Why Has Religion Come To Dominate The Planet?

 The issue of why it's essentially impossible for an atheist in the U.S. to become a presidential candidate is tied to the nation's  hyper religiosity.    As I noted in my book, Atheism: A Beginner's Handbook,  a 2006 Univ. of Minnesota study ('Atheists Identified as America's Most Distrusted Minority')by Penny Edgell and associates found: "atheists now occupy the lowest rung of social respect for minorities in American society, lower than communists and Muslims."   Adding:

"A significant number of respondents associated atheism with an array of moral misbehavior ....and seemed to rest on a view of atheists as self-interested individuals who are not concerned with the common good."

This in turn  relates to how the religious meme itself has come to dominate nation after nation.  Why then has religious behavior occurred throughout time, in societies at nearly every stage of development and in every region of the world?  Even given religions are seldom concerned with the "common good" and more about how they can gain converts,  advance their own agendas and even leverage political power, e.g.

• The Sad and Sorry Spectacle Of Evangelicals All T...

I suspect there are two possible answers to this question which may or may not be mutually exclusive with one another:

1) Religion is a basic manifestation of a mind virus or meme which has flourished in human brains

2) Religion is a behavior favored by natural selection, and so has come to dominate the human cultural landscape because it confers some survival benefit or advantage.

Let's consider (1) to start. This is based on the meme concept (with the meme acting as an ideational mind virus) first articulated by biochemist Jacque Monod in his Chance and Necessity. On page 155 Monod writes:

"The human group upon which a given idea confers greater cohesiveness, greater ambition and greate self-confidence thereby receives from it an added power to expand which will ensure the promotion of the idea itself. Its promotion value' bears no relation to the amount of objective truth the idea may contain."

He goes on to note (ibid.):

"The might of the powerful armament provided by a religious ideology for a society does not lie in its structure, but in the fact this structure is accepted, that it gains command".

One may inquire here what religious ideology has been most successful worldwide over the past twenty years. Careful inspection will disclose that it's none other than Christian Evangelism or Fundamentalism. It has not only gained ground over Roman Catholicism in places like Central and South America, but in Africa as well. Its ideational benefits are huge, given its simplicity, and its recipe for (eternal) reward: "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ as your personal Savior" is intoxicating.

Indeed the only religious ideology that rivals it in converts is Islam, with its promise of eternal rest and succor provided one wages war against the "infidels" (which, coincidentally, include the Christian Fundamentalists)

Not surprisingly then, the most powerful and insidious memes (ideas-beliefs) are those dedicated to the spread of religious beliefs. If we seek to ask why one set is more successful than a rival set, then we need to look at what Monod, for example, calls their "infectious power". This power can be set forth in terms of three main attributes:

1) Performance value: What change does the meme or meme complex bring about in behaviors for the person who adopts it? (For Christian Fundamentlists, the most major change is that they are intent on spreading their "message" to others, pagans, unbelievers, in the conviction that must "save their souls". They believe that Christ enjoined them to do this and not to do so is to ignore his edict to "go forth")

2) Propagation value: How far and wide is the meme spread, and what means are employed to achieve this? (E.g. Islam in the past has invoked beheadings locally, and more generally "holy wars" or Jihads to force belief onto uncooperative populations. Christian Fundamentalists make more use of the threat of "Hell" to any indigenous groups that are reluctant to accept their "personal Savior")

3) Infectious value: How easy is it to infect other brains? What attribute of the meme facilitates the infection?

In the last case, say for the faith meme in general, part of its structure inheres in automatically warding off too close rational scrutiny. Thus, reason and rationality are either: a) demonized (as byproducts of "Satan") or, b) marginalized as inferior to faith.

Example: from a 1990 CNN program featuring Skeptic Paul Kurtz, the topic "Does Satan Exist?"

Phone caller (to Kurtz): "Of course you will say that Satan doesn't exist! But that's exactly what Satan wants! He doesn't want anyone to believe in him!"

And we see here, the Satan belief component of the meme is perfectly designed to limit and minimize any damage from Kurtz's skepticism. After all, if one doesn't believe in Satan, he has to be under the spell of Satan...in causing disbelief!

