Neurotheology.

Neither, I think, Fresco.

I know Crick, or Watson, (sorry forget which is associated with this one!) has hailed it as evidence against any argument that theism is valid, but the religious will just say that this is the work of the creator and provides the means by which we experience religious feelings - and the non-theists will say that it is what religious experience IS, and justifies atheism.

The thing is, theism has no clear set of conditions under which it can be disproven - it is not falsifiable - therefore it will never be conclusively disproven, I believe.

Oops - your site is not about the research I was quoting very vaguely - but I believe my response stands.

fresco..
If you think this kind of argument interesting, you are trapped in the 18~19th century materialism.
Almost everybody knows that the most excited moments of a game are correlated with the temporal usage of the memory (RAM) of a computer. The knowledge is almost nothing to do with the significance of a game.
(Obsolete.)

How does one define a "religious experience"?

I might also add that I don't approve of the mixing of neurophysiology with theology. Makes absolutely no sense to me.
How does one correlate Na/K fluxes with a belief in God?

If, according to Aquinas (at least in some interperatations), the Kingdom of God exists in the mind, which I happen to believe, then the neurological evidence would actually seem to support theism, and visionary prophets, not debunk it. To debunk theism is to assume that God resides in some strange 'heaven', and is not really a part of our human make-up. Although I am not a religious person, and have a somewhat non-religious concept of God, I still believe that spirituality comes from within, not without, so for me, this evidence only strengthens that opinion.

As for religious experiences, personally, I think that anything from strange visions, to great sex, to a really good pizza, or even a terrific dump, would qualify. All are part of us as human beings. To celebrate the blessing of life in all its ups and downs is true religion. Everything else is politics, IMO.

Goodness, Cav! Interesting.

New Haven.

Materialists would say Na/K fluxes ARE god.

Theists would say they are the physical means by which the ineffable manifests itself in human matter.

Na/K fluxes are God?

Well now, zip-zap! If those fluxes are really God, WOW, you must be in 7th Heaven, when you stick you finger in an electric socket>>

Satt

The question is of sociological interest irrespective of assumptions or otherwise of materialism. It may be that major religious movements are based on the neuropathology of the founding members. (The case for Seventh Day Adventists is well documented) In social anthropology it is well known that persons we might call "schizophrenic" are promoted to "witch doctor status" within their own culture. Perhaps we are not so different !

New Haven

The sense of the term "neurothology" is perhaps analogous to "neorolinguistics" i.e. as human beings we may be uniquely "hard wired" to develop theological programs in a similar way that we acquire language behaviour. (The particular "details" being of no more significance than an "ideolect")

Cavfancier

I think the dichotomy of "inner vs outer" origin for spirituality is a misnomer.
Clearly the "function" of spirituality is to "make sense of existence". It is fundamentally an interactive concept liking observer and observed.

Good point fresco, but are not the observer and the observed still a product of a self-induced process? I still see no outside influence on either side...

fresco..
RAM is vital for a smooth playing of a computer game. Major computer games are based on ample quantity of the RAM.
But RAM itself cannot create a single game.

If a game works inside RAM, RAM technology must prove the existence of a game in RAM? No.

Those who pile up abundant RAM enjoy games and lead others with less RAM. This is a sociological aspect.

Or if you have a meager RAM you cannot even notice the excitement of a game until you are told.

As it applies to the "computer" analogy; I must point out that it is not the logic which is "random"; it is the access to processing space.

My usual logic is not stochastic, nor quantum logic.
My analogy applies here well.

???????????
a little expansion of "meaning" here would be helpful.

There are multiple types of logic in Logic.
Usual logic is two-valued logic.

Hmmmm; "binary logic"

something used frequently in religious discussions!

Take, for instance, terms like "neurotheology", a definite oxymoron.

It is used in a computer, you know.
Next task is a quantum computer.