Okay Lola and Blatham...time to put up or shut up!

Lola:-

The only trouble with your reasoning is that it is so sensible it renders a fair amount of the stuff on these threads pointless which in turn renders the people engaging in it pointless as well and as there are a lot more of them than there are of us and they fear pointlessness they might use their power to have us silenced in some way.

Hence the hermit syndrome when that power was actually used.

As I often point out the social dynamics on the threads seems to me to be identical with those in a pub.Cliques form and while they don't freeze others out they have a tendency to do so over periods of time.And cliques are unmanageable above a certain not very large number.

Of course things like "values" and "guilt" are another matter as I tried to point out the other day.

And there is the BIGBIG problem of 8 billion who simply have to be prevented (sic) from living like you.That's when values and guilt really bite.

0 Replies

You really have to face facts, Spendi. There are at least 7 and a half billion who do not want to live like me. I take it you mean my hedonism in NYC.

I'm going to a seminar in a minute......I have to hurry to get there. But it's about social bonds and the nature of empathy. The idea is that the phenomenon within a group of neurological processes promoting attachment is the poorly understood process of empathy. Using models of empathy from cognitive neuroscience, affective neuroscience (both human and animal work), and functional imaging studies (using I suspect PET scans), the presenter will present a basic model of affective (emotional rather than cognitive -- thinking) empathy as a "gated resonance induction" (gated in the sense that at least four classes of variables determine intensity of an empathic response to the suffering of another.) This description is taken from parts of the flyer announcing the lecture. So it's a little technical in it's language, for which I apologize. But I really must go right away.

So I'll be studying your "hermit syndrome."

I should also point out that I don't feel silenced or left out by any clique here at a2k. Perhaps it's because I don't work as hard as you do to chase others away. I think you'd have more success if you're responses were less biting. But then that would of course depend on a desire on your part to want to be included. I'll keep you informed about the brain.

0 Replies

Lola - It seems that your evidence is mostly evolutionary. Could a position like Hicks turn your conception of religion?

This position, in short, is that God chose to have a relationship with whatever had the ability to have a relationship with him as caused by the evolutionary process.

The difference in religions are then human interpretation of this relationship.

As far as Frank's position goes:

His postion that all evidence for God is ambigious is a frustrating one. I am sure you all have seen our threads on this topic. He has been very respectfull to me (if not animated). However, I think his postion is one that is clearly addresses by Kierkeggards conceptions of objective religious evidence and subjective religious evidence.

Here is my synopsis:

How could a sociologist ever determine if JL Nobody and I were friends. Let's say they sat and watched us play cards. I played Spades with him as my partner and I talked well about him, bought him a few beers, and said that he made a great partner in cards. The sociologist could conclude that we were, indeed, good friends.

However, in my head I could be thinking the entire time 'If I didn't owe that bastard 2,000 dollars I would tell him what for!"

It seems that a relationship, that is personal, between one man and another, or one God and one human, can never be defined or observed objectively.

The seat of religion is always experience - and Frank believes (I think) because he is trying to observe others experiences objectively - that all religious experience is ambigious.

With that said, I would like to clarify my position:

Theists that do not have any of these religious experiences to draw from do not have faith - they have 'Hope'. Hope that thier is a diety for them to experience.

Theists that do have experience to ground thier faith do indeed have faith - that this relationship they are embarked on is with a diety that is going to do what he claims he will do (i.e. grant everylasting life or what have you).

Atheists, if they claim there is no God, are claiming that there is no God based on a lack of relationship. You cannot prove a negative and this they seem to me to be "theists in waiting".

Agnostics are on hold and believe that we can never know.

I think that all of the positions above can truly be reduced to the Agnostic position. We are all agnostics with leanings toward theism, athiesm or what have you.

What would it mean to know?

I don't find Lola's position to be particularly persuading and think that Val's post really sums up why I think this is:

val wrote:

Lola

Quote:
I agree with watchmaker about this. We can never know anything as an absolute fact. But enough consistent evidence for which there is no known evidence to contradict it can constitute what we know as scientific fact (which of necessity requires doubt).

So, you mean that geocentric system, since Aristotle and Ptolomeus was the only scientific theory acceptable until the end of XVI century. In fact, it was the only system consistent to evidence. Aristarco had not a scientific position, since he claimed that was the earth that moved, and that fact could not be an "evidence" in his time.

Then, you also mean that space and time are absolute references, as Newton said, according to the evidence of his time.

With Einstein, new "evidence", new theory. Space and time are related to the observer, according to the speed of light and position.

And tomorrow?

I think the athiest has to assume alot of the powers of science to conclude there is no God. This seems to be equal to what the theists have to assume that there is a God - it seems they both have faith in something: whether it be the scientific method or an all powerful diety.

I don't think though, that Lola and others are making too strong a claim and I respect them for that. They are simply saying they don't know but lean away from God. (I think - please correct if needed).

I just wish we could all have a civil discussion about it. I am all for swearing and cussin it up (lord knows I do it enough) but the name calling seems silly.

