Frontie Posted October 29, 2011 Posted October 29, 2011 You may wish to note that mooeypoo is a moderator. His remarks may have been made entirely as a regular member, or he might have been giving you a polite heads-up to what is and is not tolerated on the forum. You could always check that out by making further provocative and ridiculing statements at an appropriate (or inappropriate) time. I agree with you that nonsense should be ridiculed, but that should be done elegantly and with humour. In my opinion your effort lacked both of these qualities. Better luck next time. Cheers. I am, and for the record, my post was made as a poster and not as staff. Staff comments are usually done with pink little box thing with a "moderator note" on top. That said, I did speak from knowing the rules, I just thought a nudge from a poster was the better approach rather than a scornful "staff note". Our etiquette rules support my (and Ophiolite's) sentiments, though, so despite how much I may agree with the content of what you're saying, Frontie, I urge you to try and use less ridicule in your posts. It's not just about our rules, honestly. I don't know about the rest of you but I'm here discussing to understand people's approaches ("learn the other side" so to speak) and to try and represent my own opinions as best I can. If this was a private discussion, I might have had a different approach, but the fact this forum is open and is discoverable in google/search means that random readers go over our threads. I would rather my own attitude doesn't reinforce the idea that scientists are dogmatic snobbish obnoxiously "too smart for the rest'a'yas" folk that laugh at everyone else. A lot of people on the 'pseudoscience' and the religion side represent scientists and atheists in that manner, and if we are not careful, we might reinforce that before we even get a chance to get through to someone who *is* out there to learn. I know this isn't what you were aiming for, Frontie (btw, you're not the only one, I'm just referring to you now for context) but I think too much ridicule tends to do more damage than good in discussions like these. It's not like they don't have a place -- they do, and there are forums that encourage them more. But usually, those are best for a sort of 'preaching to the choir', and while there are forums and sites that are awesome about that (and I read ad participate in them too) this particular forum is not meant for that. I know there are people who disagree with me, and they're welcome to (hey, discussion's what we're here for) and I know of at least one individual who despite disagreeing with me on this particular point still has my utmost respect (you know who you iAre). As long as you don't push it beyond our rules, this is a matter of attitude and can be discussed. Just be careful not to take these too far, because too far *is* against our rules. ~mooey Whether or not he or the other specific people who discuss things in the thread are or are not, I can guarantee you that there are more people reading this forum than people participating in the forum. Out of experience, people take what we say to heart, and I know of some examples of people who (slowly) took this step out and away from a dogmatic belief system and into a more scientific outlook -- but that's not usually done in a day or a single thread, and usually it involves being defensive; when you read something that makes you get even more "closed minded" (because the person on the 'other side' is ridiculing and laughing at you) you get much less of a chance to even consider the points they're making. Isn't it a lot better to answer the points with clearly rational counter-points (pepper it, perhaps, with mild amusement when the points are taken too far) and show we are (a) not panicking over these "accusations" from the other side and (b) know what we're talking about, and don't crumble under pressure. ? People do change their minds, even if the people who are actively posting don't. It happens, I know a few people like that, actually. In fact, I changed my mind since I was younger too. It wasn't about religion, it was about pseudoscience nonsense that I will be severely embarassed to admit to -- but I *did* change my mind. And I can tell you that the 'high in the sky' science people who dismissed me without even *listening* to what I had to say? They just convinced me I had something going, not that I might be wrong. Of course you can disagree, and feel free to, that's why we're discussing things here. ~mooey P.S -- I believe we had a thread discussing this before. I personally think we're on topic on this one, since it is related to the "Battle" of "science vs religion" but if you think we're going off topic, use the report button so another moderator can move thigns to a new thread. For fairness, you guys should know: Please don't feel intimidated to answer me because of the little badge I have next to my name. In this particular thread, i'm no longer staff. I am participating in the thread, and therefore gave up my authority as moderator in this thread. If I think something goes against the rules, I will do what any other member does, and use the "Report" button. Fair enough, since you made your point so well and so nicely – I'll try to be nicer. I still think this quote is hilarious though: "In 1862, it was discovered that one of the drains was blocked. Being some 11 feet underground, workmen were unable to find the blockage despite several attempts. Müller prayed about the situation and the workman at once found the site of the problem." Come on, everything about that is funny, no? I mean, why bother stating the year at the beginning? It's as if whoever's responsible for it thought including the year would add legitimacy.
CordyceptZombie Posted October 29, 2011 Posted October 29, 2011 I admit that I have not read this entire forum topic but I have come to understand that it is in our DNA to believe in something even if it is unfounded and even far fetched. It might be misguided at times but I don't think most people can help it and those that can have faith in something like sensory perception.
