|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Pathways to Heaven?
|
HughWillRidmee
Shipmate
# 15614
|
Posted
What effect, if any, do you think this approach would have should it lead to identifying differences in brain structure between those who accept supernaturality and those who don’t?
--------------------
The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things.. but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them...
W. K. Clifford, "The Ethics of Belief" (1877)
Posts: 894 | From: Middle England | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
At the very least it will identify those of us who need to preach the Gospel every day - using words if necessary - to hose unfortunates with bits of their brains not working properly.
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Does that exclude anybody here who does not need to preach it to themselves?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
It doesn't really tell us anything new, HughWillRidmee - we know we are all different, we all think differently, and some of these differences can be attributed to brain structure. I suppose the crux of the matter is whether you believe that contained in those graphic images of the brain, is the entire person (as an atheist would) or an organ which the person needs to think and function, but not the complete person himself.
I don't know what significance it has, but I am forever noticing how living organs, such as the brain, look crude and simple at first glance - but that superficial appearance hides something which is incredibly complex - more so than the world's most powerful computer, or bank of computers.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
poileplume
Shipmate
# 16438
|
Posted
Mark Betts is completely right. What we know to date about neurology is very limited indeed, we are just scratching the surface. What is crucial is that neurological pathways are interconnected. We are involved in an immense multitasking operation just to eat an orange.
Plus what we do with these neurological connections is what is significant in normal life. Firstly the overwhelming proportion of our mental processes are learned in some degree of other – 98%? Plus we are in a constant interaction with our environment – physical and social and our own bodies, especially in terms of the chemical balances.
An analogy would be if I know how the muscles of my legs work, therefore I know where I am going to walk today.
Howver, the technique will be of immense value in terms of diagnosing medical issues. Anything more than that, well if you wait a century of so...
--------------------
Please note I am quite severely dyslexic
Posts: 319 | From: Quebec | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
HughWillRidmee
Shipmate
# 15614
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
At the very least it will identify those of us who need to preach the Gospel every day - using words if necessary - to hose unfortunates with bits of their brains not working properly. I can assure you that I have no intention of spraying you with your faulty grey matter
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I suppose the crux of the matter is whether you believe that contained in those graphic images of the brain, is the entire person (as an atheist would) An atheist does not believe in a god or gods – not for the first time your habit of inventing additional membership rules for atheists - rules that don’t exist - damages any merit your statements might have.
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts: I don't know what significance it has, but I am forever noticing how living organs, such as the brain, look crude and simple at first glance - but that superficial appearance hides something which is incredibly complex - more so than the world's most powerful computer, or bank of computers. It means that you’re learning not to take things at face value – keep it up.
quote:
Originally posted by poileplume:
Mark Betts is completely right. Not about atheists he ain’t
quote:
Originally posted by poileplume:
What we know to date about neurology is very limited indeed, we are just scratching the surface. I agree that we almost certainly have a massive amount more to discover.
quote:
Originally posted by poileplume:
....An analogy would be if I know how the muscles of my legs work, therefore I know where I am going to walk today. It would? – can you explain?
quote:
Originally posted by poileplume:
However, the technique will be of immense value in terms of diagnosing medical issues. But will it help with combating those issues?
“The project could help shed light on why some people are naturally scientific, musical or artistic”. If that light shedding extends to why some people are spiritual/mystical ought we to hope that the technique remains diagnostic and can’t be used to permit modification of that part of the diagnosed’s personality?
--------------------
The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things.. but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them...
W. K. Clifford, "The Ethics of Belief" (1877)
Posts: 894 | From: Middle England | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
poileplume
Shipmate
# 16438
|
Posted
Reply to HughWillRidmee
quote:
Originally posted by poileplume:
....An analogy would be if I know how the muscles of my legs work, therefore I know where I am going to walk today. It would? – can you explain?
Reply: Sorry badly expressed. It would have been better expressed as “If I know how the muscles of your legs work, I would still not know where you are going to walk today.” It is the structure versus function argument.
