I would like to draw the attention of all those posters who enjoy a stoush with Sells to a short article in New Scientist: Dear God, please confirm what I already believe:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18216-dear-god-please-confirm-what-i-already-believe.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news
Experiments have offered strong evidence that
“People may use religious agents as a moral compass, forming impressions and making decisions based on what they presume God as the ultimate moral authority would believe or want”
It has never struck me as a particularly strange coincidence that an omnipotent, omniscient, incomparable God invariably agrees completely with the views of His followers, -even when they don't agree with each other.
How anyone can presume or pretend to understand an ineffable, infinitely superior being, when we all struggle to understand each other, is beyond me.

Grim
I'm glad to see you make this comment, and I agree. It's far too easy, isn't it, to call in an ultimate authority who just happens to represent moral superiority, and to be all-powerful and all-knowing at the same time, to overrule the different opinions of one's fellow human beings. It also justifies the use of violence of course, not just the Inquisition-style torture, but common-or-garden violence like the criminalisation of homosexuality or bigamy.

If we assume, for the sake of argument, that God does not exist, then it certainly appears to be a facile and circular process of reasoning.

I see the same process of reasoning in socialist and conservative statism. The deep structure of the belief of statists is "because problem, therefore solution is government". But there is never any critical questioning about how this human entity came to have such superior knowledge, capacity or goodness. All is in the realm of irrebutable presumption and invincible ignorance.

When we ask what it is about the modern successor of a mediaeval protection racket, that would endow it with the wisdom to manage any and every detail of the earth's climate, ecology and economy, all we get is endless appeal to absent authority such as the deists exhibit.

It wouldn't be so bad if statists were not the main force driving society's capital consumption, poverty, use of violence to establish of privilege, planned chaos and decivilisation. But, once we understand the science which disproves their superstition, it is really galling to have to put up with their oppression of minorities *and* fake moral superiority.

Man's superstitious proclivities have merely gone from reverencing rocks and streams, to a number of gods, to one big God, to a big God with a monopoly corporation to administer his earthly affairs, to the modern worship of a monopoly corporation as presumptively omnipotent, omniscient and representing the moral good - that just happens to be a monopoly of violence!

I pray you will try to refute this with the intellectual honesty you would like to see the deists muster up.

many have asked...how can i know theee lord...and the reply...is...your living it..know me by knowing thyself...by loving thy other...remembering that you do to the least...you do to me

other questions...quote<<<How anyone can presume or pretend to understand an ineffable,..infinitely superior being,..when we all struggle to understand each other,..is beyond me>>...

pretending is easy...and the best thing is god lets us believe whatever WE chose...ever heard of fake it till you make it?...

well its the same thing to know the ALL loving...ALL living...good/god./.do as ye see me do...[ie jesus words]..see me see my father who sent me...see you see the father who didst send thee

love thy father...by keeping the love of thy other
see this amasing reality..arround you...within you and without..its all god doing his sustaining of ;life...knowing the good...knowing the love...

seeing the light sustaining life...radiates/reflects of the fathers life..sustained of the fathers/ light...into living of love in ogic sustained of his light...

the dawn comes...when a black thread/can be differentiated from a white thread...in the darkness..they both seem the same

no more truer statement that the gullible man made climate change religion have ignored any evidence that contradicts their dogma. This is the evolution fantasy all over again. The only difference is that the passive evolution fantasy has nor been used as an excuse to tax people.

The fruit of not listening to our Creator is evident. Epidemic child abuse, teenagers infected with std's, divorce, disease, rebellion. These are all fruit of secular dogma held by those who want to indulge in their own little bit of immorality and want to believe the lie that they wont be held accountable. The fruit of secular dogma ignores the obvious and makes up little stories to hide their corruption.

Grim,

It is a noteworthy topic you introduce.

A few times, when we have continued away from Sells’ stated topics shifting into unintended areas, it has been posited that perhaps there is a neurological basis to belief, for example, the Neocortex trying to rationalise the survival instincts of the primitive Limbic System. One consequence could be the belief in an after-life, arising from the survival instinct. Here it is interesting to note that olfactory senses are heightened. Likewise, we see the burning of incense in religious ceremonies which would seem have reinforcing potentialities.

Also, the Amygdala would seem to play a role in fear, and freight and flee responses. In phobics, it has been found, when confronted with say a spider, all past spider experiences concertina all at once, typically exaggerating the experience. Here, priests can play to fear (e.g. hell) and use the transference to direct religionists to a resolution.

