The God Experiments...

[11 to 1 0]

The December issue of Discover finally caught up with me and I found this article, I'm sure has been discussed all over the 'net. The article is about five researchers who have been experimenting with "religious experience." By the third paragraph, the article tells us that there is going to be little to no objective science in these experiments:

Quote:"..researchers come to study religious experience with very different motive sand assumptions. Some of them hope that their studies will inform and enrich faith. Others see religion as an embarrassing relic of our past, and they want to explain it away."

Could someone PLEASE put the "science" back into science? What is the result of a scientist wanting to prove a previously held opinion? Well, you get the kind of thing reported here.Michael Persinger, neuroscientist, declared he had induced specific religious experiences in subjects by stimulating specific areas of their brains. No less an avowed atheist as Richard Dawkins volunteered to test the "God machine" as it was dubbed. Dawkins admitted later on the BBC that he was "very disappointed" to have not had any spiritual sensation.But, how many atheist sites are crowing about the "fact" that a machine can make you have a religious experience? In point of fact, the machine doesn't work, the results are unreliable and unreplicable, according to this article.Sloppy science abounds in these "researches." Stewart Guthrie of Fordham University, characterized in the article as being in the "explain it away camp," posits that humans have invented God, because different gods with minds and emotions similar to our own populate the world's religions. He cites anthropomorphism (the tendency to attribute human characteristics to non-human objects) as the causitive factor, an evolutionary adaptation run amok. While this may explain different people's tendency to make God a person, like an old man with a beard on a mountain, it doesn't explain how it comes to pass that god is perceived as real by people in every culture on earth. Nor does it explain animal gods or rock and tree gods. There is no actual science being practiced here, there is just some guy with a lot of letters after his name making up an argument based on, well, nothing, really.Guthrie's conclusion is that the whole of mankind, while still living in essentially disconnected cultures, all decided in an orgy of anthropomorphic extremism, that "the entire world of our experience is merely a show staged by some master dramatist."I was still wondering why, when the earliest gods are almost exclusively animals, he decided this was anthropomorphism when I got to more about the God Machine man, Persinger. He says our sense of "self" is mediated by the left hemisphere of the brain and that injury, psychological trauma, stroke, drugs or epileptic seizure "might" make our right brain mistake activity in our left brain for a different person. I guess we could call this the "evil twin theory of god" and put it on an episode of Guiding Light. (Seems appropriate.) Well, at least you know what you really are: a left brain. It's a wonder the right brain doesn't run amok with your credit cards and leave the left brain tied up in the cereberal sub-basement. Which is coming up next!This whole "which part of the brain is god in" seems to be a fairly popular theme, with Andrew Newberg, a neuroscientist at U of Penn's hypothesis explaining why people from different cultures and religious traditions (like Buddhists and Christians) report similar mystical experiences. Newburg has decided that sensations of self-transcendence and oneness arise from neural processes. Newberg hypothesizes that suppressed activity in the posterior superior parietal lobe "could" heighten a sense of unity with the external world. This suppression happens because of an individual's "willed" activity. ( I was just wondering where this self came from that willed changes in the brain in the first place?)What I also want to know is: why is this only about these two factors of religious experience? What about the sense of God present, and the sense of removal from reality? The "oneness" experienced by mystics is so often with God, not with any external matter/energy world? But this gets more interesting. Newberg's brain scans found some response also in the hypothalmus. Since the hypothalmus is most famous for regulating arousal and quiescence, Newberg concludes, according to the article that an "evolutionary perspective suggests that the neurobiology of mystical experience arose, in least in part, from the mechanism of sexual response." Hey, sexy science sells!He has a problem, though. While the hypothalmus is rockin' and ragin' during sexual activity, the part of the brain more active during spiritual practices is: the frontal lobes. (I want Persinger to take note of the plural here, not just one frontal lobe on one side.) The frontal lobes, as we all know, are late comers in evolutionary history and are associated with HIGHER cognitive function.Here's where I think we have a really interesting compare and contrast. Persinger tried to cause a feeling by externally stimulating the brain. Newberg tried to explain the experience by saying it was "internal control" that changed things. If Persinger believes mystical experience can be artifically generated by adding energy to the physical brain, where does he think the energy comes from that does it in people not attached to his machine? What outside source is stimulating the brain then?If Newberg believes that internal manipulation by the self causes changes in brain function, could he please define "self?" And tell us where this new stream of energy comes from to make the self decide to do anything? If we have no soul, no unique identity outside of our physical bodies, what part of the brain was activated to cause the self to undertake this activity, and how? That is, is the "self" some other part of the brain? What part of the brain, in reaction to what stimulus, can generate a self that makes other parts of the brain active or not?Who started it? (At this point the left brain should invite the right brain outside to settle who's in charge like real men.)Why has science abandoned Occam's Razor? The simplest explanation, the one that accounts for all the phenomena observed, is that something outside the human body exists and the experience of that by the self, which is attached to the body, comes through the stimulation of the brain by the external agent. There is plenty of evidence of metaphysical forces at work in Time, if real science would incorporate real data, then we'd have some theory that makes some sense.

