scientist who believes in God

FinsburyParkCarrots

Ahnimus wrote:

experience alone as solid evidence is dangerously myopic.

http://www.evidencescience.org/projects/index.html#formal

The notion of solid evidence isn't so much myopic as eyeless.

Ahnimus

FinsburyParkCarrots wrote:

http://www.evidencescience.org/projects/index.html#formal

The notion of solid evidence isn't so much myopic as eyeless.

I'm with you on that, but I wouldn't say nothing is solid.

For example, when several scientists can implant RF transmitters and electrodes into a brain and radio-control the individuals actions and thoughts. I'd say that's solid evidence that the brain is responsible for actions and thoughts.

OutOfBreath

Ahnimus wrote:

No

The doubt that there is significance in these experiences is the same doubt in alien abductions and so on. The brain is a tricky thing. IMO, taking experience alone as solid evidence is dangerously myopic.

I am not talking about taking it as "solid and complete" evidence alone, I am talking about when we have a phenomenon described similarly by lots of different people, we should respect that more.

As regards religious experiences, I am all but certain that there is something going on at the core we don't (yet) understand, even if I generally disregard the dogma, doctrine and politics of religion. And I dont think it's respectful or even wise to disregard it as psychosis, hallucinations or the like.

Anyway, my point was that it's this core that is interesting. Not the trappings of different religions. And getting people to talk about what the core is and peel away the dogmas and whatnot we can get at what is there, even if it's only experiential evidence.

Peace
Dan

Ahnimus

OutOfBreath wrote:

I am not talking about taking it as "solid and complete" evidence alone, I am talking about when we have a phenomenon described similarly by lots of different people, we should respect that more.

As regards religious experiences, I am all but certain that there is something going on at the core we don't (yet) understand, even if I generally disregard the dogma, doctrine and politics of religion. And I dont think it's respectful or even wise to disregard it as psychosis, hallucinations or the like.

Anyway, my point was that it's this core that is interesting. Not the trappings of different religions. And getting people to talk about what the core is and peel away the dogmas and whatnot we can get at what is there, even if it's only experiential evidence.

Peace
Dan

Well, from my perspective. I'm not really interested in what people feel as much as what is true. I've come to accept things aren't always the most ideal.

This article covers a lot of the research into religion and the brain
https://notes.utk.edu/Bio/greenberg.nsf/0/e938e40271ec394c85256a4a00626175?OpenDocument&Click=

It's more than likely that religious experiences or alien abductions are just happening in our brains. Psychotic episodes are supposed to be quite common. They also change with the times, we have a lot of alien abductions now, whereas in the old world it was mostly spirits.

OutOfBreath

Ahnimus wrote:

Well, from my perspective. I'm not really interested in what people feel as much as what is true. I've come to accept things aren't always the most ideal.

This article covers a lot of the research into religion and the brain
https://notes.utk.edu/Bio/greenberg.nsf/0/e938e40271ec394c85256a4a00626175?OpenDocument&Click=

It's more than likely that religious experiences or alien abductions are just happening in our brains. Psychotic episodes are supposed to be quite common. They also change with the times, we have a lot of alien abductions now, whereas in the old world it was mostly spirits.

I'll read that link when time allows. Appreciate it.

But your final paragraph is also about the interpretations we assign to a phenomenon. My argument is more towards there being a basis from which the phenomena are interpreted. And I dont necessarily believe it to be mere hallucinations, and even so, maybe we then should upgrade our understanding of what hallucinations are.

But perhaps there is something about in that link. I'll get back to you when I have read it at some later time.

Peace
Dan

OutOfBreath

OK, I read the link now.
Interesting I must say, and actually a pretty balanced article. But I must still go with my general objection towards neuroscience when it comes to the brain. Identifying patterns, and centers of various activity does not explain them. It's descriptive science, not necessarily causal. Or as the final paragraph of the article states:

"For all the tentative successes that scientists are scoring in their search for the biological bases of religious, spiritual and mystical experience, one mystery will surely lie forever beyond their grasp. They may trace a sense of transcendence to this bulge in our gray matter. And they may trace a feeling of the divine to that one. But it is likely that they will never resolve the greatest question of all——namely, whether our brain wiring creates God, or whether God created our brain wiring. Which you believe is, in the end, a matter of faith."

