Dangers of Religion Reloaded

[_Dr. Shades]

[MODERATOR NOTE: I humbly request that JAK be given a "clean slate" for this particular thread and that no reference to his past be made. If you wish to comment on JAK's previous behavior and/or methodology, please do so in this thread instead. Thanks in advance.]

[_JAK]

Hi, JAK, I look forward to conversing with you. I'd like to ask you to forgive me for being personal with you in our last conversation. I hope this one will be more pleasant, for both of us. Before I start my reply to you I'd ask for you to understand that my comments do deal with dangers of religion. My personal belief is that it is the zealots that are dangerous. With that being said, I see much tolerance, and good in many persons of religious faith -- as well as many of the institutions. My comments will be linked to the innate quality of the search for God (that has been seen throughout history by most of humanity), and also that I don't necessarily correlate this to a danger. I hope that helps before others may think I'm off-topic.

Moniker stated:
The rest of Gallup's comment is, “There is a deep desire for spiritual moorings -- a hunger for God.” Statistically 2/3 of Americans say religion is a very important part of their lives.

JAK asked:
Would you post it?

I actually had the US News & World Report you referenced (I am a news hound, and junkie of all sorts of political rags and merely digged it out to re-read the article) so, I had to search on the web and found it referenced there, as well.

If you scroll down the page, the quotes are found at the end of the second to last paragraph.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m ... 43340/pg_2

Then, I found this website which also contains a portion of the quote. I'd like to post some relevant findings from the study as it pertains to religious views in Americans.
http://www.fairfield.edu/x3714.html

Main Findings of the Study

1. Most Christians feel they are tolerant of other religions.
2. Americans see religious diversity as a strength and not as a threat.
3. Many of these very religious and very tolerant Americans know neither people of other religions nor much about religions other than their own.
4. Many Americans turned to their religion to deal with the aftermath of the events of September 11, 2001.
5. While Americans are evenly split on their overall view of Islam as a religion, most Americans expect a bigger armed conflict soon between Christian and Islamic countries.
6. About 1/2 of Americans say they attend religious services at least once a week, and large numbers say they attend prayer group meetings and Bible study.
7. By nearly three to one, Catholics believe that Catholic priests should be allowed to marry.

Nearly 2/3 of Americans say religion is very important in their lives. Nearly 50% say they attend worship services at least once a week (highest % since the 1960s). Belief in God and devotion to prayer are at historic highs. Voluntary giving to religious institutions is estimated to be more than $55 billion per year.

If you want to comment on those findings that would be great. The entire study is fairly fascinating. I am always pleased to see my personal intuition that most Americans are tolerant, and live and let live, reflected by statistics.

Moniker stated:
I imagine this desire to "escape" or this "hunger for God" is across political boundaries and merely may be a reflection of a deep desire that some have to live in harmony, seek community, and have relief from the frantic, troubled world we live in. I don't know why "escape" is being linked above by you to correlate to fundamentalism. [/color] (bold emphasis added)

JAK stated in a single paragraph:
In 2002, George Gallup told a correspondent for U.S. News & World Report, “People are reaching out in all directions in their attempt to escape from the seen world to the unseen world. “Escape” is the key word in the resurgence of fundamentalism. Spiritualism, the other side, the truth science can’t see, my personal truth are escape. More moderate religiosity relies less on escape and attempts to compartmentalize or to have it both ways.

Moniker stated:
In that poll, you reference, it showed the majority of Americans seek God -- how is Gallup's comments linked to fundamentalism? Or are you linking them somehow?

JAK replies:
Christian fundamentalism relies on God claims. That is, “escape” was a word used by Gallup. My statement was that escape “is the key word in the resurgence of fundamentalism.” Commensurate with the context of my comments, “more moderate religiosity relies less on escape…” The more moderate attempt to incorporate information and knowledge with their religious views. They also may abandon some previously held religious views.

I saw that "escape" was used by Gallup. I didn't understand if you thought he was making a correlation with fundamentalism with that word, or if you just used it in that manner. I think, now, that you used that quote to make a point, or to precede your statements -- I understand.

