|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Jan 21, 2014 7:03:23 GMT -6
I don't believe I've overstated my case. The fact that scientists can pinpoint areas of the brain stimulated by religious beliefs, which is different from nonreligious, indicates a biological basis for religious experience. The article mentioned that this uniquely human experience spans all cultures, I simply stated that all religions are equal in this regard. I'm not the one who introduced soul and spirit into the equation, but I did feel the need to respond. None of us operate in vacuum, so I can anticipate the meaning of Ken's religious code words and his claim that Christianity's perception "of god" was perhaps more noble than a Jediist's perception of "the force". You're ignoring neuroplasticity. Ken's point (minus the "brain dead" comment) is valid: the religious may process through different pathways due to practice rather than innate difference. Perhaps I'm missing some point of yours, but I don't think that this report does anything to strengthen either a religious or a non-religious argument.
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Jan 21, 2014 8:28:16 GMT -6
I don't believe I've overstated my case. The fact that scientists can pinpoint areas of the brain stimulated by religious beliefs, which is different from nonreligious, indicates a biological basis for religious experience. The article mentioned that this uniquely human experience spans all cultures, I simply stated that all religions are equal in this regard. I'm not the one who introduced soul and spirit into the equation, but I did feel the need to respond. None of us operate in vacuum, so I can anticipate the meaning of Ken's religious code words and his claim that Christianity's perception "of god" was perhaps more noble than a Jediist's perception of "the force". You're ignoring neuroplasticity. Ken's point (minus the "brain dead" comment) is valid: the religious may process through different pathways due to practice rather than innate difference. Perhaps I'm missing some point of yours, but I don't think that this report does anything to strengthen either a religious or a non-religious argument. I didn't forget neuroplasticity, which is still offers a biological basis for religious beliefs. Multiple generations of mommies an daddies brainwashing children will cause neural pathways to develop differently from non-religious. Any way you cut it, non-religious patterns are different, even if you apply neuroplasticity to religious/non-religious pathways. It's possible for a non-religious person to suffer trauma and suddenly turn religious, it's all biological regardless of circumstances. If I had a choice between neuroplasticity and the Holy Spirit to account for the differences, which one do you think I'd choose? Which one do you think an evangelical would choose?
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Jan 21, 2014 8:41:10 GMT -6
You're ignoring neuroplasticity. Ken's point (minus the "brain dead" comment) is valid: the religious may process through different pathways due to practice rather than innate difference. Perhaps I'm missing some point of yours, but I don't think that this report does anything to strengthen either a religious or a non-religious argument. I didn't forget neuroplasticity, which is still offers a biological basis for religious beliefs. Multiple generations of mommies an daddies brainwashing children will cause neural pathways to develop. Any way you cut it, non-religious patterns are different, even if you apply neuroplasticity to religious/non-religious pathways. It's possible for a non-religious person to suffer trauma and suddenly turn religious, it's all biological regardless of circumstances. If I had a choice between neuroplasticity and the Holy Spirit to account for the differences, which one do you think I'd choose? Which one do you think an evangelical would choose? Of course belief is biological. What else could it be? I obviously am not trying to make a spiritual point here, and I share your concerns about the indoctrination of children, having been a victim of this myself. Still, I don't see what point you are trying to make. Is it "biological, therefore no god?", or is it something else. At any rate, I don't think that it works.
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Jan 21, 2014 9:28:36 GMT -6
I never said it's all biological, therefore no god. If you search my posts, you'll find a response that said there was an acceptable answer. I alluded to the fact that all religions operate equally well on the same neural pathways, Christianity = Jediism. The other point I made was that non-religious can survive and flourish perfectly well operating within their neural pathways, no religion necessary in that case. For those whose religious beliefs include god micromanaging our lives, this study is a problem from a philosophical perspective, not from a scientific one of course.
Btw, what else could it be other than biological? God given, praise the Lord, the Holy Spirit has filled my body.
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Jan 21, 2014 9:44:15 GMT -6
Btw, what else could it be other than biological? "God given, praise the Lord, the Holy Spirit has filled my body." (content reformatted for clarity) Right, but even if this were the case (and we agree that it is not), the brain would still need to activate in response to (or creation of) the experience. As an aside, most fMRI studies are total bullshit. The information obtained is vague and non-specific--"this area lights up"--but the conclusions of the studies are often incredibly detailed, and coincidentally confirming of the pre-existent biases of the authors. The Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus crap leans on this sort of thing to sell books.
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Jan 21, 2014 11:49:19 GMT -6
fMRI bullshit aside, do you think it was improper for me to push the spiritual/philosophical buttons with Ken? I was just trying to show there's a reasonable biological explanation for being "born again" or spiritually altered(or not) in some way. You and I can agree that everything points to the brain, but I wasn't debating you, I was debating Ken, who likes to point upward on such issues.
|
|
Didn't want to erase everythin
Guest
|
Post by Didn't want to erase everythin on Jan 21, 2014 15:09:33 GMT -6
I believe that is what I have said. 51/49 is hardly a slam dunk. However, I would still hold on that it favors my position for why would evolution create spirituality? We can agree to disagree. As I view it, to say that there is no God is a faith position.
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Jan 21, 2014 15:42:05 GMT -6
Ken, "Evolution created spirituality" ? Evolution explains the process and the results. Life can change, species can become extinct or diverge, all due to ecological changes, predation, and disease. On the spiritual front, evolution traces spiritual timelines going back to Neanderthals and all the way up to modern religious practices. Evolution creates nothing, but explains everything.
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Jan 21, 2014 16:01:08 GMT -6
FB,
"Ok, so far, putting aside the "brain dead" jab. I think you can say, quite reasonably, that the human brain would have to be involved in religious experience, god or no god..." What do you mean by "involved"? There's only one source that interprets religious experience.
|
|
|
Post by ken on Jan 21, 2014 17:45:38 GMT -6
Ken, "Evolution created spirituality" ? Evolution explains the process and the results. Life can change, species can become extinct or diverge, all due to ecological changes, predation, and disease. On the spiritual front, evolution traces spiritual timelines going back to Neanderthals and all the way up to modern religious practices. Evolution creates nothing, but explains everything. Steve, We are back to what happens in so many scientific cases... we see the same information but come to different conclusion. So let me conclude by what facts we have: A part of the brain is used for spirituality--something that has been in existence, as some suggest, since the Neanderthals. Your post suggest it is hard-wired. Was it biologically placed or God placed? No way to know. We do know that most people use that part of the brain and some don't. We can debate the point back and forth (and waste time) or realize that this is as far as we can take this thread. Signing off on this thread-line, Ken
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Jan 21, 2014 18:50:04 GMT -6
fMRI bullshit aside, do you think it was improper for me to push the spiritual/philosophical buttons with Ken? I was just trying to show there's a reasonable biological explanation for being "born again" or spiritually altered(or not) in some way. You and I can agree that everything points to the brain, but I wasn't debating you, I was debating Ken, who likes to point upward on such issues. Ken is such an unrepentant button pusher that none of us will ever owe him an apology on that score, but given that he generally operates in a nearly fact-free zone, where's the harm in pointing out that he read and commented on a paper rationally?
|
|