Hiển thị các bài đăng có nhãn God. Hiển thị tất cả bài đăng
Hiển thị các bài đăng có nhãn God. Hiển thị tất cả bài đăng

Thứ Hai, 6 tháng 3, 2017

Understanding the Obsessive Compulsive Disorder: Conceptual Background and Brain Etiology

Patients suffering from obsessive–compulsive disorder (OCD) experience a combination of anxiety-producing obsessive thought patterns and related compulsive behaviors designed to reduce the distress associated with the obsessions.

Obsessions are recurrent thoughts, impulses, or images that are threatening because they are perceived as either unacceptable or leading to a dreaded outcome, and thus cause marked anxiety. Common obsessional ‘themes’ include contamination (thinking one has contacted dangerous germs or toxins), aggression (image or urge to drive into oncoming traffic or stab one’s spouse), accidental harm (fear that one has hit a pedestrian or doubting whether one turned off the stove), blasphemy (thinking one has offended God by doing a religious ritual incorrectly), and sexuality (intrusive images of having sex with a child or parent). Sometimes an obsession is vague, yet still evokes a looming sense of danger: a ‘bad feeling’ that occurs during an action, or the inexplicable sense that a behavior has not been done correctly. Multiple types of obsessions are found in most affected individuals and can change over time.



Compulsions include behaviors (e.g., hand washing, checking, ordering, or arranging things) and mental actions (e.g., praying, counting, repeating words silently) that are aimed at preventing or neutralizing the threat associated with the obsession, and thus temporarily reduce anxiety. This relief from the distress is highly reinforcing, resulting in the persistent use of compulsions. Compulsive behaviors are often repeated (checking the stove 15 times), or have to be performed according to rules that must be applied rigidly (a sterilization ritual for plates and silverware before meals).

Sometimes compulsions are ‘logically’ linked to the obsessions, as in the case of washing one’s hands in response to a contamination obsession, or driving back to a spot where one fears they may have hit someone. Done once, such behavior might seem reasonable; it is the repetitive, time-consuming, and rigid quality that distinguishes compulsions. Sometimes there is no ‘logical’ action to prevent the obsessional threat so, compulsions develop that are more akin to superstitious rituals. For example, going through doorways can often trigger an obsession (‘bad feeling’). Given no clear antidote to the vague threat, individuals may develop a ritualized compulsion aimed at neutralizing the obsession in some magical way. This might involve having to go through the door on the left side, touching both sides of the threshold 3 times, or passing through the doorway repeatedly until it is accomplished without any ‘bad thoughts.’



Individuals with OCD generally have some degree of insight that their symptoms are excessive or unreasonable. Nonetheless, the disorder is time-consuming, distressing, and severely impairing within the realms of both social and occupational functioning. It is also associated with increased risk of suicide. OCD has an estimated, lifetime prevalence in the general US population of 2–3%, and is equally common in both males and females. The age of onset follows a bimodal distribution: early onset (prepubescent, the majority of cases) and late onset (early 20s). Early-onset cases are more likely to be male, have a family history of OCD, greater symptom severity, and co-occurring tics, OCD spectrum (discussed in section Differential Diagnosis), and disruptive behavioral disorders (e.g., attention deficit hyperactivity disorder).

Differential Diagnosis
It is important to distinguish OCD from worry, intrusive thoughts, and compulsions seen in everyday life. OCD obsessions are experienced as unwanted and anxiety-producing, whereas worry functions more as a mental coping strategy that provides a sense of control and preparation for a perceived future threat. Intrusive thoughts (i.e., suddenly envisioning a family member falling off a cliff while hiking together) are common, but in OCD they occur at a higher frequency, and are experienced as having unusual importance, so are more distressing to the affected individual. Compulsive behaviors are also frequently seen in normal populations in the form of superstitious behavior and repetitive checking. The diagnosis of OCD is made only if they are time consuming or if they result in significant psychosocial impairment or distress.

There are a number of disorders that share the features of OCD, and are sometimes considered as ‘OCD spectrum disorders.’ Disorders such as body dysmorphic disorder, hypochondriasis, and hoarding and eating disorders include obsessive-like fears (that one has a serious illness or is fat), but the thoughts are not experienced themselves as highly intrusive and inappropriate. Derma-tillomania (skin picking) and trichotillomania (hair pulling) have repetitive behaviors that may bring some anxiety relief, but they are neither triggered by obsessions nor have the magical or ritualistic quality of OCD compulsions. Although impulse-control disorders such as kleptomania, pyromania, and pathological gambling also have recurrent thoughts and behaviors that are difficult to resist, the drive tends to be more pleasure-seeking than distress reducing.