As a result, moderate religiosity relies less on “escape” and more on objective information confirmed by neutral or disinterested observers. That is not to suggest that even moderates abandon “escape” at points where they accept truth by assertion. However, “moderates” religiously are more open to investigation and discovery than are fundamentalists.

It seems to me that all Christians rely on God claims, so, you think moderates are less fanatical in their devotion to God? Or are you using God claims here as a way to tie that into teachings of the Bible? I think what confuses me is I don't see a mere belief in God as necessarily dangerous. I think the teachings in the Bible, if taken to an extreme could be dangerous. Then, again, if someone just focuses on the New Testament and the teachings of Christ I see the likelihood of dangers (physically) incredibly remote. I also see little likelihood that a strong belief in the teachings of Christ could even correlate to other dangers (looking at information critically), as his teachings mostly rely on how to treat humanity tolerantly and with love. Matter of fact, I just see Jesus as Character Education 101.

Moniker stated:
When you speak of spiritualism what precisely are you speaking of? Spiritualism is not necessarily correlated to God, or any religion -- it can, and does exist in atheists. Spiritualism is indeed what science can, and does see -- it is called neurotheology.

JAK asked:
What’s your basis for the last sentence? See “Scientific criticism” in the source below. Also see Scientific Method (source below).

Well, I wasn't certain what you were speaking of with your statement that science doesn't (sorry for the paraphrase but I don't see your original quote above - please forgive), see spiritualism. No doubt that are people that believe in new age stuff and science has rebuked most (if not all) of those claims. I thought of spirituality. You were discussing religions and most mainstream Christians don't dabble with the occult -- yet, spirituality has no boundaries -- it's seen all across the spectrum. Science is exploring spirituality in neurotheology (I see you posted some links below), and in the God gene. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... wstop.html

I'll look at "scientific criticism below".

Spiritualism is not confined to the definition linked here. It may mean different things to different people. I used it as my statement indicated.

Restating:
“Spiritualism, the other side, the truth science can’t see, my personal truth are escape.” Since the 1840 to 1920s, the term has taken on additional implications and interpretations.

Well, that's why I asked for you to clarify what you were speaking of when you spoke of spiritualism. When I think of spiritualism, I think of spirituality and the numinous experience an individual may have -- this is not necessary for God belief. It's just a human condition.

Neurotheology in this source has a section called “Criticism.” Under that is both “Philosophical criticism” and “Scientific criticism.”

Claimed “spiritual experience” is inherently subjective. It evades and attempts to escape critical, skeptical review. Fundamentalism also attempts to evade and escape rational, intellectual inquiry.

JAK -- I read the criticisms. I don't quite understand where you're going. Or, I'm not certain what you're attempting to say to me. Are you linking science delving into spiritual experiences with fundamentalist religion?

Spiritualism is here described as “Spiritism or spiritualism is the belief that the human personality survives death and can communicate with the living through a sensitive medium.”

“The spiritualist movement began in 1848 in upstate New York with the Fox sisters who claimed that spirits communicated with them by rapping on tables. (The "raps" were actually made by cracking their toe joints.) By the time the sisters admitted their fraud some thirty years later, there were tens of thousands of mediums holding séances where spirits entertained with numerous magical tricks such as making sounds, materializing objects, making lights glow, levitating tables and moving objects across the room.”

Okay, well I wasn't talking about a movement. I was talking about the spiritual experiences that is seen the world over. Indeed it may be different from person to person. Yet, there is scientific scrutiny into the God part of our brain that can be stimulated to recreate these experiences. I'm not talking about the occult.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/20 ... inqa.shtml

This is sort of moving away from anything to do with dangers....... :) I too think spiritualism (talking with dead people, mediums, etc..) is definitely an "escape" -- yet, I think most Christians reject the occult. I understand spirituality to be a human condition that is being delved into by science. I don't view spirituality as dangerous, and even if it was -- we're stuck with it until our brains ever evolve enough so that it's no longer present. I hope that never happens -- I like that part of my brain. :)

Moniker stated:
When you speak of spiritualism what precisely are you speaking of? Spiritualism is not necessarily correlated to God, or any religion -- it can, and does exist in atheists. Spiritualism is indeed what science can, and does see -- it is called neurotheology.

