10 ms·

What Happens to Your Brain When You Stop Believing in God

23 points by elorant 7y ago

kaolti 7y ago
Most non-religious people are "passionately committed to some ideology or other," explains Patrick McNamara, a neurology professor at Boston University School of Medicine. - so swapping one ideology for another. Funnily enough a synonym for ideology is belief. I wonder if getting rid of ALL beliefs (not just the unfashionable ones) is becoming more interesting to people.
Jordanpomeroy 7y ago
In Southeast Asia, people that don’t believe in religion are called “free thinkers”. As someone that escaped the allegorical cave of religion, I really love that. I can indeed confirm that the most intense feelings of communion with God are replicable with expressions of music or philosophy, in the right context. I really enjoyed this article!
fxj 7y ago
Fun fact: In the former GDR the percentage of people who never believed in god was 59% and only 13% believed in god at all time. Contrast this to the Philippines where the percentage of believers is 94%. In the US 81% believe in god. https://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/article106198838/Kaum-ein-Ostdeutscher-glaubt-an-einen-Gott.html https://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/article106198838/Kaum-ei...
lorriman 7y ago
A great deal of speculation in that article. Sounds more like psycotherapy ideas than real psychology/neuroscience. Meanwhile, let's look at the (paraphrased) claims: "Science is not compatible with religion." Yet the Big Bang theory was invented by a physicist who went on to become a Catholic priest, George Lemaitre. And the father of modern genetics is not Darwin but a catholic monk, Gregor Mendel. hmmm. Both had google doodles recently. "Evolution and creationism are not reconcileable." But Christianity has never had a formal dogma that the Bible is literally true as a historical document (but neither any reason prior to modern science to think otherwise, but that misses the point). 3/4 of Christianity is fine with evolution and the Big Bang, and 14 billion years, and for Catholics even the existence of aliens. It's arguable that the rest are just reacting to Atheist claims, clutching to a dogma that doesn't exist because they are simple and uneducated Christians who don't know better. "There is no evidence of a god." But this claim has to discount those who claim to personally know a god as deluded. That's clearly a fallacy. Sure, spiritual 'contact' doesn't give 3rd party verification (the 3rd party being an agnostic who hasn't had such contact), and will not satisfy the determinedly materialistic who will only accept physical evidence, but what evidence of a spiritual God can we expect in the material universe? More importantly, wouldn't a god be able to give proof of itself? And wouldn't that proof, if it were a personal god as claimed, be person to person communing? The author evidently did not actually personally know the god she eventually rejected and by a Christian standard never had faith. Faith "Belief without evidence". Thanks for that presumptious redefinition, Bertrand Russell, but that is not a Christian or religious definition and has no etymological roots. Sure makes them look silly, though. The real definition of faith is more to do with direct personal knowledge of a god. Or let's take Dawkins favourite argument "Who made God?". But this was answered by Thomas Aquinas centuries ago. A thing whose nature/essence is existence, to exist, self-evidently exists. Since it must also self-evidently exist of itself, and is therefore self-referencing, the real question is not "Is there a god" but "Is this self-referencing fundamental thing also self-aware?". Either Dawkins is ignorant or he's lying by ommission (which he already does with evolution). But here's the kicker: an atheist beleives that there is no god - which is why they quite outrageously call religious persons deluded as no agnostic would - yet there is no proof of the non-existence of a supreme being. So while atheists are always irrational whether or not there is a god, religious persons are only irrational if there isn't a god. The irony is wonderful. Faith as "Belief without evidence" applies to atheists more than religious persons. What's your best atheist argument? I can pretty much defeat any atheist argument.
- magashna 7y ago
  Rather than Atheist arguments, I prefer how the Church of Satan deals with religion, challenging hypocrisy with silly but strong legal arguments. I think Atheists should change from arguing whether a god exists or not to challenging the self-serving frauds found in fundamentalist churches in the US Bible Belt. So much money and time is wasted in those mega-churches that could be better spent actually helping those in need.
  - zzo38computer 7y ago
    That is a valid point. There is people doing bad stuff and they say by religion or by God (not all people doing bad stuff is, but a lot is). And, yes, you should challenge it and try to stop such bad thing. Yes, I believe you, so much money and time is wasted in those mega-churches that could be better spent actually helping those in need. (Some churches maybe do help those in need sometimes, but many don't. And you don't need to be religious to help someone, anyways.)
