This is Your Brain on Religion

I enjoyed this article today in the USA Today.


This is your brain on religion


Faith can bring out the best in people (love, generosity,
compassion) — and the worst (fear, hatred, violence). Whether people
are the former or the latter depends on how they view the God they
worship.


By Andrew Newberg
When I was in high school, I dated a girl whose family regarded
themselves as "born-again" Christians. It was my first encounter with
devoutly religious people who strongly disagreed with my perspective on
faith. They were always pleasant to me, but they were quite clear that
in their view I had deeply sinned by not turning to Jesus. Oh, and
because of this, I was going to hell.
(Illustration by Web Bryant./USA TODAY)






It's tough enough being a teenager, but this was too much. The
family's judgment disturbed me on two levels. First, I didn't like the
thought of going to hell, but at the same time, their beliefs also
challenged me to evaluate my own beliefs vigorously.
Distress and anxiety followed, and I realized that this was the
first time that I had ever experienced such strong negative feelings
about religion. And 30 years later, this episode still resonates as I
conduct extensive research on religious practices and beliefs and their
impact on the human person.
The research that I have come across, if not definitive, seems
clear: Religion and spiritual practices generally have a positive
effect on one's physical, emotional and neurological health. People who engage in religious activities tend to cope better with emotional problems, have fewer addictions and better overall health. They might even live longer than those who lead more secular lives. Indeed, many studies document that religious and spiritual individuals find more meaning in life.
Our studies at Penn's Center for Spirituality and the Mind (in conjunction with colleague Mark Waldman)
of the effects of different spiritual practices, such as meditation and
prayer, also reveal significant improvements in memory, cognition and
compassion while simultaneously reducing anxiety, depression,
irritability and stress (even when done in a non-theological context).
One might come to the conclusion, then, that being religious or
spiritual is a good thing. Perhaps God is great.
But not so fast. We also discovered that religion's influence on people depends very much on how they view their God.
Which God?


There seems to be little question that when people view God as
loving, forgiving, compassionate and supportive, this more likely
results in a very positive view of themselves, and of the world around
them. But when God is viewed as dispassionate, vengeful and
unforgiving, this can have deleterious effects on one's physical and
mental health. Again, the research is clear: If you ruminate on
negative emotions, they activate the areas of the brain that are
involved in anger, fear and stress. This can ultimately damage
important parts of the brain and the body. What's worse, negative
emotions can spill over into outward behaviors that generate fear,
distrust, hatred, animosity and violence toward people who hold
different or opposing beliefs. Thus, it becomes more easy to believe
that "I, and my religion, is right and you, and your religion, are
wrong." It is this destructive religious rhetoric that atheists are
quick to point their fingers at when focusing on the negative qualities
of faith. In fact, reading some of the following quotes could be bad
for your brain if it evokes a fearful, anxious or hateful response:
"I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over
you. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is
good. … Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a biblical duty, we are
called by God, to conquer this country." — Randall Terry, founder of Operation Rescue, one of the more extreme anti-abortion groups, 1993.
"You say you're supposed to be nice to the Episcopalians
and the Presbyterians and the Methodists and this, that and the other
thing. Nonsense. I don't have to be nice to the spirit of the
Antichrist. I can love the people who hold false opinions, but I don't
have to be nice to them." — Televangelist Pat Robertson, 1991.
Fortunately, surveys suggest that only a small percentage of
Americans hold such hostile beliefs. Unfortunately, this minority often
attracts the greatest amount of camera time and ink, too. But what is
truly frightening is the fact that 1% translates into 3 million
potentially violent citizens in our country alone. And this certainly
plays out on the global stage, as beliefs conflict and terrorism
fosters fear, hatred and ultimately violence.
There is another potential dark side to religion. As I have
witnessed at the hospital in which I work, when people feel that they
contracted a disease because God is punishing them, such individuals
may not follow doctor's orders, keep appointments or take medications
as directed. After all, why try to get better when God is trying to
punish you? Research confirms that people who hold a punitive image of
God can compromise their immune system and psychological health, thus
prolonging their suffering and illness. Currently I, along with
researchers at other universities, am developing simple strategies to
show people how they can turn negative religious attitudes into a more
positive framework that will help them deal more effectively with their
health problems, and thus improve their quality of life.
So how can a person of faith guard against the negative side of
religiosity and spirituality? Our research findings suggest that all
one needs to do is to stay intensely focused on positive and loving
concepts — of ourselves, others and our deepest values and beliefs.
Obsessively focusing on any form of negativity — be it religious,
political, or interpersonal — damages social empathy and cooperation.
In this sense, one can argue that religious and spiritual activities
might not only be beneficial, they also might be necessary for helping
people find more compassionate approaches toward themselves and toward
others. God only knows that politicians and CEOs aren't doing much to
generate compassion these days. So it is easy to argue, from a
sociological perspective, that religion serves an essential role by
directing people into their deepest values concerning life. In this
way, God may be good, if not great, at helping people to be
compassionate, forgiving and loving.
Battle in the brain


Virtually every religion — including the most conservative sects —
preaches positive concepts, such as "love thy neighbor" and "to forgive
is divine." Religions often encourage us to seek positive emotions such
as joy, peace and hope. But we must always be aware of the eternal
battle between those parts of the brain that are prone to push others
away, and the parts that are inclined to build cooperative alliances
with our fellow human beings in times of need.
In this sense, whether we embrace spiritual or secular values, the ultimate goal is the same. For as Albert
Einstein stated when he described the similarities between spiritual
and scientific epiphanies, it is the overwhelming awe and beauty of the
universe and the deep sense of connectedness to the world that we all
seek, if not crave. At their best, both science and religion can evoke
inspirational meaning in our lives, and when this occurs, God and
science are great.
But we always have to watch out for the times when God, religion, or
science can turn a blind eye toward others. We have a brain that is
filled with both loving and hateful ideas. We can turn to religion and
spirituality as a way to foster the good in us, except, of course, when
we don't.
Andrew Newberg is associate professor of radiology and psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania. He and Mark Waldman are co-authors of the new book How God Changes Your Brain.


http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/06/this-is-your-brain-on-religion-.html

That's a good article. Thanks, TED.

Quite an interesting article, though I admit I was heartened and then a little disappointed to see "Which God?" only to have it mean "Which aspect of "God" (i.e. God of Love vs Damnation) as opposed to a look at other forms of divinity... I'm used to discussions of religion having their locus around Christianity, I would like to see more articles on polytheism... Maybe as we grow?

It is very hard for people raised in a monotheistic society to think other than monotheistic. Around here, if you invite the Catholics over, it is considered interfaith.




(but don't tell the muslims)

It is not the attitude towards God which is the problem. The real problem is that most people think that religion means blind belief. It is blind belief that is the problem.

Hmm... I'm not sure I agree with that. For example, I believe that their are many Gods because I've met three. I have a blind belief that there are more gods than that however.

Are people who have a blind belief that there is only one God crazy? Or think that god is everything although they can't prove it and haven't experienced it? I think that they just have limited experience, that's all. They only think that there is one God because they've been told there is only one and they believe it, sometimes they've only experienced one God and sometimes they've just learned about that god. They can't imagine that their world view (or their daddy's, or preacher or teacher) is wrong. Or that other people have a different view of the world and different experiences which is why they have different Gods.

I think that it is the attitude towards God or Gods or the Divine that is the problem. If you think you just have an opinion about the God/Gods/Divine then you don't mind so much if other people have a different opinion. If you think that you are right then that's when you run into trouble.

Its not so much thinking or "knowing" you are right that is the problem. It is thinking that you alone are right, and thus all others are wrong. Down this line of thinking is found the justification for mortification of the flesh for salvation of the soul. What does that mean? I torture and murder you and all others who believe other than me because I love you too much to see you damned for believing incorrectly.

There is no possible way that accepting that you alone are right about matters of belief that does not lend itself to justification for coercion. The word of god(s), or "right thought" in the case of political doctrine, as the justification for any and all coercive force and tyranny to "save" people from the freedom to believe in a way that has been determined by the holders of the "one right way" to be wrong.

The blind ones are relatively harmless (unless they step in front of your car) in my opinion other than their propensity to be used.

In my opinion it is the radicals that are the problem. These people are the ones spouting the idea of blind faith for no other reason than to use the blind for their own purposes.

The radicals of religions teach fear, they use fear and as Bertrand Russell once said "Fear is the parent of hatred".

It is these radicals that we should truly be afraid of. They know exactly what they are doing and why. They are not stupid blind followers, they are the leaders preaching hatred and intolerance to serve their own ends , be money or power or even some misguided devotion.

While it is true that giving the blind the sight of truth and love will help some, to me it is easier to deal with the smaller sects of radicals who use the blind.

John T Mainer is correct that ,"It is thinking that you alone are right, and thus all others are wrong." is the problem. This, however, is not the complete answer. In science also there have been situations where a scientist has taken the position that he alone is right and everyone else is wrong. A famous example is the theory of plate tectonics which was proposed in the early 20th century. The theory was opposed by every other prominent Geophysicist since it was thought that it is absurd to think that the continents can move on the surface of the Earth. So why didn't Geophysicists lynch the person who proposed the "absurd" theory? The reason is the science is experimental and not simply a belief system.

Religion is considered by most western people to be simply a belief system. There is no way to check if what any religion is saying is true or false. Hence many people believe blindly in matters of the divine. Of course not every one who believes blindly will indulge in violence. Nevertheless as Vorrin says the blind can be used.

People who have directly experienced the Divine will indeed take the position of gillyflower that others "just have limited experience". A person who believes blindly will never say that the other who disagrees with him has only limited experience. A blind believer can only choose between correct and incorrect options.

To sum up religion becomes very dangerous when it is treated as only a belief system and not an experiential system.

Gangagal those are very good points. My religious system is experiential. I am Wiccan and thus part of a religion that is a Mystery tradition that is experientail. I may have much experience in the my practice of my religion. Others who don't share my POV don't have that. I think it is in the living, practicing and the growing in my religion is what makes it a living practice. I gain experience and I share it with other practitioners as much as I am able.

Religion by dogma and rote is what makes it so dicey and dangerous.

gangajal wrote:People who have directly experienced the Divine will indeed take the position of gillyflower that others "just have limited experience". A person who believes blindly will never say that the other who disagrees with him has only limited experience. A blind believer can only choose between correct and incorrect options.

Hmmm...well, possibly I'm simply misunderstanding the sense in which you mean "experiencing the Divine," but I've known a good many fundamentalists who talked about what they seemed convinced were such experiences but who still believed that the tenets of their own faith were true and those of all others false. For instance, I recall talking once with a fundamentalist Christian woman who spoke feelingly and quite convincingly it seemed to me of an encounter with Jesus that left her assured of his ability to engage her in the "close personal relationship" claimed by many fundamentalist Christians.

I'm questioning what exactly "direct" experience of the Divine is presumed to be.

I'm also a bit dismayed at the implication that someone with very structured and seemingly inflexible beliefs somehow cannot have as profound an understanding or level of experience with Deity as can those whose spirituality is more wideranging.

Say more about how you see this, if you would.

To sum up religion becomes very dangerous when it is treated as only a belief system and not an experiential system.

Weeelll, perhaps. This statement seems to me to hint at a feeling of superiority that I find rather disconcerting.

Again, clarify please.

Dot,

I see 3 questions here. I will frame those questions and then give my answers.

Question 1:
Your first question is what I mean by "direct" experience of the Divine that I can make the statement that people who have had such a direct experience will usually take a more liberal position regarding other religions.

