Philosophy concerns itself with testing theories against the measurement of logic, reason.
Science concerns itself with producing theories about the world and then defending the methods by which the theory itself was created.
'...scientific statements are subject to and derived from our experiences or observations. Scientific hypotheses are developed and tested through empirical methods consisting of observations and experiments. Once reproduced widely enough, the information resulting from our observations and experiments counts as the evidence upon which the scientific community develops theories that purport to explain facts about the world.
Observations involve perception, and so are themselves cognitive acts. That is, observations are themselves embedded in our understanding of the way in which the world works; as this understanding changes, the observations themselves may apparently change. More accurately, our interpretation of observations may change.'
Exactly. +1 from me here.
Some view philosophy on par with "It is my philosophy to always have fun, and the world is a doughnut", while what we are talking about in this context is precisely testing theories against logic and reason, often trying to create coherent and comprehensive logical systems fit to explain our world and existence in itself.
Surferdude:
Climate change is certainly not philosophy. It is observed and measured consistently for decades now. Temperatures are rising. Glaciers are melting. What debate there is about this does not concern these facts. There is a large consensus that humans have had in effect, the argument revolves around how much of an effect, and whether it is the critical effect. And most of the argument is really about the political implications, not as much the science in itself.
Your definition of science here invalidates pretty much all science, except perhaps law of gravity. Science have always been about observing, ordering, and then making models and theories, for later on to modify and improve the models and theories. The scientific process has come pretty far when models and comprehensive theories are suggested. In the field of climate research, they are just now coming up with models based on what they know and can infer. The ice cores help a lot as they are indicators of climate as long back as 100.000 years in some cases. It is complex and difficult, and there are many unknown variables, but it certainly is science. Meterology still can't predict weather accurately for more than 24-48 hours. Is that philosophy?
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Philosophy concerns itself with testing theories against the measurement of logic, reason.
Science concerns itself with producing theories about the world and then defending the methods by which the theory itself was created.
'...scientific statements are subject to and derived from our experiences or observations. Scientific hypotheses are developed and tested through empirical methods consisting of observations and experiments. Once reproduced widely enough, the information resulting from our observations and experiments counts as the evidence upon which the scientific community develops theories that purport to explain facts about the world.
Observations involve perception, and so are themselves cognitive acts. That is, observations are themselves embedded in our understanding of the way in which the world works; as this understanding changes, the observations themselves may apparently change. More accurately, our interpretation of observations may change.'
You're totally right. I just gave a two sentence answer. I forgot to copy/paste
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Meterology still can't predict weather accurately for more than 24-48 hours. Is that philosophy?
It's a chaotic system. The Butterfly Effect
The butterfly effect is a phrase that encapsulates the more technical notion of sensitive dependence on initial conditions in chaos theory. Small variations of the initial condition of a nonlinear dynamical system may produce large variations in the long term behavior of the system. So this is sometimes presented as esoteric behavior, but can be exhibited by very simple systems: for example, a ball placed at the crest of a hill might roll into any of several valleys depending on slight differences in initial position.
The phrase refers to the idea that a butterfly's wings might create tiny changes in the atmosphere that ultimately cause a tornado to appear (or prevent a tornado from appearing). The flapping wing represents a small change in the initial condition of the system, which causes a chain of events leading to large-scale phenomena. Had the butterfly not flapped its wings, the trajectory of the system might have been vastly different.
Recurrence, the approximate return of a system towards its initial conditions, together with sensitive dependence on initial conditions are the two main ingredients for chaotic motion. They have the practical consequence of making complex systems, such as the weather, difficult to predict past a certain time range (approximately a week in the case of weather).
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Yes, I know. My point towards surferdude was that meterology is certainly science, and in extension, climate research also is.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
I'll add to that the quote Anhimus refered to:
I like what that physicist says in that elegant universe
"If it doesn't produce a testable hypothesis, then nobody should believe it."
Show me a testable global climate change hypothesis that has been successfully tested in an accurate climate model and shows man's impact on the changing climate. That's all I want to see. As there is no accurate climate model there's been no real testing in my books. Without testing it's not science.
Man's impact on climate change is more a philosophy than science. It is just as scary to have social and economic policy being driven by this philosophy as it is to have policy driven by religious ideaology.
There was a model presented in congressional testimony in 1988. The real world results since then have been comparable.
Specifically I was meaning about man's impact in climate change. Is it a science or philosophy?
The climate change is very real and scientific. That man has had an impact is also pretty much not debated in itself. The argument revolves around the degree of impact, and whether what we contribute is the deciding factor. Current evidence gathered on the subject lead them to conclude that the change is largely due to human activity. So the human-climate change model has empirical evidence underpinning it, and is becoming a large field in sciences where there is a pretty definite consensus about it. And the models they are putting forth these days are pretty accurate as far as can be told dating backwards through the ice cores.