- Starwatcher2001 7y ago
  "But here's the kicker: an atheist beleives that there is no god" Nope. A-theist simply means someone who lacks theism. I don't posit that there is no god, I simply don't believe there is any evidence or reason for me to believe in one. The burden of proof is yours my friend. "What's your best atheist argument?" I don't need one any more than I need a "best argument" against the existence of pixies. The default position is not to believe in something without a good reason. Why would we? As soon as you can provide any solid scientific evidence that a god exists, then we can talk.
  - lorriman 7y ago
    "Nope. A-theist simply means someone who lacks theism." Actually it was coined by theists without a strict reference to the greek and was defined as "To Deny the gods/God". Lately, the OED modified the definition to "To Deny or disbelieve in the gods/God", which is actually quite a radical change and has thoroughly muddied the waters of discourse. But really, think about it: if atheists are going to call religious persons deluded, or even think it, as they consistently do then they are true believers. Also let's break it down (especially to counter the confused nonsense that is the wikipedia article on the definition of atheist): Either you: 1)believe there is a god 2)beleive there isn't a god 3)have no belief either way. Now, we need a word for the 2nd. What is it to be if it isn't 'atheist', as you are claiming. And why should it not be 'atheist' when that was its original meaning? And that's what most non-atheists think it means. And by that definition it only has one meaning, which is seriously helpful in debate. We should also ask, why are atheists telling us they merely lack belief when they walk and talk like they genuinely believe there is no god, even to callign religious instruciton child abuse (Dawkins). And why are they insisting on redefining 'atheist'? Is it perhaps because the more educated atheists know their position and belief isn't provable, and so such a belief would be rightly called out as irrational? After all, beleiving in the unproven is not reaosnable. Belief means certainty, and you can't be certian without proof.
magashna 7y ago
I personally disagree with Thalia Goldstein's "Kids don't just turn [belief] off," I remember specifically that my parents dispelled the Santa myth to me very early, I think in or before 1st grade. One day at my Catholic school, each of us had made little gingerbread houses and left them on a table by the windows. After going out for recess, we came back to a few of them being broken (later found out from the janitor trying to fix the blinds) and they told us it was Santa coming by to check on us. I knew it was BS then and it made me a young skeptic. I was obsessed with when they told us that the Holy Spirit was all around us but couldn't be seen. I couldn't get over that and figured if they would lie about Santa, they would lie about God. It made for an unpleasant 12 years in Catholic schools. I've since let go of any anger and active Atheism and am happy with a passive Apatheism.
- joelx 7y ago
  I wonder if there are some sort of benefits from the Santa myth and subsequent dispelling of it? Is this how you make people critical?
dangerface 7y ago
This is a trash article, it doesn't talk about how your brain changes when you stop believing its just a bunch of personal opinion. > Religion works exactly like a drug—like cocaine, or methamphetamine No it does not, the chemical reactions in your brain are not like taking meth. I see this constantly its like they think their audience are just a bunch of druggies and to make something relatable they have to say "its like drugs!". I have tried cocaine and can say first hand it's nothing like sitting in church.
- cannonedhamster 7y ago
  Yeah the article really didn't have much interesting science in it. It was a lot of presumption and story but nothing really other than a poll to back things up. Anecdata isn't strong evidence at all.
notus 7y ago
I'm just going to talk about something semi-related since the article is trash. This is all anecdotal btw. The concept of virtue. I find that people who are religious talk about virtue more than those who don't. I'm not saying that they are virtuous, just that they seem to think/talk about it more. I see certain virtues on the rise like frugalness, humanity, wholesomeness, but then there are others I see on a decline like gravity, dutifulness, prudence, self-control, and not being petty (there is another word for this but I forgot). Any thoughts on the matter? Am I just biased and not seeing the whole picture? I feel like people are really petty in general and growing drug use and obesity problems demonstrate a lack of self control. Whenever I broach the subject with people I find that many people do not think of morality in terms of a list of virtues to abide by. That isn't saying they are not virtuous, they just don't think about morality that way. I historically haven't either, but I find it easier when I have something concrete to refer to when I'm thinking about decisions or how best to accomplish a task.