JAK stated:
Now that you have seen the “Scientific criticism,” modern science does not endorse or support “spiritualism” but rather relies on information skeptically reviewed and openly tested. Fundamentalism rejects such exposure.

See scientific method

Right, I wasn't linking spiritualism with fundamentalism. I was attempting to understand what you meant when you used the word "spiritualism" and why you mentioned that science wasn't delving into it.I was thinking of spirituality.

"Among other facets shared by the various fields of inquiry is the conviction that the process must be objective to reduce a biased interpretation of the results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so it is available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, thereby allowing other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established."

In the link the following terms in the paragraph just above have further clarification for: objective, biased, archive, share, reproduce, and reliability.

They are highlighted for you here, and in the "Scientific Method" link, you can read the specifics of meaning for the terms in bold type here.

JAK

I'm not certain why you posted the scientific method aspects, and links above. I understand that as research is done that the scientific method will be used for it to be valid science. Valid science is occurring right now in an attempt to understand these "God feelings".

(A preface note. I don’t understand entirely the moving of posts, and while I was attempting to address yours, posts disappeared “moved.” I intended to break this into two parts because of length. I only hope that will be possible.)

Hi Moniker,

You have tried quite successfully in post Feb 29, 2008 8:15 pm, to have continuity. It’s difficult in this format to add posts on other posts with clarity beyond one or two. Second, thanks for posting links to websites.

The focus of this and the continuation here was on the “Dangers of Religion.” You observed that you thought: it is the zealots that are dangerous. They are. One of the problematic factors is being able to accurately identify such dangers. For example, someone who bombs an abortion clinic killing workers inside may have kept a very low profile prior to the act. So, we often can’t and don’t know about persons like this until there is a news event which identifies them. They are a danger driven by their religion.

Recently Warren Jeffs was the object of a man-hunt, and it was 2½ years before prosecutors would see the polygamist sect leader in court. He was a fugitive and on the FBI’s “Most Wanted” list. He was the leader of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. The law regarded him as dangerous. He claimed to be a representative of God. His followers believed he was and obeyed, without question, Jeffs’ commands.

While these are but two examples of individual cases, my posts (linked above) were more focused on dangers of fundamentalist Christians attempting to impose by law their morality, their truth on all American citizens. The attempts to have right-wing fundamentalists appointed to the Supreme Court is made by “zealots” of a different sort.

It has two dangers. One, it blurs the separation of church (religion) and state. Second, it attempts to restrict and control secular rights guaranteed by the constitution.

Those “Dangers of Religion” are much more subtle and far reaching than a Warren Jeffs or one who bombs abortion clinics.

There is no question that “zealots” (as you commented) use their religious beliefs to endanger. I argued that the more moderate people are religiously, the less danger they tend to pose. Previously, I argued the more agnostic religiously the less dangerous. It’s more difficult to find a “zealot” in a religious group which is open to ask questions, even to question its own beliefs. It’s not impossible that a “zealot” might be found there. Prior to masses being able to read, religious doctrine was imposed and accepted by the masses without question. Since they could not read, they had no way to challenge or question what the church authorities told them. The ability to read and the invention of the printing press strongly assisted in the Protestant Reformation in which Christianity was fractured into many divisions.

For some, that was enlightening and produced “tolerance.” In the past two decades, tolerance has been replaced in a fairly large number of religious proselytizers, the zeal and the “zealot” strive to impose their religious doctrines on all Americans.

You observed that you see “much tolerance and good in persons of religious faith.” There is no question that one can make that observation. To the degree that individuals practice freedom of religion in ways which you observe, may produce tolerance.

In my many previous links (different thread), I cited numerous examples in which religious belief and practice epitomized the opposite of “tolerance” which you rightly recognize exists today in some people (zealots).

