Religion

The neuroscientists Mark Waldman and Andrew Newberg have published several books demonstrating the neurological benefits of contemplative spirutual practices such as prayer and meditation. In one study, they scanned the brains of American Buddhists practising a form of Tibetan meditation and Franciscan nuns engaged in contemplative prayer and found that there was both an increase and decrease in the neural activity of the same parts of the brain in their experimental subjects, which suggests that at this level of explanation (the purely physical) there may be a common core to this type of experience, in spite of the fact that we are talking about two contrasting traditions that are respectively non-theistic and theistic in terms of their ontological truth-claims.

The authors conclude that, 'Our brain scan studies of contemplative forms of Buddhist and Christian meditation show that when activity in the parietal areas decreases, a sense of timelessness and spacelessness emerges. This allows the meditator to feel at one with the object of contemplation: God, the universe, peacefulness or any other object on which he or she focuses.'

Michael Pollan’s book on the therapeutic use of psychedelics (also referenced upthread) highlights some important recent research into the neural correlates of psilocybin-induced mystical experience, which notes a similarly characteristic sense of ego-loss or ego dissolution. Brain activity during this experience correlates similarly with the findings of Newberg and Waldman.

So how is this good for you?

Ongoing clinical trials at institutions like New York University, Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, and Imperial College in London are yielding some dramatic findings, namely, that a one-off, carefully controlled drug-induced mystical experience can have entirely benevolent and profoundly transformative effects on patients who are struggling with addiction, anxiety, depression, and a diagnosis of terminal cancer. For example, in trials at NYU and Hopkins, 80 per cent of cancer patients exhibited clinically significant reductions in standard measures of anxiety and depression, an effect that was maintained for at least six months after having been given a dose of psilocybin.

Sara Lazar at Harvard further confirms the benefits of regular meditation:


The copious literature on Mindfulness Based Cognitive Therapy has also demonstrated its considerable benefits for those suffering from chronic pain, anxiety, depression, and other conditions.

Now it is arguable that intensive spiritual practice is at the very heart of faith. As I have stated in other posts in this thread, the great mystics who can be found in all the major religious traditions all speak of a sense of unity with something greater than themselves.

Anyway, it seems to me undeniable that spirituality can confer benefits in terms of both psychological and physical health.

What I think draws ire from atheists and sceptics who see no value whatsoever in religion is arguably something quite different from this and is more to do with the content of allegedly 'revelatory' scripture that makes absurd, frequently mythically-based truth-claims that fly in the face of what we know about science, and is typically accompanied by the assertion that there is some kind of punitive, vindictive, deity who is getting his knickers in a twist about what we get up to down here and will consign us all to a fiery fate if we don't.

I would be happily join with attacks on religion in that sense. But as I have shown above, there is an entire other sense of 'religion' that might actually be better described as 'spirituality' and that certainly seems to have something going for it.
Far better put and researched than I could ever do. And completely factual, backed up, with evidence across ‘faiths’ and ‘beliefs’ in how we as individuals can influence our own brain, or let lt be influenced by others.

When it’s taken further into ancient fairy stories…
 
I think it's sad that people can't just respect others beliefs without ridiculing or trying to belittle them.
Live and let live.
What is there to respect about religion? It’s responsible for half of the wars in human history and 99% of the terrorism that exists now.

The worst you get from me is being called a mad **** online. The worst you get from the fanatical zealots is your head chopped off online.

You’re having a go at the wrong ****.
 
I'm not religious but I think people should be allowed to believe in whatever God or science they want without ridicule. Or being told they're insane.
Good for you. I think differently because I believe religion is and has been for hundreds and hundreds of years the scourge of society and will remain so whilst people push the notion that there’s a God.
Reading paulsimpsons post after post leads me to think he/she is insane and I make no apologies for saying it.
 
Some religious people have done good science? Check.
There are some things that current science can't explain, therefore God? Check.

Your objections are not scientific ones, they are objections you've read on religious websites where someone has compiled arguments against anything that might cause a problem for your religious dogma. It's exactly the same as the opponents of Galileo, who you ironically now claim as one of your own when no doubt had you been around in 1633, you would have been gladly cheering on the inquisition against him as you cite "biblical evidence" for why he's wrong. Imagine how much more he could have achieved had it not been for the threat of religious institutions. Even more recently, we would have had the theory of natural selection about 20 years earlier if Charles Darwin had been a non-religious scientist or lived in a non-religious society.

