Atheists who don't hate religion

[Frozenwolf150]

What would people report happening if we covertly and simultaneously electrocuted the global population's TPJ with 3 to 5 volts for roughly 3 seconds?

I'm still not sure what exactly you hope to accomplish by this. Are you talking about altering the neurobiology of people using a medical procedure they may not want done to them?

I would much prefer they choose to change their beliefs out of their own free will. Forcing people to think the same as you sounds like something religious fundamentalists would do.

 

[JaysonR]

Frozenwolf,

No, the question regarding the TPJ hasn't anything to do with changing neurological profile.
It has to do with what people would claim to have experienced in such an event.

 

[David Mo]

David Mo,

I have thought about how to show the perspective more articulately, and this is the best I can think of, so permit me some patience if you will.

Also, note that I am not trying to be coy, but earnest.

What would people report happening if we covertly and simultaneously electrocuted the global population's TPJ with 3 to 5 volts for roughly 3 seconds?

TPJ = Temporo-Parietal Junction, I suppose. I have no idea, but "electrocuted" sounds alarming. Do you mean that: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20837362 ?

 

[JaysonR]

Somewhat, though that is primarily focused on rTMS strategies of TPJ stimulation for patients suffering from DPD; which is still within the ballpark of the point.

Here's a general reference which covers a larger range of descriptions.

I'm not going to say the mass population would have OBE's, as that's not really my point.
Instead, my point is that it would incredibly disorient the mass population in conscientiously disturbing and frightening manners.

One's self perception of space radically changes inexplicably in conflicting manners.

Now, if you do this to someone laying on a lab table, they have a contextual awareness of what is going on, so the abnormal perceptions can, at the least, be reflectively rationalized by the patient.

However; if we covertly and simultaneously electrocuted (not rTMS, but electrocuted) 7 billion TPJ's as described, then some number would die and the surviving population would have experiences ranging from their body changing size (as a sensation, not as a visual - though that may be true as well in some cases) all the way up to perceptions of OBE's.
A few may potentially develop DPD; that's not really known, but it may be possible in such large numbers of stimulation.

Now, those who live in areas which have scientific industry would probably disperse information quickly around about what had empirically happened and why people had sensations such as they did.
Some would accept these descriptions, some would as well as want for an explanation of how such happened; others would create an alternative narrative to explain why this happened ranging from conspiracy theories to explanations rationalized by religious theology.

These are extreme points from across would emerge variant arrays of rationalizations to attempt to make sense of what was communally experienced.

And the only reason that any of those incorrect explanations would occur is because of the erroneous processing stimulations within the brain.

Now move the examination to regions of the world where such scientific industry and media distribution is far less prevalent and efficient and the irrational accounts will very likely increase.

This does not mean that religion is inherently an erroneous neurological production; no, quite to the opposite most often, though sometimes this is true as well.

All that it does show, however, is that something as tiny and simple as a minor neurological misfire can produce experiential sensations which some brains will rationalize into otherwise entirely senseless constructs; even the account of events which never actually occurred - all due to perceptions which they are convinced to have experienced and - this is the most important part - therefore emotionally attached to, viscerally, extremely vivid memories and creations by a range of emotions charged by an overwhelming emotional sense of reverence for the unique specialty of the experience.


As long as our neurology is arranged such that there is a percent of the population where this experiential phenomenon will be described by the non-physical, then there is incredible potential for religion.

And we cannot "correct" these neurological errors and byproducts because our neurology developed these correlative relationships and thresholds to be as efficient as it could possibly achieve so far in facilitating the entire gambit of human neurological capacity - which is an amazing accomplishment of diverse dexterity and acumen.

Now, I picked one of the more hyperbolic examples, as simple as it is to manipulate.
However, a vast array of our daily operations neurologically permit associative correlation and imbuement of perspectives ingesting existence non-physically in much more subtle fashions (which I won't go through here as it would really exaggerate the length).

So it is incredibly unlikely to entirely remove religion.

However; that all said.
I equally hold that no one should stop from attempting to hold every cultural special interest group back from complete ownership of any society based on the paradigm of diversity.

So; knowing that such is very unlikely to be removed from human existence as long as we are homo sapiens sapiens, I still encourage folks (even if I don't agree with your reason) to push back against religion.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

I still wouldn't go so far, as people like Dawkins have done, to attribute religion to neurological misfirings. I would compare religion more to a vestige of something that once served a vital purpose, but is no longer necessary in the same capacity. Like our vestigial organs, religion has evolved and its function has been altered. It still serves some function, like how the human appendix is no longer used for digestion but now acts as a reservoir for beneficial gut flora in case something wipes them out, but you can certainly live without it. And yes, I know that sometimes it gets inflamed and needs to be removed lest it pose a threat to one's life.