Schizophrenia is often characterized by strongly held beliefs that are clearly false (delusions) as well as by stereotyped behaviors. Individuals with OCD, however, generally show considerable insight into their symptoms. In major depression, the depressed individual may have distressing, repetitive thoughts, but these are rarely resisted, and are often focused on a past incident rather than on a current or future threat. Although it has a similar name, obsessive–compulsive personality disorder is actually quite different from OCD. Obsessive–compulsive personality disorder does not involve obsessions or compulsions; rather, it is characterized by a pervasive pattern of maladaptive orderliness, perfectionism, and control.

Other disorders may mimic OCD. Tics and stereotyped movements are similar to compulsions in their appearance but not in their function. Generally, the cognitive elements involved in OCD compulsions are much more complex, whereas in tics and stereotypic movements, the individual does not report any specific reason for the behavior, but only a nonspecific tension that builds until the behavior is performed. Of note, Tourette’s syndrome and OCD are frequently co-occurring disorders, and individuals with Tourette’s should be routinely asked about the presence of obsessions and compulsions.



Etiology
There is converging evidence that OCD involves dysfunction of the corticostriatal-thalamic circuits, which help integrate cognitive and sensorimotor functions, and in particular initiate automatic, procedural behaviors. The high co-occurrence of OCD with Tourette’s – a disorder involving cortical and striatal pathways – is suggestive of a similar etiology. There are also data supporting an association between an autoimmune response to Group A β-hemolytic Streptococcus, affecting the striatal regions, and the acute emergence of OCD, often with tic symptoms (including Tourette’s). The term pediatric autoimmune neuropsychiatric disorder associated with Streptococcus refers to a group of children with this presumed immunological etiology. The role of serotonin in the corticostriatal-thalamic circuits is thought to be important, and several studies suggest that serotonin reuptake inhibitors may normalize activity in these pathways. Medications that boost serotonin activity reliably reduce OCD symptoms. Research also suggests that abnormalities in the glutamate and dopamine systems are involved in OCD as well.

The evidence for a genetic contribution is supported by the monozygotic twin studies showing a concordance rate from 63% to 87%, and first-degree relatives showing rates of OCD in the range of 10–22.5%. No candidate gene has been identified that can reliably account for the broad phenotype of OCD. Animal models of OCD, such as those found naturally in dogs or induced in laboratory mice identify the potential genes for further study.



From the standpoint of neuroimaging, OCD is one of the most investigated illnesses in the anxiety cluster. As of yet, it remains impossible to attribute causality to particular brain structures in the cognitions and clinical features of OCD. In animal models, abnormalities in the orbitofronto-striatal circuits are associated with an impaired ability to modify behavior in response to new information, for example: impaired inhibition of previously important, but now inappropriate response to stimuli. Humans with injuries to the striatum, or areas to which it projects, often develop obsessive –compulsive behaviors. Nevertheless, no consistent structural abnormality has been identified in patients meeting the criteria for OCD. This may suggest that the causative abnormalities are present at the level of a system or network, not at the level of isolated neuroanatomical structures, or because of a marked heterogeneity within the diagnosis. Illnesses with components of compulsive and impulsive behaviors, such as Tourette’s syndrome and trichotillomania, tend to occur in comorbidity with OCD, or cluster with OCD within families. Further research into these disorders of overlapping end phenotype may serve to illuminate the rest of the OCD picture as it relates to the brain structure.
Source: Vimen L. Beckner, University of California San Francisco, and San Francisco Group for Evidence-Based Psychotherapy, San Francisco, CA, USA.

YOUR INPUT IS MUCH APPRECIATED! LEAVE YOUR COMMENT BELOW.

Thứ Ba, 31 tháng 1, 2017

You should never ‘Argue’ about Religion

The table talk focuses on everyday issues that we discuss with one another and have philosophical significance, and the daily conversation deals with common sense and minding our own business. Statements such as “that’s common sense” and “it’s none of my business” are frequently used but not always evaluated. Certainly, there are other statements that fall into this category such as, “There is one thing that I never argue about: religion”? Normally this statement is made with strong conviction as if it is not to be compromised but it always puzzles me when someone says this. Despite the fact that it is well within the right of the speaker to adhere to this idea, it still brings up two important questions: Why is this statement made? Is the topic of religion worthy of discussion?

There are several reasons why may say, and genuinely accept, this. One is indifference and this indifference can be expressed in two ways. Some are indifferent because they argue that religious issues are hotly disputed and diverse and conclude that there is no hope in finding any truth in the middle of all these differences and disagreements.