And yes, science as a system and process is as unbiased as we have come up with so far. Individual scientists or journals may not be, but that's why the process exists. Whereas religion is entirely biased all of the time without fail. There's not a single scientific advance or discovery in any of the fields that we've talked about that hasn't been routinely and baselessly opposed by religious institutions and vast swathes of the religious population long after the evidence is overwhelming.

And yes, plenty of current religious people do great science or philosophy, but William Lane Craig has spent his entire career at explicitly religious institutions whose entire ethos is the spreading of a particular religious worldview. If I wanted to do a degree at his university, I would have to do 80 credits of religious studies throughout my degree, regardless of whether it's relevant to the subject I'm studying. To teach at the university, I would have to go through a test to make sure that I follow an evangelical Christian ethos.

Literally all you've done is cite things you don't know (what caused the big bang?) and things you choose not to know (the multiple separate fields of evidence for evolution, for example) and then shoved God into those gaps.

Some of the objections are laughable. No-one has been able to observe or repeat something that takes billions of years? I wonder why that is. You must have really struggled with history class in school if that's your reasoning. If you dug up a bunch of artifacts in a field, would you just say "oh well, I didn't see where these came from so that's the end of the story." No of course you wouldn't. You'd take existing evidence from various fields to create a picture of what happened. And evolution is supported by so many fields of evidence that your tiny objections to one of the fields (on the apparent basis that you don't know about the latest discoveries into self-replicating molecules, and just flat out ignore the entire DNA record) are a drop in the ocean.

But yeah, basically God of the gaps and nothing more. No positive evidence whatsoever for God, just "The universe appears ordered. I can't explain that order. Therefore God." And coincidently, therefore your God. Not Brahma or Phanes or Odin or any of the other thousands of options.
My criticisms of the big bang are scientific but there's much confirmation bias in your thought process and straw man rhetoric that keeps you somewhat shielded cozily from criticism and an irrational worldview which tops it all off.

You've a biased reading of history in that you virtually accuse creationists as inquistionists.
This, of course, is nonsense. Galileo was a scientist who believed in the bible had truth and wanted to show that the Copernican (heliocentric) system was in line with it. He was against the views of his day with regard to the Bible which, blinded by some aspects of Aristotelian philosophy, did not do justice to the biblical word. Galileo wasnt trialled for going against the Bible but for disobeying papal orders. What the galileo affair does is to show that its not about the relationhip between religion and science. We now know both Galileo and the Copernican system were well regarded by the church. Galileo could be nasty and vindictive and full of arrogance. What happened arose out of the jealousy of his colleagues and the personal politics of Pope Urban who had been a great benefactor years before. But Galileo wrote him into his play and made a mockery of him. So Urban was very upset. It also shows the authoritarian paganism of his day which is reflected in the authoritarianism of atheist naturalist evolution today which must not be questioned.
Ever hear of " nature discovered how" ," nature learned" ,"nature built ", " science teaches" etc . In all the science journals we see examples of this.This is an example of reification fallacy which attributes 'a mind'or 'a thing' to something immaterial. An idea is being spoken of as an actual thing or person. This is not just figure of speech . Science is not ' a thing' . It is knowledge which we all appreciate and are glad for. But science or knowledge of where the universe came from is easy to figure out.There are no gaps when we talk about time ,space, & matter having a beginning which must posit a timeless ,spaceless, immaterial , omnipotent, personal being as Creator.
But you guys make nature your idol which is deification and thus " exhange the truth of God for a lie and worship and serve the creature rather than the creator "
Materialist atheism is not difficult to argue against. Nature is all there is on this worldview. It says there is no transcendent Creator. Most atheists think their worldview rational. Atheism wrecks the possibility of knowledge, science and technology. If atheism is true then you couldn't prove one thing.
Reasoning uses laws of logic which are laws of thought or reasoning . One of them is law of non contradiction. Why should there be immaterial laws of thought ? For the Christian there's an absolute standard for reason. Laws of thought reflect the way God thinks. We are to model our thoughts after God's. The laws extend from God's non contradictory nature. "God can't deny himself " ( 2 Tim). The laws are abstract ,universal,invariant,immaterial, non conventional apply in all locations. They touch upon God as He is the Logos. But they are not fabricated by Him. Reasoning would be impossible without these Laws and without the biblical God.

The materialistic atheist cant explain laws of logic. He believes that everything that exists is material—part of the physical world. But laws of logic are not physical. You can't touch or feel one.
Laws of logic cannot exist in the atheists world. But he uses them to try to reason. This is inconsistent. He is taking from the religious worldview to argue against the religious worldview. The atheist’s view cannot be rational because he uses things (laws of logic) that cannot exist according to his materialistic worldview.
 
