Ellen G. White was hit on the nose by a stone when she was nine tears old. She fell unconscious for several days. She recovered and soon began to have visions and inner experiences. She felt these experiences were spiritual and she wrote extensively about the existence of God, the “second coming” of Christ and related topics until she died many years after the rock in the nose incident.
Did the trauma to the nose jar the brain, triggering into activity some heretofore somnolent part of the brain resulting in visions, revelations and other inner adventures? Was her brain different somehow? Maybe. And what about other folks walking around, seeing things that are not there for the rest of us? Are they crazy? Are we? What about people who describe themselves as complete atheists? No amount of head trauma can move them to see God or even believe He’s out there, somewhere. And if He is, why do some people insist He’s a man? Why not a “She”? But, whoa, we’re getting off topic.
The issue to be examined here is, are there differences in the brains of believers compared to atheists? Biologist Richard Dawkins traveled to Canada to don the “God Helmet” of neuroscientist Michael Persinger. The God Helmet generated weak magnetic fields when applied to the temporal lobes of Mr. Dawkins. Nothing happened. Mr Persinger insisted The frontal lobes of Mr. Dawkins were too weak. Mr Dawkins never commented about the accusation of weak lobes but he was intrigued by the idea of the possibility of differences in the brains of believers and those of less intuitive folks.
The idea that the frontal lobes may be tied to “spiritual” insights is not new among those who examine heads. Not only the frontal lobes but also the pineal gland has been called into question. Because of the light-sensing ability of the pineal gland it is occasionally referred to as “the third eye”. Eighteenth century philosophers like Rene Descartes thought it to be the “residence” of the soul. It is a very vital gland known mainly for the production of melatonin, good for bones and oh yes, mood. Beyond all this, however, the gland cannot presently claim acquaintance with anything like the soul. So, we return to our old friends, the lobes.
The temporal lobes have been involved in many tests and experiments in search of the “spiritual” over the years, but the results can be described at best as “inconclusive”. Mostly the search focussed on “believers” and those with a highly developed intuitive sense. The temporal lobes have been thought of as the seat of religious experience but lately this hypothesis has been enlarged to explain the lack of religious belief in atheists and those with a lower sensitivity. The “Weak” lobes syndrome. This is yet to be done on any acceptable scale.
What are the organic differences in those who process information differently: reflexive versus experiential, analytical versus intuitive? At a study conducted by Oxford University in England, researchers used a portrait of the Virgin Mary and a picture of an ordinary woman of the same period. When Roman Catholics concentrated on the portrait of the Virgin while being subjected to electric shocks (the Catholics, not the Virgin). They experienced less pain. Apparently the ordinary woman was no help. Anyway, this decrease in pain was associated with the involvement of the right ventro-lateral prefrontal cortex, known to control pain inhibitory circuits. The unbelievers in the experiment did not experience this although they liked the picture of the other woman.
Certainly the brain is involved in the search for the eternal, what else have you got? But what part? The journey is huge, well beyond the equipment we have. It would be something like teaching a cranberry how to drive. It will need little berry hands, perhaps a berry good mind. But what part of the brain?