TTF

0 Replies

thethinkfactory wrote:

Atheists, if they claim there is no God, are claiming that there is no God based on a lack of relationship.

That's one of the most peculiar things I've ever heard.

I claim that there is most likely no gods, simply because there is no evidence that there is such a thing, nor reason to believe that there is likely to be such a thing.

I do not believe in gods for precisely the same reason I don't believe in N-rays.

I may rethink my opinion should I ever discover evidence suggesting that gods exist, yet for the moment I follow what is clearly to me the path with the most evidence.

I can not speak for other atheists.

Quote:

You cannot prove a negative

A ridiculous saying one commonly hears. You can not prove anything, yet negatives present no more difficulty than positives in establishing estimated ranges of probability.

Quote:

and this they seem to me to be "theists in waiting".

I could address this point, but first you're going to have to describe for me what a "theist in waiting" is. The only related expression I am familiar with is "lady in waiting" and try as hard as I might I can not draw the correlation.

Quote:

Agnostics are on hold and believe that we can never know.

By some definitions, yes. I think Eorl was correct in the necessity of dividing these terms into their component parts but agnosticism needs to be included equally as much as atheism. The term has far too many meanings.

Quote:

I think that all of the positions above can truly be reduced to the Agnostic position. We are all agnostics with leanings toward theism, athiesm or what have you.

I thoroughly agree, as I may have mentioned in previous posts.

Quote:

What would it mean to know?

That really depends on the answer. Should there be no gods whatsoever then somehow defying the laws of reality to know with absolute clarity that there are no gods would really be a let-down and a waste of an impossible degree of knowledge.

Quote:

I think the athiest has to assume alot of the powers of science to conclude there is no God.

This sentence makes no sense... What are you trying to say? Could you phrase it another way?

Quote:

it seems they both have faith in something: whether it be the scientific method or an all powerful diety.

...

Pardon me as I stare at my screen for a moment, lost for words.

Yes. You can disbelieve in science as much as you wish. Then to avoid hypocrisy you can switch off your computer and go live in a cave. Thankyou, I hope the raw rabbit you catch with your hands tastes nice.

(Not necessarily directed at you...)

Quote:

I don't think though, that Lola and others are making too strong a claim and I respect them for that. They are simply saying they don't know but lean away from God. (I think - please correct if needed).

Precisely. Thankyou, I appreciate your understanding.

0 Replies

You cannot prove a negative - I agree is heard a lot and let me try to be more specific.

When you talk of relationships (which religion certainly is - if there is such a thing) you cannot prove that a person does or does not love you. You can only have faith in that relationship based on the actions of the other.

However, if you have had no such experiences you cannot even make a claim about the thing making the experience.

I think, WG that your athiestic position is clear and I gracious in that you say I tend to lean against a God based on your lack of experiences with a God - and based on the scientific evidence against scriptual accounts of creation. I say gracious because you do not, foolishly in my opinion, angerly attack God. It seems some athiests presuppose God with thier attacks.

I cannot blame you for this - I do think though that the other choice is Hope. Hope for a God even though you have not had an experience. (This is merely a statement - not some sort of guilt inducing prescription for your life.)

When I said that science assumes a lot to disprove God - maybe this was a statement that does not apply to you. Lola seemed to base a lot of his / her athiestic accounts on evolution. I am not sure evolution directly opposes thesism, but to conclude (as Darwin mused) that if evolution is true that there is no room for God - is to suppose a lot of powers that science does not seem to have at it's disposal.

I think WG that you have addressed this above when you said that science cannot prove anything. But, again, I think Lola said that no one can know it is just a leaning away from theism that he / she supports.

I also agree completly that Eorl needed to give a lot of definitions for agnosticism. It enlightened me directly. So, read that comment about agnosticism as directed toward Frank's version. If Frank ever saw any direct evidence for God, he claims that he could change his mind.

I tend, however, to agree with you that Frank has given his bias away through his very vocal support of agnosticism. I don't think he will allow himself to see religious evidence because he is conviced that none exists. I think his take on agnosticism is a self fulfilled prophesy in that he never will see anything unambigious if does not allow himself to take in information that way.

However, I am a theist and tend to interpret information I see as being support for my position - so I can mostly excuse him of this. I don't know what is in his heart - and if he truly is open minded - I am talking out of my posterior.

I agree with those conservatives that want to live thier lives by the scientific model and claim that they don't. If I asked them if they could prove they had just eaten lunch - they would give me emperical evidence to support it - and then claim that science is the anti-christ.

This is silly, dogmatic, and wrong headed.

I simply believe that science does not allow for evidence that goes beyond the 5 senses and thus cannot speak to a great part of religious realities. Love, hate, rage, and any sort of emotions have proven very difficult for science to explain. Since the time of Galileo has science given up explaining final causes. I think with this went sciences search for God and theistic relationships.

TTF

0 Replies

TTF, please don't think that I disrespect you or disregard your arguments. I have a lot of respect for your abilities with philosophy. What I do do however, is disagree with you. I honestly think you're wrong.

I'll explain why.