________________________________________
quote:
________________________________________
Originally posted by poileplume:
However, the technique will be of immense value in terms of diagnosing medical issues. But will it help with combating those issues?
Reply: By early diagnosis, it will allow treatment to be instigated earlier. The broadcast mentions dyslexia. As you can see I am dyslexic myself and have acted as a councillor. It is essential that coping mechanisms for dyslexia are introduced as earlier as possible. This allows the dyslexic to maximise their potential especially during the formative years, plus the secondary consequences e are be avoided.
quote:
Originally posted by poileplume:
Mark Betts is completely right. Not about atheists he ain’t
I leave that to Mark Betts to discuss with you. I claim non combatant status.
--------------------
Please note I am quite severely dyslexic
Posts: 319 | From: Quebec | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by poileplume:
Mark Betts is completely right.
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
Not about atheists he ain’t
I leave that to Mark Betts to discuss with you. I claim non combatant status.
Actually HughWillRidmee, if I am wrong then you will need to explain to me what the "person" is to an atheist such as yourself.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
If that light shedding extends to why some people are spiritual/mystical ought we to hope that the technique remains diagnostic and can’t be used to permit modification of that part of the diagnosed’s personality?
This bothers me too. I have ADHD, which has been shown to be a 'brain difference'.
But my ADHD is me and I would hate to have it taken away as I'd feel that a large part of me had been taken away. My impulsivity, risk taking, experimental, 'living in the moment' nature is (I feel) largely due to the ADD. When I took Ritalin it helped me focus a great deal, but seemed to rob me of the essential me. (Ritalin is a stimulant which stimulates the part of the brain which deals with executive functions and focus).
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
/continuing tangent/
I think atheists and people of faith share a common belief that a human person is a sentient organic entity. They simply differ in their beliefs about any supernatural creative "making" of that entity.
So I'm not sure what you're getting at, Mark. Atheists do not believe we are made in the image of God, but that does not of itself prevent them being able to love other people as they love themselves - or at least to see that as a good way to go. Many are up for the second of Jesus' two commandments, even though they are not up for the first.
[ 18. February 2013, 09:53: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I don't know what significance it has, but I am forever noticing how living organs, such as the brain, look crude and simple at first glance - but that superficial appearance hides something which is incredibly complex - more so than the world's most powerful computer, or bank of computers.
It means that you’re learning not to take things at face value – keep it up.
OK. So far so good.
So where do we go next? Naturalistic Evolution, after all, is a casual, random, undesigned process, so we would expect to find that something (such as the brain) to still be fairly crude and unsophisticated, just as it appears, wouldn't we HughWillRidmee?
But this isn't the case, is it? So wouldn't we at least suspect that a few million years for the necessary natural selection and random mutations to take place, is not really very long at all, considering the brain's complexity?
If we could only get to the stage where we can wonder if there just might be more to it all than the naturalistic scientists conclude, we have come a very long way. But don't worry, I'm not holding my breath.
And I didn't use the term "scientism" once, did I? Oops! Sorry, I just did. ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
/continuing tangent/
I think atheists and people of faith share a common belief that a human person is a sentient organic entity.
I'm not quite sure I would say that - there is an element of mystery about the human person - made in the image of God, spiritual (in that he can relate to God). It is hard to explain, but I wanted to hear what HughWillRidmee had to say. Certainly I believe that there is more to the person than you describe.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
Mark - so you are saying that it's so complex it must have a creator?
Maybe so - but that's nothing to do with the OP.
The OP is asking how much our brain wiring causes us to be 'spiritual' people.
I would also like to ask how much of creativity is in brain structure/composition?
I think quite a lot. Most of the people I know who are very creative are definitely 'differently wired'!
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
What effect, if any, do you think this approach would have should it lead to identifying differences in brain structure between those who accept supernaturality and those who don’t?
Don't forget that brain structure also changes over the course of a person's life depending on how they use their brains.