- benjohnson 7y ago
  >> I find that people who are religious talk about virtue more than those who don't There's a lot of practical stored up value in the religion that I practice - listening to the wisdom of generations of people certainly helps with discerning how it live well in the short time we have here on this earth. While I have no doubt that a sensitive and intelligent person could figure most of this out for themselves, it would take them most of their lives - and I suspect that by then their life would be too spent to be able enjoy the fruits of their labor.
  - notus 7y ago
    I think the ancients had it figured out more or less. The 12 roman virtues and classical stoicism are still very applicable today. What religion do you practice?
- AnimalMuppet 7y ago
  It seems to me that the nonreligious have somewhat the same idea of virtue. They just have different applications of the same virtues. They both think that non-judgmentalism is a virtue. (So should a Christian - "Judge not, lest you also be judged".) They both do judge things that they consider overtly wrong, though. Some Christians consider certain sexual practices wrong; some atheists consider less than full acceptance of gay marriage to be wrong (and judge people for it). They both think that self-restraint is a virtue. Some Christians think that in terms of not sleeping with everyone you're attracted to; some atheists think that in terms of consuming less to lower your carbon footprint. The atheists are still thinking in terms of virtues, and of morals, even if they don't use those words. They even think that some of the same things are virtues. They just think they should be lived out in dramatically different ways.
ASalazarMX 7y ago
Didn't bother reading the article since most comments say it's worthless. I expected a talk about measured brain activity. I was raised a catholic, and the most prevalent feelings I got out of that was paranoia and fear. They teach you there's an omnipresent, omniscient, all-powerful being judging your every thought 24/7, for all your life. He's personally interested in you, he says he loves you dearly, but for some reason he won't speak to you at all. Only his priests know his will. You can fool people, but you can't fool this being, and worst of all, you are already in his debt since before you were born. Displease him and being skinned alive by a drug cartel would feel merciful compared to your eternity in hell. Fortunately, it was common sense, knowledge and the numerous contradictions, rather than fear, that opened my eyes out of religion. It took me years to cope with the sequels of indoctrination, but I'm happier and more serene as an atheist now. In my book, religions that demand conversion are thinly-veiled attempts at brainwashing. Religions like Buddhism I find more benign. Edit: went and read it anyway, and despite the clickbait title, I agree with the subtitle: "it's like going off a drug."
- gremlinsinc 7y ago
  I agree w/ the parts that we aren't belief-less heathens. I'm still inspired and awestruck as an exmormon/agnostic when I see a beautiful space image or sunset. Or just watching my kids experience new things for the first time. I find I'm more spiritual as an agnostic than I was before losing religion, spiritual to me is just feeling inspired or 'touched' by a movie or book or event in my life. It's about honoring the small parts of life because we don't know what comes after. I still believe an afterlife could exist, but it isn't controlled by a deity, it'd just be energy being re-used which happens all the time in nature.
  - ASalazarMX 7y ago
    > I still believe an afterlife could exist, but it isn't controlled by a deity, it'd just be energy being re-used which happens all the time in nature. It certainly would be amazing, but I chose to take a more pragmatic approach. Since we can't disprove the afterlife, I live my life as if it's the only one. That doesn't mean living feverishly, just enjoying the moment more.
lcall 7y ago
I have learned for myself, with long effort and evaluation of when I was right and when I was wrong, that God is real and does care, that He answers sincere prayers in His time, and our choices matter. I have written how I know, here, in detail (a simple site). It includes reason, and feelings that came as a result of actions I chose. http://lukecall.net/e-9223372036854587400.html http://lukecall.net/e-9223372036854587400.html But everyone will decide for themselves what they think is a good enough reason. Ps: do you know what an insomniac, agnostic, dyslexic does? Gazes up at the stars, wondering: "Is there ... a dog?" (I hope that's not disrespectful, including to anyone who suffers dyslexia--I have enough oddities that you are welcome to laugh at, but this isn't laughing at dyslexics at all---I don't want to be disrespectful, to anyone. But it really made me laugh, what an odd feeling that would be...) [EDIT: slight changes for clarity.]
- lcall 7y ago
  (If I could still edit this I would delete the joke.)

