Jump to content
Science Forums

Talk about God from a biology forum thread


goku

Recommended Posts

I went on to read the full account of the Pope's speech and I did not find any hositilty. The Catholic Church infact has for many years attempted to ingratiate Judasim through many programs that bring together both Christians and Jews.

He is referring to the division among the mainstream Christian churches as a way of uniting them together based upon a core belief system. I cannot imagine that the churches will every unify as there are too many different ideologies within Christianity itself. The purpose in unifying the churches, is based upon further evangelization of the masses, and that of course, would be offensive to many non Christian religions and athesim as well. But this is what Christianity does; it has a need to fufill in "saving" mankind from self and hell. The choice to accept or refuse is up to the individual. Whether that be in belief or in the individual denomination or sect or "community". I very much disagree with his comment on not following the individual's conscience, we have to be true to what we think, feel, believe, whether that falls under any institutions guide lines or not. We must be objective in all things, especially religion: to blindly follow anything is a dangerous road.While I may not follow the same path as Christianity or Catholicism would dictate, I none the less, allow them to believe and speak those things that they subscribe to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I went on to read the full account of the Pope's speech and I did not find any hositilty. The Catholic Church infact has for many years attempted to ingratiate Judasim through many programs that bring together both Christians and Jews.

He is referring to the division among the mainstream Christian churches as a way of uniting them together based upon a core belief system. I cannot imagine that the churches will every unify as there are too many different ideologies within Christianity itself. The purpose in unifying the churches, is based upon further evangelization of the masses, and that of course, would be offensive to many non Christian religions and athesim as well. But this is what Christianity does; it has a need to fufill in "saving" mankind from self and hell. The choice to accept or refuse is up to the individual. Whether that be in belief or in the individual denomination or sect or "community". I very much disagree with his comment on not following the individual's conscience, we have to be true to what we think, feel, believe, whether that falls under any institutions guide lines or not. We must be objective in all things, especially religion: to blindly follow anything is a dangerous road.While I may not follow the same path as Christianity or Catholicism would dictate, I none the less, allow them to believe and speak those things that they subscribe to.

 

I have to agree with you Pamela but I do think it should be pointed out that even though I am completely willing to allow the religious to believe as they want they seem to be hell bent on converting everyone they can and historically it's not simply asking it's often coercion especially when children are involved. I have seen many instances of religion using it's influence to decide who gets a job, who gets help and especially who gest into public office and from there then pushes an agenda of religion instead of what is best for the public. Religion insists on inserting their "truth" into everything even though it's not truth or even based on evidence of truth. I honestly think this is wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i went to your link, and it is as i thought, you don't know the truth. the only one of those top ten things i could relate to was #1, every time i read the bible i learn something new and realize how little i know.

 

Goku does it never occur to you that when you are reading the bible you are not learning anything new but in fact being led to believe lies, myths and fairy tales? I would really like to know why you would believe such totally unsubstantiated, often contradictory, and obviously untrue writings. Doesn't it bother you that your bible says that adulterers should be killed? Or that homosexuals should be killed? Or that women are somehow inferior to and subservient to men? If you had a daughter would you think of her as inferior and subservient? Do you really agree with all the things in the bible? if not how do you decide which is true and which is not? I am truly puzzled by this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, parents teach their children what they deem to be right and true. They believe they are doing the right thing. I met a young lady a few years back, who was the daughter of a Klansman of high standing. The conversation, thought quite interesting, left me with a very sick feeling. This was a family with a long history filled with anger and hatred under the guise of Christianity. The walls of reason were closed, but maybe a word or two got through to her. We cannot change people or how they think or believe, but we can present accurate data and knowledge seasoned with kindness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, parents teach their children what they deem to be right and true. They believe they are doing the right thing. I met a young lady a few years back, who was the daughter of a Klansman of high standing. The conversation, thought quite interesting, left me with a very sick feeling. This was a family with a long history filled with anger and hatred under the guise of Christianity. The walls of reason were closed, but maybe a word or two got through to her. We cannot change people or how they think or believe, but we can present accurate data and knowledge seasoned with kindness.