Another aspect of indwelling in a mass or church service, which has recently come to light, is the existence of mirror neurons, wherein if person “a” observes the experiences of person “b”, the same area of the brain is activated in both, herein, stimulating empathy, and, presumably, reinforcement and mass hysteria ( e.g., Lordes).

I guess this raises the question of whether society should allow some of its kind to believe in the divine nature Zeus, Jesus and Dianna, because religionism has existed as a sustaining societal meme or, do we treat the condition with neuro-psycho pharmacologic solutions. Herein, the challenge would be to inhibit the overzealous networking of brain neurons which inappropriately reinforce delusions.

People use religion as a crutch don't they.
It's all a big con, the best the world has ever seen.
Look at what religion is responsable for.
When ya dead you turn into fertilizer, like any thing else that dies.

There is one amusing note that recurs with both runner and one under god. Not only do they cite their belief in God, but they also cite Jesus and scripture. Maybe there is a God. However, there is no reason to believe that God has anything to do with the biblical fairy tales or Christianity. Cicero lived from 106BC to 43BC well before the invention of Christianity. Cicero's "The Nature of the Gods" sounds very modern:

'In this subject of the nature of the gods the first question is: do the gods exist or do they not? It is difficult, you will say, to deny that they exist. I would agree, if we were arguing the matter in a public assembly, but in a private discussion of this kind it is perfectly easy to do so. Now I myself hold a religious office, and believe that public religious worship and ritual ought to be reverently observed: so that I could wish to be certainly persuaded on this first question, that the gods exist, as a matter of fact and not of faith. I confess that many doubts arise to perplex me about this, so that at times I wonder whether they exist at all. But I will meet you halfway. I shall not attack you on assertions such as this, in which you are in agreement with the other schools of philosophy. Almost all philosophers agree - and I as much as any - that gods exist. I will not dispute this. But I challenge the cogency of the arguments which you have adduced to prove it.

'You say that it is a sufficient proof of the existence of the gods that men of all races and of all nations believe in them. But such an argument is both false and frivolous. In the first place, how do you know the opinions of all mankind? I would think that there must be many wild and primitive peoples who have no idea of the gods at all.

continue

Cicero’s “The Nature of the Gods” continued

“And what about the atheist Diagoras, and after him Theodorus, both of whom openly deny that any gods exist? Then there was Protagoras of Abdera, whom you mentioned just now, the greatest sophist of his time. In the introduction to one of his books he wrote that he was not able to say whether the gods existed or not. For this he was banished by public decree from the city and land of Athens, and his works were burnt in public. I suspect that his example made others more reluctant to express such sentiments, when they saw that even agnosticism could not escape such penalties. And what about the temple-robbers and the blasphemers and the perjurers? As Lucilius says, "if Lucius Tubulus or Lupus or Carbo - or some such son of Neptune" - had believed in the existence of the gods, could they have been such liars and such libertines?”

The response to doubt of dogma is probably one reason for the persistence of religion.

There is a dogma that the solution to problems is government. This is countered by the dogma that the government has no solution to problems. For certain activities such as planning transportation nets, water resources, protecting biodiversity there is no better institution than government. Government may be wrong, but for certain types of problems government is the instrument we must go to for solutions.

Ian Robertson, in his book, "Sociology," tells us
that:

"Emile Durkheim's study, 'The Elementary Forms
of Religious Life,' was first published in
1912 and has since become a classic...
Durkheim was impressed by the fact that
religion is universal in modern society, and he
wondered why this was so."

"His answer was that religion had a vital function in
maintaining the social system as a whole."

"He pointed out that the origins of religion were social,
not supernatural. He pointed out that, whatever their
source, the rituals enacted in any religion enhance the
solidarity of the community as well as its faith."

"Consider such religious rituals as Baptism, Bar Mitzvah,
Weddings, Sabbath services, Christmas mass, and funerals."

"Rituals like these serve to bring people together; to
remind them of their common group membership; to
re-affirm their traditional values' to maintain
prohibitions and taboos; to offer comfort in times of
crisis; and, in general, to help transmit the
cultural heritage from one generation to the next."

"The cause of much of the social disorder in modern
societies, Durkheim contended was that people no
longer believed deeply in traditional religion, but they
hadn't found a satisfying substitute. Lacking commitment
to a shared belief system, they tended to pursue their
private interests without regard for their fellows."

For many years it was believed that as science progressively
provided rational explanations for the mysteries of the
universe, religion would have less and less of a role to
play and would eventually disappear, unmasked as nothing
more than superstition.

However, there are still gaps in our understanding that
science by its very nature can never fill.
On the ultimately important questions --- of the
meaning and purpose of life and the nature of morality.