No one can say that these religious mind viruses don't possess a certain innate beauty!

While the theory of mass infection of human brains is very compelling, and indeed was revisited in the book, Thought Contagion: How Belief Spreads Through Society, by Aaron Lynch, it leaves open why a small subset of humans (atheists, other nonbelievers) aren't affected...or should I say, infected?

I suspect the likely reason is that their (mostly) scientific training provides an inoculation against the effort to infect their brains...by those trying to meet their convert quota. Because we have studied hard science for so many years we can easily recognize humbug when we see it. So, it washes off our ideational backs like a flu bug might for someone whose had the H1N1 vaccine.

Now, what about the second notion? This has recently been made popular in a number of venues, not least have been the claims for a "God gene" or - less dogmatically -that religious belief confers health and other benefits, against which I'd not necessarily complain. I just have problems accepting that religion necessarily "evolved" because it conferred essential benefits on early human societies and their successors. (I do think that ethics likely evolved and developed along lines favored by natural selection).

More plausible is that religious belief evolved along with blind optimist tendencies - as well as the ability to "see things that aren't there" (see the excellent book, Faces in the Clouds).   This ability is presumed to exist in one single brain complex, probably centered in the temporal lobes. We know, for example - as Monod points out in his book (p. 50, by reference to functional coherence in associated molecular cybernetic systems) that it is often very important that humans remain "dumb and happy" in the evolutionary scheme of the brain.

 The survival basis here is to reduce existential anxiety and probably a host of physical indicators (e.g. blood pressure) as well. But this is not to say anything real is doing it. Rather it is the believer's own beliefs manifesting as a kind of intangible opiate or narcotic. Not surprisingly, reckless uninformed optimism (as when people leap into the stock market because others are, believing they will succeed) and religious faith clearly emerge as symptoms of the same general brain defect that abhors reality.

This dynamic is widespread because this brain wiring defect is also widespread. A small percentage of humans (atheists ) lack it, but then they often lack the benefits as well. I wouldn't be surprised- given this, if atheists are found to have more depression, higher blood pressure, more general bad health indicators (poor lipid profiles, high c-reactive protein, etc). They might naturally show these because they suffer no delusions, and are fully cognizant of being orphans in a purposeless cosmos. To compensate for this painful existential awareness they might self-medicate in ways that the medical cognoscenti might not approve.  

An alternate theory has that a specific neuro-complex literally enables God as well as other proposed supernatural entities to abide in the brain.  This neural complex goes by the name of "orientation association area" or OAA, as defined by Andrew Newberg and Eugene d'Aquili in their book, 'Why God Won't Go Away: Brain Science and the Biology of Belief''.

Neurological measurements, i.e. from PET and SPECT scans, consistently showed electrical discharges spiraling down from the right attention area (right OAA) to the limbic system and hypothalamus “triggering the arousal section of the structure”. The authors’ test results and measurements revealed the activation of both the left and right association regions as their subjects focused on a religious artifact or object, say an image of Jesus. As assorted cortical thresholds were crossed, a maximal stimulation (given by spikes in the SPECT scans) produced a neural “flood” that generated feedback to the attention association area.

To make a long story short, the visual attention area of the OAA began to deprive the right orientation area (responsible for balance)  of all neural input not originating with the contemplation of the religious or devotional object. In order to compensate, and thereby preserve the neuro-spatial matrix (in which the self could still exist) the right orientation area had to default to the attention area focusing on the object.

In the words of the authors,  the religious object “is perceived by the mind as the whole depth and breadth of reality.”   This is a profound insight, and fully explains why it is essentially impossible to wean believers away from their objects of worship or devotion based on logic and reason alone. What has happened, in other words, is the subject’s whole existence and identity has become bound up with the focus of his brain’s OAA-  or more specifically – the right attention area’s focus which channels nearly all neural inputs to that region.  


Given this dynamic, the brain governed by the OAA will be singly directed to craft its own version of rationality to support its supernatural ideations.  This implies we simply cannot trust the rational expressions  of believers to be faithful accounts of reality.  

