genetics and neuroanatomy of religious belief (page 3)

Deputy Dog

TS

We both know that this isn't talking about meds here.

it's interesting that somewhere the logic stops for you. somewhere, shamanistic drugs stop, and medical drugs start. there is no continuum for you. medical drugs are good. shamanistic drugs are bad. why? because revelation says so! (along with not-really veiled threats of hellfire).

whatever.

TS

kid-A

So if these drugs "enhance" the religious experience, why do you think the Bible (the early church) discourages drug use?

Who said I was referring to christian rituals exclusively? Christianity is just one religious brand out of hundreds of thousands. Many religions have used drugs during their rituals in the past, and many still do in some countries. Alcohol is mentioned many many times in the bible and Jesus himself drank wine and supposedly turned water into wine. Wine is just as addictive a drug as any other mentioned in this thread. Hardly seems like Jesus was discouraging the use of drugs to me.

Satanus

Ok, cocaine isn't an amphetamine. However, w a bit of googling, i found a few naturaly occuring ones, which preexisted the synthetic ones.

---

Khat leaves contain psychoactive ingredients known as cathinone, which is structurally and chemically similar to d-amphetamine, and cathine, a milder form of cathinone. Fresh leaves contain both ingrediants, much experimental evidence indicates that cathinone is the main psychoactive constituent of the khat leaf and that, in fact, this alkaloid is a natural amphetamine.

L-Ephedrine. Ephedrine is a natural amphetamine that gives stimulation of the central nervous system (CNS), similar to speed (but to a lesser extent,) along with the excitation of the peripheral nervous system, that is far greater than that associated with Speed.

Chocolate contains a substance called phenylethylamine (PEA), a natural amphetamine that the brain manufactures in response to feeling in love. But to feel much of an effect, you'd have to follow the example of the Aztec ruler Montezuma, who was reported to have drunk 50 cups of chocolate liqueur every day before heading off to his harem.

Most experts say that while PEA may stimulate feelings of bliss, the amount in chocolate is too small to work quite like Viagra. Cheese, on the other hand, contains 10 times more PEA than chocolate, making it easier to get the mood-boosting effect in a slice or two. Grilled cheese and Nutella sandwich, anyone?

S

kid-A

Cheese, on the other hand, contains 10 times more PEA than chocolate, making it easier to get the mood-boosting effect in a slice or two.

Is that why the French are such good lovers??? Oooooh la la !!!

Narkissos

Hmm... who knows?

Seriously, I feel mysticism has nothing to fear from this kind of approach. There are probably psychological and biogenetical factors, and a potentially pathological dimension, to religious experience. Dostoevsky doesn't cringe from making his Christ-like Idiot character an epileptic. In Crime and Punishment (IV, I) he has this amazing dialogue:

“You should go to a doctor.” 73
“I know I am not well, without your telling me, though I don’t know what’s wrong; I believe I am five times as strong as you are. I didn’t ask you whether you believe that ghosts are seen, but whether you believe that they exist.” 74
“No, I won’t believe it!” Raskolnikov cried, with positive anger. 75
“What do people generally say?” muttered Svidrigaïlov, as though speaking to himself, looking aside and bowing his head. “They say, ‘You are ill, so what appears to you is only unreal fantasy.’ But that’s not strictly logical. I agree that ghosts only appear to the sick, but that only proves that they are unable to appear except to the sick, not that they don’t exist.” 76
“Nothing of the sort,” Raskolnikov insisted irritably. 77
“No? You don’t think so?” Svidrigaïlov went on, looking at him deliberately. “But what do you say to this argument (help me with it): ghosts are as it were shreds and fragments of other worlds, the beginning of them. A man in health has, of course, no reason to see them, because he is above all a man of this earth and is bound for the sake of completeness and order to live only in this life. But as soon as one is ill, as soon as the normal earthly order of the organism is broken, one begins to realise the possibility of another world; and the more seriously ill one is, the closer becomes one’s contact with that other world, so that as soon as the man dies he steps straight into that world. I thought of that long ago. If you believe in a future life, you could believe in that, too.”

He then goes on with a fascinating discussion on eternity but that would be (even more) off-topic here.

I feel only dogmatic religion, which claims to objective truth, has to insist on the sanity and normality of religious experience.

tetrapod.sapien

and even then, the dogmatic religion is still not obliged to consider neuroscience as any more factual than they already consider biology or geology.

TS

AlmostAtheist

I'm with Tetra on the "drug" thing. I mean, obviously bad drugs are bad. (I'm smoking as I type this!)

But if the Bible condemns the use of "mind altering" drugs, then surely the fact that they have "medicinal uses" doesn't make it ok, does it? What if a doctor prescribed a few hours with a prostitute, would a Christian do it?

Dave

tetrapod.sapien

- tee hee hee... - pass the Doob of Faith, man...

Deputy Dog

kid-a

Who said I was referring to christian rituals exclusively?

I never said you were. The reason I asked the question, was to suggest that there may be a difference between true faith and "religion". In which case the study may not be valid. It appears to me this would apply to those who have "religious" or "spiritual" highs or experiences. This does not apply to all believers. As for Jesus drinking wine. The real question is did Jesus get drunk? TS

medical drugs are good. shamanistic drugs are bad. why?

I can see why a person with your world view may have a problem with that.

whatever.

the dogmatic religion is still not obliged to consider neuroscience as any more factual than they already consider biology or geology.

You can put any spin you want on the facts can't you TS.

“You should go to a doctor.”	73
“I know I am not well, without your telling me, though I don’t know what’s wrong; I believe I am five times as strong as you are. I didn’t ask you whether you believe that ghosts are seen, but whether you believe that they exist.”	74
“No, I won’t believe it!” Raskolnikov cried, with positive anger.	75
“What do people generally say?” muttered Svidrigaïlov, as though speaking to himself, looking aside and bowing his head. “They say, ‘You are ill, so what appears to you is only unreal fantasy.’ But that’s not strictly logical. I agree that ghosts only appear to the sick, but that only proves that they are unable to appear except to the sick, not that they don’t exist.”	76
“Nothing of the sort,” Raskolnikov insisted irritably.	77
“No? You don’t think so?” Svidrigaïlov went on, looking at him deliberately. “But what do you say to this argument (help me with it): ghosts are as it were shreds and fragments of other worlds, the beginning of them. A man in health has, of course, no reason to see them, because he is above all a man of this earth and is bound for the sake of completeness and order to live only in this life. But as soon as one is ill, as soon as the normal earthly order of the organism is broken, one begins to realise the possibility of another world; and the more seriously ill one is, the closer becomes one’s contact with that other world, so that as soon as the man dies he steps straight into that world. I thought of that long ago. If you believe in a future life, you could believe in that, too.”

genetics and neuroanatomy of religious belief

Share this