So no, not at all "philosophy", or to put it another way, not more philosophical than science in general (since the rules of science in itself is a philosophy in it's own right).
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Yes, I know. My point towards surferdude was that meterology is certainly science, and in extension, climate research also is.
Peace
Dan
Fair enough. That it is.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
So no, not at all "philosophy", or to put it another way, not more philosophical than science in general (since the rules of science in itself is a philosophy in it's own right).
Peace
Dan
Yes, but a philosophy that has brought us nuclear energy, space exploration and an endless trove of other treasures. In contrast to other philosophies, such as Christianity, which has brought us war amongst arguable bouts of pseudo-Altruism.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Yes, but a philosophy that has brought us nuclear energy, space exploration and an endless trove of other treasures. In contrast to other philosophies, such as Christianity, which has brought us war amongst arguable bouts of pseudo-Altruism.
And don't forget science has also given us every weapon of destruction; guns, knives, nuclear bommbs, climate change. Looks like what Christianity couldn't do science has the intent to do, wipe humanity off of the face of earth. Thanks science, what a great philosophy. I'm so glad science is beyond questioning.
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
And don't forget science has also given us every weapon of destruction; guns, knives, nuclear bommbs, climate change. Looks like what Christianity couldn't do science has the intent to do, wipe humanity off of the face of earth. Thanks science, what a great philosophy. I'm so glad science is beyond questioning.
Science may provide the means. But as we can see, Religion is providing the reasons.
The only difference science has made in this regard is in scale. Bodycount. But science does not cause war. Other ideological systems like Religion do.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
And Surferdude, don't forget about the millions of people medical science has saved.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
What were the religious differences that prompted the atomic bombing of Japan?
It was the religion of Americanism. The belief in the American Dream and all that horseshit, American Values. On the Japanese side, it was the ideology of the Japanese, that all should obey the divine word of the Emporer.
You can't blame the dropping of the atomic bomb on the atomic bomb it's self. That's called circular logic.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
It was the religion of Americanism. The belief in the American Dream and all that horseshit, American Values. On the Japanese side, it was the ideology of the Japanese, that all should obey the divine word of the Emporer.
You can't blame the dropping of the atomic bomb on the atomic bomb it's self. That's called circular logic.
So now Americanism is a religion!!!! I love how when you are faced with the ridiculousness of your arguement that you make up religions. Very scientific of you.
If you want to make up religions and blame every philosophy but science for wars I'm more than free using your same logic to blame science for the development and use of the tools of destruction. Hell even when science is trying to do good they cause climate change that is dooming the world.
When science designs and builds an atomic bomb, a weapon whose sole intention is to kill people, I fail to see how you can absolve science of responsibility. It's not like the bomb has alternate uses.
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
So now Americanism is a religion!!!! I love how when you are faced with the ridiculousness of your arguement that you make up religions. Very scientific of you.
If you want to make up religions and blame every philosophy but science for wars I'm more than free using your same logic to blame science for the development and use of the tools of destruction. Hell even when science is trying to do good they cause climate change that is dooming the world.
When science designs and builds an atomic bomb, a weapon whose sole intention is to kill people, I fail to see how you can absolve science of responsibility. It's not like the bomb has alternate uses.
The bomb was developed by the US DoD. The scientists involved were employed by a military organization.
Americanism, just like Scientism, uses the ideological model of religion in fairly loose terms, but the basic concept is the same.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I'm with you, surferdude, if you are saying that science, like religion, is yet one other vehicle that humans use to outlet human flaw, resulting in death and destruction on a wide scale, etc. And if that's not what you're saying....then I'll just say it. And just like science saves lives, religion does as well. People of faith live longer, to start, not to mention quality of life, peace of mind, etc. As with all things on this level of earthly existence, both have great positives and depths of ugly darkness.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I'm with you, surferdude, if you are saying that science, like religion, is yet one other vehicle that humans use to outlet human flaw, resulting in death and destruction on a wide scale, etc. And if that's not what you're saying....then I'll just say it. And just like science saves lives, religion does as well. People of faith live longer, to start, not to mention quality of life, peace of mind, etc. As with all things on this level of earthly existence, both have great positives and depths of ugly darkness.
Religion extends life? Prove it.
Does it extend life to an equal length that saving an infant from a dread disease does?
You can't compare with any sound reason the achievments of science with those of religion.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Does it extend life to an equal length that saving an infant from a dread disease does?
You can't compare with any sound reason the achievments of science with those of religion.
