Religious belief may seem to be a unique psychological experience, but a growing body of research shows that thinking about religion is no different from thinking about secular things—at least from the standpoint of the brain. In the first imaging study to compare religious and nonreligious thoughts, evaluating the truth of either type of statement was found to involve the same regions of the brain.
Researchers at the University of California, Los Angeles, used functional MRI to evaluate brain activity in 15 devout Christians and 15 nonbelievers as the volunteers assessed the truth or falsity of a series of statements, some of which were religious (“angels exist”) and others nonreligious (“Alexander the Great was a very famous military ruler”). They found that when a subject believed a statement—whether it was religious or not—activity appeared in an area called the ventromedial prefrontal cortex, which is an area associated with emotions, rewards and self-representation.
And although the nonbelievers rejected about half of the statements the believers accepted, the brain scans of both groups were indistinguishable, providing further proof that evaluating truth or falsity is independent of the content of the statement in question. “The fact that we found the same brain processing between believers and nonbelievers, despite the two groups’ completely different answers to the questions [about religion], is pretty surprising,” says Jonas Kaplan, a research psychologist at U.C.L.A. and co-author of the study. The finding adds to the mounting evidence against the notion, popular in the scientific community as well as among the general public, that religious faith is somehow different from other types of belief, explains co-author Sam Harris, also of U.C.L.A. In contrast to this assumption, he says, “Believing the sun is a star is rather the same as believing Jesus was born of a virgin.” [For more on the neuroscience of religion, see “Searching for God in the Brain,” by David Biello; Scientific American Mind, October/November 2007.]
This article was originally published with the title Belief in the Brain.
Rights & Permissions
See what we're tweeting about
73 Comments
Add Comment"And although the nonbelievers rejected about half of the statements the believers accepted, the brain scans of both groups were indistin guishable, providing further proof that evaluating truth or falsity is independent of the content of the statement in question"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUnfortunately, the erroneous conclusions made within this article are prime examples of the fMRI mind reading fallacy.
Mind reading fallacy? Can you elaborate please...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"And although the nonbelievers rejected about half of the statements the believers accepted, the brain scans of both groups were indistin guishable, providing further proof that evaluating truth or falsity is independent of the content of the statement in question"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne cannot logically conclude that if the areas that light up when asking about belief based statements that the groups both, or either, evaluate truth independent of content. Maybe the brain re-tasks the same area in one group to function differently. Maybe both groups process different sets of reasoning in the same area and come to different conclusions. Maybe there are sub-regions being over looked. Maybe some areas turn off to process information. Yes much of the brain works in an inverse fashion, where neurons stop firing to process information; like your retinal ganglion cells.
I think that the main point is that somebody has the need of believing those things to balance their state of mind.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUmmm... What was this study supposed to prove again?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't remember any assertion on the part of any religionists that religious belief was a different "kind" of belief.
Religious propositions, like historical ones, are statements of fact, open to verification or falsification. Who was it that was thinking any differently about this?
As a Christian, I can tell you categorically and from long experience that Christian faith has a transformational power on the individual which is oftentimes utterly phenomenal. But this is not to say that I believe that there is some sort of special "brain organ" for religious faith. Why would there be?
This study is based on some seriously mystifying premises. Is this the sort of thinking that our ultra-logical Mr. Harris is propagating nowadays?
If you have a better experimental procedure to propose, then please do so. Their's was: Let's look at which section of the brain lights up when answering to religious or non-religious questions. Result: they are the same. That's all they say. You can speculate whatever you want, but until you come up with a concrete idea, don't criticize them for what they are not saying.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Religious propositions, like historical ones, are statements of fact, open to verification or falsification. Who was it that was thinking any differently about this?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think the starting point of this research was this: When you ask a religious person why he holds beliefs in the absence of tangible evidence, their favorite answer is something like "Of course, if you don't have faith, you cannot understand my beliefs".
So the goal was to verify if they could detect in the brain a sort of "faith" module that circumvents the normal module that process beliefs in the brain. Apparently not.
halneufmille - as you no doubt know, Sam Harris is an arch-atheist and passionate anti-religionist. His UCLA studies are tendentious attempts at proving that religion is merely a psychological phenomenon. This study apparently aims at this target, but ultimately proves nothing. As, eventually, will all of this line of research and thinking: When cooler heads than Sam Harris have a chance to think through the data, it will be clear that Mr. Harris has wasted quite a bit of money, time, and intellect on a quixotic quest which never had any hope of producing meaningful results.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisStill, I guess if you want to defend it, that's your right...
halneufmille: "When you ask a religious person why he holds beliefs in the absence of tangible evidence, their favorite answer is something like 'Of course, if you don't have faith, you cannot understand my beliefs'".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this? Who said anything about beliefs in the absence of tangible evidence ?
It is true that when scientists have preconceptions about the result they seek (we all have), we have to be careful when they state their results. I guess if Harris hoped to find something and didn't find it, then we have to salute his honesty in saying so and trust him a fortiori.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs to whether it was worth it, he got his funding, so the people who judged the proposal must have thought it was. Science is difficult. Hardly any question is "obvious" before you actually run the experiment.
"Who said anything about beliefs in the absence of tangible evidence ?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this“angels exist”, "Jesus was born of a virgin."
halneufmille: " I guess if Harris hoped to find something and didn't find it, then we have to salute his honesty in saying so and trust him a fortiori."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy contention is that Harris found nothing and proclaimed victory anyway. This hardly enhances my trust of him.
By the way, I hope that you aren't contemplating some "anti-scientific religionist" stereotype when you converse with me. I am an admiring appreciator of science and its progress. Scientific articles often provoke me to praise the amazing God who created all of this.
halfneumille: “angels exist”, "Jesus was born of a virgin."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have as tangible a body of evidence supporting these ideas as I do of the historicity of Kublai Kahn or Julius Caesar.
"I have as tangible a body of evidence supporting these ideas as I do of the historicity of Kublai Kahn or Julius Caesar. "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's interesting. In a way, you're confirming Harris' finding that there is no difference between historical evidence and the Bible for religious people. (I assume the Bible is your body of evidence, right?). Do you also think there's good evidence that the earth is 6000 years old, that men walked with dinosaurs, and that Jonah spend three days and three nights in the belly of a big fish because the Bible says so?
Pffff, where's the value in this study? That the same portion of our brain is firing when we claim belief in one flavour of written history over another?This takes us no closer to understanding why we believe a thing with little else in support of it other than testimony.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn fact this study does demonstrate the importance of the scientific method in distinguishing fact from fallacy. Least wise, anything that can and can't be verified through prediction and physical evidence.
Perhaps this study can demonstrate the value of skepticism and serve as a reminder that caution be taken when we seek to find the truth - for even those that are "non-believers" are exercising the same localities in the brain as beleivers.
halneufmille: As far as "confirming" Harris's research: As I said before, he has discovered nothing that wasn't already obvious. Not sure what your point is in making this statement.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, the Bible forms part of my evidence. Shouldn't it?
Evidence that the earth is 6,000 years old? Jury's still out in my mind. Several different lines of physical evidence yield wildly different results. The Bible, meanwhile, doesn't directly address the question - though it could be inferred to, and I'm not dead set against that interpretation.
That men walked with dinosaurs? I have no idea. That men were contemporary with dinosaurs? Possibly. Again, multiple lines of evidence can be adduced, and I don't see the immediate significance of the question.
Jonah in the belly of the great fish? Yes, absolutely. Is there a problem with that?
But the Bible is not the only body of evidence that supports the existence of angels - far, far from it, as you know! And the secondary historical evidence for the virgin birth - i.e., essentially no contrary statements in recorded history - is a strong argument from significant silence.
I'm wondering, now, if we are here discussing your prejudices more than we are discussing my beliefs...
coolmoss: "for even those that are 'non-believers' are exercising the same localities in the brain as beleivers."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisExcellent point: "non-belief" is actually just a different kind of faith statement which is physiologically indistinguishable from "belief".
But I am concerned that you seem to be concluding that everything which is not demonstrable through "prediction and physical evidence" is "fallacy". You realize that you just discarded almost all of our historical knowledge - including cosmology?
OneEye, I'm wondering what consists evidence for you. Do you think Jesus came to America because the book of Mormons says so? Do you believe that Lord Xenu was the dictator of the Galactic Confederacy 75 million years ago because L. Ron Hubbard wrote it? Do you think the fact that there is no contrary evidence makes it likely, say a 50/50 chance?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishalfneumille: I am assuming that you are asking because you are a reasonable person rather than just a contrarian. If so, it would help matters if you didn't try to correlate historically well-rooted accounts like that of Jesus' life with obvious fictional works like the Book of Mormon or Scientology's writings.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut perhaps you actually can't tell the difference. If not, here are some telltale markers: (1) The New Testament is highly coherent with what is known of Mediterranean history - in fact, the Bible has been highly useful in locating and interpreting archeological finds in the Middle East; (2) All evidence places the New Testament's origin in the time period which it documents (unlike the Book of Mormon or OT1-8). (3) New Testament teachings reached a remarkably broad audience in their century of origin, and so were open to broad public scrutiny, yet resulted in almost no contradiction of the basic facts. (4) The Bible itself bears all of the marks of a highly authentic and consistent contemporaneous account.
I could go on at much greater length, but the net result is that historians generally accept the New Testament as highly reliable, and the only question comes down to that of which prejudice you prefer: Whether the miraculous elements in the Bible might actually have happened, or whether they are preemptively to be rejected.
Again, I write this only because you asked, and I am taking your questions seriously only on the possibility that you are being earnest in your investigation. If this is not the case, please say so, and we can both go on to more productive activities.
All the more reason to place a firm tongue in cheek there OneEye, my man.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo yes there is much in history that is subjective, but cosmology?
I see that you are holding out for a young earth and man contemporary with dinosaurs, and I'm certain that I can coax out some more ludicrous notions if I only had the stomach.
As with cosmology and young earth, I don't think you are standing on firm ground. How do you begin to propose a young cosmological perspective? Are you blind to the depth and breadth of the night sky?
Do you not recognise that in order for such a view to be valid, you must utterly ignore deep time, or manipulate your view to somehow fit with the reality of the speed of light? Do you not admit that also you must further manipulate your view to fit with radio metric decay?
Do you know of, or have you ever stumbled across fossilized upright hominid bones within the belly of a Tyrannosaur?
Trinkets to commemorate the successful hunt fashioned from the bone of a Triceratops?
coolmoss: Getting a bit ahead of yourself. (See my response to halneufmille regarding creationism.)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy point is simply that cosmology is non-repeatable. We are left with deductions based on extant evidence - the detritus of history - an impoverished record which we must attempt to integrate into a theoretical framework that we can never really prove (and which always requires a Procrustean approach to the ill-fitting evidence).
As Gould pointed out in Wonderful Life, the science of history is rather of a different kind that other sciences like chemistry and physics. That's my point, in whole and in fine.
So, then, your previous dichotomy between "prediction and physical evidence" on the one hand and "fallacy" on the other seems to place the science of history squarely in the "fallacy" class.
Perhaps there is a broader definition of science - or a narrower definition of fallacy - which would help here.
An old pre-scientific self-contradicting body of scripture claims that a man was born of a virgin, walked on water, brought people back to life and was resurrected before flying to the sky. What's more likely, that the laws of physics have been suspended by the creator of the universe, or that this text is false?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI side with Carl Sagan on this: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Uh, sorry, but this was a "no brainer" as far as I'm concerned. The sun is a star, the Son is a superstar. The same part of the brain "believed" that the Earth was flat for far far longer than it now believes we are on a blue marble "floating" in space. More like trying to prove or disprove that there is a G-spot... in the brain that is... somehow a God-spot, or Allah spot, etc. More interesting would be to study where and how Buddhists attain their amazing states of meditation, their ability to alter or "control" their perceptions of "reality". Would all those who believe in the science of religion and or the religion of science PLEASE try to imagine the universe before the Big Bang and then imagine the Big Bang as the moment of creation, when all things (as we know them) and all time (as we count it) was "created" and NO ONE has a brain big enough to take all that in and "understand" it. If God is everything, everywhere, and timeless, I think believe and or accept on faith, that the whole of creation, ie. the universe, is synonymous with God or Creator. Hmmm I wonder which part of my brain lit up on that one? Probably not the reptilian part, maybe that is where my serpent whispers to me when I am feeling like perpetuating my species.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishalneufmille: "I side with Carl Sagan on this: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBoy, was I not expecting this! (Pardon the rare instance of sarcasm, please.)
Of course, you are the one who has the liberty of defining what "extraordinary" is - no matter how parochial your definition.
Let me ask you this: What evidence could possibly be presented to you that would be adequate to convince you that the extraordinary had actually happened?
My guess is, none - which is why I earlier asked you whether we were not just exploring your prejudices. Unless I miss my guess, you are prejudicially and incorrigibly opposed to the possibility that the Bible's account may actually be true. It has nothing to do with reason - only your preferences. So, rather than learning something about history, we have only learned about your own narrow and inflexible ideology. (Prove me wrong by citing what would serve as adequate proof that Jesus had actually done these things.)
By the way, I have made it something of a life study as to whether there are contradictions in the Biblical accounts. I have yet to see one that is convincing.
@OneEye, "This study … ultimately proves nothing. As, eventually, will all of this line of research and thinking:" I can see why you would not want a scientific analysis of the neural substrate of your belief system. I'm sure it must be disconcerting that there is nothing more to your beliefs than any other belief system and that the whole idea of revealed truth is unsubstantiated. Still, trying to convince scientists that they shouldn't do research because someone, who believes in a magic man that controls the universe, claims to already know the outcome of all their experiments, is not likely going to have any affect.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The Bible itself bears all of the marks of a highly authentic and consistent contemporaneous account." There are numerous works of fiction that contain highly detailed accounts of real people, places and things. Should we therefore believe everything they contain to be gospel truth?
"Let me ask you this: What evidence could possibly be presented to you that would be adequate to convince you that the extraordinary had actually happened?" Here are a few;
1) Prayer has been given credit for everything from curing cancer to winning lotteries. Strangely though, all the claims that are testable indicate that nothing impossible happened, potentially improbably but not impossible. So how about this, have everyone pray for a person to grow a limb back? It doesn't seem to me any less reasonable than any of the other prayers he apparently answered. If it happens, then that would merit consideration.
Since god doesn't seem to believe that direct communication is worth his time why doesn't he just send an angel to tell us the next pair of prime numbers or the next sequence of numbers for pi? There would be no way for anyone to just guess this and no natural process to generate them. It may sound silly but then again so is sending an angel to tell people to love one another or live in peace. Of course what would be really helpful would be the molecular structure of a drug or engineering diagrams for some world saving technology, but let's start small.
"By the way, I have made it something of a life study as to whether there are contradictions in the Biblical accounts. I have yet to see one that is convincing." as we have seen all too often, people such as yourself can find anything they are looking for in the bible. Thankfully you were just looking for contradictions and not the names of abortion doctors to kill or whether or not you should allow your child to receive live saving medical treatment.
This is all very tiring stuff. When I speak of truth, I refer only to what can be confirmed through direct observation, or corroborative evidence.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne should not be bogged down with the nuisance of engaging with someone who attempts to deflect these standards away from their untestable religious beliefs by covertly concealing their lack of evidence behind so much pitiful philosophy.
