[log in to unmask] wrote:
> If they find God - make the jerk apologise !
>
> Quoting rayilynlee <[log in to unmask]>:
>
>   
>> I selected this article because there  is a paragraph about Parkinson's 
>> disease and religiosity.  A study showed people with PD were more secular 
>> than healthy people.
>> Ray
>> Where angels no longer fear to tread
>> Mar 19th 2008
>> From The Economist print edition
>> Science and religion have often been at loggerheads. Now the former has 
>> decided to resolve the problem by trying to explain the existence of the 
>> latter
>> BY THE standards of European scientific collaboration, ?2m ($3.1m) is not a 
>> huge sum. But it might be the start of something that will challenge human 
>> perceptions of reality at least as much as the billions being spent by the 
>> European particle-physics laboratory (CERN) at Geneva. The first task of 
>> CERN's new machine, the Large Hadron Collider, which is due to open later 
>> this year, will be to search for the Higgs boson-an object that has been 
>> dubbed, with a certain amount of hyperbole, the God particle. The ?2m, by 
>> contrast, will be spent on the search for God Himself-or, rather, for the 
>> biological reasons why so many people believe in God, gods and religion in 
>> general.
>> "Explaining Religion", as the project is known, is the largest-ever 
>> scientific study of the subject. It began last September, will run for three
>>
>> years, and involves scholars from 14 universities and a range of disciplines
>>
>> from psychology to economics. And it is merely the latest manifestation of a
>>
>> growing tendency for science to poke its nose into the God business.
>> Religion cries out for a biological explanation. It is a ubiquitous 
>> phenomenon-arguably one of the species markers of Homo sapiens-but a 
>> puzzling one. It has none of the obvious benefits of that other marker of 
>> humanity, language. Nevertheless, it consumes huge amounts of resources. 
>> Moreover, unlike language, it is the subject of violent disagreements. 
>> Science has, however, made significant progress in understanding the biology
>>
>> of language, from where it is processed in the brain to exactly how it 
>> communicates meaning. Time, therefore, to put religion under the microscope 
>> as well.
>> I have no need of that hypothesis
>> Explaining Religion is an ambitious attempt to do this. The experiments it 
>> will sponsor are designed to look at the mental mechanisms needed to 
>> represent an omniscient deity, whether (and how) belief in such a 
>> "surveillance-camera" God might improve reproductive success to an 
>> individual's Darwinian advantage, and whether religion enhances a person's 
>> reputation-for instance, do people think that those who believe in God are 
>> more trustworthy than those who do not? The researchers will also seek to 
>> establish whether different religions foster different levels of 
>> co-operation, for what reasons, and whether such co-operation brings 
>> collective benefits, both to the religious community and to those outside 
>> it.
>>
>> *This is it:
>> It is an ambitious shopping list. Fortunately, other researchers have blazed
>>
>> a trail. Patrick McNamara, for example, is the head of the Evolutionary 
>> Neurobehaviour Laboratory at Boston University's School of Medicine. He 
>> works with people who suffer from Parkinson's disease. This illness is 
>> caused by low levels of a messenger molecule called dopamine in certain 
>> parts of the brain. In a preliminary study, Dr McNamara discovered that 
>> those with Parkinson's had lower levels of religiosity than healthy 
>> individuals, and that the difference seemed to correlate with the disease's 
>> severity. He therefore suspects a link with dopamine levels and is now 
>> conducting a follow-up involving some patients who are taking 
>> dopamine-boosting medicine and some of whom are not.
>>
>> Such neurochemical work, though preliminary, may tie in with scanning 
>> studies conducted to try to find out which parts of the brain are involved 
>> in religious experience. Nina Azari, a neuroscientist at the University of 
>> Hawaii at Hilo who also has a doctorate in theology, has looked at the 
>> brains of religious people. She used positron emission tomography (PET) to 
>> measure brain activity in six fundamentalist Christians and six 
>> non-religious (though not atheist) controls. The Christians all said that 
>> reciting the first verse of the 23rd psalm helped them enter a religious 
>> state of mind, so both groups were scanned in six different sets of 
>> circumstances: while reading the first verse of the 23rd psalm, while 
>> reciting it out loud, while reading a happy story (a well-known German 
>> children's rhyme), while reciting that story out loud, while reading a 
>> neutral text (how to use a calling card) and while at rest.