Ahnimus, Ahnimus, Ahnimus...it sounds like you've forgotten what your own sources tell us. For example, we have the "God on the Brain" video--part 5 ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZWJJA6RKpA ), which you shared with me awhile back and which states:
"Studies have shown that believers live longer, are healthier, even that they may have lower levels of cancer and heart disease. Could it be that we somehow evolved religious belief as a survival mechanism?"
Besides the direct statements about believers living longer, and the indicators showing less dis-ease, a survival mechanism aspect of religion is a pretty strong slant to give it. That implies that it's very potent as a power, a tool, for our very survival.
Is it equal to saving an infant?...I'm guessing to those who live longer it is equal. I'm guessing those who otherwise don't get cancer or heart disease, yes, it is equal. I know for myself, reclaiming my whole self, and finding inner balance and healing, beyond numerous so-called serious genetic illnesses, it sure seems equal to any other science "miracle".
Keep in mind that science miracles, healing, etc., they all come from life, itself, and the base universal principles. Science, doctors and scientists don't heal...they utilize natural principles to activate natural healing. Just as religion can utilize natural principles that activate these natural healing dynamics.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Ahnimus, Ahnimus, Ahnimus...it sounds like you've forgotten what your own sources tell us. For example, we have the "God on the Brain" video--part 5 ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZWJJA6RKpA ), which you shared with me awhile back and which states:
"Studies have shown that believers live longer, are healthier, even that they may have lower levels of cancer and heart disease. Could it be that we somehow evolved religious belief as a survival mechanism?"
Besides the direct statements about believers living longer, and the indicators showing less dis-ease, a survival mechanism aspect of religion is a pretty strong slant to give it. That implies that it's very potent as a power, a tool, for our very survival.
Is it equal to saving an infant?...I'm guessing to those who live longer it is equal. I'm guessing those who otherwise don't get cancer or heart disease, yes, it is equal. I know for myself, reclaiming my whole self, and finding inner balance and healing, beyond numerous so-called serious genetic illnesses, it sure seems equal to any other science "miracle".
Keep in mind that science miracles, healing, etc., they all come from life, itself, and the base universal principles. Science, doctors and scientists don't heal...they utilize natural principles to activate natural healing. Just as religion can utilize natural principles that activate these natural healing dynamics.
So, religious people don't get heart disease?
Science gives lots of causes for heart disease, like smoking, free radicals, etc.. and gives a regiment for reducing the risks. But what religion does is nothing systematic, if people who are religious have a decrease in risk, I want to know why and also would like to scrutinize the exact research. Now just because I've linked that video doesn't mean I've systematically studied every claim in it, nor do I agree with all the claims. I certainly don't agree with the assertions made by Newberg in the series. So why take for granted that I agree with this?
Newberg, Persinger and Ramachandran's research is all stuff I've personally looked into, I've read many of their papers that outline the research methods and resulting data. I stand behind the data on those programs, not the inferences made by the researchers themselves... but this particular research you cite, has no source to us, as of yet, outside of this program series which may or not be invalid. When I link videos like this I don't expect or want anyone to take them as fact, but would prefer if their interest was significantly piqued to do further research on it. So I don't accept you linking this video as proof that religion extends life and I'm no closer to understanding how this is acheived. It's possible that a strong dedication to religion is common amongst people who find themselves easily dedicated to other things, such as, a healthy diet. In which case, religion it's self, has nothing at all to do with their extended lives.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Ahnimus, I understand you choosing to ignore what you can't accept, analyze and understand right now. For others who are interested, however:
"Studies have shown that religiosity is associated with lower rates of cirrhosis, emphysema, suicide and heart disease. Of course, much of this health effect could come from religion's conventional taboos on smoking, alcohol, drugs and sex, which can all lead to disease.
The evolutionary biologist David Sloan Wilson, at Binghamton University in New York, says religion contributes to psychological health. For several years, he has been giving beepers to volunteers. Some are religious, some aren't. At different points in the day, the beepers go off. The subjects record their activities and habits, their health and their moods.
"I can prove to you on a moment-by-moment basis that, statistically, religious believers are happier, are using time more productively, and are less anxious."
Richard Sosis, a University of Connecticut anthropologist, has shown how religion fosters social behaviors working together, sharing, fighting wars against enemies that allow individuals to survive and thrive as members of a group.
In a 2000 study, Sosis catalogued 200 communes from the 19th century, some religious and some secular, and found thatthe religious ones were four times more likely to survive.
...Wilson says the costs of religious rituals are outweighed by the benefits of a committed community.
No matter why we interpret that religion is associated with lower rates of suicide, emphysema, heart disease and cirrhosis, the fact remains that it IS associated.