Blowing smoke up the ass of those that demand something more compelling by way of evidence doesn't change reality. Reality is not subjective.
I think that the article states that evaluating a statement involves a particular area of the brain, When a statement is considered true, that area is the one associated with reward,etc.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy am I not surprised about that? I have had "Aha, now I understand that", moments, and that feels good.
coolmoss: I accept your resignation. Unfortunate that you have to go out on such a vulgar note - unfortunate, but not surprising.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBy the way, I am not at all standing up for subjective reality - I am as hard-nosed objective as they come. In fact, it it that very subjectivity of those who think that they can choose between which historical documents they accept or reject - or think that they are somehow empowered to deem this event "reasonable" but this one "unreasonable" that I am protesting.
The fact is that you have only your own prejudices for not accepting the Bible, an eminently historical document, as history. Attempts to divert from that fact, however disingenuous and crass, can't change this fact.
Robert: On the off chance that there is some element of reason in your soul:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1) I do not believe in a "magic man who controls the universe". Not sure where you got this idea, but it's not one I hold - and it's not Christianity, either.
2) Prayer has, indeed, been shown to have at least some effect. Most studies were tainted by the failure to distinguish between kinds of prayer and target of prayer. Even then, if ANY effect is demonstrable, that should be highly interesting to anyone with an open mind.
3) I personally know of a woman whose arm was pulverized in an accident, and which subsequently "grew back" in a matter of a week or two, all while people in her church prayed for her. I have no reason to doubt the veracity of this account. But I am quite certain that no amount of presented evidence would convince you. Why? Because you are already certain that such things can't happen. You already have your "statement of faith", and no amount of evidence will ever shift you from your unshakable belief. (Actually, I hope that I'm wrong about that. But that IS your current position.)
Finally, and just for the record: Christianity does not countenance killing for any sake, nor does it countenance refusing medical treatment for your children. No-one who reads the Bible could ever possibly come up with that notion. You would be well-served to rid yourself of those bigoted stereotypes and find out what Christianity actually is.
@OneEye, "Christianity does not countenance killing for any sake," you must have another word for terminating someone’s life in the name of god then. These quotes seem like killing to me.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel." -Deuteronomy 17:12
"You should not let a sorceress live." -Exodus 22:17
"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." -Leviticus 20:13
"Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death." -Exodus 21:15
"If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death." -Leviticus 20:10
"A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death." -Leviticus 21:9
I've got lots more. Again, you can find whatever you want in the bible.
I was raised a Lutheran. I was active in the church. I enjoyed my time there and had nothing against the church or god when I left. But, as I got older many questions I had about god didn't seem to have reasonable answers. As I studied various branches of science such as cosmology, ecology, genetics and neurology a clearer picture of the nature of the universe began to appear. I didn't reject god out of spite, instead I followed the evidence. The universe, as I understand it, is not a "better" one than I believed in when I was a christian, but it is the closest match to reality. To believe something else would be delusional.
It was much later in life that I realized the toxic nature of religion in society. Religion endows itself with absolute power. The interpretation of the law is the sole privilege of self appointed leaders. The faithful are not allowed to question it. There is no intellectual process to determine right or wrong. There is no appeal process if the leadership targets you to receive god’s wrath. These are all the marks of the totalitarian states we sacrificed so many lives to fight this past century. Yet instead of being repulsed, you fall down on your knees and worship.
P.S. I have no reason to believe that I possess a soul let alone that it is the source of rational thought. What "reason" I do have arises from neural processes. Which begs the question, if a soul did exist, and it was capable of holding memories and personality, why would we have a brain?
The title represents bias.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReligions by definition depend on faith.
The religions of Abraham demand faith over reason and data.
Abraham, Moses and Christ left no personally written records.
Buddhists teachings do not demand faith but appeal to reason and understanding - awake to that which you can observe.
The Buddha recorded his teachings in the Lotus Sutra.
A more interesting test would study the relative activities in the Amygdala versus
other parts of the brain associated with reasoning ( comparing expected versus observed outcomes)
for people of religions demanding faith versus people of reason Scientists, Engineers and those who practice meditation versus prayer.
Mr. Schmidt: Well, I appreciate your more amenable spirit in this post. The snooty ad hominem and straw-man arguments in your first post were near insufferable. Thanks for this better representation of your character.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut come on! Surely, if you have the background you say you do, you know that all of the verses you listed belong to the civil law of the nation of Israel, and are NOT regulations for the Christian. You can do better than that! You know as well as I do that the entire tenor of the New Testament is pacifist to an extreme. Or do you? Perhaps you just need to study up on that a bit more. In either case, my original statement, "Christianity does not countenance killing for any sake," is in fact quite correct. Feel free to endeavor to show me from the New Testament that this is not so.
Further, your experience of religion is quite the opposite of my experience with Christianity. I grew up an atheist ("taught the gospel of evolution at my pappy's knee"), and as I grew up I fell deeper and deeper into enslavement to my own selfish passions. At the age of 25, I (reluctantly) entrusted my life to Jesus Christ, and experienced an immediate transformation which set me free from my old life - free to live the life I was made to live. Since then, I have grown more and more in this liberation.
My life as a Christian has been one of ever-increasing fulfillment, including intellectual fulfillment. This is no more true than when I study science and natural philosophy. I rejoice in the God which nature and nature's laws reveal. I am reading Heisenberg right now, and for the first time I see a proof not merely of God's existence in the origin of all things, but now a clear indication that the originator of an intelligible universe must be an intelligent Creator. A fundamental Christian, I yet rejoice in the ability to love God with my mind as well as my heart.
And you think religion poisons society? Try irreligion! How anyone can look the Communist regimes of the Twentieth Century in the face and then claim that religion is the perpetrator of all human evil is beyond me! That is beyond denial, and verging on complete disconnection from reality.
In any case, thank you again for being more civil this time 'round. And perhaps one day, you will find an escape both from religion AND irreligion!
Hmmm. Wonder if Brahman is a Buddhist?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI admire some aspects of the Buddhas teachings.
I admire aspects of Confuses teachings
Gandhi was a great example.
These and the Uplands teach how to live in harmony with self and others without violence.
This is different than obedience to power the emperor, King or mighty army commander or a state out of control.
Dawkins The Selfish Gene at the end makes a case for cooperation.
Are these genetic capabilities reflected in neuron activity that can be recorded?
@OneEye, the old testament is just as much a testament of god as the new. In fact it was the testament that your god, Jesus taught. If those passages were not intended to be a part of the Christian faith they would have been purged long ago by the Christian revisionists. I see no reason why god would have thought it ok to kill a young woman because she had sex outside of marriage back then but change his tune and find it a sin now, unless god is imperfect and realized that he made an error. Sorry, but you have proven my point. You can find whatever you want in the bible. The context of your statement, that you haven’t found any convincing contradictions certainly becomes clear as you disregard half the basis of your religion because it is inconvenient. But in regards to your claim that the new testament represents a more loving side of the god that flooded the world and fire bombed Sodom and Gomorrah, here are a few for you from the New Testament, from your lord's mouth;
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me." –Mathew 10:34-37
"But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death." –Matthew 15:3-4
And finally Jesus' own take on the Old Testament, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil." –Matthew 5:17
Nowhere in the bible does god give people permission to pick and choose in which parts to believe.
@OneEye, In regards to you comment about, "irreligion". Atheism is not a belief. It is a position. Atheists appose the proposition that a god or gods exist. There is nothing more to it. There is no atheist bible that commanded Stalin to murder millions. Atheists derive their moral code and intellectual process from a variety of sources including; the Religious Society of Friends (the basis of humanism), Buddhism, logic and science. None of those philosophies advocate the atrocities attributed to atheism. As Steven Weinberger said, "With or without religion, good people will do good, and evil people will do evil. But for good people to do evil, that takes religion." Stalin was a megalomaniac. He was a bad person that did bad things. The people who flew those planes into the World Trade Centre thought what they were doing was right, was god's will, and they sacrificed their lives to do it. I can't help but feel that if they were taught how to be rational instead of religious, they could have made great contributions to society.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere's another quote from Weinberg, speaking about science and scientists.
