Lesson video

Hello, my name is Mrs. Rawbone and I'd like to welcome you to today's lesson on Persinger's God helmet.

We're going to be exploring religious experience from a scientific and philosophical perspective.

So by the end of the lesson, you will be able to explain Persinger's God helmet experiment and evaluate its implications for the existence of God.

We're gonna be using a few key words today, and they are evidence, God helmet, scepticism, and Michael Persinger.

By evidence we mean facts or information that support an idea.

The God helmet is a device that stimulates the temporal lobes with electromagnetic fields to induce religious experiences.

Scepticism is a philosophical tool that encourages questioning and doubting things to ensure we have good evidence before believing them.

And Michael Persinger is a neuroscientist, known for developing the God helmet to study the brain's role in religious experiences.

Our lesson today will take two parts.

We're going to be looking at the God helmet experiment, and we're going to be interpreting the God helmet experiment.

So, let's get started and begin with looking at the God helmet experiment.

We're going to be using philosophical tools in today's lesson.

Now, philosophers are academics and thinkers who study ultimate questions about existence, knowledge, ethics, and reality using logic to explore these topics.

Whether you have a religious or a non-religious worldview, you can use philosophy as a tool to understand the arguments that others use to support their views.

In this lesson, we will explore how Persinger's God helmet experiment uses the philosophical tool of scepticism to offer a natural explanation for religious experiences.

So, scepticism is gonna be important today.

The word scepticism comes from Ancient Greek.

Scepticism.

It's from the word skeptesthai, meaning to examine or look around.

So scepticism in philosophy refers to the practise of questioning and critically examining beliefs, often doubting their truth or certainty.

Aisha, Sofia and Sam are discussing religious experiences.

Aisha says, "I heard that people who meditate can see visions of other worlds.

It sounds amazing to have an experience caused by a higher power." Sofia responds, "Hmm, but we should question that.

Philosophers use scepticism to ask, 'How do we know this is true?'" Sam agrees.

She says, "Right! Some sceptical philosophers would want to know if there's another explanation, like how the brain works during meditation." Aisha wonders, "So, scepticism means questioning everything until we have solid evidence?" And Sofia replies, "Exactly.

Descartes used scepticism to doubt everything and only accept what was certain." Sam says, "Scepticism helps us avoid believing something without checking for other explanations first." And Aisha says, "I get it now.

So, scepticism is about questioning things like religious experiences rather than just accepting them." So, let's check your understanding.

True or false? Scepticism means accepting things as true unless there is strong evidence against them.

Take a moment.

Decide whether it's true or false, and have a think about why it is either true or false.

Pause and come back when you're ready to check.

Well done if you put false.

Let's have a think about why.

Scepticism means questioning and doubting things to make sure there's good evidence before accepting them as true.

Here's a photograph of Michael Persinger looking at some brain scans.

Michael Persinger lived from 1945 to 2018 and he was a Canadian neuroscientist.

He was sceptical about religious experiences and believed that they could be explained by brain activity.

Persinger is famous for creating the God helmet, a device equipped with magnetic coils that sent low-frequency magnetic fields into the wearer's brain.

Persinger's theory was that by stimulating the temporal lobe, he could trigger unusual perceptions or feelings, including sensations that people might interpret as divine or supernatural.

You can see here a gif showing the temporal lobe highlighted in red.

So we can see the temporal lobe is an area both to the left and to the right of the brain.

The temporal lobe is part of the brain connected to speech, words, and memories, and it's often associated with emotional responses and religious experiences.

Some people with temporal lobe epilepsy have reported having intense religious experiences, and it was this that led Persinger to hypothesise that stimulating the temporal lobe could replicate them.

Aisha and Sofia are discussing the link between religious experiences and the experiences of participants in the God helmet experiment.

Aisha says, "In Judaism, Islam, and Christianity, Moses heard God's voice from a burning bush.

This is an example of a true religious experience." Sofia replies, "Persinger's showed that wearing the God helmet can make someone hear a voice which they thought was God's." So Aisha wonders, "Does an experience caused by the God helmet count as a true religious experience?" Here are some of the things that participants in the God helmet experiment reported: hearing a voice, which they interpreted as God's, a profound sense of love for all living things, sensing a presence which they interpreted as divine, visions associated with religious themes such as heaven, visual encounters with angels or other spiritual beings, and a sense of unity with God or a higher power.