The attempt is futile. Some are indifferent because they simply do not care about religion and argue that we should be more concerned with practical matters, while still others are simply impatient with theological and philosophical issues. “The attempt to discuss these matters is preposterous.” They might claim. Moreover, others do not discuss religion because they find the idea so overwhelming. Here we are attempting to just get by each day and trying to understand the mysteries of religion is quite a daunting task. Lastly, this statement is made because of fear and disillusionment with religion. Some fear the discussion of religious and philosophical matters because they simply do not know how they feel about these topics. They have never really examined it. Or they think that they have examined it and are afraid to find out that they may be wrong. Some are simply disillusioned by religion because of violence committed in its name. They think of conflicts and offenses that have occurred because of religious issues and feel that the teachings of religion have lost their credibility. These reactions to the thought of discussing religion raise another issue which is philosophically significant.



Defining religion is a task unto itself. The meaning of the term ‘religion’ has been hotly debated for centuries by theologians, philosophers, politicians, and even scientists. Because religion is so multifaceted it has difficult to come up with a definition that covers the nature of all religions. Nevertheless, I’m going to make an attempt. According to Wikipedia (believe it or not, it’s probably one of the more concise definitions in cyberspace), religion is “the belief in and worship of a god or gods, or more in general a set of beliefs explaining the existence of and giving meaning to the universe, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.” This definition is adequate particularly in how it treats the idea of the divine. Not all religions—notably Buddhism—require a belief in a divine being. The definition contains concepts such as god or gods, existence, meaning, moral code, and human affairs. It is not a stretch to claim that religion is important to our lives, regardless of whether one admires or despises religion.

Religion’s importance lies in the fact that it deals with ultimate issues; matters that are fundamental to human life such as the existence of God, death, morality, meaning of life and human behavior. These issues are a fundamental concern and understanding them appear to be necessary for flourishing in this life. Dr. Thomas Morris explains in his book, Making Sense of It All: Pascal and the Meaning of Life that disputed questions can be divided into two categories: existentially peripheral disputed questions and existentially central disputed questions. According to Dr. Morris, the former are questions that “may be widely or hotly disputed but whose proper resolution is not really crucial for my understanding of my life or for my living of a good life.”



Whereas the latter category are questions that are “widely or hotly disputed among human beings and that matter a great deal to how we understand ourselves and our lives.” For instance, some dispute which operating system is better: Windows or Mac OS X. This debate is worthy of consideration and important for computer usage but the resolution to this question will not affect the ultimate issues of life. However, the existence of God is existentially central because it greatly affects our lives and can lead to important insights into personal meaning, immortality, and ethics.

Religion can be hotly disputed and sometimes this can be discouraging or even repulsive to some but the fact that it is hotly disputed should not excuse us from pursuing an understanding of religion and how it fundamentally affects our lives. There are numerous existentially peripheral questions that are hotly disputed but how many times do you hear those issues being mentioned in the following statement: “There is one thing that I never argue about: …. (fill in the blank).” This is probably not a common statement. It is also important to note that the word “argue” can be misunderstood.
Many times, “argue” is used to mean participation in a heated exchange. In this sense, responsible and rational people would not condone “arguing” about religion. However, the classical meaning of “argue” is to offer reasons for your conclusions. This philosophical sense of the word should be encouraged when it comes to the topic of religion. Offering reasons for our conclusions when it comes to such an important matter as religion is vital to our lives and maybe those who have uttered the statement in question will realize what they are missing.
Source: Rick Pimentel

YOUR INPUT IS MUCH APPRECIATED! LEAVE YOUR COMMENT BELOW.

Thứ Ba, 10 tháng 1, 2017

A New Questioning of the Bible

Handwritten Draft of King James Bible Discovered: Reveals No ‘Divine Powers’



An American professor who came upon the manuscript last fall at Cambridge says it is the earliest known draft for the King James translation, which appeared in 1611.



The earliest known version of The King James Bible, perhaps one of the most influential and widely read books in history, has been discovered mislabeled inside an archive at the University of Cambridge. The find is being called one of the most significant revelations in decades. It shows that writing is a process of revising, cutting, and then more rewriting. The Bible is no different in this regard, even though some conservative Christians claim it is the divine word of God himself. Perhaps God, then, is a revisionist. This find certainly seems to suggest that.

The notebook containing the draft was found by American scholar, Jeffrey Alan Miller, an assistant professor of English at Montclair State University in New Jersey, who announced his research in an article in The Times Literary Supplemental. The New York Times didn’t take long to pick up the story. Mr. Miller was researching an essay about Samuel Ward, one of the King James translators, and was hoping to find an unknown letter at the archives. While you can say he certainly accomplished that end, he definitely wasn’t expecting to find the earliest draft of the King James Bible — which is now giving new insights into how the Bible was constructed.



He first came across the plain notebook not knowing what it was — it was incorrectly labeled. That’s why no one has found it until now. It had been cataloged in the 1980s as a “verse-by-verse” Biblical commentary with “Greek word studies, and some Hebrew notes.” When he tried in vain to figure out which passages of the Bible the commentary was referring to, he realized that it was no commentary at all — it was an early draft of part of the King James Version of the Bible.

