The brewing storm [Religious Responses Only]

Zombrex

Near the end of Andy Thompson's excellent summary on the current understanding of the neurological and psychological reasons for religious belief he raises a very interesting point that perhaps foreshadows a potential conflict between science and religion that may dwarf the current Evolution vs Creationism debate.

As Thompson puts it

"...it is not long before any psychology text book, for a psychology text book to be current and up to date it will have to include this cognitive neurology science of religion."

He goes on to predict that once this begins to be taught in schools there will be legal objections brought by the "Christian right" as he puts it.

I'm just wondering what people think about this idea, teaching as science that religion is a by-produce of evolved traits and responses, fitted into the rest of evolutionary psychology.

To me it would seem that such science goes far beyond anything seen in the Evolution debate in terms of dismissing the supernatural elements of religious doctrine. Evolution ended up being a theory that most religious people were happy to accept within the continued context of religious faith, as they believed it still fit into the narrative of their religion, even if Creationists disagree.

Thompson points out that through-out the Dover trial those supporting the teaching of evolution and the removing of Creationism from science class rooms regularly included people who said there as no conflict between science and religion.

It is hard to see how such a conclusion could be reached with a psychological and neurological theory of religion, which basically explains how religious practice is a by-product of other evolved functions, in the same way that craving a Big Mac or ice cream is a by-product of evolving to treat sugars and fats as valuable foods that we instinctively crave despite them now being in abundance.

It is hard to see how that scientific theory could be married with religion, accepting the idea that religion is in all likelihood a product of the mind rather than a response to external supernatural interactions while still remaining religious.

But that is really what I wanted to find out from you guys.

Do you see this as a conflict, or do you think that it can be happily married together.

Would you be happy with your kids (or other kids) being taught a psychological and neurological explanation for religion in class rooms?

Would you be unhappy with this but still see it as important that current scientific understanding be taught to kids, while maintaining that you don't accept this as accurate?

Or would you in fact embrace it yourself, and stop being religious?

Or none of the above.


NB. I would like to keep this as a fact finding mission, this isn't a say something stupid so we can attack you thread. So religious spirited responses only people (this covers all religion so doesn't have to be Christian only I guess though if a lot of non-Christian response appear the mods may want to move this thread).

It is not necessary to watch the video but it is a good if a little brief, summary of current understanding:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iMmvu9eMrg

Fanny Cradock

For anyone interested in exploring this topic in a little more detail the Faraday Institute hosted a short course entitled Neuroscience and Religion. Click here go to Search by course: and select Short course no 15. There are also a number of other talks on the same subject matter to be found throughout the multimedia section.

philologos

Wicknight, how does the process by which we come to believe discredit the idea that there is a God? If it doesn't I don't see how it could be extremely controversial.

It is hard to see how that scientific theory could be married with religion, accepting the idea that religion is in all likelihood a product of the mind rather than a response to external supernatural interactions while still remaining religious.

Edit: I mean it seems baseless to say that just because we know which parts of the brain are involved in belief that God of necessity doesn't exist. It's too far a leap to make really.

It is as easily argued that God designed mankind with the intention that they might be faithful to Him.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

Wicknight, how does the process by which we come to believe discredit the idea that there is a God? If it doesn't I don't see how it could be extremely controversial.

I'm not sure what you mean? Think of it it his way. You look at a taco and see the face of Chewbaka on the side. You may say "Wow, Chewies' face is on that taco, how amazing"



Neurology comes along and says that actually your brain is highly evolved to see faces inside patterns. We all go That is interesting and realize that there isn't actually the face of Chewbacca on the taco, but that it is just how our brains work. Few continue to think that yes actually Chewbacca's face is on the side of my taco. We know that these are random patterns and the reason we "see" a face is because our brains have evolved to pattern match faces.

There is already a comprehensive set of psychological and neurological theories that are basically doing the same thing for religion, explaining religion in a way that doesn't require the religious doctrine to actually be true. To say that is not going to be controversial is, I think, short sighted. If you were told that everything that you think you are experiencing in relation to religion is in fact most likely a by-product evolution and not real I imagine there will be resistance to such an idea.

Jakkass wrote: »

Edit: I mean it seems baseless to say that just because we know which parts of the brain are involved in belief that God of necessity doesn't exist. It's too far a leap to make really.

Not really baseless? If you explain why someone would believe something exists in a way that doesn't require that it/he actually does it is not baseless to simply assume it/he doesn't.

Again no one after they have had the explanation of the neurological pattern matching of the brain continues thinks the taco actually has Chewbacca's face on it. It is not baseless to say that because we have a strong psychological explanation why you think you see his face it is baseless to say there is not a picture on the taco.

Jakkass wrote: »

It is as easily argued that God designed mankind with the intention that they might be faithful to Him.

It is certainly argued, I'm not sure you could say it can be easily argued. That to me is like arguing that the reason you see Chewbacca's face in the taco is because some how Chewbacca's face ended up on the taco you are eating. It is unconvincing given the alternative. It is not the scientific view. The scientific view is that these are imagined. And like wise this is the conclusion that science is very quickly reaching with regard to religion.

My question to you guys is do you see a conflict here given what science is discovering and will soon be the standard psychological and neurological theory?

philologos

Wicknight wrote: »

There is already a comprehensive set of psychological and neurological theories that are basically doing the same thing for religion, explaining religion in a way that doesn't require the religious doctrine to actually be true. To say that is not going to be controversial is, I think, short sighted. If you were told that everything that you think you are experiencing in relation to religion is in fact most likely a by-product evolution and not real I imagine there will be resistance to such an idea.

Then one has to simply ask, why is such a function present, what purpose does it serve. That's where the real debate is to be had. One side will take up the position that it's there for not really that much reason or purpose at all, and the other side will argue that it is there because God intended it to be there.

Of course it will be controversial, but it certainly doesn't debunk the notion that God exists. There will be opposition to the view that because this is the case in how our brain works that it follows that God doesn't exist, because that isn't necessarily the case.

Wicknight wrote: »

Not really baseless? If you explain why someone would believe something exists in a way that doesn't require that it/he actually does it is not baseless to simply assume it/he doesn't.

If it is taught as if God doesn't exist, but that this function merely deceives us into thinking so, then of course there will be clear opposition to that view.

On the other hand, if one merely teaches that this is how the brain operates in respect to belief, but that it has no bearing on whether or not God actually exists, then that is an entirely different kettle of fish isn't it?

Wicknight wrote: »

It is certainly argued, I'm not sure you could say it can be easily argued. That to me is like arguing that the reason you see Chewbacca's face in the taco is because some how Chewbacca's face ended up on the taco you are eating. It is unconvincing given the alternative. It is not the scientific view. The scientific view is that these are imagined. And like wise this is the conclusion that science is very quickly reaching with regard to religion.

