posted
Time Magazine (Oct 25th) edition told of the discovery that brain chemicals responsible for regulating our mood are found in people who have traits of spirituality.
quote: There was a twin study suggesting that this spirituality scale is at least partially inherited.
The other day, I read an article about college the success of religious college students:
quote: College students with significant religious involvement report better emotional health than those with no involvement
quote: The findings, released Monday (Oct. 25), show that religious activity has positive links to emotional health.
This got me wondering if spirituality in fact proves evolution - which says that traits helping organims will have a higher chance of being inherited. If spirituality does in fact help our emotional health, then wouldn't natural selection favor it being passed on throughout the years?
Posts: 2756 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's also a self-transcendency quiz linked on the page to test your own degree of spirituality.
My score is totally unsurprising.
quote:You scored 25, on a scale of 0 to 100. Here's how to interpret your score: 0 - 30 Your feet are pretty firmly planted on the ground and you rarely feel "at one" with the universe. Though you may have very strong ethical and religous beliefs, they're not tied to specific spiritual experiences you've had.
On a different note - the ads featuring John Shelby Spong on every page of Beliefnet really really creep me out. Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
::raises eyebrows:: I got a 83, which is very odd because I haven't attended a church service in about a year...
About the 'emotional health' thing, my therapist I visited over the summer recommended that I spend some time going to church. I didn't understand at the time, but now I think I know why she said that.
Posts: 873 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
kai, the real beef I had with Time's article (I read the article a month or so ago) was that it presupposed that people believe in God because of what they feel. Sure, you can track down an area of the brain that is stimulated when someone is experiencing a sense of the spiritual, but it doesn't necessarily mean that these feelings are why a person believes in God. So really, it doesn't solve anything about proving evolution or the non-existance vs. existance of God. It just theorizes that there's an area of the brain that is responsible for spiritual feelings.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: It just theorizes that there's an area of the brain that is responsible for spiritual feelings.
Which means that a certain allele or combination of alleles is responsibe for it, right? Which means that the current levels of the appearance of it have been dominated by thousands of years of natural selection?
Posts: 2756 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
My, I scored an 8. And that's only because I tune out while jogging. If I wasn't such a day dreamer I totally could have nailed a zero.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
kaoishin -- this doesn't particularly prove anythign regarding evolution. Of course, it doesn't have to, the existence of evolution is fully proven, as we have seen it occurring. The only question remains exactly how it has progressed in the past, and we've got most of that picture filled in as exactly as is possible when one deals with prehistory.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know it doesn't prove evolution, but I was hoping that it would sort of ... go along with evolution. You know, better emotional health -> better chance of surviving -> trait passed on = evolution kind of thing.
If that makes any sense.
Posts: 2756 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Or that we were created with the ability to sense spiritually, hence a capacity within the brain to manage that part of life.
If you change the word "created" to "have," that seems fine with me. We have the ability to trust, judge, and deceive. I don't know how many animals have these, but I wouldn't be surprised if all of this just came up with the chain. There is extent that I don't know if we should look to animals to figure out where we have been at the expense of exploring the richness of where we are.
posted
Pretty much conformed to my own opinion of my spirituality with a 33. I sometimes wish I were a true believer but rarely feel that way.
Posts: 2022 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: College students with significant religious involvement report better emotional health than those with no involvement
I'm sure this is majorly related to the social net that religious groups provide. People who have a secure social net are much more stable emotionally than people who don't have friends.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The irony of this suggestion is that, most things that are signals of an absense to the body have equivalents to satisfy them. For example, when you get hungry, it is signalling a need for nutrition. Or when one is tired, they are suffering from an absence of sleep. So if there is such a gene, odds are that there is a means of satisfying its cravings...
Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:College students with significant religious involvement report better emotional health than those with no involvement.
It makes sense to me. When the power of the almightly Lord is helping lift the existential burdens, it eases everything else. I don't think that AA slipped the second step in there by accident. I think it's a little bit dangerous, though. I've seen studies that show that criminals have incredibly high self-esteem.
Being secure with your place in the world doesn't seem to be the path to righteousness. It just gives you a little elbow room.
posted
I scored a 92%. I had no idea, really, but when you start talking about nature to me, I just go all gooshy.
Posts: 44 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
*cheers* Although I'm still not impressed with the questions, that does make me feel slightly better. I think you're a couple of questions and a few amazing experiences away from letting yourself believe.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are genes for the ability to sense light as well. I think that of course the ability to sense the presence of God, or spirituality, is genetic, like most human abilities are genetic to some degree, but to make the leap from there to deciding that means that God doesn't exist (as some people seem to do) is a fallacy.
It's interesting that religion improves emotional health, if that's really true. (I'm not at all sure that has been proven well, scientifically.) Does religion favor survival? If so, is this taken by some people as the explanation why religion exists, even though they feel it is contrary to fact? Let's say we grant that hypothesis and see where that leads us.
What I find interesting is that IN EVERY OTHER CASE of an animal believing something contrary to fact that we see in evolution, it's the animals who perceive the real truth who survive best. That would only make sense, right? If your internal organization correctly and truthfully reflects the nature of reality, then you are more able to successfully deal with that reality. If your senses are good enough to detect the camoflaged predator, for example, then you will be more likely to survive than someone who can't see it. If you are a bird and can tell the difference between the poisonous Monarch butterflies and a tasty mimic species, then you are going to eat a lot better. Always in matters of animals being deceived or deceiving themselves, knowing the truth yields the highest survival.
So you would think that evolutionary success BY ITSELF could be taken as evidence that religion is true, if in fact such a correlation exists. I'm not at all sure that it does, but both sides of such arguments seem to grant that it does.
I got 100 on the test. I don't think that's terribly meaningful. I was an atheist for most of my adult life and probably would have scored much lower then. There's nothing immutable about a person's score on such a test, I don't think. Time Magazine isn't really a source for much good science that I've seen.
posted
I didn't think evolution had anything to do with truth - if a trait appears that makes the organism more likely to survive, then it is passed on.
If, in some hypothetical world where there is no God, and no belief in God either, who would the organisms go to for emotional help? If in some generation they started believing that someone who created the world is there to protect and watch over them, and that improves their emotional health, then wouldn't it not be passed on?
Posts: 2756 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah there are lots of instances of deception in nature, but believing the lie is, in every case we know well, contrary to survival.
I'm just wondering, if it's really true (which I am skeptical of) that religion favors survival, why people wouldn't see that as evidence that religion is true. Believing untrue things means you are deluded about the true nature of the reality which you inhabit. How can delusion enhance survival? In every other case, knowing the truth is what helps you surive, isn't it?
posted
I wonder if we should compare the survival value of various doctrines one against the other, and see what that shows us? To me this is junky science.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
What about the placebo effect? If someone truly believes they are cured, sometimes they become cured, even if the medicine they are taking is simply sugar.
I dont think survival has anything to do with truth. If you believe something false, and that happens to enhance you in some way, then natural selection will favor it.
Posts: 2756 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"if it's really true (which I am skeptical of) that religion favors survival, why people wouldn't see that as evidence that religion is true"
Because the benefits of religion are not tied to religious doctrine in the same concrete way that the benefit of being able to recognize camouflage is tied to eating.
In other words, the benefit of a belief in something seems to be a general sense of relief and community, regardless of what you believe. Consequently, using this as proof of the accuracy of that belief misses the point.
posted
The placebo effect was recently proven to be false. There is no such thing as the placebo effect.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Placebo effect a myth? I thought it was well-established, ak. A few years ago, I myself thought I had taken a pill (which I needed, w/o going into specifics), experienced the desired effect, and went on with my evening. The next morning I found the pill on my bedside table. I had never taken it.
Anecdotal, to be sure, but it sure convinced me.Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Morbo: nope, one of those scientific urban legends, it seems, like N-rays. It's been discredited recently. That fact hasn't percolated through the general consciousness yet, just cause the idea of it became so entrenched. But in fact there is no such thing as the placebo effect.
Kaioshin: Edit: "NO fair you edited your post, making mine look like nonsense" Sorry, I thought yours still worked as a response to my first paragraph, which it was. I tend to edit my posts several times for clarity, cause when I read them I realize I didn't say what I wanted to say. I should post late at night when nobody else is on, I guess. Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"The placebo effect was recently proven to be false. There is no such thing as the placebo effect."
Can you provide a link? I've googled this several times and find multiple studies that do in fact demonstrate a noticeable placebo effect, but nothing to the contrary.
Edit: Ah, wait. I found it. Two studies by the same Danish doctors -- in 2001 and 2004 -- indicated that for a variety of drugs, patients on a placebo reported results only marginally better than patients who received no treatment at all, and recommended that a "no treatment" group be added to drug studies to distinguish between placebo benefits and healing over time. This study has been challenged by numerous organizations, but I'm not qualified to judge which group is using better or more authoritative methodology. The biggest flaw as I see it is that patients genuinely want to get better and consider doctor's visits to constitute treatment, so I'm not sure how you'd completely eliminate a placebo effect for the "no treatment" group without making it clear to them that their doctors honestly didn't care.
quote: What I find interesting is that IN EVERY OTHER CASE of an animal believing something contrary to fact that we see in evolution, it's the animals who perceive the real truth who survive best.
It's difficult to find a counter-example to this in non-human animals, I grant you. But in humans, "belief" involves things far more murky than "is that a good butterfly or a bad butterfly?" Sorting through syystems of thought and belief systems is tricky, and rarely have clear-cut answers. A belief that helps one generation suceed can get all your descendants killed in the next, as in the English civil wars, which went back and forth between Protestents, Anglicans, and Catholics, and had massacres on all sides.
Sometimes, believing or professing belief in a belief system you believe false can help survival, as when you are a religious minority .
Or people who are overly optomistic, in spite of facts to the contrary.