[DonkSlayer 1]

Why has science abandoned Occam's Razor? The simplest explanation, the one that accounts for all the phenomena observed, is that something outside the human body exists and the experience of that by the self, which is attached to the body, comes through the stimulation of the brain by the external agent. There is plenty of evidence of metaphysical forces at work in Time, if real science would incorporate real data, then we'd have some theory that makes some sense.

I like your stuff about the failure to recreate out-of-body experiences, etc to a testable consistency. However, I don't think Occam's Razor applies in assuming that: unexplainable phenomena = God. I think it's more like: unexplainable phenomena = unexplainable phenomena.

[semaj550 0]

I like your stuff about the failure to recreate out-of-body experiences, etc to a testable consistency. However, I don't think Occam's Razor applies in assuming that: unexplainable phenomena = God. I think it's more like: unexplainable phenomena = unexplainable phenomena.

In order for science to be useful in any capacity it has to rely on the assumption that our universe is orderly; that because we observe something to be true 100 times, we can conclude that it will occur the same way 101 times. If random, unexplainable phenomena are allowed for, there is no reason to believe that our universe is orderly. We require some explanation for the phenomena. The theistic answer is God. While that answer isn't satisfactory for some, I've yet to find an atheistic answer that holds up under scrutiny.

[BWToth 0]

Why can't their be case-specific reasons for different phenomena as they occur? Like, 500 yrs ago the aurora borealis was attributed to the super-natural but now we know it is due to magnetic fields that blah blah etc. etc.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

In order for science to be useful in any capacity it has to rely on the assumption that our universe is orderly

True, but the exact nature of how it is orderly can vary. It could be orderly in Newton's sense or it could be orderly in Chaos Theory sense.

that because we observe something to be true 100 times, we can conclude that it will occur the same way 101 times.

No, we will only make that conclusion if we observe something over and over as well as understand why it is happening. We will only then guess that it will happen again if, based on our understanding, the causes of that event take place again. It's not just a "it happened before, it'll happen again" thing. Science is based on understanding, not merely recording events.

If random, unexplainable phenomena are allowed for, there is no reason to believe that our universe is orderly.

Untrue. There is more than enough reason to believe that everything in our universe is random (quantum mechanics). And for sure every phenomena, if one digs deep enough, is unexplainable at some level. However, our universe is extremely orderly.

We require some explanation for the phenomena.

What phenomena?

The theistic answer is God. While that answer isn't satisfactory for some, I've yet to find an atheistic answer that holds up under scrutiny.

God isn't an answer, it's only a placeholder for everything we don't understand. And, again, what answer? The answer to what question? I don't even know to what you are referring to here.So, yeah, everything, exactly everything, that you said in your little paragraph was wrong. This is what happens when I'm cranky from not getting enough sleep.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

To the OP:I don't get it. Are you saying that there ISN'T a part of the brain that allows humans to be easily susceptible to false religions. Because if that is your intention of this post, the how do you explain the many obviously false religions that humans have believed over the years? Or do you believe that every religion ever, from Zeus to Shiva to Allah, is right?It's clear to even the most devoutly religious that humans are very capable of believing in obviously false religion. The difference between the most devout religious person and an Atheist is that the Atheists thinks that humans are capable of believing in one more false religion than the religions person.

[semaj550 0]

Why can't their be case-specific reasons for different phenomena as they occur? Like, 500 yrs ago the aurora borealis was attributed to the super-natural but now we know it is due to magnetic fields that blah blah etc. etc.