 

Pamela, you are a better person than me, I ran out of kindness and understanding a long time ago. Most of these peoples' finest hour would have been an early abortion. Most of them deserve a bullet to the back of the head now for all the fear and terror they have spread into the world. It is very sad when religion is hijacked by these people. At one time these people or this type of person had much influence over mainstream religion. I hope they can never regain that influence but it will not be because religion will prevent it. It is up to us to make sure religion never gets out of control this way in the larger world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Goku does it never occur to you that when you are reading the bible you are not learning anything new but in fact being led to believe lies, myths and fairy tales? I would really like to know why you would believe such totally unsubstantiated, often contradictory, and obviously untrue writings. Doesn't it bother you that your bible says that adulterers should be killed? Or that homosexuals should be killed? Or that women are somehow inferior to and subservient to men? If you had a daughter would you think of her as inferior and subservient? Do you really agree with all the things in the bible? if not how do you decide which is true and which is not? I am truly puzzled by this.

 

i think i can help you with this, but perhaps not here (hypo)

 

only after you believe can you begin to understand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we look at gods from a biology point of view, these phenomena appears to be more connected to the right hemisphere of the brain. The left brain is more analytical with god concepts not able to satisfy analytical scrutiny. The right brain is more spatial, symbolic and creative with god concepts not in contradiction to the workings of this side of the brain.

 

When we dream, the images and their interaction do not have to be logical. Most people think dreams are useless because they are illogical. But dreams are a natural output from the brain that occurs when the will of consciousness is lowest; during sleep. We lose our analytical ability or full access to the left side so the right is more dominant because there is less ego control.

 

From this one might conclude, when someone puts aside of reason to accept god concepts, that don't hold up to analytical scrutiny, this sort of excludes the left side of the brain, to help access the right hemisphere of the brain.

 

The first humans were more right hemisphere since this produces natural output spontaneously such as dreams. The left side slowly evolved and added more analytical scrutiny first trying to explain reality in terms of the gods. Early analytical would include god logic since the right superseded the left in the early days for a right-left punch to reality. Modern times have sort of reversed this with the left leading the right. Both are useful since they increase the range of the brain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i think i can help you with this, but perhaps not here (hypo)

 

only after you believe can you begin to understand.

Goku, if you want to explain this is the place.

 

No; it isn't. His comment is his tacit acknowledgement of my clarification a couple posts back on his proselytizing. Shall we choose up dictionaries & rule sets and go after 'trolling' next? No; I didn't think so. :)

 

If we look at gods from a biology point of view, these phenomena appears to be more connected to the right hemisphere of the brain. The left brain is more analytical with god concepts not able to satisfy analytical scrutiny. The right brain is more spatial, symbolic and creative with god concepts not in contradiction to the workings of this side of the brain. ...

 

No; there is no such appearance. Shall I list all the threads where you have proffered this belief of yours without any scientific supporting material for it? Along with that would go the ripostes they engendered of course. :eek:

 

Respond or not, I read virtually everything here and I don't forget much of it. The proper subject of discussion in this thread is outlined in blue in the first post. To whit:

Moderation note: The first 11 posts of this tread were moved from the biology forum thread “Evolution Must be Taught in Public Schools”, because they discuss the theological subject of the nature of God and relative superiority of religions.

 

For a post here on topic & well within the spirit & letter of the rules, see Pyrotexianans exemplary post #10. ;)

 

Next up, family swim. :) :turtle: :shrug:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we look at gods from a biology point of view, these phenomena appears to be more connected to the right hemisphere of the brain. The left brain is more analytical with god concepts not able to satisfy analytical scrutiny. The right brain is more spatial, symbolic and creative with god concepts not in contradiction to the workings of this side of the brain.

 

When we dream, the images and their interaction do not have to be logical. Most people think dreams are useless because they are illogical. But dreams are a natural output from the brain that occurs when the will of consciousness is lowest; during sleep. We lose our analytical ability or full access to the left side so the right is more dominant because there is less ego control.

 

From this one might conclude, when someone puts aside of reason to accept god concepts, that don't hold up to analytical scrutiny, this sort of excludes the left side of the brain, to help access the right hemisphere of the brain.