You will recall that the principle which I set forward was: “Where reason and evidence are turned aside in favor of dogma and claim absent evidence, danger prevails.” The “tolerance and good in persons…” may not turn aside reason and evidence. However, when it does, there is danger. That is, reliable evidence and reason is superior to truth by assertion when the objective is honest intellectual search for reliable conclusion. Regardless of how much “tolerance” or how much “good in many persons…,” that does not mitigate the “Dangers of Religion” which I have described. That’s not a contradiction of your observation.

In the George Gallup poll, Gallup was giving no affirmation to any God claims. Rather, he was reporting the results of his poll. (I quote here from your source) "People are reaching out in all directions in their attempt to escape from the seen world to the unseen world," pollster George Gallup, Jr., tells U.S. News. "There is a deep desire for spiritual moorings--a hunger for God."

The George Gallup organization is affiliated with no religious organization.

In the results from the poll, the desire to escape is not limited to Americans who adhere to an ultra-conservative religion. But escape underlies religious fundamentalism and occurs in the thrust of a pervasive anti-intellectualism that reinforces more extreme forms of religion and seeks to contaminate the broader public views about science and education. “Dangers of Religion” prevails where rational consensus and rationalism is replaced by dogma and claim. That is at the heart of my contention regarding the dangers of religion.

It applies to those who would manipulate law to mandate religious dogma or those like Jim Jones, the founder of the Jonestown suicide cult in Guyana. In many respects the far less visible right-wing fundamentalists who attempt to control law are worse. (I will clarify later)

Let’s assume for the moment that the data from Fairfield University, a Roman Catholic Jesuit university is correct.

It demonstrates a high propensity toward religious doctrines. Among those who are so inclined there are those who use and have used the legal system to institute their religious doctrines as law. In that, there are “Dangers of Religion.” If it’s my religious doctrine, I think it’s a good idea. If it’s another’s religious doctrine with which I strongly disagree, I think it’s a bad idea.

As a matter of principle, it’s a bad idea even if it’s my religious doctrine. It’s bad because it imposes my religious doctrine on everyone else by law. People who want to do this are “zealots” of quite a different sort than one who bombs an abortion clinic.

They also traumatize those of diverse religious beliefs causing fear that their own religious beliefs and freedoms may be subjugated to the law imposed on their religious beliefs and practices. It threatens the principle freedom of religion. That’s a clear, present “danger of religion” as people like James Dobson, the late Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Jim Bakker, Ronnie Hill, and many others.

The agenda of the religious right is not “to live and let live” as we understand its efforts to control the Supreme Court Justices, institute its own brand of religion in public schools, and subvert the law to its own goals.

I think I should break this into two posts because of length.

JAK

[_JAK]

A second part in response.

Moniker stated:
It seems to me that all Christians rely on God claims, so, you think moderates are less fanatical in their devotion to God? Or are you using God claims here as a way to tie that into teachings of the Bible? I think what confuses me is I don't see a mere belief in God as necessarily dangerous. I think the teachings in the Bible, if taken to an extreme could be dangerous.

Yes to your first 11 words. Since the various “claims” do not agree (a plethora of Christian options), they are unreliable. (This always seems to require detailed analysis which I’ll forego presently.) To your question, “moderates” tend to be less fanatical, yes. How is “devotion” in your question measured? To what extent is there genuine consensus here?

Does any religious group assert “mere belief in God”? Those groups go on to add multiple claims regarding the nature, character, conduct, relevance, presence (or lack thereof), power, level of knowledge, involvement, and more. Certainly Christian groups lay out much specificity in multiple (and contradictory) God claims.

There is significant disagreement among Christians as to “teachings in the Bible.” This is not a disagreement with you, but an addition (I think). Right-wing fundamentalists do not see themselves as “extreme.” They do not see themselves as “dangerous.” (A nine-year old playing with a gun does not see himself as dangerous.) Just when does religion become “extreme”? Moniker, that is a large question upon which there lacks agreement. “Extremists” are generally perceived as other people.

Those who want their brand of Christian domination in the courts including the Supreme Court and those who want “prayer” their prayer reinstated in public, secular educational institutions do not see themselves as “extreme.” Is bombing a Family Planning Clinic (offering contraceptive information) “extreme”? The law says it is. Those who plan and have carried out such bombings saw themselves as inspired by the word of God (in the Bible) to save the lives of “the unborn.” While few undertake such action, many secretly (or not) applaud the motives and the abolition of the 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision.