In Australia, from the Medical Journal of Australia:
"Even among younger patients, spiritual practices assume substantial importance. Consider a study of 108 patients (mean age 38 years) from medical practices in Sydney, in which researchers examined patients' experiences concerning the efficacy of 25 coping behaviours.5 Forty-one per cent of subjects indicated they would increase prayer in response to stress, 56% said prayer was helpful and, overall, prayer was ranked seventh in effectiveness, ahead of 18 other traditional coping behaviours, such as discussing the problem, seeking advice, spending time with friends, or socialising. Similar findings emerge among psychiatric patients. A study of 79 psychiatric patients at Broken Hill Base Hospital in New South Wales found that 79% rated spirituality as very important, 82% thought their therapist should be aware of their spiritual beliefs and needs, and 67% indicated that spirituality helped them cope with psychological pain.6 Thus, at least preliminary research suggests spiritual needs are not uncommon among Australian patients.
Is religion related to better health in Australia? Although research is less plentiful than in the US, it is not entirely absent.7 Australian studies have found greater marital stability, less alcohol and illicit drug use, lower rates of and more negative attitudes toward suicide, less anxiety and depression, and greater altruism among the religious. Religiosity has also been associated with less cigarette smoking, more conservative sexual practices (reducing risk of sexually transmitted diseases), lower cortisol and catecholamine levels (for meditators), lower blood pressure, lower cholesterol, longer survival (Seventh Day Adventists), and even lower risk for colon cancer.8 Such findings are similar to those in the US,7 and, although more research is needed, these findings cannot be ignored." http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/178_02_200103/koe10531_fm.html
From "Family Medicine Journal":
Investigating a "new frontier" in medicine, a recent study in the journal "Family Medicine" discovered a link between patients' spirituality and better overall health...
In a random survey of more than 440 patients at a suburban family medicine clinic, researchers found that persons with either a high or moderately high internally motivated relationship with God were much more likely to experience better health.
Each patient filled out a questionnaire developed at Dartmouth to examine a patient's health and level of physical pain. They also responded to a questionnaire to assess "intrinsic" spirituality -- a personal connection with God or a Higher Power that gives life meaning and guides life choices. This contrasts with an "extrinsic" measure such as simply believing in God or having membership in a church or synagogue, which may or may not affect one's internal motivations, the researchers explained.
"Differences in health were greatest between patients having a low level of spirituality and those with either moderate or high levels," noted the Georgia State University research team. This confirmed other research that found spiritual commitment may enhance prevention, coping and recovery from illness and surgery. http://www.hdlighthouse.org/see/diet/spirit.htm
There's plenty of this stuff out there for those interested.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
It's possible that a strong dedication to religion is common amongst people who find themselves easily dedicated to other things, such as, a healthy diet. In which case, religion it's self, has nothing at all to do with their extended lives.
Yes, religion does seem connected to a more "wholesome" or healthier lifestyle. That's the point! That's very important! In my mind, that's preferable to living a fragmented lifestyle and seeking solace in non-solace-finding methods that are maladaptive. Religion seems adaptive by many reports! And it is probably a big part of religion being considered a surivival mechanism. And possibly having much to do with spirituality/religion essentially being hardwired into our brains.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
well, experimentation can take the form of both lab research AND empirical observations, so I'd argue that alot of the global warming stuff does in fact count as science. But there's huge controversy over whether or not stuff like string theory can currently be counted as science, since by it's very nature, the study of 11th dimension space isn't possible.
And I'd argue that determinism/free will was never a science to begin with.
ditto
"Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States, Barack Obama."
"Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore
"i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
~ed, 8/7
People [of faith] live longer, to start, not to mention quality of life, peace of mind, etc.
into these brackets you could insert any number of things that bring people peace, such as: people who practice meditation/yoga; who exercise and eat right; who practice safe sex; don't smoke or do drugs or abuse alcohol; who pay their bills on time; who have loving relationships; who take vacations... religion doesn't have a corner on the market of long living. whatever reduces stress and makes you feel calm and/or at peace can have the same effect as prayer.
"Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States, Barack Obama."
"Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore
"i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
~ed, 8/7
into these brackets you could insert any number of things that bring people peace, such as: people who practice meditation/yoga; who exercise and eat right; who practice safe sex; don't smoke or do drugs or abuse alcohol; who pay their bills on time; who have loving relationships; who take vacations... religion doesn't have a corner on the market of long living. whatever reduces stress and makes you feel calm and/or at peace can have the same effect as prayer.