You use the classic "you can't prove love" argument. Which is fundamentally flawed. The field of neuropsychological science is young indeed, but its advances are amazing. By monitoring the electromagnetic fields and resonance of the brain we can determine such simple things as whether a person is trying to solve a math problem or not. Something we once had to take on faith. Complex patterns such as love are a bit beyond our grasp but there will come a time in the not to distant future that we will be able to detect such things as well.

This brings us on to a related point. It would be nice to think that there are more to our thoughts than chemical patterns in our brain, but it would also be wrong. I'm sorry to be blunt here, but it is quite obvious if one follows a logical process that our brain determines mental processes. It is easy to prove by examing the effects of psychoactive chemicals and brain damage. Were our thoughts, memories and personalities stored in an external device such as a "soul" then such simple influences could not so completely alter them.

Even in classical periods the role of the brain were clear to anyone who had the opportunity to study the effects of brain damage, such as Galen, a roman gladiatorial physician.

Not only is there no reason to suppose a non-physical component to our thoughts, but there is clear and strong evidence against such a thing, which I mentioned above.

The idea that religious experience is in some way unrelated to our brain is demonstrably false. The experiments of Dr Parsinger have shown that temporal lobe radiation artificially induces a divine experience, the relationship of which you speak. The air force and space program have discovered that near death experiences are naturally occuring results of anoxia, which can also be artificially induced by a centrifuge machine.

It is quite clear that religion, much like love, is a process of our brain working normally. The evidence suggests that, and no more. There is no sign in anything I have ever read or heard (and forgive the arrogance of this but I am widely knowledgable in many fields) that suggests the existance of a divine entity.

You're correct that I disagree with "scriptural accounts of creation", but incorrect in assuming that that is the main basis of my disagreement. I do sometimes go on about that point, however it's simply because I believe the mainstream miseducation of the public on evolution is a tragedy that I attempt to correct.

Oddly enough, when you say that my disbelief in God/gods is because of a lack of direct experience you are correct beyond what you most likely suspect, for that is the very origin of my atheism.

Let me paint a picture for you. I never ever learned about religion at a young age, it simply never cropped up in my life. I heard a few things here and there, but in my childish naivety I believed them to be fictional and cultural references. I went along to religious education and school and was told to pray and offer my soul Jesus. I thought "sounds good, I'll do that".

I did. I closed my eyes and sort of tried to open my mind and thought out to the universe at large "Hi there". I felt nothing back, it was kind of weird, sitting there waiting for a reply or even a feeling of contact but there was just nothing.

I know why. That "hit them with a prayer first off" thing works because most people have an experience with religion and know what they're supposed to feel. I didn't know anything about it so my brain had no knowledge from which to create an illusion. I didn't feel any resentment, just a "oh, okay, nothing there" sort of emotion. Still, it meant I didn't find any reason to believe all the stuff they taught me in religious education.

From there I've learned more and now disbelieve for more accurate logical reasons, but had I had an "experience" then I probably would have believed (though I suspect more logically and reasonably than many fanatics).

That's where I'm coming from. Make sense?

Quote:

I do think though that the other choice is Hope. Hope for a God even though you have not had an experience.

Why would I hope for a god?

I'm not trying to be funny or argumentative here, I'm serious. I don't know why I would want there to be one.

1) I'm not afraid of death. Honestly and truthfully, knowing that death is just a cesation of biological function means that I don't fear it at all. I want to go on living and having the fun that I have with life, but when it's over I'm just happy for it to stop. I'm kind of scared of the pain I might feel from my cause of death and I'm in no rush to die, but I'm not really scared. An afterlife isn't that appealing to me.

2) I don't need a deep meaning to life, or spiritual validation, or moral guidestick. I enjoy my life and try to live it well. I'm naturally equiped with a moral guidestick, it's a part of normal human functioning. I know it's not perfect or some kind of universal indicator, but it's enough for me to live by.

3) While it would be nice to believe an all-powerful being would help the poor, downtrodden and harmed people around the world, I've got to admit if he were going to, he would have already done so.

Why should I hope for a god?

Quote:

(This is merely a statement - not some sort of guilt inducing prescription for your life.)

That's fine. I didn't think you were but you couldn't guilt me anyway, I don't care enough about your opinion of me. (sorry, not trying to be rude but you're a stranger on a chat room. It's not like your opinion is integral to my self-identity and I do have a very strong ego)

Quote:

I am not sure evolution directly opposes thesism, but to conclude (as Darwin mused) that if evolution is true that there is no room for God

I didn't know he said that... I've read origin of species from beginning to end and if it ever said that then I must have missed it. Maybe it's from one of his biographies or something.

Quote:

However, I am a theist and tend to interpret information I see as being support for my position.

Yeah, I try not to but I do the same. Still, I do put a lot of effort into reading religious advocacy books or articles with an open mind, just in case I'm wrong.

Quote:

Love, hate, rage, and any sort of emotions have proven very difficult for science to explain.