Answer 1:
You have rightly stated that there are "a good many fundamentalists who talked about what they seemed convinced
were such experiences but who still believed that the tenets of their
own faith were true and those of all others false". I feel that people can be classified as follows:

a) People with More Spiritual Experience will be more liberal and relaxed about other religious traditions and ideas;

b) People with incomplete Spiritual Experience will more likely be less liberal and relaxed about other religious traditions and ideas than people of category a);

c) People with no Spiritual Experience and only blind belief will most likely be very dogmatic about their own and other religious traditions.

I will say that the fundamentalist Christians you have met who have claimed to have spiritual experience and still regard other religious traditions as false would be classified by me in category b). Their experience of the Divine has been limited. It is my opinion that someone who has completely experience the Divine as Infinite can not be fundamentalist.

Question 2:
2. Your second question is whether I believe that "someone with very structured and seemingly inflexible beliefs somehow
cannot have as profound an understanding or level of experience with
Deity as can those whose spirituality is more wide ranging".

Answer 2:
I will say that you are making a category mistake here. You are mixing up people of category c) with category a) or b). If a person has had a profound experience with
Deity then that person knows and has gone beyond belief. Let me give you an analogy here. We know that the Sun exists. Sun is not a matter of mere belief. There is a profound difference between mere belief and knowledge. So a person with very structured and seemingly inflexible beliefs
and a person with wide ranging spiritual beliefs are in the same boat since they do not know. It is experience or knowledge that makes the difference. So any person can have an experience with
the Deity. Belief plays little role in such an experience. It is one's moral standards that open the door to the experience of the Divine. What I am stating here is the difference between a person who does not know and only believes and a person who knows through direct experience.

Question 3:
3. Do I think that an experiential system is superior to a mere belief system?

Yes, certainly. This is true for all matters of life. In fact, this statement is the very basis of modern science. Modern Science is based on experience and not mere belief. For experience, no one believes the Maxwell's equations. These equations are true because they have been verified by direct experience.

Similarly asking one to just believe in any religion gives rise to dogmatism and fanaticism. What I am stating here is that the principle of direct experience must hold valid in the religious sphere also.

Should I accept anything written in my scripture? My position is No. Sri Sankara, the famous Advaita philosopher, makes the same point in his commentary on the Bhagavad Gita 18.66:

" ...... The appeal to the infallibility of the Vedic injunction is
misconceived. The infallibility in question refers only to the unseen force or
apurva, and is admissable only in regard to matters not confined to the sphere
of direct perceptions etc. ..... Even a hundred statements of sruti to the
effect that fire is cold and non-luminous won't prove valid. If it does make
such a statement, its import will have to be interpreted differently. Otherwise
, validity won't attach to it. Nothing in conflict with the means of valid
cognition or with its own statement may be imputed to sruti." (Bhagavad Gita
Bhashya of Sri Sankaracharya translated by Dr. A.G. Krishna Warrier).



Gangajal

UPG, my lovelies. Once again, it all boils down to UPG.

Exactly, SG, because I strongly disagree with Gangajal that there are any humans who haven't had SOME kind of spiritual experience even if it's simply awe, wonder and gratitude for a lovely day, a newborn child, or some other "good thing" of life.

I simply don't think Gangajal's Category C exists but for perhaps a sociopath who has no comprehension or feeling of human emotions such as the above-mentioned.

It certainly doesn't for born-again Christians who frequently must testify to having had some type of profound encounter with Jesus in order to be accepted into membership in their churches. Unless, of course, they've actually had no such experience and concoct one to become members because that's the expected thing in their social circle.

At bottom, even so-called experiential belief arises out of UPG, seems to me. How could it not?

I'm still bothered by a lack of definition not only of what constitutes a spiritual experience but also by what seems to me the presumption that people holding structured beliefs from which they will not deviate have "less complete" spiritual experience than those open to forging their own beliefs and testing before believing. This verges upon declaring who's holier than whom, seems to me, and how can we possibly know the extent or nature of anyone else's spirituality well enough to declare even that such categories exist?

I smiled reading SG's post about UPG and lovelies.
By the way what is UPG?

I also smiled after reading DOT's post. It confirmed my impression that we are in complete disagreement about the meaning of spiritual experience.

Dot disagrees with me that there are any humans who haven't had SOME kind of spiritual experience even if it's simply awe, wonder and gratitude for a lovely day, a newborn child, or some other "good thing" of life. I, on the other hand, completely agree with DOT that probably all people had had some experience of awe, wonder and gratitude for a lovely day, a newborn child, or some other "good thing" of life. Even film footage exists of Adolf Hitler having some experience of wonder when he is looking at the wonderful Alpine scenery in his wolf's lair. The question is whether such an experience is spiritual? My position, or rather the teaching of Yoga psychology, is that such an experience is only pleasurable mental experience. Such pleasurable mental experiences and emotions in fact block spiritual experiences. Extremely small number of people at any given time can rise beyond the mental plane and have any spiritual experience.

There is also no agreement about experiential belief. One can't associate experience (100 % certainty) with belief (associated with uncertainty). Such a position is completely alien to Hindu thought.

So it seems to me that we are using the same words and same language but using them in a completely different manner and thus talking past each other.

Spiritual experience is about experiencing the spirit. It has nothing to do with pleasurable mental experiences.

You are spouting the exact same superior attitude that I've seen Xtians slapped down for.
Your tone, frankly, is quite condescending. You "smile" as if you're watching children trying to learn something from their superior teacher.... Disrespectful to say the least.
Disagree, but don't condescend. Everyone has legitimate comments and no one is right or wrong. Even if you don't agree, you should ALWAYS try to treat all here as peers.
Who are you to decide what is a spiritual experience for others? What "spirit"? In my life, a spiritual experience is something that touches and moves MY spirit... The births of my children, seeing my children honored by their schools and their peers, seeing my husband honored by his peers and bosses, watching my (then) 10 year old collapse in my arms in the throes of an asthma attack then watching the paramedics taking such delicate care of her, literally, saving her life... All spiritual experiences for me.
I could be mistaken about my impression, but it is my impression.
Spiritual experience is strictly subjective... There is no set criteria for it. You can't say someone has or has not had a spiritual experience simply because you don't think it is one. It boils down to what that person believes.

My smile does not signify any superiority or inferiority. My smile signifies the bare fact that western religious thinking is indeed different fron Hindu thought. Westerners believe that religion is about belief. Hindu thought claims that religion is about experience. These two positions are not compatible. So I smiled because it seemed to me that we are talking past each other and not to each other although we are using the same language and same words.

Yes spiritual experience is strictly subjective but is not mental experience at least according to Hindu thought. I am merely stating the Hindu position.

I freely acknowledge that there is a possibility that you, Dot or SG or anyone else with the western position may well be right and my position may be completely wrong since only direct spiritual experience can decide the issue. Nevertheless I smile that we are trying to discuss this thorny issue.

I don't think you are quite right. My religion, which is Western in origin, is about experience. Our goal is to develop a close personal relationship with our Gods, each of us, as individuals. Our religion is built of practices which merely facilitate this. My religion exists only to meet that goal.

It is interesting that you define emotional experiences, things that touch our hearts, as mental experiences which block us from contact with our Gods and the Divine while in my religion, at least, we feel that experiences that touch our hearts are brushes with or appreciation of the Divine.

Is it fair to say that Hindus distrust those moments and their own emotions? That's what I believe you are saying. I think that what you are saying, too, is that Hindus don't trust their own experiences, but instead they trust the UPGs of other people. This is like the Christians as others have been saying. It is a religion, and I think yours is too, based upon other people's UPGs, correct?

