[Dicebox]

Penn Jillette does not exist and that’s the simple truth. If every trace of him and all of his jokes died out and no record of him were passed on, his new book would never be created exactly that way again. There might be some other nonsense in its place, but not that exact nonsense. If all of science were wiped out, it would still be true and someone would find a way to figure it all out again.

[Jason Tate]

Originally Posted by Dicebox

Penn Jillette does not exist and that’s the simple truth. If every trace of him and all of his jokes died out and no record of him were passed on, his new book would never be created exactly that way again. There might be some other nonsense in its place, but not that exact nonsense. If all of science were wiped out, it would still be true and someone would find a way to figure it all out again.

Strawman?

[ModernArtillery]

Originally Posted by FuckT41182

...

first paragraph; if someone was to talk to me about a religious experience such as a vision, I would indeed fall back on my psychology/biology education to explain it. I'm sure many people have gained strength and solace from their religious beliefs, but this does not prove their religion to be true. And your arguments aren't invalid. Bring them up and people will discuss them, thats what the thread is for!

Yeah I completely agree with your second paragraph. I sometimes wonder if I'd been born into a different society/a different point in history, what my views on religion would be.

Also about coincidences - you're saying you like to have control of your own life - I would argue that being religious removes a lot of control over your life (such as what you can do/not do, think/not think, etc.). Not that that applies directly for you, but just as a point of interest. However I think your reasoning behind hating coincidences is a tad irrational because no one can control those things; religious or not; and thus I don't think they can contribute to a discussion about religious truth (although they're still interesting points and I'm glad you've written about them).

[FuckT41182]

;) I'm not saying that it is true, I just have my doubts, I don't want to hate something that is maybe just beyond the reach of my mind ... And I do agree with you that the fact that they have found their strength in religion does not prove God in any way, but you have to agree that it should take the hate away, at least away from religious people if not from religions themselves ... And couldn't we say that science does not disprove God as well ?

Yeah, I've been wondering about that one too, we would probably both be doing what we're told until someone like Galileo Galilei would bring doubts in our minds, or maybe we would be the ones to start a revolution, then we'd be killed ;)

I think I can't quite express myself here, I know that I cannot control them and that's exactly why I hate them, I know it's no use not liking them, but it just is the moment of getting in contact with a coincidence that pisses me off, but it doesn't really matter, all I wanted to say was that if one planet was missing from our solar system the probability of a meteorite ruining our civilized society(hopefully one day) would maybe increase, like if the moon wasn't where it is, or if the sun was closer ... But I agree with you on this one, coincidences occur and they're normal and possible, I just can't stop hate them bitches cause they always happen to me.

My argument was mostly to support religious people, cause I don't believe they're all bad, or terrorists like some governments want us to believe, I know a Muslim here in my country and when I heard his words I felt like humanity still can flourish ... He told me : "If my brother is down and 50 people are kicking him on the ground, I'll still go and help him and I will die trying to save him, if not, shame, shame." - this is what his religion has taught him, and I just hope more people would be taught something like this, only I would expand the ideology beyond just families, cause I would jump among 50 people no matter if it's my cousin, friend, a total stranger or a dog

btw : I find you a good person to discuss something with, what do you think about this, you as a student of astronomy sure know the probability of a life occurring somewhere outside of our solar system, also about the distances that would have to be traveled in order to reach the human race here on earth... "An electric battery was discovered in a rock carbon dated approximately 500,000 years ago." - creepy
http://www.crystalinks.com/ufohistory.html

I am finally finding out where did Chris Carter take all his ideas for X Files conspiracies, I thought that the shit about aliens creating the whole human genome was his own idea

[jawstheme]

Originally Posted by Jason Tate

Strawman?

Exactly. That's the point.

[Esrb99]

I came across this series of lectures by Religious Studies Professor Dale B. Martin at Yale. His historical analysis of the New Testament is fantastic; I believe both Christians and non-Christians would be fascinated by it.

http://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studie...new-testament/

[dtrzcin]

I've watched those Yale lectures. They were great. I'm currently reading Dom Crossan's The Historical Jesus.