Yes. Meditation is shown as having the same effect in the brain as deep prayer (studied with Franciscan nuns and Buddhist meditation), whereupon one can experience oneness with their surroundings, and a release from one's sense of defined, individual egoistic self into the expansive wholeness of Unitary Being. One of my most prominant spiritual disciplines is meditation. To me, I see the similarities between such practise of yoga/meditation/prayer. They are all ways of transcending the self, and comprehending and connecting at a deeper level of reality, with the subsequent adaptive consequences. Faith/spirituality/oneness with all things, to me, are all very closely connected. Contrarily, separation, fragmentation in one's perceptions, and feelings of isolation, conflict and disconnection with one's environment, and the negative fallout of such being using maladaptive responses, is...maladaptive.
We can choose: positive/negative. adaptive/maladaptive. "good"/"bad". And we will experience the precise consequences for such choice. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. The universe is our mirror.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
All that research openly admits that it isn't religiousity it's self that has those effects. It's just as I suggested, they tend to have habits that are good, because they are dedicated.
There are a lot of scientists that don't practice any religion that live quite long as well. In their case, they know how to take care of themselves, especially medical scientists.
But the religious have no method of scrutiny. Tell them "Spanish Fly is an aphrodesiac" and they might just try to get their hands on some. Spanish Fly is highly toxic and deadly. I wonder if incidences like these are included in the research you cited.
Never-the-less, there is no evidence, that belief it's self extends life.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Yes. Meditation is shown as having the same effect in the brain as deep prayer (studied with Franciscan nuns and Buddhist meditation), whereupon one can experience oneness with their surroundings, and a release from one's sense of defined, individual egoistic self into the expansive wholeness of Unitary Being. One of my most prominant spiritual disciplines is meditation. To me, I see the similarities between such practise of yoga/meditation/prayer. They are all ways of transcending the self, and comprehending and connecting at a deeper level of reality, with the subsequent adaptive consequences. Faith/spirituality/oneness with all things, to me, are all very closely connected. Contrarily, separation, fragmentation in one's perceptions, and feelings of isolation, conflict and disconnection with one's environment, and the negative fallout of such being using maladaptive responses, is...maladaptive.
We can choose: positive/negative. adaptive/maladaptive. "good"/"bad". And we will experience the precise consequences for such choice. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. The universe is our mirror.
See, what you've done is taken Newberg's research and added a bunch of your own fallacious inferences.
When these monks or nuns meditate, there is a decrease in pareital lobe activity and an increase in temporal lobe activity. That is all you can say based on Newberg's research. Everything else you said is not science, it's wishful thinking, it's what you want to believe.
Brain States change all the time. That's why we have moods. Within each brain state some things are active more than others. It's not an unusual thing. There is no reason to assume that anything supernatural or transcendant is gainend from meditation or prayer.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Here is just one of many reports you may have overlooked on your quest to support your beliefs.
Attention has also been given to the potential for negative effects of religion on health. Historically, religion has sometimes been used to justify hatred, aggression, and prejudice.33 It can be judgemental, alienating and exclusive. Moreover, although religious participation may foster beneficial social networks, social relations may also be a source of stress.34 Failure to conform to community norms may evoke open criticism by other congregation members or clergy. Feelings of religious guilt and the failure to meet religious expectations or cope with religious fears can contribute to illness.35 Parents’ reliance on faith healing instead of appropriate medical care has led to negative outcomes and death for many children.36
Certain types of religious coping may also adversely affect health. An extrinsic religious orientation and negative religious coping has been associated with elevated symptoms of depression,13 and negative interpersonal religious experiences and congregational criticism have been associated with increased risk of depression among adolescents.18 A longitudinal cohort study of medically ill patients found that religious doubts and struggle were associated with a higher risk of mortality.37 There is also interest in the potential contribution of religious participation to obesity, but the data are equivocal. Some studies have found that, independent of socioeconomic status and health behaviours, body mass index varied by religious denomination and that religious attendance was positively associated with weight.38 However, a recent US national study found that the association between religious attendance and overweight/obesity could be explained by sociodemographic and health variables.39
Now, if you go back and read all that stuff, not just the parts you pasted, but the entire article and the subsequent papers that referenced those papers that you cited. You will find that there is data supporting the positive and negative effects of religious belief and especially read the part that says physicians are not to perscribe spirituality to their patients or even engage in discussions of spirituality with their patients. In-fact, some of the research you cited, was later called into question by results to the contrary.
Please, stop trying to prove your beliefs and think about basing your beliefs on the evidence.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
All that research openly admits that it isn't religiousity it's self that has those effects. It's just as I suggested, they tend to have habits that are good, because they are dedicated.