>> Dr Azari was expecting to see activity in the limbic systems of the 
>> Christians when they recited the psalm. Previous research had suggested that
>>
>> this part of the brain (which regulates emotion) is an important centre of 
>> religious activity. In fact what happened was increased activity in three 
>> areas of the frontal and parietal cortex, some of which are better known for
>>
>> their involvement in rational thought. The control group did not show 
>> activity in these parts of their brains when listening to the psalm. And, 
>> intriguingly, the only thing that triggered limbic activity in either group 
>> was reading the happy story.
>> Dr Azari's PET study, together with one by Andrew Newberg of the University 
>> of Pennsylvania, which used single-photon emission computed tomography done 
>> on Buddhist monks, and another by Mario Beauregard of the University of 
>> Montreal, which put Carmelite nuns in a magnetic-resonance-imaging machine, 
>> all suggest that religious activity is spread across many parts of the 
>> brain. That conflicts not only with the limbic-system theory but also with 
>> earlier reports of a so-called God Spot that derived partly from work 
>> conducted on epileptics. These reports suggested that religiosity originates
>>
>> specifically in the brain's temporal lobe, and that religious visions are 
>> the result of epileptic seizures that affect this part of the brain.
>> Though there is clearly still a long way to go, this sort of imaging should 
>> eventually tie down the circuitry of religious experience and that, combined
>>
>> with work on messenger molecules of the sort that Dr McNamara is doing, will
>>
>> illuminate how the brain generates and processes religious experiences. Dr 
>> Azari, however, is sceptical that such work will say much about religion's 
>> evolution and function. For this, other methods are needed.
>> Dr McNamara, for example, plans to analyse a database called the 
>> Ethnographic Atlas to see if he can find any correlations between the amount
>>
>> of cultural co-operation found in a society and the intensity of its 
>> religious rituals. And Richard Sosis, an anthropologist at the University of
>>
>> Connecticut, has already done some research which suggests that the 
>> long-term co-operative benefits of religion outweigh the short-term costs it
>>
>> imposes in the form of praying many times a day, avoiding certain foods, 
>> fasting and so on.
>> Leviticus's children
>> On the face of things, it is puzzling that such costly behaviour should 
>> persist. Some scholars, however, draw an analogy with sexual selection. The 
>> splendour of a peacock's tail and the throaty roar of a stag really do show 
>> which males are fittest, and thus help females choose. Similarly, signs of 
>> religious commitment that are hard to fake provide a costly and reliable 
>> signal to others in a group that anyone engaging in them is committed to 
>> that group. Free-riders, in other words, would not be able to gain the 
>> advantages of group membership.
>> To test whether religion might have emerged as a way of improving group 
>> co-operation while reducing the need to keep an eye out for free-riders, Dr 
>> Sosis drew on a catalogue of 19th-century American communes published in 
>> 1988 by Yaacov Oved of Tel Aviv University. Dr Sosis picked 200 of these for
>>
>> his analysis; 88 were religious and 112 were secular. Dr Oved's data include
>>
>> the span of each commune's existence and Dr Sosis found that communes whose 
>> ideology was secular were up to four times as likely as religious ones to 
>> dissolve in any given year.
>> A follow-up study that Dr Sosis conducted in collaboration with Eric 
>> Bressler of McMaster University in Canada focused on 83 of these communes 
>> (30 religious, 53 secular) to see if the amount of time they survived 
>> correlated with the strictures and expectations they imposed on the 
>> behaviour of their members. The two researchers examined things like food 
>> consumption, attitudes to material possessions, rules about communication, 
>> rituals and taboos, and rules about marriage and sexual relationships.
>> As they expected, they found that the more constraints a religious commune 
>> placed on its members, the longer it lasted (one is still going, at the 
>> grand old age of 149). But the same did not hold true of secular communes, 
>> where the oldest was 40. Dr Sosis therefore concludes that ritual 
>> constraints are not by themselves enough to sustain co-operation in a 
>> community-what is needed in addition is a belief that those constraints are 
>> sanctified.
