Least and most religious nations

[thir]

If the suppliers don't provide quality products, consumers don't, or at least shouldn't, buy them.

However, things are just not that easy. How do your know if a product is quality, or even safe? Do you think the ads will tell you? I recently posted an article about medicine, and how the medicinal industry largely control release of their products, safe or not, useful or not. That is just one example.

You can do things in some cases, but first you have to know.

And I am sick and tired of hearing people complain about the corporations making profits.

Then stop reading about it. Nobody is forcing you.

That's what corporations are there for! It's what they do! If you want to develop a product, manufacture it, sell it and not make a profit at it, then I have to think the problem lies with you, and not with those who DO make a profit. How many people are willing to work for just enough money to pay their bills, with nothing left for extras? No movie tickets, no restaurant outings, no cable TV. Just food and housing, the basic necessities. Yet this is exactly what they expect the corporations to do: make no profits, nothing above the cost of actually doing business. That's just silly, and selfish.

Poor little coporations - how they must suffer! ;-)

[Thorne]

However, things are just not that easy. How do your know if a product is quality, or even safe? Do you think the ads will tell you? I recently posted an article about medicine, and how the medicinal industry largely control release of their products, safe or not, useful or not. That is just one example.

You can do things in some cases, but first you have to know.

One way is to do the research, something which is vastly easier, on the consumer level, due to the access granted by the internet. Check out consumer groups, look for others who have tried the product, develop a list of "trusted" producers that you will be more likely to purchase from. For example, I enjoy eating fresh peaches. We generally buy those which are grown locally, and they are generally delicious. At one point, when the local supply was gone, my wife bought some peaches which had been imported from Chile. They were terrible! We don't buy those kinds of peaches anymore.

Granted, you can't always know everything you need to know, but people have to stop blaming corporations and take a little responsibility on themselves to find out.

Then stop reading about it. Nobody is forcing you.

Touche! <grin> But if I stop reading about it I can't argue about it. And that's more than half the fun.

[Thorne]

The biological need for the spiritual itch to be scratched is a perplexing one, its as much a part of our hardware as any other component of human pycology according to the latest reaserch.

What do you mean by "spiritual itch"? In fact, what do you mean by spiritual anything? I hear, and see, people using that word all the time and it seems to mean just about anything the user wants it to mean.

What is spiritual? How do you measure it? How do you touch it? You mention a spiritual itch, and all I can think of is that annoying itch I sometimes get that seems to keep moving around whenever I try to scratch it. leo9 talks of a 'spiritual path', which conjures up images of hippies sitting around getting high while pretending to make some magical journey into Neverland or something.

As near as I can figure, spirituality is something like virtual reality, in that it seems to be real but isn't. It has the appearance of truth, but is all smoke and mirrors. There's nothing there to grab hold of, nothing to feel, nothing at all. It's like eating virtual food: looks good, but doesn't fill your stomach.

How does one follow a spiritual path? Are there spiritual hiking boots to protect your feet? Will spiritual camping equipment be needed, or is this a one day spiritual hike? What about spiritual protection against spiritual dangers?

So many questions, and no meaningful answers.

[thir]

What do you mean by "spiritual itch"?

I would guess that the fact that some people cannot be content with a full stomach, and loads of gadgets.

[Thorne]

I would guess that the fact that some people cannot be content with a full stomach, and loads of gadgets.

Yes, I see. They always want more, more, more. Just like those corporations they complain about.

[thir]

Quote Originally Posted by thir View Post
I would guess that the fact that some people cannot be content with a full stomach, and loads of gadgets.

Yes, I see. They always want more, more, more. Just like those corporations they complain about.

I walked into that one, didn't I? :-)

But you know that what I meant was that some cannot be content or happy simply by not starving or having lots of toys.

Even if you rule out religion, there are needs that are not strictly material. The material ones are more or less food, shelter, safety, sex.

But there are others. Fellowships/friendship, respect, self/respect, freedom, self-actualization - and so on.

Marlowe adds others, morality, for instance.

What about creativity, musicality? Where does that come from?

And we are on the way to spirituality.

[lucy]

The biological need for the spiritual itch to be scratched is a perplexing one, its as much a part of our hardware as any other component of human pycology according to the latest reaserch.

Says who? I haven't been researched. Nobody ever researches me. That's probably why the come up with that. Dammit!
I don't feel no spiritual itch. I sometimes feel an itch between my legs, but that usually goes away with a good hearty screwing, so I guess it's not spiritual.