This is one reason the atheist philosopher A.J. Ayer - in Language, Truth and Logic-  insisted  on empirical support for any claims made.   As he writes (p. 158):


"The fact people have religious experiences is interesting from the psychological point of view, but it does not in any way imply there is such a thing as religious knowledge.   The theist - like the moralist- may believe his experiences are cognitive experiences, but unless he can formulate his knowledge in propositions that are empirically verifiable, we may be sure he is deceiving himself."

• 
  

Why aren't atheists' brains subject to OAA stimulation and domination?  A number of hypotheses have been advanced including that we have lack the "God gene" which makes the OAA effective.  Another proposal is that we are too trained already in critical thinking (and logic)  to be mesmerized by the OAA's  subversive appeals.   The converse is that most humans are unable - for whatever reason- to resist such brain influence, hence explaining the dominance of religious memes across the planet.

Humanist Materialist Arguments Against Christianity Were "Weakened" Over The Past Century? Not So!

In a recent WSJ review ('Fearful, Faithless', March 1, p. C7) the claim has been made that "the humanist-materialist argument against Christianity has arguably weakened over the past century" and also:

"Atheism is surely produced by a lifeless and unreasoned conformity."

These absurd extrapolations are formed by Jeffrey Collins (a professor of history at Queen's University in Kingston, Ontario) in the course of his review of  'Unbelievers: An Emotional History Of Doubt"  by Alec Ryrie.

These are also totally anticipated objections we've earlier seen creep into other forums  - like Physics Today (a general journal for physicists) - often  as lazy shots taken at unbelief and atheism.  For example by the likes of  Tom McLeish, in his specious arguments that science and religion are compatible.  See my arguments against McLeish in this 2018 post :

Response To Tom McLeish's Counter Arguments In Phy...

As well as my original letter published in Physics Today, with an excerpt below:

Readers' thoughts on science and religion: Physics Today: Vol 71, No 6

"As I see it, the most fundamental split—an irreparable one—between science and religion is that religion embraces a supernatural order and genuine science, as opposed to pseudoscience, does not.

From a scientific and objective standpoint, there is simply no way that any purportedly supernatural entity or order can be demonstrated or proven. No scientific methodologies for such exist, nor any credible instruments or measuring techniques. The rejoinder that those things can't be measured merely reinforces the argument that they are no more fit for scientific inquiry than the astrologer’s claim of “malefic” influences of Mars at an infant’s birth.

Because a supernatural domain cannot be approached in any scientific or objective way, then by my reckoning it doesn't exist. One need not even deny its existence because to all intents the supernatural entity becomes logically unnecessary or redundant. It doesn't help us make scientific predictions or explain natural phenomena—say, coronal mass ejections or auroral substorms"

At its core, this is what the entire argument boils down to: the  unthinking invocation of unproven supernatural entities to support religious beliefs, and the invocation of ultimate purpose where none is warranted.   As for the claim of  atheism as produced by a "lifeless and unreasoned conformity" that is choice given how religions uniformly adopt supernaturalism as the de facto default position with no hint of insight, or an iota of critical thought.

Let me again underscore here for the record, that the preceding applies to any religion that enlists supernatural agents to support its basis. It was not intended to be a blanket statement that modern science could find no commonality with any religion. For example, according to the Mahayana tradition of Buddhism there exist a multitude of universes and none of these harbors supernatural agents such as demons, or "Satan".  Many of them, however, may well harbor other intelligent life forms.  This view in its most rudimentary form comports with the multiverse speculations of modern physics. 

Collins also makes a big deal out of:  "virtually all of the pioneering natural scientists of the era being devoutly religious" . But why wouldn't they be?  This was four hundred years (roughly) before the advent of the quantum theory, at least Max Planck's rudimentary formulation of it.  It was, frankly, the development of the quantum theory -specifically the dualistic wave- matter aspect -  that overthrew nearly all religious presumptions, and doctrines..  The new theory, powerfully confirmed, inveighed against every aspect of Christian mythology, from introducing acausal determinism,e g.

A Look At Quantum Acausal Determinism - Its Roots...