 

[JaysonR]

Quite; I only used the misfire as the easiest example - I equally dislike Dawkin's approach.

The larger point is that our normal neurological operations permit correlations and imbuements just the same without a neurological error.

So as long as our neurology is as it is; religion will have a strong potential.
Or, a simplified soundbite way of putting it:
As long as someone can pick up a rock and hold sentiment to that rock by experience of something with that rock, then religion will also be a potential.

Or, again, as I've stated before: as long as we have emotions biasing analysis, religion will be a potential.

 

[David Mo]

Somewhat, though that is primarily focused on rTMS strategies of TPJ stimulation for patients suffering from DPD; which is still within the ballpark of the point.

Here's a general reference which covers a larger range of descriptions.

I'm not going to say the mass population would have OBE's, as that's not really my point.
Instead, my point is that it would incredibly disorient the mass population in conscientiously disturbing and frightening manners.

One's self perception of space radically changes inexplicably in conflicting manners.

Now, if you do this to someone laying on a lab table, they have a contextual awareness of what is going on, so the abnormal perceptions can, at the least, be reflectively rationalized by the patient.

However; if we covertly and simultaneously electrocuted (not rTMS, but electrocuted) 7 billion TPJ's as described, then some number would die and the surviving population would have experiences ranging from their body changing size (as a sensation, not as a visual - though that may be true as well in some cases) all the way up to perceptions of OBE's.
A few may potentially develop DPD; that's not really known, but it may be possible in such large numbers of stimulation.

Now, those who live in areas which have scientific industry would probably disperse information quickly around about what had empirically happened and why people had sensations such as they did.
Some would accept these descriptions, some would as well as want for an explanation of how such happened; others would create an alternative narrative to explain why this happened ranging from conspiracy theories to explanations rationalized by religious theology.

These are extreme points from across would emerge variant arrays of rationalizations to attempt to make sense of what was communally experienced.

And the only reason that any of those incorrect explanations would occur is because of the erroneous processing stimulations within the brain.

Now move the examination to regions of the world where such scientific industry and media distribution is far less prevalent and efficient and the irrational accounts will very likely increase.

This does not mean that religion is inherently an erroneous neurological production; no, quite to the opposite most often, though sometimes this is true as well.

All that it does show, however, is that something as tiny and simple as a minor neurological misfire can produce experiential sensations which some brains will rationalize into otherwise entirely senseless constructs; even the account of events which never actually occurred - all due to perceptions which they are convinced to have experienced and - this is the most important part - therefore emotionally attached to, viscerally, extremely vivid memories and creations by a range of emotions charged by an overwhelming emotional sense of reverence for the unique specialty of the experience.


As long as our neurology is arranged such that there is a percent of the population where this experiential phenomenon will be described by the non-physical, then there is incredible potential for religion.

And we cannot "correct" these neurological errors and byproducts because our neurology developed these correlative relationships and thresholds to be as efficient as it could possibly achieve so far in facilitating the entire gambit of human neurological capacity - which is an amazing accomplishment of diverse dexterity and acumen.

Now, I picked one of the more hyperbolic examples, as simple as it is to manipulate.
However, a vast array of our daily operations neurologically permit associative correlation and imbuement of perspectives ingesting existence non-physically in much more subtle fashions (which I won't go through here as it would really exaggerate the length).

So it is incredibly unlikely to entirely remove religion.

However; that all said.
I equally hold that no one should stop from attempting to hold every cultural special interest group back from complete ownership of any society based on the paradigm of diversity.

So; knowing that such is very unlikely to be removed from human existence as long as we are homo sapiens sapiens, I still encourage folks (even if I don't agree with your reason) to push back against religion.

I continue without understand why you are speaking of electrocution. The psychological studies about temporo-parietal junction only speak of stimulation. Why do you are planning this game of massacre?

There are many other psychological experiments that explain how brain damages or stimulations produce mental states similar to the spiritual ones. For example, epileptic crisis are similar to ecstatic experiences. However, these experiments have done very little to remove the religion from the subjects that have endured them.

Furthermore, the common religious people don't have any kind of special experiences. Their religion is based on common emotions and thoughts that are religiously oriented. In the state of the current neurology we can not localize a specific religious area different from the non-religious people, except for some exceptional states of mind.