It's very much a hen and egg problem. And precisely because "objective" and certain information will be hard to achieve on these subjects, I am open to hearing experiential data from people. When science can't resolve the causality (something it often can't, but rely on interpretation of correlation), I want to hear what real humans say they really experience, and if there seem to be central themes or aspects they all touch on, use it as experiential evidence that it happens.

You may be certain it's "only in our brains" there are things going on, but that is just an assumption. It's very much unresolved. Identifying active parts of the brain during religious experiences doesn't change that much. My assumption is that there is something to it outside of our brains, and feel fairly certain of that. And my assumption is based somewhat on personal experiences in that direction.

Peace
Dan

gue_barium

OutOfBreath wrote:

You may be certain it's "only in our brains" there are things going on, but that is just an assumption. It's very much unresolved. Identifying active parts of the brain during religious experiences doesn't change that much. My assumption is that there is something to it outside of our brains, and feel fairly certain of that. And my assumption is based somewhat on personal experiences in that direction.

Peace
Dan

Nice post, PeaceDan.

Time (echo, echo, echo)...

Ahnimus

OutOfBreath wrote:

OK, I read the link now.
Interesting I must say, and actually a pretty balanced article. But I must still go with my general objection towards neuroscience when it comes to the brain. Identifying patterns, and centers of various activity does not explain them. It's descriptive science, not necessarily causal. Or as the final paragraph of the article states:

"For all the tentative successes that scientists are scoring in their search for the biological bases of religious, spiritual and mystical experience, one mystery will surely lie forever beyond their grasp. They may trace a sense of transcendence to this bulge in our gray matter. And they may trace a feeling of the divine to that one. But it is likely that they will never resolve the greatest question of all——namely, whether our brain wiring creates God, or whether God created our brain wiring. Which you believe is, in the end, a matter of faith."

I view it as a survival mechanism. If our species intuitively knew the truth about reality we would probably not have survived this long. Even with this spirituality and religion, we've found ourselves entangled in great wars, ironically in the name of spirituality. I think, or I hope we've evolved enough socially to dispell ourselves of these illusions.

It's very much a hen and egg problem. And precisely because "objective" and certain information will be hard to achieve on these subjects, I am open to hearing experiential data from people. When science can't resolve the causality (something it often can't, but rely on interpretation of correlation), I want to hear what real humans say they really experience, and if there seem to be central themes or aspects they all touch on, use it as experiential evidence that it happens.

You may be certain it's "only in our brains" there are things going on, but that is just an assumption. It's very much unresolved. Identifying active parts of the brain during religious experiences doesn't change that much. My assumption is that there is something to it outside of our brains, and feel fairly certain of that. And my assumption is based somewhat on personal experiences in that direction.

Peace
Dan

Actually, I find it hard to believe that the brain region is deciphering anything external. For waves of photons we have eyes, for waves of electrons we have ears, for solidity we have pressure sensitive skin, for taste we have tongues. But for this we only have a brain and no organ to collect information from the external world. On top of that there are roughly 6,000 different religions, and in the example of Buddhism and some Hindu sects, they do not believe in a God, but rather determinism, and they see the beauty in that. It's no doubt that when I think of the intricacy of the deterministic universe similar patterns would be present in my brain. I think it's awesome.

Now, if you believe experience alone is some kind of evidence. Then you must also consider the following as truths, aliens, ghosts, leprechauns, unicorns, demons, fairies, bigfoot, the lochness monster and the abominable snowman. That's just in our western culture, move into eastern cultures and you have a lot more experiences to account for.

Yet, if I told you the late Francis Crick appeared to me in my room last night and gave me answers to lifes greatest questions, and that transcendence means suicide at a vortex in Sedona. You likely wouldn't believe it, would you? So then how do you discriminate between true experiences and false experiences? My guess, like most people, you believe what you want, and disregard the rest.

baraka

Ahnimus wrote:

So then how do you discriminate between true experiences and false experiences?

A video you might find interesting...........

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9122930135704146433

Ahnimus

baraka wrote:

A video you might find interesting...........