[denuseri]

According to reaserchers in California:

"Is humankind hardwired to be spiritual? Recent research suggests that we just might be, as scientists from the University of Udine in Italy identify areas of the brain in which levels of activation regulate spirituality. This study, published in the February 11 issue of the journal Neuron, serves as a first step in pinpointing the biological root of spiritual and religious feelings. Looking for a direct link between neural activity and spiritualism, Dr. Cosimo Urgesi and his colleagues interviewed eighty-eight cancer patients with brain tumors of varying severities before and after their surgeries. They discovered that the people who had tumors removed in the left and right posterior parietal regions of the brain showed a considerable increase in self-transcendence. Though spirituality in many ways is seen as separate from religion, both incorporate a complex of attitudes and behaviors relating to a transcendent human condition. Religious beliefs and practices have been a source of succor and conflict for nearly all of recorded human history, making this study significant in that it paves the path for future investigation that can advance our understanding of the neurobiological reasoning behind disparate outlooks on spirituality. While some experts discourage comparing the neural mechanisms involved in spirituality with those of religious practices, the causative link between brain functioning level and state of transcendence should be further pursued as it may lead to answers of why humans are religious, and potentially reveal our genetic predisposition for belief."

"Previous reports confirm the relationship between spirituality and frontal, parietal, and temporal cortexes. In particular, the brain's right parietal lobe defines the aspect of "me." According to Brick Johnstone, a neuropsychologist at University of Missouri, this region assesses the body's position and location in space. Any modifications to the area would disrupt this awareness and feelings of individuality would fade. In essence, the sensation of transcendence would be heightened. By comparing imaging of damaged brains and the subjects self-described spirituality, one study, published in the journal Zygon in 2008, provides evidence that people with less active parietal lobes (i.e., "Me-Definers") are more likely to be spiritual. However, the research conducted by Dr. Urgesi is the first to suggest a causative link. His team surveyed the spirituality of a person by scoring their level of self-transcendence, which is an allegedly unvarying personality trait that abstractedly reflects a decreased ability to sense individual self and largely identify oneself as incorporated with the universe. In order to gauge self-transcendence (or ST), patients underwent formal interviews focusing on their level of religiosity, report of personal mystical experiences or extrasensorial consciousness (including the presence of God), and acceptance of their illness. "Damage to posterior parietal areas induced unusually fast changes of a stable personality dimension related to transcendental self-referential awareness," Dr. Urgesi concluded. Because a specific area of the brain closely controls this trait, spirituality and religious behaviors may be a direct result of diminished activity in the parietal area."

In other words...since people are spiritual and religious and any number of other things, and since in science we have found that structure equals function in all things from basic atomic principles to higher brain function...then there must be a physical area of the brain that governs said spiritualism and religion and any other number of human enmotive responses to stimuli.

Ergo we are to a certian degree "hardwired" to be what we are.

[Thorne]

Ergo we are to a certian degree "hardwired" to be what we are.

Perhaps that's true, perhaps not. Hard to tell at this point. But even if it were true, what does that mean? After all, men are "hardwired" to be polygamous. People are "hardwired" to kill enemies. There are numerous traits which can be considered to be "hardwired" in our brains, yet we have the ability to overcome them. That's a part of being human, too.

Just because there was once a survival advantage in believing in the supernatural doesn't mean that we must still do so. As humans haven't we advanced to the point where such simplistic explanations for the world around us are no longer necessary? And perhaps no longer advantageous. We no longer can afford to believe that mumbling a few trite phrases will help us to overcome disease and adversity. There are better ways which actually work. Our survival, MY survival right now, is dependent upon those rational methods of curing disease. No gods are going to help me, or you, or anyone else. Doctors and medicine and science just might.

[thir]

Perhaps that's true, perhaps not. Hard to tell at this point. But even if it were true, what does that mean? After all, men are "hardwired" to be polygamous. People are "hardwired" to kill enemies. There are numerous traits which can be considered to be "hardwired" in our brains, yet we have the ability to overcome them. That's a part of being human, too.

There is absolutely no scientific evidence that we have such a hard-wirering.

Nor for listening to the rich, nor that seeking profit at all costs is a human trait we absolutely must obey

Just because there was once a survival advantage in believing in the supernatural doesn't mean that we must still do so.

What advantage was that?