My criticisms of the big bang are scientific but there's much confirmation bias in your thought process and straw man rhetoric that keeps you somewhat shielded cozily from criticism and an irrational worldview which tops it all off.

You've a biased reading of history in that you virtually accuse creationists as inquistionists.
This, of course, is nonsense. Galileo was a scientist who believed in the bible had truth and wanted to show that the Copernican (heliocentric) system was in line with it. He was against the views of his day with regard to the Bible which, blinded by some aspects of Aristotelian philosophy, did not do justice to the biblical word. Galileo wasnt trialled for going against the Bible but for disobeying papal orders. What the galileo affair does is to show that its not about the relationhip between religion and science. We now know both Galileo and the Copernican system were well regarded by the church. Galileo could be nasty and vindictive and full of arrogance. What happened arose out of the jealousy of his colleagues and the personal politics of Pope Urban who had been a great benefactor years before. But Galileo wrote him into his play and made a mockery of him. So Urban was very upset. It also shows the authoritarian paganism of his day which is reflected in the authoritarianism of atheist naturalist evolution today which must not be questioned.
Ever hear of " nature discovered how" ," nature learned" ,"nature built ", " science teaches" etc . In all the science journals we see examples of this.This is an example of reification fallacy which attributes 'a mind'or 'a thing' to something immaterial. An idea is being spoken of as an actual thing or person. This is not just figure of speech . Science is not ' a thing' . It is knowledge which we all appreciate and are glad for. But science or knowledge of where the universe came from is easy to figure out.There are no gaps when we talk about time ,space, & matter having a beginning which must posit a timeless ,spaceless, immaterial , omnipotent, personal being as Creator.
But you guys make nature your idol which is deification and thus " exhange the truth of God for a lie and worship and serve the creature rather than the creator "
Materialist atheism is not difficult to argue against. Nature is all there is on this worldview. It says there is no transcendent Creator. Most atheists think their worldview rational. Atheism wrecks the possibility of knowledge, science and technology. If atheism is true then you couldn't prove one thing.
Reasoning uses laws of logic which are laws of thought or reasoning . One of them is law of non contradiction. Why should there be immaterial laws of thought ? For the Christian there's an absolute standard for reason. Laws of thought reflect the way God thinks. We are to model our thoughts after God's. The laws extend from God's non contradictory nature. "God can't deny himself " ( 2 Tim). The laws are abstract ,universal,invariant,immaterial, non conventional apply in all locations. They touch upon God as He is the Logos. But they are not fabricated by Him. Reasoning would be impossible without these Laws and without the biblical God.

The materialistic atheist cant explain laws of logic. He believes that everything that exists is material—part of the physical world. But laws of logic are not physical. You can't touch or feel one.
Laws of logic cannot exist in the atheists world. But he uses them to try to reason. This is inconsistent. He is taking from the religious worldview to argue against the religious worldview. The atheist’s view cannot be rational because he uses things (laws of logic) that cannot exist according to his materialistic worldview.
You lost me at 'biased reading of history'.

Every single ancient religious text has been interpreted to suit a narrative which is essentially a biased reading of history on an industrial scale.
 
My criticisms of the big bang are scientific but there's much confirmation bias in your thought process and straw man rhetoric that keeps you somewhat shielded cozily from criticism and an irrational worldview which tops it all off.

You've a biased reading of history in that you virtually accuse creationists as inquistionists.
This, of course, is nonsense. Galileo was a scientist who believed in the bible had truth and wanted to show that the Copernican (heliocentric) system was in line with it. He was against the views of his day with regard to the Bible which, blinded by some aspects of Aristotelian philosophy, did not do justice to the biblical word. Galileo wasnt trialled for going against the Bible but for disobeying papal orders. What the galileo affair does is to show that its not about the relationhip between religion and science. We now know both Galileo and the Copernican system were well regarded by the church. Galileo could be nasty and vindictive and full of arrogance. What happened arose out of the jealousy of his colleagues and the personal politics of Pope Urban who had been a great benefactor years before. But Galileo wrote him into his play and made a mockery of him. So Urban was very upset. It also shows the authoritarian paganism of his day which is reflected in the authoritarianism of atheist naturalist evolution today which must not be questioned.
Ever hear of " nature discovered how" ," nature learned" ,"nature built ", " science teaches" etc . In all the science journals we see examples of this.This is an example of reification fallacy which attributes 'a mind'or 'a thing' to something immaterial. An idea is being spoken of as an actual thing or person. This is not just figure of speech . Science is not ' a thing' . It is knowledge which we all appreciate and are glad for. But science or knowledge of where the universe came from is easy to figure out.There are no gaps when we talk about time ,space, & matter having a beginning which must posit a timeless ,spaceless, immaterial , omnipotent, personal being as Creator.
But you guys make nature your idol which is deification and thus " exhange the truth of God for a lie and worship and serve the creature rather than the creator "
Materialist atheism is not difficult to argue against. Nature is all there is on this worldview. It says there is no transcendent Creator. Most atheists think their worldview rational. Atheism wrecks the possibility of knowledge, science and technology. If atheism is true then you couldn't prove one thing.
Reasoning uses laws of logic which are laws of thought or reasoning . One of them is law of non contradiction. Why should there be immaterial laws of thought ? For the Christian there's an absolute standard for reason. Laws of thought reflect the way God thinks. We are to model our thoughts after God's. The laws extend from God's non contradictory nature. "God can't deny himself " ( 2 Tim). The laws are abstract ,universal,invariant,immaterial, non conventional apply in all locations. They touch upon God as He is the Logos. But they are not fabricated by Him. Reasoning would be impossible without these Laws and without the biblical God.

The materialistic atheist cant explain laws of logic. He believes that everything that exists is material—part of the physical world. But laws of logic are not physical. You can't touch or feel one.
Laws of logic cannot exist in the atheists world. But he uses them to try to reason. This is inconsistent. He is taking from the religious worldview to argue against the religious worldview. The atheist’s view cannot be rational because he uses things (laws of logic) that cannot exist according to his materialistic worldview.
Spinoza is essentially the utra-atheist, and his system absolutely included logic and 'thought' as part of his materialistic worldview, so your last point is garbage. If that's what you think materialism is then you don't understand materialism.
 
Spinoza is essentially the utra-atheist
Isn’t he more correctly described as a pantheist?

For example, Clare Carlisle (the author of a highly regarded recent biography of Kierkegaard) had this to say back in 2011:

‘Spinoza's most famous and provocative idea is that God is not the creator of the world, but that the world is part of God. This is often identified as pantheism, the doctrine that God and the world are the same thing – which conflicts with both Jewish and Christian teachings. Pantheism can be traced back to ancient Greek thought: it was probably advocated by some pre-Socratic philosophers, as well as by the Stoics. But although Spinoza – who admired many aspects of Stoicism – is regarded as the chief source of modern pantheism, he does, in fact, want to maintain the distinction between God and the world.

His originality lies in the nature of this distinction. God and the world are not two different entities, he argues, but two different aspects of a single reality.’

Have only ever read brief digests of Spinoza’s thought so am not in a position to make a judgement call on this myself.
 
Isn’t he more correctly described as a pantheist?

For example, Clare Carlisle (the author of a highly regarded recent biography of Kierkegaard) had this to say back in 2011:

‘Spinoza's most famous and provocative idea is that God is not the creator of the world, but that the world is part of God. This is often identified as pantheism, the doctrine that God and the world are the same thing – which conflicts with both Jewish and Christian teachings. Pantheism can be traced back to ancient Greek thought: it was probably advocated by some pre-Socratic philosophers, as well as by the Stoics. But although Spinoza – who admired many aspects of Stoicism – is regarded as the chief source of modern pantheism, he does, in fact, want to maintain the distinction between God and the world.

His originality lies in the nature of this distinction. God and the world are not two different entities, he argues, but two different aspects of a single reality.’

Have only ever read brief digests of Spinoza’s thought so am not in a position to make a judgement call on this myself.
No, he's definitely a materialist. When Spinoza talks of the world being part of 'God' it is interchangeable with the word 'nature'. He does use the term 'God', but it is not at all a God that has any kind of thought, drive or sits in judgement etc. He uses 'God' to describe 'all that is', probably partly so that he could argue in his day that he wasn't saying God doesn't exist. I've read pretty much everything Spinoza has written that has been translated into English and I'd argue the above description of Spinoza gets him wrong.
 
‘The laws extend from God's non contradictory nature. "God can't deny himself " ( 2 Tim)’

a few contradictions , well 565 actually, in the book written by humans:

Some are very minor, but as god is meant to be infallible, it’s rather odd that 565 contradictions exist in a single book about an infallible god.
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.