Allow me to refresh your memory...it seems so short in terms of this data. What you are saying is inaccurate. There are numerous claims of the correlation/association with spirituality/religiosity and health and lifestyle benefit:
"Studies have shown that religiosity is associated with lower rates of cirrhosis, emphysema, suicide and heart disease"
"I can prove to you on a moment-by-moment basis that, statistically, religious believers are happier, are using time more productively, and are less anxious."
"Australian studies have found greater marital stability, less alcohol and illicit drug use, lower rates of and more negative attitudes toward suicide, less anxiety and depression, and greater altruism among the religious. Religiosity has also been associated with less cigarette smoking, more conservative sexual practices (reducing risk of sexually transmitted diseases), lower cortisol and catecholamine levels (for meditators), lower blood pressure, lower cholesterol, longer survival (Seventh Day Adventists), and even lower risk for colon cancer.8 Such findings are similar to those in the US,7 and, although more research is needed, these findings cannot be ignored"
Besides your inaccurate assessment when the direct claims are right here for all to read--if due to one's faith, they practice more pristine lifestyle choice, that's a direct relationship to the religion/spirituality and faith. Religion/faith is like a self-help lifestyle. Jesus was like a self-help guru. You may see it as a means of control and of brain-washing--people of faith see it as a set of principles to live by that directly benefits their lives, bringing positive consequences. I never once said it's the act of believing itself that has the effect. That's the work of your bias and imagination. Everything in the universe happens with precision, including the purposes of religion at this time--including that religion and spirituality is foreseen by scientists to be here for a loonnggg while.
I would never assert that belief is enough. Which goes to show how you continue to judge me by your own imagination-version of me, than by what I actually do assert. No wonder I seem so flakey to you--your mind seems to want to paint me that way. Please separate the reality from your personal bias.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Comments
Exactly. +1 from me here.
Some view philosophy on par with "It is my philosophy to always have fun, and the world is a doughnut", while what we are talking about in this context is precisely testing theories against logic and reason, often trying to create coherent and comprehensive logical systems fit to explain our world and existence in itself.
Surferdude:
Climate change is certainly not philosophy. It is observed and measured consistently for decades now. Temperatures are rising. Glaciers are melting. What debate there is about this does not concern these facts. There is a large consensus that humans have had in effect, the argument revolves around how much of an effect, and whether it is the critical effect. And most of the argument is really about the political implications, not as much the science in itself.
Your definition of science here invalidates pretty much all science, except perhaps law of gravity. Science have always been about observing, ordering, and then making models and theories, for later on to modify and improve the models and theories. The scientific process has come pretty far when models and comprehensive theories are suggested. In the field of climate research, they are just now coming up with models based on what they know and can infer. The ice cores help a lot as they are indicators of climate as long back as 100.000 years in some cases. It is complex and difficult, and there are many unknown variables, but it certainly is science. Meterology still can't predict weather accurately for more than 24-48 hours. Is that philosophy?
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
You're totally right. I just gave a two sentence answer. I forgot to copy/paste
It's a chaotic system. The Butterfly Effect
The butterfly effect is a phrase that encapsulates the more technical notion of sensitive dependence on initial conditions in chaos theory. Small variations of the initial condition of a nonlinear dynamical system may produce large variations in the long term behavior of the system. So this is sometimes presented as esoteric behavior, but can be exhibited by very simple systems: for example, a ball placed at the crest of a hill might roll into any of several valleys depending on slight differences in initial position.
The phrase refers to the idea that a butterfly's wings might create tiny changes in the atmosphere that ultimately cause a tornado to appear (or prevent a tornado from appearing). The flapping wing represents a small change in the initial condition of the system, which causes a chain of events leading to large-scale phenomena. Had the butterfly not flapped its wings, the trajectory of the system might have been vastly different.
Recurrence, the approximate return of a system towards its initial conditions, together with sensitive dependence on initial conditions are the two main ingredients for chaotic motion. They have the practical consequence of making complex systems, such as the weather, difficult to predict past a certain time range (approximately a week in the case of weather).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect
http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0262530856&id=hAeFMFW3rDUC&pg=PA1&lpg=PA1&sig=NcwRbSEJn4V5nDO9_c3KktA7s2A#PPP1,M1
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
There was a model presented in congressional testimony in 1988. The real world results since then have been comparable.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2006/2006_Hansen_etal_1.pdf
Climate models can and have been tested on historical scenerios which also allows assessment of their reliability.
So no, not at all "philosophy", or to put it another way, not more philosophical than science in general (since the rules of science in itself is a philosophy in it's own right).
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Fair enough. That it is.
Yes, but a philosophy that has brought us nuclear energy, space exploration and an endless trove of other treasures. In contrast to other philosophies, such as Christianity, which has brought us war amongst arguable bouts of pseudo-Altruism.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
Science may provide the means. But as we can see, Religion is providing the reasons.