As humans haven't we advanced to the point where such simplistic explanations for the world around us are no longer necessary?

I don't know..this hard-wire thing for one seems pretty simplistic to me. And so do a good many other manipulative, simplistic ideas and slogans.

And perhaps no longer advantageous. We no longer can afford to believe that mumbling a few trite phrases will help us to overcome disease and adversity.

Why not? In so many places that is all people have.

There are better ways which actually work. Our survival, MY survival right now, is dependent upon those rational methods of curing disease. No gods are going to help me, or you, or anyone else. Doctors and medicine and science just might.

For those who can afford it, you mean.
Other methods are used by people who cannnot, and some of them work, even if not a part of Western medicine.

[Thorne]

There is absolutely no scientific evidence that we have such a hard-wirering.

Of course not. We call it reflex (such as "fight or flight"), or instinct, or innate ability. Kinda hard to have hard wiring in a soft and squishy brain.

What advantage was that?

Who knows? Perhaps declaring a place to be the "abode of the gods" was a good way to keep people from walking in places where they could be killed. Maybe it just made people feel good to believe there were powerful beings looking out for them. Why do we consider it bad luck to walk under a ladder? It isn't, really. It could be dangerous, though.

I don't know..this hard-wire thing for one seems pretty simplistic to me. And so do a good many other manipulative, simplistic ideas and slogans.

It IS simplistic. It's a metaphor for autonomic responses in our brains. And those manipulative ideas and slogans try to access those responses and nudge people to move in a particular direction.

Why not? In so many places that is all people have.

Because it has been shown that such things do not really work! We need to make sure people have things which DO work.

For those who can afford it, you mean.

I'm not going to get into the whole poverty issue here.

Other methods are used by people who cannnot, and some of them work, even if not a part of Western medicine.

See my response to denuseri, above, regarding acupuncture.

[thir]

This is a most interesting article, but like so many of its kind, it is all up to the journalist to get it right, and they don't always, or they do not think people are interested in the details.

It would be interesting to know if Cosimo Urgesi is religious himself, just wondering because lately I have seen a number of articles on research on various matters concerning religion or belief, among which one on belief and health, and they were all sponsored by a Christian organisation. But maybe it is a trend in research.
It also has a bearing on what questions he asked in the survey.

I wonder what was his reason for asking his informers about both religion and sprituality, seeng how the article shows that it is debated whether the two should be kept apart.

I miss a proper definition on religion, and much more one on spirituality! Also on 'self-transcendence,' and 'a transcendant human condition'.

It does say that the team surveyed 'the spirituality of a person by scoring their level of self-transcendence, which is an allegedly unvarying personality trait that abstractedly reflects a decreased ability to sense individual self and largely identify oneself as incorporated with the universe.'

So, by way of asking, he is trying to determine an alleged trait which abstractedly reflects a decreased awareness of self, and a larger identification of being one with the universe.

So, if he sees spirtuality as being sort of the opposite of an awareness of self, why does he not continue to use purely scientific methods to investigate that?

Right back in the 60's it was discovered that people who meditated had different brain waves from people who were sleeping, or awake.
There are lots of situations where people loose track of self: apart from meditating, being creative or seriously intent on something, listening to music, or being completely exhuasted, for instance. It would be easy enough to measure people's brain waves during such situations, wouldn't it? And much more reliable.

I can understand that spirituality is seen as having to do with a feeling being one with the universe - after all we are made of the same stuff, and it is not to be wondered if that can be felt. Indeed, it can.

But why does he see a sense of self as versus transcendence? As if you have more of one, you must have less of the other, and vice verca.
The way I see it, they are just two different mind sets.

I know this is not what is meant, but it seems to be that he is saying that religion comes from brain damage!

According to reaserchers in California:

"Is humankind hardwired to be spiritual? Recent research suggests that we just might be, as scientists from the University of Udine in Italy identify areas of the brain in which levels of activation regulate spirituality. This study, published in the February 11 issue of the journal Neuron, serves as a first step in pinpointing the biological root of spiritual and religious feelings. Looking for a direct link between neural activity and spiritualism, Dr. Cosimo Urgesi and his colleagues interviewed eighty-eight cancer patients with brain tumors of varying severities before and after their surgeries. They discovered that the people who had tumors removed in the left and right posterior parietal regions of the brain showed a considerable increase in self-transcendence. Though spirituality in many ways is seen as separate from religion, both incorporate a complex of attitudes and behaviors relating to a transcendent human condition. Religious beliefs and practices have been a source of succor and conflict for nearly all of recorded human history, making this study significant in that it paves the path for future investigation that can advance our understanding of the neurobiological reasoning behind disparate outlooks on spirituality. While some experts discourage comparing the neural mechanisms involved in spirituality with those of religious practices, the causative link between brain functioning level and state of transcendence should be further pursued as it may lead to answers of why humans are religious, and potentially reveal our genetic predisposition for belief."

