Dear Marcel,

The first scientific literature man has read were the Books of God. In addition, the main foundation of science is religion-centered. Without religion, we would not have had science in the first place.

Dear Marwan,

Can religion practice become more efficient with or without science practice, and in this with or without the discovery of potential underlying biology-based mechanisms involved in social interactions? 

What is science without religion, dear Marcel?

I would say as simply as possible that religion creates hope/faith/trust... in/for what will happen in the future, which is obviously important also for constructive scientists....

Oxytocin as a bonding hormone may be more important for religious groups than religion. Should some of the alleged properties of oxytocin be true, groups (political, religious, or criminal) could exploit oxytocin to promote group bonding and influencing. Most likely, research will show that being dosed with oxytocin will not be easy, requiring appropriate physiological circumstances to be effective. 

Oxytocin is part of the total hormonal, physiological, and conscious-subconscious self. There should be no religious effect unless it can be exploited.

On the other hand, people can be religious despite enormous variation in personality profiles, e.g. shy versus bold. This would imply that the relationship between religion-based practice and hormone-based personality profiles is probably very complex.

Perhaps some religions are more relaxed whereas others are more strict or not, e.g. imposing more or less discipline with (mental) force? Any biology-based mechanisms implicated?

Dear Marcel,

I do not think that the discovery on the role of oxytocin will ever influence the true believers. During centuries many believers were tortured and manipulated by the most cruel physical and psychical means but people who were aware harmonically and philosophically of their faith kept their conviction.

Dear Joseph,

I feel what you have written on the future use of oxytocin balances between the idea of a criminal novel and inspiration of a courageous or unscrupulous political psychologist.

Andras

Just reflecting the hype. As I said, more likely reality does not come close to press release.

Religion is first of all power. There is more than oxytocin that can change the behaviour. It’s always better that neurotransmitters are natural produced.

The question uses an empirically derived explanation of the relationship between a hormone and the inferred behavioral consequence of changing its concentration to an inference about how the world ought to be. There is nothing in the epistemology of science that would justify making such a leap.

A scientifically informed theologian might be interested in this particular hormone-behavior relationship to initiate a moral discussion but that discussion is a philosophical/theological one, not a scientific one.

Oxytocin is a classical neuroendocrine neurohypophysical hormone having considerable role in social attachment, affiliation and sexual behaviour. During the last two decades, it has emerged as an influential hormone released in the brain thereby kicking off a wide spectrum of central effects and mediating socio-sexual behaviours in both males and females. In addition the hormone also intercede Social attachment, affiliation, bonding and parental behaviour. Like other hormones, it has its own physiological functions and there should be no religious effect unless it can be exploited. Religiously human sexual behaviour is regarded as the inherited sexual response evolved as a means of ensuring reproduction. In both solitary and sociosexual behaviour there may be activities that can be unusual and deviant. However, human societies differ in their sexual practices, what is deviant in one society may be normal in another.

The impacts mentioned are based on available research reports.

In animals, hormone-treated individuals change behavior. I also think this is the case in humans when you look at sports requiring force.

It would depend on what denomination the mouse was a member of.  It's an awful long stretch from lab mice to psychology pot religion,

Dear Michael,

But take the case of testosterone shared across vertebrates (>100.000 hits in web of knowledge). What is testosterone doing in mice versus men?

And why making a distinction between a hormone and a drug (medical) treatment, and their behavioral consequences? 

To what extent is religious conviction resistant against all these hormone/drug/medicine treatments?

For more information see the attached file. Are spiritual/religion-inspired people animal friendly?

How important is the presence of animals or animal-related topics in the stimulation of social interactions among scientists/students/ education relationships, perhaps mediated by Oxytocin from a proximate point of view?

Oxytocin is taken by autistic persons, a friend of mine was using it. I think nothing is wrong with it.

But all these experiments with mice I don't like to read about. I’m breeding sheep.

Strange that we easy jump from human perception to friendly animal behavior. I also think that the human perception is not always a mechanism it can also be something more