The only difference science has made in this regard is in scale. Bodycount. But science does not cause war. Other ideological systems like Religion do.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
It was the religion of Americanism. The belief in the American Dream and all that horseshit, American Values. On the Japanese side, it was the ideology of the Japanese, that all should obey the divine word of the Emporer.
You can't blame the dropping of the atomic bomb on the atomic bomb it's self. That's called circular logic.
If you want to make up religions and blame every philosophy but science for wars I'm more than free using your same logic to blame science for the development and use of the tools of destruction. Hell even when science is trying to do good they cause climate change that is dooming the world.
When science designs and builds an atomic bomb, a weapon whose sole intention is to kill people, I fail to see how you can absolve science of responsibility. It's not like the bomb has alternate uses.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
The bomb was developed by the US DoD. The scientists involved were employed by a military organization.
Americanism, just like Scientism, uses the ideological model of religion in fairly loose terms, but the basic concept is the same.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Religion extends life? Prove it.
Does it extend life to an equal length that saving an infant from a dread disease does?
You can't compare with any sound reason the achievments of science with those of religion.
"Studies have shown that believers live longer, are healthier, even that they may have lower levels of cancer and heart disease. Could it be that we somehow evolved religious belief as a survival mechanism?"
Besides the direct statements about believers living longer, and the indicators showing less dis-ease, a survival mechanism aspect of religion is a pretty strong slant to give it. That implies that it's very potent as a power, a tool, for our very survival.
Is it equal to saving an infant?...I'm guessing to those who live longer it is equal. I'm guessing those who otherwise don't get cancer or heart disease, yes, it is equal. I know for myself, reclaiming my whole self, and finding inner balance and healing, beyond numerous so-called serious genetic illnesses, it sure seems equal to any other science "miracle".
Keep in mind that science miracles, healing, etc., they all come from life, itself, and the base universal principles. Science, doctors and scientists don't heal...they utilize natural principles to activate natural healing. Just as religion can utilize natural principles that activate these natural healing dynamics.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
So, religious people don't get heart disease?
Science gives lots of causes for heart disease, like smoking, free radicals, etc.. and gives a regiment for reducing the risks. But what religion does is nothing systematic, if people who are religious have a decrease in risk, I want to know why and also would like to scrutinize the exact research. Now just because I've linked that video doesn't mean I've systematically studied every claim in it, nor do I agree with all the claims. I certainly don't agree with the assertions made by Newberg in the series. So why take for granted that I agree with this?
Newberg, Persinger and Ramachandran's research is all stuff I've personally looked into, I've read many of their papers that outline the research methods and resulting data. I stand behind the data on those programs, not the inferences made by the researchers themselves... but this particular research you cite, has no source to us, as of yet, outside of this program series which may or not be invalid. When I link videos like this I don't expect or want anyone to take them as fact, but would prefer if their interest was significantly piqued to do further research on it. So I don't accept you linking this video as proof that religion extends life and I'm no closer to understanding how this is acheived. It's possible that a strong dedication to religion is common amongst people who find themselves easily dedicated to other things, such as, a healthy diet. In which case, religion it's self, has nothing at all to do with their extended lives.
No matter why we interpret that religion is associated with lower rates of suicide, emphysema, heart disease and cirrhosis, the fact remains that it IS associated.
In Australia, from the Medical Journal of Australia:
From "Family Medicine Journal":
There's plenty of this stuff out there for those interested.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
ditto
"Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore
"i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
~ed, 8/7
into these brackets you could insert any number of things that bring people peace, such as: people who practice meditation/yoga; who exercise and eat right; who practice safe sex; don't smoke or do drugs or abuse alcohol; who pay their bills on time; who have loving relationships; who take vacations... religion doesn't have a corner on the market of long living. whatever reduces stress and makes you feel calm and/or at peace can have the same effect as prayer.
"Obama's main opponent in this election on November 4th (was) not John McCain, it (was) ignorance."~Michael Moore
"i'm feeling kinda righteous right now. with my badass motherfuckin' ukulele!"
~ed, 8/7
Yes. Meditation is shown as having the same effect in the brain as deep prayer (studied with Franciscan nuns and Buddhist meditation), whereupon one can experience oneness with their surroundings, and a release from one's sense of defined, individual egoistic self into the expansive wholeness of Unitary Being. One of my most prominant spiritual disciplines is meditation. To me, I see the similarities between such practise of yoga/meditation/prayer. They are all ways of transcending the self, and comprehending and connecting at a deeper level of reality, with the subsequent adaptive consequences. Faith/spirituality/oneness with all things, to me, are all very closely connected. Contrarily, separation, fragmentation in one's perceptions, and feelings of isolation, conflict and disconnection with one's environment, and the negative fallout of such being using maladaptive responses, is...maladaptive.