Few people of modern societies would totally deny the
possibility of some higher power in the universe, some
supernatural, transcendental realm that lies beyond the
boundaries of ordinary experience, and in this
fundamental sense religion is probably here to stay.

Hi Foxy,

I agree that religionists will find gaps and occupy spaces, where science can’t explain things, and guard said gaps. As you would know, some speak of the God of the Gaps, in this context. As “gaps” tend to be infinitely divisible, I feel gods will be with us for some time to come. Even if humans produce a mini universe in a particle accelerator, I suspect some priest will say it is god’s work.

Three challenges for science are explanations for (a) the creation of matter in our universe, (b) consciousness, and (c) how the first cell came into being. Yet, to give Science it dues, it is making in-roads on all three.

I hope I am still around to see (a), (b) and (c) explained. Confirmation of the creation of matter in the Higgs field would be a bigger step for humankind than Armstrong’s step on the moon.

Science despite its honesty maybe doomed to spend eternity dealing with religions’ Xeno paradoxes. If Science explains 99.99999999999% of everything. Christians et al. shall point to the .000000000001% not explained.

The super-mundane of QM or other physics unknown yet or even physics forever unknowable to our primate brains, need not be supernatural; just merely too remote, too complex or irreducible from this universe. Though, I hope not! :-)

Cheers,

Oly

OLiver writes 'Science despite its honesty '

Yeah we have seen that with the corruption, manipulation and dishonesty by our 'leading' scientist in the climate change scandal. Dream on Oliver. You might fool yourself and others but not anyone who believers that true science is tried and tested. Your 99.9% is not the same computer model that the climate scientist use is it? The evolutionist have used the same corrupt dishonest 'science' for decades. Pseudo evolutionary science is no closer to finding our origins because it takes more faith to believe that crap than it does in the obvious.

would someone care to help me put some flesh (i.e. concrete examples) to the following remarks (from the lead article):

"Imagination link
Other researchers say the findings reinforce earlier studies suggesting that thinking about God is intimately linked to the imagination.

These experiments "support previous findings that representations of God seem intimately related to the self, also in terms of brain function", says Uffe Schjødt of Aarhus University in Denmark, whose research published earlier this year showed that praying uses similar brain regions as talking to a friend.

"These findings help explain why supernatural religious agents are often attributed a physical form and issue edicts that resemble the social practices of the culture from which they emerge," says Jordan Grafman of the US National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke in Bethesda, Maryland, whose team earlier this year linked emergence of religion with the development of "theory of mind", the capacity to recognise that other living things have independent thought and intentions."

What would be examples of religious agents being attributed a physical form and issuing edicts that resemble the practices of the culture from which they emerge?

*Science despite its honesty maybe doomed to spend eternity dealing with religions’ Xeno paradoxes. If Science explains 99.99999999999% of everything. Christians et al. shall point to the .000000000001% not explained.*

Oliver. I have enjoyed your state of mind for quite some time, and reality comes to a time, where most reality is needed. The next one hundred years shall test man-kind, but be gentle with those that can not see. The minds for humans, can only tick with the sounds of time its self, to be too hard, could spin in a direction, which most of us would agree.

The new world is the undiscovered, and like the dino,s, only time will tell.
One step at a time is the smartest move the humans can make.

God will always be in our dreams, but not in reality.

You are a man\or woman to be respected, and to doubt your mind, only a fool would do so.

PS! I also have enjoyed your posts. wink.

runner,

Science is honest where its core methodlologies are followed and its findings are held tentatively. Researchers who cook the books are not scientists.

I will pose a question to you, to which, several others have not responded:

Was Zeus Justified in punishing the Titans?

walk with me,

Thanks. Your post had a poetic touch.

It will be interesting the scientitsts at CERN can demonstrate how matter can be created out of nothing. We live in interesting times, so they say.

Hey David, thanks for another educational post; an interesting translation of Cicero. I was under the impression the term 'agnostic' was invented or coined by Thomas Huxley. Clearly the sentiment if not the word goes back a long way, but I wonder if the precise definition was the same? Just being pedantic again.

Grateful, I would suggest incidents of impressions of the Virgin Mary appearing in mold stains on walls, in odd shaped turnips and mass produced pies is far more likely to occur to Catholics, than to Buddhists, for instance.