In general, religious groups indoctrinate their young to believe not to think. And thinking, asking intellectually honest questions is discouraged if those questions are “the wrong questions.” I should like to explore some of these, but this post is too long as is.

Moniker stated:
Then, again, if someone just focuses on the New Testament and the teachings of Christ I see the likelihood of dangers (physically) incredibly remote. I also see little likelihood that a strong belief in the teachings of Christ could even correlate to other dangers (looking at information critically), as his teachings mostly rely on how to treat humanity tolerantly and with love. Matter of fact, I just see Jesus as Character Education 101.

How long has the whole Bible been used (along with the Apocrypha or the J. Smith’s Book of Mormon)? The New Testament ends about 125 A.D. The New Testament was a part of Christianity throughout the wars fought in the name of Christianity. The oldest roots of pacifism (a belief that rejects the use of violence) are found in Buddhism around 500 B.C. Christianity has been a relatively late comer to pacifism primarily since the 1600s when the Quakers and other religious groups evolved following the Protestant Reformation (World Book Enclyclopedia 1985 Library Edition).

There are non-religious roots for pacifism including the moral judgment that people act against their own interests in the costs of war. But that cannot be said of Christianity, historically.

During the 1950s and 1960s, Martin Luther King Jr. used a technique similar to Gandhi to fight for equality for American blacks.

Only some Christian groups teach non-violence and “turn the other cheek” and “pray for your enemies.” They are in the minority in applied Christianity today. “God Bless America” (George W. Bush Christianity) resonates with many Christians today in the USA. Never mind that God should care in the least about other countries. And when our government sends its men and women into war, our Christians pray for the safety of our people not the people we intend to kill with our superior weapons.

Christians offer prayers which seek to manipulate God to favor “our people”. It’s not peaceful or tolerant in war. And Christians use God in war. I’m not being satirical nor do I suggest any credibility for any God inventions. People operate out of their environment, and that environment includes religious indoctrination.

Moniker states:
Then, again, if someone just focuses on the New Testament and the teachings of Christ I see the likelihood of dangers (physically) incredibly remote. I also see little likelihood that a strong belief in the teachings of Christ could even correlate to other dangers (looking at information critically), as his teachings mostly rely on how to treat humanity tolerantly and with love. Matter of fact, I just see Jesus as Character Education 101.

My point in review of this is that there are indeed great “dangers” and likelihood of physical harm from current public officials who regard themselves as God believing Christians. Your view is a nice, pretty, and simplistic view. But Christians are modern myth-makers and invent Christian doctrine to benefit themselves, their institutions, and their country.

The “born again Christian” George W. Bush took the USA into a preemptive attack of Iraq on false “intelligence”. Keep in mind that Bush is a Christian who claims to “talk to God daily.” God claims are unreliable. Why?... because there are many and they are contradictory.

Others who also claim to “talk to God daily” get different messages from God. Those different God claims are also unreliable.

While you may see “Jesus as Character Education 101,” it’s your interpretation which is at odds with the interpretation of others such as George W. Bush. For one nation to attack another nation on the grounds that the leader (Bush) has talked to God amplifies the fact that Christians do not agree on a multitude of God claims. Before the invasion of Iraq, Bush told reporters that he had prayed about this and implied that he had God’s blessing as did the USA.

What we have is speculation on God claims and assertions on what God is, God wants, God demands, and the very assertion of “God” at all. No evidence has established God.

Any interpretation of God, is a product of doctrine and dogma about some religious claim including Christian claims and about interpretation of various and conflicting concepts of that religion as they have evolved over centuries. “Escape” from death has been a doctrine of Christianity. And as Gallup documented, “People are reaching out in all directions in their attempt to escape from the seen world to the unseen world…” No evidence supports faith based conclusions regarding any “unseen world.” It may be a human emotion, a feeling, a wish. But it’s not supported by evidence. And, the claim that such conclusion is beyond the reach of evidence confirms Gallup’s study.

