3 ms·

The feeling of "spirituality" is certainly universal; after all, so many people have it that it would be absurd to call it purely a cultural construct. However

by araneae 17y ago

The feeling of "spirituality" is certainly universal; after all, so many people have it that it would be absurd to call it purely a cultural construct. However, as far as we can tell, the generation of these feelings is not associated with any external sensor, the way that the experience of seeing is connected with your eyeballs. In all probability, the feeling of religiosity is mind-bound phenomena, much like love and awe, and are not capable of detecting any real external phenomena. On another note... I'm an atheist, but I wasn't religiously abused as a kid. I just am interested in science. The fantasies of others is considerably less entertaining than understanding the nature of the universe.

Alex3917 17y ago
"In all probability, the feeling of religiosity is mind-bound phenomena, not capable of detecting any real external phenomena." That's an interesting use of the word probability. Can you justify that position using arguments qualitatively different than those used to justify the opposite position? (That the full-blown mystic experience is qualitatively different than anything that science has ever explained before or any experience generated from within the body, and thus there is no reason to believe that it's necessarily scientifically explainable or endogenous.) As I said I'm actually more or less with you, I just see the logic of what the other side is saying.
- araneae 17y ago
  (tl;dr Science can explain these experiences, but people just don't find the explanations satisfying.) Many folks, religious or not, believe that many powerful experiences (like love or religion) aren't scientifically explainable. However, I think it's because such explanations aren't emotionally satisfying. Such explanations are usually either proximate (i.e. mechanistic) or ultimate (evolutionary.) and people just don't like that. To use love as an example: Proximate explanation: When two individuals have different MHC profiles, they are more likely to smell good and be attracted to each other. This attraction can sometimes lead to sex. After orgasm, the hormone vasopressin is released which causes a warm fuzzing feeling in both partners. After repeated instances of sex, there is a learned association of this nice feeling and being with the other person leading them to hang out with each other a lot. Ultimate explanation: individuals which pair bond, resulting in biparental care, produce offspring which are more likely to survive to the next generation than those which do not. But no one likes to think about that when they're snuggling up to their mate. "Religiosity" isn't so cut and dry as love. The proximate explanation of spirituality is fairly well established by science i.e. religious experiences can be induced artificially with drugs (psychobilin) or electrical stimulation of the brain. The ultimate explanation I think is less convincing than for love. Most evolutionary psychologists consider religion a byproduct of adaptive psychological traits, such as superstitiousness (associating negative events with some cause- it's more costly to fail to learn what causes negative events than to associate unrelated events) and agency (a similar explanation- it's adaptive to assume that most things are caused be agents, i.e. a rustle in the leaves is a hungry predator, not the wind. If we assume it's the wind and it isn't, we're in trouble, but not if it's the other way around.)
  - deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]

by araneae 17y ago

Alex3917 17y ago

"In all probability, the feeling of religiosity is mind-bound phenomena, not capable of detecting any real external phenomena." That's an interesting use of the word probability. Can you justify that position using arguments qualitatively different than those used to justify the opposite position? (That the full-blown mystic experience is qualitatively different than anything that science has ever explained before or any experience generated from within the body, and thus there is no reason to believe that it's necessarily scientifically explainable or endogenous.) As I said I'm actually more or less with you, I just see the logic of what the other side is saying.

araneae 17y ago
(tl;dr Science can explain these experiences, but people just don't find the explanations satisfying.) Many folks, religious or not, believe that many powerful experiences (like love or religion) aren't scientifically explainable. However, I think it's because such explanations aren't emotionally satisfying. Such explanations are usually either proximate (i.e. mechanistic) or ultimate (evolutionary.) and people just don't like that. To use love as an example: Proximate explanation: When two individuals have different MHC profiles, they are more likely to smell good and be attracted to each other. This attraction can sometimes lead to sex. After orgasm, the hormone vasopressin is released which causes a warm fuzzing feeling in both partners. After repeated instances of sex, there is a learned association of this nice feeling and being with the other person leading them to hang out with each other a lot. Ultimate explanation: individuals which pair bond, resulting in biparental care, produce offspring which are more likely to survive to the next generation than those which do not. But no one likes to think about that when they're snuggling up to their mate. "Religiosity" isn't so cut and dry as love. The proximate explanation of spirituality is fairly well established by science i.e. religious experiences can be induced artificially with drugs (psychobilin) or electrical stimulation of the brain. The ultimate explanation I think is less convincing than for love. Most evolutionary psychologists consider religion a byproduct of adaptive psychological traits, such as superstitiousness (associating negative events with some cause- it's more costly to fail to learn what causes negative events than to associate unrelated events) and agency (a similar explanation- it's adaptive to assume that most things are caused be agents, i.e. a rustle in the leaves is a hungry predator, not the wind. If we assume it's the wind and it isn't, we're in trouble, but not if it's the other way around.)
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]