To impacting the nature of 'free will',  e.g.

Free Will And Quantum Mechanical Brain States: Wha...

And undermining hundreds of other facets of religiously defined culture and beliefs, most of which could not withstand the onslaught of the new physics.This isn't even taking into account the most recent findings of astrophysics concerning the clear lack of order in the material universe.In cosmological terms, the whole concept of “order” has been relegated to a minor and tiny niche of the extant cosmos. For example, the balloon-borne Boomerang and MAXIMA UV measurements to do with Type I a supernovae, have disclosed a cosmic content:

7% - ordinary visible 

93% - dark component, of which:

- 70% is DARK (vacuum) energy and

- 23% is dark matter

In effect, 93% of the universe can’t even be assessed for “order” since it can’t be seen. In the case of dark matter, one can only discern its presence indirectly by the visible effects on neighboring matter. In the case of dark energy, the underlying physical basis isn’t even known – though we know the result is an increase in the acceleration of the universe (arising from a cosmic repulsion attributed to dark energy).

This is all critical, since in the past apologists of teleologism (the belief that purpose and design are part of nature) have cited a perceived “orderliness” as a revelation for the “handiwork” of an intelligent Mind, or Creator. Alas, this falls through the cracks if most of the universe is disorderly, or dark-energy-matter. Indeed, by current assessment – and discounting plasma abundance, one may reckon that even rudimentary order is evident in barely 0.00001% of the cosmos.  This is why string theorist and author Brian Greens - e.g. in his new book, 'Until The End Of Time' (see WSJ review, Feb. 15-16, p. C9) concludes that "we have no choice but to accept there is no grand design"  and "the only direction to look is inward", i.e. to forge our own purpose.   

Does this imply that the concept of “God” is outright useless, null and void? Not at all. It merely requires that we re-think the concept so that it is consistent with the absence of higher or extraneous purpose. As Bernard d’Espagnat notes [1]:

“The archaic notion that is conveyed by the words ‘Lord’ and ‘Almighty’ will presumably never recover its full efficiency for lulling the ontological qualms of mankind. For a religious mind, turning towards being should therefore become a subtler endeavor than the mere acceptance of the heavenly will stated in the Bible, formulated by the priests, and exhibited by miracles.”

The fact Collins could write such claptrap as the following:

"Atheism is not some natural implication of human progress but a contingency of a particular history"

Discloses he understands none of this. Especially when he also adds (ibid.):

"Modern atheism in the West can have an assertive and even angry quality in part because the emotions that animate it - namely anxiety and anger- were responses to the particular religious upheavals of the 16th and 17th centuries"

But that era is long gone, and no rational or modern atheists I know - mainly physicists, chemists- have any such  emotional axes to grind.   They simply see, as physicist Bernard d'Espagnat observes, that the antiquated (and naive) "Daddy in the sky"  concept of that era is now passe, and indeed, it hasn't changed much since then. Hence, atheism doesn't claim to prove God's nonexistence, only point out that the concept is superfluous to the advance of empirical science,  which like it or not is inherently materialistic.What we atheists actually say is that the whole idea of an  exterior infinite deity is redundant – logically unnecessary – because it doesn’t help us to model any physical systems or make verifiable, empirical predictions.  There is no "passion" or "anger" or even "denial" involved.    These are all 'macguffins' inserted by the religionists like McLeish and Collins.

We can also - again dispassionately-   point to the work tying belief in the existence of such an external deity to the brain: e.g. -  ''Why God Won't Go Away: Brain Science and the Biology of Belief' .  Therein the authors (Andrew Newberg and Eugene D’Aquili) trace this God concept directly to an area of the brain- the OAA or orientation association area.   More to the point here, is that such a brain is singly directed to craft its own version of rationality to support its ideations. (Ceaselessly reinforced by the particular religion to which it belongs.)  Hence, we simply cannot trust the rational expressions of believers (like Prof. Collins), or those like McLeish, who defend a religious accommodation by science. Their brains are likely hijacked in the service of the OAA to promote supernaturalist nonsense, and also efforts to interject it into modern science..