It is hard to say whether the differences are a cause of what a person does, or a result of what they have chosen to do. Both I expect.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
What effect, if any, do you think this approach would have should it lead to identifying differences in brain structure between those who accept supernaturality and those who don’t?
There are people with all sorts of brain diseases, so adding atheism to the long list would not make much of a difference. I would expect that one would see the same sort of spectrum as in other brain diseases. There would be people whose atheism is not or only marginally due to brain disease (but rather due to error on this specific subject, or general cognitive deficits). And then there would be "clinically atheist" people, who suffer from severe imbalances of their neurochemistry, reduced cortical connectivity, or whatever else turns out to be the main cause.
Morally speaking, such "clinical atheists" would be in the same position as kleptomaniac thieves or psychopathic killers. That is to say, while their irreligion remains just as damnable as any irreligion, and society may have to take precautions against their actions damaging individuals and the common good, their own personal culpability may well be reduced. They do deserve our - cautious - pity. And we can of course assume that God will take into account their diseased brains and pass fair judgement on what they did with what they were given. (Just as there appear to be quite a number of functional psychopaths actually using their deficits in a positive manner for society, one can always hope that clinical atheists can in some manner or form be integrated viably into society.)
Practically speaking, DSM-5 is about to be published. So unfortunately it will be some time before atheism can be formally recognized as a mental disorder by the medical profession. That should however not stop us in the meantime from researching drugs or other interventions that may ease the devastating sufferings of atheists.
Is that roughly what you wanted to discuss?
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
poileplume
Shipmate
# 16438
|
Posted
IngoB
That is one of the funnest things I have read for many a day.
--------------------
Please note I am quite severely dyslexic
Posts: 319 | From: Quebec | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Is that roughly what you wanted to discuss?
The scientismists on here will love you, IngoB. ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
So where do we go next? Naturalistic Evolution, after all, is a casual, random, undesigned process, so we would expect to find that something (such as the brain) to still be fairly crude and unsophisticated, just as it appears, wouldn't we HughWillRidmee?
But this isn't the case, is it? So wouldn't we at least suspect that a few million years for the necessary natural selection and random mutations to take place, is not really very long at all, considering the brain's complexity?
Exactly how are you measuring "complexity"? That would help me get a handle on the standard by which the brain is "crude and unsophisticated" when compared with, for example, the eye or the vascular system of a tree.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
And then there would be "clinically atheist" people, who suffer from severe imbalances of their neurochemistry, reduced cortical connectivity, or whatever else turns out to be the main cause.
Morally speaking, such "clinical atheists" would be in the same position as kleptomaniac thieves or psychopathic killers. That is to say, while their irreligion remains just as damnable as any irreligion, and society may have to take precautions against their actions damaging individuals and the common good, their own personal culpability may well be reduced.
What I find most interesting about this kind of assertion is the way "society" is exhorted to be much more merciful than God. In short, "society" should be cautious in how it treats those with peculiar quirks of brain chemistry, but God will damn them to eternal torment for it.
[ 18. February 2013, 13:18: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Practically speaking, DSM-5 is about to be published. So unfortunately it will be some time before atheism can be formally recognized as a mental disorder by the medical profession. That should however not stop us in the meantime from researching drugs or other interventions that may ease the devastating sufferings of atheists.
Is that roughly what you wanted to discuss?
And what about the 'clinically religious'?
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Net Spinster
Shipmate
# 16058
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I don't know what significance it has, but I am forever noticing how living organs, such as the brain, look crude and simple at first glance - but that superficial appearance hides something which is incredibly complex - more so than the world's most powerful computer, or bank of computers.
It means that you’re learning not to take things at face value – keep it up.
OK. So far so good.
So where do we go next? Naturalistic Evolution, after all, is a casual, random, undesigned process, so we would expect to find that something (such as the brain) to still be fairly crude and unsophisticated, just as it appears, wouldn't we HughWillRidmee?
But this isn't the case, is it? So wouldn't we at least suspect that a few million years for the necessary natural selection and random mutations to take place, is not really very long at all, considering the brain's complexity?