23 points by elorant 7y ago

Most non-religious people are "passionately committed to some ideology or other," explains Patrick McNamara, a neurology professor at Boston University School of Medicine. - so swapping one ideology for another. Funnily enough a synonym for ideology is belief. I wonder if getting rid of ALL beliefs (not just the unfashionable ones) is becoming more interesting to people.

Jordanpomeroy 7y ago

In Southeast Asia, people that don’t believe in religion are called “free thinkers”. As someone that escaped the allegorical cave of religion, I really love that. I can indeed confirm that the most intense feelings of communion with God are replicable with expressions of music or philosophy, in the right context. I really enjoyed this article!

fxj 7y ago

Fun fact: In the former GDR the percentage of people who never believed in god was 59% and only 13% believed in god at all time. Contrast this to the Philippines where the percentage of believers is 94%. In the US 81% believe in god. https://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/article106198838/Kaum-ein-Ostdeutscher-glaubt-an-einen-Gott.html https://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/article106198838/Kaum-ei...

lorriman 7y ago

A great deal of speculation in that article. Sounds more like psycotherapy ideas than real psychology/neuroscience. Meanwhile, let's look at the (paraphrased) claims: "Science is not compatible with religion." Yet the Big Bang theory was invented by a physicist who went on to become a Catholic priest, George Lemaitre. And the father of modern genetics is not Darwin but a catholic monk, Gregor Mendel. hmmm. Both had google doodles recently. "Evolution and creationism are not reconcileable." But Christianity has never had a formal dogma that the Bible is literally true as a historical document (but neither any reason prior to modern science to think otherwise, but that misses the point). 3/4 of Christianity is fine with evolution and the Big Bang, and 14 billion years, and for Catholics even the existence of aliens. It's arguable that the rest are just reacting to Atheist claims, clutching to a dogma that doesn't exist because they are simple and uneducated Christians who don't know better. "There is no evidence of a god." But this claim has to discount those who claim to personally know a god as deluded. That's clearly a fallacy. Sure, spiritual 'contact' doesn't give 3rd party verification (the 3rd party being an agnostic who hasn't had such contact), and will not satisfy the determinedly materialistic who will only accept physical evidence, but what evidence of a spiritual God can we expect in the material universe? More importantly, wouldn't a god be able to give proof of itself? And wouldn't that proof, if it were a personal god as claimed, be person to person communing? The author evidently did not actually personally know the god she eventually rejected and by a Christian standard never had faith. Faith "Belief without evidence". Thanks for that presumptious redefinition, Bertrand Russell, but that is not a Christian or religious definition and has no etymological roots. Sure makes them look silly, though. The real definition of faith is more to do with direct personal knowledge of a god. Or let's take Dawkins favourite argument "Who made God?". But this was answered by Thomas Aquinas centuries ago. A thing whose nature/essence is existence, to exist, self-evidently exists. Since it must also self-evidently exist of itself, and is therefore self-referencing, the real question is not "Is there a god" but "Is this self-referencing fundamental thing also self-aware?". Either Dawkins is ignorant or he's lying by ommission (which he already does with evolution). But here's the kicker: an atheist beleives that there is no god - which is why they quite outrageously call religious persons deluded as no agnostic would - yet there is no proof of the non-existence of a supreme being. So while atheists are always irrational whether or not there is a god, religious persons are only irrational if there isn't a god. The irony is wonderful. Faith as "Belief without evidence" applies to atheists more than religious persons. What's your best atheist argument? I can pretty much defeat any atheist argument.