A radically different take is offered by physicist Brian Greene (also an atheist) who points out that our human aspirations are intertwined with human culture- from artistic expression to scientific discovery.  These are in turn driven by a painful awareness of our finite lifespan. This cognizance of a finite lifespan, according to Greene,  is what propels us to search for the "eternal" and to try and understand "why we are here at all."

The failure to appreciate this perspective - as well as the tendency to see all atheists as raging provocateurs and "barbarians at the gate" of Christendom, e.g.

Resides in a failure of flexibility of thought, as well as absence of critical thought, such as in Prof. Collins' review..  It would have been better for him to read Dr. Anthony Kronman's superb book ('Education's End - Why Our Colleges and Universities Have Given Up On The Meaning Of Life') on the essential relationship of secular humanism to education first. Therein we see "Secular humanism thereby enters (positively)  as a philosophical template or infrastructure whereby "students and teachers pursue the perennial puzzle of human existence through the disciplined study  of an interrelated series of works in which how a person ought to spend his or her life provides a connecting theme and organizing focus of inquiry."

In an analogous fashion the physical scientist pursues the perennial puzzle of human existence but via research into the nature of the cosmos - using fundamental physical principles.  Also research, including in cosmology, astrophysics, astrochemistry, plasma physics etc. which comprise an interrelated series of works. By such processes most scientists - again leaving out emotions - come to see the universe for what it is: an impersonal assembly of energy and matter for which  any ultimate design or purpose is immaterial.  

In the same light, we are the least likely of humans to interpret the SARS- COV-2 virus as any kind of "divine retribution" unleashed on a sinful humanity to force it onto the straight and narrow.  Rather we see the virus, and the resulting COVID--19 pandemic it's spawned,  as another facet of evolution. An unfolding,  impersonal process which is always delivering novel mutations and challenges irrespective of the form of life:  virus, bacteria, ape or human.  Our error, mainly in our religions, is seeing the human as a "fallen angel" as opposed to risen ape.

Has the Universe a purpose?

Is "God" The Answer To The Suicide Epidemic? Uh...No.

"The rate at which Americans have been taking their lives has been climbing for 20 years...prompting the search for novel suicide prevention practices. But one approach is as old as civilization itself: religious faith."-  Erika Andersen, WSJ,  July 11 op-ed.


The main problem with religious faith in this country, especially the Christian version peddled by the Right,  is the lack of temperance and the consequent prevalence of "god talk".   This leads inevitably to glib "solutions"  to a wide spectrum of societal problems, including:  drug abuse, crime and suicide - as embodied in the quotation above.  Religionists tend to forget that the mere existence of the noun (G-O-D) does not mean there is any existent behind it - or  that a putative transcendent is in any way understandable by a finite human mind.

We should note, however, that the tendency to posit a superior, supernatural being to account for physical existence is nearly universal in every human culture. Indeed, every major sacred book - whether Christian Bible, Talmud, or Koran, attributes a divine origin to the universe. The problem inheres in taking this literally, and then extrapolating to an entity G-O-D   that allegedly is involved in the cosmos.  This further supports the contention of philosopher Joseph Campbell[1] to the effect that:  

‘God’ is an ambiguous word in our language because it appears to refer to something that is known.."

In other words, at the root of religious faith there is a profound lack of understanding of  the underlying epistemological (and ontological) limitations  which renders all such supernatural concepts relative and flawed.. There is simply insufficient information (and percipience)  to distinguish one person’s deity as the one true God to the exclusion of all others. 

At a more subtle rhetorical level, the great diversity of deity conceptions led me early on (in studying Comparative Theology at Loyola University)  to conclude that what people really meant when they professed “belief in God”  (or investment in a generic religious faith) was a personal allegiance to a particular  subjective concept.  (Or a particular limited scripture, e.g. Torah, Koran,  that gave rise to its articulation) Invariably, the concept was flawed and limited because it was abstracted from a personal background of  limited experience, awareness and conditioning.   Similarly, the derivative religious faith is defective and limited given it is extracted from limited god concepts and scriptures.

