Science finds cure for Religion
Discussion
Caesar9 said:
wormburner said:
That's no use. Since you won't have left the church owt in your will, St Peter's not going to be impressed by penniless, dead old angel-you saying "blimey, it's true" at that point. It is VERY important that you give them the money while you're alive.
Even if its on your deathbed, that's ok. When the kindly priest pops round for last rites, and to ask in his gentle way if you want to give him any dosh, just croak "yes". Screw your kids and the donkey sanctuary and buy that ticket.
Looks like I'm going into nothingness then 'cause they're not getting a penny off me.Even if its on your deathbed, that's ok. When the kindly priest pops round for last rites, and to ask in his gentle way if you want to give him any dosh, just croak "yes". Screw your kids and the donkey sanctuary and buy that ticket.
I've always found asking the religious folk why this life isn't enough tends to get them.
If a non-believer like me is going to rot in hell however I behave, but you will get eternal bliss in heaven if you're good for 70 short years, why aren't you any better-behaved and less selfish than I am?
Bedazzled said:
A welcome reference to Deism in a quagmire of baying atheists hacking away at their keyboards. Welcome in that it highlights a distinction between faith in the existence of God, and the pantomime that is man-made organised religion. I wish people wouldn't always equate one with the other.
Steady on there, I think you do many atheists on here a disservice by assuming they never talk about deismBedazzled said:
Derek Smith said:
Do we need gods now that we have science? ... Interventionist gods are far, far from common. In fact at times in the past some christian religions, even the big ones, stated that god doesn't give a damn about us. This period lasted for hundreds of years.
A welcome reference to Deism in a quagmire of baying atheists hacking away at their keyboards. Welcome in that it highlights a distinction between faith in the existence of God, and the pantomime that is man-made organised religion. I wish people wouldn't always equate one with the other.Is it important whether I believe in fairies in the abstract, or in the specific 4 fairies (Tinky Winky, Dipsy, La La and Po) at the bottom of my garden?
Bedazzled said:
I don't agree with the assumption many atheists seem to make that science eradicates the need for faith. I'm no expert but I do take an interest in science, physics in particular, and I think the two can co-exist quite comfortably depending on what you believe 'God' actually means. In fact the more I've thought about it the more inescapable the logic of faith becomes, but that's just a personal choice and doesn't affect anyone else. Religion is another matter...
Is there a need for faith? I can see there is an appeal, but surely there would be measurable differences in the life chances of those with and without faith if those without were lacking something they need?In reality, there's bugger-all difference in the lives of those who do and don't. If there was a need for it, there wouldn't be the necessity to force it on our credulous young before they develop critical reasoning. The young would simply acquire it naturally, were it needed.
Bedazzled said:
A welcome reference to Deism in a quagmire of baying atheists hacking away at their keyboards. Welcome in that it highlights a distinction between faith in the existence of God, and the pantomime that is man-made organised religion. I wish people wouldn't always equate one with the other.
I don't want to bay, but doesn't that mean you've invented your own god? OK, so the pope has done that as well so it's hardly unique. Many people feel that the pope, in suggesting he is god's vicar is a little conceited. Do you think thee is a risk that you, by inventing your own religion, are being the same, if a little poorer I would assume.My feeling is that many of the beleivers in, for instance, catholicism pick and choose. After all, most in the western world, it appears, ignore the demand for fucundity. The majority of couple use some form of contraception. Yet it is, I believe, a mortal sin.
How many believe Mary was a virgin? It is a matter of faith according to the vatican, backing up the pagan romon emporor who invented modern christianity at the first council of Nicea in the 4thC.
So, it would seem, many people invent their own religion, their own god. Probably most.
Bedazzled said:
TheHeretic said:
Another strawman. The point I'm trying to make is that this is a science forum, you can waffle on all you like about religion in The Lounge, but here we should at least be casting a critical eye over the article; but because it says something atheists like (confirmation bias) the discussion immediately turns to the evils of religion. If it were a climate science paper which dared to suggest we should pay more for our petrol then the same people would be all over it like a rash.Just a couple of examples; when the article talks about "religious belief" what are they measuring, faith or religion? how are they measuring it? does the measurement affect the type of processing? etc. The article talks about "distinct" cognitive systems but in fact there is a complicated system of feedback with multiple levels of processing. Take a simple task like reading, the letters you 'see' on the page are influenced by pattern matching words and also the cognitive meaning of previous sentences you already read. If you misread a sentence, is that your intuitive processing or analytic? Shades of grey.