magashna 7y ago
Rather than Atheist arguments, I prefer how the Church of Satan deals with religion, challenging hypocrisy with silly but strong legal arguments. I think Atheists should change from arguing whether a god exists or not to challenging the self-serving frauds found in fundamentalist churches in the US Bible Belt. So much money and time is wasted in those mega-churches that could be better spent actually helping those in need.
- zzo38computer 7y ago
  That is a valid point. There is people doing bad stuff and they say by religion or by God (not all people doing bad stuff is, but a lot is). And, yes, you should challenge it and try to stop such bad thing. Yes, I believe you, so much money and time is wasted in those mega-churches that could be better spent actually helping those in need. (Some churches maybe do help those in need sometimes, but many don't. And you don't need to be religious to help someone, anyways.)
Starwatcher2001 7y ago
"But here's the kicker: an atheist beleives that there is no god" Nope. A-theist simply means someone who lacks theism. I don't posit that there is no god, I simply don't believe there is any evidence or reason for me to believe in one. The burden of proof is yours my friend. "What's your best atheist argument?" I don't need one any more than I need a "best argument" against the existence of pixies. The default position is not to believe in something without a good reason. Why would we? As soon as you can provide any solid scientific evidence that a god exists, then we can talk.
- lorriman 7y ago
  "Nope. A-theist simply means someone who lacks theism." Actually it was coined by theists without a strict reference to the greek and was defined as "To Deny the gods/God". Lately, the OED modified the definition to "To Deny or disbelieve in the gods/God", which is actually quite a radical change and has thoroughly muddied the waters of discourse. But really, think about it: if atheists are going to call religious persons deluded, or even think it, as they consistently do then they are true believers. Also let's break it down (especially to counter the confused nonsense that is the wikipedia article on the definition of atheist): Either you: 1)believe there is a god 2)beleive there isn't a god 3)have no belief either way. Now, we need a word for the 2nd. What is it to be if it isn't 'atheist', as you are claiming. And why should it not be 'atheist' when that was its original meaning? And that's what most non-atheists think it means. And by that definition it only has one meaning, which is seriously helpful in debate. We should also ask, why are atheists telling us they merely lack belief when they walk and talk like they genuinely believe there is no god, even to callign religious instruciton child abuse (Dawkins). And why are they insisting on redefining 'atheist'? Is it perhaps because the more educated atheists know their position and belief isn't provable, and so such a belief would be rightly called out as irrational? After all, beleiving in the unproven is not reaosnable. Belief means certainty, and you can't be certian without proof.

magashna 7y ago

I personally disagree with Thalia Goldstein's "Kids don't just turn [belief] off," I remember specifically that my parents dispelled the Santa myth to me very early, I think in or before 1st grade. One day at my Catholic school, each of us had made little gingerbread houses and left them on a table by the windows. After going out for recess, we came back to a few of them being broken (later found out from the janitor trying to fix the blinds) and they told us it was Santa coming by to check on us. I knew it was BS then and it made me a young skeptic. I was obsessed with when they told us that the Holy Spirit was all around us but couldn't be seen. I couldn't get over that and figured if they would lie about Santa, they would lie about God. It made for an unpleasant 12 years in Catholic schools. I've since let go of any anger and active Atheism and am happy with a passive Apatheism.

joelx 7y ago
I wonder if there are some sort of benefits from the Santa myth and subsequent dispelling of it? Is this how you make people critical?

dangerface 7y ago

This is a trash article, it doesn't talk about how your brain changes when you stop believing its just a bunch of personal opinion. > Religion works exactly like a drug—like cocaine, or methamphetamine No it does not, the chemical reactions in your brain are not like taking meth. I see this constantly its like they think their audience are just a bunch of druggies and to make something relatable they have to say "its like drugs!". I have tried cocaine and can say first hand it's nothing like sitting in church.

cannonedhamster 7y ago
Yeah the article really didn't have much interesting science in it. It was a lot of presumption and story but nothing really other than a poll to back things up. Anecdata isn't strong evidence at all.

notus 7y ago

I'm just going to talk about something semi-related since the article is trash. This is all anecdotal btw. The concept of virtue. I find that people who are religious talk about virtue more than those who don't. I'm not saying that they are virtuous, just that they seem to think/talk about it more. I see certain virtues on the rise like frugalness, humanity, wholesomeness, but then there are others I see on a decline like gravity, dutifulness, prudence, self-control, and not being petty (there is another word for this but I forgot). Any thoughts on the matter? Am I just biased and not seeing the whole picture? I feel like people are really petty in general and growing drug use and obesity problems demonstrate a lack of self control. Whenever I broach the subject with people I find that many people do not think of morality in terms of a list of virtues to abide by. That isn't saying they are not virtuous, they just don't think about morality that way. I historically haven't either, but I find it easier when I have something concrete to refer to when I'm thinking about decisions or how best to accomplish a task.