If we could only get to the stage where we can wonder if there just might be more to it all than the naturalistic scientists conclude, we have come a very long way. But don't worry, I'm not holding my breath.
And I didn't use the term "scientism" once, did I? Oops! Sorry, I just did.
Natural selection is not random though it is undesigned. The mutations that it can work on are random. For example bacteria that infect humans (and the animals they domestic) mutate randomly but those that develop a mutation that gives them an edge against the antibiotics that are commonly used (and barring drawbacks from the mutation that outweigh this edge) will reproduce and soon those with that mutation will dominate the population.
The human brain is perhaps an unusual result (maybe a bit like the elephant's trunk) but is on an continuum. The other apes (e.g., chimpanzees) with which we share a common ancestor less than 10 million years ago also have highly developed brains compared to most other animals and it does not differ in major ways from ours except in degree. Further development presumably gave us an advantage that outweighed its disadvantages (huge energy consumer, higher maternal mortality).
--------------------
spinner of webs
Posts: 1093 | From: San Francisco Bay area | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
That is to say, while their irreligion remains just as damnable as any irreligion, and society may have to take precautions against their actions damaging individuals and the common good, their own personal culpability may well be reduced. (italics added now)
In short, "society" should be cautious in how it treats those with peculiar quirks of brain chemistry, but God will damn them to eternal torment for it.
Do you generally find it difficult to follow long sentences to their end? Do people often say that you fail to come to the most natural conclusion? Or does all that just happen whenever you try to talk about religion and God?
Merely trying my hand at a bit of differential diagnosis of atheism here. Let's see, ... here's another question.
Are you often surprised when people tell you that they have been taking the piss out of you?
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
That is to say, while their irreligion remains just as damnable as any irreligion, and society may have to take precautions against their actions damaging individuals and the common good, their own personal culpability may well be reduced. (italics added now)
In short, "society" should be cautious in how it treats those with peculiar quirks of brain chemistry, but God will damn them to eternal torment for it.
Do you generally find it difficult to follow long sentences to their end? Do people often say that you fail to come to the most natural conclusion? Or does all that just happen whenever you try to talk about religion and God?
Not at all. Isn't damnation the ultimate in personal culpability?
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Are you often surprised when people tell you that they have been taking the piss out of you?
Nope. I've always found Christian notions of an all loving God who intends to torture me for eternity to be hilariious! Most Christians don't seem regard it as a joke though. Congratulations on your insight.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
On atheism as a disease, Simon Baron-Cohen seemed to get close to this, with his suggestion of a spectrum from autistic people to empathetic people, with autistic people being unsympathetic to religion.
You can see the headlines: 'Atheists are autistic'.
However, it seems to be contradicted by the existence of quite a few autistic and Asperger's people who are religious. In fact, I've heard of church services in the US specially for them.
Still, the discussion of the 'theory of mind' and its prevalence amongst autistic, versus empathetic, people, is interesting.
I would guess research on this is in its infancy.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Oh no, that wasn't an argument about irreducible complexity, in relation to the brain, was it? And I thought the government had banned such arguments.
It's really the argument from incredulity - I can't believe that the brain could evolve.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
On atheism as a disease, Simon Baron-Cohen seemed to get close to this, with his suggestion of a spectrum from autistic people to empathetic people, with autistic people being unsympathetic to religion.
You can see the headlines: 'Atheists are autistic'.
However, it seems to be contradicted by the existence of quite a few autistic and Asperger's people who are religious. In fact, I've heard of church services in the US specially for them.
Still, the discussion of the 'theory of mind' and its prevalence amongst autistic, versus empathetic, people, is interesting.
I would guess research on this is in its infancy.
http://www.livescience.com/20654-autism-belief-god.html
For example. This is in no way contradicted by the existence of autistic believers; it's simply that an autistic person, all else being equal, is considerably less likely to believe in God.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Yes, I think the usual caution about correlation and causation must be applied here. It doesn't mean that 'autism causes atheism'.