Hence, neither belief in a deity, or adherence to a religious faith (or scripture),  can be advanced as universal  solutions to any societal issue, including suicide.  (This is apart from the fact we now know religious aspirations and beliefs arise from a specific brain region, which I will discuss subsequently.)

All of the above bears consideration when we consider an answer to the queston recently raised by Erika Andersen:  'Is God The Answer To The Suicide Epidemic?"  (WSJ, July 11)  making the core assertion that "Someone who attends religious services is significantly less likely to kill himself."  

Apart from conflating church attendance with God-belief  the author makes a number of other statistical and logical errors.   In respect to the first, merely attending a church service is no indicator one has a comprehensive belief or affinity for a deity. Indeed, given all deities are predicated on god concepts we can conclude this is a form of ideational idolatry.  Also, as I noted some 30 years ago - in a response to a Harrison College colleague (who claimed state-sponsored church services opening special 'weeks'  (e.g. "Police week")  confirmed a "sacred order" - this is a non sequitur.   As I pointed out (rebuttal letter in The Nation) : "I would point out that these exhibitions are merely a conditioned social -cultural reflex, reflecting acceptance of expected social norms in a nation permeated by religious thinking".

Ms. Andersen, indeed, admits to her experience of similar responses when she's gone on lecture circuits "speaking about the ability of church plants to help fight suicide".  And being told by "naysayers"  that "it is the community aspect of the church service rather than faith which is the reason for its effectiveness".  In other words, the communal services - however often conducted - break through the peculiar  American disease of social isolation and lead to better psychological health.  My psychologist great niece Shayl also fully endorses this view: "That's pretty much a no brainer! When people have more community and social associations they are less likely to lack psychological support or kill themselves in despair".

So it has little or nothing to do with belief in a deity, which again - is merely acceptance or belief in a subjective god-concept.   This brings up a citation that Ms. Andersen makes which bears the key defects of selection bias as well as confirmation bias.   She cites a 2016 study from JAMA Psychiatry which "found that American women who attended a religious service at least once a week were five times less likely to commit suicide".

That's amazing! But let's explore it further.   It turns out that an earlier 2015 Pew Research center poll-survey found pretty much the same thing which I pointed out in an April 15, 2016 post.  Therein we learned:

- Globally, more women than men identify with a religion, pray daily and say that 'religion is very important' to them.

- Quantitatively, there are 100 million more religiously -affiliated women than men

- Men make up 55 percent of the world's religiously unaffiliated people

- In the U.S. the religious gender gap is most pronounced with 64 percent of American women expressing religious conviction by praying daily, vs 47 percent of men. (This compares to 15% of women vs. 9% of men in France),

- Most stunning of all, 68 percent of all atheists are men in the U.S.

I noted at the time "all kinds of hypotheses" to explain these findings but referenced one in particular from a salon.com article which asserted:

"Women are more devout because they have to be. Women’s religiosity is directly related to economic security. The lack of a social safety net means that women, who are still responsible for the bulk of elder and child care, often need to rely on religious organizations to support themselves and their families."

I noted that this was basically true and one reason the preponderance of female atheists hailed from higher socio-economic strata, many in the $75 k - $100k  range. Thus, they did not have to concern themselves with  projecting a "halo" say to keep their jobs or get better ones. Further, the probability was low they'd ever need to rely on religious charity.  

I also put forward another powerful argument for the propensity of women to attend church services, as well as participate in religious communities more generally. I had written at the time (same post):

"In most cases, women are raised to be less aggressive than males, and to avoid being confrontational. But the very nature of most areligious people or atheists  is to be confrontational because we are challenged often on our unbelief and have to be able to respond. The very adoption of the term "atheist" is a form of verbal confrontation, and explains why many more passive folks are unable to use it - even though they are atheists in every other  respect.

I surmise women are very aware of the negative perception of atheists as well and because of this they are inclined to avoid any associations with atheism. This may also explain the large proportion of American women who are religious to the extent they actually pray daily. Author Barbara Ehrenreich.[1] has shown that American mass culture is saturated by a saccharine “cult of positivity.”  Women as the "avatars"  of social polity and decorum would be much more prone to the culture's socially positive signals and hence avoid anything perceived to undermine it. In this case culture and biology probably play a dual role in not only atheism avoidance, but active religious embrace ("See I definitely am no atheist! I pray!")