We can choose: positive/negative. adaptive/maladaptive. "good"/"bad". And we will experience the precise consequences for such choice. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. The universe is our mirror.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
All that research openly admits that it isn't religiousity it's self that has those effects. It's just as I suggested, they tend to have habits that are good, because they are dedicated.
There are a lot of scientists that don't practice any religion that live quite long as well. In their case, they know how to take care of themselves, especially medical scientists.
But the religious have no method of scrutiny. Tell them "Spanish Fly is an aphrodesiac" and they might just try to get their hands on some. Spanish Fly is highly toxic and deadly. I wonder if incidences like these are included in the research you cited.
Never-the-less, there is no evidence, that belief it's self extends life.
See, what you've done is taken Newberg's research and added a bunch of your own fallacious inferences.
When these monks or nuns meditate, there is a decrease in pareital lobe activity and an increase in temporal lobe activity. That is all you can say based on Newberg's research. Everything else you said is not science, it's wishful thinking, it's what you want to believe.
Brain States change all the time. That's why we have moods. Within each brain state some things are active more than others. It's not an unusual thing. There is no reason to assume that anything supernatural or transcendant is gainend from meditation or prayer.
Here is just one of many reports you may have overlooked on your quest to support your beliefs.
Attention has also been given to the potential for negative effects of religion on health. Historically, religion has sometimes been used to justify hatred, aggression, and prejudice.33 It can be judgemental, alienating and exclusive. Moreover, although religious participation may foster beneficial social networks, social relations may also be a source of stress.34 Failure to conform to community norms may evoke open criticism by other congregation members or clergy. Feelings of religious guilt and the failure to meet religious expectations or cope with religious fears can contribute to illness.35 Parents’ reliance on faith healing instead of appropriate medical care has led to negative outcomes and death for many children.36
Certain types of religious coping may also adversely affect health. An extrinsic religious orientation and negative religious coping has been associated with elevated symptoms of depression,13 and negative interpersonal religious experiences and congregational criticism have been associated with increased risk of depression among adolescents.18 A longitudinal cohort study of medically ill patients found that religious doubts and struggle were associated with a higher risk of mortality.37 There is also interest in the potential contribution of religious participation to obesity, but the data are equivocal. Some studies have found that, independent of socioeconomic status and health behaviours, body mass index varied by religious denomination and that religious attendance was positively associated with weight.38 However, a recent US national study found that the association between religious attendance and overweight/obesity could be explained by sociodemographic and health variables.39
Now, if you go back and read all that stuff, not just the parts you pasted, but the entire article and the subsequent papers that referenced those papers that you cited. You will find that there is data supporting the positive and negative effects of religious belief and especially read the part that says physicians are not to perscribe spirituality to their patients or even engage in discussions of spirituality with their patients. In-fact, some of the research you cited, was later called into question by results to the contrary.
Please, stop trying to prove your beliefs and think about basing your beliefs on the evidence.
"Studies have shown that religiosity is associated with lower rates of cirrhosis, emphysema, suicide and heart disease"
"I can prove to you on a moment-by-moment basis that, statistically, religious believers are happier, are using time more productively, and are less anxious."
"Australian studies have found greater marital stability, less alcohol and illicit drug use, lower rates of and more negative attitudes toward suicide, less anxiety and depression, and greater altruism among the religious. Religiosity has also been associated with less cigarette smoking, more conservative sexual practices (reducing risk of sexually transmitted diseases), lower cortisol and catecholamine levels (for meditators), lower blood pressure, lower cholesterol, longer survival (Seventh Day Adventists), and even lower risk for colon cancer.8 Such findings are similar to those in the US,7 and, although more research is needed, these findings cannot be ignored"
Besides your inaccurate assessment when the direct claims are right here for all to read--if due to one's faith, they practice more pristine lifestyle choice, that's a direct relationship to the religion/spirituality and faith. Religion/faith is like a self-help lifestyle. Jesus was like a self-help guru. You may see it as a means of control and of brain-washing--people of faith see it as a set of principles to live by that directly benefits their lives, bringing positive consequences. I never once said it's the act of believing itself that has the effect. That's the work of your bias and imagination. Everything in the universe happens with precision, including the purposes of religion at this time--including that religion and spirituality is foreseen by scientists to be here for a loonnggg while.
I would never assert that belief is enough. Which goes to show how you continue to judge me by your own imagination-version of me, than by what I actually do assert. No wonder I seem so flakey to you--your mind seems to want to paint me that way. Please separate the reality from your personal bias.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!