mooeypoo Posted October 29, 2011 Posted October 29, 2011 Fair enough, since you made your point so well and so nicely – I'll try to be nicer. I still think this quote is hilarious though: "In 1862, it was discovered that one of the drains was blocked. Being some 11 feet underground, workmen were unable to find the blockage despite several attempts. Müller prayed about the situation and the workman at once found the site of the problem." Come on, everything about that is funny, no? I mean, why bother stating the year at the beginning? It's as if whoever's responsible for it thought including the year would add legitimacy. Oh, I agree with you. It *is* hilarious, and it's ridiculous and cannot be taken seriously in a scientific context. But while I personally snort laughter when I see these claims, I try to make sure that it's clear *why* this is so ridiculous. There are quite a lot of people who would think this is a VERY valid claim and would think that your (and my) ridicule of it is out of fear or condescension. So, instead, I try to point out what the problem is with it. My hope is that if people read these enough time, they actually start thinking about them. For that matter, most people are *not* critical thinkers. It's a learnt trait (or something you need to 'feed' to enhance). We can argue about whether or not it can be cured, but the fact is that we have a LOT of people out there who don't *know* how to think about these kind of things. It starts with the extreme of religious miracles, and goes on to the less extreme (but no less 'ridiculous') pseudoscience babble that can literally kill people, or to ghosts, or to "quantum soul" or whatever else. The way, in my opinion, to show people a way OUT of these non-rational thoughts is by showing them how critical thinkers think. If I laugh at a claim, *I* know why, and *you* know why, and the people who already agree with me know why. That's great, but the person who reads this with a slight inclination to the "other side" will *not* understand why we're laughing, and won't learn anything from it. People can be encouraged to think things through, maybe not in a single thread or a single forum, but it does happen as a process. The chances they'd think seriously about a comment that mocks them is lesser. That's my only issue with over-ridicule. ~mooey
Phi for All Posted October 29, 2011 Posted October 29, 2011 I admit that I have not read this entire forum topic but I have come to understand that it is in our DNA to believe in something even if it is unfounded and even far fetched. I doubt this. Please provide some evidence to back up your assertion about our DNA. Evidence against this is abundant, if merely that not everyone believes in the same things. This is a psychological phenomena, and thus it can be unlearned. Thinking about the way we think is a big step towards unraveling bad habits. It's true that repeating a lie often enough, even a really big, outrageous lie, will give it more legitimacy, but realizing why we believed it can lead us to better mental efficiency. 1
iNow Posted October 30, 2011 Posted October 30, 2011 I believe that CordyceptZombie is referring to the fact that we are evolutionarily predisposed to accept answers to questions even when those answers lack clear evidence or reason, that we also tend to over-read causality in events, and to attribute actions to unseen actors (like ghosts or spirits) when none are needed to inform the situation, and that this is especially true when we are led to believe those things by tribal elders, parents, or people in positions of power. I'm just guessing, though. It wasn't entirely clear, but given the surrounding context...
doG Posted October 30, 2011 Posted October 30, 2011 In the end, science is about the facts regardless of beliefs and religion is about beliefs regardless of the facts. It's an apples vs oranges debate.
Ophiolite Posted October 30, 2011 Posted October 30, 2011 I believe that CordyceptZombie is referring to the fact that we are evolutionarily predisposed to accept answers to questions even when those answers lack clear evidence or reason, that we also tend to over-read causality in events, and to attribute actions to unseen actors (like ghosts or spirits) when none are needed to inform the situation, and that this is especially true when we are led to believe those things by tribal elders, parents, or people in positions of power. I'm just guessing, though. It wasn't entirely clear, but given the surrounding context... My reading of his (her) words was exactly the same and there is, I understand, research to back up that viewpoint.
iNow Posted October 30, 2011 Posted October 30, 2011 (edited) and there is, I understand, research to back up that viewpoint. Indeed, and I collected a fair bit of it in the thread below until it got locked when I got pissed off for being consistently misrepresented and lost my shit. Unfortunately, all of the embedded Youtube videos broke when they migrated the server, but it's still got a lot of good stuff: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/37248-how-religion-hijacks-neurocortical-mechanisms-and-why-so-many-believe-in-a-deity If you see a random set of letters in the middle of the screen in my posts, that's a youtube video ID. Just copy and paste it to the end of the following URL to watch: www.youtube.com/watch?v= For example, in the OP is this set of characters in the middle of the screen: 1iMmvu9eMrg&e If I paste that to the end of the above, it looks like this: www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iMmvu9eMrg&e Edited October 30, 2011 by iNow
tar Posted October 31, 2011 Posted October 31, 2011 INow, Long time no see. You did have a wonderful thread going. I learned a tremendous amount viewing the links. I encourage anyone and everyone to view it. I do however remember being part of the unraveling of it, and in a hope to not repeat the same mistakes will reread the thread. Bottom line, I have done some reading and thinking about language since. And my current thinking about what things "mean" have many roots in the insights and information provided in the thread you referenced. It has great relevance to the "battle" we discuss here as well. I urge everyone to take a peek. Regards, TAR2
Frontie Posted October 31, 2011 Posted October 31, 2011 (edited) The thread is iNow attached, is very interesting – I'll take a look at the video links tonight. Why was it locked though? So things got a little heated, so what? It was worth salvaging. Edited October 31, 2011 by Frontie
iNow Posted October 31, 2011 Posted October 31, 2011 Why was it locked though? So things got a little heated, so what? It was worth salvaging. Unfortunately, the staff here made a piss poor decision and failed to act properly when it was requested of them through the report feature. I'm still disappointed in their illogical and unfair choices there. Oobla Dee, and all. Urine under the bridge, and whatnot. Thanks all (and TAR, glad you found benefit... I always appreciated your demeanor and contributions... zero hard feelings at all, mate).