It does seem to show some correlations between autism and non-religion, but I still think this is early days, as these areas of research are often prone to big changes, as more and more teams start to get involved, and begin to investigate more variables.
I suppose the cliche is the guy who loves analyzing stuff, doesn't relate well to people, is clumsy, finds women very puzzling - hey, that's me down to a T!
Bt i iz no adeistical.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Oh no, that wasn't an argument about irreducible complexity, in relation to the brain, was it? And I thought the government had banned such arguments.
It's really the argument from incredulity - I can't believe that the brain could evolve.
Oh dear, I'd forgotten scientismists like yourself get upset about things like that. An Anglican scientismist I notice, so maybe not the worst kind.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Oh no, that wasn't an argument about irreducible complexity, in relation to the brain, was it? And I thought the government had banned such arguments.
It's really the argument from incredulity - I can't believe that the brain could evolve.
Oh dear, I'd forgotten scientismists like yourself get upset about things like that. An Anglican scientismist I notice, so maybe not the worst kind.
Not upset at all. I guess you haven't noticed me criticizing scientism fiercely, which I tend to do. For one thing, it is not a scientific claim, so immediately refutes itself!
No, these arguments from incredulity just seem a bit feeble today - surely, creationists are not still muttering, 'I don't see how the eye/brain/whale could have evolved in millions of years', are they?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
...surely, creationists are not still muttering, 'I don't see how the eye/brain/whale could have evolved in millions of years', are they?
Well, they've been waiting more than 100 years for a good answer from naturalists - I expect they will be muttering about why they haven't seen it, yet keep being told "It's been proved, it's been proved!"
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Well, no, nothing is proved in science, only in maths and logic.
But I have yet to meet a creationist who had actually read stuff about evolution, and actually seemed to understand it. They tend to have a very naive idea about it.
There is a ton of stuff out there, which can be read, and is approachable. I was reading an article yesterday about the evolution of whales, and it seemed straightforward to me, although I am not a biologist.
[ 18. February 2013, 17:33: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Going back to the stuff about autism and atheism, this might present some difficult theological issues. I mean that if you did argue that autism or Asperger's might actually prevent a person from being religious, or even that they lack the sensus divinitatis, then how can that be reconciled with the idea of a loving creator?
I suppose you could reconcile it with five point Calvinism? Since no-one is able to seek God, or to even want to be with God, the autistic or Asperger's person is not really disadvantaged, and could also be redeemed by grace.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Going back to the stuff about autism and atheism, this might present some difficult theological issues. I mean that if you did argue that autism or Asperger's might actually prevent a person from being religious, or even that they lack the sensus divinitatis, then how can that be reconciled with the idea of a loving creator?
I read the earlier link, and it seems to suggest that christianity is all about a person's mental processes - ie cerebral christianity.
Maybe it doesn't have to be so mind-based - that's why we use icons, candles, incense, sacraments - instead of just relying on brain function.
With the greatest of respect, perhaps people with autism might find a "higher" form of christianity easier for them, rather than being stuck with intellectuals on an Alpha course.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Yes, that might be true.
I'm just making the point that in 5 point Calvinism, nobody has the ability to want to be with God, so the autistic person is not under a disadvantage at all, if you accept the argument about autism and atheism.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Squibs
Shipmate
# 14408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
What effect, if any, do you think this approach would have should it lead to identifying differences in brain structure between those who accept supernaturality and those who don’t?
There are people with all sorts of brain diseases, so adding atheism to the long list would not make much of a difference. I would expect that one would see the same sort of spectrum as in other brain diseases. There would be people whose atheism is not or only marginally due to brain disease (but rather due to error on this specific subject, or general cognitive deficits). And then there would be "clinically atheist" people, who suffer from severe imbalances of their neurochemistry, reduced cortical connectivity, or whatever else turns out to be the main cause.
