I had the opportunity for a road trip to Kingston, ON - a six hour drive each way. I pulled a few books quickly onto my iPod and off I went.
"The Spiritual Brain" is a an audio lecture, not necessarily one of my first choices, but I'm kinda' glad I listened to it.
The topic "missing" from the lecture was any sense of whether or not the actual beliefs underlying "spirituality" or "religion" were actually required for beneficial aspects of those behaviours to manifest.
The research shows that there are differences in brain function among those who spend time in daily contemplation and prayer, but similar effects are noted for "non-religious" relaxation techniques as well.
Social aspects were highlighted as a benefit, along with reductions in tension through religion, but again, this is more related to the social nature, not the "holy" nature of the activities. They did identify that feeling out of place in your religion, or that God was angry with you had negative effects on health in the same areas that the positive aspects manifested with being aligned and not making God unhappy. The social belonging also had a counter, in that aligning with your group tends to make people less sympathetic to those outside the group (not limited to religious organizations, it shows up in racial groups, politics etc.), so it is not a "win-win" in all cases.
They mentioned (though didn't identify an explicit way to define) cults versus religions. If the outcome is "bad" it's a cult, if the outcome is neutral or better, a religion. A very operational definition, at best, and reliant on another operational definition of "bad". When a group of folks is under the influence of an individual and drinks poison kool-aid, commits suicide to reach a passing comet, or commits murders, these tend to be defined as cults, which I think would be inarguable. However, how do you specify what to do with folks who claim to be acting on behalf of a "real" religion? The 911 hijackers, or those that kill doctors who perform abortions? They claim to be working for a non-cultish religion, but acting in a cultish manner?
They also pointed out that feeling of "oneness" and "connectedness" often associated with religion or with drug states, can be manipulated in the lab, and can be indicative of damage to certain brain structures.
All in all, there were certainly aspects of religion that were enviable - the ability to let go of stresses, the social connectedness.
The research indicates that "non-religious" can get benefits by mimicking the behaviours (e.g. meditation as a proxy to prayer) but trying to "fake" religion, when it wasn't believed or felt, was not sufficient.
No comments:
Post a Comment