Arete Posted October 31, 2011 Posted October 31, 2011 (edited) I'm sorry you feel that way, and in no way do I try to aggravate those who don't want to listen. In what way would you like for us to do our best to spread the Gospel without making others annoyed? Other than talking with others, I occasionally hand out pamphlets, or leave them around, but is there a "preferred" method that you would find less intrusive? I will say though, that my dad (one day me too ) enjoys having door-to-door people come and discuss theological issues. So at least some like it I can see your frustration. As a staunch secularist, this is a fundamental disconnect. No evangelism method is acceptable to me. I strongly support everyone else's right to their religious views (and even AiE's right to his, despite the fact I find them abhorrent). Having billboards, advertisements, pamphlets stuffed under my car's wipers, people knocking on my door, etc. is a direct affront to that right (this goes for atheistic evangelism as well). As much as it is someone else's right to build a church and worship in it, it is MY right to express my spirituality in my way without having to be regularly confronted with someone either trying to convince me to do it their way, publicly condemning me to hell for no doing it their way, trying to change the laws so I have to live by their moral code... etc. So IMHO, have a church, worship whoever you want in it, feel free to leave the doors open so anyone interested in sharing spirituality with you in your way can come and do so. The "word of God" is right down the street if I want to hear it. I simply want those who subscribe to a particular version of spirituality to respect my right NOT to subscribe to it as much as I respect theirs to do so. Edited October 31, 2011 by Arete 2
Moontanman Posted October 31, 2011 Posted October 31, 2011 (edited) As a staunch secularist, this is a fundamental disconnect. No evangelism method is acceptable to me. I strongly support everyone else's right to their religious views (and even AiE's right to his, despite the fact I find them abhorrent). Having billboards, advertisements, pamphlets stuffed under my car's wipers, people knocking on my door, etc. is a direct affront to that right (this goes for atheistic evangelism as well). As much as it is someone else's right to build a church and worship in it, it is MY right to express my spirituality in my way without having to be regularly confronted with someone either trying to convince me to do it their way, publicly condemning me to hell for no doing it their way, trying to change the laws so I have to live by their moral code... etc. So IMHO, have a church, worship whoever you want in it, feel free to leave the doors open so anyone interested in sharing spirituality with you in your way can come and do so. The "word of God" is right down the street if I want to hear it. I simply want those who subscribe to a particular version of spirituality to respect my right NOT to subscribe to it as much as I respect theirs to do so. Arete, normally i try to shy away from "me too" posts but in this case your answer was so good i have to say ME TOO..... I'm sorry you feel that way, and in no way do I try to aggravate those who don't want to listen. In what way would you like for us to do our best to spread the Gospel without making others annoyed? Other than talking with others, I occasionally hand out pamphlets, or leave them around, but is there a "preferred" method that you would find less intrusive? Why do you feel the need to do such a rude thing? If your religion is so wonderful it should be readily apparent and all the proselytizing would be unnecessary, people would seek you out, the very need to convert seems to indicate, to me at least, a flawed world view... I know several people who are neo-pagans, they have large celebrations at certain times of the year and get together regularly to pay homage to their goddess but even though there are an amazing number of them to find them you have to seek them out. They do not proselytize, see no reason to convert anyone, if you cannot see their world view then they would rather you just went on. Now this doesn't make them or their world any more correct than yours but at least they are not rudely pushing their world view from ever street corner and beating down my door to convince me that Adriana wants me to worship her every full moon.... I will say though, that my dad (one day me too ) enjoys having door-to-door people come and discuss theological issues. So at least some like it I can see your frustration. I don't know what to say to that, how many enjoy such a rude intrusion into their lives? .001%? This behavior seeks to take advantage of troubled people and only offer a more troubling world view as an answer.... At least to me, not so much a duty to convert everyone as to spread the biblical truths (I know you disagree as to whether they are "truths") And you have a right to believe those "truths" but asserting to others they are true without evidence is disingenuous at the very least. I am still sort of deciding on the whole idea of "looking hard enough." I won't comment on AiE -- either way gets me into trouble. The reality behind looking hard enough means you fool your self into believing something that has no evidence so you fit in with everyone else who is involved in that belief system. Other things than religion have caused people to do terrible things, and not much is done about them, but I guess that is rather irrelevant. I would be the first to say that things other than religion have caused men to do terrible things but I disagree that nothing is done about it, in fact a religious society tends to over look bad things done by others of their belief system and to jump on those who do not share their beliefs so i would say that religion is less likely to do something about terrible things.... Man's desire to learn about something that can keep him alive forever seems to be almost as strong as the desire to reproduce, and so it is rather pointless to spend too much effort trying to control it. The will to live is quite strong in most living things but if the after life of your belief system is so great why do you do everything in your power to stay "alive" why not hasten your departure from this world to the next, why get medical care? Doing dangerous things must be no problem for people who really believe they are going to heaven.... Personally, if I was an atheist, I think I might tend to be pro-Christian, because if someone is going to be "fanatical" I would usually tend to want a Christian missionary trying to convert others instead of say a Muslim militant, or something. But then again, I am not an atheist, and I never really was. Ok, here is a real disconnect, you are not experiencing true Christianity, what you see as Christianity is in reality a gelded version of Christianity, gelded by secular law, without those controls in place It is difficult to see much difference between Christianity and Islam. I actually ascribe to it! But, I don't think that it would go against the Bible to say that before the sun was created at least, that days were just stages in time. Certainly God could have done it many ways