Peter Hume, the relevance of your post to the topic at hand is questionable, but I guess we've all been there. I would suggest in the absence of an indisputable, totally objective and very final arbiter such as 'God', all we are left with is Democracy; unless you believe any single human is not only completely infallible, but timeless in his ability to accurately appraise events past present and future.
Surely not even you would accord Mises such godlike qualities?
A fundamental base of Democracy I contend is the idea that, if 2 heads are not always better than one, a thousand heads most certainly are -and not just because they control the history books.
Can you really not see a qualitative difference between a so called 'monopoly' of the people, by the people and for the people, compared to a monopoly of one or even a handful of obscenely rich, totally dehumanised individuals who clearly care only for themselves and their immediate family?
In terms of Democracy, Mises fails on several counts; firstly and most obviously in that there doesn't seem to be a rush of endless hordes of economists, governments or individuals charging in to raise the standard of the Austrian School.

Cont.
I agree the Democratic system isn't perfect. Perfect democracy, like perfect socialism or even perfect markets can only exist as a theory, not a practice. Your point about fraud is well taken, and government should emplace strict laws (or 'regulations' as you would more emotively suggest) to enforce honest practice. Also your point about the quality of our representatives is accepted, although I might suggest a politician could conceivably be selfless, non materialist and idealistic; qualities which by definition will not be found in the billionaire investors who effectively control your 'free markets'.
You suggest no government, no group of persons could possibly be clever enough to set prices across an entire economy. This is undoubtedly true, but as far as I am aware, no one around these parts are seriously suggesting they try.
On the other hand, there is clear current evidence that markets, with or without government intervention, have also notably failed to discover 'perfect pricing'.
Of course, you will argue we can't know, because we have never seen truly 'free' markets, in the total absence of govt intervention, but then we've never seen a truly democratic socialist state, either.
What we have seen, time and again, is that when laws are relaxed, assholes use the extra rope to hang themselves, and not care too much about taking the rest of us with them; in fact, now they've finally worked out how to make Main St. pay for the crimes of Wall St.
My apologies for digressing from the topic at hand. Peter, if you really want to continue this debate, I will happily meet at a ground of your choosing, pistols cocked; but I doubt if either of us is ever going to sway the other.

Dear Grim,

More Cicero:

*Why should we worship the gods and reverence their divinity, if we see nothing admirable in it? You boast that you are free from superstition: but it is easy to be so when one has deprived the gods of all their power. How for instance could Diagoras or Theodorus have been superstitious once they had denied the existence of the gods? I do not think Protagoras could have been so either, who would neither assert nor deny their existence. The teachings of all these philosophers do not merely free us from superstition, which is a senseless fear of the gods, but also destroy religion itself, with all reverence and worship. Then there are those who have argued that all our beliefs about the gods have been fabricated by wise men for reasons of state, so that men whom reason could not persuade to be good citizens might be persuaded by religion. Have not these also totally destroyed the foundations of belief? Or Prodicus of Chios, who ascribed divinity to everything which benefits mankind: what room did he leave for religion? There are also those who teach that brave and famous and powerful men have been deified after death and that these are the gods whom we have now become accustomed to worship and reverence and to whom we pray. Are not such men devoid of all religious feeling?

That belief systems of one sort or another are universally prevalent is undeniable.

We, particularly in the West, believe in romantic love. Science can rightly say love's pillars are grounded in excretions but our imagination provides us with the ability to lift the notion to dizzying heights.

When love crumbles the fallout can be terrible. I would venture to say there are far more deaths in this country from broken relationships than any religious reasons.

Should we educate people about the delusion they are living when in love? Do we need to dissect the brain to forensically examine what parts are responsible for instigating this irrational behaviour we see in ourselves and others?

How many of those attacking religion here would be prepared to do away with romantic love?

Both can be regarded as human constructs, both enable us to describe innate forces within us, both can take us from utter tragedy and despair to magnificence and both can reveal the unsavoury depths to which we can all descend, but surely we are poorer or less human without them.

quoting the sissy..<<Why should we worship the gods and reverence their divinity,..if we see nothing admirable in it?>>

simply speaking..your joining two concepts...oh ancient/one..why should they revere pholosphisers...maybe these too should be placed in with love/and the other belief systems

<<You boast..that you are free from superstition:>>>no your followers do

<<but it is easy to be so..when one has deprived the gods of all their power.>>from the labours of others?

<<How..superstitious-ness..had denied the existence of the gods?..I do not think Protagoras..could have been so either,..who would neither assert..nor deny their existence.>>deney love..or deney hate..both are denial...not evidence

<<The teachings/philosophers..do not merely free us from superstition,..which is a senseless fear of the gods,..but also destroy religion itself,..with all reverence and worship>>>thats you philosophy...yet your delusioned pillowsophecy...is their faith

<<Then/those who have argued..that all our beliefs..about..the gods have been fabricated..by wise men for reasons of state,..so that men whom reason could not persuade..to be good citizens might be persuaded by religion.>>>yes much better off with their heads?