[Esrb99]

Originally Posted by dtrzcin

I've watched those Yale lectures. They were great. I'm currently reading Dom Crossan's The Historical Jesus.

I got that book a few weeks ago, actually. I've heard it's really good. I'm finishing Pope Benedict's book on the historical Jesus first though.

[Love As Arson]

Watch the seventeen minute exchange in Hunger, then read about Kierkegaard's "Knight Of Faith". It gives it an oddly secular feel to the latter's formulation.

[bung]

Religion is almost certainly a product of natural selection. Whether religion itself is beneficial to the organism, or merely a side-effect of other evolutionary advantages, is, however, up for debate. When, or if, we can conclude with a reasonable amount of certainty why people choose to follow religions, the question of of any truth pertaining to a specific religion will become negligible, because truth is not a criteria for a naturally selected-induced belief; the criteria is fitness.

[Love As Arson]

Originally Posted by bung

Religion is almost certainly a product of natural selection. Whether religion itself is beneficial to the organism, or merely a side-effect of other evolutionary advantages, is, however, up for debate. When, or if, we can conclude with a reasonable amount of certainty why people choose to follow religions, the question of of any truth pertaining to a specific religion will become negligible, because truth is not a criteria for a naturally selected-induced belief; the criteria is fitness.

I would find it a bit of stretch to say we've evolved to believe in religion; we've evolved to a point where we were able to try to conceptualize how the world around us works. Neuroscientists and others frequently point to research linking religious belief to biology, but I would make a guess and say that one might get similar data from individuals that strongly believe in any type of ideology,e.g., revolutionaries.

[KingsCrossing]

Originally Posted by Love As Arson

Watch the seventeen minute exchange in Hunger, then read about Kierkegaard's "Knight Of Faith". It gives it an oddly secular feel to the latter's formulation.

I've been meaning to start reading Kierkegaard. What are some other good reads to start with?

[bung]

Originally Posted by Love As Arson

I would find it a bit of stretch to say we've evolved to believe in religion; we've evolved to a point where we were able to try to conceptualize how the world around us works. Neuroscientists and others frequently point to research linking religious belief to biology, but I would make a guess and say that one might get similar data from individuals that strongly believe in any type of ideology,e.g., revolutionaries.

I find that there's compelling arguments on both sides. Religion may be an epiphenomenon, sprouting from brain mechanisms originally designed to serve other purposes, or religion itself may have been naturally selected for because it contains (or at one point contained) evolutionarily advantageous elements. Ritualistic procedures, periodical community gatherings, and/or induced feelings of "spirituality," for example, may have served some evolutionary purpose. I'm somewhat agnostic regarding which is the correct position, but I tend to lean toward the former. Of course, it could always be a combination of both, where certain elements of religion were naturally selected for, while others are by-products.

I don't follow the implication of your last statement, however. Every individual belief, and every category of beliefs, is necessarily linked to biology, so what are you implying?

[KingsCrossing]

I thought the link between neuroscience and religion would be interesting to investigate, so I did a little research and found an excellent article that delves into 6 separate facets of the current research and explains it using relatively simple jargon. Below are some snippets from the article. For those who are interested in reading the entire full text, send me a PM and I can e-mail it. Here is a link to the abstract: http://www.ingentaconnect.com/conten...00003/art00004

Altered State of Consciousness

According to d’Aquili and Newberg’s theory, religious experience in rituals and meditation is caused by an overload of the limbic structures involved in emotions and homeostatic regulations, e.g., the hypothalamus and the amygdala. This overload of stimuli blocks perceptual input which in turn causes a deafferentation of the associative areas and eventually leads to an altered state of consciousness. A prominent example of this mechanism is the blocking of input to posterior superior parietal cortex (PSPL) which according to d’Aquili and Newberg induces an experience of absolute unitary being with the world or higher order of reality.