 

The first humans were more right hemisphere since this produces natural output spontaneously such as dreams. The left side slowly evolved and added more analytical scrutiny first trying to explain reality in terms of the gods. Early analytical would include god logic since the right superseded the left in the early days for a right-left punch to reality. Modern times have sort of reversed this with the left leading the right. Both are useful since they increase the range of the brain.

 

It would interest me to how true this actually is. I would like to see individuals hooked up to some kind of a brain scanning device that detects which part of the brain is most active when having believing thoughts and emotions about god and then also disbelieving thoughts and emotions and what have you.

 

In my case I can believe in god with all my being but simutaniously I can contemplate misunderstandings, confusion, questions, etc. I can't believe the bible word for word, but after years of studying this very subject I've learned there is something non-scientific responsible for our existence, and by that I mean here and now, as individuals. I've always wondered, if you never taught a person how to speak and kept them in a controlled environment, would they be aware of themselves? would this person be able to contemplate themselves without saying I am... etc... There is something about complex language that I think allows us to develope a strong sense of self awareness, individualism and seperateness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would interest me to how true this actually is. I would like to see individuals hooked up to some kind of a brain scanning device that detects which part of the brain is most active when having believing thoughts and emotions about god and then also disbelieving thoughts and emotions and what have you.

 

Fortunately, we have a thread on that topic: >> http://hypography.com/forums/theology-forum/9410-biotheology.html

 

... I've always wondered, if you never taught a person how to speak and kept them in a controlled environment, would they be aware of themselves? would this person be able to contemplate themselves without saying I am... etc... There is something about complex language that I think allows us to develope a strong sense of self awareness, individualism and seperateness.

The term is 'feral children'. For the most part, such isolation engenders lifelong disabilities in language and social interaction. >> FeralChildren.com | Journal papers and articles about feral children

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the Evolution Must Be Taught in Public Schools thread...

...are you open mined about things that absolutely are not possible?

 

Such as?

 

life

 

For a very long time, intelligent people believed life was fundamentally different from other matter. While rocks and metals and other non-living things are static and unresponsive, living things (such as animals, plants and insects) move and respond. They appear to have their own impetus.

 

People tried to explain this thousands of years ago and came up with the idea of spirit or soul. Genesis 2:7 explains how people were molded out of mud (normal inanimate matter) and became alive when God breathed his spirit into their nasal cavity CPR-like. The reason they came to this idea should become clear if you follow along, Goku.

 

Ancient people didn’t think of a spirit or soul like we do now. In the time Genesis was written, it was believed that everything alive had a soul, and without that soul (or spirit), there would be no life. I can support this by showing you Gen. 1:30...

and to every animal of the earth, and to every fowl of the heavens, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which is a living soul, every green herb for food...

This is the Darby Bible Translation. The two words I underlined are chay and nephesh in the original Hebrew. Together they mean living soul or living spirit. By ancient reasoning, this was the thing that gave inanimate (dead) things the ability to move (live). This idea wasn’t unique to Israel and Judaism. In the 5th century BC, Plato and Aristotle wrote extensively about the soul.

In ordinary fifth century Greek, having soul is simply being alive; hence the emergence, at about this time, of the adjective ‘ensouled’ [empsuchos] as the standard word meaning “alive”, which was applied not just to human beings, but to other living things as well... soul is attributed to every kind of living thing. What is in place, then, at this time is the notion that soul is what distinguishes that which is alive from that which is not.

 

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

 

So... this is the background of this issue in your religion, Goku. It easily persists a thousand years later in Christianity as is evident by the writings of Saint Augustine in the 4th and 5th centuries AD. Here Augustine (one of the founders of the Christian church) explains that even a fly has a soul because it alive,

And here, if perchance in their confusion they had inquired of me whether I thought that the soul even of a fly surpasses that light, I should have replied, yes, nor should it have troubled me that the fly is little, but it should have confirmed me that it is alive. For it is inquired, what causes those members so diminutive to grow, what leads so minute a body here and there according to its natural appetite, what moves its feet in numerical order when it is running, what regulates and gives vibration to its wings when flying?

