re; As long as nothing can be proven, neither one way nor the other, religion will not only survive, it will thrive. People will continue to believe. Plain, simple reality is totally out of the question. It is inconceivable and unsupportable.

That may be okay by you but there are many of us for whom reality is not out of the question. At 80 I do not need superstition or hope for some unfathomable future life to keep me going and enjoying what little I now can expect.

Maybe a mutation is already spreading that will make religion unnecessary or impotent particularly if indoctrination of children is recognised for what it is, an genuine evil, and minimised or eliminated by better practices such as ethics classes which improve students IQ by 6-7% and minimise adverse behaviour.

I'm a sucker for anything that might help understand why people are so in the thrall of religious belief, that all rational thought flies out of the window.

So I do like the idea that religious belief has been a survival strategy for our species. Unfortunately I can't actually find justification for the theory within this piece.

For instance, how can both the following be simultaneously true?

“Religious belief and behaviour are a hallmark of human life, with no accepted animal equivalent"

and...

"The study found that several areas of the brain are involved in religious belief... another in the more evolutionary-ancient regions deeper inside the brain, which humans share with apes and other primates."

Which is it to be? If there is no "animal equivalent" of religious belief, how is it possible to assert that "regions of the brain that we share with apes are involved."

And this seems a little odd, too.

"Dr Persinger suggests that the stimulation of the cerebral-temporal lobe may have been the cause of the Marian apparition phenomenon..."

...followed closely by...

"...of the 295 reported apparitions studied by the Holy See over the centuries only 12 have been approved"

I would have thought, that the definition of "stimulation of the cerebral-temporal lobe" as a miracle, should have merited at least a passing comment,

(But in only 4% of cases. How does that work?)

"Religion plays an important psychological role in assisting us to assume the adversities of our earthly lives."

Us?

Some, I agree, find religion fulfils this role for them. But it is a shame that the author did not choose to explore why in many people today it does not.

It would be fair, in that context, to regard a belief in supernatural beings as evolutionarily superfluous.

Like all-over body hair.

An appeal to a nebulous theory about evolutionary advantage, or appeal to tradition, will not shape humans cognition - individually or collectively - that is moving us beyond religion and its distractions
.

So let me get this straight, because humans have sections of the brain that permit belief in a higher deity this disproves the existence of god(s)?!? And therefore all religions are the evolutionary by-product of a drive to explain nature?!? Isn't that a circular argument? There have been many different arguments for and against the existence of god(s) popping up of late, yet many of these follow and fall into the same trap. They attempt to argue that because of something inherent to earth that proves or disproves the existence of god(s), a concept which by its very nature is separate from the earth. This is the exact same argument structure that leads some to claim that because the pyramids are aligned like Orion’s Belt, that is proof that aliens built the pyramids. I admit that I believe that there is a god but I refuse to try and explain that belief using an example of terrestrial origin as I would fall into this trap also. And as far as Foyle's belief in the inherent evil of indoctrination I am reminded of a line from my favourite movie K-PAX "But your people don't listen to your Christ or your Buddha." Maybe it's not the religion that is the problem but the individuals slant on it that is. Afterall lets not forget that the crusades were not organised but a god but by a man.

Pericles

It is not that "all rational thought flies out the window" when someone believes in religion. Just because you may not have strong empirical, measurable and physical evidence for it (although many argue that there is), there are plenty of rational ways to come to an understanding that there must be a higher being. Believing in the existence of God is not irrational.

John Paul II wrote an encyclical in the 90s well worth reading called Fides et Ratio - Faith and Reason. He argued that both must be used together in both theological study and in the life of a Christian. Faith builds on reason and does not contradict it. It certainly is a step further, but a metaphysical understanding of the human person and the world around him naturally leads many to believe in a supernatual power.

It is a misunderstanding of many who do not have faith that all the tenets of faith are in the 'mystery' category i.e. there is no human way to understand them (such as the Trinity, the Incarnation etc). The great majority of Church teaching is actually based on philosophical principles and the bulk of theology rests upon philosophy. It explains why many of the great minds in history have followed philosophical study to their logical conclusion, such as John Henry Cardinal Newman, who converted to the Catholic faith and will soon be canonised in England.

no wonder so many believe the Scriptures when this idiotic post is the best one can come up with.