"Previous reports confirm the relationship between spirituality and frontal, parietal, and temporal cortexes. In particular, the brain's right parietal lobe defines the aspect of "me." According to Brick Johnstone, a neuropsychologist at University of Missouri, this region assesses the body's position and location in space. Any modifications to the area would disrupt this awareness and feelings of individuality would fade. In essence, the sensation of transcendence would be heightened. By comparing imaging of damaged brains and the subjects self-described spirituality, one study, published in the journal Zygon in 2008, provides evidence that people with less active parietal lobes (i.e., "Me-Definers") are more likely to be spiritual. However, the research conducted by Dr. Urgesi is the first to suggest a causative link. His team surveyed the spirituality of a person by scoring their level of self-transcendence, which is an allegedly unvarying personality trait that abstractedly reflects a decreased ability to sense individual self and largely identify oneself as incorporated with the universe. In order to gauge self-transcendence (or ST), patients underwent formal interviews focusing on their level of religiosity, report of personal mystical experiences or extrasensorial consciousness (including the presence of God), and acceptance of their illness. "Damage to posterior parietal areas induced unusually fast changes of a stable personality dimension related to transcendental self-referential awareness," Dr. Urgesi concluded. Because a specific area of the brain closely controls this trait, spirituality and religious behaviors may be a direct result of diminished activity in the parietal area."

In other words...since people are spiritual and religious and any number of other things, and since in science we have found that structure equals function in all things from basic atomic principles to higher brain function...then there must be a physical area of the brain that governs said spiritualism and religion and any other number of human enmotive responses to stimuli.

Ergo we are to a certian degree "hardwired" to be what we are.

All people are not religious, and many would not say that they are spiritual either.
I do think that there is no basis for any theory of 'hard-wireing' of us. It sis an expression that has been so abused lately.

My own personal conviction is that we are all spiritual, in the sense that we are made of the same stuff as our surroundings, and that I think that if you want, you can feel it.

[leo9]

You are aware that the article you are quoting from is headlined "Selective Brain Damage Modulates Human Spirituality, Research Reveals" - or put more simply, as the authors explicitly say in the text, brain damage makes us religious? I don't think that was the message you wanted to convey!

According to reaserchers in California:

"Is humankind hardwired to be spiritual? Recent research suggests that we just might be

Maybe some research does, but this doesn't, except inasmuch as having colour vision and depth perception "hardwires" us to perceive beauty in a sunset. There is a world of difference between having the neural hardware to do something, and having the emotional and intellectual software to do it.

To take a safely materialistic example: it was believed for centuries (on the basis of the same sort of symptom-lesion studies as this) that the organ called Brocca's Area was key to human speech, to the point where paleologists used it as the test of whether a newly found species could talk. Then more careful research found that most of the activity associated with speech took place in quite different places. It's now suspected that Brocca's Area may be some sort of motor control: without it you can't form words, but you can have it and still be incapable of speech.

I am even more suspicious of using lesion studies to track down something as fuzzy and ill defined as spirituality. But even if they could find which areas are active in those mental processes we call spiritual, that would tell us exactly as much as identifying Brocca's Area told us about how we can deliver speeches that make people angry or poetry that makes people weep.

Though spirituality in many ways is seen as separate from religion, both incorporate a complex of attitudes and behaviors relating to a transcendent human condition. Religious beliefs and practices have been a source of succor and conflict for nearly all of recorded human history, making this study significant in that it paves the path for future investigation that can advance our understanding of the neurobiological reasoning behind disparate outlooks on spirituality. While some experts discourage comparing the neural mechanisms involved in spirituality with those of religious practices, the causative link between brain functioning level and state of transcendence should be further pursued as it may lead to answers of why humans are religious, and potentially reveal our genetic predisposition for belief."

