Talk:Neuroscience of religion

biotheology?
I propose we rename this page from biotheology to neurotheology. A quick google test yeilds 10,700 for neurotheology and 1,210 for biotheology.--Nectarflowed 09:27, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Done. Loremaster 14:46, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I further propose that the page be completely separated from biotheology - biotheology is to do with things like emergence, and mechanisms of creation and the concept of order. Whilst neurotheology is one aspect of biotheology, it is only one of many. Biotheology is quite a new field, and the term is itself only recently emerging. I propose to create a stub article for biotheology, and put a few references to begin with, and the article can be updated as the field develops. Oliver Low 16:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

After a year or so with no objections, I did this. Neurotheology and biotheology have diverged considerably. Oliver Low (talk) 01:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Franco Rol's neurotheology
I removed the section on Franco Rol & the European Society of NeuroTheology (SENT): a google search for the phrase in quotes yielded less than ten results. It is not widespread enough to be included in an encyclopedia article.--Nectarflowed (talk) 06:59, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pseudoscience?
"Some of these uses, according to the mainstream scientific community, qualify as pseudoscience"

Similarly, since atrologers use astronomy in ways that qualify as pseudoscience, we should include astronomy in the pseudoscience category. --Memenen 06:07, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I have recategorized neurotheology as a protoscience rather than a pseudoscience. Loremaster 19:30, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree. This article focuses on the scientific uses for which it is most widely known (e.g. the Newsweek article). --Nectar T 23:01, 8 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I hope I missed irony or context here. When astrologers use astronomy they do Scientific misconduct to make the protoscience astrology look like the science that astonomy is but it is not so they downgrade astology to Junk science. Astronomy is science that originated in astrology. Its problem is the general assumption that the laws of nature are universal and that its objects of study are so far and big that reproduction and verification are more difficult. The physical influence of all planets on the Earth is statistically insignificant. The spiritual influence of planets on Earth is pseudoscience. --Ollj 20:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC) Category_talk:Paranormal --Ollj 20:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

If it walks like a duck, quaks like a duck and if it has "-theology", "religion", "spirituality" and"placebo" written on it it is religion or Spirituality! If it wants to be a science but fails in verification it is also pseudoscience! (definitions and categorisations) --Ollj 20:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Name smacks of Pseudoscience
This field is foolishly named – Neurotheology makes use of the word theology which is Greek for “the study of god” an odd name choice by any account as the people in this field are often using Buddhist subjects for their studies and many branches of Buddhism have no gods at all, and those branches of Buddhism which believe in gods say that they are distractions that are to be avoided, especially when meditating. The alternative name “spiritual neuroscience” shares an additional problem that the name Neurotheology has, which is the presumption of a supernatural. This is bizarre because science can not make any empirical measurements of the supernatural. For instance one can not hold up a tool and measure the surface temperature of a god, or use a gauge to see how far one is along the path to Nirvana. Of course Wikipedia has to use the name the fields practitioners use to title wiki articles, but I would be on the look-out to see if others in this field call themselves something else as both these names smack of pseudo-science. Wowaconia (talk) 22:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

NPOV?
"altered states of consciousness which are the basis for many religious beliefs and behaviors"

Is this a neutral point of view? I'm sure many religions would not see altered states of consciousness as the basis for beliefs and behavious - this could be changed to "seen as the basis"


 * or "seen as contributing to many religious beliefs and behaviors" --Memenen 23:28, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Nonsense
>>If it walks like a duck, quaks like a duck and if it has "-theology", "religion", "spirituality" and"placebo" written on it it is religion or Spirituality! If it wants to be a science but fails in verification it is also pseudoscience! (definitions and categorisations) --Ollj 20:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

This is nonsense. You should take a look at the MRI scan of brains that are doing praying and meditation. Also, placebo effect can be regulated by injections of chemicals. This is science in progress. Please read the science news more regularly. (By your definition, the history of religion will be pseudo-history and the philosophy of theology will be pseudo-philosophy)