Let's have a look at some examples from religion.

Here, we have hearing a God's voice in the God helmet experiment, similar to in Judaism when Moses heard God's voice from a burning bush.

A love for all which was reported in the God helmet experiment is also found in religion.

In Buddhism, the Dalai Lama reported feeling love for all creatures during meditation, whereas of the God helmet reported sensing a presence which they saw as divine, and we see this also in religion.

In Sikhism, Guru Nanak spoke about experiencing the presence of the divine during prayer.

Visions similar to those reported in the God helmet experiment can also be found in religion.

In Christianity, Paul had a vision of heaven.

Like participants in the God helmet experiment, religious believers report visual encounters with angels or other spiritual beings.

In Islam, Muhammad saw the angel Jibril when he received the first revelation of the Qur'an.

A feeling of unity with God or a higher power is also a feature of religious experience.

In Hinduism, Gandhi experienced a sense of unity with God during prayer and meditation.

Let's check your understanding.

What does the God helmet experiment suggest the experience of a divine presence could be triggered by? Is it A, fasting, B, temporal lobe stimulation, C, religious rituals, or D meditation practises? Take a moment.

Have a think about what the correct answer is.

Pause if you need to and then come back to check.

Well done if you put B, temporal lobe stimulation.

So, let's practise your understanding on the God helmet experiment.

For task A1, Andeep and Alex are explaining the value of scepticism.

Whose explanation is accurate and why? Andeep says, "Engaging in scepticism helps us avoid believing false claims by questioning their evidence and reasoning.

This ensures that our beliefs are based on facts and not on assumptions or unreliable sources." Alex says, "We should engage in scepticism because it proves that all claims are false.

By questioning every idea, we can show that nothing can be trusted." So think back to what you've learned about scepticism and why philosophers use it and decide whether Andeep or Alex is more accurate in their explanation.

Make sure you jot down why, as well as deciding on whose explanation is accurate.

Pause and come back when you're ready.

So, let's have a look at what you could have said.

Andeep's explanation is accurate because it explains how scepticism helps us think critically by questioning evidence and avoiding false beliefs.

It shows how scepticism is a tool for making sure our ideas are reliable and based on facts.

Alex's explanation is incorrect because scepticism doesn't prove all claims are false.

Instead, it helps us evaluate which claims are trustworthy and which are not.

Scepticism involves careful thinking, not complete doubt.

So well done if you spotted that Alex had gone too far in thinking that scepticism requires philosophers to doubt everything.

It requires them to start by questioning and then therefore to avoid false beliefs and make sure that what they know is based on reliable evidence.

For task A2, thinking about the God helmet experiment, I'd like you to answer the following what, why, and how questions.

A, what kind of experiences were participants reported to have during the experiment? B, why did Persinger conduct this experiment? And C, how does this experiment link to religious experiences? Take some time to think back through the lesson and make a note of your answer.

Pause the video and come back when you're ready to check.

Let's have a look at what you could have said.

For A, what kind of experiences were participants reported to have during the experiment? You could have said participants reported experiences such as a sense for divine presence, love for all living things, visions of heaven or of angels, and hearing the voice of God.

For B, why did Persinger conduct this experiment? You could have said Persinger conducted the experiment to see if brain stimulation, especially if the temporal lobes, could cause religious experiences.

For C, how does this experiment link to religious experience? You could have said the experiment links to religious experiences by showing that brain stimulation can create feelings similar to those in religious context, suggesting they may be caused by brain activity rather than divine intervention.

Well done if you've got anything similar to those suggestions in your own answers.

So let's move on to the second part of our lesson on interpreting the God helmet experiment.

So, many philosophers have used scepticism to work out what we can know for certain.

This is how it works.

Philosophers start with a claim.

They then go on to think about whether there is enough evidence for the claim, whether there could be another explanation, and whether there is anything that we can be certain of.

Once a claim has been thoroughly tested, philosophers can come to a conclusion as to whether it is true or not.

Aisha, Sofia, and Sam's conversation reflects how Persinger's approach is an example of applying philosophical scepticism.

Aisha says, "Religious experiences are evidence of God's existence." She's starting with a claim.