It is why that direct brain manipulation is ineffective in order to eliminate the religious trends of people. In the Sci-Fi is another thing. And I think you are moving in the Sci-Fi. Let us return to Earth.

 

[JaysonR]

Furthermore, the common religious people don't have any kind of special experiences. Their religion is based on common emotions and thoughts that are religiously oriented. In the state of the current neurology we can not localize a specific religious area different from the non-religious people, except for some exceptional states of mind.

Exactly; which is why I wrote what I did, and also why I wrote the following:

The larger point is that our normal neurological operations permit correlations and imbuements just the same without a neurological error.

So as long as our neurology is as it is; religion will have a strong potential.
Or, a simplified soundbite way of putting it:
As long as someone can pick up a rock and hold sentiment to that rock by experience of something with that rock, then religion will also be a potential.

Or, again, as I've stated before: as long as we have emotions biasing analysis, religion will be a potential.

 

[David Mo]

Quite; I only used the misfire as the easiest example - I equally dislike Dawkin's approach.

The larger point is that our normal neurological operations permit correlations and imbuements just the same without a neurological error.

So as long as our neurology is as it is; religion will have a strong potential.
Or, a simplified soundbite way of putting it:
As long as someone can pick up a rock and hold sentiment to that rock by experience of something with that rock, then religion will also be a potential.

Or, again, as I've stated before: as long as we have emotions biasing analysis, religion will be a potential.

I don’t understand your example of “pick up a rock” and the concept of “to have emotions biasing analysis”. I don’t know how we can have a “sentiment to” a rock. Do you mean “sentiment towards a rock”? And do you mean “ a biased analysis of emotions”? Perhaps my primary English is the problem. Can you explain all this with other words?

I don't understand why the absence of a neurological "error" (do you mean "neurological deficit"?) implies a "strong potential" (a development potential, an aggressive potential, a potential for knowledge, a potential for survive...?)
No more "potential" than Nazism in any case. A neurological deficit was not found in the Nazis, so far as I know.

 

[JaysonR]

Do you mean “sentiment towards a rock”?

Yes.

And do you mean “ a biased analysis of emotions”?

No.

Emotions bias analysis.
I love someone. They kill someone.
My emotions bias my judgement of that person.

I hate someone. They kill someone.
My emotions bias my judgement of that person.

On a completely benign day of just brushing your teeth and looking in the mirror, your emotions bias your analysis of incoming information; even when you don't pay attention to it at all.
You see your reflection. You recognize that the image is you.
This recognition is not actually firstly cognizant recognition, but emotional recognition.
For example, subjective capgras causes an individual to lose emotional stimulation to their own image.
Normally, we don't notice this emotional stimulation, but when it stops; the brain and our self-awareness notice.
If this happens, just cutting off the emotions to one's own face; then the individual will reject reality - critically reject reality. They will conclude a myriad of conclusions about how reality isn't what it appears to be and how they are not actually who their image shows to be.
It breaks the brain; by nothing more than shutting off emotional stimulation to self-image.

Point is, there are emotions running constantly - never-ending.
And as long as we can imbue perception with emotion, and have the ability for sentiment and empathy, then we won't likely see religion disappear.

And yes, Nazism was absolutely fueled with massive emotion. People adhered to it passionately and reverently.
That's the point; it's NOT an abnormality. Our brains permit these connections normally.
The abnormal examples simply exaggerate the effects.

When I use abnormalities, it's to highlight a section of the brain which is responsible for a given process and shows the extremes of that going wrong.
In so doing, we understand how the brain correlates information related to imbuement even in the normal operation (e.g. subjective capgras and capgras permit us to understand the relationship of the fusiform gyrus and the amygdala in respect to facial image recognition).

 

[David Mo]

Yes.

Point is, there are emotions running constantly - never-ending.
And as long as we can imbue perception with emotion, and have the ability for sentiment and empathy, then we won't likely see religion disappear.

And yes, Nazism was absolutely fueled with massive emotion. People adhered to it passionately and reverently.
That's the point; it's NOT an abnormality. Our brains permit these connections normally.
The abnormal examples simply exaggerate the effects.

The people who have “sentiment towards a rock” are the Muslims or fetishists?

* * *​

The abnormal examples do not “exaggerate the effects” of the normal behaviour. It is a different way to answer to the same stimulus. You cannot extrapolate without justification.

The emotional conditioning of behaviour is a well studied fact in many aspects. But it doesn’t imply that a particular emotion be a fixed constant. An emotion can be removed by another, controlled by moral conscience, modified by cultural changes or reoriented by economic circumstances. Ethnology and History show a big amount of examples of these processes. Nobody can predict that religion won’t be subject to these forms of processes till its extinction or mutation in a different form of social interaction. Your arguments don’t provide any evidence contrary to these possibilities, at least.

 

[JaysonR]

The people who have “sentiment towards a rock” are the Muslims or fetishists?

Invalid consideration. The human brain does this regardless, and people all over the world of any affiliation ontologically find sentimental value in otherwise entirely mundane objects by applying upon that object some form of identity - be that memory of an experience, or more elaborate outlines.

Countless numbers of humans keep some object of some now dead person and talk to that object when talking to the now dead person.

The abnormal examples do not “exaggerate the effects” of the normal behaviour. It is a different way to answer to the same stimulus. You cannot extrapolate without justification.

Yes, abnormal examples do exactly exaggerate the effects of normal behavior.
That is specifically what a neurological dysfunction is and one of the primary methods of identifying regional operation of neurological processes.

For example, again, we understand the correlation between the Fusiform Gyrus and the Amygdala due to Capgras.
Does that mean the normal operation of this relationship causes people to behave like those affected by Capgras? No.
It let's us know that the correlation is a normal operation of the brain when looking at faces.
What does that correlation do? It imbues various levels of emotion to the analysis of the visual information regarding faces.

The emotional conditioning of behaviour is a well studied fact in many aspects. But it doesn’t imply that a particular emotion be a fixed constant.

That is not what is being discussed, and I apologize for the confusion.

To attempt to clarify this for you, I'll cite a case study of an race car driver who avoided an accident for which he could not see, nor did he understand why he stopped the vehicle.

In brief:

"The driver couldn't explain why he felt he should stop, but the urge was much stronger than his desire to win the race," explains Professor Hodgkinson. "The driver underwent forensic analysis by psychologists afterwards, where he was shown a video to mentally relive the event. In hindsight he realised that the crowd, which would have normally been cheering him on, wasn't looking at him coming up to the bend but was looking the other way in a static, frozen way. That was the cue. He didn't consciously process this, but he knew something was wrong and stopped in time."

http://www.leeds.ac.uk/news/article...is_more_than_just_a_hunch_says_leeds_research

Now, this is entirely normal.
People have these kinds of interactions daily.

Does everyone receive the benefit of being hauled into a simulator to replay the events over and over to be studied by scientists who help identify what happened and why they stopped?
No; not at all.

People have to rationalize these processes usually entirely on their own ability.

Many will claim this mysterious compulsion to do or not do something as some divine intervention because they perceive no possibility for which they could consciously been capable of, as it appears to them, knowing about the event before the event happened and before they were aware of the event.

Again, emotions which are entirely neurologically normal permit the conscious reflection the ability to rationalize in association to conclusions which are not themselves representative of the events at all, but instead representative of the person's emotional relationship with the event.

"God saved me from getting hit by that car" is not a confession of reality so much as it is an emotional expression of that person's relationship to the experience.

More importantly, the neurological faculty provides such opportunities even beyond purely emotional compulsions to include simple processes such as object permanence.
The only reason we are capable of being capable of eventually producing the construct of believing that someone who is dead in front of us still lives on is because the human brain is capable of processing object permanence to incredible levels.
We can not see someone for decades on end and still full well understand that they still exist; that thought still processes.

"I can't believe they are actually dead" is a very common expression, and it is one many convey because their brain still hasn't reconciled the fact of observing their dead body (or the facts of that person being dead) and object permanence which will, for a time, continue to stimulate in the brain that the object still exists (just like the ball under the carpet for a toddler before and after they are able to recognize its continued existence).

If it were not for this neurological function, we would be entirely incapable of eventually attaching emotional want to the absence and then from there deriving the idea that they are somewhere still around because we "feel" their presence still.

We don't feel their presence; we still have their presence preserved in our brain because that's how we are able to understand that when someone is not in front of us that they are not suddenly non-existent.

The conflicting information of object permanence and the information of their body being dead provides a paradox in the brain which can (key phrase, "can") permit the individual to resolve the conflict through siding with the notion of object permanence rather than the information that the individual is dead.


The point isn't that there is some part of our brain which is the "religion" part of our brain - no such thing exists, just as there is no such thing as a "consciousness" region of the brain, nor is there a "magic trick" part of the brain.

What exists, however, are all of our normal operations and functions, which include all of the capacities through association, correlation, imbuement and stimulation of senses, as well as the creation of identity, self-awareness, empathy and pre-conscious processes.

All of which have a wealth of capability to provide plenty of stimulation which a person can ingest to interpret a metaphysical capability of reality.

We could effectively wipe religion from the planet in a thought experiment and just by the normal operation of human neurology it would be of no surprise to see it re-emerge because we cannot control the human brain in such a manner as to remove from it the potential, as a species, to perceive correlations in reality as metaphysical relationships.


As long as there is the ability for that Formula One racer to have that experience, as long as there is the ability for self-awareness being correlated to emotional value, and as long as there is the ability for the brain to hold conflict with object permanence, then there is equally the ability for a member of the human species to interpret the experience as some supernatural intersecting force to save their metaphysical version of their self (soul, spirit, divine breath, or any other name...)

Or, more simply put: as long as we have emotion, then we'll very likely have the ability to create, adhere, reinvent, etc... religion.

It's not as if all humans in the prehistoric era gathered together and equally decided that religion just seemed like the right idea to answer the observations and sensations they experienced.

Quite to the opposite; disparate groups of humans did this.
And that's rather simply capable as an emergence because our neurology permits such interpretation to happen even when the entire species is not interconnected in communication.

 

[David Mo]

(…)

Countless numbers of humans keep some object of some now dead person and talk to that object when talking to the now dead person.

Some people talk to things, but this is not ever a way to speak with spirits but a way to discharge emotions. Religion is a different thing. People like to possess things that remind them of other people. But this is not forcibly a religious feeling. This is a result of some conditioning processes that usually don’t imply any belief in transcendence or magic forces. The same thing for “I cannot believe he is really dead!”

Yes, abnormal examples do exactly exaggerate the effects of normal behavior.
That is specifically what a neurological dysfunction is and one of the primary methods of identifying regional operation of neurological processes.

We can learn about normal functions of the brain by studying the correlation between brain damages-modifications of behaviour, but these modifications needn’t to be “exaggerations”. A paedophile killer doesn’t “exaggerate” the natural love to children of a normal teacher or parent. The absence of any moral emotion caused by damage in the prefrontal lobe, studied by Damasio et al., is not an “exaggeration” of moral behaviour of a normal person. Both cases are a total alteration of normal behaviours. "Alter" = other thing. Absence of …, for example.

As long as there is the ability for that Formula One racer to have that experience, as long as there is the ability for self-awareness being correlated to emotional value, and as long as there is the ability for the brain to hold conflict with object permanence, then there is equally the ability for a member of the human species to interpret the experience as some supernatural intersecting force to save their metaphysical version of their self (soul, spirit, divine breath, or any other name...)

Or, more simply put: as long as we have emotion, then we'll very likely have the ability to create, adhere, reinvent, etc... religion.

This is your dogma. Many people have emotions and don’t have any religious feelings associated to them. Emotion → transcendence is an unjustified postulate.

 

[Donn]

You can be seduced by your emotions into thinking (with feeling) that there is something real about an experience beyond the normal stuff you accept.

I think Jayson is saying that quite well. It's not that everyone goes from emotion to religion, but too many do. When there is not enough education (of the skeptical/secular/science kind) at the right time, entire cultures of people have no choice but to trust their emotional minds.

Jayson is saying that until we can change the way our minds work at a low level, we cannot expect to see any of this emotional "error" abate. Even education does not eradicate the very strong irrational surges we can suddenly fall into.

When reality is being processed in your mind, your mind can supplement reality with fictions that calm or excite. This is human.

Thanks for the posts JaysonR, for a while I did not get your direction.

For an example of a person who has convinced themselves of spirits and cannot be shaken, go look for the shocking story of how the spiritual is real thread in R&P. His mind is not allowing him to accept that memory is fallible. Well, that or he's a troll.

 

[JaysonR]

You can be seduced by your emotions into thinking (with feeling) that there is something real about an experience beyond the normal stuff you accept.

I think Jayson is saying that quite well. It's not that everyone goes from emotion to religion, but too many do. When there is not enough education (of the skeptical/secular/science kind) at the right time, entire cultures of people have no choice but to trust their emotional minds.

Jayson is saying that until we can change the way our minds work at a low level, we cannot expect to see any of this emotional "error" abate. Even education does not eradicate the very strong irrational surges we can suddenly fall into.