>> Dr Sosis has also studied modern secular and religious kibbutzim in Israel. 
>> Because a kibbutz, by its nature, depends on group co-operation, the 
>> principal difference between the two is the use of religious ritual. Within 
>> religious communities, men are expected to pray three times daily in groups 
>> of at least ten, while women are not. It should, therefore, be possible to 
>> observe whether group rituals do improve co-operation, based on the 
>> behaviour of men and women.
>> To do so, Dr Sosis teamed up with Bradley Ruffle, an economist at Ben-Gurion
>>
>> University, in Israel. They devised a game to be played by two members of a 
>> kibbutz. This was a variant of what is known to economists as the 
>> common-pool-resource dilemma, which involves two people trying to divide a 
>> pot of money without knowing how much the other is asking for. In the 
>> version of the game devised by Dr Sosis and Dr Ruffle, each participant was 
>> told that there was an envelope with 100 shekels in it (between 1/6th and 
>> 1/8th of normal monthly income). Both players could request money from the 
>> envelope, but if the sum of their requests exceeded its contents, neither 
>> got any cash. If, however, their request equalled, or was less than, the 100
>>
>> shekels, not only did they keep the money, but the amount left was increased
>>
>> by 50% and split between them.
>> Dr Sosis and Dr Ruffle picked the common-pool-resource dilemma because the 
>> communal lives of kibbutz members mean they often face similar dilemmas over
>>
>> things such as communal food, power and cars. The researchers' hypothesis 
>> was that in religious kibbutzim men would be better collaborators (and thus 
>> would take less) than women, while in secular kibbutzim men and women would 
>> take about the same. And that was exactly what happened.
>> Big father is watching you
>> Dr Sosis is not the only researcher to employ economic games to investigate 
>> the nature and possible advantages of religion. Ara Norenzayan, an 
>> experimental psychologist at the University of British Columbia, in 
>> Vancouver, has conducted experiments using what is known as the dictator 
>> game. This, too, is a well-established test used to gauge altruistic 
>> behaviour. Participants receive a sum of money-Dr Norenzayan set it at 
>> $10-and are asked if they would like to share it with another player. The 
>> dictator game thus differs from another familiar economic game in which one 
>> person divides the money and the other decides whether to accept or reject 
>> that division.
>> As might be expected, in the simple version of the dictator game most people
>>
>> take most or all of the money. However, Dr Norenzayan and his graduate 
>> student Azim Shariff tried to tweak the game by introducing the idea of God.
>>
>> They did this by priming half of their volunteers to think about religion by
>>
>> getting them to unscramble sentences containing religious words such as God,
>>
>> spirit, divine, sacred and prophet. Those thus primed left an average of 
>> $4.22, while the unprimed left $1.84.
>> Exactly what Dr Norenzayan has discovered here is not clear. A follow-up 
>> experiment which primed people with secular words that might, nevertheless, 
>> have prompted them to behave in an altruistic manner (civic, jury, court, 
>> police and contract) had similar effects, so it may be that he has touched 
>> on a general question of morality, rather than a specific one of religion. 
>> However, an experiment carried out by Jesse Bering, of Queen's University in
>>
>> Belfast, showed quite specifically that the perceived presence of a 
>> supernatural being can affect a person's behaviour-although in this case the
>>
>> being was not God, but the ghost of a dead person.
>> Dr Bering, too, likes the hypothesis that religion promotes fitness by 
>> promoting collaboration within groups. One way that might work would be to 
>> rely not just on other individuals to detect cheats by noticing things like 
>> slacking on the prayers or eating during fasts, but for cheats to detect and
>>
>> police themselves as well. In that case a sense of being watched by a 
>> supernatural being might be useful. Dr Bering thus proposes that belief in 
>> such beings would prevent what he called "dangerous risk miscalculations" 
>> that would lead to social deviance and reduced fitness.
>> One of the experiments he did to test this idea was to subject a bunch of 
>> undergraduates to a quiz. His volunteers were told that the best performer 
>> among them would receive a $50 prize. They were also told that the computer 
>> program that presented the questions had a bug in it, which sometimes caused
>>
>> the answer to appear on the screen before the question. The volunteers were 
>> therefore instructed to hit the space bar immediately if the word "Answer" 
>> appeared on the screen. That would remove the answer and ensure the test 
>> results were fair.