The panic mode people and animals can go into can be a last-ditch attempt to survive, even though survival seems impossible.
I'm sure there are other examples but my time is limited.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are the two studies Tom made reference to what you're thinking of, Anne Kate, when you say that it's been proven that the placebo effect does not exist? If so, could either of you provide a link? If not, I'd love to read the studies that proved this. I'm pretty skeptical of the claim, I have to say.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Claudia Therese linked us to it here when it came out. I remember thinking it made lots of sense cause all along I thought the placebo effect had to be nonsense.
I wonder if Sara can find this again. Sara?
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
One of the questions raised in the article, that I think is rather important from those defending a Judeo-Christian spirituality (as a specific example) is the fact that it means that some people are more able to commune with God than others. Why would a righteous, even self-described jealous, God make it harder for some people to believe in Him? I could see if there was equitable difficulty, but setting people up like this seems counter-productive to much of the potrait of the old testament God, at the least.
posted
Yes, the studies only found that the placebo effect was not as extreme as previously thought, in some cases, not that it was nonexistent.
Not to mention that heightened awareness of the existence of the placebo effect and the pill-taking nature of our culture could both be expected to reduce the placebo effect (edit: in studies involving pills).
posted
I'm not having any luck finding Sara's link using the forum's search software to hunt for the phrase "placebo effect" in the body of posts, so it may be that it's old enough that it's gone, or that the forum search software isn't the greatest, or that I'm not the worlds most gifted manipulator of said software.
I hope that she comes across this thread and can repost the link--I'm really interested in this.
Why did you think that the placebo effect sounded like hogwash, Anne Kate? It seems fairly plausible to me.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll be curious as to how that study squares with the one discussed in this NewScientist article.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the idea of the mind itself helping in healing can’t be ruled out. It’s psychosomatics. The placebo affect doesn’t cure illnesses that our body can’t chemically fight off on its own. Because of advances in medication human evolution is stunted so we have to depend on drugs to cure a majority of illnesses and infections. But just like when a positive attitude toward a challenge results in more often positive results, the placebo effect can help enhance our immune system. Stress is known weaken our immune system under the same idea of psychosomatics. As an antithesis, Hypochondriacs get sick because they think they’re sick.
That also may be why a lot of people find meditation to be helpful in healing. And I think praying can be considered a form of meditation.
The placeboes effect is supposed to help, but it certainly doesn’t entirely cure all illness.
As for the improvement in academics I agree with what blacwolve said, “I'm sure this is majorly related to the social net that religious groups provide.” Social health is part of an individual’s overall health. Good health is necessary in keeping good grades.
I’m really interested in reading this study on placeboes on Sara’s link, too!
Posts: 326 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know the best places to search for good medical articles. My main source of good science information, Scientific American magazine, has gone all payperview on me online. Bleh. I do remember seeing that here about the nonexistence of the placebo effect, and it was from a source that I categorized as completely reliable. Of course, eyewitness testimony (particularly mine) is notoriously inaccurate. Hopefully Sara will see this and clear it up for us.
I'm pretty skeptical that religion improves one's survival chances. I just read in the SciAm Skeptic column that there were bad methodological problems in studies purporting a benefit from prayer, for example. They didn't control for some rather obvious things. I think studies like that (that try to tell us controversial things about who we are) tend to be done very poorly, in general, with lots of bias. I'm reminded of all the studies there have been which purportedly showed the inferiority and superiority of various races, silly things about gender, and so on. I don't think this study or this test has much to tell us about the nature of humanity or of God. I'm just saying that if it told us anything at all, I would think it would tend to be interpreted as evidence FOR a factual basis for some sort of spiritual reality, rather than AGAINST.
posted
A side topic that I find interesting as well:
BunnV said:
quote: Because of advances in medication human evolution is stunted so we have to depend on drugs to cure a majority of illnesses and infections.
I keep hearing people say that evolution has stopped for humans and I think that's a mistake. We are just being selected for different things now. Our population is much greater, but from one generation to the next, the increase is only a small percentage. So people still die at roughly the same overall rate they always did.
In much of the world, particularly the largest population centers, conditions as regards nutrition, medicine, hygiene, etc. are not a great deal changed from what they were centuries ago, and the modern world has brought new evolutionary stresses to bear on human populations, as well. (Faster dissemination of virii, human-made poisonous agents such as insecticides, etc.)
Even in the first world, though, we too are under selection pressure. ALL populations of all living beings are under selection pressures at all times, actually. I recently read the book The Beak of the Finch by... um... Honore de Balzac's (the hatrack poster by that name) dad, and it discussed how evolution is constantly happening in even stable seeming populations and traits. There is a sort of jitter-in-place effect in which the changes from one year or decade to the next roughly cancel each other out.
So what kills people before they reach childbearing age in the first world? I've read that suicide and motor vehicle accidents are the two leading causes of death in teenagers in the U.S. I wonder if nowadays we are just being selected for fast reflexes and a sunny outlook?
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