Love, hate and rage are created by chemical processes within an area of the brain known as the lymbic system. Primarily centered upon a smallish arched structure in the center of the brain known as the hypocampus (from the latin for sea-horse which it sort of looks like). The hypocampus is responsible for emotional reactions and the processing/storage of short term memory. In short this is the home of the "lower" or "animal" functions of the brain.

There are earlier evolved segments such as the brainstem, medula oblongata, optical nerves etc which form the basis of very simple functioning. The are also later evolved areas mostly in the cortex, cerebellum and cerebrum which handle "higher" or "human" functions like logic, memory and advanced communication. However the basics of emotions seem confined to the lymbic system.

Chemically love appears to be related to the neurotransmiter called dopamine whereas hate and rage are far more related to the adrenal systems of the body.

Please consider that I am an amateur who has read a few books on the topic... actual scientific knowledge is no doubt far more accurate and in depth on this issue.

0 Replies

Wow.......there is a lot to respond to here since I last visited this morning. Where to start?

First, let me make it clear that I am a woman. If you don't believe me, ask Frank when he returns. Or any other a2k participants who have met me in person. I'm saying that, as far as I know, in order to save watchmaker the extra energy required for pressing extra keys for the he/she thing. That's the easy one.

I do agree with almost all of what watchmaker says, thinkfactory. What we call "relationship" is actually a complex of brain functions. So your formulation that I can't know god because I've never experienced a relationship with him/her makes little sense to me.

The lecture I just attended and the discussion afterwards was fascinating and exactly on this very point. One highly knowledgeable psychoanalyst/neurologist said that he thought of spirituality or a search for a god as a search for attachment and empathy in order to restore or bolster damaged self esteem. He said that he thought of it as the result of failed attachment and represented the attempt to find that attachment. I don't call it love because what we call love is a complex issue and I don't have time to get into it. (The research being presented today did contain fMRI (functional magnetic resonance imaging) images demonstrating the areas that are activated when maternal and romantic love is experienced. Also romantic love and maternal love which, while over lapping slightly, are not identical.)

Now, first let me say that the presenter had already demonstrated the that empathy or the capacity to experience empathy is genomic (inherited) as well as environmentally influenced (early relationships with parents and family). But the presenter responded by saying that there are many forms of religion , religious belief and spirituality. And while the more rigid forms of religion did appear to be used by those with a traumatic past and/or a genetic predisposition to be less empathic or attuned (two necessary elements in relationship, unless that relationship is based on hate and some are, sad to say) it is also true that there are many empathically attuned individuals with empathic environmental pasts who enjoy religious experience. This may represent a need/wish to enjoy this relationship with empathic experience in a representational way. Or that spiritually is one way some individuals express and experience empathic attunement. One might guess that these people are the ones brought up in homes in which spirituality was used at least in part to express empathic attunement. These forms of religion are remarkably more positive and do not depend on guilt and punishment.

Still, thinkfactory, you can see why I say that your belief or faith can be understood only as a natural physical phenomenon resulting in experience and therefore can be studied scientifically. I don't have faith in science, I believe in it because it makes logical sense to me. I only believe in things I can believe.

I won't go on further, because otherwise this will get too long and I need to go to the store.

0 Replies

empathy...... feeling your pain in my heart.

0 Replies

Lola - that lecture you went to must have been fascinating!

0 Replies

I seem to recall that Charles Darwin remarked
that his complete immersion in science had rendered him unable to appreciate art and literature.

"I have tried lately to read Shakespeare, and found it so intolerably dull that it nauseated me,"
he said (probably echoing the sentiments of a
zillion high school students).

0 Replies

Lola wrote:

Quote:

My thinking on this subject starts where your thinking ends.

Arrogance.

More correctly, interests have our thinking focused in diverse directions.

I think it is precisely the lack of insight, the lack of Thinking, the lack of reflection on Consciousness, that's at issue.

If consciousness cannot be observed; cannot be pocked, seen, smelt, tasted, hear or thought of, if consciousness is imperceptible, inconceivable, then Consciousness cannot be studied. It is the "contents" of consciousness that is under examination, the object never the subject (consciousness).

Also, the barrier for those focused on brains and bodies (as if they were real (autonomous)), is that they never get to the experience, to "what it's like to be something, someone."

Third person observations are radically different then first person observations.

What is it like to be a bat?

0 Replies

Consciousness is indeed the only fact we are aware of. The conflicts between first and third person are always sources of great interest.
Yet everything is either possible or impossible, or everything is neither possible nor impossible.
Man cannot live by bread alone, as his beliefs are destroyed he has an indissoluble attachment to creating another. Hence he is a prisoner of mankind in the truest sense. Afraid no doubt of his known insignificance. He never wanted true association with the apes for instance, it was demeaning to his psyche.

0 Replies

WG:

Thanks for your reply. It is not only honest (brutally Wink

) but fair and respectful. I don't think I could cause you guilt - I simply do not want to be lumped in with those theists that try to guilt others into religion.

With that said - I think your wrong as well. Wink

Here is why:

From what I have read your argument of near death experiences is wrong. Although pilots see narrowing tunnels of light and other things that are similar to NDE's they do not speak to other beings, see thier bodies from above and many other things that seem very unique to NDE's. I had just finished a book that stated such. Also, many double blind studies suggest that praying (The power of prayer is a good book) does have results in the world.