Sofia says, "Persinger's experiments suggest religious experiences are caused by brain activity." She's considering, could there be another explanation? Sam says, "If religious experiences can be caused by brain activity, this suggests that they aren't evidence for God's existence." She has come to a conclusion which is that the claim is wrong.

But Aisha wants to challenge the claim that Persinger's experiment disproves the existence of God.

She says, "We should use scepticism to question whether Persinger's God helmet experiment proves religious experiences are caused by brain activity and not by God.

The fact our brains can experience these feelings might suggest that God designed us to connect with him." Sofia replies, "So it could be that religious experiences aren't just tricks played by the brain, they're part of how we're designed?" And Sam adds, "Well, I suppose it could show these experiences are part of a deeper spiritual reality." So let's check your understanding.

Persinger's experiment proves that all religious experiences are illusions created by the brain.

Is this true or false? Jot down your answer and also have a think about why it is either true or false.

Pause the video and come back when you are ready.

Well done if you put false.

But let's have a think about why.

Persinger's experiment does not prove that all religious experiences are illusions.

Some people argue that these experiences could still be genuine and part of a spiritual reality.

So even if the brain plays a role in them, God may have created the brain this way.

Persinger's God helmet experiment has itself come under scrutiny.

Using a sceptical approach, we can say, "Well, is there enough evidence?" And on further inquiry, we find that attempt to repeat the God helmet experiment often fail to get the same results.

And this raises doubts about its reliability.

Using the sceptical approach, we can ask, could there be another explanation? So rather than thinking that it is the temporal lobe stimulation that has caused the feelings that are similar to religious experiences, some have suggested the experiences might not come from brain stimulation, but from some kind of suggestion, from belief, or because the participants had religious backgrounds.

So, let's check your understanding on interpreting the God helmet experiment.

Why do some people challenge the reliability of the God helmet experiment? I'd like you to choose two answers.

A, participants had to undergo extensive training before using the helmet.

B, it was unclear whether the religious experiences were directly caused by brain stimulation.

C, the experiment's results were difficult to replicate in other studies.

And D, the experiment only involved people who weren't religious.

So remember, you're going to choose two answers.

Take your time.

Pause the video if you need to, and then come back when you are ready.

So let's check your answer.

The two correct answers were B, it was unclear whether religious experiences were directly caused by the brain stimulation, and C, the experiments results were difficult to replicate in other studies.

Well done if you got one or both of these correct.

So let's practise what you've learned on interpreting the God helmet experiment.

You're going to answer the unit question, does religious experience prove God exists, by using your learning on Persinger's God helmet.

Here are some possible sentence starters that take you through what we've learned in today's lesson and should help you apply them to our question.

Scepticism is a philosophical tool used to.

Persinger's God helmet experiment supports scepticism about religious experiences by.

However, some argue that.

The experiment has been criticised for.

The debate about whether religious experiences prove God exists is complicated because.

In conclusion, the God helmet experiment challenges the idea that religious experiences prove God exists by.

So you can use some or all of those sentences.

Take your time.

Pause the video, and come back when you've had a go at using what you've learned today to answer the question, does religious experience prove God exists? Let's have a look at what you could have said.

Scepticism is a philosophical tool used to question whether claims are reasonable or true.

Persinger's God helmet experiment supports scepticism about religious experiences by showing they can be triggered by brain stimulation.

However, some argue that brain involvement doesn't rule out the possibility of divine presence.

The experiment has been criticised for its reliability and its replicability.

The debate over whether religious experiences prove God's existence is complicated because there are strong arguments both for and against.

In conclusion, the God helmet experiment challenges the idea that religious experiences prove God's existence by questioning their origins.

Well done if you used some of those points there in that example answer.

We have learned a lot today in our lesson on Persinger's God helmet.

We've learned that Michael Persinger's God helmet stimulates the temporal lobe and induces religious experiences.

The God helmet experiment can be used to support a sceptical approach to whether religious experiences are proof of God's existence.

Some argue the experiment shows religious experiences are just brain activity, not proof of God.

Others argue the brain's ability to have religious experiences suggest God designed it for spiritual communication.

There is scepticism about the experiment's reliability and whether it can be replicated.

Thank you so much for working with me today.