though. I decided to try not to spend to much time this year debating it until I have more knowledge on the subject because this year I am taking an AP bio course, so I hope to see the evidence for evolution, and I am also taking a creation biology book, so hopefully I will get the input of both sides. I have found both POV's quite fascinating so far. Then I have misjudged you.... Yes, though, I do/have read the bible, and I do believe that it is "100% true." :? So all the rape, murder, pillage, genocide, and slavery doesn't bother you in the least? I realize this is the "my way is right" attitude, but at my church, the preachers get paid extraordinarily small sums, and our building is a unused old small Methodist church. That's quaint, but you are still part of a huge over all system of obtaining money, George Carlin put it best when he said god can't handle money, he always needs Money, if god is real why does he need money? Gold should appear inside his church when his people need it. But more to the point being a member of a small church is no better or worse than being a member of a huge evangelical circus called a mega church.... I recently saw an email that was showing what percent of different charities actually went to the poor and needy. Those such as the salvation army had by far the highest percentage going to actual (claimed) needy people. Idk if the email was accurate or not, but if so, it was interesting. Interesting in what way? Edited October 31, 2011 by Moontanman
truth be known Posted October 31, 2011 Posted October 31, 2011 (edited) 2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. Funny how this scripture matches exacxtly the current understanding of the expansion of the universe through Dark Energy .. the end of the expansion being the disintegration of all matter including atoms. http://apod.nasa.gov...d/ap030303.html Note: the heavens according to Genesis are not just the solar system, but the entire known universe, the stars and galaxies .. so it's not just the sun blowing up and incinerating the solar system. Science proves God true. The big rip will happen in, I would estimate from bible scriptures, about 1,500 years .. not the billions science prophecies. Scientists, be ready for a BIG BIG BIG surprise as evidence discovers expansion happening FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR faster than currently measured, with the expansion increasing Rapidly in speed, multiplying itself, as time goes by, (as one eminent poster on this forum noted that expansiuon is increasing with time.) Yeah .. truly the end of the world and universe as we know it. With a new one to come, in which dwelleth righteousness. 2 Peter 3:13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness. 2 Peter 3:12-14 (in Context) 2 Peter 3 (Whole Chapter) Edited October 31, 2011 by truth be known -1
Moontanman Posted October 31, 2011 Posted October 31, 2011 2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. Funny how this scripture matches exacxtly the current understanding of the expansion of the universe through Dark Energy .. the end of the expansion being the disintegration of all matter including atoms. http://apod.nasa.gov...d/ap030303.html Note: the heavens according to Genesis are not just the solar system, but the entire known universe, the stars and galaxies .. so it's not just the sun blowing up and incinerating the solar system. Science proves God true. The big rip will happen in, I would estimate from bible scriptures, about 1,500 years .. not the billions science prophecies. Scientists, be ready for a BIG BIG BIG surprise as evidence discovers expansion happening FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR faster than currently measured, with the expansion increasing Rapidly in speed, multiplying itself, as time goes by, (as one eminent poster on this forum noted that expansiuon is increasing with time.) Yeah .. truly the end of the world and universe as we know it. With a new one to come, in which dwelleth righteousness. The big rip as you call it does not have anything to do with your bible verse as i pointed out the first time you posted it nor is it mainstream science nor does it qualify as theory, your misrepresentation of both science and religion is weak and fails....
Phi for All Posted October 31, 2011 Posted October 31, 2011 2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. Funny how this scripture matches exacxtly the current understanding of the expansion of the universe through Dark Energy .. the end of the expansion being the disintegration of all matter including atoms. http://apod.nasa.gov...d/ap030303.html Note: the heavens according to Genesis are not just the solar system, but the entire known universe, the stars and galaxies .. so it's not just the sun blowing up and incinerating the solar system. Science proves God true. The big rip will happen in, I would estimate from bible scriptures, about 1,500 years .. not the billions science prophecies. Scientists, be ready for a BIG BIG BIG surprise as evidence discovers expansion happening FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR faster than currently measured, with the expansion increasing Rapidly in speed, multiplying itself, as time goes by, (as one eminent poster on this forum noted that expansiuon is increasing with time.) Yeah .. truly the end of the world and universe as we know it. With a new one to come, in which dwelleth righteousness. 2 Peter 3:13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness. 2 Peter 3:12-14 (in Context) 2 Peter 3 (Whole Chapter) ! Moderator Note This post is off-topic to the discussion. Furthermore, it is simply preaching, which is also against our rules. Please re-read the rules you agreed to when you signed up.
mooeypoo Posted October 31, 2011 Posted October 31, 2011 The thread is iNow attached, is very interesting – I'll take a look at the video links tonight. Why was it locked though? So things got a little heated, so what? It was worth salvaging. The thread is a bit old, and our rules adapted a bit since 2009. The Religion/Philosophy forums were closed for a while and when they reopened they were restricted until we found a good way of managing them (seeing as they're a more "dangerous" place for attacks, etc). The particular thread was filled with so much personal attacks and got so heated the topic seemed to have been forgotten. The staff made the piss poor decision of trying to control it, and then the pissier poor decision of removing some of the more outrageous posts and stopping the circular off-topic attacks. Since it was going nowhere other than straight path to the flaming gutter, it was closed. Since then the religion subforum has evolved (closed, reopened, restricted, reopened, etc) and so have our posters and staff. However, a long time has passed since then, so if you think you have something new to contribute on the matter, you can revisit it. The topic itself is fascinating, the problem wasn't the suggested conclusions, it was the attitude in which they were delivered by multiple people throughout that thread. If we can revisit this subject in a civil manner this time, I'm sure we can prevent staff from making pissy poor decisions this time around ~mooey * Tuche', iNow.