"Above all, we have an attitude towards authority that the world could well emulate. We do have heroes in Science - in my own field of Physics and Cosmology we can name Einstein, Hubble, Satellite makers. But they are not Prophets. They are not people whose words we remember and go back to for guidance in Scientific research. No one today reads Einstein’s papers except for historical interests. Any graduate student, here in this University, understands general relativity better than Einstein did because our subject is a cumulative one. Although we honor Einstein, we never dream of settling a scientific dispute by asking what Einstein said about it. In other words, we have our heroes but we don’t have prophets. And looking at the world today, where people are willing to kill each other because of religious certainty, because of books that were written thousands of years ago supposedly by God – looking at the way the world benefitted by its prophets, I would say the example of Science as a good one that we need more heroes and fewer prophets."
Sorry for the spelling errors – I guess I depend too much on MS Word
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMaybe - Upanishads - would look better.
Maybe the MRI believers who think that MRIs can tell us how the really works should have their heads examined.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is lamentable that the most decadent Cartesianism, irresponsible and implausible, is being deliberately manipulated and incorporated in "proto-pseudo-scientific discourses", compatible with a certain technological mercantilism, linked to the commerce of the artificial intelligences.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe human brain is just an organ in an integrated system. All the human thoughts vitally depend upon the whole of the human organism, and upon a non-locality, mapped from the individuated border and limits, and not, never, solely upon the brain.
The human "religare" is about abstract planes of metaphysical radicular ("radicula, ae") transcendence that involve, in the whole of the human organism, fundamental planes of nature, of good and of dignity, linked to synthesized "arbitria" and motivated by formative primordial alterities, concretely inaccessible, but legitimately invoked and evoked.
Our spiritual side is part ohf who we are.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI accessed the full article from pubmed and read the T/F statements the participants had to answer. They are nearly ALL expressions of an opinion, not fact as the authors seem to be implying. For example: "Childbirth can be a painful experience." or "Engineering is a totally useless profession."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't know about you, but I know people might believe either of those statements are false.
Thus, they are comparing religious to secular BELIEF systems (based on opinion), whereas knowledge or reason is something entirely different...
OneEye, You are right, I will never acknowledge the possibility of miracles. You know why? Because miracles are not events, they are an attitude.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSay somebody claims that he saw a bush burning without becoming ashes. Then I will ask to see it. If he can't show it to me because it happened in the past, then there are tons of better answers to this phenomenon than a godly intervened. Maybe he hallucinated it, maybe he misinterpreted what he saw. It is way too soon to look for an otherworldly explanation.
But if he can show it to me, then I can bring my team of scientists who can verify that it really is a burning bush, who can experiment on it, etc. If it turns out that present chemistry cannot account for it, then great, it will mean we have discovered new chemistry. It will be integrated into science, like all the other natural phenomena we used to attribute to gods, like lightning, like earthquakes, like deseases, etc.
So you see, miracles are just the product of unscientific minds who wish humankind would stay in its infancy, scared by imaginary gods.
halneufmille: "A man was born of a virgin, walked on water, brought people back to life and was resurrected before flying to the sky. What's more likely, that the laws of physics have been suspended by the creator of the universe, or that this text is false?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is more likely that the laws of physics were suspended by the creator of the universe.
Reasons to deny the miracles of the Bible: (1) "In my limited knowledge, such things do not occur." But this is nothing more than narrow-minded parochialism - certainly not the sort of eyes-open attitude which makes for good science (or even good thinking)! (2) "I am prejudicially predisposed to reject the possibility of miracles." But this is even less rational than the first proposition!
Reasons to accept the miraculous accounts of the Bible: (1) The artless and plain accounts of miracles in the Bible indicate that they were not the fabulous constructs of mythology, but simple historical accounts. (2) The miraculous accounts of Jesus' life were published throughout the Mediterranean in the first century, and were never denied by any controversialist. Since Christianity was under assault from its earliest days, this is certainly significant silence. (3) Jewish polemical sources contend that Jesus worked his miracles through sorcery. This indicates that anti-Christian Jews of the early centuries believe that Jesus wrought miracles, and felt a need to explain them. (4) Christians contend that miracles occur today (I am one who has had such experiences).
To my mind, anyone with even a sketch of fair-mindedness would allow the possibility that the New Testament is a fair historical record of Jesus' life. It smacks of religious bias to dismiss this possibility out of hand - as so many atheists do.
The researchers happen to be investigating whether religious vs secular belief patterns are biological phenomena, thank you very much.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe already know religion is a psychological phenomenon.
halneufmille: "If he can't show it to me because it happened in the past, then there are tons of better answers to this phenomenon than a godly intervened."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere again, halneufmille, you are simply betraying your own statement of faith. As far as you are concerned, NOTHING could ever prove that a miracle has happened, because in your view miracles simply don't happen!
You are determined to investigate any phenomenon based on the assumption that there are no such things as miracles. Therefore, you will always come up with an explanation - no matter how far-fetched or unreasonable - which concludes that no miracle has, in fact, happened. Logically, this is called the fallacy of "begging the question".
It's ironic that religious people are often attacked by atheists as being illogical!
OneEye, you got me. I can't argue against such delusion and stubbornness. Now I see how one can at the same time be a Scientific American and believe in angels and the story of Jonas in the belly of the big fish. You are truly a miracle.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@OneEye, In layman's terms the principal of Occam's razor states that the simplest solution is usually the correct one. The universe can be explained to within an extremely small fraction of a microsecond of the big bag with existing theories. The LHC will hopefully close the gap. If we were to add god to the equation the universe would actually make less sense as we would then have to account for god's existence. What’s more, all the things we know to be true about the universe, such as energy and matter conservation and thermodynamics would be wrong. It may be ok for you to make tremendous leaps of faith but that is simply not the scientific method. What you are suggesting is irrational. And I am not saying that to be mean spirited. I admit that sometimes I do feel like getting a few kicks in when I think people deserve it but now is not one of those times. I highly recommend you read about logic, logical fallacies and the scientific method. You really don't seem to understand those basic concepts. To use a sports metaphor, you've come to a football game, snatched the football and told everyone that they have to play by your rules. This is a science site. Science is a formal process. If you can't present your arguments within those constraints then your arguments are not valid and do not merit consideration. Now, you speak with great passion about what you think religion has done for you. Great. But that means nothing to us here. The only thing that matters are the facts, and by that I mean solid evidence.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@OneEye, Logically, this is called the fallacy of "begging the question". Actually, begging-the-questions, means that the truth of the conclusion is assumed by the premise; e.g. I am not lying therefore I am telling the truth. Your assertion that miracles exist because they have happened is actually a good example of begging-the-question. Assuming that something is not true until it is proven, is not begging-the-question as it does not assume anything to be true. In fact, one principle in logic is that the onus of proof is on those that assert the affirmative or the existence of. It is up to those that claim the existence of miracles to prove that they have happened; it is not up to science to prove that they haven’t. If you present an example such as the woman with the crushed arm, then that evidence needs to be examined critically. How damaged was her arm? How quickly did it heal? Was it possible for that rate or extent of healing to happen naturally? You can’t just make up a story and expect everyone to accept it. Your claim that science will always come up with an explanation is paranoid thinking. There are things that are possible and things that are not; e.g. my example of the severed limb. It is not possible for a human limb to grow back. If it were to happen as a result of prayer you can bet that science would look very closely at it, if for no other reason than to see if it could be done for others. But that doesn’t mean they can just make something up to dismiss it either. They would need to prove that that mechanism was at play. I’m sorry to say that you are using the typical lazy arguments we have all come to expect from religionists; conspiracy thinking, tit-for-tat, prove the negative, etc. That is why you and others like you get a hostile reception. What would you think if a person walked into your church and started criticizing you and the bible when it was clear he had never even read one passage? The first time you might take the opportunity to educate them. Now image it happening several times a day, every day, and often the same guy making the same claims you cleared up last time he dropped by. It gets tired pretty quickly. If you want to be respected, than show some respect to the people here and do your homework.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhich goes to remind us yet again that it's not what you believe that counts, but the way you believe, and its consequences.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this(cont.)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFinally, as far as Occam's razor is concerned: Yes, we have clear physical laws which explain 5% of what we know about the universe. The other 95% is not included in any model. Did you not know this? I have written at length on "Four Things Atheism Cannot Explain About the Universe": The origin of the universe, the origin of life, the origin and value of thought, and the meaning of life. Other than these four questions, plus the origin or morality, I guess that atheism is pretty explanatory all right!