The point is the door is about as open as it was before hand, it really doesn't make all that much a difference in terms of the God debate.

Wicknight wrote: »

My question to you guys is do you see a conflict here given what science is discovering and will soon be the standard psychological and neurological theory?

The conflict will only lie in what conclusions people take from the facts. The facts themselves don't do anything, but if people assume that God doesn't exist just because we can explain how people come to faith on a neurological level, that is where the conflict will be.

People have been arguing it both ways so far. The God-part of the brain argument has also been used by theists to argue for God's existence.

Fanny Cradock

Should the teach science in class? Yes. Should they teach materialist reductionism in a science class? Debatable.

The findings don't scare me. We are physical beings and I see no reason as to why there should not be a vitally important physical component to how God interacts with us. However, it should be noted that neuroscience isn't a mature science in the way that physic would be considered to be. And it is contentious to claim that "everything that you think you are experiencing in relation to religion is in fact most likely a by-product evolution". In other words, because we have an physical explanation the non-material is all bunk. I know somebody who is a neuroscientist. I'll pass the link you provided onto him to see if he can shed any light on the issue.

That picture is photoshopped onto the taco, btw.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

The conflict will only lie in what conclusions people take from the facts. The facts themselves don't do anything, but if people assume that God doesn't exist just because we can explain how people come to faith on a neurological level, that is where the conflict will be.

It is not really about facts, it is about scientific models. If the current psychological model, supported by science, that religion and religious experience/thinking is a by product of evolution, and that when people enter into a state of belief in the existence of supernatural agents this is imaginary, I think that is the conclusion.

This is the same conclusion as say think that when you see an optical illusion X,Y and Z is happening in your brain and that is why it looks like there is a face in the toast.

So I think, if I'm following you correct, you do see conflict on the horizon. Is that fair?

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Should the teach science in class? Yes. Should they teach materialist reductionism in a science class? Debatable.

The findings don't scare me. We are physical beings and I see no reason as to why there should not be a vitally important physical component to how God interacts with us.

This is similar to what Jakkass said and I think I haven't explained exactly what is on the cards here. Watch the video if you haven't already.

This isn't simply that when someone thinks of God a bit in their brain lights up on an MRI scan. This is far more than this.

It is a grown body of evidence and science that strongly points to the idea that we imagine religious experience and why we do.

That doesn't prove God doesn't exist, or anything like that. But that isn't really the issue. You don't prove Chewbacca isn't in the toast, you demonstrate how you can imagine he is. That is enough for most people.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

In other words, because we have an physical explanation the non-material is all bunk. I know somebody who is a neuroscientist. I'll pass the link you provided onto him to see if he can shed any light on the issue.

Well that is sort of the point. We don't continue to think Jesus is in the toast (thanks for pointing out the Chewie photoshop image), or Vadar is in the tea leafs.

They might be. You can't prove they aren't. But given a strong neurological explanation as to why you would think there is, you don't continue to think there really is.

My point wasn't the idea of science over stepping its bounds. Science cannot prove God doesn't exist. We all know this. It can't prove that God doesn't communicate with you in a way that looks the same as a delusion. Again we all know this.

It can present a strong scientific model that explains in naturalistic terms exactly what is happening when you think you have a religious experience, when you think you talk to God, when you think the world makes more sense with God in it than without etc etc.

In all likelihood that will become in the next few years the scientific position, in the same way that the scientific position is that the instincts to hunt animals has produced our ability to see optical illusions.

That is really what I wanted to gauge, I think we maybe got a bit side tracked by me now explaining initial what is on the cards here.

Soul Winner

So does this mean that religion is now allowed into the science lab? :pac:

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

So does this mean that religion is now allowed into the science lab? :pac:

Pretty much

Soul Winner

Belief in a creator of the universe is a proper basic belief just like the belief that other minds exist is a proper basic belief or even the belief that the external world itself exists is a proper basic belief. But can we prove that other minds exist? Can we prove that the universe exists? If we can't, then on what basis do we assume that they do in fact exist? We are considered quite rational to proceed in life on the assumption that these things do exist without having to prove them scientifically, so unless we can prove that our so called perceptions about a creator in our various religious beliefs are illusory then we are quite rational in holding on to our proper basic belief that a creator of the universe exists. You need to get over this first hurdle before proceeding to point out the side effects of it on our everyday perceptions.

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

Belief in a creator of the universe is a proper basic belief just like the belief that other minds exist is a proper basic belief or even the belief that the external world itself exists is a proper basic belief.

How would you feel if the current mainstream psychological theory was that it isn't, that is is a by-product the evolution of the human mind and is a result of use developing certain methods of thinking to help with other areas that over flowed into belief in God?

Not asking do you accept that, just asking how you would feel if that was what the scientific position was, and that this was taught to psychology and neurology students?

Would you object to that, or do you see that as a conflict? (this was the original question in the post, I didn't really mean to get into a debate of the validity of the science)

Soul Winner wrote: »

so unless we can prove that our so called perceptions about a creator in our various religious beliefs are illusory then we are quite rational in holding on to our proper basic belief that a creator of the universe exists.

Well nothing in science is ever proven. But that is the conclusion the science is supporting and the support for the accuracy of that conclusion grows every day.

Which was the point of this thread.

It is some what inescapable that this will be the mainstream conclusion of psychology and neurological science.

Do you feel that this will produce a conflict? Do you think it shouldn't be taught?

philologos

Wicknight wrote: »

It is a grown body of evidence and science that strongly points to the idea that we imagine religious experience and why we do.

This is probably the issue, when people wedge their own bias into what we actually know.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

This is probably the issue, when people wedge their own bias into what we actually know.

Again you guys have gone of slightly on a tangent here that I didn't mean to go down.

This isn't my bias. This is what is emerging as the current scientific theory explaining the human behavior of religion. Why are humans religious. Why do we believe particular things instead of other things etc etc. What is the evolutionary reason why we believe one thing and not another. Why do our beliefs fit certain evolved behavior.

My question was more the effects this will have, I didn't actually expect to have a debate on that itself. It simply is the case. This is what the theories in psychology and neurology are. As Thompson points out it will become impossible in the near future to put forward a text book detailing current scientific understanding of psychology and neurology without including this.

The question is given this how is this going to effect the relationship between science and religion.

philologos

Wicknight wrote: »

This isn't my bias. This is what is emerging as the current scientific theory explaining the human behavior of religion. Why are humans religious. Why do we believe particular things instead of other things etc etc.

This is the problem. Dishonesty after the fact.

Explaining how something happens, does not mean that God is imagined, and that's where people are going to have problems with new-atheists claiming that this is the case.

By all means, this is opinion, but nothing more.

Most people don't have a problem with researching how people come to know God (whether or not God really exists is an entirely separate question).

Wicknight wrote: »

The question is given this how is this going to effect the relationship between science and religion.