The Relaxation Response

In an experiment with three experienced Tibetan monks (Benson et al. 1990), Buddhist meditation was shown to correlate with a general decrease in metabolic rate and a hemispheric asymmetry of brain activity with a global increase of beta activity which may be associated with concentration and focused attention. In other words, the participants did not seem to reach a calm state similar to that of sleep, but instead increased their attention during meditation. This description of meditation as a focused state of attention rather than mental rest is supported by other studies of meditation reporting increases of brain activity in regions associated with concentration and focused attention, e.g., the dorsolateral prefrontal areas (Herzog et al. 1990; Jevning et al. 1996).

The God Helmet

Persinger has devised a helmet capable of stimulating the brain through the skull using TMS (Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation) to see if religious experiences can be induced in normal healthy persons. Participants in Persinger’s experiments do not know when the TMS device is active, and sometimes they are instructed to push a button if they experience a felt pres- ence. The participants are subsequently asked to describe their experience and complete questionnaires. Persinger’s results suggest that the so-called God Helmet works on 80% of the general population. [However] Persinger’s scientific data are controversial.

Cognition or Emotion?

Azari argues that religion develops in a cultural system and that meaning and interpretation are central features in both spiritual experiences and religious feelings (Azari et al. 2001). The prefrontal cortex has been associated with social cognition and interpersonal interaction, and Azari and colleagues use this evidence (e.g., Vogeley et al. 2001) to argue that this region may subserve the personal experience of God (Azari et al. 2005: 274). The results support Azari’s general hypothesis that religious experience is essentially a cultural phenomenon. The finding that Bible recitation activated the prefrontal cortex rather than subcortical regions, Azari argues, suggests that religious experience may take on different expressions in different cultural systems.

Mystical Experiences

In the study fifteen nuns who described a mystical experience as a feeling of unconditional love and oneness with God were instructed to re-experience a past mystical experience in the scanner. Results, which were not corrected for multiple comparisons (thresholded at p<0.001), showed that a mystical expe- rience relative to rest and a non-religious contrast condition (to think of a past happy experience with a human being) activated several brain regions (e.g., the orbitofrontal cortex, temporal cortex, anterior cingulate cortex, superior and inferior parietal cortex, caudate nucleus, insula, medial prefrontal cortex, and brain stem).

Formalized and Improvised Prayers

We argue that this pattern of activation in Personal Praying suggests that talking to God who is considered “real” rather than “fictitious” like Santa Claus is comparable to normal interpersonal interaction. This finding is not only interesting for the social cognitive and affective neuroscience and the cognitive science of religion. It also offers important insights to the study of theology in which Christian doctrine on God’s nature includes abstract concepts like God’s omnipresence, omniscience, and omnipotence. Interestingly, in terms of brain function, our results suggest that the Inner Mission [a fraction of the Danish Lutheran Church known for orthodox views] participants mainly think of God as a person rather than as an abstract entity.

[Love As Arson]

Originally Posted by KingsCrossing

I've been meaning to start reading Kierkegaard. What are some other good reads to start with?

Fear and Trembling is good. The late Robert Solomon had lectures on Kierkegaard which are on Youtube and can give you a good head start on his concepts and ideas.

Originally Posted by bung

I find that there's compelling arguments on both sides. Religion may be an epiphenomenon, sprouting from brain mechanisms originally designed to serve other purposes, or religion itself may have been naturally selected for because it contains (or at one point contained) evolutionarily advantageous elements. Ritualistic procedures, periodical community gatherings, and/or induced feelings of "spirituality," for example, may have served some evolutionary purpose. I'm somewhat agnostic regarding which is the correct position, but I tend to lean toward the former. Of course, it could always be a combination of both, where certain elements of religion were naturally selected for, while others are by-products.

I don't follow the implication of your last statement, however. Every individual belief, and every category of beliefs, is necessarily linked to biology, so what are you implying?

What I was trying to say was that, religious belief isn't particular in eliciting certain types of responses from humans. If we were to examine religious and political beliefs, for example, I am sure there would be overlap between the two.


In any case, I am finding that there is an increasing appreciation of some aspects of religion. The communal nature, as an example, is very appealing. In the absence of secular communalism, religion serves that function and I imagine it can be very engrossing; to know that you are a part of something, to experience the feeling of awe with others, to believe, through your belief and actions, some greater end can be achieved, is something I wish I could be a part of. It is just the god part that throws me off.