Honestly, there's no need to lecture on basic principles like Occam's razor (unless you are just here to grandstand, I guess). If you will go back and study my arguments, you will see for yourself that they are of the highest rational quality - even if they are made by (gasp!) a Christian. It's a bit of mystery to me why you haven't already figured that out. (I sometimes feel that you are actually arguing with a fictional opponent, Imaginary Religious Person A. Or is that just the Atheist Playbook again? Anyway, I wish that, in your discussions with me, you would actually have a discussion with ME.)
Dear Mr. Schmidt: Your recent correspondence has been quite impressive. Even though it was substantially wrong on a number of major points, I must admit that you have good, solid rhetorical skills and writing dynamics, as well as being able to stay on track in your discussions. This is a real help when trying to reason through the issues.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am writing back in the hope that you actually are a reasonable person and are able to listen to reason, even when it comes from (gasp!) a non-atheist - though sometimes I feel that you are giving me a recitation from the Deluxe Edition of the Atheist Playbook rather than actually reading and thinking about the discussion.
For instance, your complete mishandling of the matter of halneufmille's begging the question seems a lot more of pontificating than it does of thoughtful correspondence. That halneufmille was begging the question is indisputable: He clearly stated that he would prefer any possible naturalistic explanation over the possibility of a miracle because he dogmatically refuses to accept the possibility of the miraculous. This is begging the question per se. It may benefit you to study up on that fallacy a little more. There's a good Wiki article on it.
In addition, it would help you if you would make a little less of a personal issue of these discussions. Your propensity of "getting a few kicks in" can't be healthy for anyone. For example, when someone recounts an incident to you that challenges your worldview, accusing them of making the story up is pretty unworthy behavior. I suppose if it's your aim to score rhetorical points rather than actually deal substantially with the issues, that's okay, but it still seems pretty dishonoring to me. And I can't imagine that it would really be welcome in any discussion forum outside of, say, HolySmoke.
As far as your earlier assertion that "you can prove anything" from the Bible: I love it when non-Christians endeavor to teach me Christian theology! For the record, and just in case you are actually able to process this rationally: The Old Testament laws were part of the Covenant which ended in 587BC. The Christian lives in a new covenant which is characterized by love for God and love for your neighbor, extending even to loving and doing good for your enemies. While instructive to the Christian as the true history of God's dealings with Israel, the old covenant is no longer in effect. (I can't help the nagging suspicion that you already new this and were just stringing me along for effect. I hope not.)
(cont.)
The relevant question isn't whether fundamentalists treat religious language in the same way that they treat simple factual propositions. That's the definition of a fundamentalist! So the results are completely unsurprising. The only interesting area of investigation would compare non-fundamentalist religious people with secular people in regard to serious thought about philosophical (not factual) issues.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat people like Harris can't seem to grasp is that religious language does not properly take the form of propositions at all. Not every sentence with a subject and a verb is asserting a state of affairs subject to confirmation/disconfirmation. When T.S. Eliot said "April is the cruelest month", he wasn't telling you what he BELIEVED. The same goes for sentences like "God loves you" or "You are one with the universe", and many others.
Such sentences are properly regarded as giving information about the speaker's attitudes, feelings and state of mind, and inviting others to share in those attitudes. If I say "Life is good", I'm not pointing to an objective fact, I'm trying to get you to adopt my attitude of optimism.
The statement that "evaluating truth or falsity is independent of the content of the statement in question" is philosophically very naive. Read some Wittgenstein, Mr. Harris. In fact, I doubt that even folks like Dennett would agree with that one.People like Ayer used to attack religion for NOT being propositional; now the fashion is to pretend that it is.
Your arguments are not found to be logical, rational, or well-supported simply because you declare them to be so. The fact remains that you have made fairly ridiculous and unverifiable claims that defy logic.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe basic difference between your assertions and those of a scientist is the presence of physical evidence. Every one of your claims has been backed up by historical record and anecdotes only. Interesting, but hardly compelling.
Historical records are littered with errors, inconsistencies, gaps, and bias. It is impossible to accumulate any purely objective data from any single source. Unfortunately for your case, that appears to be just what you have attempted.
The Bible is a supremely unreliable document. The first book of the first testament alone is known to be the collected works of five distinct Hebrew tribes, each with their own interpretation of events that is at odds with its peers. They are even shown to have been written in very different periods in history. The entire King James version of the Bible is known to have been cherry-picked by the Catholic Church in the days of the Byzantine empire, with entire books omitted.
In short, your source of information is little more than a collection of highly interpretable and contradictory ideas. It is an interesting portrait of the values and forces that shaped the lives of Hebrews and their neighbor countries way back when, but that is all.
Also, kindly do not fall back on the 'umpteen thousand prophecies fulfilled during the crucifixion' argument. The entire record of that event was drafted after the fact by a man who knew the Jewish law as intimately as any high priest, and had the will to manipulate it to achieve his new Christian religion in order to escape the ultimate paradox of Judaism. He also borrowed heavily from paganism and mythology.
galaxy_man: Your approach to discounting the Bible also discounts the entire science of history - including the putative history of the universe known as cosmology. Both rely only on the "records" which remain. The Bible has the advantage over cosmology, however, that it is written testimony which can be verified against other historical data. And it verifies quite nicely.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI welcome your demonstration of proof that "The first book of the first testament alone is known to be the collected works of five distinct Hebrew tribes, each with their own interpretation of events that is at odds with its peers. They are even shown to have been written in very different periods in history." Can you show me any evidence to support that assertion? I'd love to see it!
Further, your view of history is quite peculiar: King James ruled in Protestant England, not under the Roman church at all; there was no Catholic Church in the Byzantine period; the books of the Bible were not chosen by some ancient council, but were gradually recognized over time because of their virtues, etc. Have you been reading a lot of Dan Brown lately?
Your perspective is highly peculiar. You can't actually SHOW that "the Bible is a supremely unreliable document". (In fact, I've put dozens of years into that very study, and can quite confidently claim the opposite: The Bible is the most reliable book I have ever discovered, both historically and otherwise.)
So why would you make these confident statements without any actual facts to back them up? THAT we discover in your last paragraph:
"The entire record of that event was drafted after the fact by a man who knew the Jewish law as intimately as any high priest, and had the will to manipulate it to achieve his new Christian religion in order to escape the ultimate paradox of Judaism."
Ah! NOW we see what this is all about: You are a conspiracy theorist! Rather than approaching the Bible from a balanced and neutral perspective to find out what it says and on what grounds, you are actually peddling some deeply creepy plot invented by diabolical masterminds of the first through fourth centuries!