benjohnson 7y ago
>> I find that people who are religious talk about virtue more than those who don't There's a lot of practical stored up value in the religion that I practice - listening to the wisdom of generations of people certainly helps with discerning how it live well in the short time we have here on this earth. While I have no doubt that a sensitive and intelligent person could figure most of this out for themselves, it would take them most of their lives - and I suspect that by then their life would be too spent to be able enjoy the fruits of their labor.
- notus 7y ago
  I think the ancients had it figured out more or less. The 12 roman virtues and classical stoicism are still very applicable today. What religion do you practice?
AnimalMuppet 7y ago
It seems to me that the nonreligious have somewhat the same idea of virtue. They just have different applications of the same virtues. They both think that non-judgmentalism is a virtue. (So should a Christian - "Judge not, lest you also be judged".) They both do judge things that they consider overtly wrong, though. Some Christians consider certain sexual practices wrong; some atheists consider less than full acceptance of gay marriage to be wrong (and judge people for it). They both think that self-restraint is a virtue. Some Christians think that in terms of not sleeping with everyone you're attracted to; some atheists think that in terms of consuming less to lower your carbon footprint. The atheists are still thinking in terms of virtues, and of morals, even if they don't use those words. They even think that some of the same things are virtues. They just think they should be lived out in dramatically different ways.

ASalazarMX 7y ago

Didn't bother reading the article since most comments say it's worthless. I expected a talk about measured brain activity. I was raised a catholic, and the most prevalent feelings I got out of that was paranoia and fear. They teach you there's an omnipresent, omniscient, all-powerful being judging your every thought 24/7, for all your life. He's personally interested in you, he says he loves you dearly, but for some reason he won't speak to you at all. Only his priests know his will. You can fool people, but you can't fool this being, and worst of all, you are already in his debt since before you were born. Displease him and being skinned alive by a drug cartel would feel merciful compared to your eternity in hell. Fortunately, it was common sense, knowledge and the numerous contradictions, rather than fear, that opened my eyes out of religion. It took me years to cope with the sequels of indoctrination, but I'm happier and more serene as an atheist now. In my book, religions that demand conversion are thinly-veiled attempts at brainwashing. Religions like Buddhism I find more benign. Edit: went and read it anyway, and despite the clickbait title, I agree with the subtitle: "it's like going off a drug."

gremlinsinc 7y ago
I agree w/ the parts that we aren't belief-less heathens. I'm still inspired and awestruck as an exmormon/agnostic when I see a beautiful space image or sunset. Or just watching my kids experience new things for the first time. I find I'm more spiritual as an agnostic than I was before losing religion, spiritual to me is just feeling inspired or 'touched' by a movie or book or event in my life. It's about honoring the small parts of life because we don't know what comes after. I still believe an afterlife could exist, but it isn't controlled by a deity, it'd just be energy being re-used which happens all the time in nature.
- ASalazarMX 7y ago
  > I still believe an afterlife could exist, but it isn't controlled by a deity, it'd just be energy being re-used which happens all the time in nature. It certainly would be amazing, but I chose to take a more pragmatic approach. Since we can't disprove the afterlife, I live my life as if it's the only one. That doesn't mean living feverishly, just enjoying the moment more.

lcall 7y ago

I have learned for myself, with long effort and evaluation of when I was right and when I was wrong, that God is real and does care, that He answers sincere prayers in His time, and our choices matter. I have written how I know, here, in detail (a simple site). It includes reason, and feelings that came as a result of actions I chose. http://lukecall.net/e-9223372036854587400.html http://lukecall.net/e-9223372036854587400.html But everyone will decide for themselves what they think is a good enough reason. Ps: do you know what an insomniac, agnostic, dyslexic does? Gazes up at the stars, wondering: "Is there ... a dog?" (I hope that's not disrespectful, including to anyone who suffers dyslexia--I have enough oddities that you are welcome to laugh at, but this isn't laughing at dyslexics at all---I don't want to be disrespectful, to anyone. But it really made me laugh, what an odd feeling that would be...) [EDIT: slight changes for clarity.]

lcall 7y ago
(If I could still edit this I would delete the joke.)