With that said - I never stated that emotions, and our ability to experience emotions are not contained in the brain and are not chemical in thier basis. However, to say that we can identify love and chemically reporoduce it does not mean that thier ceases to be others out there that cause love in the brain.

I however, completely admit that this God thing might be completely fabricated by the brain. I have had experiences that I think contradict this thesis - but if it were knowledge that I had it would not be faith.

I never said that you thought that your basis for athiesm was a creationist . evolutionary account of the world. Lola mentioned it so I wanted to address it. Sorry if I was misleading.

As far as the Darwin comment it was the central idea in a book by Dan Dennett (I think you would like by the way - it supports your position) that Darwin mused this and I thought it was in the Origin of Species but I may be wrong.

I agree with your assessment of religious experience. I would love to tell you that God works in mysteirous ways but I think that you would not only roll your eyes at me but I have come to believe that that statement is self referentially incoherent. People say this as a way of explaining God's actions and thus not making God very mysterious.

However, I did not know what to expect when I began to participate in a relationship with God. Things began to happen and I think (think is the operative word) my faith was supported.

I am an amateur as well in this. I really appreciate your post. It is well reasoned and open minded.

Lola,

I was the one typing he / she. Thanks for the clarification. I though Val was a she and am loathe to do it again. Wink

I think that lecture would have been great to be at. Scientists that do this sort of thing are doing thier jobs. They are using thier mechanisms to prove what they can prove. I simply think that these kinds of experiments simply map where love and other emotions are felt in the brain - it does not make sense to state that love for God would be felt anywhere else.

Like I said above - to state that because of imaging of the brain that things outside the brain do not exist to cause these emotions seems like something that cannot be stated by an MRI.

Great posts everyone. I am really enjoying this conversation.

TTF

0 Replies

I'm entering this discussion late and if what I'm about to say has already been dissected please forgive me.

Since this thread has to do with the philosophical aspects of not believing in a deity I want to ask a simple question:.........why does a very high percentage of the citizens of the world have such strong feelings about their God, be it a Christian God, a Muslim God, or any other deity. Is it not because there is a psychological need within the human character to believe in something greater than themselves? Even though I believe in evolution instead of creationism, I recognize the stated need and I accept it for what it is........I believe most rational observers would agree with me if they only thought about it for a moment. Why then is there so much intolerance and paranoia about the religions of the world?

Here in the US, the paranoia has reached epidemic proportion. Let me remind you that in the first stages of Christianity, there was justification for paranoia because Christianity was all powerful as it is in the Muslim faith now. Many persons, especially non-believing liberals and socialists are frightened out of their wits that Christianity is taking over the gov't. This is absolute nonsense. I ask you.....does society need a code to live by. By this I'm not talking about a code that says........do what ever you want and whatever feels goods as long as you don't interfere with the lives of others. This of course is impossible because even the most benign and innocent action will probably have unintended consequences and affect others. I'm talking about a code such as the Ten Commandments which has served this country well for over 200 years. This is a code of morality which in turn creates a basis for all of our ethical behavior in our relations with others. You can observe that in the countries of Europe, evolutionists such as myself have become so arrogant and dominating that they have nearly destroyed any belief in God. I find this trend very dangerous and disturbing because of the effect it will have in the long term on the world's moral and ethical behavior. I believe the Ten Commandments will be replaced with a code that says what ever feels good is OK.......this will evolve into a code that says ....... what ever I can get away with is OK.
In the Muslim world they have Sharia law which comes from the Koran. In the Western world we have the Ten Commandments which have been the basis for all of our laws. They have served us well for over 200 years....why discard them now? I suggest that we should be much more tolerant of the worlds religions......after all, religious freedom was and is one of the cornerstones of this country.

0 Replies

Lola wrote:

I'm saying that, as far as I know, in order to save watchmaker the extra energy required for pressing extra keys for the he/she thing.

I cheat, I use they. Technically and gramatically it's incorrect to use it for a single person but it is gender neutral and sort of works that way.

ttf wrote:

I simply do not want to be lumped in with those theists that try to guilt others into religion.

A fate I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy. Well, okay, maybe her... and a few others... four or five people, tops! :wink:

Quote:

I think you're wrong as well.

Our differing opinions led me to suspect that.

Quote:

From what I have read your argument of near death experiences is wrong. Although pilots see narrowing tunnels of light and other things that are similar to NDE's they do not speak to other beings, see thier bodies from above and many other things that seem very unique to NDE's. I had just finished a book that stated such.

If what you said were true (I'll ruin the suprise, it's not. Your book lied to you, sorry), then it wouldn't be relevant anyway for the points I've listed below. However your book did lie. Again, I'm sorry. I suggest you send a complaint to the publish, you may be able to get your money back. Here's the page on the NDE centrifuge experiments which lists the phenomena they experiences which includes the two traits you listed.

http://www.near-death.com/experiences/triggers06.html

Here are the points to counter that claim anyway (I have a thoroughness problem at times).