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9122930135704146433

I forgot my headphones today

This guy looks familiar though.

gue_barium

baraka wrote:

A video you might find interesting...........

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9122930135704146433

No means to confuse.

I watched the first couple of minutes of this and if there were anything more pro-god-belief-creationism, i couldn't have found it mysrlff.

baraka

Ahnimus wrote:

I forgot my headphones today

This guy looks familiar though.

He is Andrew Newberg, a physician that teaches & performs research at the University of Pennsylvania Medical School. The video is about mystical experiences (near death experiences, meditation experiences, religious experiences, epilepsy, etc.) their relation with the brain and reality.

Ahnimus

gue_barium wrote:

No means to confuse.

I watched the first couple of minutes of this and if there were anything more pro-god-belief-creationism, i couldn't have found it mysrlff.

More speculation?

baraka

gue_barium wrote:

No means to confuse.

I watched the first couple of minutes of this and if there were anything more pro-god-belief-creationism, i couldn't have found it mysrlff.

How so? I'm in to about 15 minutes and I have heard nothing about, what, creationism. It's about studying what happens when people have spirtual experiences.

Creationism? Really, gue...not all people who are spiritual subscribe to creationism. There is no mention about any specific religious doctrine at all. You can do better than this.

Ahnimus

baraka wrote:

He is Andrew Newberg, a physician that teaches & performs research at the University of Pennsylvania Medical School. The video is about mystical experiences (near death experiences, meditation experiences, religious experiences, epilepsy, etc.) their relation with the brain and reality.

www.andynewberg.com wrote:

Based upon his neurological research (including new studies with Franciscan nuns, atheists, and evangelicals speaking in tongues), Dr. Newberg correlates a wide range of human beliefs with specific perceptual, social, and biological factors. He argues that some beliefs can enhance our physical and emotional well-being while others can function destructively, not only upon one’s self, but upon society as well. Although our beliefs are rooted in the biology of the brain, Dr. Newberg emphasizes that they are equally shaped by parents, peers, and society. In the end, a better understanding of beliefs can foster a more compassionate perspective on people who hold other beliefs and point the direction towards a more positive life and society.

I mostly agree with this, but as far as a view of reality goes, any matter of faith is potentially destructive. For example, we are discussing moral ethics and homosexuality or abortion comes up. People attach their faith to these issues instead of looking at it objectively. That is when a seemingly benneficial faith becomes destructive.

gue_barium

Ahnimus wrote:

More speculation?

On the video itself?

I watched 2 minutes. I gathered from that, that it's intention was to be the dead-end of all those who "believed".

It was made to look "scientific", oh my, so the devout have all the more to fight for.

fucking pathetic.

baraka

gue_barium wrote:

On the video itself?

I watched 2 minutes. I gathered from that, that it's intention was to be the dead-end of all those who "believed".

It was made to look "scientific", oh my, so the devout have all the more to fight for.

fucking pathetic.

que, I'd like you to summarize what exactly was discussed in the 2 minutes you watched.

gue_barium

baraka wrote:

que, I'd like you to summarize what exactly was discussed in the 2 minutes you watched.

Lemme watch it again, to be sure.

baraka

Ahnimus wrote:

I mostly agree with this, but as far as a view of reality goes, any matter of faith is potentially destructive. For example, we are discussing moral ethics and homosexuality or abortion comes up. People attach their faith to these issues instead of looking at it objectively. That is when a seemingly benneficial faith becomes destructive.

I agree with your last 2 statements, but I disagree that spirituality in general is destructive. I would argue that it can be very positive, at least for the individual. Fundamentalism can be dangerous, however. I still feel that if there were no religions, the ignorant would find something else to do ignorantly.

Ahnimus

baraka wrote:

I agree with your last 2 statements, but I disagree that spirituality in general is destructive. I would argue that it can be very positive, at least for the individual. Fundamentalism can be dangerous, however. I still feel that if there were no religions, the ignorant would find something else to do ignorantly.

I agree and I think a lot of atheists would as well. But I'm more like Dawkin, I'd rather be rid of it. There are two methods of fighting religious dogma, one is to subtly try to nudge people, the other is to just slam facts in their face. While, getting all up in someone's face usually causes a polarization, I'm just not that good at subtle.