NPOV
I've toned down the POV of the introduction, and in particular I've modified language that appears to endorse the theories this article describes. --Shirahadasha 10:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The article in its current state doesn't explain how the research involved addresses the issue of causality as distinct from correlation. If this research addresses causality in an evidence-based way this should be discussed in the article. Quick explanation as to why the difference between correlation and causation is particularly important here: It's quite possible that analogous research of the neurological basis of scientific experince could identify specific neurological phenomena that correlate with subjectively perceived scientific activity. However, any such correlations, even if extensive, would be unlikely to convince most scientists that scientific thought is neurologically based and the source of what scientists subjectively experience as scientific thought lies in neural plumbing rather than the external universe. The reason is simply that correlation is not cause: observing correlations between two phenomena doesn't establish which one causes which, so there's no more basis for believing the neural phenomena causes scientific experience as there is to believe that scientific experience cause the neural phenomena. The article doesn't explain why the researchers involved believe, or show, that their research about religious experience overcomes this hurdle. Best, --Shirahadasha 10:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Books, journals
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.78.116.187 (talk • contribs) 2006-11-21t18:54:33z

-- Jeandré, 2007-01-21t03:57z

Important reference.
Lots of good material here: http://www.sciam.com/print_version.cfm?articleID=434D7C62-E7F2-99DF-37CC9814533B90D7 (Discovered via http://science.slashdot.org/science/07/10/08/0340229.shtml this morning) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveBaker (talk • contribs) 11:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Neuroscience studies
There are some published studies that i think are most relevant here:
 * Transcranial magnetic stimulation of the temporoparietal junction induced out-of-body experiences.
 * Some forms of epilepsy are known to elicit "religious" experiences. Rabend (talk) 07:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Heart and Mind
Many religions focus heavily on the heart, and while they do value the works of the mind/brain, the heart is perhaps just as important as the brain. It would be interesting if related research were to come out on the heart and its role in spirituality, if this research does not already exist. ADM (talk) 10:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The heart pumps blood around the body. You know this, right? Famousdog (talk) 12:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Enough with the I'm-more-intelligent-than-thou contexts
There's non English speakers around here who also use this pedia and they sometimes translate articles to their languages. thank you --Kid 007 (talk) 12:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * While language can be more or less clear and made so by the use of simpler or more complex words and sentence structure, and while we should strive for more clarity, sometimes complex subjects require complex diction. What, in particular, do you find to fall into the "I'm-more-intelligent-than-thou" category?  That someone finds it obscure may indeed indicate that it can be improved. Sterrettc (talk) 19:32, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * If there's anything unclear with this article, I'm more than happy to change it, but I find Kid 007's comments (and attitude) unhelpful. Famousdog (talk) 13:13, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Unhelpful? You calling me unhelpful? I'm doing my best translating to make the people in the ****hole I'm living to stop them from killing each other and to learn an think and you call me unhelpful? thank you, you're so helpful.--Kid 007 (talk) 15:54, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Sterrettc, thank you. I don't remember specifically but I haven't had this problem with any article before nor my english, I'm about to finish translating Tree of life (biology) and it was nothing like that. --Kid 007 (talk) 16:10, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


 * (Exhausted sigh) So, we've established that you are a non-English speaker and you are translating Wikipedia articles into another language... right? And that you are an all-round good chap who wants to help people and stop them killing each other, right? Now... what aspects of the article do you actually have a problem with??? If you don't give us an example of what you think is "more-intelligent-than-thou", then we can't improve the article, can we? Both your choice of words for this talk section (Enough with the I'm-more-intelligent-than-thou contexts) and your initial comment didn't actually communicate anything useful. That's what I meant by "unhelpful". Now please start engaging with the editorial process rather than ranting. Famousdog (talk) 12:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Why don't you take a look at Theoretical work instead of being a smartass?--Kid 007 (talk) 18:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * (Gives up) Fine. The page will stay the way it is while I read extensively and try to guess what your problem is. Famousdog (talk) 09:24, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Theological and philosophical implications
Why does this article not say more on the philosophical and theological implications of this field?Vorbee (talk) 20:02, 24 July 2017 (UTC)