Itself it won't. From what conclusions people happen to draw from it based on opinion, it will.

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

How would you feel if the current mainstream psychological theory was that it isn't,

They'd have to prove that a creator of the universe doesn't exist first wouldn't they? Have they done that yet?

Wicknight wrote: »

that is is a by-product the evolution of the human mind and is a result of use developing certain methods of thinking to help with other areas that over flowed into belief in God?

They can't even explain the origin of the coding sequence in DNA which gives the blueprint instructions for cells to become certain types of cells which in turn become certain types of tissue to becomes certain types of organs to perform certain types of functions in conjunction with other organs all in tandem with each other so that we can relate the way we can to the environment that we live in. Who wrote the original code in the DNA?

Wicknight wrote: »

Not asking do you accept that, just asking how you would feel if that was what the scientific position was, and that this was taught to psychology and neurology students?

I wouldn't accept it for scientific reasons. When they explain the aforementioned code writer in naturalistic terms then they will have strong support for their case, namely that our religious beliefs are simply a byproduct of our evolution from primitive organisms to our current much further advanced state.

Wicknight wrote: »

Would you object to that, or do you see that as a conflict? (this was the original question in the post, I didn't really mean to get into a debate of the validity of the science)

I wouldn't object to them doing the science and showing theirs results and giving their interpretations of those results, but for them to conclude that based on their research it shows the illusory position on the part of a believer in a creator of the universe is taking somewhat of a leap. Who knows, maybe the cognitive parts of our brains which deals with religion has evolved because the revelation of the creator has increased over the last few millennia and that explains it. You see it all boils down to how you interpret the results of the tests. I haven't watched the presentation yet but do they supply results of any tests?

Wicknight wrote: »

Well nothing in science is ever proven. But that is the conclusion the science is supporting and the support for the accuracy of that conclusion grows every day.

Which was the point of this thread.

Well if that's the case then I'm intrigued to see the test results and how they conclude from that that religious belief is an illusory mechanism we evolved to help us survive as species.

Wicknight wrote: »

It is some what inescapable that this will be the mainstream conclusion of psychology and neurological science.

Until someone comes along and pokes a great big hole in the theory. Or will people who do this just get branded creationists with a hidden agenda?

Wicknight wrote: »

Do you feel that this will produce a conflict? Do you think it shouldn't be taught?

I'm sure it will produce a conflict but I'm not against them doing the research. We should exhaust all possibilities when it comes to our beliefs. We must be as certain as we can be that what we believe in is actually true and if science can conclusively show that what we believe in is false then I want to know about it. But in relation to the Christian Faith they will need to answer more than just neurological questions. They need to explain how people in a very short time of exposure to Jesus came to believe in Him as The Son of God and die horrendous deaths for that belief. Bit of a neurological evolutionary leap wouldn't you agree? Plus it didn't aid in their survival very well either.

On its face it just sounds like certain scientists who don't hold to any particular religious belief spending tax payers money on research that could be spent in much better ways elsewhere trying to explain that which they don't understand in scientific terms and thus show that they're world view was correct one after all, but I could be wrong.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

This is the problem. Dishonesty after the fact.

Explaining how something happens, does not mean that God is imagined, and that's where people are going to have problems with new-atheists claiming that this is the case.

I'm still not really following what you mean.

Ignore religion for a sec, and go back to the example of shapes in random patterns.

Do you think neurological explaining the effect of seeing faces in patterns through the process of the evolved pattern matching in the brain means that this is why you see a face in toast or the clouds, and that the face isn't actually there? Or when you see an imagine like this

If the answer is yes, then I'm not following where you think the difference with what neurology saying that about facial recognition is and neurology saying a similar thing about religion?

Jakkass wrote: »

By all means, this is opinion, but nothing more.

It is not an opinion, it is a scientific theory. It is not proof if that is what you mean. You can't prove God doesn't exist. You can't prove God isn't speaking to you. But that isn't really the point. You can't prove the reason you see a face in those trees isn't because there is actually a face there.

You can though put forward strongly supported scientific theory as to how humans have evolved pattern recognition to see faces in particular shapes.

Jakkass wrote: »

Most people don't have a problem with researching how people come to know God (whether or not God really exists is an entirely separate question).

I don't know what you mean by how people come to know God.

philologos

Wicknight - All I'm saying is, that it is an opinion to claim that God is imagined, because imagining God depends on God not actually being there, or real. That's the problem with the line you're taking.

It's fairly similar to the stuff on the A&A forum about morality a few months back. Passing off opinion as scientific fact is just that, dishonest.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

Wicknight - All I'm saying is, that it is an opinion to claim that God is imagined, because imagining God depends on God not actually being there, or real. That's the problem with the line you're taking.

Again I'm not really following what you mean by "opinion"

Do you think the current scientific theory of electromagnetism is an "opinion", given that it could actually be wrong?

philologos

Wicknight wrote: »

Again I'm not really following what you mean by "opinion"

Do you think the current scientific theory of electromagnetism is an "opinion", given that it could actually be wrong?

I have a feeling that discussing this further would be pointless. You seem to be claiming that this is some form of "proof" that God doesn't exist, when it actually does nothing of the kind. That's the dishonesty.

It is really quite simple:
1) If God doesn't exist, then yes the idea is fictitious, and this explains how we keep fictitious ideas.
2) If God does exist, then this is the mechanism that we come to understand God by.

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

They'd have to prove that a creator of the universe doesn't exist first wouldn't they?

Not really. You would have to put forward a scientific theory supported by evidence and testing explaining in naturalistic terms the human behavior of religion. Which they are doing.

Take another example not related to religion. If you are trying to build up a neurological explanation for people hearing voices in their heads and you come up with the theory of schizophrenia that doesn't require that you prove the person is not actually hearing supernatural voices in their head. That isn't required. You present your theory and you see how much it explains. In the case of schizophrenia it explains an awful lot. Doctors don't go around thinking Ah but you haven't proved it isn't evil spirits. It could actually be evil spirits. But it could also be schizophrenia and that is the theory with all the support behind it.

I'm not equating religion to mental illness, I'm just pointing out that this is not really the way that science works.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Who wrote the original code in the DNA?

Well DNA most likely evolved from RNA, but that isn't particularly relevant to the question at hand.

Soul Winner wrote: »

You see it all boils down to how you interpret the results of the tests.

Again that isn't really how science works. It boils down to the theories that best explain all aspects of the phenomena and are best supported in a scientific sense.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Well if that's the case then I'm intrigued to see the test results and how they conclude from that that religious belief is an illusory mechanism we evolved to help us survive as species.

I'm happy to hear you say that. There is tons on the web, I'll try and dig up some of the better examples.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

I have a feeling that discussing this further would be pointless. You seem to be claiming that this is some form of "proof" that God doesn't exist

No actually I'm not, and I'm some what at a loss as to how to explain that in enough different ways that there is no confusion .

I've gone so far as to state a few times that science cannot prove anything, so really there should be no confusion as to whether I think this research proves God doesn't exist.

I will say it again. Science never proves anything. Ever. No scientific theory has ever proved anything ever in the history of science, so this scientific theory will not prove anything, including will not prove that God doesn't exist.

I think at some point I'm going to have to make that my signature.

I think though you guys think that this research is not up to the same standard as any other scientific research. That conclusion would be false. This is the same methodology that scientists used to come up with theories on cognative processes, or biological process, or physical process such as electricity.

Which is why I asked what you think other scientific theories are. Do you think they are just opinions? I can't really answer your questions without a frame of reference.

Jakkass wrote: »

It is really quite simple:
1) If God doesn't exist, then yes the idea is fictitious, and this explains how we keep fictitious ideas.
2) If God does exist, then this is the mechanism that we come to understand God by.

That isn't really the point.

It is more if we can show that human beings imagine all these things due to these reasons X,Y,Z, and due to those various functions of the brain, isn't it the most likely explanation that this is what we are doing with religion X.

That is what science is, it is the most supported and accurate theory being at the top. Electromagnetism could be some crazy thing no one has ever thought about, but the current theory is at the top because it explains it very well.

That to me seems a reasonable way of working, I'm not quite sure what you mean by saying that this is dishonest.

Again I'm not linking religious belief to mental illness, but using the example of schizophrenia again you don't prove someone doesn't have supernatural voices talking to them. You put forward a well supported and tested biological theory as to why they would imagine they have voices talking to them and this explains the phenomena. You ask does the theory of schizophrenia explain what is happening to this person. Yes. Is the theory itself well supported by research and experiment? Yes. Is it then a reasonable conclusion that the person is experiencing schizophrenia? To me Yes to that answer is reasonable.

At no point are you proving that supernatural voices in peoples heads don't exist. I don't think that is dishonest though to say this person has schizophrenia, despite you not being able to do that.

philologos

You don't seem to separate the actual facts from the conclusions that people are deriving from this. It is very possible that in neuroscience they have worked out how people come to believe. However, this mechanism doesn't really say anything about whether or not God exists. You and the guy in the video seem to want to take the leap that it means that God is imagined. That's fine, but it is likely that theists will look at this mechanism and come to a different conclusion.

In pretty much the same way that theists don't come to the same conclusion about evolution as atheists do in respect to God.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

You don't seem to separate the actual facts from the conclusions that people are deriving from this. It is very possible that in neuroscience they have worked out how people come to believe. However, this mechanism doesn't really say anything about whether or not God exists.

Fair enough. I think you are inaccurate in portraying this as an atheist distortion of the science though. What you are describing is basically science, the most accurate and well supported theory is used to explanation for the phenomena, the phenomena in this case being religious behavior in humans.

To me saying that this research says nothing about the existence of God is like saying neurologists have scientifically worked out why people hear voices in their head due to mental illness but that says nothing at all about the existence or non-existence of the supernatural spirits that people used to think were responsible for these voices.

Which while technically true is a very odd way of looking at it in my opinion.

If you explain the phenomena of say mentally unstable people hearing voices in their head with a purely naturalistic and biological explanation then what reason really is there to still suppose the existence of spirits like they believed in the middle ages that we used to explain the phenomena. You haven't proved it wasn't these spirits talking the guys head, or that they don't exist in nature. But still few continue to think it is these spirits or questions their existence.

If you manage to accurately explain the existence of a smudge on a photo as probably being caused by lens flare would someone continue to insist that you have not proven it wasn't a ghost, or that the ghost wouldn't choose to reveal itself through the lens flare? Or would everyone just think It was a lens flare.

If you explain religion and religious experience without the need to invoke the supernatural is there a need to continue to invoke the supernatural? Will people continue to do this? Not just in relation to God but in relation to anything? Do we continue to keep an open mind to Apollo pulling the moon around the Earth or have we replaced this idea with an explanation that explains it much better? Our current scientific theories about the moon actually saying nothing about the existence or non-existence of Apollo, but taking that to mean the Apollo theory is still on the cards and valid would be, as I said above, an odd way of looking at it.

But anyway I digress, this thread was never really about the scientific validity of the research (that is decide by the actually scientists themselves), more about the reaction people would have if (and in all likelihood when) this becomes standard psychological theory.

So we're gone rather off topic into an area I didn't anticipate and I'm sort of derailing my own thread, so I think I'll take a step back for a bit and see what anyone else has to say.

philologos

Wicknight wrote: »

If you explain religion and religious experience without the need to invoke the supernatural is there a need to continue to invoke the supernatural? Will people continue to do this? Not just in relation to God but in relation to anything? Do we continue to keep an open mind to Apollo pulling the moon around the Earth or have we replaced this idea with an explanation that explains it much better? Our current scientific theories about the moon actually saying nothing about the existence or non-existence of Apollo, but taking that to mean the Apollo theory is still on the cards and valid would be, as I said above, an odd way of looking at it.

This is pretty much the main point you are making. If we know how things work, there is not really much reason to go and investigate why they work the way they do, or why they began to work as they do. It's a mode of thinking that really is quite unorthodox to say the least.

You are saying that if we know how religious ideas are formed in the brain, finding out why it happened this way, which ultimately goes back to evolution and cosmology if we bring it that far back or indeed if you are a theist it goes further, why did it happen at all rather than not happen, what caused it to be this way?

You use the same philosophy when it comes to the origins of the universe actually. If we know how it happened, then what is the point in thinking about why?

I may know how a television works when it is on, but why it is on is often an entirely different question. Generally a television is on because someone has plugged it in, or pressed the on button.

I may know how religious ideas are formed in the brain, but why they are formed is a totally different question, which allows for speculation. This thinking might be enough for you and for others, but it is wholly inadequate as far as I am concerned.

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

Not really. You would have to put forward a scientific theory supported by evidence and testing explaining in naturalistic terms the human behavior of religion. Which they are doing.

Yes but like Jackass says, it still doesn't explain why this happens.

Wicknight wrote: »

Well DNA most likely evolved from RNA, but that isn't particularly relevant to the question at hand.

I know but it is very important to explain even the origin of the specified and complex information in just RNA which itself is no mean feat for a chance event to produce. Lets assume for a minute that DNA did come from RNA (and this is by no means a given under current microbiology research, by far in fact but we'll leave that for now) the sequence specific accumulation of other parts in RNA is quite staggering. RNA has its own coding of bases which themselves beg the question of how they could have come together by a process of blind chance. It would be like asking you to scoop up a shovel full of Scrabble letters and toss them into the air and expect the landing letters to form the sentence: "I really hope I don't have to do this another trillion trillion times in order for this sentence to eventually come out." That's the kind of odds we are talking about with just RNA not to mention its eventual development and then cooperation into and with DNA to contain the code which is the blue print for all life. Natural Selection does not qualify as an explanation at this stage because natural selection didn't exist before the first self replicating molecule appears. So if natural selection wasn't the cause of the first information rich RNA and DNA molecules then it was either chance or intelligence.

If you received a copy of Windows 7 in the post and you asked me who compiled it and I said nobody compiled it, it self-compiled itself with no input from any minds and not only that but it sent itself to you in the post, you'd think I was mad and rightly so, and yet that is exactly what we are supposed to accept under a purely Darwinian explanation of how these information rich molecules came about early in earth's history. It is like expecting a computer to not only build its own hardware but after that to self compile its own software. But even before the hardware could be built it needs plans and blueprints to follow in order to build it i.e. information. So where does this information come from? In our daily experiences where does information usually come from? The information in software code comes from minds, the information in plans and blueprints for building the hardware that runs that software also comes from minds. Why can't science infer that a Mind or Minds was at work in origin of the information found in DNA and RNA? Seems pretty logical to me.

So if Darwinism is so blatantly wrong at this early stage of life's development then how can we trust it to explain anything else after these events? The presentation you posted is based totally on Darwinism and an atheistic-anti-religious agenda heavily influenced by Dawkins et el, so how do you think its going to go down in religious circles? But hey fair play to them. If that's what they want to base their faith on then more power to them, but intelligent people don't buy it sorry, I don't care how popular it becomes as a theory because that is all it is. The facts it presents are based on the assumption that Darwinism is true so its a fail for me sorry.

Wicknight wrote: »

Again that isn't really how science works. It boils down to the theories that best explain all aspects of the phenomena and are best supported in a scientific sense.

And Darwinism fails miserably in explaining the origin of information in both DNA and RNA. Information rich molecules such as DNA and RNA which produces disparate functions in organisms can only have been put there by an intelligent mind, chance hasn't a chance as a valid let alone a best explanation of these well documented facts of microbiology.

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm happy to hear you say that. There is tons on the web, I'll try and dig up some of the better examples.

Cool..I hope :pac:

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

This is pretty much the main point you are making. If we know how things work, there is not really much reason to go and investigate why they work the way they do, or why they began to work as they do.

I'm not saying that at all Jakkass. These theories explain why these things work the way they do, that is in fact the point.

They are not simply an explanation for how they work but why they exist in humans in the first place, why they evolved. It is similar to say the evolutionary biological reason we (like most hunting animals) have two eyes in the front of our faces (to allow us to easily judge distance to prey) where as other animals who have evolved to eat plants but who are preyed upon such as rabbits have eyes that give weaker depth perception but greater peripheral vision. That is the how and the why. How they work and why they evolved. Of course you can also say that is how God wanted it to be, but that seems some what redundant.

Like I said there is only so many ways to explain this until we just start going around in circles. So lets all take a step back and see if anyone else wants to post.

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

Yes but like Jackass says, it still doesn't explain why this happens.

Yes actually it does, that is in fact the point. That is what psychology, particularly evolutionary psychology is, why we behave the way we do.

Soul Winner wrote: »

It would be like asking you to scoop up a shovel full of Scrabble letters and toss them into the air and expect the landing letters to form the sentence:

It wouldn't be even remotely like that.

I agree entirely that these molecules would not randomly form together, but then no one says they did. That is the whole point of Darwin's discovery. Evolution isn't blind chance, as we have been explaining to you for the last 6 years on the other monster Creationist thread, where this discussion probably belongs

philologos

If you're seriously going to tell me that an atheist psychologist, speaking to a room of atheists is not going to put across any bias in what he is saying, or in how he is interpreting the findings, you have to be having a laugh surely?

He even says in the video that he is clearly putting this across as ammunition to use in debates with theist friends.

I must listen to Fanny's link by the Faraday Institute to provide some form of objectivity to the matter.

Fanny Cradock

Jakkass wrote: »

I must listen to Fanny's link by the Faraday Institute to provide some form of objectivity to the matter.

If you start now and don't stop we should probably see you around the same time tomorrow. There are over over 20 talks if you go to Search by subject area: and select Bran/ Psychology.

BTW, the neuroscientist chap got back to me WK. He doesn't agree with you :eek: I'll PM you.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

If you're seriously going to tell me that an atheist psychologist, speaking to a room of atheists is not going to put across any bias in what he is saying, or in how he is interpreting the findings, you have to be having a laugh surely?

Fair enough, if you don't trust him or think he is lying then ignore him.

I linked to Thompson video more for the interesting point he made at the end about the conflict that is coming between what is being established by psychology and neurology and belief of religious people that what they are experiencing is the result of real interaction with a supernatural deity.

The science is out there. This isn't a bunch of fringe atheists who have come up with a crazy hypothesis to support their world view. It is the conclusion that psychologists and neurologists across the world are coming to and have been for the last 5 or 10 years. The evidence grows each day, you can't open a popular science magazine these days without finding a report on new evidence in this regard. There is tons of research being done into this area.

Thompson's bias, if he has any, isn't going to change that.

Jakkass wrote: »

I must listen to Fanny's link by the Faraday Institute to provide some form of objectivity to the matter.

By all means, review any and all research and evidence you can find.

This isn't an agenda. It is a scientific finding.

philologos

I have no doubt that the science is out there, but he seems to be clearly adding his opinion while talking about it, which quite naturally is what happens when you are speaking as an atheist, to an audience of atheists. His take on the science is also present. In the same way as if a Christian was speaking to a group of Christians on how the science is relevant to Christians, there would be a Christian take on the science present.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

I have no doubt that the science is out there, but he seems to be clearly adding his opinion while talking about it, which quite naturally is what happens when you are speaking as an atheist, to an audience of atheists. His take on the science is also present.

Like I said fair enough, if you feel happier then simply ignore everything he says.

Again my point of linking to the video was more his prediction of the up coming conflict. I wasn't attempting with the video to prove that this is becoming the current scientific position, I didn't actually think that was necessary. There is tons of this stuff out there.

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes actually it does, that is in fact the point. That is what psychology, particularly evolutionary psychology is, why we behave the way we do.

Point taken.

Wicknight wrote: »

I agree entirely that these molecules would not randomly form together, but then no one says they did.

That is the whole point of Darwin's discovery. Evolution isn't blind chance, as we have been explaining to you for the last 6 years on the other monster Creationist thread, where this discussion probably belongs

If not randomly and not by blind chance and definitely not by an intelligence then how? Undirected forces working on chemicals over time can cause stalagmites to form or patterns in sand dunes or snow flakes but they do not write computer like code to bring about complex specific functions in living organisms. The blind watchmaker does not know what the outcome will be nor does he care or have any preference for one outcome over another. He's not only blind but mindless and uncaring. Undirected Natural Selection is an oxymoron. Blind processes with no end result don't select anything because to do so means to reject every other combination of possible outcomes. NS assumes an intelligence with pre-defined outcomes in mind before it acts. It selects what works best and rejects the rest, but to do that it must be pre-programmed for that specific outcome and that implies a programmer.

Wicknight wrote: »

This isn't an agenda. It is a scientific finding.

They are looking for evidence that supports their pre-targetted outcome and rejecting what might pose as a threat to it by ridiculing it. It's just another branch on the tree of Darwinism.

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

There is tons of this stuff out there.

We know

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

If not randomly and not by blind chance and definitely not by an intelligence then how?

Darwinian evolution.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Undirected forces working on chemicals over time can cause stalagmites to form or patterns in sand dunes or snow flakes but they do not write computer like code to bring about specific functions in living organisms.

Yes actually they do, as has been explained many times on the other thread.

We (humans) have experimentally demonstrated, both in labs and using computer simulations, that self replicating molecules develop primitive forms of what you would call genetic code. It has also been demonstrated that simple sets of molecules can replicate each other again forming information carrying molecules.

The issue is not can this happen. We know it can, we've done it. The issue is what did actually happen on Earth and if so in what form. That we don't know because the evidence to test the models is lacking.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Blind processes with no end result don't select anything because to do so means to reject every other combination of possible outcomes. NS assumes an intelligence with pre-defined outcomes in mind before it acts. It selects what works best and rejects the rest, but to do that it must be pre-programmed for that specific outcome and that implies a programmer.

The environment selects the outcome, and the environment doesn't care a bit about you. If you and a hundred people get poisoned by a plant and only you have the gene to produce the enzyme to to neutralize that poison, they all die and you live. Lucky you you have just been selected. Not because the environment (in this case the plant) has any particular reason to pick you but because you happen to have the mutation that adapts you better to the environment than all the others.

Seriously Soul Winner I can't count how many times natural selection has been explained to you and you still seem to just repeat back Creationist propaganda and falsehoods. And again we will invoke the wrath of the mods if we keep this up. Feel free to go to the other thread if you want further clarification.

Soul Winner wrote: »

They are looking for evidence that supports their pre-targetted outcome and rejecting what might pose a threat to it by ridiculing it. It's just another branch on the tree of Darwinism.

You can believe that if you like but wishing for a scientific theory to be true isn't going to get it passing scientific standards. It either passes the standards or it doesn't. You can't fake that.

kelly1

Wicknight wrote: »

But that is really what I wanted to find out from you guys.

Do you see this as a conflict, or do you think that it can be happily married together.
>>> Of course it's a conflict.

Would you be happy with your kids (or other kids) being taught a psychological and neurological explanation for religion in class rooms?
>>> Certainly not.

Would you be unhappy with this but still see it as important that current scientific understanding be taught to kids, while maintaining that you don't accept this as accurate?
>>> I would see it as an attempt to undermine belief in God.

Or would you in fact embrace it yourself, and stop being religious?
>>> Not a chance. The theory is wishful thinking.

Or none of the above.
>>> I'm going with this one.

What scientists seems to dismiss or ignore is Revelation. That God has revealed His nature and will to us first through Jewish prophets and then definitively through Jesus Christ. And we Christians base our faith on the resurrection as an historical event.

What I'm saying is that our belief in God isn't based on a "feeling" that some kind of supreme being must exist. We have very strong evidence for the validity of Christianity.

Zombrex

kelly1 wrote: »

What scientists seems to dismiss or ignore is Revelation. That God has revealed His nature and will to us first through Jewish prophets and then definitively through Jesus Christ. And we Christians base our faith on the resurrection as an historical event.

What I'm saying is that our belief in God isn't based on a "feeling" that some kind of supreme being must exist. We have very strong evidence for the validity of Christianity.

Thanks for the responses Kelly.

I don't think scientists are ignoring revelation, simply that any one particular religious story has not been show to actually have happened to any standard they would accept.

You can certainly choose to accept for what ever reason that one story happened as told, but that isn't really the same thing. So Christians accept the New Testament, Muslims accept the Quaran Mormons accept the books of Smith etc. None can show in any scientific sense of that word that any of it actually happened, such acceptance is based on personal assessment and conclusion. So it is not relevant to science.

This research though does go some what into explaining why humans are more likely to accept stories with certain properties as factual over others types of stories, irrespective of whether they are true or not, which is an interesting aspect.

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm just wondering what people think about this idea, teaching as science that religion is a by-produce of evolved traits and responses, fitted into the rest of evolutionary psychology.

I watched about half the video and a number of questions cropped up for me (I did struggle a bit to quell the nagging sense of a scientist looking to stitch together a theory to fit preconceived notions - and, as you might recall, I'm not an evolutionist anyway so the issue doesn't really concern me).

A prime question is this. A Christian like myself and many others here draw a distinction between Religion and Christianity. We would hold that the world is divided into only two categories of people: the lost and the found. All the lost - whatever their worldview - Atheist, Agnostic, Christian, Hindi, Muslim ... are spiritually blind and are cut off from connection with God. Because of this, the unbelieving Religious has a religious belief that is a man-made entity. As such, he would be expected to differ completely from the believer who would have an actual connection with God (assuming for a moment that God does exist)

How would someone go about establishing an evolutionary explanation to deal with this situation (the featured scientist in your video took a rather coarse approach of lumping all religions into a pot labelled Religion). In other words, if there is a God, how do you identify his adherents in order to examine them scientifically. Note that this isn't the only area which would plague scientific investigation - I've often wondered about polls expressing the views of Christians when there is no accurate way of determining who is or isn't a Christian.


___________


A more general query would ask what specifically has been found to indicate religious belief an evolved entity. At around the point I finished, he was showing MRI cross sections of religious brains indicating the locus of aspects of religious belief and was positing the religious use of normal cognitive infrastucture to be a major piece of evidence for his position. But I couldn't fathom why - religious people are thinking people and so at least some of their belief can be expected to occupy cognitive infrastructure. What specifically points to evolved belief - other than weaving some known facts to fit the evolutionary story?

kelly1

Wicknight wrote: »

Thanks for the responses Kelly.

I don't think scientists are ignoring revelation, simply that any one particular religious story has not been show to actually have happened to any standard they would accept.

I think bias is a big problem here. Many atheists want to discredit belief in God.

prinz

Wicknight wrote: »

Do you see this as a conflict, or do you think that it can be happily married together.

I may have picked up the concept wrong, but from what I understand no, I don't see a conflict. Is he saying that humans have evolved a trait to basically indulge in the concept of God/gods/religion? That some of us are programmed to seek out something that isn't there? Need to read it again, head cold and sinus issues aren't helping clear thinking.

Wicknight wrote: »

Would you be happy with your kids (or other kids) being taught a psychological and neurological explanation for religion in class rooms?