I'm not saying there can't be. The explanation would need to be complete and entirely consistent with other scientific laws and principles. I'll admit that I don't know exactly how aurora borealis occurs but I definately don't think any intelligent people still believe that it has a supernatural cause. I'm also pretty confident that the naturalistic explanation meets the above criteria.

[BWToth 0]

Right, so my point is, back when inuit's or whatever thought it was supernatural they had no idea that 500 yrs later a perfectly sound non-supernatural explaination would come about. So it seems equally foolish to attribute phenomena that we can't explain today to the supernatural when in 500 more years a technology my exist that explains it in a perfectly sound non-supernatural manner.

[semaj550 0]

True, but the exact nature of how it is orderly can vary. It could be orderly in Newton's sense or it could be orderly in Chaos Theory sense.

By orderly I mean that if something happens one way and because of one cause. It cannot happen either a second way by the same cause or the same way by a different cause.i.e. The same gravitational force that causes an apple to fall cannot also cause it to rise. If that were the case, there would be no way of knowing what would occur in any future instance where an apple was subjected to gravity.

No, we will only make that conclusion if we observe something over and over as well as understand why it is happening. We will only then guess that it will happen again if, based on our understanding, the causes of that event take place again. It's not just a "it happened before, it'll happen again" thing. Science is based on understanding, not merely recording events.

I'll again point to my apple example. If we release an apple from a height of 10 feet 100 times and 50 times it rises and 50 times it falls (all other things being equal) we have no way of saying what will happen the 101st time with any authority.

Untrue. There is more than enough reason to believe that everything in our universe is random (quantum mechanics). And for sure every phenomena, if one digs deep enough, is unexplainable at some level. However, our universe is extremely orderly.

I didn't say our universe wasn't orderly. I said that it wouldn't be if random things could just happen without an explanation that was consistent with other scientific laws and principles.For example, please explain to me exactly how the currently unexplained phenomenon that is life originated.

What phenomena?

I wasn't referring to anything specific, I was only speaking in general terms. I suppose I could compile an list of some phenomena for you but I don't think that was the point.

God isn't an answer, it's only a placeholder for everything we don't understand. And, again, what answer? The answer to what question? I don't even know to what you are referring to here.

In specific instances (i.e. the origin of life) God isn't a placeholder, He is an explanation. To say that to every unexplained phenomenon God is the answer would be to use Him as a placeholder but He certainly is an answer to certain of those phenomena.

[11 to 1 0]

I like your stuff about the failure to recreate out-of-body experiences, etc to a testable consistency. However, I don't think Occam's Razor applies in assuming that: unexplainable phenomena = God. I think it's more like: unexplainable phenomena = unexplainable phenomena.

I'm completely with you. All I want is someone to say, "Huh. There's a phenomenon here we don't understand." That is, I just want them to approach it the same way Newton did gravity and astrophysics approaches dark matter. Both are names for something no one can prove actually exists, but only assume given the behavior of objects. What I mean is, instead of trying to prove or disprove a previously drawn conclusion, how about just studying the phenomenon for a while? Hey, Goodall studied chimps longer than anyone's ever studied this.

[11 to 1 0]

To the OP:I don't get it. Are you saying that there ISN'T a part of the brain that allows humans to be easily susceptible to false religions. Because if that is your intention of this post, the how do you explain the many obviously false religions that humans have believed over the years? Or do you believe that every religion ever, from Zeus to Shiva to Allah, is right?It's clear to even the most devoutly religious that humans are very capable of believing in obviously false religion. The difference between the most devout religious person and an Atheist is that the Atheists thinks that humans are capable of believing in one more false religion than the religions person.

I was saying that as someone who once worked in science, I find the state of inquiry into metaphysical phenomena appalling. To answer your post though - yes, I think all religions are right and all religions are wrong. I define "religion" as the physical expression of a spiritual reality. So, religion is like a painting of the sea - it can never manage to convey even a minute fraction of the reality of ocean, but it still deals with a real subject. (I should go find the Elephant Tale and stick it in here, that really says what I mean much better.) But I also believe that whatever God is (and I liked your definition from the previous post) there is only One. So, the guy dancing about a holy tree in a Brazilian forest and the Catholic bowing to the repository of the Eucharist in his parish are worshipping the same thing. The fact that they express differently what they both perceive imperfectly, doesn't mean they aren't both perceiving something real.