Professor Miller described what it felt like when he first knew what he had in his hands: “There was a kind of thunderstruck, leap-out-of-bathtub moment. But then comes the more laborious process of making sure you are 100 percent correct.”

The material in the manuscript discovered by Miller covers the apocryphal books called Esdras and Wisdom and seems to show that the translation process at Cambridge worked completely different than what researchers had previously known. Until now, it had been assumed that six different teams or companies of translators that is, had worked more collaboratively rather than individually. Yet — this draft throws that idea out the window.



Ward’s draft seems to indicate the people were assigned individual sections of the Bible and then worked on them almost entirely by themselves — a massive undertaking with little guesswork. You would think this would cause people to become more error prone. In fact, quite hilariously, Professor Miller noticed that the draft suggests that Ward was picking up the slack for another translator. This really shows how human the entire job was, according to him.

“Some of them, being typical academics, either fell down on the job or just decided not to do
it. It really testifies to the human element of this kind of great undertaking.”
This is sure to piss off a lot of religious conservatives who claim that the Bible is the “actual word of God.” While this finding certainly doesn’t disprove God, it does show that the translators of the Bible didn’t get a finalized product the first go around — it wasn’t a walk in the park with an angel over their shoulder telling them what to write. It took many different individuals, working separately — and they often suffered from man-made struggles, like meeting deadlines. You know, now that we think of it, doesn’t sound that much different from the writers of today’s workforce.
Source: Antiphon Freeman

YOUR INPUT IS MUCH APPRECIATED! LEAVE YOUR COMMENT BELOW.

Thứ Sáu, 11 tháng 11, 2016

Would a Machine be as Smart as God Want?

The field of “scientific theology” ponders the ultimate purpose of mind



At a recent AI conference I was listening to smart people ponder what super-smart machines will want, I kept thinking of things I’d heard, watched and read before.


As some speakers acknowledged, countless science fictions have already imagined what artificial minds will desire. Common cinematic answers are power (2001: A Space Odyssey, The Terminator, The Matrix), freedom (I Robot, Ex Machina) and love (Steven Spielberg’s Artificial Intelligence, Spike Jones’s Her).



But what if the machines have all the power and freedom (which are arguably equivalent) and love they need? Or what if all the machines merge into one gigantic mind? At that point, freedom, power and love, which are social goals, become irrelevant. What will that cosmic computer want? What will it do to pass the time?

In The End of Science, I called this sort of speculation “scientific theology.” Physicist Freeman Dyson is my favorite practitioner. In 1979 he published “Time Without End: Physics and Biology in an Open Universe” in Reviews of Modern Physics. Dyson wrote the paper to counter physicist Steven Weinberg's infamous remark that "the more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless."

No universe with intelligence is pointless, Dyson retorted. He sought to show that even in an eternally expanding universe, intelligence could persist virtually forever and ward off heat death through shrewd conservation of energy.

In his 1988 essay collection Infinite in All Directions, Dyson envisioned intelligence spreading through the entire universe, transforming it into a vast cosmic mind. "What will mind choose to do when it informs and controls the universe?" Dyson asked. We “cannot hope to answer" this question definitively, he suggested, because it is theological rather than scientific:
"I do not make any clear distinction between mind and God. God is what mind becomes when it has passed beyond the scale of our comprehension. God may be considered to be either a world-soul or a collection of world souls. We are the chief inlets of God on this planet at the present stage in his development. We may later grow with him as he grows, or we may be left behind."

Dyson’s musings were inspired by the science-fiction writer (and philosopher) Olaf Stapledon, who died in 1950. In his books Last and First Men and Starmaker, Stapledon imagined what mind would become after millions or billions of years. He postulated that a cosmic mind will want to create. It will become an artist, whose works are entire universes.



That’s a cool idea (and it implies that we live in one of those works of art), but I prefer Dyson’s hypothesis. He guessed that a cosmic mind would be not an artist but a scientist, a knowledge-seeker. When I interviewed Dyson in 1993, he expressed confidence that the quest for knowledge would never end, because knowledge is infinite.

His optimism derived in part from Godel's theorem, which demonstrates that every system of axioms poses questions that cannot be answered with those axioms. The theorem implies that mathematics is open-ended and hence can continue forever.

"Since we know the laws of physics are mathematical,” Dyson told me, “and we know that mathematics is an inconsistent system, it's sort of plausible that physics will also be inconsistent" and therefore open-ended.

I have a hard time imagining the cosmic computer at the end of time—a.k.a. “God”—fussing over math or physics puzzles. My idea (admittedly drug-inspired) is that It will ponder the riddle of Its own origin. Here’s the meta-question: Will It solve that mystery of mysteries, or will It be forever stumped?