A) Pilots are not dying and are well aware that they are not dying. Thus causing no need for their brain to invoke any death-related images.
B) NDEs almost universally take the form of the cultural and religious belief of the experiencer, varying substantially from one another.
C) ND Experiencers claim to recall details from their perceptions yet no reliable reports have occurred of any information being obtained that was not otherwise available to the person. Despite bored doctors having a joking habbit of placing cards with messages on them where they can only be seen by people "floating above their body".

And finally the moment that makes all the above irrelevant...

D) An omniscient being knows that you're not really dying and thus has no need to bring you into heaven. NDEs can only exist as malfunctions in the death-afterlife process which can not occur when overseen by the perfect being they describe. Thus logically they can not exist under a theocratic model (as genuine experiences), yet can exist under an atheistic brain-experience model.

Quote:

Also, many double blind studies suggest that praying (The power of prayer is a good book) does have results in the world.

Which studies specifically; The Byrd study and the Harris study both of which are scientifically invalid as the criteria were determined after the data was gathered. (as I'm sure you realise this is a big "no-no" in research as it means they can pick the aspects in which random chance happened to play a role).

Not only that but the Harris study, while it claims that it proves the efficacy of prayer, in actual fact only one of the aspects shows any increase which is on the borderline of standard variance (the ammount by which it is statistically likely to be influenced by random chance) thus giving it next to no actual value.

We should also note that the Mathews and Conti blind study determined a positive effect occurs in patients who request "prayer" whether they receive actual prayer or placebo prayer. The ammount of benefit was the same in either case.

Or perhaps the 2001 Mayo clinic study which determined absolutely no significant effect of intercessory prayer.

If you name even 1 scientifically valid study on the efficacy of intercessory prayer which demonstrates a positive result above that of a placebo effect then I will give you some credence on this point. My research finds zero of these however. I seem to be able to find a lot of scientifically valid studies which say the opposite however.

Oh, quickly one side note. This is talking about other people praying for you, which is almost certainly useless. However there IS a medical benefit to praying for yourself that has been demonstrated. You weren't talking about this (since it's impossible to have a self-administered doubleblind trial) but it's still a valid point.

However the effect is much the same as the effect of having close family nearby, pets, meditating or artistic expression. So yes, prayer can "give your life meaning" which respectively makes you happy. No doubt. Yet this involves no proof of external divine entities.

Quote:

With that said - I never stated that emotions, and our ability to experience emotions are not contained in the brain and are not chemical in thier basis.

Oh yes, sorry. I think I neglected to take the last step in that logic process. I meant to also say:

Since our emotional and mental experiences are created exclusively by chemical brain processes, any external tampering via divine telekinesis would be detectable as a physical process. This thus makes God communing with humans scientifically falsifiable thus proving you wrong on the "you can't disprove a relationship with God".

Sorry, that was kind of the crucial part.

Quote:

As far as the Darwin comment it was the central idea in a book by Dan Dennett (I think you would like by the way - it supports your position)

... maybe, I tend to be more critical on atheists than theists. They should know better :wink:

Quote:

I thought it was in the Origin of Species but I may be wrong.

Or not. I've only read it once, I can't claim to know it word for word. He also wrote a tonne of other things in which it could have been found. I'm just a little dubious on references like this as a lot of (much less honest theists than yourself) make up quotes from people like Darwin and Einstein to support their point of view.

It annoyed Einstein so much he wrote a letter to the editor to refute many of these claims. You should be able to find it if you search on google.

Quote:

However, I did not know what to expect when I began to participate in a relationship with God. Things began to happen and I think (think is the operative word) my faith was supported.

I can't believe in a God who can't do better than "I think". I'm sorry, unless the laws of physics or at the very least statistics are being broken then it's safest to assume real world causes and not mysterious intervention of external powers.

People who say things like "God used his omnipotent powers capable of anything to cause my cancer to slowly remiss in the same fashion in which the bodies immune system does" leave me somewhat unimpressed I'm afraid.

0 Replies

twyvel wrote:

Lola wrote:

Quote:
My thinking on this subject starts where your thinking ends.

Arrogance.

More correctly, interests have our thinking focused in diverse directions.

I think it is precisely the lack of insight, the lack of Thinking, the lack of reflection on Consciousness, that's at issue.

If consciousness cannot be observed; cannot be pocked, seen, smelt, tasted, hear or thought of, if consciousness is imperceptible, inconceivable, then Consciousness cannot be studied. It is the "contents" of consciousness that is under examination, the object never the subject (consciousness).

Also, the barrier for those focused on brains and bodies (as if they were real (autonomous)), is that they never get to the experience, to "what it's like to be something, someone."

Third person observations are radically different then first person observations.

What is it like to be a bat?

I'm sorry twyvel. I didn't intend to suggest that your thinking was beneath me. I was saying that since you think about god and consciousness using experiential criteria and I think about it from a scientific, material perspective, our thinking or explanations do not meet. It's as if we're on two separate roads which have no intersection. I'm sorry if you were insulted.