 

-Saint Augustine 391 AD (ch. 4)

 

Augustine believed that the fly’s soul directed its feet, and told it how to move. He believed (like Plato and Aristotle and most ancient people) that an animal’s spirit or soul told it how to act, how to hunt, how to swim. In humans, the soul was responsible for reason and logic. Thinking some thought, planning its execution, and acting it out were using your soul. To ancient people, a person’s consciousness and their ability to control their body was entirely the domain of their soul.

 

The problems with this view started to show in old testament times when Thales of Miletus (who was apparently smart enough to predict a solar eclipse in 585 BC) claimed magnets had souls because magnets initiated movement in iron and initiating movement was entirely the domain of the soul. In other words: magnets were in some way, alive. The problem they had was thinking that life was a property of souls and spirits rather than being a property of matter alone.

 

With biology, the issue comes closer to resolution in the 1800’s. Protoplasm was understood to be the living part of cells and contained ordinary chemical elements. Movement was no longer driven by souls, but electrical impulses resulting in irritability (excitability from stimulation) in muscle cells. The paradigm shift is shown beautifully on page 392 of this 1879 issue of Nature (again notice the analogy with magnets—this time more sensible),

When the heart of a recently-killed frog is separated from its body and touched with the point of a needle, it begins to beat under the excitation of the stimulus, and we believe ourselves justified in referring the contraction of the cardiac fibers to the irritability of their protoplasm as its proper cause. We see in it a remarkable phenomenon, but one nevertheless in which we can see unmistakable analogies with phenomena purely physical. There is no greater difficulty in conceiving of contractility [the shortening of a muscle fiber] as a property of protoplasm than there is of conceiving of attraction as a property of the magnet.

 

When a thought passes through the mind, it is associated, as we have now abundant reason for believing, with some change in the protoplasm of the cerebral cells. Are we, therefore, justified in regarding thought as a property of the protoplasm of these cells, in the sense in which we regard muscular contraction as a property of the protoplasm of muscle? or is it really a property residing in something far different, but which may yet need for its manifestation the activity of cerebral protoplasm?

And now, more than 100 years later, we have explored the “cerebral cells” that this link wonders about. We’ve imaged them with electron microscopes, mapped their signals with PET scans, manipulated their function with drugs and surgery.

 

No longer do people think that thoughts, feelings, and logic are processed in a person’s soul, but their brain. No longer do people think a fly flaps its wings because it has a spirit. We now know better. We know life is not the magical property of some ethereal entity that we have to make up—it is an emergent property of matter. In this context, life is not only completely "possible", it's inevitable.

 

~modest

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I was saying left and right brain, I was merely showing how science and religion, in very general terms, are slanted toward one of the two different sides of the brain. The right is more imaginative and integral while the left is more differential and analytical. The nature of the concept of God is as holistic or 3-D as you can get. Science is more left brain and will try to break down reality into all the little details. Religion will tend to stick with bulk intuitive often dogmatic statements that are not fully subject to reason. But this does not matter to a religious person since at an intuitive level it still makes sense to them.

 

Left Brain Logical, Sequential, Rational, Analytical, Objective, Looks at parts

 

Right Brain Random, Intuitive, Holistic, Synthesizing, Subjective, Looks at wholes

 

This separation does not mean both don't use the other side of the brain. The religious person can also logically support their belief with detailed support using bible quotes. But that is secondary to their faith which is subjective-intuitive.

 

Science on the other hand, can synthesize data and ideas into wholes. But the centering in the left still results in specialization type integration not holistic generalization.

 

One interesting affect is random and probability philosophy in science which helped shift science more into the right. This has allowed more creative liberty since the strict rules of logic don't have to be enforced. While religion is trying to shift more left which is why it continues to dissociate, which reflects a left side affect.

 

Another way to look at this is reverse the position of the two to see the impact on each. If religion was centered in the left, there would be no place for faith. If science was in the right it would be creative but subjective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the Evolution Must Be Taught in Public Schools thread...

 

 

 

 

For a very long time, intelligent people believed life was fundamentally different from other matter. While rocks and metals and other non-living things are static and unresponsive, living things (such as animals, plants and insects) move and respond. They appear to have their own impetus.

 

People tried to explain this thousands of years ago and came up with the idea of spirit or soul. Genesis 2:7 explains how people were molded out of mud (normal inanimate matter) and became alive when God breathed his spirit into their nasal cavity CPR-like. The reason they came to this idea should become clear if you follow along, Goku.

 

Ancient people didn’t think of a spirit or soul like we do now. In the time Genesis was written, it was believed that everything alive had a soul, and without that soul (or spirit), there would be no life. I can support this by showing you Gen. 1:30...

 

This is the Darby Bible Translation. The two words I underlined are chay and nephesh in the original Hebrew. Together they mean living soul or living spirit. By ancient reasoning, this was the thing that gave inanimate (dead) things the ability to move (live). This idea wasn’t unique to Israel and Judaism. In the 5th century BC, Plato and Aristotle wrote extensively about the soul.

 

 

So... this is the background of this issue in your religion, Goku. It easily persists a thousand years later in Christianity as is evident by the writings of Saint Augustine in the 4th and 5th centuries AD. Here Augustine (one of the founders of the Christian church) explains that even a fly has a soul because it alive,

 

 

Augustine believed that the fly’s soul directed its feet, and told it how to move. He believed (like Plato and Aristotle and most ancient people) that an animal’s spirit or soul told it how to act, how to hunt, how to swim. In humans, the soul was responsible for reason and logic. Thinking some thought, planning its execution, and acting it out were using your soul. To ancient people, a person’s consciousness and their ability to control their body was entirely the domain of their soul.

 

The problems with this view started to show in old testament times when Thales of Miletus (who was apparently smart enough to predict a solar eclipse in 585 BC) claimed magnets had souls because magnets initiated movement in iron and initiating movement was entirely the domain of the soul. In other words: magnets were in some way, alive. The problem they had was thinking that life was a property of souls and spirits rather than being a property of matter alone.

 

With biology, the issue comes closer to resolution in the 1800’s. Protoplasm was understood to be the living part of cells and contained ordinary chemical elements. Movement was no longer driven by souls, but electrical impulses resulting in irritability (excitability from stimulation) in muscle cells. The paradigm shift is shown beautifully on page 392 of this 1879 issue of Nature (again notice the analogy with magnets—this time more sensible),

 

And now, more than 100 years later, we have explored the “cerebral cells” that this link wonders about. We’ve imaged them with electron microscopes, mapped their signals with PET scans, manipulated their function with drugs and surgery.

 

No longer do people think that thoughts, feelings, and logic are processed in a person’s soul, but their brain. No longer do people think a fly flaps its wings because it has a spirit. We now know better. We know life is not the magical property of some ethereal entity that we have to make up—it is an emergent property of matter. In this context, life is not only completely "possible", it's inevitable.

 

~modest

 

Modest, I think you have indeed cut to the heart of the matter, but sadly people in general have not lost the idea that life is somehow a magical property. A day doesn't not go by that i don't read or hear about life discussed as if it was a special form of energy. It is discussed as such many times in this forum. If I had a quarter for everyone who believes this one wrong but widely accepted thing my rent wouldn't be a matter of worry ever again.

 

I can remember how hard it was to explain to nutronjon that there was no life force or energy special to life and existing no where else. many people thing electricity is this life force. Almost all truly religious people cling to this thought. It's really a difficult idea to get past, I have killed and watched the life force drain out of the creature I have killed, in advanced animals you can see the life force drain away. i know this is just a way to describe a dying animal but it is easy to justify life force when you have seen this.

 

I think this idea that life is some sort of special thing unique to living creatures, humans especially, is responsible for the way religion has held on through the years. Only religion upholds this idea of a life force and It's such a strong idea, supported by anecdotal evidence I'm not sure it will ever go away. God is the embodiment of this idea/feeling,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Modest, I think you have indeed cut to the heart of the matter, but sadly people in general have not lost the idea that life is somehow a magical property. A day doesn't not go by that i don't read or hear about life discussed as if it was a special form of energy. It is discussed as such many times in this forum. If I had a quarter for everyone who believes this one wrong but widely accepted thing my rent wouldn't be a matter of worry ever again.