When reality is being processed in your mind, your mind can supplement reality with fictions that calm or excite. This is human.

Thanks for the posts JaysonR, for a while I did not get your direction.

For an example of a person who has convinced themselves of spirits and cannot be shaken, go look for the shocking story of how the spiritual is real thread in R&P. His mind is not allowing him to accept that memory is fallible. Well, that or he's a troll.

This is effectively so, thank you.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

You can be seduced by your emotions into thinking (with feeling) that there is something real about an experience beyond the normal stuff you accept.

I think Jayson is saying that quite well. It's not that everyone goes from emotion to religion, but too many do. When there is not enough education (of the skeptical/secular/science kind) at the right time, entire cultures of people have no choice but to trust their emotional minds.

Jayson is saying that until we can change the way our minds work at a low level, we cannot expect to see any of this emotional "error" abate. Even education does not eradicate the very strong irrational surges we can suddenly fall into.

When reality is being processed in your mind, your mind can supplement reality with fictions that calm or excite. This is human.
Thanks for the posts JaysonR, for a while I did not get your direction.

For an example of a person who has convinced themselves of spirits and cannot be shaken, go look for the shocking story of how the spiritual is real thread in R&P. His mind is not allowing him to accept that memory is fallible. Well, that or he's a troll.

This is part of what I was getting at. Religiosity is a natural set of human behaviors and experiences that, at one time, served a function in our everyday lives. There is no reason to fear or despise it, or regard it an error or disease. Rather, we should try to understand it and see what we can do to work with it. While I don't hate religion, I also feel that religion is not the only way these behaviors and experiences can manifest. Art can serve the same purpose as religion, and accomplish the same things as religion, without all the bigotry, prejudice, and abuse that's often associated with religion.

Both religion and art have endured for so long because they organize cooperative behavior. However, religion sometimes teaches us to be ******** to one another, while art does not.

 

[JaysonR]

Religion is an art.
The difference is that religions are "art movements"; not "pieces of art".
And yes, art movements do influence violence and revolution in human history.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

Religion is an art.
The difference is that religions are "art movements"; not "pieces of art".

Art is just one possible component of religion, since religions have produced art, but not all art is produced by religion.

And yes, art movements do influence violence and revolution in human history.

Do you have any examples of this?

 

[JaysonR]

Art is just one possible component of religion, since religions have produced art, but not all art is produced by religion.

Absolutely!
Yes, I was definitely not claiming that all art is religion - sorry if it came out that way.

Do you have any examples of this?

The easiest pick in history is the French Revolution - that was powerfully fueled by an artistic revolution.
The second easiest art movement infusion into a social revolution which sparked violence is the "Hippie" movement of the United States.

The primary difference in the revolutions, at their violent variations, is that non-religious art movements tend to arrive from an increase in education across the population and consequent some unrest with the current status quo of government, while the religious (art) movements tend to arrive from an interest in preservation at the expense of diversity and tolerance.

So an art movement can lead to violence, but when it does we look at them as expressing something great about humanity - fighting some injustice and pushing social awareness forward.

Meanwhile, when religion leads to violence we look at them as expressing the worst - instituting duress of justice and arresting social awareness' rate of progress.


Religion is at its best when it is entirely removed from political capability within a society, or when it is such that it is the Theocracy by willing want of the entire demographic for which it serves.

The latter is ever so very rare, and typically only happens in very small populations of people.

 

[David Mo]

You can be seduced by your emotions into thinking (with feeling) that there is something real about an experience beyond the normal stuff you accept.

I think Jayson is saying that quite well. It's not that everyone goes from emotion to religion, but too many do. When there is not enough education (of the skeptical/secular/science kind) at the right time, entire cultures of people have no choice but to trust their emotional minds.

Jayson is saying that until we can change the way our minds work at a low level, we cannot expect to see any of this emotional "error" abate. Even education does not eradicate the very strong irrational surges we can suddenly fall into.

When reality is being processed in your mind, your mind can supplement reality with fictions that calm or excite. This is human.

I’m not discussing if religion is a highly emotional product of the brain. Of course it is. Furthermore, I think it is itself a product of some emotions (hate, fear, love…) rationalised as an ideology about some kind of transcendence. But this is not my point here. I was trying to elucidate the prior JaysonR’s statement that religion is a fixed constant of the human brain only eradicable by a practically impossible (and not attractive, I add) massive surgery program.

Nor I am discussing if the eradication of religion is very difficult. Of course, it is. I’m discussing if this eradication is impossible.

Both precisions are important.