No surprises there as you seem to have a problem expressing yourself without resorting to cut & paste answers.
It always amazes me how people such as yourself talk about, “... Witness children...”. You can replace the word 'Witness' with Christian, Islamic, Jewish, etc. and it still makes no sense whatsoever. Children are just children. I find it utterly obscene that religious proselytisers like you genuinely think that their children are born into the religion of their parents. So from the minute they're born, the child is described according to their parents' chosen delusion and they can die due to their parent's prejudices and misinformed views.
I understand from 'Dtcrosswordfan' that the words in your above post [07:36 Fri 06th Jul 2012] are not your own. No surprises there as you seem to have a problem expressing yourself without resorting to cut & paste answers.
It always amazes me how people such as yourself talk about, “... Witness children...”. You can replace the word 'Witness' with Christian, Islamic, Jewish, etc. and it still makes no sense whatsoever. Children are just children. I find it utterly obscene that religious proselytisers like you genuinely think that their children are born into the religion of their parents. So from the minute they're born, the child is described according to their parents' chosen delusion and they can die due to their parent's prejudices and misinformed views.
Goodlife -
I find this part of 'your' above post particularly offensive and obscene, “... although you are refusing blood on deeply held religious grounds, you are not refusing medical care... you are not neglectful or abusive parents but, rather, loving parents who want their child treated. You simply do not agree that the alleged benefits of blood outweigh its potentially lethal hazards and complications, especially when medical alternatives that do not carry any risks...”.
By refusing a blood transfusion to someone who desperately needs it in order to survive, you are indeed refusing medical care. It is patently obvious that you are denying them care. The very statement proves itself (and therefore, you) wrong. And what do you mean by the '… alleged benefits of blood...”? Are you actually trying to argue that the efficacy of blood transfusions are somehow in doubt? Blood transfusions save millions of people's lives every year in this country alone.
And as for 'your' statement that, “... especially when medical alternatives that do not carry any risks...” words almost fail me. Newsflash Goodlife – all medical treatments carry some degree of risk. Do yourself a favour and read a good book. And I don't mean the Bible or its derivatives. If you want a layman's guide, read Ben Goldacre's book, “Bad Science” and for crying out loud educate yourself for your own good and for the good of any children that you may have...
Amazon.co.uk User Recommendation
I find this part of 'your' above post particularly offensive and obscene, “... although you are refusing blood on deeply held religious grounds, you are not refusing medical care... you are not neglectful or abusive parents but, rather, loving parents who want their child treated. You simply do not agree that the alleged benefits of blood outweigh its potentially lethal hazards and complications, especially when medical alternatives that do not carry any risks...”.
By refusing a blood transfusion to someone who desperately needs it in order to survive, you are indeed refusing medical care. It is patently obvious that you are denying them care. The very statement proves itself (and therefore, you) wrong. And what do you mean by the '… alleged benefits of blood...”? Are you actually trying to argue that the efficacy of blood transfusions are somehow in doubt? Blood transfusions save millions of people's lives every year in this country alone.
And as for 'your' statement that, “... especially when medical alternatives that do not carry any risks...” words almost fail me. Newsflash Goodlife – all medical treatments carry some degree of risk. Do yourself a favour and read a good book. And I don't mean the Bible or its derivatives. If you want a layman's guide, read Ben Goldacre's book, “Bad Science” and for crying out loud educate yourself for your own good and for the good of any children that you may have...
Amazon.co.uk User Recommendation
Goodlife, the question I posed was predicated on no other life-saving treatment than a blood transfusion being available. The witness child will die, however life oriented the witness parents are, unless the child is given blood.Or do you believe a)that non-blood treatments existed before blood transfusions b) that the were and are always available ?
If no doctor will use a non-blood treatment, for whatever reason, when the witness child is in the custody and care of the Court, and the child is saved by blood transfusion, what do you do?Do you treat the child as tainted and no longer a witness child? Do you thank God that the child is saved?
If no doctor will use a non-blood treatment, for whatever reason, when the witness child is in the custody and care of the Court, and the child is saved by blood transfusion, what do you do?Do you treat the child as tainted and no longer a witness child? Do you thank God that the child is saved?
I think Goodlife may have left the building, so you may not get the answers you seek. Nothing new there then. ;o)
//This is all for now on this site for me. I have better things to do with people who are more interesting.//
13:19 Fri 06th Jul 2012
http://
//This is all for now on this site for me. I have better things to do with people who are more interesting.//
13:19 Fri 06th Jul 2012
http://
Latest Posts
How it Works12 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles32 mins ago
ChatterBank52 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles91 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.