 

I can remember how hard it was to explain to nutronjon that there was no life force or energy special to life and existing no where else. many people thing electricity is this life force. Almost all truly religious people cling to this thought. It's really a difficult idea to get past, I have killed and watched the life force drain out of the creature I have killed, in advanced animals you can see the life force drain away. i know this is just a way to describe a dying animal but it is easy to justify life force when you have seen this.

 

I think this idea that life is some sort of special thing unique to living creatures, humans especially, is responsible for the way religion has held on through the years. Only religion upholds this idea of a life force and It's such a strong idea, supported by anecdotal evidence I'm not sure it will ever go away. God is the embodiment of this idea/feeling,

 

I think you're right that the view is prevalent, but the common view of what a "life force" is today is different from what it used to be, and I think it is going away. The trend is heading that way.

 

The more educated people become and the more humanity knows in general, the less these views make sense. Just knowing there is such a thing as a brain that is responsible for thought has taken a lot of the power away from the ancient ideas. People used to literally think their soul did the thinking and their spirit made them grow and move. Now that we have a brain for thinking, the "soul" has lost a lot of its power.

 

I think "life force" is becoming more of an analogy than a literal thing. But, I agree this is not true for everyone. It's an ongoing process.

 

~modest

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I was saying left and right brain, I was merely showing how science and religion, in very general terms, are slanted toward one of the two different sides of the brain. The right is more imaginative and integral while the left is more differential and analytical. The nature of the concept of God is as holistic or 3-D as you can get. Science is more left brain and will try to break down reality into all the little details. Religion will tend to stick with bulk intuitive often dogmatic statements that are not fully subject to reason. But this does not matter to a religious person since at an intuitive level it still makes sense to them.

 

Left Brain Logical, Sequential, Rational, Analytical, Objective, Looks at parts

 

Right Brain Random, Intuitive, Holistic, Synthesizing, Subjective, Looks at wholes

 

This separation does not mean both don't use the other side of the brain. The religious person can also logically support their belief with detailed support using bible quotes. But that is secondary to their faith which is subjective-intuitive.

 

Science on the other hand, can synthesize data and ideas into wholes. But the centering in the left still results in specialization type integration not holistic generalization.

 

What I would like to see is some sources of information (i.e. specific links) that you form these opinions on. :) I went looking for "left-brain right-brain science" on Googler and right up front I find the word "pseudoscience" associated. While it appears there are left-right 'anomalies', it does not appear as any-where the simple setup you continually ascribe to the biology of God. :fire: :)

 

Left Brain, Right Brain - Features - The Lab - Australian Broadcasting Corporation's Gateway to Science

“When someone says they are right or left-brain it’s really just a metaphor for a cognitive style”, says neuropsychologist Associate Professor Michael Saling from the University Melbourne and Austin Health’s Epilepsy Research Centre. “Without a doubt the popular left and right division of the brain is an over-simplification. For example, research is showing that musical, artistic and intuitive thinking can’t be thought of as strictly lateralised, or exclusively of the right hemisphere ".

 

Spaling says we know with confidence that basic language processes are predominantly controlled by the left hemisphere, and spatial cognition like navigation or face recognition are coordinated by the right hemisphere. But when it comes to the question of ability, both hemispheres work in concert with each other. ...

 

or

 

'Right Brain' or 'Left Brain' - Myth Or Reality?

Many a myth has grown up around the brain's asymmetry. The left cerebral hemisphere is supposed to be the coldly logical, verbal and dominant half of the brain, while the right developed a reputation as the imaginative side, emotional, spatially aware but suppressed. Two personalities in one head, Yin and Yang, hero and villain.

 

To most neuroscientists, of course, these notions are seen as simplistic at best and nonsense at worst. So there was general satisfaction when, a couple of years ago, a simple brain scanner test appeared to reveal the true story about one of neurology's greatest puzzles: exactly what is the difference between the two sides of the human brain? Fortunately, or unfortunately, depending on how you like your theories, the big picture revealed by that work is proving far less romantic than the logical-creative split, intriguingly complex and tough to prove. ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...