What a world you live in! Oh well. If that's what it takes to preserve your belief system, more power to you, I guess!
Both oneEye and galaxyman say various false things... Yes there was a Catholic Church in the Byzantine period (do you think it ceased to exist from 400-1400, or has only been around for 600 years?). And there were indeed councils that fixed the canon, which was set by about 400. As for those "five Hebrew tribes", galaxyman is probably thinking of the standard theory that identifies four groups of authors in the Torah, and connects them with the kingdoms (not tribes) of Judah and Israel in the period 900-500 BC. The "tribes" are pretty much pre-history (excluding the Bible), and are fictionalized in the Bible.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are many things in the Bible that correlate well with other sources such as the Assyrian records. And there are numerous things that contradict the historical record (Philistines in the time of Abraham, for example). But the most interesting "events" in the Bible have the character of myth, not history.
My point is just this: arguments about religious BELIEFS are futile. If you want to understand what true religion is really about, study the PRACTICES and psychology of religious people. I consider myself religious but harbor no beliefs that are inconsistent with science and objective history.
metetzky: Not to get into straining at gnats but: The reason that I state that there was not Catholic Church in Byzantine times is because the religio-political entity which is currently identified as the Catholic Church (by which most people understand the term) did not coalesce until the Counter-Reformation, enshrined in the Council of Trent (16th century). This was also the only council which assayed to establish the canon of Scripture - quite late in the game, wouldn't you say?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, galaxy_man was poorly conveying the Documentary Hypothesis, which construes 4 (not 5) original sources, JEPD. Even then, Genesis was never believed to contain more than three of those source (JEP), and the case for P was a poor one. But no modern authorship hypothesis owns any particular advantage over the others - or even over the proposition of Mosaic authorship - because all rest on hotly-contested, poorly-defined delineations which appear mostly in the eyes of the beholder.
As far as "historical errors" in the Bible, we have seen many such assertions come and go. The Hittites, for instance, were once roundly asserted by liberal Bible scholars to have been fictitious - until the discovery of a wealth of records at Kultepe. Nothing is more common than for liberal scholars to claim that such-and-such a Biblical record is fictitious or mythological, only to have to eat their words in later years as better archaeology reveals the proof of Biblical historicity. The Philistines in Abraham's time, for instance, were the Awites, who were later replaces by the Caphtorim. So your assertion is incorrect.
As far as "the most interesting 'events' in the Bible" having "the character of myth, not history" - surely this is a value judgment, is it not? In this discussion thread, we have seen many people peddling their prejudices as solid scientific principle. Surely, you are not going to take a similar tack?
Finally, the statement, "God loves you," is potentially as objectively true a statement as "The earth revolves around the sun." I am not sure what drives you to draw the conceptual lines of division as you do - unless you are mired in postmodernism. Either there is a God, and he does love you, or there is not, or he does not. It's still a question of objective truth.
If you think that "God loves you" is the same kind of sentence as "The earth goes around the sun", then you are what I call a fundamentalist, and I would expect your brain to respond similarly to the two sentences. You and I will probably never have a useful dialogue. But let me clarify one thing: yes, my judgment that something is myth and something else is objective description is a value judgment. Science can't help us read texts, and this is part of the error in looking for the difference between science and religion in MRI scans. I'm arguing for a class of meanings that are logically dissimilar to factual propositions. Your worldview depends on ignoring this distinction.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thismetetzky: Sorry to see you bailing on the conversation so quickly, but I understand where you're coming from. From my perspective, my correlation between the factual nature of "God loves you" and "The earth revolves around the sun" is simply the natural human understanding of such statements. I see your view as being an extreme sort of relativism that is not only unnatural but is probably philosophically not very useful. For myself, I can't think of a more relevant and concrete question than that of the nature of God. As our atheist friends here have shown us, it completely colors your interpretation of just about every other datum.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI DO, by the way, happen to agree that using fMRI to try to determine the validity or invalidity of religious propositions is a waste of time. Sam Harris is more of a crusader than a philosopher (that much should be obvious to EVERYONE by now!), and he is now trying to use his scientific credentials to carry the crusade under the wrong-headed "religion as psychology" banner. Eventually, cool heads of both religious and irreligious stripe will figure out that this is "a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." In the meantime, millions of dollars will be spent, and thousands of less-developed intellects will be misled into thinking that something actually happened here.
Best to you,
Chris
P.S. God really DOES love you!
@OneEye, "a reasonable person and are able to listen to reason", when you make a statement like that you give the impression that you define reason as anything you agree with. If you want me to change my mind, it is simple; please provide valid, irrefutable evidence. I have given up many beliefs in my life simply because the evidence didn't support them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"your complete mishandling of the matter of halneufmille's begging the question", I disagree. He was correct in stating that he would prefer a natural to a supernatural hypothesis. That is consistent with Occam's razor. A hypothesis that can be proven within existing theory is preferrable to one that requires a new theory. Only if an existing theory cannot explain the phenomenon is a new theory required. That is not bias, it is logic.
"I love it when non-Christians endeavor to teach me Christian theology!" if you were as adept at logic as you claim you would have identified that as an ad hominem attack and wouldn't have written it.
"Yes, we have clear physical laws which explain 5% of what we know about the universe." could you please show me how you came up with that number?
"Four Things Atheism Cannot Explain", again Atheism does not try to explain anything. It doesn't even try to explain why atheists shouldn't believe in god(s). Atheists get their knowledge from a variety of sources. The fact that you don't understand that undermines my confidence in your knowledge of these issues.
For arguments sake, let’s say that there is no fossil record, no celestial bodies in the sky, nothing to give us any indication that earth had a past or that the universe had a beginning. Would that mean that scientists would be forced to accept the existence of god? No! Regardless of the strength or weakness of competing theories, the god hypothesis must stand on its own merits. It is not a default hypothesis that can be pulled out every time a scientist scratches his head and says, I don't know. The fact is, not only has the god hypothesis not been proven, it really doesn't even have enough substance to be considered a valid hypothesis. It is that simple.
Finally, the statement, "God loves you", assumes facts not in evidence. One cannot state that god loves anything until god has been proven to exist. On the other hand the statement the "earth goes around the sun" is based on fact. It really does discredit you to claim that both those statements are equally objective.
If religious questions were subject to scientific investigation, we wouldn't see people completely talking past each other as they are here. If you have any doubts about the motion of the earth and the sun, there are a host of neutral procedures to which we can quickly turn to try and settle them. But there are no comparable procedures that might help us sort out a disagreement about whether God loves us. This is not a result of the special nature of God, but of the different functions of scientific and religious language. Wittgenstein says that when you engage in one or the other of them you are playing a whole different kind of game--you are engaging in a different kind of social activity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBoth atheists and fundamentalists miss this logical difference. What's ironic to me is that I probably share a good deal of OneEye's worldview, while yet agreeing -- AS FAR AS SCIENCE GOES -- with the atheists. What pains me about OneEye's attitude is that it enables the pernicious attitude of those who hate religion.
I agree with the atheists that religion is a matter of psychology, but I draw different conclusions from this. For I regard "matters of psychology" as what's really important. To me Mr. Harris' approach is as if someone said, "We don't need to pay any attention to literature, art, music, poetry or ethics, because they are merely matters of psychology"--and then went on to show that people's brains react similarly to literature and history, wrongly concluding that people who enjoy fiction have mistaken "beliefs". It's the attempt to reduce matters of psychology to matters of belief that is the whole problem here.
This thread makes it clear why it is folly to argue logic and reason with someone whose beliefs are based on faith. It is frustrating and pointless.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy honest question for OneEye is this: IF God is responsible for miracles, can we blame God when miracles do not happen? Allow me to give an example.