<<Have not these..also totally destroyed the foundations of belief?>>have not the fools...that eli-vate your words...into god like infalible...wisdoms..constructed their belief's...of your words..upon decieving meanings..hidden in fancy language's

<<Chios,..who ascribed divinity to everything..which benefits mankind:..what room did he leave..for religion?>>>why jump from general blief into religiously held faith..

..stick with belief...for this..is your faith...religion is a refuge of philosphical concepts...evilvating..the being/the messenger/the message..abouve its cause...just as faith..in philosphisers...is divergent from the arte of philosdophising

<<brave and famous..and powerful..men..have been deified..after death and that these are the gods..whom we have now become accustomed to worship and reverence and to whom we pray.>>>ah like you lot[or darwins/or dorkins...or the prophets...all faith in imitators

<<Are not such men..devoid of all religious feeling?>>you make wild jumps..and insane assertions...dear cissy...now you dare...move a noun into an adjective...

old man...why dont they let you sleep..remove your godheaded-ness..away from them..age has wearied..even the intent of your words...now fools..quote them out of context...thinking their majesty...to disproove gods supreem majesty

Dear One Under God,

I must admit that your posts often require too much of my time to decipher, or are offensive, or real gibberish so I rarely now make the effort to read them.

I'm glad I did on this occasion.

Amusing, witty and in some places pure poetry - in a Dennis Hopper/Apocalypse Now kind of way.

Congratulations.

UOG. If your trying to be an advocate for the all mighty, why does your religious beliefs seem to make you appear unbalanced? and does it matter so, if there's not one? (god) if you are happy that there is one, why are you trying to sell the notion to people, and what benefits to the planet can your god bring?

Why has your god not come forward to guide us through these worldly problems?
Would you consider that there has been no god all-a-long, and when science has found the secrets of life, what will you say to us?

If god made the universe, its fair to say, we must be very tiny, and that could explain why he has missed placed us. and do you think there's an out side chance that's its all a condition of the mind?

Could you Please put it in an understandable English

one asks..to walk/with me..so i will/talk..with thee..[or..in plain speak..the alias;..walk with me..plainly..would have me..talk with thee..plainly

quote..<<..why does..your religious beliefs,..seem to make you/appear unbalanced?>>think of it..like a learner driver...pushing a powerfull car..to its max...im uneducated/..and have accepted...my lowly status

<<does it matter..so,..if there's not..one?..(god)>>.not in the least[jesus reveals..we shall do/greater things..[greater than god...of course not...but yet others..think the son/the father..but thats fine..many presume..me the fool..[i prefer joker]

<<if you are happy..that there is one,..why are you..trying to sell the notion..to people>>..think..if you were a parent...you built your children...an amasing home...with all the conforts...built-in...

gave these ingrates...all/they ever needed,..would it not be unkindly of me..to let them remain ignorant...or all your freely/gifted/benevolence?...or would you/i stay still?

<<and what benefits..to the planet..can your god bring?>>>think of what was...before the big bang...that revealed that..seen in the light/to be good...you have no concept..of the gift...oh ye grate-full/..in-great..child

<<Why..has our god..not come forward..to guide us..through these worldly problems?>>think of the artists..[of old]..god sustains your life...then allows you to co-create

<<consider..that there has been..no god..all-a-long,..and when science/has found/FINDS?..the secrets..of life,..what will you say/to us?>>.its not going to happen..not..[in your/nor mine..lifetime]

this collection of observed fact/science...can not witness the first..'life',..cannot even name it..has no concept...how it was created...nor from what..it evolved..into what...

science cannot make life..[indeed science confirms...life comes from life...each like their parent]..anything more is delusion

<<If god made..the universe,..its fair to say,..we must be very tiny>>.to you..it might..be/fair...

but realise...your science..reveals..the WHOLE/universe...was the SIZE...of a fullstop...[.]...pre big bang...and yes..thus is god bigger than a fullstop...then see millions..of atoms..in this single/fullstop.

it is to this ..fullstop...mankind would return...once the concensus/..lol/science.../confirms..god dont egsist...in a puff of logic..the big-bang..becomes..the big crunch

<<and that/could explain..why he has miss/placed us.>>.know...that...inside/everylife...there is god sustaining...our/life...to live...[emmanuel/god within...us all]

<<do you think..there's an out side chance..that's its all a condition..of the mind?>>>

jump/from your roof...it sure feels real/dont it...if you believe its all...in your mind...i accept that as your/conditional/state..not mine

try this...die...
then sustain your own living.../of your own efforts

<<Could you Please..put it in an understandable English>>>i cant...im ignorant...your the clever one

UOG. So god is just used as a whacking stick? Question. How come I am a fine member of this great nation and no god was needed? Question. I love and feel warmth in my heart, and is religion some sort of virus? and has all of mankind caught this in various ways?

Why does this sect need money? isnt love a free thing? and why do some these do-good-ers talk old people into giving their homes and life savings away? don't you think the sons and daughters should inherit this?
Iam starting to think its just a job like anything else but you guys don't pay any tax? WHY? Religious taxes would help the Australian people. Dont you not like to help your country?

Thank you for your time.

wwm..quote<<..So god is just used as a whacking stick?>>think more..like a busy housewife...cleaning up after an ungratefull family...doing everything...yet for all intents and purpose..invisable..to those recieving her good services

<<How come..I am a fine member of this great nation..and no god was needed?>>you are first and formost...sustained to live from god...you live because god sustains you[all living]..to life

just because life isnt labled with god did this naturally...dosnt mean...gos isnt doing it...lets agree science isnt doing it/realise you have no clue...how your doing it...yet see something is

<<I love and feel warmth in my heart,..and is religion..some sort of virus?>>i think of religion/much the same as science...claiming..;natural selection...when natural...isnt science.isnt science method

both make spurilous claims..that they do...but the fact is by their deeds we know they cant...god is not judge...god has no vile..god is pure living love/light/logic...the nature behind natural

jesus revealed..we dont need religion..as much as we need god/good..think of the most vile living...know god sustains even the most vile/living..to life..proving he dont judge any one[or else he would simply not let it be..

<<Why does this sect..need money?>>why does science need their huge grants>,,its human nature

<<isnt love a free thing?>>>love from god..is totally..unconditional...all orther living...has free choice..to love or hate

<<why do some these do-good-ers..talk old people into giving their homes and life savings away?>>by their deeds they reveal...they are far from good

<<don't you think..the sons and daughters..should inherit this?>>.im not a judge either

<<Iam starting to think..its just a job..like anything else..but you guys don't pay any tax?>>god dont need tax...man does...i pay plenty of tax

<<WHY? Religious taxes..would help the Australian people>>.taxes..or often subverted..into making war...any death demeans our own freely given life gift

<<Do you not like to help your country?>>i help...because we a forced to help...god didnt make cuntry..men divided gods undivided lands..not man

Thank you for your questions....seek to know gods/good..inner/still quiet voice..of concious..of love..of reason...from within

know gods/good...in live time...the ever now...love good by loving[or trying to]...love others

<<I love and feel warmth in my heart,..and is religion..some sort of virus?>>i think of religion/much the same as science...claiming..;natural selection...when natural...isn't science.isn't science method

Yes UOG, mankind is at a stop at this present time. All we can do is wait for the next development. Sorry if I seem hard at times, but the hunt for truth must go on. We( mankind ) are still very primitive at this time and for all we know, well, is very little.

I prefer to put my faith in mankind and this earth, after all, the nit-picking has been exhausted. Only one conclusion remains, we still on both sides, Have no bloody clue at all. Speculation and suspicion is going to waste our time even further. The planet is unwell, maybe in time all 3 consciouses will join and what we all are seeking, will come to light for the best intentions and not the purposes of hate or greed.

Thank-you for your response.

csteele,

Being able to explain romantic love biologically is no different to explaining colour vision. On one hand, we can enjoy the experience; on the other hand, we can understand what is going on.

I guess religious belief is a different case, if, as might be the case, the neocortex confabulates conditions to mediate the survival instincts of the limbic system and the fear rseponses of the amygdala. Here, it it would harder to indwell in the religious experience and understand the phenomenon at the same time. One would have to make a choice, I suspect.

Oliver,
>> it would (be) harder to indwell in the religious experience and understand the phenomenon at the same time<<
Do you mean to say that it is also harder to “indwell in the experience” of speaking English and understand its grammar (e.g. its idioms) at the same time? Or that you have to be blind in order to understand the physics of optics? I am sure you could describe in neuroscientific terms also the functioning of the brain of an English speaker when he/she hears English, as different from that of somebody who does not understand English. Nevertheless, understanding these differences is not the same as understanding English.

What conclusions can you draw from that except that we use our brain to do rational thinking, to evaluate and appreciate the input of experiences, sensual, religious or what you have. Or do you think that the brain treats religious inputs - whether in their rational, aesthetic (liturgic, ritual) or moral form - that much differently? And if, then why? Do you agree with Andrew Newberg (http://www.andrewnewberg.com/qna.asp) that our brain is pre-wired to experience spiritual states, or God (in whatever culturally determined representation), like it is “pre-wired” to understand mathematics and through it the workings of physical reality, or like our eyes are “pre-wired” to experience light?

I also doubt you could conclude about the substance of my religious beliefs or faith (whether they refer to something really “existing” or are just Dawkinsian delusions) merely from measuring my brain activities, any more than you could make conclusions about whether my understanding of (this or that part of) mathematics is right or wrong just by means of electrodes attached to my brain. This comes to one‘s mind when people conclude that “God is just in your brain” solely from studying the functioning of our brain. Of course, I have no reason to believe that you too jump to that conclusion.

I think the interesting thing that religion shows, is that mankind are capable of believing the most patent bullsh/t, so that it seems there is positively an adaptation for it. One must wonder then how could natural selection work to promote a tendency to perceive things that are false?

Some say that religious belief in humans evolves as a matter of sexual selection. According to this theory, the human mind is like a software version of the peacock’s tail. It doesn’t matter that the beliefs are factually true or not, any more than it matters that the peacock’s tail does not assist, or may actively hinder, his survival. So long as one considers the trait when agreeing to sex, it it will tend to be selected. And the moreso where the belief system, as with patriarchal ones, tends to increase the chances of survival of offspring.

Grim
I maintain that statism is indistinguishable from religious belief.

Perfect socialism and perfect markets cannot exist even in theory: no civilisation could exist under them. Perfect socialism would be incapable of economic calculation (no prices for capital goods because no market for them). And perfect markets would be a state of equilibrium or non-action.

If you have to argue by such rhetorical devices as “a handful of obscenely rich, totally dehumanised individuals” perhaps you had better give the game away.

Prices come from the actions of everyone in buying or selling, or abstaining from buying or selling.

So there is no need to make a false dichotomy between political decision-making by democracy, or by an infallible person. You have not shown any reason why any decision-making should be by political process in the first place.

And your belief that decision-making by "Democracy" most nearly approaches perfection is indistinguishable from a belief in a superhuman entity, over and above society, that is imbued with superior knowledge, virtue and capacity.

While perfection is not of this world, what we can say is that private property and voluntary exchange provide for the satisfaction of human wants as best we know how; which states can only reduce.

Gentlemen, There are 3 possibilities to what is truth and what is not. The brain can be convinced of absolutely anything, which all would agree. The answers begins right back at the start. When instinct left us and the conscious mind began, was the beginning of all things religious, such as eg, the bull god or the great sun god and so on, this is only 5 million years of guess work, and nothing has changed.

Possibilities are,

1. We have evolved by chemical chance.

2. One of the gods made us and all we see.

3. A higher evolved form of life, we simply could not comprehend.
Hence( God is not what you think it is)

"that our brain is pre-wired to experience" which Georges link has provided, is the backbone to our curiosity, and since that can run wild, Go back to my last post.
The brain must be trained to fit the time we now live in, The book was the guide, and now as one, we must guide ourselves, or where does it stop?

Belief is a main component, faith is its energy, and trust is its drive, and the not knowing of all 3, is why we have come so far.

Continued...

Dear Oliver,

<< the neocortex confabulates conditions to mediate the survival instincts of the limbic system and the fear responses of the amygdala>>

Whew, UOG was easy. Can one confabulate a condition?

Anyway we have all experienced our mates confabulating away over some girl (obviously to mediate the sexual instincts driven by their reproductive systems :)) telling us she is the most beautiful creature in the world and he can't see life being possible without her. We know he is deluded of course because the most beautiful creature in the world is the one we have our arm around.

Having colour vision is not the same as romantic love, it is more like having a penis. In the case of a male, having that particular appendage certainly plays a big role in the foundations of romantic love but sitting down to write poetry to the object of that love would be a lot harder if one was to contemplate that, driven by the nucleus accumbens, one's primary goal was insemination.

With colour vision just having it is not the issue, but going into raptures over the glory of a rainbow, or a mist shrouded Uluru, or a beautiful woman must entail letting the imagination intervene, in other words confabulating like hell.

Your statement could just as easily read; “I guess this raises the question of whether society should allow some of its kind to believe in the romantic nature of sex, because romanticism has existed as a sustaining societal meme or, do we treat the condition with neuro-psycho pharmacologic solutions. Herein, the challenge would be to inhibit the overzealous networking of brain neurons which inappropriately reinforce delusions.”

For now I will stand by my question; should we be including romantic love when we turf out religion? Or do we both agree they are part of our human make-up and work to mitigate their excesses rather than terminate their existences?

Human nature. A deadly game in anyone's understanding, and since mankind has separated its self from reality, ( the natural world ) we have become many gods ourselves. Now, the time is half-past the 21 century and our baby-boots has only just come off, and now with our pointless squabble of who will rule what, we have miss the point of the meaning of life, or the detail of. All living things on this planet are in balance but us, so keep forgetting the point and see what happens. Dont say, I didn't know, cause you dam well did. Humans are now the top predators on this planet and we are eating it alive! The time clock, is not in our favour, so keep our pissing contest going and see what happens.
We can change anything we wont and I am sick and tired of our bullsh@t. The world as one or die, its your choice. The human brain is, greedy, ugly, and full of self interest, and until you all work this all out, all I can do is, watch in disgust.

The animal in us by the way, no religion or scientific other, is going make any difference's to the out-comes in reality in what we are facing today. You all think you are so clever, but you cant save yourselves. lol so now who,s the fool?

Smaller and smarter!

Your move.

Csteele, as much as I enjoy your posts, I have no trouble believing in romantic love (having experienced it on several occasions) while simultaneously disbelieving in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Poetry is an artefact of language, and not 'spirituality'. The great challenge of any language is perfect understanding. There is no way I can be sure that you see the colour 'blue' in exactly the same way that I do. Great poetry is evocative. While we may not understand or agree on the exact meaning of the words (Shakespeare -and the Bible- is still being 'interpreted', or reinterpreted) hopefully we will share the same or similar feelings.
Peter Hume, my point about obscene wealth was rather more than rhetoric. One of the defining characteristics of Capital, is it's ability to increase it's own value merely by existing.
Two examples. Warren Buffet buys shares in the hope they will increase in value. Immediately, a thousand investors think, “If Buffet is buying, it must be good!” The share price goes up without anything concrete about the company in question having changed.
Example 2. As pointed out in a recent article on OLO, housing prices in Oz jumped as a result of Women's Lib. First 2 incomes made houses more affordable, then more competitive, and finally 2 incomes became essential, without any change in the product in question.
What is 'obscene' wealth'? To a parent forced to watch a child die of malnutrition, someone on the dole in Oz would be obscenely wealthy. Today, despite more than billion people going hungry every day, farmers are turning away from growing food because there isn't enough money in it ('market pressure').
Instead they grow crops for fuel.
Why do we need the fuel? Well obviously, we need it to keep our industry alive. We need it so we can work, to can make money...
to buy essentials...
like...
food...
“I think the interesting thing that religion shows, is that mankind are capable of believing the most patent bullsh/t, so that it seems there is positively an adaptation for it.”
I so totally agree.

Dear Grim,

There are many cultures that view romantic love as a poor even destructive basis for marriage and they could probably cite some very strong evidence to reinforce that view.

Don't they have the right to see our preoccupation with romantic love an aberrant belief system or cultural meme?

Aren't the very arguments you would use to defend your belief in romantic love essentially the same as the ones taken up by those defending religion? And wouldn't they be just as vulnerable to science's reductionism?

Have you experienced the profoundness of a religious revelation? I have and would recommend it as one of life's great experiences. Now admittedly it occurred when I was going out with a stunning 'born again' lass so other things may well have been in play...okay probably were in play... but wow! I have drunk from that cup and can see why it is so attractive. Within a few months my scientific mind had completely eroded any edifice my religious mind was attempting to build but I'm glad to have experienced it.

Surely spirituality drives poetry. Poetry often is the struggle to put into words deep emotional feelings in order to communicate them to ones self and others. Rather than being an artefact of language might not poetry be viewed as a distillation or refinement of it that attempts to move much of language aside to get at the real essence of something? That something must have generally have a spiritual dimension for without it why the need for poetry?

I'm more than happy to accept that poetry, romantic love, religion and the colour blue are all in the eye of the beholder. Hell I even found poetry in of UOG's conversation with Cicero;

old man...why dont they let you sleep..remove your godheaded-ness..away from them..age has wearied..even the intent of your words...now fools..quote them out of context...thinking their majesty...to disproove gods supreem majesty

But I would venture to say life would be half as interesting without religion, indeed this enjoyable conversation couldn't have occurred in its absence.