If he's saying what I think he is I don't see why not.

Wicknight wrote: »

Would you be unhappy with this but still see it as important that current scientific understanding be taught to kids, while maintaining that you don't accept this as accurate?

My understanding may be off (quite possibly) but I don't have any major issue with it yet. Perhaps I'm not picking up on something.

Wicknight wrote: »

Or would you in fact embrace it yourself, and stop being religious?

I can't see why it would encourage me to stop being religious at the minute.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

I watched about half the video and a number of questions cropped up for me (I did struggle a bit to quell the nagging sense of a scientist looking to stitch together a theory to fit preconceived notions - and, as you might recall, I'm not an evolutionist anyway so the issue doesn't really concern me).

Hi antiskeptic, thanks for the response.

Anyone who doesn't accept evolution as a theory won't naturally accept conclusions based on evolutionary psychology, so I appreciate that this research won't mean much to you

How would you feel about this being taught as the standard model of psychology?

antiskeptic wrote: »

A prime question is this. A Christian like myself and many others here draw a distinction between Religion and Christianity. We would hold that the world is divided into only two categories of people: the lost and the found. All the lost - whatever their worldview Atheist, Agnostic, Christian, Hindi, Muslim ... are spiritually blind and are cut off from connection with God. Because of this, the unbelieving Muslim, Protestant, Muslim or 'Christian' has a religious belief that is a man-made entity. As such, he would be expected to differ completely from the believer who would have an actual connection with God (assuming for a moment that God can exist)

How would someone go about establishing an evolutionary explanation for this situation (the featured scientist in your video took a rather coarse approach of lumping all religions into a pot labelled Religion).

Well the problem would be that you can say you hold that the world is divided into two categories of people but you can't show in a scientific sense that this is the case (or at least no one has so far as far as I know). A Christian believer looks pretty much exactly like the believer of any other religion in terms of how they work and in relation to what they believe and why.

So it becomes some what irrelevant from a scientific point of view. The next person could say that the world is divided into three types of people and there is no way to determine to scientific standards if he is likely to be correct or you are likely to be correct.

The point of this research is that, as far as we can tell in any sort of scientific fashion, what is happening in the brain of those with "false belief" is the same thing happening in your brain, and happening for the same evolutionary reasons. And the patterns of what you will belief and accept are the same. How to get someone to the state where they are more accepting of religious belief is the same.

So science hasn't discovered any fundamental difference between Christians and all other religious believers. Every religion thinks they are the true religion but science can't just accept this is the case because they say so. They could just be wrong, as you would seem to accept is the case with all other non-Christian religions.

So it is a bit of a false start trying to show the cause of this division if we can't show it exists in the first place.

Does that answer the question? I'm not sure I fully understood what you were asking but I hope that was close

Zombrex

prinz wrote: »

I may have picked up the concept wrong, but from what I understand no, I don't see a conflict. Is he saying that humans have evolved a trait to basically indulge in the concept of God/gods/religion? That some of us are programmed to seek out something that isn't there? Need to read it again, head cold and sinus issues aren't helping clear thinking.

Basically yes. The research is saying that we have evolved the tendency to invent religion (ie to see human like agency in nature, to see this agency as benevolent and authoritative, to accept stories told to us that follow that pattern, to seek this agency in times of stress, to process the world around us in terms of human interactions etc) as a by product of other evolutionary processes and goes into the evolutionary reasons of why we would do this.

Using the example of the optical illusion it is basically the difference between saying you see a white triangle in the picture because it is actually there and saying you see a white triangle in the picture because your brain has evolved the ability to track objects behind other objects in order to track them and a by-product of this is that when you see a pattern like this your brain creates a triangle shape.

prinz wrote: »

I can't see why it would encourage me to stop being religious at the minute.

If it suggested that your religious experiences and your acceptance of religious stories were possibly due to how your brain works rather than reality, would that cause you to question your faith?

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

How would you feel about this being taught as the standard model of psychology?

My wifes a counselling psychologist and her training was through-and-through humanistic. I don't see that anything would be changed by adding more to an already overflowing bucket.

Well the problem would be that you can say you hold that the world is divided into two categories of people but you can't show in a scientific sense that this is the case (or at least no one has so far as far as I know).

Accepted. But my point aimed to illustrate why this finding could easily roll off the back of an evolution believing Christian - it wasn't aimed at proving the Christian position

A Christian believer looks pretty much exactly like the believer of any other religion in terms of how they work and in relation to what they believe and why.

The focus of my point was to query how any scientist could say this is the case. How would he know he has a Christian in his test tube in order to comment this way or that?

So it becomes some what irrelevant from a scientific point of view. The next person could say that the world is divided into three types of people and there is no way to determine to scientific standards if he is likely to be correct or you are likely to be correct.

The point of this research is that, as far as we can tell in any sort of scientific fashion, what is happening in the brain of those with "false belief" is the same thing happening in your brain, and happening for the same evolutionary reasons. And the patterns of what you will belief and accept are the same. How to get someone to the state where they are more accepting of religious belief is the same.

So science hasn't discovered any fundamental difference between Christians and all other religious believers. Every religion thinks they are the true religion but science can't just accept this is the case because they say so. They could just be wrong, as you would seem to accept is the case with all other non-Christian religions.

So it is a bit of a false start trying to show the cause of this division if we can't show it exists in the first place.

Does that answer the question? I'm not sure I fully understood what you were asking but I hope that was close

Has what I said clarified anything? How does the scientist establish I am a Christian in order to conclude that my thinking is the same as the Muslim next door. IN other words: if there was a true religion (whatever that may be) how would the scientist know that his scattergun approach is incorporating that true religion in amongst the myriad of false ones.

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

Darwinian evolution.

That's the thing though, Darwinian Evolution doesn't kick in until after the first self replication system or molecule appears. Natural Selection (as Darwinism defines it) is a process whereby in living organisms certain traits are kept and others are discarded, but before life can come about NS doesn't exist. And before life can come about you need to have a very very sophisticate sequences of nucleotide bases in place before self replication can occur. So what can cause these systems to form in the first place? There are 2 possibilities. 1.) Blind Chance, or 2.) Intelligence. We have no problem inferring from our everyday experience that chance cannot bring about sophisticated system like this but we do observe minds doing it all the time. writing books, posting on Internet forums, writing computer codes, or blueprint designs and so forth. So what is the most logical cause (as far as our everyday experience can ascertain) for the sophisticated sequence of bases in RNA and DNA compiling to bring about the first life? Even you have explained this many many times before that the theory of evolution does not deal with Abiogenesis, that NS only starts after the first self replicating system has come about. So you're either not explaining it properly or you're changing the goal posts to fit the theory.

Wicknight wrote: »

We (humans) have experimentally demonstrated, both in labs and using computer simulations, that self replicating molecules develop primitive forms of what you would call genetic code. It has also been demonstrated that simple sets of molecules can replicate each other again forming information carrying molecules.

What you fail to observe in these experiments is the interaction of the investigators in the process. Something that was serisouly lacking in a prebiotic earth. These experimenters tweak the results for the favorable outcome and as such fail in reproducing the real conditions present on the earth when it all apparently happened without any input from an intelligent agent.

Wicknight wrote: »

The issue is not can this happen. We know it can, we've done it. The issue is what did actually happen on Earth and if so in what form. That we don't know because the evidence to test the models is lacking.

Thank you. So with that in mind why is it so irrational to infer that an intelligence might have been involved? It at least should have a place on the shelf with other competing explanations. You don't need to identify the intelligence in order to infer that intelligence was involved. That can still be an open question and theories can still abound as to the identity of that intelligence. We can still keep open the possibility of the other competing theories and test them and re-test them until we can put them away as valid explanations. There is no other naturalistic theory that explains how this complex sequence came about and as such we need to look at other possibilities. Barring intelligence as a possible explanation because it ruffles the feathers of some materialist is not science.

Wicknight wrote: »

The environment selects the outcome, and the environment doesn't care a bit about you. If you and a hundred people get poisoned by a plant and only you have the gene to produce the enzyme to to neutralize that poison, they all die and you live. Lucky you you have just been selected. Not because the environment (in this case the plant) has any particular reason to pick you but because you happen to have the mutation that adapts you better to the environment than all the others.

I understand all that but your describing the process that supposedly takes place after the first living cell appears - namely Natrual Selection. I'm talking out before that. How did information rich molecules assemble themselves into the specific complex sequence that enables self replication to occur in the first place? NS does not deal with this question nor can it.

Wicknight wrote: »

Seriously Soul Winner I can't count how many times natural selection has been explained to you and you still seem to just repeat back Creationist propaganda and falsehoods. And again we will invoke the wrath of the mods if we keep this up. Feel free to go to the other thread if you want further clarification.

You're talking about NS and I'm talking about before NS kicks in. No wonder there is confusion.

Wicknight wrote: »

You can believe that if you like but wishing for a scientific theory to be true isn't going to get it passing scientific standards. It either passes the standards or it doesn't. You can't fake that.

All I want to know is what is the more logical cause for complex sequence specific nucleotide bases in DNA and RNA to form before NS kicks in? I say that the best explanation is that it came from an intelligent mind like the way every other code known to mankind comes from, be that Morse code, languages, and computer languages. Or it just self assemble itself, a process that we never see happening in nature or even in the lab without outside tweaking of the artificial environment by the experimenters.

Morbert

This research may persuade some fence-sitters to become atheists, but there's nothing in the research that is inconsistent with Christianity.

The area of neurophysiology that will really challenge religious ideas in the fututre (not to mention lawmakers) is that of 'will'. There is a serious trend towards acknowledging differences in brain structure that result in a greater or lesser capacity to restrain ourselves from impulsive 'bad' choices.

prinz

Wicknight wrote: »

Basically yes. The research is saying that we have evolved the tendency to invent religion (ie to see human like agency in nature, to see this agency as benevolent and authoritative, to accept stories told to us that follow that pattern, to seek this agency in times of stress, to process the world around us in terms of human interactions etc) as a by product of other evolutionary processes and goes into the evolutionary reasons of why we would do this.

We have evolved the tendency to search for God in other words. It has no bearing on whether or not a God exists, and as it stands it could be interpreted as a confirmation of religious beliefs, that we evolved in that way because God wanted to be found by us. Similarly we evolved other ways because God wanted us to be decent survivalists etc.

Wicknight wrote: »

If it suggested that your religious experiences and your acceptance of religious stories were possibly due to how your brain works rather than reality, would that cause you to question your faith?

Not really. It would raise questions as to why my brain works that way, and to what end.

Slav

Morbert wrote: »

The area of neurophysiology that will really challenge religious ideas in the fututre (not to mention lawmakers) is that of 'will'. There is a serious trend towards acknowledging differences in brain structure that result in a greater or lesser capacity to restrain ourselves from impulsive 'bad' choices.

Still not something that Christianity would object I guess.

yutta

Stupid troll thread. Take it over to the atheist & agnostic forum boys.

There's nothing here that rocks the Vatican.

Don't let that stop you from gazing down microscopes looking to fill all the holes in Dawkinism though.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

Accepted. But my point aimed to illustrate why this finding could easily roll off the back of an evolution believing Christian - it wasn't aimed at proving the Christian position

Ah right, yes I understand. Well that is the case with anything in science I guess, you don't have to accept a scientific theory and with the realm of the supernatural you can always suppose an alternative supernatural explanations. If I said there were fairies in my computer that that is what caused it to work, not electricity, you would have a hard time proving me wrong

antiskeptic wrote: »

The focus of my point was to query how any scientist could say this is the case. How would he know he has a Christian in his test tube in order to comment this way or that?

Again science doesn't make the distinction you are making, so it is not really relevant.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Has what I said clarified anything? How does the scientist establish I am a Christian in order to conclude that my thinking is the same as the Muslim next door.

It has.

My point is that science does not concern itself with your definition of a Christian because your definition of a Christian requires a supernatural element to begin with (ie someone who has been given the grace of God, or what ever supernatural theological belief you think makes someone a Christian)

Science looks a humans, humans who proclaim different religious beliefs. And so far they have found nothing out of the ordinary with any particular religious group.

If you believe there is a different sub-set contained within one of these sets the onus is on you, as the person making the claim, to bring that forward and demonstrate it.

It would be simply wishful thinking to assume your religion has to be difference just because you think it should be. The onus is on your to demonstrate it is.

yutta

Wicknight wrote: »

Ah right, yes I understand. Well that is the case with anything in science I guess, you don't have to accept a scientific theory and with the realm of the supernatural you can always suppose an alternative supernatural explanations. If I said there were fairies in my computer that that is what caused it to work, not electricity, you would have a hard time proving me wrong



Again science doesn't make the distinction you are making, so it is not really relevant.



It has.

My point is that science does not concern itself with your definition of a Christian because your definition of a Christian requires a supernatural element to begin with (ie someone who has been given the grace of God, or what ever supernatural theological belief you think makes someone a Christian)

Science looks a humans, humans who proclaim different religious beliefs. And so far they have found nothing out of the ordinary with any particular religious group.

If you believe there is a different sub-set contained within one of these sets the onus is on you, as the person making the claim, to bring that forward and demonstrate it.

It would be simply wishful thinking to assume your religion has to be difference just because you think it should be. The onus is on your to demonstrate it is.

You do realise you're on the Christianity forum, right?

You should head down to the pub or the bookies and convert the gullible. You might even enjoy yourself while you're at it.