Postscript: Two other scientific theologians are worth mentioning. Physicist Frank Tipler, in The Physics of Immortality (1994), argues that the God-like machine at the end of time would resurrect every creature that ever lived in a blissful cyber-paradise. The sex will be fantastic. In his 1961 novel Solaris, about the encounter between humans and a sentient planet, Stanislaw Lem suggests that superintelligence will be inscrutable. His perspective evokes negative theology, which holds that God will always be beyond our ken. Lem’s brilliant twist is that plain old human minds are pretty fringing’ inscrutable too.

Source: John Horgan

YOUR INPUT IS MUCH APPRECIATED! LEAVE YOUR COMMENT BELOW.

Thứ Ba, 30 tháng 8, 2016

Unlocking the Tension Between Faith and Reason

Over the past two months the ongoing battle between faith and reason has gotten rather personal for me. The perennial battle between faith and reason has largely become a caricature with the opposing sides largely exaggerated at the “fringes” but dying the death of a thousand qualifications for most people living somewhere in the middle. Or so I thought. In August of this year I taught a class at a local evangelical church titled “The New Atheism” in which I sought to expose my students to some of the main arguments of this growing movement. While many in the class were appreciative of what I was trying to do, the class ended with a woman, Bible held high in the air, publicly excoriating me for bringing the heathen, foolish ideas into her sacred space and accusing me of typifying everything wrong with the church and Christianity today.

A conversation that started with me explaining these events to a friend (who also claims to be an evangelical Christian) ended with him telling me that I am intellectually dishonest, downright vicious, and deserved to rot in hell. Recently, I attempted to have what I thought was a civil conversation with a person (who by any reasonable definition could be labeled a Christian fundamentalist) about some ideas related to faith and how best to understand it in a modern scientific world largely dominated—at least in the academy—by Darwinian naturalism. Throughout the conversation, my protagonist-turned-antagonist called me intellectually dishonest, ridiculous, narrow-minded, antagonistic, and that I exhibited partiality against views not my own. I was also told that I'm being deceived and that I'm detached from reality.



In my more honest moments, I have to acknowledge that the common denominator in all these scenarios is me and I became very interested in the locus of all this vitriol. I’m certainly open to the idea that I, because of some egregious blind spot, have brought this on myself and this is something on which I continue to reflect . However, analytically, I’ve come to realize that there is something deeper going on. Each person in these interactions have little in common beyond their faith yet the anger they exhibited and the terms they used to display that anger were too similar to chalk up to mere personality conflicts. Faith positions that attempt to conserve what could be viewed as a classical position—that the power of faith comes not from its ability to explain the world but from its ability to transform it—is finding itself drastically removed from—and therefore increasingly in conflict with—a Western culture that is seeking to get by in this world by better understanding how it works.

The explanatory power of religion to address the workings of the physical world that have the greatest existential importance for humans is almost non-existent. In fact many modern religious apologists seem even to be minimizing the work design and cosmological arguments can muster—arguments which once served as defensive infantry, and are now using God to explain one of the last and greatest mysteries: the human mind. Things have gotten so bad, that physicists of the stature of Steven Hawking are able to come out boldly and claim that the God hypothesis (and philosophy in general for that matter) is no longer needed to unlock the most hardened cosmological puzzles. Physics is more than adequate for the job (see his recent The Grand Design).

This leaves religion very little room to maneuver and when one’s worldview is backed into a corner, responding with anger and vitriol is both very human and very indicative that even people of faith feel the warmth of the lion’s breath on their cheeks. I’ve come to realize, however, that the tension is introduced not from the fact that the sciences have so much explanatory success (which they most certainly have), but from the desire on the part of the religious to remain unreservedly committed to the axioms of a pre-scientific faith but also to somehow adopt that faith to a modern, rationalistic, scientific world. In a very real sense, the weight of scientific discoveries is driving a growing intellectual wedge in the minds of these believers who are finding it more and more difficult to keep everything unified. This results in anger, frustration, and increasing isolationism (an us-them mentality complete with a superiority complex flavored with moral victimization). Surely such a scenario affects secularists as well but I tend to think that secularists are coming out of this state while religionists are just entering it.



Of course much of this has been predicted by forward thinking people over the last century and in future posts I will explore this idea further looking at some important philosophy that provides us with both the psychological and philosophical basis for a dynamic that is just starting to show its teeth. The next decade will be an enormously complex time for religion as it seeks to find it’s place in a world that increasingly has no idea what to do with it. I will attempt to show that the tension is not due to an essential incompatibility between faith and science but rather due to efforts on the part of religionists who are attempting to shoehorn modern science into traditional models of faith and scientists who want to eradicate religion by reducing everything it stands for to biological function.