There are so many contradictions and unexamined assumptions in that passage that I'm surprised it made it into a scientific journal: probably because it was peer-reviewed by doctors, not by philosophers. They start by recognising that spirituality and religion are apples and oranges, then go right ahead and add them up and get the answer in pears.

"Previous reports confirm the relationship between spirituality and frontal, parietal, and temporal cortexes. In particular, the brain's right parietal lobe defines the aspect of "me." According to Brick Johnstone, a neuropsychologist at University of Missouri, this region assesses the body's position and location in space. Any modifications to the area would disrupt this awareness and feelings of individuality would fade. In essence, the sensation of transcendence would be heightened. By comparing imaging of damaged brains and the subjects self-described spirituality, one study, published in the journal Zygon in 2008, provides evidence that people with less active parietal lobes (i.e., "Me-Definers") are more likely to be spiritual.

That is actually an interesting point, and there's been some fascinating research into this using magnetic effects to temporarily disrupt parietal function. But there's a big unanswered question about whether the level of activity in a particular brain area is physically caused ("hard-wired") or simply indicates that the way that particular personality works is currently making less use of that area.

When I'm using this PC, the graphics card has much less activity than when my game-playing son does. The PC's physical ability to do fast high-res graphics is the same, I just don't use it. Is someone with a less active parietal area less "me-defined" because they don't have the hardware for it, or is their personality just using the "me-definer" less? The answer you get may depend on whether you're a neurologist or a psychologist.

His team surveyed the spirituality of a person by scoring their level of self-transcendence, which is an allegedly unvarying personality trait that abstractedly reflects a decreased ability to sense individual self and largely identify oneself as incorporated with the universe.

Emphasis added! That's the first time I've seen a scientist use "allegedly" like a tabloid journalist. Maybe he hoped nobody would notice it in all that high-level waffle.

In order to gauge self-transcendence (or ST), patients underwent formal interviews focusing on their level of religiosity, report of personal mystical experiences or extrasensorial consciousness (including the presence of God),

None of which are the things which he claims to have a mechanism for linking to parietal fucntion, so he's out on a limb already. In particular, experiences of the presence of God(s) by definition don't involve loss of awareness of self, because there must be a self to be meeting God: self-transcenders don't meet God, they become one with God. I doubt if this researcher groks the difference; the full text of the article clearly implies that he's a hardcore materialist trying to prove that religious experiences are just brain malfunctions. In the hope of curing them? Thorne, you should sponsor this research!

[thir]

Thorne, you should sponsor this research!

Except it isn't very scientific!

[Thorne]

Thorne, you should sponsor this research!

If I only had the money!

But then, I think I'd rather buy an island in the middle of the Pacific, far away from anyone. Just me and my harem.

The problem I have with this kind of research, and this kind of discussion actually, is the tossing about of the terms 'spirituality' and 'transcendence' as if they were real, measurable effects. I'm not so sure that they are. Place three people in a room and you're liable to get four different descriptions of spirituality. What one person might consider a spiritual, or transcendent, experience, another will consider to be a pretty good high. Almost every description of such an experience which I have ever heard could have come just as easily from a drug or alcohol abuser. Could this tie in with the implication that such things are a construct of a damaged brain? Or, like you on the PC, from someone who is not using the full potential of their brain? I don't know that I'd want to go quite that far, but it does tend to imply that any such spiritual experiences are constructs of the mind, and not of some outside, supernatural origin.

[thir]

The problem I have with this kind of research, and this kind of discussion actually, is the tossing about of the terms 'spirituality' and 'transcendence' as if they were real, measurable effects. I'm not so sure that they are. Place three people in a room and you're liable to get four different descriptions of spirituality. What one person might consider a spiritual, or transcendent, experience, another will consider to be a pretty good high. Almost every description of such an experience which I have ever heard could have come just as easily from a drug or alcohol abuser.

Which is why the debated research with Urgesi is out the window!

[denuseri]

Being spiritual may be no different in medical terms than one's sexual prefrerence is my point.

As for your apparently biological compulsion to continuous attack, smear, and use sophistry when addressing people of religious faith I can only say that I am sorry you feel the need to belittle others in such fashion and scincerely hope and pray that one day you come to respect the belief systems of others as you would wish for them to respect your own.

I have pointed out a corolation between the level of social wellfare and the level of of reported religious adherence being the primary cuasitive effect involved in the relationship between church and state and I have provided further support for this contention found by medical reaserchers and other scientiests conserning the physical structures in the brain that directly corolate to religious orinetated adherences expounding upon how intellegent people of learning can and do still follow their beliefs in said manner.

In fact...some of the worlds smartest people...leading scientists in every field of study...are religious and some contend that they have no logical reason to be otherwise.

The fact that the more advanced a countries level of science is, and its level of prosperity in general apparently plays little in how many people are reported to follow a religion or claim to be spiritual only gives further evidence to my argument as to the real cuases.


Perhaps instead of putting down all people of faith we could discuss the topic for a change?

[Thorne]

[B][COLOR="pink"]Being spiritual may be no different in medical terms than one's sexual prefrerence is my point.

Perhaps that's true, though the evidence for either of these statements is far from conclusive. A lot of study must still be done before we can accept those hypotheses as proven.

But even if it were true, what does it mean? It's still not evidence for gods or other supernatural beings, any more than it's evidence for Santa Clause or unicorns. If it's true must we now release all those currently housed in asylums who believe they are Jesus Christ, or who believe they are angels? Does it mean that people who kill others because "God told me to" should be considered innocent of their crimes? No, it only means that there was some kind of evolutionary advantage to believing in invisible beings of immense power. It doesn't mean that such belief is endowed upon us by those beings.

As for your apparently biological compulsion to continuous attack, smear, and use sophistry when addressing people of religious faith I can only say that I am sorry you feel the need to belittle others in such fashion and scincerely hope and pray that one day you come to respect the belief systems of others as you would wish for them to respect your own.

I'm afraid I don't agree with your assessment of my actions, unless you think that NOT believing in your particular gods constitutes an attack. I do, and will continue to, attack religious organizations, which I feel are generally perversions of faith rather than caretakers of it. Personally, I have no quarrel with those who profess a faith, as long as they don't claim it to be the one TRUE faith.

I have pointed out a corolation between the level of social wellfare and the level of of reported religious adherence being the primary cuasitive effect involved in the relationship between church and state and I have provided further support for this contention found by medical reaserchers and other scientiests conserning the physical structures in the brain that directly corolate to religious orinetated adherences expounding upon how intellegent people of learning can and do still follow their beliefs in said manner.

Correlation does not mean causation. The USA, for example, has one of the highest rates of religious adherence in the world, yet one of the lowest levels of social welfare. And even a cursory look at the politics of this country will show that the religious right are the ones fighting hardest against any social welfare. The Catholic Church (which I use as an example because it is the one I am most familiar with) is directly responsible for the deaths of thousands, if not millions, of AIDS victims because of its proscription of the use of condoms, not to mention its outright lies regarding their effectiveness. Many religious organizations are misogynistic in nature, assigning a lower status to women simply because of their sex. And what of those religious organizations, and people, who advocate against the rights of homosexuals? Those same homosexuals whom you are willing to admit might be genetically predisposed to be what they are. How are any of these things consistent with social welfare?

In fact...some of the worlds smartest people...leading scientists in every field of study...are religious and some contend that they have no logical reason to be otherwise.

Rather say that some of the world's smartest people still have faith. Few are actually religious, as in following a specific religious organization. But even granting your comments: so what? At one point the smartest people in the world believed the Earth was flat, and held up on the backs of turtles. Does that make it so?

The fact that the more advanced a countries level of science is, and its level of prosperity in general apparently plays little in how many people are reported to follow a religion or claim to be spiritual only gives further evidence to my argument as to the real cuases.

Sorry, I don't see how that has any bearing on it. People are generally raised from birth in a specific religion. Breaking away from it is very hard, especially when it could result in alienation from a community or even a family. I would say, rather, that some people retain their religions against all evidence, despite the higher level of science or their level of prosperity. Whether or not they actually retain their faith, though, is a different story. I wonder how many of the people who attend services every week are really true believers, and how many are just going through the motions because it's something they've always done? I think the number of the latter would surprise a lot of people. But how do you get people to admit that?

Perhaps instead of putting down all people of faith we could discuss the topic for a change?

