Thread: The God Helmet

That's not really anything new. Neurologists have located these parts of the brain quite some time ago already.

But yeah, I think it's very interesting that you can just induce a religious or mystical experience in anyone.

The experience is new. The only thing they had before, as far as Im aware, is being able to tell which areas of the brain light up when you think certain thoughts. I don't think anybody else has been able to induce such vivid experiences in this manner and know exacly what they were doing.

If that part of the brain didn't exist, it might be impossible for humans to perceive god, even if he did exist.

Obviously that part of the brain isn't naturally trigger by magnetic helmets, and there are natural ways for it to be triggered. Though without knowing what those are, it makes it more difficult to make a judgment based on that.

If you take a scientific approach to religion however, you would believe that all things are explainable, including god. You just need enough information. God doesn't work through magic. If he existed he would work through natural phenomenons, because everything he does would exist naturally by default.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

The experience is new. The only thing they had before, as far as Im aware, is being able to tell which areas of the brain light up when you think certain thoughts. I don't think anybody else has been able to induce such vivid experiences in this manner and know exacly what they were doing.

no no, they have found the "area for spirituality and religion" and they have measured brain activity during mystical experiences and have induced them. I don't have time now, but I will look for the articles when I get a chance. There are actually a few ways that one can go about it.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

It should at least raise questions to any believers out there who claim to have had a "religious experience,"

I always figured some "religious experiences" could be explained by the effects of sleep paralysis (the ones that take place when a person is going to sleep, I mean).

It was interesting what they said about the evolution of God; that the evolution of self-consciousness brought with it the evolution of the conception of death, and this necessitated some way of dealing with that conception.

It seemed just like speculation though, I'm not entirely sure where the science was there..?

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

I always figured some "religious experiences" could be explained by the effects of sleep paralysis (the ones that take place when a person is going to sleep, I mean).

That could be true for people who have religious experiences while they sleep, people could interpret any number of strange phenomena as divine in origin. I think this hypothesis pertains more to people who are awake. In particular he mentions people who have experiences while they are in churches or mosques.

Originally Posted by Xei

It was interesting what they said about the evolution of God; that the evolution of self-consciousness brought with it the evolution of the conception of death, and this necessitated some way of dealing with that conception.

It seemed just like speculation though, I'm not entirely sure where the science was there..?

I would think that too, but I've heard the same exact thing from a number of authors, so there must be something to it. The book The God Part of the Brain is built almost entirely around that premise.

Repetition doesn't make something true, and books can still be based around speculative ideas.

I don't know... I mean, I have similar thoughts on the origins of religion, but it sounds as if this has just been dressed up in scientific terms without any actual science (i.e. empirical evidence) behind it, perhaps by an overzealous atheist.

I mainly suspect this because I don't see any way this could be established empirically.

Then you'll have to take all of evolutionary psychology with a grain of salt. I can tell you that many of its proponents aren't even self-proclaimed atheists, so I think that rules out the idea that they're all overzealous atheists whose purpose in research is to discredit all religion.

Yes, I do take it with a grain of salt. I'm a scientist. I take all hypotheses with an infinitely large grain of salt until they are tested.

If it hasn't been tested, it isn't science.

A bunch of hypotheses isn't science, especially if it parades itself as something else (in this case by omission), and when there are obvious alternatives (for example, who is to say God wasn't initially conceptualised as a consequence of the evolution of self-awareness and rationality giving rise to the question 'why is the world designed to provide everything I need' and the answer 'a magical being who cares about me' in lieu of knowledge of natural selection?).

It is science since it can, has, and is currently being tested. If evolutionary psychology isn't science then psychology as a whole isn't science. What Michael Persinger said in the video doesn't represent the definitive truth in evolutionary psychology if that's what you'e getting at.

All I've ever been 'getting at' was what I said in the first place; is there any evidence?

It really isn't a subtle issue worthy of this much discussion. There is or there isn't.

Then the simple answer is yes.

Oh okay. I'm satisfied now.

Awesome.

Moving on. What exactly is so impressive about this? That God and the paranormal are now illusory and fallacious? I can think of many flaws in this, but fundamentally the main problem is that the simulation is given more credit than it is worth; that there is actually an unseen paradigm difference. Simulating an experience by magnetizing the brain doesn't really prove anything. There may be a parallel or comparable reaction in the brain during a spiritual experience, but very few of them, if not none of them, are due to the brain or the senses alone (esp. God realization). Although it may allude that we experience our senses and not literally the experience 'outer world', it all still seems quite naive. Please note: spiritual phenomena has little to do with experiencing the 'outer world'.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

I basically don't think the analysis behind 'The God Helmet' is impressive or meaningful.

Maybe you could shed some light as to what's so great about it; I mean what does it prove, exactly?

In one of the videos I hear a guy say 'We know that all experience can be derived from the brain.' (or something along those lines)

What ground is really being broken here?

Millions of people throughout history have devoted themselves to a particular religion because they were utterly convinced that in a moment of extreme mental clarity they experienced the divine hand of God. How many times have you heard something similar to that? Wouldn't it be something if neuroscientists could not only pinpoint the exact location of the brain responsible for such experiences, but predictably induce those experiences in a lab? The obvious implications of these findings is that the people who argue that they "experienced God," actually did nothing of the sort (actually he does more than imply.) That's a pretty remarkable finding in my eyes. It's another step to understanding the religious side of the brain.

Let's say that the (mystic) revelation of God was genuine and real, which I believe it is. Would there not already be a change in the brain chemistry/physiology? Just because there may be part of the brain that facilitates this experience (or rather, parallels it), does not mean that the experience was based on illusion. Similarly, I bet we could somehow simulate any other part of the brain and say that the associated experience was held responsible by the brain, what do we end up with? All experience is an illusion, or in their terms, they may as well state that all reality is an illusion (haha). It seems to be biased toward spiritual experience, otherwise they would not make such isolated claims.

That's fine if that's your view, but then why would you partake in any sort of scientific debate when it's clear that no amount of evidence will ever change your mind? It is the same as the people who accept evolution but then say it was put in place by God. The most interesting aspect of this study is not the mere fact that a corner of our brains was adapted to create such experiences, but the different hypotheses of how and why it evolved. That would mean this function did not always exist and it was not placed into our heads over night by God. It evolved to serve a specific survival purpose.

Or it could be part of evolution only to the extent that man had become intelligent enough to question his own existence, but that is not new.

The time of Buddha dates back a quite a bit.

Edit: Well, Hinduism is the oldest, if anybody want to be picky about 'God'.

That's fine if that's your view, but then why would you partake in any sort of scientific debate when it's clear that no amount of evidence will ever change your mind?

I'd've been happy with a single piece. Apparently that was too much to ask.

Religious Experience Linked to Brain’s Social Regions | Wired Science | Wired.com

Brain Activity Altered during Religious Experience: Scientific American Podcast

BBC - Science & Nature - Horizon - God on the Brain

It's something.