There was a TV programme mentioned on another thread recently which did experiments in this area (the ants finding a new home springs to mind). They demonstrated the feedback mechanisms are flexible and can be influenced, but the cognitive process varies according to the amount of time available to make the decision, rather than a black and white choice of what type of processing to use. They illustrated physiologically separate systems in the brain responsible for different types of vision processing, but the interpretation of meaning relies on all of these integrated together.
I don't agree with the assumption many atheists seem to make that science eradicates the need for faith. I'm no expert but I do take an interest in science, physics in particular, and I think the two can co-exist quite comfortably depending on what you believe 'God' actually means. In fact the more I've thought about it the more inescapable the logic of faith becomes, but that's just a personal choice and doesn't affect anyone else. Religion is another matter...
Bedazzled said:
A welcome reference to Deism in a quagmire of baying atheists hacking away at their keyboards. Welcome in that it highlights a distinction between faith in the existence of God, and the pantomime that is man-made organised religion. I wish people wouldn't always equate one with the other.
YOU mentioned a welcome reference to deism. I think the vast majority on atheist, or secular types in these forums know full well what deism is, and what it means. Your post was unwarranted, and your reference to 'baying atheists hacking away at keyboards' shows that maybe you aren't as objective as you may think.This IS the science forum. Well done. I'm not sure if there is a prize for noticing these things, but you can feel pleased that you may n fact win something. People have talked about the article. It is probably me of the most obvious and 'I could have told you that' articles I've read on the issue, as the difference between belief in the scientific world, and that of the general public is so different, hence me posting the stats for it. It has been suggested for a long time. As for what the article states, yes, an analytical, and rational mind will dismiss religion easier, (be it organized religion,mor the belief in a personal God, or whatever), as there is no rational basis for it.
As for what are they measuring... Belief in God. It says so there in the OP.
Now 'God' is a specific god. Not a deist god, not a Roman or Greek god, but God. The one found in the bible. A personal God. It mentions nothing about religion. Belief in God is a 'faith' issue, not a religious one. Religion is merely the organization around that faith. A club for people with the same faith. As for your shades of grey stuff. Well, I think that is a side issue to what they were examining. It matters not what the analytics stuff is, or if it is cognitive, etc. It is simply examining the level of belief after doing more methodical thinking.
As for your last paragraph. Faith and science are at the opposite ends of a scale. It is not necessarily an 'atheist' thing, it is a logic thing. Science says nothing about God. It has no need to. It can say something about biology, physilogy, and so on, hence the research into the subject in the OP. The only issue is when religion feels it has something to say about science. More often than not, it is taking a small stick into a thermonuclear war. You can say what you want as to what God is, but unless you define it, and say how you know the info, it is unfortunately meaningless.
Bedazzled said:
It's not a side issue it's the central tenet of their claims and it's nonsense. It reads like a 4-year old's simplistic mental model of how the human brain works. Other animals have highly developed intuitive cognitive processing so they can make quick decisions and avoid predators etc, and their analytic processing is less developed. Evolution selects caution, and many superstitions have this basis, but when was the last time you saw your pet cat praying?
What does a cat praying look like? 
Bedazzled said:
It's not a side issue it's the central tenet of their claims and it's nonsense. It reads like a 4-year old's simplistic mental model of how the human brain works. Other animals have highly developed intuitive cognitive processing so they can make quick decisions and avoid predators etc, and their analytic processing is less developed. Evolution selects caution, and many superstitions have this basis, but when was the last time you saw your pet cat praying?
I think you're missing the point of the article there. The article I linked to is essentially quoting interview answers with the study authors and not the study. When talking to a member of the press they are not going to start going into detail about meta-cognition, and critical thinking techniques, as it's pointless and will be missed by the majority of the readership. Hence they simplify it to a level that most people can understand it.Much as it would be nice to think that when I die that won't be it, as scientific discoveries about the human mind advance the more they marginalise the concepts of religion, parapsychology, etc.
wormburner said:
My favourite question is:
If a non-believer like me is going to rot in hell however I behave, but you will get eternal bliss in heaven if you're good for 70 short years, why aren't you any better-behaved and less selfish than I am?