>> The volunteers were then divided into three groups. Two began by reading a 
>> note dedicating the test to a recently deceased graduate student. One did 
>> not see the note. Of the two groups shown the note, one was told by the 
>> experimenter that the student's ghost had sometimes been seen in the room. 
>> The other group was not given this suggestion.
>> The so-called glitch occurred five times for each student. Dr Bering 
>> measured the amount of time it took to press the space bar on each occasion.
>>
>> He discarded the first result as likely to be unreliable and then averaged 
>> the other four. He found that those who had been told the ghost story were 
>> much quicker to press the space bar than those who had not. They did so in 
>> an average of 4.3 seconds. That compared with 6.3 seconds for those who had 
>> only read the note about the student's death and 7.2 for those who had not 
>> heard any of the story concerning the dead student. In short, awareness of a
>>
>> ghost-a supernatural agent-made people less likely to cheat.
>> Who is my neighbour?
>> It all sounds very Darwinian. But there is a catch. The American communes, 
>> the kibbutzim, the students of the University of British Columbia and even 
>> the supernatural self-censorship observed by Dr Bering all seem to involve 
>> behaviour that promotes the group over the individual. That is the opposite 
>> of Darwinism as conventionally understood. But it might be explained by an 
>> idea that most Darwinians dropped in the 1960s-group selection.
>> The idea that evolution can work by the differential survival of entire 
>> groups of organisms, rather than just of individuals, was rejected because 
>> it is mathematically implausible. But it has been revived recently, in 
>> particular by David Sloan Wilson of Binghamton University, in New York, as a
>>
>> way of explaining the evolution of human morality in the context of 
>> inter-tribal warfare. Such warfare can be so murderous that groups whose 
>> members fail to collaborate in an individually self-sacrificial way may be 
>> wiped out entirely. This negates the benefits of selfish behaviour within a 
>> group. Morality and religion are often closely connected, of course (as Dr 
>> Norenzayan's work confirms), so what holds for the one might be expected to 
>> hold for the other, too.
>> Dr Wilson himself has studied the relationship between social insecurity and
>>
>> religious fervour, and discovered that, regardless of the religion in 
>> question, it is the least secure societies that tend to be most 
>> fundamentalist. That would make sense if adherence to the rules is a 
>> condition for the security which comes from membership of a group. He is 
>> also interested in what some religions hold out as the ultimate reward for 
>> good behaviour-life after death. That can promote any amount of 
>> self-sacrifice in a believer, up to and including suicidal behaviour-as 
>> recent events in the Islamic world have emphasised. However, belief in an 
>> afterlife is not equally well developed in all religions, and he suspects 
>> the differences may be illuminating.
>> That does not mean there are no explanations for religion that are based on 
>> individual selection. For example, Jason Slone, a professor of religious 
>> studies at Webster University in St Louis, argues that people who are 
>> religious will be seen as more likely to be faithful and to help in 
>> parenting than those who are not. That makes them desirable as mates. He 
>> plans to conduct experiments designed to find out whether this is so. And, 
>> slightly tongue in cheek, Dr Wilson quips that "secularism is very 
>> maladaptive biologically. We're the ones who at best are having only two 
>> kids. Religious people are the ones who aren't smoking and drinking, and are
>>
>> living longer and having the health benefits."
>> That quip, though, makes an intriguing point. Evolutionary biologists tend 
>> to be atheists, and most would be surprised if the scientific investigation 
>> of religion did not end up supporting their point of view. But if a 
>> propensity to religious behaviour really is an evolved trait, then they have
>>
>> talked themselves into a position where they cannot benefit from it, much as
>>
>> a sceptic cannot benefit from the placebo effect of homeopathy. Maybe, 
>> therefore, it is God who will have the last laugh after all-whether He 
>> actually exists or not.
>>
>>
>>     

>> Ray: When the believers quit makeing up "science" ie "intelegant design", then may be the free thinkers can quit
inventing meaningless studies like this?

Ned

----------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn