The Faith & Religion mega Thread

Could be why cats don't get into their heaven...

Only dogs eh?

But seriously, the previous comment about the cats and their "wired" terminator like obsession reminded me of fMRI studies that had been done http://www.pewforum.org/2008/05/05/h...ed-for-belief/

I'd recommend it as reading before anyone else wastes a lot of time in assuming they're actually using their cognitive processes in this thread.

Pee-u """research?""" Wake up!

Originally Posted by enorbet Not even his favorite food would prevent his zombi-like state and total obsession with getting his way. That strategy didn't work for the cat and it won't work for Oregon Jim. Plonkk!

The cat is demonstrating "survival of the fittest" - which is one part of evolution that we can both agree upon.

Originally Posted by mostlyharmless But seriously, the previous comment about the cats and their "wired" terminator like obsession reminded me of fMRI studies that had been done http://www.pewforum.org/2008/05/05/h...ed-for-belief/

I've read dr. Newberg's part only, and skipped the journalists. Interesting talk about religious, political and everyday's beliefs as seen through functional SPECT (which is a nuclear medicine technique, btw, not magnetic resonance). However, in his discussion he completely missed the role of education, of reasoning style, of more solid and verifiable knowledge than the one offered by political speeches and religious traditions. Of course this talk was given at the "Faith Angle Conference", but still.

By the way, here's another interesting study that suggests the existence of «a negative relation between the propensity for analytic reasoning and religious beliefs and practices». Here's the abstract and a quote from the discussion (source and link below):

Abstract - Recent research has indicated a negative relation between the propensity for analytic reasoning and religious beliefs and practices. Here, we propose conflict detection as a mechanism underlying this relation, on the basis of the hypothesis that more-analytic people are less religious, in part, because they are more sensitive to conflicts between immaterial religious beliefs and beliefs about the material world. To examine cognitive conflict sensitivity, we presented problems containing stereotypes that conflicted with base-rate probabilities in a task with no religious content. In three studies, we found evidence that religiosity is negatively related to conflict detection during reasoning. Independent measures of analytic cognitive style also positively predicted conflict detection. The present findings provide evidence for a mechanism potentially contributing to the negative association between analytic thinking and religiosity, and more generally, they illustrate the insights to be gained from integrating individual-difference factors and contextual factors to investigate analytic reasoning.

Although previous research has shown a negative relation between the propensity for analytic thought and supernatural belief (Cheyne & Pennycook, 2013; Gervais & Norenzayan, 2012; Pennycook, Cheyne, et al., 2012; Shenhav et al., 2012), the possible mechanisms underlying this relation, apart from general response slowing (Pennycook et al., 2013), are unknown. The present results suggest that one reason why less-analytic people are more religious is that they are less efficient at detecting and/or reacting to conflict when reasoning about beliefs. Thus, one need not explicitly decide to critically examine religious beliefs. Rather, one's disposition toward analytic thought may determine the likelihood of implicitly detecting conflict between nonmaterial religious beliefs and our understanding of the material world. Under the present hypothesis, the persistence of religious and paranormal claims over history is no surprise; as long as a significant proportion of the population does not reliably detect or react to reasoning conflicts, particularly those as salient as the type used in our base-rate task (Pennycook, Fugelsang, et al., 2012), religious beliefs should remain prominent even as Western society continues to be permeated by scientific naturalism.

Source (PDF): Cognitive style and religiosity: The role of conflict detection (Pennycook et al., University of Waterloo, ON, Canada, 2013)

Another interesting one:

We propose an integrative cognitive neuroscience framework for understanding the cognitive and neural foundations of religious belief. Our analysis reveals 3 psychological dimensions of religious belief (God's perceived level of involvement, God's perceived emotion, and doctrinal/experiential religious knowledge), which functional MRI localizes within networks processing Theory of Mind regarding intent and emotion, abstract semantics, and imagery. Our results are unique in demonstrating that specific components of religious belief are mediated by well-known brain networks, and support contemporary psychological theories that ground religious belief within evolutionary adaptive cognitive functions.

The framework identified in this study reflects the religiosity (or lack of) of members of a modern Western society. Tribal and non-Western religions may differentially engage the cognitive processes and networks identified here or engage novel ones. This conjecture is readily testable in a larger and more religious diverse group of participants under varying ecological conditions. Regardless of whether God exists or not, religious beliefs do exist and can be experimentally studied, as shown in this study.

Source: Cognitive and neural foundations of religious belief (Kapogiannis et al., 2009)

Originally Posted by OregonJim The cat is demonstrating "survival of the fittest"

Hey, this is a forum, not a battlefield.

Originally Posted by OregonJim The list was in a response to enorbet's inaccurate statement: "Science most definitely does NOT postulate that any Intelligence is required. You, Sir, are in error." That a list of scientific journal articles was compiled by someone in support of one position does not somehow invalidate the list itself. Of course the list is biased - that is the intention. It was meant to show the error in the statement above - that intelligent design is not in the realm of science. The intelligent design theory is most definitely a part of science and scientific study, whether he (or anyone) likes it or not. One cannot limit the definition of science to "just the parts I believe". That's called your "faith".

Enorbet is right, as science does not postulate [1] such intelligence. On the other hand, some people and some fringe scientists claim that the existence of a supreme intelligence follows [2] from what they think evolution can and cannot do. But this is not different from the old «I don't believe evolution can do this and that, therefore a creator must exist». Translating this into a pseudo-scientific language doesn't make it science. It should be labeled as a statement belonging to faith [3], a religious belief, no matter how its religion-specific terms are obfuscated.

Besides, if one talks about things like "information", claiming that it can only be created by an intelligent agent, while defining such "information" as something that is created by an intelligent agent, and presenting human creations as examples, then all one's going to have is a nice example of circularity and anthropocentrism. Of course there won't be an answer, unless the "designer" itself decides to show up. But then we should not confuse wishful thinking with science.

Regarding the list of sources, people at the "Discovery Institute" listed only papers supporting their own firm belief, and because of that they didn't have to follow any rule with respect to scientific integrity: on the contrary, they listed what they could use in support of their political agenda (which is clearly presented as well on their website), no matter what the scientific value and relevance of those papers are. That's why the author of the list is relevant to this discussion as well.

[1] postulate vt 2 b: to assume as a postulate or axiom (as in logic or mathematics) (Merriam Webster)
[2] follow vi 2: to result or occur as a consequence, effect, or inference (Merriam Webster)
[3] faith n 2 b: firm belief in something for which there is no proof (Merriam Webster)

I think I posted earlier what on the surface seemed to be a scholarly paper regarding the so-called "God Gene" a genetically transferable gene that predisposes one to spiritual connectivism in the brain. Naturally it is highly controversial but what we need to remember is that it is way too soon to jump to any conclusions. The most powerful seeming evidence comes in sideways from the study of twins with adopted twins (raised in different homes/environments) as a control. Articles based on such studies tend to be quite aggressively firm when studies done at the mechanical level, how genes work, are naturally far more cautious. Thankfully a full University course has been founded on this subject with at least one in California that is well structured, has hi tech equipment available, especially interested in interdisciplinary students, and has been well-received and apparently will be continued. Give them 10 years and they might really have something.

We do have some anecdotal evidence right here in this thread, however. Sundialsvcs speaks of a "still, small voice in the night" and I have not a clue as to what he is talking about, as intelligent and critical as his communications sometimes are and how, in general, he seems to be as a person. Some, and here I won't mention any names to avoid further pointless arguing, seem to be so convinced that it is entirely impossible to break through to even begin to understand why and how they are so certain. I confess that there are extremely few if any subjects upon which I am so convinced the "last word" is in. I find it rather delightful that knowledge can always be furthered even on the most fundamental and mundane issues. To further acknowledgement of how we all embrace many contradictions and are somehow not stopped in our tracks and foaming at the mouth, I also confess to completely bi-polar emotions upon entering a library or book store. At the very same time I am just amazed and delighted at how many books there are.... and then immediately depressed that it is physically impossible to ever read them all. In that case, unless the human race is devastated and vastly reduced in either population or productivity, even Immortality (whatever that is) is probably not a solution.

Hopefully, most of us here do grasp the huge gulf between objectivity and subjectivity and will continue to work to rein in our natural tendencies to anthropomorphize and project (and expect) our predispositions on the world and everyone in it. Maybe that's a beginning point for the argument toward genetic predisposition to the Messianic.

Originally Posted by enorbet Hopefully, most of us here do grasp the huge gulf between objectivity and subjectivity and will continue to work to rein in our natural tendencies to anthropomorphize and project (and expect) our predispositions on the world and everyone in it...