tar Posted October 31, 2011 Posted October 31, 2011 (edited) truth be known, There is a difference between seeing a pattern that COULD be true for a particular reason, and looking for the reasons why things follow patterns. I had denounced AiE's shooting star sign, and then found myself outside removing a foot of snow from my driveway in October. Thought...is this a sign...that unusual things ARE possible if the universe wants to tell you something. But then I thought for a moment, and the forcast for the Nor'Easter was made before my denouncement. It was already coming, and would have come had I prayed for it, or prayed against it. Nice thought for a moment, that the universe would do something personally targeted at me, but alas, I don't think that is the way it goes. Makes no sense. Did it snow to punish the wicked? Reward the faithful? Million people out of electricity because fallen trees and branches wheighed down by the wheight of wet snow on early fall foliage took out power lines and closed roads. "An act of God". No doubt. But God in the sense of nature/reality/universe being somewhat out of our control. Very wrong, logically, to determine such a thing was done by an agent that had particular, mysterious reasons to do such a thing. That it was a message to me in particular is even more absurd. Yet I had the thought. It was odd, and I thought ... could it be, that there IS a God, and he was letting me know...in his own way? A thinkable thing, sure. A "valid" argument, if the assumptions are correct. But the assumptions would include that the universe was acting to talk to me in particular, which leaves me wondering whether that particular statement (the snow storm) was "overheard" by everybody else that witnessed it, and whether it may have distressed them a bit. And a "sound" argument, it is not. There are no other supporting reasons for it to be the case. The snow storm was neither for or against me. Only my "wondering" would even suggest such a thing. So, on to the dark matter fireball thing. 1,500 years? Are those people years or God years? They say a thousand years is like a day to God. So the big Rip should be late tomorrow...or do I have it backward? I would be willing to bet any amount of money that the MilkyWay will still be doing its thing in a mere 1,500 years. ('course I wouldn't have much to lose if I was wrong, would I.) Oh, my eternal soul. Well I already have that, if I have one. How possibly could what you believe, give that to me, or take it away? 'Bout as sensible as a snowstorm being part of a conversation between me and my imagination. Regards, TAR2 Wait! If your estimates are that we have another 1500 years, then that would discount any other, Mayan calander running out, end of the world predictions. In that case, all other wrath of God, doom sayers are wrong. We can run a muck with impunity for scores and scores of generations. Thank God. Regards, TAR2 Edited October 31, 2011 by tar
charles brough Posted November 12, 2011 Posted November 12, 2011 (edited) I have to agree with Phi for All, and it becomes very pointless to suggest there should be some kind of battle between science and religion to see which side "wins." That attitude is often held by people who are encouraging scientism, not just science, and within this group are people I suspect who want to use science in whatever way possible, though not explicitly to prove God doesn't exist, to weaken the argument in favor of the existence of God as much as scientific methods will allow. They are putting out the kind of research you see in a review I wrote of a study called "Divine intuition: Cognitive Style Influences Belief in God." This research tried to suggest that the intuition associated with sloppy, first impression type of thinking, i.e., the type that isn't likely to get you the correct answer to a tricky math problem, is the same thinking pattern that people use when they report they believe in God. But these researchers don't even say it like this. They say they have the evidence to show that intuitive thinking is a cause for belief in God itself. It's really outrageous, and I certainly hope it's not some new trend in psychology. You can read why I find this an abuse of scientific methods at the critique I wrote on the study here: http://scientismtime...tive-style.html or here: http://scientismtime...in-god/#respond And I'll say this too, there is nothing "close-minded" about thinking critically about what the psychology of faith and science may have to say about God, religions, or spirituality. It isn't a "war" of science vs. religion. It's about understanding the limitations that a scientific approach has when it comes to understanding faith despite the cultural values that often try to replace God with science. I agree. The way I see it is that "the battled between them" is grossly exaggerated. For several centuries, Christianity has been compromised enough to co-exist with science in the thinking of most people because it has been compromised. That began with the Age of Enlightenment. During the following many generations, most people became "liberal Christians" who accepted the more general concepts of the old faith but no longer personally considered all of it "the Exact world of God" (i.e.,"the Truth"). But science compromised itself also. . . not the physical sciences but in the social sciences. Social scientists do follow the scientific method and do gather accurate data, but how it is interpreted is in the hands of social theorists. Their vague, general consensus is the interpretation of the social science data that is taught in all our schools all the way up to and through the universities. It molds secular doctrines in a way that is neither offensive nor contradictory to not just Christianity but to, as well, all the other mainline religions in the world. So, both science and religion get along well enough that the whole world can and largely has been secularized even as the old faiths survive. Without both their compromising, the "Global Community of Nations" and "the Global Economy" would be impossible. Edited November 12, 2011 by charles brough
Phi for All Posted November 13, 2011 Posted November 13, 2011 Unfortunately, the staff here made a piss poor decision and failed to act properly when it was requested of them through the report feature. I'm still disappointed in their illogical and unfair choices there. Oobla Dee, and all. Urine under the bridge, and whatnot. Thanks all (and TAR, glad you found benefit... I always appreciated your demeanor and contributions... zero hard feelings at all, mate). To me, "How Religion Hijacks Neurocortical Mechanisms, and Why So Many Believe in a Deity" looked like you were trying to sculpt a thread you could later link to whenever anyone brought up any faith-based argument (e.g., "We discussed this recently in this thread, and if you'll read the entire thing you'll see we concluded that you're beliefs are part of an evolutionary pattern for survival and nothing more. Cheers."). While this sort of thing would be incredibly handy, it would require as little perceived bias as possible. It's seemed to me that you knew this and were trying to keep things focused and on track, but your own efforts ended up looking as though you were leading the discussion in a preconceived direction. I realize you mainly wanted the off-topic stuff pruned, but your insistence often seemed like you were cherry-picking posts that you wanted and demanding the rest be split off. Even though you were obviously accepting dissenting views, it could easily be perceived as a bias by others reading the thread in the future, thus thwarting the aim of the discussion. And when you get insulting and nasty, you raise unnecessary defenses in people who might otherwise view in a clearer light the evidence put before them. Accepting rigorously tested evidence is de rigueur for the science-minded, a bit harder but still possible for those who aren't as used to rational debate, but very difficult for either while wiping spit off their face.