There are two cars driving in opposite directions on an icy highway. Both cars are driven by devout Christians. One car hits a patch of ice, loses control and crashes head-on with the other car. Both drivers are hospitalized in critical condition. Both are parents of young children. The community prays night and day for weeks on end that they will both recover. Finally, one driver wakes up from a coma and is able to make a full recovery, but the other driver dies.
Since the drivers went to separate churches the sermons that Sunday are focused on the joy of a miracle and the mourning of a great loss. One pastor points to the survivor and reminds his flock that God always listens and that prayer is powerful. The other pastor says that God has a plan and that God's plan cannot be questioned. That the dead person was "needed" in heaven. (Which is what I would tell a small child after losing a pet hamster)
How can you logically argue that God has played a role in this incident. What possible reason could God have for saving one of his devout followers and allowing the other one to die? If God has some unknowable master plan that we can't comprehend, then why waste time praying, if God is just going to do what God deems right? What if no one had prayed for the driver who lived? Would God have changed his great plan?
metezky - with the exception of your first paragraph, I am wholehearted agreement with you. In fact, that was the point that I was trying to make in the first place! Unfortunately, anytime a religionist shows up in an atheist conclave, the discussion inevitably devolves down into the same tired old atheist canards and closed-minded Weltanschauung (the "Atheist Playbook", in my parlance). What's a religionist to do, then, but to politely and rationally answer these threadbare arguments in a way which exposes the core dogmas. I am NOT here arguing for the Christian view as being the objective truth (though that is my underlying position), but rather merely pointing out that the atheist view is no less dogmatic than the "fundamentalist" view (using your definition of the word), and more quickly leads to unreasoning and unreasonable thinking than does the "religious" view.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnyway, as you say, we are substantially in agreement.
pfunk: Despite the fact that atheist's views are based on faith, I think it's still worthwhile to have discussions with them. Some of them really do eventually come to see the intellectual bias inherent in their views!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour thought experiment about the two cars is an excellent one, and the answer divides into two parts: The nature of miracles, and the purpose of God's will. FYI, these are the sorts of questions which have been discussed in Christianity for millennia, and the answers are pretty well established:
First, a miracle is, by definition, an exceptional circumstance. It is a situation in which the expected DID NOT occur, and almost always as a matter of extreme unlikelihood. So, when the front wheel came off my Suburban in the middle of a busy highway (with my entire family in the vehicle) and I didn't wreck, and I was able to drive the vehicle onto the shoulder almost as easily as if it had four wheels, I count that as an act of God's divine intervention. However, if the vehicle HAD rolled, or if other consequences had ensued, that would have been the expected outcome. In other words, miracles by nature are extremely unlikely. In your example, neither one of the outcomes need necessarily be considered to be miraculous - both are within the range of the usual.
As far as interpreting the results of the accident: First off, God doesn't "need" anyone in Heaven. That's mythology, not Christianity. However, I agree that God's plan for any human life includes the fitting conclusion of that life. The time and manner of the end of any human life is something that only God is ultimately competent to determine.
Why pray? Because it makes a difference. God's purposes include answering man's prayers; his oversight of the universe includes every possibility of the universe.
Just for the record: These are "graduate level" theological questions. I don't mind discussing them, but just realize that, like calculus or Relativity, you are not asking simple questions whose answers are trivially answered.
Mr Schmidt: By "reasonable person", I mean a person who is not demanding "irrefutable" evidence. Let's be clear: Ultimately, there is no such thing as "irrefutable" evidence.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPerhaps you are aware of the conspiracy theory which says that Americans never landed on the moon ("Moon landing denial"; see Wiki). If you have ever had any discussions with them, you know that any evidence you may provide is always met with some rebuttal which, no matter how outlandish it may seem to you, is nevertheless satisfying to the conspiracy theorist. It's frustrating because you could not possibly convince them, even if you took them to the moon and showed them the landing site.
Take halneufmille's case, for instance. He(?) said, in so many words, "I will never acknowledge the possibility of miracles," and, "[M]iracles are just the product of unscientific minds". He is unswervingly devoted to the idea that the explanation of "miracle" is, ipso facto, false. Nothing can possibly change his mind; he will always insist on some naturalistic explanation, no matter how thin a straw he has to grasp. Logically, you can either call this sort of closed-mindedness "invincible ignorance", or you can call it "begging the question". I prefer "begging the question" in this case, because halneufmille has a predetermined outcome which he has already presumed to be proven regardless of the course of the investigation, and which he uses as the starting point and the methodological grounds of his investigation. When you presume the outcome at the beginning of your investigation... guess what you will get? (That's why this sort of approach is considered a fallacy.)
And atheists generally deal with the question of the miraculous in this very way: by assuming that any report of the miraculous - either in the Bible or in present-day testimony - is either the product of a defective mind's interpretation of a natural event, or of wilfull deception on the part of the reporter. This may comfort the atheist, but to the non-atheist, this is no more winsome or rational than moon landing denial.
So, by a "reasonable" person, I am here looking specifically for a man who does not accuse me of being mentally defective or morally corrupt when I say that I personally have experienced miracles. I am not looking for headlong credulity, just a balanced hearing which says, "This man is not an idiot or a crook; maybe there's something to what he says."
(cont.)
OneEye: You did an end-run around what you KNOW to be the core of my question. By saying that the person who lived did not need a miracle to survive you ignored my point.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFine, if you and your family were worthy of the "miracle" that saved your life, then what of the thousands of other people who encounter similar circumstances every day and die. Did God not deem them worthy? Are you and your family special somehow? IF God intervenes in human affairs than God must play favorites. God must actively CHOOSE who lives and dies, making God responsible for miracles AND tragedies. If God is an actor in human affairs, than God is not a benevolent being, but instead a cruel puppetmaster.
There are only two logical positions on whether or not God intervenes in human affairs (assuming there is a God, and that God is benevolent, of course).
A) God created the universe, set the wheels in motion, and free will leads to both wonders and tragedies. God is a creator, but not an actor in human affairs. Humans were endowed with the capacity to do great things and evil things and ultimately free will and circumstance leads us to do either. Also, sometimes people get lucky and survive accidents and sometimes people are in the wrong place at the wrong time and die tragicially.
B) God has a plan and all human action is the result of fate. We are fated to do what we will do and we never really decide anything. God has already decided what we will do, how long we will live, and when and how we will die. We are allowed the illusion of free will, but at the end of the day we are all part of some great morality play.
What is not logical is that God intervenes, but only now and then, just so we know that God is there and can create miracles. That only makes sense if God is the God of the Old Testament (the one you have tried to distance Christianity from) who is spiteful, wrathful, vain and needy.
If you really are a man who has some understanding of science, then you realize that if we repeat any experiment over and over enough times, every now and then ANY experiment will not follow expections. Even the most predictable events can't be 100% predictable. Your "miracles" can also be described as outliers.
The "expected" outcome of throwing a strike down the middle of the plate to Albert Pujols is that he will hit a homerun. If he swings and misses it is not a "miracle", it just means the pitcher got lucky.
(cont.)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs to "5% of the universe": Current cosmology proposes that 70% of the universe is composed of dark energy, 25% of dark matter, and 5% of observable matter/energy. Neither dark energy nor dark matter are defined or predicted by the standard model. Thus, according to this estimate, 95% of the universe is unexplained by any known scientific principle. Even for the 5% that is alleged to be explained, there are serious problems with the model: Relativity and quantum theory cannot be reconciled with each other, and current cosmology theories have major problems, e.g. CMB isotropy, CMB anisotropy, lithium imbalance, inflation initiation, inflation termination, and many others (see http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18524911.600-13-things-that-do-not-make-sense.html and related articles). Cosmology is not nearly as locked down as you earlier suggested.
