Where Religious Belief And Disbelief Meet

Sunday, October 11, 2009

When it comes to religion, believers and nonbelievers appear to think very differently. But at the level of the brain, is believing in God different from believing that the sun is a star or that 4 is an even number?

Posted by Zarathustra at 11:34 AM | 21 COMMENTS | permalink | Comment on This Entry

Front Page
News Weblog
Comments
Flagged Comments
User Blogs
Write a Blog Entry
Edit Account
Stats Page
RSS Feed
Back Page

Subscriptions

RSS Feed

Author Info

Zarathustra

Despite all my rage, I am still just a rat in a cage.

Private E-mail
Visit Home Page

Joined 2006/08/23
Visited 2009/11/15

Status: user

MORE STORIES

Halloween Horrorscope (9 comments) ...

Russian Historian Arrested Over Stalin Study (17 comments) ...

N.C. Church Plans Halloween Book Burning (142 comments) ...

Bible Scholar: God Not the Creator (210 comments) ...

What's With All the Zombies? (9 comments) ...

Where Religious Belief And Disbelief Meet (21 comments) ...

Greenwald: Afghanistan Debate Suffocatingly Narrow (52 comments) ...

G-20 Protester Charged with TwitterCrime (48 comments) ...

Placebos Are Getting More Effective (29 comments) ...

Who's In Charge: Obama, Congress, or the Military? (91 comments) ...

Greenwald: The Sources Used by the Liberal Media (0 comments) ...

Hightower: Wall Street's Latest Ghoulish Gimmick (25 comments) ...

FDA Bans Flavored Cigarettes (41 comments) ...

Talk Is Cheap: Saying 'Sorry' Costs Nothing (2 comments) ...

Zero Tolerance, Zero Effect (6 comments) ...

Special Features

Daily Nooner

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

Huh, so the big difference between evaluating statements such as "The sun is a star" and "God exists" is the latter's greater reliance on self-reference and emotion, whereas the former simply accesses memory stores.

God: just a byproduct of a millennia-old fluctuation in neurochemistry.

Doesn't sound too divine to me. Maybe the researchers' fMRI machine was under the influence of the Devil?

#1 | Posted by Zarathustra at 2009-10-11 11:39 AM | Reply | Flag:

Believing or non believing doesn't have anything to do with the brain.

It has everything to do with our hearts.

#2 | Posted by Lisa at 2009-10-11 12:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

It has everything to do with our hearts.

In a metaphorical sense.

Without a brain, you're not thinking, believing, or breathing much of anything... you're a sack of meat.

#3 | Posted by ZombieHunter at 2009-10-11 12:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

"It has everything to do with our hearts."

The heart is a muscle. It pumps blood. The extent of it's influence on the rest of your body ends there.

#4 | Posted by Dave at 2009-10-11 03:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

The heart is a muscle. It pumps blood. The extent of it's influence on the rest of your body ends there.

Captian obvious strikes twice in less than 15 minutes. LOL

#5 | Posted by goatman at 2009-10-11 03:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

Lisa,

I agree that faith is a product of the heart.

I think faith is sort of like love. It's something you feel that you can't quite explain.

Why do you love someone? Is it necessarily because you get anything in return, or it is just because you feel drawn and compelled?

Believers look at the heavens and feel there is more to this world than what you can see and study.

When you love someone, sometimes we choose to see little details as "proof" we are loved in return. Does that make it true or do we just choose to make it true in our heart?

As a believer, we sort of do the same thing. Sometimes, as believers we choose to accept little details as "proof "our faith is real.

#6 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2009-10-11 07:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

Nice post Bill.

#7 | Posted by Lisa at 2009-10-11 07:43 PM | Reply | Flag:

"The heart is a muscle. It pumps blood. The extent of it's influence on the rest of your body ends there."

Dave, Dave, Dave.....you make it sound like such a minor function.

#8 | Posted by Lisa at 2009-10-11 07:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

"...you make it sound like such a minor function."

Reality is often less exciting than fantasy or superstition.

#9 | Posted by Dave at 2009-10-11 09:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

"The heart is a muscle. It pumps blood. The extent of it's influence on the rest of your body ends there."

Dave, Dave, Dave.....you make it sound like such a minor function.

#8 | Posted by Lisa

Nothing about it is Minor, Lisa-your Heart stops beating-you'll realize that at once.....

#10 | Posted by frankf55 at 2009-10-11 10:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

Once again, someone decides that since they cannot measure God using their own standards, it must mean God does not exist.

God is much, much bigger than your puny little mind.

#11 | Posted by vernon at 2009-10-12 12:05 AM | Reply | Flag:

"God is much, much bigger than your puny little mind."

For someone so fucking big he sure is good at hiding.

#12 | Posted by nullifidian at 2009-10-12 12:33 AM | Reply | Flag:

"God is much, much bigger than your puny little mind"

~ Thus typed an(other) ignoramus.

Once again, someone decides that since science doesn't yet have a full-fledged account of how and why we got here, it must mean that God does exist.

AKA Verminous "Reasoning" 101!

#13 | Posted by Zarathustra at 2009-10-12 02:12 AM | Reply | Flag:

Believing or non believing doesn't have anything to do with the brain.
It has everything to do with our hearts.

#2 | POSTED BY LISA AT 2009-10-11 12:28 PM | REPLY | FLAG: Absolutely Precious!

#14 | Posted by Zarathustra at 2009-10-12 02:34 AM | Reply | Flag:

Zarathustra

Amen. You might enjoy this:

www.youtube.com

#15 | Posted by Timex at 2009-10-12 02:44 AM | Reply | Flag:

A comparison of all religious with all nonreligious statements suggested that religious thinking is more associated with brain regions that govern emotion, self-representation and cognitive conflict in both believers and nonbelievers, while thinking about ordinary facts is more reliant upon memory retrieval networks. Activity in the brain's anterior cingulate cortex, an area associated with cognitive conflict and uncertainty, suggested that both believers and nonbelievers experienced greater uncertainty when evaluating religious statements.

I'm shocked that questions of faith and philosophy are handled by these areas of the brain and aren't answered with 100% certainty. Shocked I tell you.

#16 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2009-10-12 11:56 AM | Reply | Flag:

"It must mean God doesn exist...."

What? That science doesn't have all the answers? Of course that doesn't mean God exists. What it does mean that science and scientists are limited, and may never really come to understand at all.

Time to concede science has limitations (like ZOMBIE sort of did, once) and that, if there is a God, science is not Him.

#17 | Posted by Zed at 2009-10-12 12:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

Timex, that was sweet!

#18 | Posted by ZombieHunter at 2009-10-12 01:09 PM | Reply | Flag:

Time to concede science has limitations (like ZOMBIE sort of did, once) and that, if there is a God, science is not Him.

Even I wouldn't argue with that. Conversely, a theist cannot make fantastic claims without admitting their own limitations. They cannot know what they claim to know.

#19 | Posted by Ray at 2009-10-12 01:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

"a theist cannot make fantastic claims without admitting their own limitations. They cannot know what they claim to know."

Not true, A theist has only to believe in something for it to exist to them, no proof is necessary beyond his personal belief. Science must prove or disprove something which requires unattainable perfection in knowledge or to find the specific burden of proof for the individual. In a way both are dependent on perception and to some extent both are products of our own inquisitive minds.

I believe that it is human nature to believe in something that is bigger then us, something that can used to explain thing that we are unable to comprehend. Science is one way that we can look up to people that we hold up as beyond our level of understanding. God is another tool we use to bring meaning to the meaningless, that is not to say he is a creation of man but instead to say that it is not necessarily important whether or not he physically exists. The notion that he is there is enough to drive people, if nothing more then he is the lesson in aesop's fables, meaning without direct experience.

#20 | Posted by salamandagator at 2009-10-12 05:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

wow, salamandererererer, that was nice. meaningless, but nice.

God created man after man created God.

#21 | Posted by Lipzoidial at 2009-10-12 05:58 PM | Reply | Flag: