Brain Secretion Byproducts

“God” is a secretion of the human brain, says Michael McGuire and Lionel Tiger.

 † † † § † † †

In their 2010 book “God’s Brain,” McGuire and Tiger strongly suggest and demonstrate that the concept of God, or a God, is a byproduct of human cerebral secretions. Historically the various divine tenets, revelations, traditions, and expressions of social orders around the world are encapsulated from that specific culture’s or civilization’s perceived, geographical, organizational needs not just for survival, but for their perceived perpetuation, then recorded and implemented in a Code of Principles relevant to their time-period. McGuire and Tiger state there is simply no compelling evidence for any type of cosmic, monistic Being manipulating us and Earth’s events.

Now that Homo sapiens are more evolved, at least intellectually and socially no matter the multitude of progressive and digressing methods, historically speaking have our cerebral secretions of Gods and religions been helpful? On a micro scale Tiger has an intriguing perspective on the question:

I found Tiger’s elaboration of the individual and social functionality of ‘optimism’ or hope — that it seems to be a useful tool for survival and perhaps for thriving throughout life — to be of special interest. Why? Because its use requires no patent or jurisdiction other than culturally, in a specific time-period to a specific locale. How is trust defined by those people and their circumstance? One thing is evident, none of this religious human behavior can be adequately or universally traced to one source.

On a macro scale E.O. Wilson of Harvard University (retired) goes in a different direction. Organized religion has a dark side and ugly track-record.

[Intent of religious deities have] “been perverted many times in the past — used, for example, to argue passionately for colonial conquest, slavery, and genocide. Nor was any great war ever fought without each side thinking its cause transcendentally sacred in some manner or other.”

Hence, this could beg the question:  Have we modern humans evolved or should we humans further evolve to a more practical, more progressive new social Code of Principles? What are/would those principles based upon? How many social affiliations should/can a human(s) be involved? Are the affiliations beneficial or detrimental to them and their family? Non-family? Do you already have affiliations and belief-systems that are more highly evolved than others?

(paragraph break)

 † † † § † † †

I think whether you agree or disagree with Tiger’s assessments of transcendental beliefs or empirical biological consequences concerning the origin of God and religions, it is paramount to develop and maintain a certain amount of scrutiny, or neutrality, or critical-thinking when considering this source or that source and its mechanisms.

Critical-thinking is not to be confused with agitation, or argumentative, or a personal attack upon someone. Critical-thinking actually helps us acquire more knowledge, expose ignorances, refines our theories, improves collaboration and construction, and strengthens or weakens premises for what they are. I feel one of the most beneficial aspects of applied critical-thinking is that it promotes “thinking outside the box,” a very healthy form of human empowerment and creativity. These two conditions are not achieved to their fullest in a restrictive or constraining closed-system typically preached and protected by religions. They are best achieved in environments of freedom of thought and scrutiny, as well as positive support for a person’s and all person’s natural-born abilities. Agree? Disagree? Why or why not? Share your thoughts below.

Live Well — Love Much — Laugh Often — Learn Always

(paragraph break)

Creative Commons License
Blog content with this logo by Professor Taboo is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at https://professortaboo.com/contact-me/.

Slippery Nitty-Gritty

While relaxing and mind-vegging last night as a change-of-pace for a busy day, I ran across one of my favorite Dreamworks animated movies, Shrek the Third, while flipping channels. I’ve seen them more than once, I like all of them, a lot, but I was curiously caught off guard by one scene in the film I found oddly applicable and humorously accurate to some WordPress comment-threads lately that myself and other blog-friends have been involved.

For those of you that know about what I write — John Zande, Arkenaten, Nan, Scottie, Jeff, Robert, and some others — this parody is for you/us. Watch first the scene I’m referring to, then after… down below, I will change the character names to enhance the humor.  😀

Now for character-name changes and adjusted script…

  • Prince Charming = Prince Prober (reasonable scrutiny)
  • Capt. Hook = Capt. Spook aka ColoringSprinkles
  • Shrek = Gawd In Carnations
  • New Heir/Arthur = Prince Kryst
  • Pinnochio = J. BrainYawn

Lights, camera, action…

Prince Prober: You! …You can’t lie. So tell me, puppet… where is Gawd In Carnations?

J. BrainYawn: Well… I don’t know where he’s not.

Prince Prober: You’re telling me you don’t know where Gawd In Carnations is?

J. BrainYawn: It wouldn’t be inaccurate to assume… …that I couldn’t exactly not say that is or isn’t almost partially incorrect.

Prince Prober: So you do know where he is!

J. BrainYawn: On the contrary, I’m possibly more or less not definitely rejecting the idea that in no way, with any amount of uncertainty… that undeniably

Prince Prober: Stop it!

J. BrainYawn: …I do not know where he shouldn’t be. If that indeed wasn’t where he isn’t. Even if he wasn’t not where I knew he was, it could mean…

[On the good ship Lollipop…]

Piglet #2: Enough! Gawd In Carnations went off to bring back the next heir!

Prince Prober: He’s bringing back the next heir?

J. BrainYawn: NO!

Prince Prober: Spook! Get rid of this new “King Kryst”. But bring Gawd In Carnations to me. I have something special in mind for him.

J. BrainYawn: He’ll never fall for your tricks!

All of you enjoy the rest of your week and have a weekend of laughing and debauchery!

(paragraph break)

Live Well — Love Much — Laugh Often — Learn Always

Creative Commons License
Blog content with this logo by Professor Taboo is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at https://professortaboo.com/contact-me/.

Back with an Olive-branch Axe!

Now that I’m further settled into my new, but semi-temporary Dallas home, I want to throw out this return to WordPress post to all of you. Get your thoughts on two very popular stirring subjects:  Politics and Indoctrination. Do the two belong together? Should the two be one in the same? Have the two ever been truly seperate?

To kick this off I want to share these two YouTube videos:

Political —

Indoctrination, or coerced Indoctrination and the results

(paragraph break)

How much truth and accuracy do all of you feel/think these videos represent? Share your thoughts on my four questions! Let me hear/read it…

(paragraph break)

Live Well — Love Much — Laugh Often — Learn Always

Christmas_Lights