Moontanman Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 look if you are not familiar with neuroscience i understand, so let me put it this way- medical data substantiating proof where the frontal lobe of the brain reveals an adverse effect when religion is introduced I looked over my words very carefully and while I might have used milder terms and or possibly more accurate terms I never said it damages the brain, i said religion causes people to stop using reason to filter information and uses religion instead. This is obviously true, the effect is worse in fundamentalists of what ever stripe, but religion it's self demands this suspension of reason. This effect is not limited to the Judeo/Christian/Islamic mythos, many religions far older and with equally extensive writings also reflect this "believe us" and "not reality" problem. conjecture The idea that the earth is only 6,000 years old and that god made everything fully formed as we see them today is an established fact on many peoples minds, if that is not a suspension of reason i do not understand your definition of it.It is note worthy that many people do not adhere to the absoluteness of their particular religious book but even more main stream religious still need to suspend reason in some way to believe. is that conjecture or are you suggesting a use of variation on neural pathways? Does a computer virus change the physical structure of your computer? I am not and have not claimed any physical changes in the brain. Personal choice here. If one simply does not do their homework before purchasing, then thats their fault You are missing the point, religion is the source of their inability to reason that just because someone else says they are Muslim or Jewish or Christian of Hindu doesn't mean they are honest. Religion makes them think anyone who shares their world view is honest. this suspension of reason in favor of religion is my point. what? Christian apologists are forever attempting to reason And forever failing to do so because religion has messed up their ability to reason. how would you know? are you in their mind? You can tell by their behavior, they choose to believe things are easily shown to be false but refuse to see them. yes Then you are looking for the impossible, but the impossible only takes a little longer to show. I am on it... Don't feign concern here; you are showing yourself to be double minded. You would better serve your point with survival of the fittest No concern, those are facts that show how the religious suspend reason in favor of faith. yes neuroscience preferably, be specific, pull data, support your claim. Rambling rants serve no purpose other than to shoot peoples and their faiths down- this is unacceptable. Just because organised religion doesn't work for you doesn't mean that others don't need it for whatever particular reason. Why should you play God and dictate what is good and right for an individual? At no point have I dictated god, at no point have a said it doesn't work, it works quite well. At no time have i dictated what is good or right. I simply stated the obvious, that religion requires some suspension of reason when it comes to information provided by religion books, leaders, and other individuals who claim to be religious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pamela Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 This is a split off from another thread in order to effectively determine how religion may impair ones ability to reason.Currently, since no one is able to provide conclusive evidence as to neurological impairment, we shall discuss from a psychological point of view well i would if it would let me move the posts- any available admin help me out here? :P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CraigD Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 Please separate out this thread from the original thread...well i would if it would let me move the posts- any available admin help me out here? :PDone. As I see the focus of this discussion as primarily one of the interaction of religion and science, not primarily empirical or neurological psychology, I’ve moved it to the theology forum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pamela Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 Done. As I see the focus of this discussion as primarily one of the interaction of religion and science, not primarily empirical or neurological psychology, I’ve moved it to the theology forum.thats fine we can go from that angle then- can you move moons last post? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CraigD Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 If I may cast a short, intuitive observation into this thread... I believe miscommunication is happening here, due to the reification of metaphor. The heart of the back-and-forth debate between Moontanman and Pamela seems to be over the italicized (by me) part of this claimReligion is infectious, it's passed as an idea that paralyzes the reason center of the mind with fear and it propagates it's self quite literally by telling other people the good news and playing on their fear and guilt to penetrate the mind of the second person and the meme demands they convert others the same way.To which Pam challengesShow the data where it paralyzes the reason center. Paralysis, in a medical context, refers to the loss of motor function of muscles, so in a technical sense, no part of the brain can be paralyzed. Brain and nerve disorders can cause paralysis, but this too is not the sense I believe MTMan means his statement. Outside of a medical context, paralysis is commonly used to mean unable to initiate a complicated behavior. For example, commentators on James Joyce’s famous 1914 collection of short stories Dubliners, commonly describe its main theme as paralysis, because its many characters are shown, for various reasons, to be unable to take actions to improve their sorry states. Only one character, the dying Father Flyn in the collections first story, The Sisters, is actually suffering from a medical condition involving paralysis. This establishes the metaphorical paralysis of thought and behavior described in the following stories. MTMan’s use of the term paralysis to describe the unwillingness or inability of religionists to reject the belief in God or gods or other supernatural phenomena is, likewise, metaphorical. To the best of my knowledge, no biological pathogen contributes to a person being religious or not – or, more precisely, having a supernaturalistic or naturalistic worldview. Religious belief is, like acceptance of a scientific theory, the result of a reasoning, feeling, and judging mental process. Religious people are not incapable of reason, evidenced by the large body of religious apologetics which, are, by definition, applications of systematic reasoning to support various religious conclusions. Apologetics are not confined to religious beliefs, but rather to any attempt at rigorous rational defense of conclusions not initially arrived at or subsequently proven through axiomatic, formal mean. G. H. Hardy’s 1940 A Mathematician's Apology is a well-known example of a non-religious apologetic. In short, both supernaturalistic and naturalistic people are capable of, and frequently use, rational thought. They just arrive via it at opposite conclusion on the question of the existence of the supernatural. The key question at hand in discussions like this thread’s is not/should not be if supernaturalistic, or naturalistic people, are in some way defective/diseased, but whether it is good or bad for the human species to be religious or non-religious. In a biological context, perpetuating the human species is good, failing to do so is bad. Humans seem to reproduce effectively regardless of their worldview, so I suspect this key question is not a good, meaningful one. Re-asking the question as whether supernaturalism or naturalism is good or bad for sciences is a more complicated question, which I’ll not even attempt to address in this post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 I take exception to the idea of a meme being a disease, religion or not, religion is an infectious meme but disease suggests it is harmful to the individual in a physical sense. This is a strawman i am not willing to fight. My idea is that the religious meme takes over the cognitive functions of the brain and restricts the persons ability to use reason to filter information that is connected with religion in any way. it is worse for some religious memes than others but all of them require some disconnect with reason. Fear of death and punishment in an afterlife is the driving force that gives this meme power over people. I gave a quote by Martin Luther that exemplified this very well, paraphrased somewhat it he said that in cases where reality disagrees with scripture scripture must always take precedence over any evidence, he also advocated lying to protect the sanctity of religion. A great many religious leaders proudly display this attitude on their web sites and from the pulpit. I admit that not all go to this extreme but i will assert that all religions require a disconnect with reason and logic on some level. Impairment of reason in regard to religious issues can be shown, religions, even the most benign require you believe something that is not in evidence in anyway. The most fundamental require you reject a huge amount of confirmed data in favor of books that are demonstrably lies and "reveled truths" that have no basis in reality what so ever and are just made up as they go. Religious experiences can be brought on by magnetic and electrical fields not to mention physical and mental trauma, this strongly suggests religion is not real but is made up. So far all i can find about this is rants by philosophers and I will not make an appeal to authority to back this up. I will continue to look for some tangible data. Religious apologists do not use reason they use misrepresentation and lies to make their points. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sigurdV Posted February 2, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 A very interesting discussion... Havent read it all... I approximately side with Moontan man ... I think pam has them boxing gloves on... But he defends good... Excellent jab from Pam... Moon Ducks etc etcFascinating :) I sort of wonder if this backing up business is really always so fair and square? Ill be back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sigurdV Posted February 2, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 I take exception to the idea of a meme being a disease, religion or not, religion is an infectious meme but disease suggests it is harmful to the individual in a physical sense. This is a strawman i am not willing to fight. This (me) "seclusional intellectual-fantasy writer" is, by the remarks above, reminded of the Ant climbing to the top of the grass so the cow feeding on the grass will digest it... Its not the Ant intending this since it IS harmful to the ant... its invaded by a parasite "intending" to lay its eggs in a cow! Them eggs return with the dung to ground, and an unsuspecting Ant encounters it, gets infected and starts climbing the "stair to heaven"... The parasite s o m e h o w screws up the brain of the ant! The life and works of parasites is not well known as of yet I just wanted to suggest (Not Claim) that some of our intentions might not, after all, be our own. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pamela Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 A very interesting discussion... Havent read it all... I approximately side with Moontan man ... I think pam has them boxing gloves on... But he defends good... Excellent jab from Pam... Moon Ducks etc etcFascinating :) I sort of wonder if this backing up business is really always so fair and square? Ill be back.you are so funny :) now how can i argue whilst i am giggling? ah well let me try :P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sigurdV Posted February 2, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 alright Sig, if you claim religion is a disease then back it up. Start here with the definition and take it from there Lacking definitions to start the defining process, (Disease? Transmitting? etc) I introduce the case of the Ant(See above)! It clearly has a brain dysfunction(Religion?), caused in an unknown way(Meme?) by an invading presence(Transmittor.). So IS religion a disease? YES! It "infects" individuals! They get sick but are in general not killed since they figure in the reproductive process (Preaching?). It is a disease of Society!Killing Scientists,burning litterature ... Religious texts are written by human blood! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pamela Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 If I may cast a short, intuitive observation into this thread... I believe miscommunication is happening here, due to the reification of metaphor. The heart of the back-and-forth debate between Moontanman and Pamela seems to be over the italicized (by me) part of this claim To which Pam challenges Paralysis, in a medical context, refers to the loss of motor function of muscles, so in a technical sense, no part of the brain can be paralyzed. Brain and nerve disorders can cause paralysis, but this too is not the sense I believe MTMan means his statement. Outside of a medical context, paralysis is commonly used to mean unable to initiate a complicated behavior. For example, commentators on James Joyce’s famous 1914 collection of short stories Dubliners, commonly describe its main theme as paralysis, because its many characters are shown, for various reasons, to be unable to take actions to improve their sorry states. Only one character, the dying Father Flyn in the collections first story, The Sisters, is actually suffering from a medical condition involving paralysis. This establishes the metaphorical paralysis of thought and behavior described in the following stories. MTMan’s use of the term paralysis to describe the unwillingness or inability of religionists to reject the belief in God or gods or other supernatural phenomena is, likewise, metaphorical. To the best of my knowledge, no biological pathogen contributes to a person being religious or not – or, more precisely, having a supernaturalistic or naturalistic worldview. Religious belief is, like acceptance of a scientific theory, the result of a reasoning, feeling, and judging mental process. Religious people are not incapable of reason, evidenced by the large body of religious apologetics which, are, by definition, applications of systematic reasoning to support various religious conclusions. Apologetics are not confined to religious beliefs, but rather to any attempt at rigorous rational defense of conclusions not initially arrived at or subsequently proven through axiomatic, formal mean. G. H. Hardy’s 1940 A Mathematician's Apology is a well-known example of a non-religious apologetic. In short, both supernaturalistic and naturalistic people are capable of, and frequently use, rational thought. They just arrive via it at opposite conclusion on the question of the existence of the supernatural. well said craig. I tend to view things literally and surely if moon meant that as a metaphor, i missed it; hence my request for back up.The key question at hand in discussions like this thread’s is not/should not be if supernaturalistic, or naturalistic people, are in some way defective/diseased, but whether it is good or bad for the human species to be religious or non-religious. In a biological context, perpetuating the human species is good, failing to do so is bad. Humans seem to reproduce effectively regardless of their worldview, so I suspect this key question is not a good, meaningful one. Re-asking the question as whether supernaturalism or naturalism is good or bad for sciences is a more complicated question, which I’ll not even attempt to address in this post.I do not find religion a necessity for our species although use of a moral code can be beneficial in providing order Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sigurdV Posted February 2, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 Pamela! A moral code was introduced in our brain/genome by evolution... Reading texts on "Moral" does not in general improve it. But reading might improve our situationin many ways...(Checking what is said.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pamela Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 I looked over my words very carefully and while I might have used milder terms and or possibly more accurate terms I never said it damages the brain, i said religion causes people to stop using reason to filter information and uses religion instead. This is obviously true, the effect is worse in fundamentalists of what ever stripe, but religion it's self demands this suspension of reason. twas the word paralyze...This effect is not limited to the Judeo/Christian/Islamic mythos, many religions far older and with equally extensive writings also reflect this "believe us" and "not reality" problem. The idea that the earth is only 6,000 years old and that god made everything fully formed as we see them today is an established fact on many peoples minds, if that is not a suspension of reason i do not understand your definition of it.It is note worthy that many people do not adhere to the absoluteness of their particular religious book but even more main stream religious still need to suspend reason in some way to believe. okay so you switch to suspend- i can deal with that, but there again it is by choice. Many who once followed religions,have since discarded them. Therefore suspension is or can be temporal. Does a computer virus change the physical structure of your computer? I am not and have not claimed any physical changes in the brain. well thats cool however, inform me as to when you are using metaphors or i will take your words at face value. I am medically minded as you very well know, and neuroscience is something i have been following for many years now. You are missing the point, religion is the source of their inability to reason that just because someone else says they are Muslim or Jewish or Christian of Hindu doesn't mean they are honest. Religion makes them think anyone who shares their world view is honest. this suspension of reason in favor of religion is my point. well i dunno about that, i know many religious folks who will easily toss out the word hypocrisy to their fellow congregants when they have been treated unfairly in business. And forever failing to do so because religion has messed up their ability to reason.i am not even gonna touch this line... :( You can tell by their behavior, they choose to believe things are easily shown to be false but refuse to see them. such as? and what type of behaviour?Then you are looking for the impossible, but the impossible only takes a little longer to show. I am on it...if you do happen to chance upon it, post it in the biotheology thread as well :) No concern, those are facts that show how the religious suspend reason in favor of faith. At no point have I dictated god, at no point have a said it doesn't work, it works quite well. At no time have i dictated what is good or right. I simply stated the obvious, that religion requires some suspension of reason when it comes to information provided by religion books, leaders, and other individuals who claim to be religious.my comment was harsh, i will admit. However stating the obvious to you may not be the obvious to someone else. You claim that religion is harmful and are glad you are free form it. Yet any religious person reading your posts will be put on the defense and reject your words without consideration.If you see religion as a problem, then why not let your words be used to help instead of keeping people in the dark? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pamela Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 Lacking definitions to start the defining process, (Disease? Transmitting? etc) silly, that was in my post to you on the first page of this threadI introduce the case of the Ant(See above)! It clearly has a brain dysfunction(Religion?), caused in an unknown way(Meme?) by an invading presence(Transmittor.). So IS religion a disease? YES! It "infects" individuals! They get sick but are in general not killed since they figure in the reproductive process (Preaching?). It is a disease of Society!Killing Scientists,burning litterature ... Religious texts are written by human blood!you missed your calling in life- you should have been a comedian :P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pamela Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 Pamela! A moral code was introduced in our brain/genome by evolution... Reading texts on "Moral" does not in general improve it. But reading might improve our situationin many ways...(Checking what is said.)wait, wat?what moral genetic code? as early man we let the weak in our tribe die. If we are overly angry we will hurt, maim or kill. We are human animals and nurture only goes so far. So dearest Sig, what do you mean? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sigurdV Posted February 2, 2012 Author Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 1 The key question at hand in discussions like this thread’s is not/should not be if supernaturalistic, or naturalistic people, are in some way defective/diseased, but whether it is good or bad for the human species to be religious or non-religious. 2 In a biological context, perpetuating the human species is good, failing to do so is bad. Humans seem to reproduce effectively regardless of their worldview, so I suspect this key question is not a good, meaningful one. 3 Re-asking the question as whether supernaturalism or naturalism is good or bad for sciences is a more complicated question, which I’ll not even attempt to address in this post. Hi Your Excellency! :) I wish for some more precision on the matters above. On 2: Suppose its good for the species to invade all territories, then religion seems to work only to invade earth (already done)! Science on the other hand may open up the heavens... Then Science wins? :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted February 2, 2012 Report Share Posted February 2, 2012 well said craig. I tend to view things literally and surely if moon meant that as a metaphor, i missed it; hence my request for back up. It was indeed a metaphor, I could have been more clear in that regard. I often speak on metaphors, i think that way as as well... I do not find religion a necessity for our species although use of a moral code can be beneficial in providing order Humans like all social animals have moral codes built in, of course there are always outlying data points and that might be significant, i have had a great many theists ask me how i can keep from going out and raping and pillaging if I don't believe in god. They often credit god with keeping them from doing so. It's a little bit scary to think of that possibility. A moral code was introduced in our brain/genome by evolution... Yes i agree... twas the word paralyze... okay so you switch to suspend- i can deal with that, but there again it is by choice. Many who once followed religions,have since discarded them. Therefore suspension is or can be temporal. yes it is possible to escape the influence of the meme but it's difficult and some studies indicate there might be actual brain differences between true believers and skeptics. well thats cool however, inform me as to when you are using metaphors or i will take your words at face value. I am medically minded as you very well know, and neuroscience is something i have been following for many years now. No problem well i dunno about that, i know many religious folks who will easily toss out the word hypocrisy to their fellow congregants when they have been treated unfairly in business. Like I said it's not a black and white thing there are degrees of this effect. i am not even gonna touch this line... :( Religious apologetics is based in lies, misrepresentations, and out right fabrications of false evidence. Give the best apologetic argument you can think of and I will try and debunk it... :rolleyes: such as? and what type of behaviour? Ummmm believing in Noah's Ark, ignoring the flat earth in the bible, being sure homosexuality is an abomination but ignoring wearing a garment made of mixed threads is also an abomination. Standing on street corners preaching the end is near... if you do happen to chance upon it, post it in the biotheology thread as well :) But of course... my comment was harsh, i will admit. However stating the obvious to you may not be the obvious to someone else. You claim that religion is harmful and are glad you are free form it. Yet any religious person reading your posts will be put on the defense and reject your words without consideration.If you see religion as a problem, then why not let your words be used to help instead of keeping people in the dark? Where did I state i was glad I was free of it? Where did I claim it was harmful? I do have some thoughts along those lines but I haven't stated them here in this thread. wait, wat?what moral genetic code? as early man we let the weak in our tribe die. If we are overly angry we will hurt, maim or kill. We are human animals and nurture only goes so far. So dearest Sig, what do you mean? Actually humans and other hominids seem to have along history of taking care of the weak the old and infirm. Bones that healed back from devastating wounds that the individual had to have been taken care of have been found. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.