Commentary: What is this thing called religion?

* 05 April 2008
* From New Scientist Print Edition. Subscribe and get 4 free issues.
* A. C. Grayling

AS LONG as religion was untouchably sacred, it was by definition beyond the prying fingers of objective inquiry. Now society has matured enough to empirically scrutinise religion, and late last year a group of nine European universities led by the University of Oxford began to examine religious belief and behaviour, helped by a ¬2 million European Commission grant.

The project, called Explaining Religion (EXREL), brings together psychology, biology, anthropology and history to investigate both the common and the variable features of "religiosity" (this is the term EXREL uses) and to test theories about it - including the current leader in the field, which is that religiosity exists because of the way that human cognitive architecture functions.

According to EXREL's website, the project partners "aim to develop a computational model of religious dynamics that can be used to explain present and past religious traditions, and to simulate likely future directions". This is a fascinating and worthwhile project, and is sure to be controversial, whatever its outcome.

Illumination may come from seeing how differently the brains of religious and non-religious people function in appropriate experimental circumstances as revealed by fMRI and PET scanning. It is surely relevant that there are such interesting correlations as those between dopamine levels in the brain and degree of religiosity - the more severe a person's Parkinson's disease, the less religious he or she tends to be - but a crucial aspect of the investigations will be the historical and anthropological data, because they affect from the outset what the investigation's target actually is.

Comment subject...make a comment to the article

READ more

I recall a PBS program profiling a young man (~17 yrs of age) who became obsessively religious whnever he experienced temporal lobe seizure activity. Intervals in which his seizure activity was controlled, he did not exhibit religiosity.

fascinating - but kinda strange premise, don't you think? Like the worse one's condition is, maybe the more one feels - quite rationally - that there's not much to have faith in? I mean we need a scientific study to figure that one out? These guys slay me sometimes.... But still very interesting. Thanks for bringing that in...

So, is it that god drains away along with the dopamine? Or is it that religious belief lowers stress hormones and produces a healthier individual?

As Penelope Cruz asked her friend in Bandidas - how does the author know that? Did he ask everyone in the world?

I think all old and dying people lose something that was there due to dying, not lack of faith. You hope like heck something's there, but you don't have the focus or energy to do the outward "religious" things.

I find the article complete bull crap, totally presumptuous and arrogant. He should stick to science.

paula

I just finished reading one of the many "brain books" that have recently been written on the subject of aging brains and how to keep them as functional as possible. (Of course the definitive answer is: you must give it lots of exercise.) I view everything through the prism of PD because that's where I'm coming from. The Placebo effect is believed to be powerful because of the belief we have that we are the beneficiary of something that will help us.
There is not much doubt left in the minds of even the most hardened scientific thinker that our brains and the abstract but detectable operation of the effect of what we think about has the power to change things on a physiological level. Thus we have hard science come face to face with religion.

The placebo effect must be the positive side of a two sided coin. If what we believe can produce the placebo effect, its flip side must be capable of much havoc. Religion, for the most part, pushes us to have faith, hope and to believe in something much bigger than ourselves. For those that possess this intangible diamond or even only some small portion, it lightens the load. "Religion" is just a word. You can call it spirituality, belief in a higher power or whatever you want to call it, but it is real and powerful and that is why it is a benefit.

Rosebud,

Thank you - you just made the argument, from science's point of view, that placebos are unnecessary. Tha'ts what we have been saying.....


paula

Paula - but wouldn't that mean that people who don't believe in a higher power would still benefit from a placebo?

i was thinking that scientists or non- believing scientists, would consider mortal humans as capable of saving themselves - no spiritual necessary- and that faith is the placebo. How does this help anything? It's a worthless and some would say dangerous placebo and not necessary. It's trickery. As many placebos are.

paula

but the placebo effect is not about what the doctor or scientist believes, it's about what the patient believes.

understanding that there is a placebo effect, whether it be induced by a sugar pill, sham surgery, or belief in a higher power is not trickery - it's science learning about what makes human beings work. God doesn't work for everyone; neither does a sugar pill.