Finally, my critique that a non-Christian was lecturing me on Christian theology was not, as you said, an ad hominem argument. It was an "appeal to authority" - much like when evolutionists say, "You can't criticize evolution because your not a real scientist!" Appeal to authority is generally considered to be a fallacy, but can sometimes be valid (see the Wiki article). I felt a little guilty at using this device, but this was a valid appeal to authority: I have taken the pains to educate myself on theology (among many other subjects). I am comfortable discussing theology at any level with any correspondent. Because of this, I thought it not too improper to point out that your theology lectures might not have been entirely fitting.
So, here is the question: Are you the sort of fellow who has already determined that there is no God, no spirit, no soul, no miracles? If so, you are the typical atheist, and really not interested in rational discussion. This is your statement of faith, your dogma, and you will always be defending it no matter the cost, intellectually or otherwise. On the other hand, perhaps you are the sort of person who can recognize his biases and prejudices and work around them? If so, then you are probably not an atheist, and we can have a pleasant discussion.
Your ball.
(cont.)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBy the way, I do not at all agree that I am trying to disclaim the God of the Old Testament. I appreciate that it is fashionable to call the God of the Old Testament "a petty warlike tribal deity" nowadays, but no-one who actually reads the Old Testament can sustain that view. The God of the Old Testament is sovereign, majestic, loving, almighty, and just. The God of the New Testament is sovereign, majestic, loving, almighty, and just. What God did in the Old Testament with Israel was completely appropriate to the time and the circumstances - just as his actions today are completely appropriate, given the time and the circumstances.
You also asked a question about the nature of miracles. What I hear you asking is, "Can't you interpret the miraculous as being compeletely natural events with unknown causes?" Yes, you can, though it gets harder and harder to sustain that interpretation, depending on the miracle. The question is, are you predisposed to find a natural explanation for everything, no matter how far-out that explanation must be? If so, I would say that you lack an open mind. (This is the subject of my conversation with Mr. Schmidt.)
I appreciate your writing style, by the way: Clean and direct, lacking neither precision nor clarity. Thanks for writing!
pfunk: Sorry - you're right. I didn't answer your previous question. Here's what I hope to be a better response.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirst, no, my family was not saved because we were "more worthy" than others. (If anything, we are more "ready to go" than others. Life on earth, as you have probably figured out by now, is a mixed blessing at best - so perpetuating that life is not an unqualified blessing.) For the record, I believe that God left us here because we have a few things yet to fulfill. It's not about being favored; it's about having a job to do.
Second, your dilemma between a God who is uninvolved and a God who is totally sovereign is (as you might have guessed) a false dilemma. The actual picture is, not surprisingly, more complex than that. I'm going to lay this out very briefly, but you should know that this is the product of thousands of hours of study and reasoning, and I highly doubt that the picture will snap into focus after ten minutes' reading.
(1) By divine decree, and in deference to human preference, the world that we live in generally proceeds according to regular rules of order. That these rules leave room for natural disasters and other troubles is actually what mankind prefers, because man has chosen to live a life in which he feels independent from God. (Actually, this is the world which our atheist friends relish so much to tell us "is all there is".)
(2) In this context, God gives man the greatest gift of all: the moral freedom to enact his own will. He does this with the intention that we use our freedom for good purposes, but we often choose not to. God usually does not prevent humans from doing evil because We value our freedom as our chief good, and God in his license allows us our chief good.
(3) God intervenes in history in order to draw men to himself, their author and sustainer. These interventions are called "miracles". Men often choose to ignore God's intervention, because it interferes with their self-esteem.
(4) God knows all possibilities, and answers all possibilities, so that history will in the end accomplish his goal: Perfected humans in perfect relationship with God. Those who choose not to be part of this... won't be.
Though lacking nothing essential, the forgoing is just a brief sketch. It will probably take quite a bit of "walking around in" to see how tightly it all fits together. Sorry about that - reality is often more complicated than we want it to be. But this picture is at least complete and coherent.
(cont.)
Well, the time had to come eventually, and it might as well be now. I have enjoyed our debates on this subject - they've been thorough explications of the atheistic views. But frankly, this discussion has gone on a LONG time and consumed a LOT of my attentions and energies. I don't regret it, don't consider the time wasted, and feel that you all have been worth the effort. But all things must come to an end.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis leaves pfunk and Robert Schmidt to give the last word in the discussion.
Have at it!
(Best to all.)
There seems to be a linguistic difference between those who defend faith and those who are skeptic. In reading these responses, faith defenders will disparage the skeptics, but the skeptics will disparage the proposition. Defending a faith has an emotional need, but being skeptical has no personal attachment.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCome on, Sci Am! This is just bad science writing. Just because the same region lights up does not mean the beliefs are 'the same' 'from the perspective of the brain' (which is itself a silly phrase). What OTHER regions are lighting up? It doesn't say. Does the fact that gross measures of gross regions are not distinguishable mean that there are no important differences in the underlying processes? Definitely not. What this has shown is that they have something(s) in common. But that isn't surprising. It does not remotely show that they have nothing that isn't in common. Which, if one things about it for just a second, is already obvious, since they are two different contents after all, quite different from one another. One is about Jesus and virgins and one is about sun and stars. Perhaps this study shows that those don't have different contents since the same brain regions light up (or rather that there is one brain region that lights up in both cases). Christ.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs a 30+ year physics teacher (High School) I shudder each time I read the phrase "I believe"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPeople that is a religious term, not a scientific one, since it presumes certainty. The only thing I am certain of is that I know nothing, and will never ever know anything "for sure."
The only being that could have certain knowledge would be a supreme being, a god and I strongly suspect I am not that. I also strongly suspect there is no such being either, but being a finite human I can not imagine a way of being in that position.
I believe nothing, I suspect many things, I have evidence for many things, I have read of evidence for many things but none of that gives me the right to say I know it, unless I am wrong of course.
This is a deep part of the philosophy of science.
As far as it appears to me, the questions, the quest for understanding (always I suspect in part), is IMO the glory of being human, of being conscious, unless perhaps there is a "Matrix" (this idea simply adds one more layer of uncertainty, although it is hardly worth considering unless someone out there has the red pill)
So it appears that those who say "I believe" are suffering from that very human trait "hubris"
My appeal here is to speak with the humility of not knowing (for sure) but wonder at the great ideas and the even greater questions.
Descartes said "I think therefore I am" but can we even know that? What is I? What is consciousness? What does it mean for our consciousness to look at our consciousness?
Let us leave certainty to those who believe they have revealed wisdom and knowledge from some deity and be scientists, professional or not.
As a 30+ year physics teacher (High School) I shudder each time I read the phrase "I believe"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPeople that is a religious term, not a scientific one, since it presumes certainty. The only thing I am certain of is that I know nothing, and will never ever know anything "for sure."
The only being that could have certain knowledge would be a supreme being, a god and I strongly suspect I am not that. I also strongly suspect there is no such being either, but being a finite human I can not imagine a way of being in that position.
I believe nothing, I suspect many things, I have evidence for many things, I have read of evidence for many things but none of that gives me the right to say I know it, unless I am wrong of course.
This is a deep part of the philosophy of science.
As far as it appears to me, the questions, the quest for understanding (always I suspect in part), is IMO the glory of being human, of being conscious, unless perhaps there is a "Matrix" (this idea simply adds one more layer of uncertainty, although it is hardly worth considering unless someone out there has the red pill)
So it appears that those who say "I believe" are suffering from that very human trait "hubris"
My appeal here is to speak with the humility of not knowing (for sure) but wonder at the great ideas and the even greater questions.
Descartes said "I think therefore I am" but can we even know that? What is I? What is consciousness? What does it mean for our consciousness to look at our consciousness?
Let us leave certainty to those who believe they have revealed wisdom and knowledge from some deity and be scientists, professional or not.