You have just defined UPG, Gang. It is short for Unverifiable Personal Gnosis.

gillyflower,

[[[I don't think you are quite right. My religion, which is Western in origin, is about experience. Our goal is to develop a close personal relationship with our Gods, each of us, as individuals. Our religion is built of practices which merely facilitate this. My religion exists only to meet that goal.]]]

Thanks for correcting me! Would you agree if I amended my position to the statement to, "it is a majority western view that religion is about belief."?

[[[It is interesting that you define emotional experiences, things that touch our hearts, as mental experiences which block us from contact with our Gods and the Divine while in my religion, at least, we feel that experiences that touch our hearts are brushes with or appreciation of the Divine.
Is it fair to say that Hindus distrust those moments and their own emotions? That's what I believe you are saying. I think that what you are saying, too, is that Hindus don't trust their own experiences, but instead they trust the UPGs of other people. This is like the Christians as others have been saying. It is a religion, and I think yours is too, based upon other people's UPGs, correct?]]]

It is not a matter of distrusting those moments. It is about trying to figure out what spiritual experience is not.
Hindu tradition says that the various emotions and thoughts that are bubbling through one's mind block the spirit that is making thought possible. Let me give a schematic to explain the point I am making. Hindu tradition says that usual human condition is like the scheme drawn below:

Spirit ---- rays of consciousness --- mind bubbling with ------ I sense
thoughts and emotions

The mind which is inanimate (according to Hindu tradition) is animated by the rays of consciousness of the spirit which makes emotions and thoughts possible. This of course makes the human experience possible. The presence of thoughts and emotions, however, make the link with the spirit completely invisible.

What can we do about it? What we have to do is stated poetically in the Gita:

"The flame of a lamp sheltered from wind does not flicker. This is the
comparison used to describe a Yogi's mind that is well under control and
united with Atman. "(Gita 6.19)

A Yogi has to free her mind from all thoughts and emotions so that the following schematic happens:

Spirit ---- rays of consciousness ---- calm mind free from thoughts and emotions ----- I sense.

The mind must be made transparent to the light of the Spirit. According to Hindu tradition in such a calm mind Truth dawns. That is the thoughts and emotions which were veiling Reality have to be removed from one's mind in order to "see" or experience the Reality. Most of Yoga is the struggle to calm the mind. This is the reason why Hindus do Yoga.

I must state here that calm mind is a necessary condition not sufficient to see Reality.

You have asked whether Hindus like Christians have to trust other people's UPGs. The answer is no since Hindu thought is not based on belief. A Hindu has to do Yoga, calm one's mind and then hopefully directly experience Truth. Otherwise one would have to blindly believe in other people's UPGs.

Thus doubt is a necessary condition for a Hindu who has not had personal experience.

Thank you SG for the info!

Thank you for explaining. In other words, in Hindu tradition, spirit is only perceived under certain conditions, correct? Therefore you artificially set up conditions and your god can only connect with you during that period and in the way that you feel, though other people's experiences, it should occur?

I think that differs from my religion. We have religious practices that set up (we think) favorable conditions for contact but we are also open to and accepting of contact outside of those conditions.

I believe we are spiritual beings having a human or material experience. Pretty much everything is spiritual. At least it is if you are open to it.

I realize there are many people who are very material oriented, (and that is not an attack in any way), everyone is different. Some people are extremely spiritual, and there are those who are almost not at all, and the full gambit in between.

I believe the spiritual world, presses on all of us all the time, all we need to do is recognize it.

I have a friend who to some extent believes magic happens, because she has created events, by her will, by accident.
However, when I discuss her chakras and her energy body effecting her health, she poo poos me and tells me off. Her mind is completely closed to the idea no matter what I say. Very material, very logical mind.

Coming back on topic, I believe most if not all our experiences we think are spiritual, may actually be. They are not always the gods. Who have a way of being unmistakeable , but that does not make then less truly a spiritual experience.

Of course once you have actually met a god, well you really do know But it is all UPG

hope some of that made sense, sometimes my mind wanders

deleted posting