The non-thinking that is Religion.

[Thee Alex]

The biology of it is clearly explained, the physiological side is likewise.

There is nothing supernatural to see here, move along now.

[GobbHayte]

*puts Jeremy Paxman hat on*
A yes or no answer, Alex. Is love more than the sum of lust, attraction and attachment?

[Thee Alex]

Originally Posted by GobbHayte

*puts Jeremy Paxman hat on*
A yes or no answer, Alex. Is love more than the sum of lust, attraction and attachment?

Love has a clear basis in biology. So the answer is 'No'.

I'd have thought you'd have been able to work that out from my previous answer.

Anyway, I can feel myself losing the will to live discussing these things with you so I'm off to get some sleep.

That'll give you a few hours in which to think up some more nonsensical questions.

[scottyboy]

Originally Posted by Thee Alex

From the ever reliable Wikipedia -



Seems to me that 'love' can very easily be explained scientifically and as such is something I don't need to 'believe' in as it has a physical and psychological reason for being felt.

Still, nice try.

For more of the Biology of love, click here - Love - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

love only lasts 3 and a half years tops? whats the next stage?

ok nevermind i just read the article

[GobbHayte]

Originally Posted by Thee Alex

That'll give you a few hours in which to think up some more nonsensical questions.

just one just now, it's all my feeble, fence-sitting agnostic mind can come up with.
have you never felt sensations of lust, attraction and attachment for someone you wouldn't necessarily say you were in love with?
a bit personal maybe, but hey, seeing as you've been flinging personal insults around at everyone who isn't an atheist, i'd say that line has already been crossed.

[Hecate]

Originally Posted by : : Scott : :

What does this mean? If I take enough acid does that qualify? How has it been proven? What does this proof actually mean/suggest/infer?

I'm genuinely curious. We've established wikilinks are cool for base level introductions to things that could be considered specialist knowledge so hit me up some links.

My bad, it looks like it is just one of many theories being pursued.

However, on my way looking for a link, I did find this quote in an article by John Horgan on the Richard Dawkins website;

"Science cannot tell us if God exists only in our imaginations or as an entity beyond our comprehension. So why do some scientists continue the search for the roots of religious experience? Shouldn't such claims of oneness with a God be judged by their fruits, rather than their roots, as William James wrote in The Varieties of Religious Experience? Researchers may persist at these efforts because such studies offer the potential to alter our lives. In principle, these findings could lead to methods—call them "mystical technologies"—that reliably induce the state of spiritual insight that Christians call grace and Buddhists, enlightenment. Already Todd Murphy, a neuroscientist who has worked with Persinger, is marketing the "Shakti headset," a stripped-down version of Persinger's God machine, for "consciousness exploration." Electrodes implanted in the brain that electrically stimulate specific regions are now being tested as treatments for depression and other mental illnesses; conceivably this technology also could be used to induce mystical states."

Printer Friendly Version - Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science

[Thee Alex]

Originally Posted by freakonaleash

My bad, it looks like it is just one of many theories being pursued.

However, on my way looking for a link, I did find this quote in an article by John Horgan on the Richard Dawkins website;

"Science cannot tell us if God exists only in our imaginations or as an entity beyond our comprehension. So why do some scientists continue the search for the roots of religious experience? Shouldn't such claims of oneness with a God be judged by their fruits, rather than their roots, as William James wrote in The Varieties of Religious Experience? Researchers may persist at these efforts because such studies offer the potential to alter our lives. In principle, these findings could lead to methods—call them "mystical technologies"—that reliably induce the state of spiritual insight that Christians call grace and Buddhists, enlightenment. Already Todd Murphy, a neuroscientist who has worked with Persinger, is marketing the "Shakti headset," a stripped-down version of Persinger's God machine, for "consciousness exploration." Electrodes implanted in the brain that electrically stimulate specific regions are now being tested as treatments for depression and other mental illnesses; conceivably this technology also could be used to induce mystical states."

Printer Friendly Version - Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science

There's always a risk that when you post a quote from something complete with a link to the source that you'll be shown up for not having revealed the context.....

The theories described below illustrate the diversity of scientific approaches to understanding religion. All these theories are tentative at best, and some will almost certainly turn out to be wrong. The field suffers from vague terminology, disagreement about what exactly "religion" is, and which of its aspects are most important. Does religion consist primarily of behaviors, such as attending church or following certain moral precepts? Or does it consist of beliefs—in God or in an afterlife? Is religion best studied as a set of experiences, such as the inchoate feelings of connection to the rest of nature that can occur during prayer or meditation? Comparing studies is often an exercise in comparing apples and oranges. Nonetheless, the science merits close attention.

(my highlighting)

So it's an interesting area to study but too vague a concept to really get anything useful from as far as I understand it.

[Thee Alex]

Originally Posted by GobbHayte

just one just now, it's all my feeble, fence-sitting agnostic mind can come up with.
have you never felt sensations of lust, attraction and attachment for someone you wouldn't necessarily say you were in love with?
a bit personal maybe, but hey, seeing as you've been flinging personal insults around at everyone who isn't an atheist, i'd say that line has already been crossed.

1. I've been throwing insults at those who deserve it, atheist or not. You don't have to be a believer to be an idiot it seems, but it certainly appears to help. Also don't mistake you, pubicwig and freakonaleash for 'everyone'

2. I'm not going to answer the question. Not because I feel it's too personal but because I feel that it's entirely irrelevant to this discussion.

Try and stay on topic eh?

[Thee Alex]

Originally Posted by freakonaleash

My bad, it looks like it is just one of many theories being pursued.

Who'd have thought it?

[LesMts]

Originally Posted by GobbHayte

just one just now, it's all my feeble, fence-sitting agnostic mind can come up with.
have you never felt sensations of lust, attraction and attachment for someone you wouldn't necessarily say you were in love with?
a bit personal maybe, but hey, seeing as you've been flinging personal insults around at everyone who isn't an atheist, i'd say that line has already been crossed.

Lust, attraction and attachment are even more easily physiologically explained than love. Lust and attraction, for a start off, are almost as biological as eating and breathing are.

[LesMts]

Originally Posted by freakonaleash

NO!! It has been proven scientifically that when people have religious type experiences it is found to be active.

Apparently not, a search of pubmed (the quintessential database for peer-reviewed medical research) for "pineal gland and religion" yields a measly two research papers and two academic reviews. Two are about how yoga may modify the pineal's production of melatonin (which is the pineal's biological function), a hormone which is important in relaxation and sleep. In each paper the term religion is only used incidentally. One is a HIGHLY speculative paper, which draws no conclusions, about whether the pineal can release DMT. The last is a history of Descartes ideas about the pineal.

There's no real evidence that the pineal does anything more than help control our sleep/wake cycles.

On the other hand, there is evidence that people with temporal lobe epilepsy report "spiritual" experiences during their seizures. And temporal lobe stimulation can produce a sense of spirituality in healthy volunteers.

If you're interested in this kind of thing, how fucking incredible the brain is, and want to read something coming from a proper medical and scientific standpoint (rather than baseless mystical speculation) then I cannot recommend this book highly enough:- Amazon.co.uk: Phantoms in the Brain: Human Nature and the Architecture of the Mind: Books: V.S. Ramachandran,Sandra Blakeslee

Completely rational and scientific, sticks to then neurological facts and written with charm, charisma and humour. Probably the most fascinating book I have ever read. Go buy it, you won't be disappointed. There's a whole chapter on the physiological basis of spirituality.

[Jeebus]

Love is an emotion linked to reproduction, something which is necessary for the survival of the species.

Religion is not.