However your statement above about consciousness not being observable is incorrect and is growing more incorrect daily. Individual experience or consciousness can only be understood by talking to the person whose experience you are trying to understand. However consciousness, or the process of consciousness can be observed in the brain and understood mechanically. And it's also untrue that scientists do not experience. All brains function in the same way.

The distinction between brain and mind is the distinction between mechanics and experience. I've never come up with an analogy that truly fits to help explain this. I try with the car engine analogy, but it is limited. We understand how an engine works to move the car, but that doesn't prohibit enjoying the experience of riding in one (or owning one, etc.) I experience the workings of my brain just like everyone else does. I have satisfying relationships, some are more than satisfying, but I don't think of them as a relationship with god. And as TTF points out, the operative word here is "think."

This is the way I think and I don't require that anyone else think this way to confirm my beliefs. My only complaint with religion is with the kind of religion now rampart in our country and government. When someone's religion requires I live by the principles held in that religion, or that version of religion, especially if coercion is involved, then I object. But that would be true of any belief system, religious or not. Anytime I am coerced or forced or in danger of being forced to live by standards or rules I believe to be unnecessary or damaging I'm going to object loudly.

I don't mind how you think about it. But you and I have little to discuss when you turn to explanations that include science or logic not at all and I think about explanations based only on logic and science. I believe that experience is for fun or pain, or whatever, and contributes little to the explanation of the workings of natural phenomena. Well, that is, experience can give hints about where to search for explanations. But explanations that are believable to me are supported by scientific evidence. Without science, I'm left with blind, subjective conjecture.

0 Replies

littlek wrote:

Lola - that lecture you went to must have been fascinating!

Yes, little k, it was. I wish I had taken better notes.

0 Replies

shepaints wrote:

I seem to recall that Charles Darwin remarked
that his complete immersion in science had rendered him unable to appreciate art and literature.

"I have tried lately to read Shakespeare, and found it so intolerably dull that it nauseated me,"
he said (probably echoing the sentiments of a
zillion high school students).

A very brief Google search came up with this:

Quote:

. . . Two Great Books - During his last year at Cambridge University, after completing his final exam (he scored 10th place!) Darwin read Sir John Herschel's "Preliminary Discourse on the Study of Natural Philosophy." The primary influence of this book was that it convinced Darwin that there were no limits to the wonders that scientific investigation could uncover, and this instilled in Darwin a burning zeal for science. Another book he read (in the Spring 1831) was Alexander von Humboldt's 7-volume "Personal Narrative of the Travels to the Equinoctial Regions of America During the Years 1799-1804." It was this book that really got Darwin's imagination spinning, and he was now dreaming about exploring the glorious tropical rain forests of South America (he was unaware of the H.M.S. Beagle voyage at this time).
By the time Darwin was twenty-two years old he was by no means a "finished naturalist" but he did posses a general knowledge of a wide variety of scientific fields. Perhaps what was more important, however, is that Darwin had developed a burning passion for natural science and an unbounded enthusiasm for exploration. The foundation was now set for Darwin to become one of the greatest naturalists of the 19th century.

What kind of music did Charles Darwin like?

Nothing is known about Darwin's musical disposition as a child. There is no indication that he ever played a musical instrument, nor had an appreciation of music in general. As a young man Darwin acquired a taste for classical music while studying at Cambridge University. He often visited King's College there, and would sit for hours listening to the church choir.

What is interesting about Darwin's fondness for music is that he was tone deaf, and had a very difficult time recalling a tune he just heard the day before. Darwin was also unable to hum a tune properly, or keep time to music as he was listening to it. As far as specific composers go, he loved the symphonies and overtures of Mozart, Handel and Beethoven. In the evenings his wife, Emma, who was quite an accomplished pianist (she was trained by Frederic Chopin), would play for him on her piano forte as he reclined on a nearby sofa.

What sorts of literature did Darwin like?

In his childhood Darwin was an avid reader, and this continued throughout his entire life. From an early age he was quite keen on the historical plays of Shakespeare. While in grade school at Shrewsbury he admired the "Odes of Horace" a great deal.

Although Darwin seemed to be born with an innate interest in the natural world, it was not until the Summer of 1826 that the books he read started to spark his serious interest in studying nature. During this time he read Revd. Gilbert White's: "The Natural History of Selborne" and he came away from this book with a much greater appreciation for wildlife.

While attending Cambridge University, Darwin was further inspired by literature in such works as: William Paley's: "Natural Theology," Sir John Herschel's book: "Preliminary Discourse on the Study of Natural Philosophy" and Alexander von Humboldt's 7-vol. "Personal Narrative" of his South America travels.

During the Beagle voyage he always read Milton's "Paradise Lost" when he had a spare moment. While living in London after the voyage, Darwin read some metaphysical books, but found that he was not well suited to them. It was during this same time in his life that he became fond of the poetry of William Wordsworth, and Samuel Coleridge.

In his later years Darwin was very fond of novels by Jane Austen, and Elizabeth Gaskell, the poems of Lord Byron, and the historical novels of Sir Walter Scott. Darwin was always quick to point out that he did not enjoy novels with a depressing ending. He wife, Emma, would read novels to him twice a day while he reclined on a sofa, and he took great pleasure in this daily routine. He also enjoyed books of narrated travels.

Darwin also read a huge volume of scientific works, and his treatment of these was most interesting. It seems he treated them simply as a tool and took little care to keep such books in good condition. For example, he would cut books in half to make them easier to hold while reading, or just tear out smaller sections of books that related to his current research interests. Darwin also heavily marked books, and added plenty of personal remarks in the margins. His method of reading was very methodical - he used to take notes on the scientific books he read, and then made abstracts from his notes.

In late years his taste for literature and the arts diminished greatly, so much so that even listening to music caused him much stress. Darwin also lost his appreciation for poetry and paintings, a fact that saddened him a great deal.

more here

It sounds like Darwin's difficulty enjoying music and literature happened primarily in his late years. I didn't find anything that suggested that it was his interest in science that caused his decreasing interest in the arts. We make our choices and one road leads us away from others. One has only so much time and energy in a life time. Specialization leads to a decrease in experience and knowledge in areas not included in the specialized, focused area of interest and expertise, of necessity.

0 Replies

Do you understand WG that if ineffibale knowledge of a diety was given to every human thier free will would be preempted? You seem to forget that we are talking about a relationship here. I think you have reduced religion down to what God can do to and for you. Relationships are simply more perfect and more better (excuse me) if they are entered freely.

It seems you want to set perameters outside of what religion states thier perameters are. You want to freely enter a relationship with another, with a gun to your head - not exactly free.

Also, I think you are discounting the millions of stories where laws of physics were violated. Read about the stories of Joseph of Copertino, for instance. Hundreds witnessed this monk levitate. It fit all of the scientific criterion: Repeatable and independantly verifiable. However, science neatly wisks this under the rug because it happened in the past.

People who say things like "All people who witness miracle (violations of the laws of nature) are just deluded" leave me somewhat unimpressed I'm afraid.

The study of NDE's that you have linked to states that pilots expereincing G-Loc experience traits of NDE's. What needs to be seen here is that these are traits, and the pilots do not experience these NDE traits all strung together. They experience a tunnel - or maybe see a vision of a friend, or perhaps have a memory of thier childhood - they don't experience these all together, in coherent and rapid succession. NDE's and not G-Loc have life reviews, meeting dead relatives, talking with a God figure or Jesus figure (in the western world) and other attributes. I am not choosing from your list of rebuttals because they are staw men. I will respond the way other researchers have.

This has been done before, by the way, with drug research. Drugs in the brain can cause NDE like experiences - but these have the same problems as G-Loc.

However, the Whinnery case, and what I like about it is simply trying to see what happens when the brain is deprived of oxygen. The symptoms are similar - but not the same. The symptoms of any hallucination (being a brain process) can be said to be similar - but until I see a study that can show the rapid succession of NDE like symptoms in a coherent system - I remain unconvinced. Ofcourse the only response that is given is that if we were to outright kill a person and then bring them back they would have an NDE like experience. Well... duh.

The cool thing about the Whinnery case is his open mindedness and his willingness to study further in an area tragically underfunded:

"The mind / brain events of the NDE may be at least partially open to experimental investigation in healthy humans and not solely upon clinical happenstance. The need to understand the states of consciousness, subconsciousness, and unconsciousness, along with the mechanisms that cause the transition between these states is shared by those investigating NDEs and G-LOC."

The book I am referring to was "Closer to the Light." by Melvin Morse M.D

He did a study of small children that had been clinically dead and revived. Small children are a greater study than the adults in the pilot experiment because they are less likely to be changed by thier socio / religious upbringing.

His control group were kids that were very near death - had slipped precariously close to being clinically dead - and yet had not been and found that none of them experienced NDE like symptoms in any pattern. Some of them hallucinated due to thier drugs, some claimed to see double and other things - but nothing in a coherent, rapid succession. Much like G-Loc.

We can introduce endorphines into the blood stream and get euphoric states, but when can't get subjects to fall in love. We can introduce steriods into the blood stream and get subjects to be angry - but we can't get them to hate.

I think there is a seperation of these types of chemical and physiological responses and the ones seen in love, hate, NDE's and other phenomenon.

I think, however, we could do this forever. A previous poster said there is not enough evidence to conclude either way.

I think, though, that you and I are reading as much as we can - and keeping our eyes open.

TTF

0 Replies

I can't recall the source of the quotes from Charles Darwin. I believe he did assert that he had become robotized through his devotion to science and this had blunted his ability to appreciate the arts.

The following quotes are along the same lines.......

A scientific man ought to have no wishes, no affections .. a mere heart of stone. (Charles Darwin)

I am turned into a sort of machine for observing facts and grinding out conclusions. (Charles Darwin)

from here:
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Charles-Darwin-Theory-Evolution.htm

0 Replies

Okay Lola and Blatham...time to put up or shut up!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know