Your favourite question is too lenient if I may say so. The faithful (and by that, on this occasion, I mean those of the Judeo-Christian type) don't even have to be "good for 70 short years". The concept of vicarious redemption allows them to be as bad as they want to be for all of those years and then, at the last minute if it so pleases them, to profess their belief at which point, all sins are forgiven. As simple as that. So a murderer can be saved and still go to heaven. The point is that he is forgiven by God because he is willing to be a sycophant to the idea that he should love the God which he simulatenously fears. He need not seek forgiveness from the family of the person he murdered. Its a tiny glimpse into the midset of the rapist Catholic Priests. Commit your sins freely and then receive pardons, not from the injured party, but from the great daddy in the sky.If a non-believer like me is going to rot in hell however I behave, but you will get eternal bliss in heaven if you're good for 70 short years, why aren't you any better-behaved and less selfish than I am?
Nice isn't it?
ktcanuck said:
Religion is merely a code of practice to apply to the stupid and untamed so that they behave in a less destructive manner. It was promulgated by thoughtful folks who found that fear of the unknown could make people believe. Clever really.
Really? Are you that it hasn't come back and bitten those 'clever' folks on the arse?ktcanuck said:
Religion is merely a code of practice to apply to the stupid and untamed so that they behave in a less destructive manner. It was promulgated by thoughtful folks who found that fear of the unknown could make people believe. Clever really.
I agree but I'm not sure its true that they do behave in a less destructive manner. In fact most destructive acts today and in the past are done in the name of one religion or another. What do they say? "There are good people who do good things and there are wicked people who do wicked things. But for a good person to do wicked things - that takes religion"!http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2012/jan/15/fr...
Another brick in the wall.
Leading scientists and naturalists, including Professor Richard Dawkins and Sir David Attenborough, are claiming a victory over the creationist movement after the government ratified measures that will bar anti-evolution groups from teaching creationism in science classes.
The Department for Education has revised its model funding agreement, allowing the education secretary to withdraw cash from schools that fail to meet strict criteria relating to what they teach. Under the new agreement, funding will be withdrawn for any free school that teaches what it claims are "evidence-based views or theories" that run "contrary to established scientific and/or historical evidence and explanations".
Another brick in the wall.
Leading scientists and naturalists, including Professor Richard Dawkins and Sir David Attenborough, are claiming a victory over the creationist movement after the government ratified measures that will bar anti-evolution groups from teaching creationism in science classes.
The Department for Education has revised its model funding agreement, allowing the education secretary to withdraw cash from schools that fail to meet strict criteria relating to what they teach. Under the new agreement, funding will be withdrawn for any free school that teaches what it claims are "evidence-based views or theories" that run "contrary to established scientific and/or historical evidence and explanations".
Good. andy_s said:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2012/jan/15/fr...
Another brick in the wall.
Leading scientists and naturalists, including Professor Richard Dawkins and Sir David Attenborough, are claiming a victory over the creationist movement after the government ratified measures that will bar anti-evolution groups from teaching creationism in science classes.
The Department for Education has revised its model funding agreement, allowing the education secretary to withdraw cash from schools that fail to meet strict criteria relating to what they teach. Under the new agreement, funding will be withdrawn for any free school that teaches what it claims are "evidence-based views or theories" that run "contrary to established scientific and/or historical evidence and explanations".
About bloody time.Another brick in the wall.
Leading scientists and naturalists, including Professor Richard Dawkins and Sir David Attenborough, are claiming a victory over the creationist movement after the government ratified measures that will bar anti-evolution groups from teaching creationism in science classes.
The Department for Education has revised its model funding agreement, allowing the education secretary to withdraw cash from schools that fail to meet strict criteria relating to what they teach. Under the new agreement, funding will be withdrawn for any free school that teaches what it claims are "evidence-based views or theories" that run "contrary to established scientific and/or historical evidence and explanations".
I could never get my head around having Science lessons in Secondary school that taught one thing, backed up by facts and experimental proof, and then we had to endure (in the first two years anyway) a Religious Education lesson which was totally at odds with the Science lessons.
Talk about buggering up young, teenage minds with conflicting teaching!
Fortunately my 11 year old Psyche decided the religious stuff was all b
ks, so I just spent the lessons sitting at the back, buggering about and drawing sketches of cars in my exercise books 
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff