Cure for Fundamentalism by Scott Adams
Ahnimus
Posts: 10,560
Cure for Fundamentalism
Researchers have found an area of the brain that gets active when people have religious experiences.
http://www.sciam.com/print_version.cfm?articleID=434D7C62-E7F2-99DF-37CC9814533B90D7&repost=with_catchy_title
I know you’re expecting me to say this proves religion is just an illusion caused by the brain. But I’m not. If God exists, it seems entirely reasonable that he’d design people with brains that can receive his transmissions. It wouldn’t be that much different from giving us eyes so we can read Bibles. So I don’t think this research says anything about the existence of God.
But it made me wonder if science could come up with a drug to minimize activity in that part of the brain, essentially removing the feeling of being close to God. And if so, could we put it in the water supply to reduce terrorism from people who think God is on their side?
Your first reaction might be that there’s no way to reach the water supply in Wazeristan where Osama is hiding. But we wouldn’t need to. We could spike our own water supply and drug the terror cells already operating on our soil. Every time they took a sip of water, they’d have a little more doubt about the afterlife.
There are already drugs that alter moods in all sorts of ways. It’s not a huge stretch to imagine a drug that could act on the religion portion of the brain. It would be easy to test. Just pick any town, add the drug to the water supply, and track church attendance.
Would it be ethical to use this drug, assuming it had no side effects? Your first reaction would probably be no. Obviously it’s evil to drug people without their consent, no matter what the purpose.
But wait, we do that already with fluoride in the water to reduce cavities. So we have a precedent. No one asked my opinion on that drug, and I take it daily.
Suppose you are a person who believes humans are moist robots with no free will. For people who hold that view, morality is considered an illusion, so they would have no ethical problem with using this drug.
On the other side of the issue, people who believe in free will would have to believe the drug wouldn’t work. You can’t believe a drug can change a person’s religion unless you think people are moist robots with no free will. Therefore, it is inconsistent for this group to think the anti-religion drug is unethical, since they would also believe it has no effect.
I think that covers everyone but the people who live in a state of perpetual uncertainty, and they tend to stay out of decision-making.
Should we fund development of this drug?
Researchers have found an area of the brain that gets active when people have religious experiences.
http://www.sciam.com/print_version.cfm?articleID=434D7C62-E7F2-99DF-37CC9814533B90D7&repost=with_catchy_title
I know you’re expecting me to say this proves religion is just an illusion caused by the brain. But I’m not. If God exists, it seems entirely reasonable that he’d design people with brains that can receive his transmissions. It wouldn’t be that much different from giving us eyes so we can read Bibles. So I don’t think this research says anything about the existence of God.
But it made me wonder if science could come up with a drug to minimize activity in that part of the brain, essentially removing the feeling of being close to God. And if so, could we put it in the water supply to reduce terrorism from people who think God is on their side?
Your first reaction might be that there’s no way to reach the water supply in Wazeristan where Osama is hiding. But we wouldn’t need to. We could spike our own water supply and drug the terror cells already operating on our soil. Every time they took a sip of water, they’d have a little more doubt about the afterlife.
There are already drugs that alter moods in all sorts of ways. It’s not a huge stretch to imagine a drug that could act on the religion portion of the brain. It would be easy to test. Just pick any town, add the drug to the water supply, and track church attendance.
Would it be ethical to use this drug, assuming it had no side effects? Your first reaction would probably be no. Obviously it’s evil to drug people without their consent, no matter what the purpose.
But wait, we do that already with fluoride in the water to reduce cavities. So we have a precedent. No one asked my opinion on that drug, and I take it daily.
Suppose you are a person who believes humans are moist robots with no free will. For people who hold that view, morality is considered an illusion, so they would have no ethical problem with using this drug.
On the other side of the issue, people who believe in free will would have to believe the drug wouldn’t work. You can’t believe a drug can change a person’s religion unless you think people are moist robots with no free will. Therefore, it is inconsistent for this group to think the anti-religion drug is unethical, since they would also believe it has no effect.
I think that covers everyone but the people who live in a state of perpetual uncertainty, and they tend to stay out of decision-making.
Should we fund development of this drug?
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
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
this is where the argument fails. it is a nice thought though.
"Every time they took a sip of water, they’d have a little more doubt about the afterlife."
That's pretty hilarious. Science never ceases to amaze me. I can only fathom what doctors know about the brain in another 50 years.
I think advanced nano-technology where you inject programmed intelligence devices into the bloodstream is going to completely blow the lid off so many things in the body that are currently mysteries.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
It's from the dilbert blog, so probably not the best logic.
But, I think the point about free-will is that there are accepted constraints, such as drugs, most people would accept drugs as a constraint to free-will. Then is the will really free, or are we just not seeing all the constraints?
Dualism crumbles into absurdity in many ways. Which is why, I think, a belief in free-will requires there be no constraints on your decisions. Especially when it comes to religious beliefs, there should be no way to affect them pharmaceutically.
Thinking just gets in the way of happiness, I propose lobotomies for all. That should fix everything.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
The pill that killed God. That would freak out the establishment just a tad.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
A Feeling I'm Being Had
I was happy to hear that NYC didn't allow Iranian President Ahmadinejad
to place a wreath at the WTC site. And I was happy that Columbia
University is rescinding the offer to let him speak. If you let a guy like
that express his views, before long the entire world will want freedom
of speech.
I hate Ahmadinejad for all the same reasons you do. For one thing, he
said he wants to "wipe Israel off the map." Scholars tell us the correct
translation is more along the lines of wanting a change in Israel's
government toward something more democratic, with less gerrymandering.
What an ass-muncher!
Ahmadinejad also called the holocaust a "myth." Fuck him! A myth is
something a society uses to frame their understanding of their world, and
act accordingly. It's not as if the world created a whole new country
because of holocaust guilt and gives it a free pass no matter what it
does. That's Iranian crazy talk. Ahmadinejad can blow me.
Most insulting is the fact that "myth" implies the holocaust didn't
happen. Fuck him for saying that! He also says he won't dispute the
historical claims of European scientists. That is obviously the opposite of
saying the holocaust didn't happen, which I assume is his way of
confusing me. God-damned fucker.
Furthermore, why does an Iranian guy give a speech in his own language
except for using the English word "myth"? Aren't there any Iranian
words for saying a set of historical facts has achieved an unhealthy level
of influence on a specific set of decisions in the present? He's just
being an asshole.
Ahmadinejad believes his role is to pave the way for the coming of the
Twelfth Imam. That's a primitive apocalyptic belief! I thank Jesus I do
not live in a country led by a man who believes in that sort of
bullshit. Imagine how dangerous that would be, especially if that man had the
launch codes for nuclear weapons.
The worst of the worst is that Ahmadinejad's country is helping the
Iraqis kill American soldiers. If Iran ever invades Canada, I think we'd
agree the best course of action for the United States is to be
constructive and let things sort themselves out. Otherwise we'd be just as evil
as the Iranians. Those fuckers.
Those Iranians need to learn from the American example. In this
country, if the clear majority of the public opposes the continuation of a war, our
leaders will tell us we're terrorist-humping idiots and do whatever they
damn well please. They might even increase our taxes to do it. That's
called leadership.
If Ahmadinejad thinks he can be our friend by honoring our heroes and
opening a dialog, he underestimates our ability to misinterpret him.
Fucking idiot. I hate him.