iNow Posted November 14, 2011 Posted November 14, 2011 (edited) To me, "How Religion Hijacks Neurocortical Mechanisms, and Why So Many Believe in a Deity" looked like you were trying to sculpt a thread you could later link to whenever anyone brought up any faith-based argument (e.g., "We discussed this recently in this thread, and if you'll read the entire thing you'll see we concluded that you're beliefs are part of an evolutionary pattern for survival and nothing more. Cheers."). While this sort of thing would be incredibly handy, it would require as little perceived bias as possible. It's seemed to me that you knew this and were trying to keep things focused and on track, but your own efforts ended up looking as though you were leading the discussion in a preconceived direction. <...> I realize you mainly wanted the off-topic stuff pruned, but your insistence often seemed like you were cherry-picking posts that you wanted and demanding the rest be split off. <...> Even though you were obviously accepting dissenting views, it could easily be perceived as a bias by others reading the thread in the future, thus thwarting the aim of the discussion. Clearly, your perception is lacking, and you should try to focus on what I was saying instead of trying to guess at my motivations. And when you get insulting and nasty, you raise unnecessary defenses in people who might otherwise view in a clearer light the evidence put before them. Your reading of that thread is flawed. I was incredibly polite and calm, and only when the staff continuously let the bullshit continue did I eventually let my frustration show. If you're so intent on continually focusing on why people might or might not get defensive, then perhaps you should try reading the thread again from my perspective and realize how ridiculously removed from the topic various replies became, and how inept the staff was at recognizing and addressing this. Remember the context, Phi. That thread took place at a time when it was completely against the rules to discuss religion here at SFN. I had good reason for keeping it focused, and I did a damned fine job of it. Religious discussions were closed every single time they began here, and they were closed without mercy. I'd managed to keep that thread alive for 8 months, and brought in several people who were interested in the topic. I stayed focused and included the theistic and non-theistic alike, and at no time did it become an unsafe environment for open discussion... Then, later when others came into the thread with their misinterpretations and completely off-topic nonsense, of course I tried to get it removed when it continued. Religious discussion was against the rules at the time, and that thread was not about the content of any religion nor was it about the existence of any deity, and yet that's how the replies began to trend, and it had no place in that thread. The individual who side tracked us even openly conceded that he was mistaken and apologized, stipulating that I was correct and he was way off topic, but only after I stood my ground in the face of flaccid and nonexistent support from the staff here. The fact that you continue to defend staff response and continue to suggest I was out of line suggests that clearly, your perception is lacking. Accepting rigorously tested evidence is de rigueur for the science-minded, a bit harder but still possible for those who aren't as used to rational debate, but very difficult for either while wiping spit off their face. So, are you here now conceding that I was being spat upon in that thread? I'm sure that can't be... you MUST be suggesting I was the one doing the spitting, even though many objective readers have repeatedly told me that I was in the right there. I worked hard... for over 8 months... to keep that thread alive and civil on a forum where religious discussion was barred. When folks came in with off-topic points, I reasonably requested they ask such questions elsewhere as they were off-topic. When they continued anyway, I started asking staff for help splitting them off. When staff came in and told me I was being out of line, I asked them to show where. When they refused, I decided I was on my own and fought. For someone who seems so acutely aware of how posters might react under specific circumstances, you sure do seem to turn a blind eye toward what I may have been feeling when the staff failed in their duties, and for all my efforts I was somehow made out to be the bad guy. All your post here does, Phi, is remind me yet again that very little has changed, and that you're still prioritizing tone over content. What a load of horseshit, especially on a "science-minded" site where evidence and content is "de rigueur." I strongly encourage you to let this sleeping dog lay and just move on. Like I said, urine under the bridge. Edited November 14, 2011 by iNow
tar Posted November 14, 2011 Posted November 14, 2011 Phi for All, In Inow's defense, the links posted served me well to help develop an "understanding" of our development as conscious human beings. Hijacking is a derogatory term that I "looked past". Yes it belies a bias, to be termed that way, but I took it as indicative of the way we have used many, if not all of our evolutionarily arrived at attributes and functions for purposes somewhat "other than" what their developmental "reasons for being such" might have been. It (the thread) laid down a foundation for me, in fact and science, some basic human "components". The ability we have to "put ourselves in someone else shoes". The awareness we have of "unseen others" and the ability we develop around age 4 to consider the wants and desires and intentions of such. Not surprising that such actual facts can create a number of interesting permutations. If we can consider the wants and desires and follow or disobey the will of our parents, or the leader of the pack, it is not a far reach to understand our "internal" communications with all sorts of "unseen others". Ancestors, bosses, priests, sages, heros, imaginary friends. Even a conscience, that we engage to tell the difference between right and wrong, may "hijack" this primordal "purpose", to learn from and follow our parents and our pack. (even when they are out of sight). Not unlikely that we have "used" (not necessarily hijacked) these facilities to establish our morals, and rules of behavior, and subservience to authority. That some in history have used it against us, or for their own purposes is pretty much to be expected. There is, after all a fine line between following a