I thought I was! But all right, let's try this:
How much money did American churches spend to try to keep homosexuals from having equal rights, illegally involving them in politics? Don't you think that money could have better been spent to help homeless people? Where is the social welfare?
How many different religious institutions actively fought against the idea of women's rights? How many still keep women in virtual slavery? Where is the social justice?
Throughout history you can find religious organizations not at the forefront of advancement, but fighting savagely against any advancement. Europe's feudal system could not have been maintained were it not for the Catholic Church bolstering the nobility. Any study will show that billions of people throughout history and around the world suffered far more due to the teachings of religious organizations than were helped by those teachings. Religion has been proven to be the most effective means for controlling a population, capitalizing on that genetic predisposition to believe in things which are not there. So show me how that is a benefit to people.

And I still have no idea what you, or anyone, means by 'spirituality'. What is a spiritual experience? How does it differ from a physical experience? And, most importantly to me, how do you know it really happened?

[Thorne]

denuseri,

Apropos of your statements regarding the brain's structure, this was posted today.

Taking a few comments from there:
"The older brain --built by natural selection for solving survival challenges -was not built for rationality. Emotions like fear, love, rage, even hope or anticipation, were selected for because they helped early mammals flourish. Fear is a great prod to escape predators, for example, and aggression is useful in the defense of resources and offspring. Care or feelings of love (oxytocin and opioid based) strengthen bonds between mammal parents and offspring, and so on. Emotions are in many cases quicker ways to solve problems than deliberative cognition."

"People who critique such emotional responses and strategies with the refrain "But is it true?" are missing the point. I agree with the atheists: Most religious beliefs are not true. But here's the crux. The emotional brain doesn't care."

"Science and rationality are not best suited to navigate some of those crags and chasms of feeling, but other human cultural tools (like religion and art) can engage them effectively."

Anyway, I think this says what I was saying, though more eloquently. Our brains have developed to respond to things, even things which might not be true. That doesn't mean that gods exist. It only means that we can understand WHY people think gods may exist. Because it makes them feel good. It would be just as rational to proclaim that ice cream is a gift from heaven, just because it tastes so good.

[denuseri]

I think you have missed the boat entirely here and are still on an anti religion/faith rant Thorne and quotes provided by you from well known biased atheist iconoclastic demegouges really dont lend any wieght to such arguments.



The corolation between levels of religious adherence in any given state and its level of social welfare is an inverse one.

In other words the higher the level of social welfare...the lower the level of religious adherence.

All the other factors you have mentioned as possible cuasitive agents have proven to be spurious in so far as providing any single catagorically aplicable cuasative arangment.

[Thorne]

I think you have missed the boat entirely here and are still on an anti religion/faith rant Thorne and quotes provided by you from well known biased atheist iconoclastic demegouges really dont lend any wieght to such arguments.

Ahh, so I should be quoting FATHEIST iconoclastic demagogues? The ones who basically agree with you? Seems to be counterproductive, from my point of view.

The corolation between levels of religious adherence in any given state and its level of social welfare is an inverse one.
In other words the higher the level of social welfare...the lower the level of religious adherence.

I must have misunderstood what you were saying. I thought you were implying a direct correlation, not an inverse one. I agree with you about that. Which, again, doesn't say all that much for religious organizations.

All the other factors you have mentioned as possible cuasitive agents have proven to be spurious in so far as providing any single catagorically aplicable cuasative arangment.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. Would you please clarify this statement?

[denuseri]

All Im trying to point out is:

A countires overall level of wealth and prosperity apparently have little to do with the level of religious adherence reported.

Where as...the higher the degree of social wellfare imployed, the lower the religious adherence.

Which suggests that whatever it is that religion was providing for these people is being replaced by something else now...what that something is, shrugs...I don't know as of yet, I hope its not overindulgence is all.

That its a need being replaced as opposed to some kind of evolutionary change in human thinking is also part of this imho and there is plenty of evidence in a number of studies out there from non-biased scources to support that observation...I only provided one source to support it.

Furthermore:

I never used some pro-religious/biased anti atheist or vice versa scource for anything Ive postulated in the thread and I didnt see any reason for anyone else to eaither, nor have I tried to highjack the thread (and any other thread with the merest mention of the word religion or faith in it) and use it as some kind of bully pulpit to bash someone elses belief system whatever it may be and cant for the life of me figure out why someone would still continue to do so at every opportunity throughout the forums.





Ive said pretty much all I can say about this topic now.

Good day to you.

[Thorne]

Which suggests that whatever it is that religion was providing for these people is being replaced by something else now

Or perhaps it suggests that, by meeting the physical needs of people, their "spiritual" needs are placed into perspective, and no longer seem as important to them.

That its a need being replaced as opposed to some kind of evolutionary change in human thinking is also part of this imho and there is plenty of evidence in a number of studies out there from non-biased scources to support that observation.

I don't claim that there is an evolutionary change in thinking at all. In an evolutionary sense we are predisposed towards believing in these kinds of things. I think it's more a change in education, not filling young minds with religious dogma from day 1, which makes the biggest difference. And there are plenty of studies, from all over, to support that!

nor have I tried to highjack the thread (and any other thread with the merest mention of the word religion or faith in it) and use it as some kind of bully pulpit to bash someone elses belief system whatever it may be and cant for the life of me figure out why someone would still continue to do so at every opportunity throughout the forums.

I have never tried to hijack any threads, and I try not to bring religion into the topic unless someone else has. I can't say I haven't done it inadvertently, but certainly not deliberately. But this is, after all, a religion and philosophy forum, so it's natural that religion will have some part in almost any topic here, I would think. I'm only sorry that you take any negative comments about religion as a personal attack. I certainly never meant for any of my comments to be taken personally.

[denuseri]

But there is no direct cuasitive link that hasnt been shown to be spurious that applies catagorically between educational levels and religious adherence.

[thir]

But there is no direct cuasitive link that hasnt been shown to be spurious that applies catagorically between educational levels and religious adherence.

True - as far as I know.
But I think that education is good in that it releases the strangle-hold of dogmatic religion on many, leaving whatever religion people choose to have optional. I mean, their own choice and decision.

[Thorne]

But I think that education is good in that it releases the strangle-hold of dogmatic religion on many, leaving whatever religion people choose to have optional. I mean, their own choice and decision.

This is basically what I have been saying all along. Learning about how religions work, especially the dogmatic ones, will tend to turn people away from such religions. Not from faith, necessarily, but certainly from the harsh, mind-warping effects of those religions. It's one reason they start teaching children early, so that they grow up believing before they have a chance to learn whether what they believe is actually true or not.

[denuseri]

Sometimes eastrn medical procedures qi gong, acupunture etc...work where the west's prefered treaments ALL failed.

[Thorne]

Sometimes eastrn medical procedures qi gong, acupunture etc...work where the west's prefered treaments ALL failed.

From here: "The evidence from both personal testimony and from scientific studies clearly shows that acupuncture works and is an effective medical treatment for many ailments. The evidence from the scientific studies also shows clearly that sham acupuncture is just as effective as true acupuncture. What is not so clear to some people, but is easily ferreted out from the evidence, is that acupuncture most likely works by classical conditioning and other factors that are often lumped together and referred to as "the placebo effect." Furthermore, in some cases sham acupuncture works better than other placebos."

Some of the "traditional" medicines really do work. Pharmaceutical companies investigated them, determined WHY they worked, then made easily accessible substitutes for them. When you have a headache you can always go out to find a willow tree, strip off the bark and boil up a nice tea to make the headache go away. Or you can take a couple of aspirin, which has the same active ingredient. Perhaps the first method will be cheaper, but the second is far more convenient.

Many more treatments and medicines have been shown to have little or no therapeutic value beyond the placebo effect. It's similar to treatments for the common cold. You can do nothing, and the cold will go away in 14 days, or you can take all kinds of medications and get rid of it in only 2 weeks. Our bodies have built in healing mechanisms which can be far more powerful than many medications. Placebo medicines rely on this natural ability. Snake oil salesmen rely on human nature to fall for the sales pitch and buy such placebos.

So you can pay the scientists, or you can pay the witch doctors. Take your pick, and hopefully it won't kill you.

[thir]

Sometimes eastrn medical procedures qi gong, acupunture etc...work where the west's prefered treaments ALL failed.

My point exactly.

[denuseri]

It really helps when one doesnt go to only a single and clearly biased source for their information.

In Nursing school they said pretty much what this acredited government site had to say about it, I highly reccomend you do more than just read the intro I posted bellow:
http://nccam.nih.gov/health/acupuncture/

"Acupuncture is among the oldest healing practices in the world. As part of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), acupuncture aims to restore and maintain health through the stimulation of specific points on the body. In the United States, where practitioners incorporate healing traditions from China, Japan, Korea, and other countries, acupuncture is considered part of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM)."

It isnt even remotely considered snake oil. smh


And as for scientific evidence of humans being hardwired...just open any medical textbook...I would quote straight from all the ones on my bookshelf but that would simply be too much typing.