Lastly, females are the "guardians" of societal morality more than men. Statistics show they are far less  sexually licentious than males in U.S. society - with fewer partners outside marriage - and also are much less drawn to things like porn or violent movies, say like Quentin Tarentino's  'The Hateful Eight' - which wifey refuses to see despite the fact its was mostly filmed in Telluride  - which she's visited a number of times. (There is a reason for the embrace of "chick flicks"!)

If females are more active (i.e. demonstrative) moral arbiters it stands to reason they'd also be more religious, pray, go to Novenas, attend Mass daily etc. as well as espouse  non-negotiable moral positions in line with assorted religious edicts. They'd also avoid atheism because it would be seen in the societal perspective of a moral blight or threat. It is important to note this last moral element cuts across all economic and class levels and hence one finds as many or more higher social class- income females in this group as lower."

BY the end of Ms  Andersen's piece one wonders if she is at all familiar with the work of Andrew Newberg and Eugene D’Aquili:   'Why God Won't Go Away: Brain Science and the Biology of Belief' wherein the authors trace the emergence and attachment to  God concepts directly to an area of the brain- the OAA or orientation association area.   This is critical because, frankly, unless an individual has a brain tuned to religious faith  there is little chance of inducing it and by extension attendance at any church services. To expect otherwise is to put the "cart before the horse."

The authors’ investigated  how the brain’s OAA translates an image,  for example,  into a religious reality is also described in detail[2].This is in connection with a person given an image of Christ and asked to focus on it. Within minutes, neurological measurements, i.e. from PET and SPECT scans showed electrical discharges spiraling down from the right attention area (right OAA) to the limbic system and hypothalamus “triggering the arousal section of the structure”. The authors’ test results and measurements revealed the activation of both the left and right association regions as their subjects focused on an image of Christ. As assorted cortical thresholds were crossed, a maximal stimulation (given by spikes in the SPECT scans) produced a neural “flood” that generated feedback to the attention association area.

To make a long story short, the visual attention area of the OAA was seen to begin to deprive the right orientation area (responsible for balance)  of all neural input not originating with the contemplation of Jesus. In order to compensate, and thereby preserve the neuro-spatial matrix (in which the self could still exist) the right orientation area had to default to the attention area focusing on “Jesus”.  As the authors describe the situation:

It has no choice but to create a spatial matrix out of nothing but the attention area’s single-minded contemplation of Jesus

Newberg and D’Aquili observed that as the process of re-cerebralization continued, all irrelevant neural inputs were stripped away until the only reality left was Jesus. That reality (actually a pseudo-reality confected by the right attention area) thereby took over the entire mind. Or, in the words of the authors, “it was perceived by the mind as the whole depth and breadth of reality.”   This is a profound insight, and fully explained why it was essentially impossible to wean believers away from their objects of worship or devotion based on logic and reason alone.

But conversely it also explains why those of us lacking the particular  OAA  triggers, thresholds for God belief will not be swayed to "join the fold" merely out of a claim we'd have a better chance to avoid suicide.  What we have then is a "Mexican standoff" of sorts between the churched and the unchurched - mainly atheists.   Rather than condemning us or seeking to proselytize us, the religious would do better to maybe research why we don't have the brain chemicals, synapses or structures (or genes for them) and hence no incentive to pursue god belief or church services like they do.  

Erika Andersen, to her credit, is correct when she writes:

 "People living in our increasingly secular culture are hungry for spiritual wisdom and transcendent purpose"

But that doesn't mean "practicing a shared faith" can be a universal solution, as she suggests in her next sentence.  It may well be for a certain subset of humans but educational advantage (awareness of linguistic and comprehension limits) coupled with gender and brain differences ensures her "recipe" can only be limited like the artifacts that underpin  all religious faiths.

---

[1] Campbell.: The Power of Myth, 56

[2] Newberg and D’Aquili., pp.  121-22.