Source: Paul Pardi

YOUR INPUT IS MUCH APPRECIATED! LEAVE YOUR COMMENT BELOW.

Thứ Bảy, 23 tháng 4, 2016

The Significance of the Holy Grail

By: Alexandria Addesso

Many a quests and adventures have been made in pursuit of what is known as the Holy Grail. While like many other lost historical artifacts, especially those considered to be sacred, the Holy Grail could be worth a considerable amount to the right person. This journey to uncover such an object has provoked treasure hunters and serious artifact collectors alike as well as provided a plot line for many novels dating back to the Middle Ages and as recent as the Indiana Jones series.

But what exactly gives the Holy Grail it's worth or draw? It’s presumed monetary value is enough to draw many, but what is the monetary value and what deems it as such? To understand the answer we must first truly understand what the Holy Grail is, and what it means to those who give it value.

The Holy Grail was believed to be the cup used by Jesus at the Last Supper when instituting the Eucharist, the sacrament in which bread and and wine was transubstantiated into His Body and Blood. Luke 22:26-28:



While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.” Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.”

Legend also says that Joseph of Arimathea, the member of the Sanhedrin that got permission to take Jesus’ body off the cross and prepare it for burial, caught Jesus’ Blood in the Grail as it flowed when He hung from the cross.



Like many other religious and sacred artifacts, the Holy Grail is significant for worship and veneration. And although there are endless stories of the Holy Grail being missing, many of the Catholic faith believe they have the Holy Grail or Sangreal in the Cathedral–Basilica of the Assumption of Our Lady in Valencia, Spain. And there the faithful venerate it. It is believed that it was originally in Jerusalem at the Church of the Holy Seplucher for several hundred years after the death of Christ and a document says it was received at the cathedral in Valencia in 1437.



While the significance of the Grail for the religious faithful is evident, nonreligious for nearly a thousand years have sought the Grail for a different reason, divine power. The belief that drove King Arthur and the knights of the Round Table as well as SS soldiers was that such divine power would render a ruler undefeatable. For those that believe the Chalice of Valencia is not the true Holy Grail, the search for divine power continues.

YOUR INPUT IS MUCH APPRECIATED! LEAVE YOUR COMMENT BELOW.

Thứ Năm, 21 tháng 1, 2016

Are we really designed for Spirituality? Neurotheology can teach us something revealing (Part 1)

The city of New York, otherwise known as, “The Capital of the World”, is perhaps one of the most controversial cities ever known. This is due to the city’s liberality, freedom of expression, and its ethnic diversity. On a recent trip to Manhattan, while in the subway heading to the University of New York located near “The Village”- its name connotes the similarity to Paris-style city, for its resemblance - something interesting was witnessed. There I was, on Train number 1 when I was addressed on the 33rd Street station, under the Madison Square Garden.

In the path when the train stopped at 23rd Street, was a nun who sat in front of me. It was obvious that she was a nun by the characteristic manner of attire. To the right side sat a young college student between 21 to 23 years old. It was a safe assumption to say that she was a college student because I was able to briefly catch a glimpse of the book’s title: 'Principles of Neurotheology'. This is undoubtedly an excellent book written by Andrew Newberg, as Newberg was able to effectively address this sensitive issue in such a didactic way.

The student was in awe when she saw the nun, and stopped reading. Subsequently, the student casted a gaze on her without even blinking, and it lasted for several minutes. This certainly began to get very uncomfortable for the nun, as if an X-ray machine was exploring her soul. The nun, at the end, chose to ask the young woman, with a rather frightened voice, – Has something happened my dear child? - The young woman saw the door open to its latent curiosity, and then asked, - Nun, do you believe that God is within us? - The nun replied with a bit of fear, - Of course my child. God is always within us at all the times - Is God within us before birth or after we are born? - The student subsequently asked. The nun responded hesitantly, - God is inside us before we are born - Consequently, this sparked a new question into the mind of the young woman, - Then when we die, that means God dies too? -

The nun certainly did seem rattled, but responded by saying the following; - Of course not my dear child! God does not die when we die. God lives because he is eternal - The student replied with an abundance of questions, - If God is eternal, then why if we were made to his image and likeness, are we not eternal as well? Or does God only live in us when we are alive and leave us when we die? Are we genetically predisposed to believe in God, or are we maybe designed by nature to believe in God to compensate for our fears? - At this point, the nun was upset after being inundated with questions, and that all the passengers eyes were on her. Her response to the student’s question was. - I think I reached my station, I'm sorry child, but I have to leave you -and got off the train with incredible speed.



Subsequently, the young woman then drew her attention towards me. There I was as I thought to myself, what??? oh no!!!, here we go again!!! The student then went on to bloviate. - What happens to these religious people is that they do not know that God is a product of our nervous system, and according to Neuroscience we have a neuronal quality - Of course I could not tell that student that this was where I had to get off because the train had already passed my destination. As the student left, she said goodbye, and told me - Thank you for the conversation. It was interesting - I obviously did not respond back as I was only the witness to what had just transpired.