[semaj550 0]

I was saying that as someone who once worked in science, I find the state of inquiry into metaphysical phenomena appalling. To answer your post though - yes, I think all religions are right and all religions are wrong. I define "religion" as the physical expression of a spiritual reality. So, religion is like a painting of the sea - it can never manage to convey even a minute fraction of the reality of ocean, but it still deals with a real subject. (I should go find the Elephant Tale and stick it in here, that really says what I mean much better.) But I also believe that whatever God is (and I liked your definition from the previous post) there is only One. So, the guy dancing about a holy tree in a Brazilian forest and the Catholic bowing to the repository of the Eucharist in his parish are worshipping the same thing. The fact that they express differently what they both perceive imperfectly, doesn't mean they aren't both perceiving something real.

I think you would be correct but for the fact that God entered time as Jesus Christ. Jesus is God's own "physical expression of a spiritual reality" and through Him we are taught the way to God. I believe that without Christ, the guy dancing about a holy tree in a Brazilian forest isn't worshipping anything remotely similar to what the Catholic is worshipping.

[BWToth 0]

I think you would be correct but for the fact that God entered time as Jesus Christ. Jesus is God's own "physical expression of a spiritual reality" and through Him we are taught the way to God. I believe that without Christ, the guy dancing about a holy tree in a Brazilian forest isn't worshipping anything remotely similar to what the Catholic is worshipping.

Why not? Because it isn't the way YOU perceive god?I think 11 to 1 makes some pretty interesting points, if god does exist the chances of it being like what catholics think it is like is just as far-fetched as the notion the brazilian tree dancer thinks god is like.

[semaj550 0]

Why not? Because it isn't the way YOU perceive god?I think 11 to 1 makes some pretty interesting points, if god does exist the chances of it being like what catholics think it is like is just as far-fetched as the notion the brazilian tree dancer thinks god is like.

Without getting into a discussion on the divinity of Jesus I'll say that if Jesus is indeed God and that fact can be proven, the chances that God is like what Catholics think is a lot more likely that most other concepts.

[BWToth 0]

Without getting into a discussion on the divinity of Jesus I'll say that if Jesus is indeed God and that fact can be proven, the chances that God is like what Catholics think is a lot more likely that most other concepts.

But you can't come any closer to proving that jesus is god than you can to proving the god the brazilian tree hugger thinks is god is god. That's my point.

[BuffDan 0]

A lot of this thread seems to fall under the old I.D. argument "we don't have any current explanation for it so we will never have a future explanation for it so it must be God." Except of course that at many times in the past we have hit the same roadblock, be it about the revolution of the planets or the human eye, or the northern lights, as explained above. So I would be real hesitant to pick any phenomena and say "this, this we will NEVER understand." That said, the existence of phenomena we don't understand in no way implies the exisience of God. Why can't the universe just exist in a state of complexity beyond the explanation of certain brains that have evolved over the last few billion years? Why can't the universe just be complicated, without stipultation that some being had to design it in a complicated manner? The fact is that we can understand an awful lot, and, from a practical standpoint, we can use this understanding to build unbelievable machines, cure disease etc. But that doesn't imply we will know everything, and people forget, it is perfectly acceptable and correct for a scientist to say "I don't know." He usually follows this "I don't know" with a "but just because I don't know doesn't mean I am going to stop working on it and just give up and say God did it, as we have found explanations for a whole lot of things we previously thought only God could do, like lightning."

[BuffDan 0]

Without getting into a discussion on the divinity of Jesus I'll say that if Jesus is indeed God and that fact can be proven, the chances that God is like what Catholics think is a lot more likely that most other concepts.

Why don't you get into a discussion of how you think the divinity of Jesus can be proven? Because that WOULD separate Christianity from other religions, were it possible.

[semaj550 0]

But you can't come any closer to proving that jesus is god than you can to proving the god the brazilian tree hugger thinks is god is god. That's my point.

Actually I can. The Case for Christ is an excellent primer on the subject.

[BWToth 0]

Actually I can. The Case for Christ is an excellent primer on the subject.