I hope so too. I'm reminded of a psychology paper I came across once which asserted that studies designed by atheists tended to show a positive correlation between religious belief and various emotional problems, whereas those designed by "believers", or by mixed teams, showed no such correlation. It was a pretty old paper (and not in my field), but seemed to make the point well enough about how hard it can be to avoid, or even notice, one's own biases.

So, is it "a neurological problem," or is it"a genetic deficiency," or is it just plain "stupidity," according to these people, to look up at the stars at night and pray?

No, this might be your interpretation, but there's nothing like that in the papers. There are intelligent people who believe in the existence of some supernatural being: apparently, their faith is such that they don't detect any conflict, for whatever reason. For instance, it is not hard for me to understand that what you sometimes refer to as a "still, small voice" is not conflicting, in any way, with what you see and what you already know from non-religious sources. I suspect that if the object of one's faith is abstract enough, then it is possible that there won't be any disturbing conflict, even for a very intelligent and analytical mind.

Let's face it there are better "gods" and worse, some raise satanists to rase. Believe is more a weapon than a placebo (maybe new, new, newer - "testaments" are better but) just look around, I won't pray but please just look!

Oh, I think that all of you can readily-enough anticipate the position from which I intended to speak. The paragraphs cited in an earlier post seemed to me to be unbelievably stuffy and harsh ... in other circles they would be called "racist bigoted," maybe. That is to say, categorically condemning or merely speaking ill of people simply because they had religious feelings or beliefs.

(I don't think that religious feelings are caused by a virus ...)

There are very few things that archaeology has found in every human culture, past or present, that it has ever studied. But, "religion" just happens to be one of those universal things.

Y'know, if one doesn't feel a sense of great wonder at the Universe around you, or even about your own human body, and if you don't sometimes think about what's beyond your senses and/or beyond your own personal space-and-time, then I would probably imagine that there must be something wrong with that person. There's a place for science, and there's a place for religion and for philosophy. It's only when we attempt to disavow ourselves of one-or-another of these things that we get out of balance.

We ought to have confidence in ourselves that we can have multiple feelings and opinions and thoughts about such matters, and I especially think that we should resist the notion of either denigrating someone (or condemning him to a burning Hell or a blood-soaked Judgment Day) for any such reasons. When people start going-off on things like that, my feeling is: "That's not (your) God talking. That's just you (, and you're being an insufferable jerk)."

That seems the pot calling the kettle racist? I'm racist to racism!
Another poll: is racism a big part or one on it's own religion?


The nervous system rocks, ebbs and flows I know! But, when I die won't be letting you...

No, no, no! I was only using a figure of speech!

(And, I guess, not a very good one, since my intended meaning was not clear.)

There's a general class of problem that arises when people make sweeping statements against, or condemnations of, "lots of other people" using factors that don't properly apply. The term, "racism," wasn't the right word.

"bigotry" probably was, and I've taken the liberty to edit my preceding post to use that term.

It isn't a "deficiency" to have religious beliefs, and there's no biological "cause." This is a fundamental part of who we are, as humans, and I think that it's a very precious part.

We are now getting into some delicate areas because while I wholeheartedly agree that merely "having religious beliefs" is not an indicator of any manner of mental deficiency, even if it turns out there is a gene that predisposes one to such sensitivities. However I often wonder about the net effect of teaching children from a position of near God-like authority that Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and a Creator unequivocally exist. It would seem wiser to state it as a personal conclusion like "This is what I believe but each person must decide for himself such deeply personal issues that don't have objective proof. You will likely come to your own conclusion over time as you grow up and become learned". How to properly handle Santa and the Bunny may be more difficult since that results in the knowledge that you were lied to.

At extreme instances I am confident that the whole "God School" thing promoting children to become "Warriors of God" has decidedly negative effects if only that of taking a condescending stance to non-believers (including believers who believe slightly differently). It is exactly this hard line dividing line that is employed whether consciously or subconsciously in extreme racism where the enemy is reduced to a sub-human state by terminology like "gooks" and "slopes" and even "infidels"

This is what I believe but each person must decide for himself such deeply personal issues that don't have objective proof. You will likely come to your own conclusion over time as you grow up and become learned".

Forgive me, but the thought of delivering this speech to a child makes me smile, though not quite break out in hysterical giggling, and by the time your child can abstract to that level, they will already have absorbed your world view together with that of their peers.