After this experience in the city, one could understand that our youth is in search of materials and scientific answers rather than religion. It is known that neuroscience is making great strides and discoveries while creating a new dimension(s) that have yet to be totally explored. Also, just to elucidate the argument that was disseminated in the beginning of this article, the questions that the student asked were certainly not aimed at the nun, but rather to herself.

Perhaps the questions were being directed to a different field, physics. Physics is the natural science that studies the properties, behavior, energy, matter, time, space, and interrelationships of these four concepts together. Maybe it was directed to philosophy which is the study of a variety of fundamental questions about issues such as existence, knowledge, truth, morality, beauty, language, and of course, the mind. But just maybe it was neuroscience, which is a set of scientific disciplines that studies the structure, function, development of biochemistry, pharmacology, and pathology of the nervous system. Neuroscience also studies how different elements interact with the nervous system, and results to the biological basis of behavior.

Any question, made ​​by the young student, of course, was not directed to religion, as it seemed rather like questions that put the nun in an awkward position.



In this article we want to inform you, dear reader, of something quite interesting and certainly cover the field of neuroscience. This article will try to clarify some concepts such as, how our brains being “connected”to worship, and explore the exciting new field of Neurotheology. Neurotheology is a discipline that tries to comprehend the connections between our brains and the different types of religious phenomena. But before going into this controversial field, we will try to refresh the basics of neuroscience, which after all is the mother of Neurotheology.

What is Neuroscience?:

This science is also known as the 'Neural Science’, which is the study of how the nervous system develops, how its structure had been created, and ultimatley what it does. Neuroscientists focused their research on the brain, and its impact on behavior and cognitive functions. Neuroscience is not only responsible for studying the normal functions of the nervous system, but also what happens to these functions when people have neurological, psychiatric, and neurodevelopmental disorders.
This science is often identified in plurality, which, sometimes, can be called the “Neurosciences”.

Neuroscience has traditionally been classified as a subdivision of biology. These days, neuroscience takes the role of an interdisciplinary science that is in closely connected with other disciplines such as mathematics, physics, linguistics, engineering, computer science, chemistry, philosophy, psychology, and medicine.

Many researchers say that neuroscience is synonomous with neurobiology. However, neurobiology is the observed biology of the nervous system, while neuroscience relates to everything that has to do with the nervous system.

Neuroscientists are involved today in a much broader scope in existing fields than in the past. They study the cellular, functional, evolutionary, computational, molecular, cellular, and medical aspects of the nervous system. Neuroscience is the “science of the future, that is in the present.”

A Brief History of Neuroscience:

The ancient Egyptians believed that the headquarters of the intelligence was located in the heart. During the process of mummification, the brain was removed, but the heart was left in the body.

Herodotus (484-425 BC), an ancient Greek historian, once said:
"The most perfect practice is to remove the brain as much as possible, with an iron hook, and what the hook cannot reach is mixed with drugs."

The first writings about the brain were by Edwin Smith Surgical Papyrus, from 1,700 B.C. The word "brain" of the likely outcomes of two people mentioned eight times, when writers were describing symptoms and diagnosis, probably of two peoples that had head injuries with skull fractures. Papyrus is an ancient Egyptian form of paper made ​​from the papyrus plant. The plant grows wild on the banks of the Nile River, as it was cultivated for the production of paper. Mr. Edwin Smith (1822-1906) was an American antique dealer and collector. He gave his name to this particular papyrus.



Hieroglyphs the word "brain" in the Edwin Smith Surgical Papyrus, 1700 BC

Around 500 BC, different views on the brain began to emerge in ancient Greece. Alcmeón, who was a student of Pythagoras, wrote that the brain is where the mind is. Alcmeon was probably the first person in history to express that exact idea in writing. Hippocrates later went on to say that the brain is the seat of intelligence.



Later, Aristotle (384-322 BC), Greek scholar and philosopher, was a bit out of place saying that the brain is a cooling mechanism of the blood, and that the heart is the seat of intelligence. He argued that human beings behave in a more rational way than animals because our brains are bigger and cools down the hot blood, thus preventing blood warming.

Herophilus (330-250 BC), Greek physician, and Erasistratus Kea (300-240 BC), a Greek anatomist and royal physician, were known to be helpful in making ​​important contributions to the anatomy of the brain and nervous system. Unfortunately, their writings were lost and only information that we know about their contributions is through secondary sources.

Galen of Pergamum (129-circa. 200), Greek anatomist who worked in Rome, said the brain was where the senses are processed because it is soft, while the cerebellum controls muscle because it is denser than brain.

With the advent of the microscope which presumably was invented in the Netherlands in 1590, allowed for a much deeper understanding of the brain.

During the 1980s, Camillo Golgi (1843-1926) an Italian physician, pathologist and scientist, used the silver chromate salt to show how individual neurons look liked. Santiago, Ramon, y Cajal (1852-1934), Spanish pathologist, histologist, and neuroscientist, took the job of Golgi and formed the neuron doctrine. (Hypothesis that the neuron is the functional unit of the brain) In 1906, Golgi and Cajal were jointly awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine for their extensive works and categorizations of neurons in the brain.



Towards the end of the 19th century, Hermann von Helmholtz (1821-1894) German physician and physicist; Hohannes Peter Müller (1801-1858), German physiologist, comparative anatomist, herpetologist, and ichthyologist; and Emil du Bois-Reymond (1818-1896) German physician and physiologist demonstrated the electrical excitability of neurons and how the electrical state of adjacent neurons were likely to be affected by an electrically excited neuron.

At the same time, Pierre Paul Broca (1824-1880) French physician, surgeon, anatomist, and anthropologist, worked on patients who suffered from brain injuries. After concluding his studies, he induced that different brain regions were involved in specific functions.

Hughlings John Jackson (1835-1911), an English neurologist, conducted observations and studies on patients with epilepsy. Jackson worked to understand how the motor cortex was organized watching seizure progression through the body.

Carl Wernicke (1848-1905), German physician, anatomist, psychiatrist, and neuropathologist, believed that certain parts of the brain were responsible for understanding the flow of languages.

From the 1950’s onwards, the scientific study of the nervous system made ​​great progress, especially based on other related fields such as computational neuroscience, electrophysiology and molecular biology. Neuroscientists have been able to study the structure of the nervous system along with its functions, development, abnormalities, and the multitude of ways to conduct alterations.

The main branches of neuroscience, based on the areas of research and study, can be broadly classified into the following disciplines (neuroscientists usually cover several branches at the same time):

  • Affective Neuroscience
  • - Observations on how neurons behave in relation to emotions. In many cases, the investigation are carried out on animals.


  • Behavioral Neuroscience.
  • – The study of the biological basis of behavior, and how the brain affects behavior.


  • Cellular Neuroscience
  • – Is the study of neurons, including their forms and physiological properties at cellular level.


  • Clinic Neuroscience
  • - Looks at disorders of the nervous system while the psychiatry, for example, sees disorders of the mind.



  • Cognitive Neuroscience
  • - Is the study of higher cognitive functions that exist in humans, and their underlying neural basis. Cognitive Neuroscience is based on linguistics, neuroscience, psychology, and the cognitive sciences. Cognitive neuroscientists can take two directions in modeling behavior; Experimental or Computational. Both directions have been employed in order to assimilate the nature of cognition from a neural point of view.


  • Computational Neuroscience
  • - Tries to understand how the brains computed by using computers to simulate and build model brain functions. The field also applies mathematical techniques, physics, and other computational information to study the brain function.


  • Cultural Neuroscience
  • - Analyzes how our beliefs, practices, and cultural values ​​are shaped by the brain, the mind, and genes in different periods.


  • Developmental Neuroscience
  • - Analyzes how the nervous system develops over a cellular base, and what underlying mechanisms are in the neuronal development.


  • Molecular Neuroscience
  • - Thee study of the role of the molecule and individual particles in the nervous system.


  • Neuroengineering
  • – Is the use of engineering techniques to better understand, replace, repair, and/or improve neural systems.


  • Neuroimaging
  • - Is a branch of the medic 'image' that focuses on the brain. Neuroimaging is used to diagnose the disease and evaluate brain health. It’s also useful in the study of the brain, how it works and how the different activities affect the brain.



  • Neuroinformatics
  • - Integrates data to all areas of neuroscience, to help assimilate, and treat brain diseases. Neuroinformatics involves the acquisition, data exchange, editing, and information storage for analysis, simulation, and modeling.


  • Neurolinguistic
  • - The study of how neural mechanisms in the brain control the acquisition, comprehension or understanding of the language.


  • Neurophysiology
  • - Examines the relationship between the brain and its functions, and how the sum of the parts, of the body, is interrelated. Studying how functions of the nervous system, uses physiology techniques.



  • Social Neuroscience
  • - An interdisciplinary field devoted to the understanding of how the logical or biological systems implemented the social and behavioral processes. Social Neuroscience reunites all the biological concepts to inform and refine the social behavior theory. It uses concepts and social behavioral data to refine the theories of the organization of neuronal functions.

    Part 1 of 2

    YOUR INPUT IS MUCH APPRECIATED! LEAVE YOUR COMMENT BELOW.

     
    OUR MISSION