The title isn't 'proof of christ'. And i've read it.

[11 to 1 0]

I think you would be correct but for the fact that God entered time as Jesus Christ. Jesus is God's own "physical expression of a spiritual reality" and through Him we are taught the way to God. I believe that without Christ, the guy dancing about a holy tree in a Brazilian forest isn't worshipping anything remotely similar to what the Catholic is worshipping.

Well, I mostly agree with you. But I also believe that God wants us all so much, He will certainly speak to us all even if we never heard of Jesus Christ but are seeking Truth. And if he has to use a tree to do that, then He will. As a Catholic, I accept the Triune God, that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are One. So, whatever we pay homage to in whatever way, we worship all and One: God. Since there is only one God, I don't think the tree guy can be worshipping anything else. The thing is, no matter what we are doing, I think most of us are already worshipping different gods, in a way, anyhow. Some think of God as a person who has a resemblance to humans and can become angry and punsish. Others think of God as Spirit, never experiencing any human-like emotions. Almost everyone thinks they know what God thinks or qwould do in a given situation, but we all think a little but differently. I'm not sure if we asked, if we would find the Tree God was that much different from a standard conception of God. Most gods have a lot in common, I think.

[11 to 1 0]

That said, the existence of phenomena we don't understand in no way implies the exisience of God. Why can't the universe just exist in a state of complexity beyond the explanation of certain brains that have evolved over the last few billion years? Why can't the universe just be complicated, without stipultation that some being had to design it in a complicated manner? The fact is that we can understand an awful lot, and, from a practical standpoint, we can use this understanding to build unbelievable machines, cure disease etc. But that doesn't imply we will know everything, and people forget, it is perfectly acceptable and correct for a scientist to say "I don't know." He usually follows this "I don't know" with a "but just because I don't know doesn't mean I am going to stop working on it and just give up and say God did it, as we have found explanations for a whole lot of things we previously thought only God could do, like lightning."

It can, and I am all in favor of that, and that being the way we study things, if only we would find science and scientists willing to do so. It is THEY who keep bringing the "G" word into reports of NDE's (near death experiences) for instance. Any evidence for the survival of consciousness after death and it is the scientists that default to God and religion. The research that has been done cannot get published in mainstream journals, even if the same researcher, having impeccable credentials, has published there before. I mean, screw religion, if there was some real research and evidence of ways of being outside of, before or after being in a physical body, wouldn't you want to at least hear about it?Why not a science that can just put God aside and try to figure out The Way Things Work? ( Maybe that's all God really is, anyway.) Why not a universe that can encompass the possibility of consciousness as a property of energy and can exist in differing states, sometimes attached to matter and sometimes not?

[chrisuk_sw 0]

I think you would be correct but for the fact that God entered time as Jesus Christ. Jesus is God's own "physical expression of a spiritual reality" and through Him we are taught the way to God.

You cannot call the statement "God entered time as Jesus Christ" a fact. It is an assertion you are making based upon your faith.

[semaj550 0]

You cannot call the statement "God entered time as Jesus Christ" a fact. It is an assertion you are making based upon your faith.

Actually, that is one part of Christianity which doesn't require a whole lot of faith. The evidence makes it pretty plain to see that Christ was born, was crucified, was buried in a sepulchre and disappeared against impossible odds. Many attempts have been made to explain how Christ could have left the sepulchre on Easter Sunday without actually rising from the dead but none have succeeded.. He then reappeared to hundreds of people, many of whom could have easily said that what early Christians were writing was false.

[crowTrobot 2]

Actually, that is one part of Christianity which doesn't require a whole lot of faith.

it requires no less faith to believe in the resurrection than it does to believe in any other anti-scientific claim in the bible. if you think otherwise you are deluding yourself. under no circumstances are claims in 2000-year-old texts scientific/logical evidence for events that otherwise contradict science/logic.

[semaj550 0]

it requires no less faith to believe in the resurrection than it does to believe in any other anti-scientific claim in the bible. if you think otherwise you are deluding yourself. under no circumstances are claims in 2000-year-old texts scientific/logical evidence for events that otherwise contradict science/logic.

There's simply no value in arguing this point with you anymore. The evidence for accepting the validity of the gospels as authentic biographies of an actual person is there whether you are willing to accept it or not.