Morally speaking, such "clinical atheists" would be in the same position as kleptomaniac thieves or psychopathic killers. That is to say, while their irreligion remains just as damnable as any irreligion, and society may have to take precautions against their actions damaging individuals and the common good, their own personal culpability may well be reduced. They do deserve our - cautious - pity. And we can of course assume that God will take into account their diseased brains and pass fair judgement on what they did with what they were given. (Just as there appear to be quite a number of functional psychopaths actually using their deficits in a positive manner for society, one can always hope that clinical atheists can in some manner or form be integrated viably into society.)
Practically speaking, DSM-5 is about to be published. So unfortunately it will be some time before atheism can be formally recognized as a mental disorder by the medical profession. That should however not stop us in the meantime from researching drugs or other interventions that may ease the devastating sufferings of atheists.
Is that roughly what you wanted to discuss?
Brilliant!
Posts: 1124 | From: Here, there and everywhere | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, that might be true.
I'm just making the point that in 5 point Calvinism, nobody has the ability to want to be with God, so the autistic person is not under a disadvantage at all, if you accept the argument about autism and atheism.
Yes, but seeing as I can't handle five-point Calvinism myself, I'm hardly in a position to recommend it to anyone else!
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Squibs:
Brilliant!
Yes, I normally moan when people repost reams and reams of previous quotes, but in this case it's a good thing! ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I wonder how you'd be judged by your projected criteria IngoB ?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
http://www.livescience.com/20654-autism-belief-god.html
For example. This is in no way contradicted by the existence of autistic believers; it's simply that an autistic person, all else being equal, is considerably less likely to believe in God.
I'm not sure the results would extend beyond a fairly evangelical "personal relationship with God" approach to belief. It also excludes the ability of people with autism to reason their way past a lack of empathic skills. As a Christian with mild Asperger's I have some insight here I think.
In any case, there are lots of factors affecting ones likelihood to believe in God - whether you grew up in a religious family, for example. I don't think this one factor is any more concerning than another.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
/continuing tangent/
I think atheists and people of faith share a common belief that a human person is a sentient organic entity.
I'm not quite sure I would say that - there is an element of mystery about the human person - made in the image of God, spiritual (in that he can relate to God). It is hard to explain, but I wanted to hear what HughWillRidmee had to say. Certainly I believe that there is more to the person than you describe.
Sure, but not less! And that was my point.
Just my generally co-operative instincts at work really; pointing out what we are likely to agree about seems more useful than speculating mysteriously about things we probably don't agree on.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, that might be true.
I'm just making the point that in 5 point Calvinism, nobody has the ability to want to be with God, so the autistic person is not under a disadvantage at all, if you accept the argument about autism and atheism.
Yes, but seeing as I can't handle five-point Calvinism myself, I'm hardly in a position to recommend it to anyone else!
I'm not actually recommending it. I'm just following an as-if argument, and it struck me how cleverly total depravity deals with any group of people, who for whatever reason, could not have the experience of wanting to be with God. Total depravity seems to argue that nobody can want to be with God.
Well, I find that very satisfying in a sort of logical way. It also feels partly intuitively correct, that I cannot will myself to love someone.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Going back to the stuff about autism and atheism, this might present some difficult theological issues. I mean that if you did argue that autism or Asperger's might actually prevent a person from being religious, or even that they lack the sensus divinitatis, then how can that be reconciled with the idea of a loving creator?
It's only a problem to be reconciled if you assume that being religious is a prerequisite to receiving benefits from the creator.
--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.
Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
It's only a problem to be reconciled if you assume that being religious is a prerequisite to receiving benefits from the creator.
. . . or avoiding punishment by the creator.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
What effect, if any, do you think this approach would have should it lead to identifying differences in brain structure between those who accept supernaturality and those who don’t?
Don't forget that brain structure also changes over the course of a person's life depending on how they use their brains.
It is hard to say whether the differences are a cause of what a person does, or a result of what they have chosen to do. Both I expect.
Yes, assuming there are differences identified, it will then become important to know whether they are a cause or a result. As I understand it, musician's brains are very obviously different compared to non-musicians (e.g. more gray matter), but that these obvious differences are a result of being a musician rather than a cause, which would mean that they cannot be used to help determine how likely an individual is to become a musician in the future.
--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.
Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Going back to the stuff about autism and atheism, this might present some difficult theological issues. I mean that if you did argue that autism or Asperger's might actually prevent a person from being religious, or even that they lack the sensus divinitatis, then how can that be reconciled with the idea of a loving creator?
It's only a problem to be reconciled if you assume that being religious is a prerequisite to receiving benefits from the creator.
Yes, being religious is no help at all, since we all hate God, and we are all equally unable to approach him.
Since I'm not a Calvinist, I'm not sure how it then proceeds. We know that some sinners receive irresistible grace, and some do not. Thus, there is no merit to be rewarded; all deserve damnation.
I just like the logical puzzle of it.
Oh Lord, if I may contend with thee, why do sinners' ways prosper? Wert thou my enemy, O thou my friend ...
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
I wonder how you'd be judged by your projected criteria IngoB?
To ring the bell, a clapper strikes its inside rim, making the whole body resonate. So it ought to be for bell curves.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
Interesting to note the following phraseology from the article (found at 1.23-1.37 mins).
Interviewer: So, what do you hope to learn from these incredible images?
Scientist Bod: We have a number of purposes. On the one hand we want to understand better how the brain is designed, how it works. On the other hand we have biomedical objectives.
This exchange is very telling. It tells us that scientists want to know more about the brain. It tells us that the language of creation is harder to expunge from scientific dialogue than people will care to admit. It tells us that scientific endeavour to as much about curiosity and the spirit of exploration as it is about pragmatism and rationality.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
quote:
“The project could help shed light on why some people are naturally scientific, musical or artistic”.
Well, no, it won't do that will it? Not even it its successful beyond its funder's wildest dreams. It can't show why people think about science or music or art - or God, or religion. or anything else. It shows how they do it, not why. We know we think with our brains. We know our brains work by electrochemistry. Finding our the details of how it works doesn't answer "why" questions but "how" ones.
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Maybe it doesn't have to be so mind-based - that's why we use icons, candles, incense, sacraments - instead of just relying on brain function.
But no-one can "use icons, candles, incense, sacraments" without involving their brain function. You do all those things with your mind. And you do your mind with your body.
We don't want a sort of "soul of the gaps" theory. As if humanity or consciousness or personality could only reside in the unexplained, and as soon as we understand how something works it ceases to be really "us" and becomes mere mechanism. As if our bodies are not really ourselves, but just machines we operate, like driving a car. And any behaviour or thought that could be explained by the way the car works must be part of the car, not the driver. That leads to nonsense like "it wasn't my fault it was my hormones" or "it wasn't my fault it was the drink" or "its not my fault its just the way my brain works" as if my hormones, or my behaviour when drunk, or the structure of my brain isn't really "me" but just some faulty meat machine I've been lumbered with.
[ 19. February 2013, 15:10: Message edited by: ken ]
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts
I suppose the crux of the matter is whether you believe that contained in those graphic images of the brain, is the entire person (as an atheist would)
An atheist does not believe in a god or gods – not for the first time your habit of inventing additional membership rules for atheists - rules that don’t exist - damages any merit your statements might have.
Yes, but not believing in God has implications, because 'God' is not a trivial concept. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to draw inferences from belief / non-belief in God. Mark Betts was entirely justified in doing so.
It is a common fallacy for atheists to claim that "atheism is merely non-belief in God, with absolutely nothing else to say about it" (as if 'God' is as trivial as Russell's Teapot). If this really were the case, then it would be possible for someone to claim to be a proper atheist while believing in the existence of a personal, intelligent creator of the whole universe, as long as this creator is not called 'God'. Clearly such a being is rightly called 'God', and therefore if 'God' is not believed in, then neither is creation believed in and every idea that is associated with creation.
You can't ditch 'God' without ditching a whole load of other concepts that depend on His existence and activity.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