leader, and being used by the leader. It almost depends on your interpretation and mind set. To my mind, if our neurology has be "hijacked" by religion, it has as well been "hijacked" by nationalism, or humanitarianism, or even by believers in "the scientific method". In science, I can think of "our" collective knowledge as an entity. One which I can challenge or follow, dismiss or assist. An "unseen other" if you will. A professor, or a university panel, or even the "scientific community" is not unlike a pack, and not without its leaders. I can test my ideas against this unseen other, even when no individual is present. Similarly I can test my actions and thoughts against my internal model of humanity. What this or that type of person might think of my thoughts or actions. So Inow's thread is important. Not as a tool to unseat religion and put science in its place, but as a tool to understand ourselves, from a factual basis of what our neurolgy consists of, and why we have the thoughts we have. In this light, an unseen other, whether a lover, or a parent or a boss, or a professor or a priest, or a president, or the collective consciousness of humanity, or the God of Thunder, or the lord of the universe, takes on a hue, that casts equally upon them all. Regards, TAR2
Phi for All Posted November 14, 2011 Posted November 14, 2011 Clearly, your perception is lacking, and you should try to focus on what I was saying instead of trying to guess at my motivations. What you said in the thread was clear. I don't need any additional focus. And my perceptions are my own, not an attempt to guess your motivations. I'm telling you how your thread was perceived by me (and therefore possibly others), so it really can't be lacking, but I understand your need to be defensive about it. It seems clear you misunderstood my intention. Your reading of that thread is flawed. I was incredibly polite and calm, and only when the staff continuously let the bullshit continue did I eventually let my frustration show. I was impressed by the way you handled the first several pages, and as I mentioned earlier, I think a successfully concluded thread like that would have been incredibly handy for future discussions. It's not really the staff's fault that the discussion didn't go the way you intended it to. Not that it's an excuse, but they were short-handed at the time. I had left and some of the other staff were busy personally and only showing up occasionally. If you're so intent on continually focusing on why people might or might not get defensive, then perhaps you should try reading the thread again from my perspective and realize how ridiculously removed from the topic various replies became, and how inept the staff was at recognizing and addressing this. You did a great deal towards keeping things on-topic, and as I mentioned earlier, you did it without censoring dissenters. As will happen in a discussion forum, people kept tossing in tangents and you had your fair share. Moderators continually have to decide whether or not to allow such tangents; overdo it and people cry censorship, underdo it and people call you inept. And tangents can lead to a more complete understanding. Remember the context, Phi. That thread took place at a time when it was completely against the rules to discuss religion here at SFN. I had good reason for keeping it focused, and I did a damned fine job of it. Religious discussions were closed every single time they began here, and they were closed without mercy. I'd managed to keep that thread alive for 8 months, and brought in several people who were interested in the topic. I stayed focused and included the theistic and non-theistic alike, and at no time did it become an unsafe environment for open discussion... Agreed, until it did. As you yourself said, you lost your shit. You felt it was justified, but it really never is, is it? You're supposed to be able to handle yourself without resorting to insulting people. Then, later when others came into the thread with their misinterpretations and completely off-topic nonsense, of course I tried to get it removed when it continued. Religious discussion was against the rules at the time, and that thread was not about the content of any religion nor was it about the existence of any deity, and yet that's how the replies began to trend, and it had no place in that thread. No argument there. I wish we could have a well-ordered thread like that on creationism, or some of the crackpot science claims, something we could point to and say, "Really? We've gone over that exact same thing, you should read this and then come back if you have anything new to add." I'm not sure it's what scientific methodology would agree with, but it would certainly nip some repetitive arguments in the bud. The individual who side tracked us even openly conceded that he was mistaken and apologized, stipulating that I was correct and he was way off topic, but only after I stood my ground in the face of flaccid and nonexistent support from the staff here. The fact that you continue to defend staff response and continue to suggest I was out of line suggests that clearly, your perception is lacking. Being wrong isn't against the rules, but personal attacks are. Ultimately, that's a perception that really can't be lacking. I didn't comment on staff response at all, but I won't accuse you of lacking perception. Again, I was commenting that, imo, towards the end your insistence on pruning what you didn't want in the thread, warranted or not, could be construed as bias against dissent. As I said, I wasn't here to see that thread unfold, I read it after you mentioned it earlier in this thread. So, are you here now conceding that I was being spat upon in that thread? I'm sure that can't be... you MUST be suggesting I was the one doing the spitting, even though many objective readers have repeatedly told me that I was in the right there. I worked hard... for over 8 months... to keep that thread alive and civil on a forum where religious discussion was barred. When folks came in with off-topic points, I reasonably requested they ask such questions elsewhere as they were off-topic. When they continued anyway, I started asking staff for help splitting them off. When staff came in and told me I was being out of line, I asked them to show where. When they refused, I decided I was on my own and fought. I think, repeat, I think you started out reasonable, and then lost your shit. You did well, and then you didn't. And unfortunately, how we end things sticks with people more than how we start them.
Phi for All Posted November 14, 2011 Posted November 14, 2011 Phi for All, In Inow's defense, the links posted served me well to help develop an "understanding" of our development as conscious human beings. Hijacking is a derogatory term that I "looked past". Yes it belies a bias, to be termed that way, but I took it as indicative of the way we have used many, if not all of our evolutionarily arrived at attributes and functions for purposes somewhat "other than" what their developmental "reasons for being such" might have been. I agree. The subject was fascinating, and the links to various studies supported a very compelling argument. I wish it had gone better and if it had, I think it would've been a good sticky thread. It (the thread) laid down a foundation for me, in fact and science, some basic human "components". The ability we have to "put ourselves in someone else shoes". The awareness we have of "unseen others" and the ability we develop around age 4 to consider the wants and desires and intentions of such. Not surprising that such actual facts can create a number of interesting permutations. If we can consider the wants and desires and follow or disobey the will of our parents, or the leader of the pack, it is not a far reach to understand our "internal" communications with all sorts of "unseen others". Ancestors, bosses, priests, sages, heros, imaginary friends. Even a conscience, that we engage to tell the difference between right and wrong, may "hijack" this primordal "purpose", to learn from and follow our parents and our pack. (even when they are out of sight). Not unlikely that we have "used" (not necessarily hijacked) these facilities to establish our morals, and rules of behavior, and subservience to authority. That some in history have used it against us, or for their own purposes is pretty much to be expected. There is, after all a fine line between following a leader, and being used by the leader. It almost depends on your interpretation and mind set. As I was reading the thread's earliest pages, I was able to relate well to the input iNow had linked to, and when he referenced an article by Michael Shermer I had previously read in Scientific American, it really set the hook. It was the article about why people tend to believe in invisible agents as a logically evolved survival mechanism. Those who make fewer Type II errors tend to live to reproduce, but that also predisposes us to belief in things that aren't there. To my mind, if our neurology has be "hijacked" by religion, it has as well been "hijacked" by nationalism, or humanitarianism, or even by believers in "the scientific method". Here I have to disagree. The scientific method, if followed properly, gives us the best chance of not biasing results of empirically derived experimentation, which leads to better, more solid conclusions. It removes the need for belief and puts us as close as we can get to the best explanations about natural phenomena. In science, I can think of "our" collective knowledge as an entity. One which I can challenge or follow, dismiss or assist. An "unseen other" if you will. A professor, or a university panel, or even the "scientific community" is not unlike a pack, and not without its leaders. I can test my ideas against this unseen other, even when no individual is present. Similarly I can test my actions and thoughts against my internal model of humanity. What this or that type of person might think of my thoughts or actions. And doesn't that ability to test and dissent make it more valuable than sacred ideology? So Inow's thread is important. Not as a tool to unseat religion and put science in its place, but as a tool to understand ourselves, from a factual basis of what our neurolgy consists of, and why we have the thoughts we have. In this light, an unseen other, whether a lover, or a parent or a boss, or a professor or a priest, or a president, or the collective consciousness of humanity, or the God of Thunder, or the lord of the universe, takes on a hue, that casts equally upon them all. I agree. My earlier post was simply an attempt to show how any future attempts at a tightly controlled thread, free of off-topic tangents and superfluous comments, might be more successful. I tried to be clear that it was my opinion only, and was not merely supporting any past staff decisions. I suppose I was wondering if it would be possible to create a thread that discussed a subject thoroughly, with input from many covering a range of objections, and then actually reached a conclusion that all involved could agree upon. If that could be done, I'd request that the thread be locked, and anyone who had anything further to add or dispute could do it in a separate thread. We tend to have so many people who join and pose the same questions over and over, and I think it might be helpful if we had threads that were as thoroughly researched and controlled as iNow's How Religion Hijacks Neurocortical Mechanisms, and Why So Many Believe in a Deity to point to, as free from bias as possible and where no one on either side "loses their shit". There is a way to set a thread so that all responses have to go through Moderation queue before they can actually be posted, but everyone would have to agree to abide by staff decisions if a post was deemed off-topic.
tar Posted November 15, 2011 Posted November 15, 2011 (edited) Phi for All, Here I have to disagree. The scientific method, if followed properly, gives us the best chance of not biasing results of empirically derived experimentation, which leads to better, more solid conclusions. It removes the need for belief and puts us as close as we can get to the best explanations about natural phenomena. Actually I agree with this...mostly. Solid and sound arguments are not the forte of religious texts. I don't pretend that they are. But it is interesting to me, how many religions take the universe and determine what it would take to be on its side or against it. Seems a common thread that the "leader" uses his/(not usually a her) special association with the universe to argue for subservience to HIM! To follow his rules, will ensure you are on the right side of the universe. Such (though completely different in intent and prosecution) is not unlike "believing" that the proper way to relate to the universe is through the scientific method. That this is the "right" way to be. And ones association with this "family", this scientific community, puts you above all those wallowing around in error. That ones own "god" is the right one, and the "god" of another is suspect. Besides the fact that I would rather be associated with the scientific community than with some religious cult, is the fact that we each choose our own associations, and the founding fathers of our country (I am a U.S. citizen) did a wise thing in establishing in law, the right of each individual to follow his own "god". This because the "unseen other" that guides each of us, is our "personal" god. Whether or not this unseen other can actually be seen. And whether or not this unseen other is enshrined in an institution. Regards, TAR2 Edited November 15, 2011 by tar
Recommended Posts