Moniker states:
Well, I wasn't certain what you were speaking of with your statement that science doesn't (sorry for the paraphrase but I don't see your original quote above - please forgive), see spiritualism. No doubt that are people that believe in new age stuff and science has rebuked most (if not all) of those claims.

Science ignores religious mythologies. While it does not address them directly, it does address them indirectly with evidence that is unsupportive of any spiritual notions.

Moniker states:
I thought of spirituality. You were discussing religions and most mainstream Christians don't dabble with the occult -- yet, spirituality has no boundaries -- it's seen all across the spectrum.

Exactly correct. But “spirituality” lacks open, transparent, skeptically reviewed analysis. Further, it hides from scrutiny and objective view.

Moniker states:
Science is exploring spirituality in neurotheology (I see you posted some links below), and in the God gene.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... wstop.html

From this source which you provided, there is no scientific consensus. While work on genes and DNA is on-going, science makes no statement regarding God claims directly.

Moniker states:
Well, that's why I asked for you to clarify what you were speaking of when you spoke of spiritualism. When I think of spiritualism, I think of spirituality and the numinous experience an individual may have -- this is not necessary for God belief. It's just a human condition.

How is any distinction made between claims of “spiritualism” and emotions? Emotions are a product of “numinous experience an individual may have…” The invention of gods in the plural evolved to the invention of God in the singular. And those inventions lack credibility.

Moniker states:
JAK -- I read the criticisms. I don't quite understand where you're going. Or, I'm not certain what you're attempting to say to me. Are you linking science delving into spiritual experiences with fundamentalist religion?

No to your question. You raised the term “spiritualism” previously (I think). I was addressing it just as I addressed “neurotheology.” Websites were provided for both. I was only responding to your references to those terms.

Moniker states:
Okay, well I wasn't talking about a movement. I was talking about the spiritual experiences that is seen the world over.

O.K. But keep in mind that “spiritual experiences” are no more than emotional reactions to some perception or real-life episode. That is, no evidence supports unseen spirit or spiritual anything.

What, then, is a clear, transparent distinction between what someone calls “spiritual” and what psychiatry calls emotion or emotional response? We should be skeptical of claims absent evidence.

Moniker states:
Indeed it may be different from person to person.

Exactly correct! People have different emotional responses to stimuli which generates emotional response.

Moniker states:
Yet, there is scientific scrutiny into the God part of our brain that can be stimulated to recreate these experiences. I'm not talking about the occult.

Incorrect. Science does not address religious mythologies such as “…scrutiny into the God part of our brain…”

Science makes no comment on religious mythologies directly. I understand you’re not referring to “the occult.” However, it’s not necessarily any less rational than God claims.
They are speculation. Some rely on ancient doctrine and dogma. Others forge their own claims in more recent times.

Moniker cites:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/20 ... inqa.shtml

I read the website. Religious “hallucinations” generally result from religious indoctrination. A unique experience can also produce such hallucinations. There is no transparent science here.

A suggestive question produces a predictable, programmed response.

Example from your source:
Are we 'hardwired' for god?
The term 'hardwired' suggests that we were purposefully designed that way. Neuroscience can't answer that question. However what it can say is that the brain does seem to predisposed towards a belief in spiritual and religious matters. The big mystery is how and why this came about.

An answer is embedded in the question. The answer is suggested in the question. Perhaps “neuroscience” can answer that question.

The fact that from cradle up many babies to adult are indoctrinated with God notions is sufficient to explain why they believe those God notions..

It is unlikely there is a “big mystery” here. Buddhists who don’t believe in one God are products of their environment and heredity just as any individual is a product of his/her environment and heredity.

“Buddhism is one of the major religions of the world. It was founded in India about 500 B.C. by a teacher called Buddha. At various times, Buddhism has been a dominant religious, cultural and social force in most of Asia, especially in India, China, Japan, Korea, Vietnam, and Tibet. In each area, Buddhism has combined with elements of other religions such as Hinduism and Shinto.” (World Book Encyclopedia 1985 Library Edition)

So Buddhists could ask: “Are we (Buddhists) ‘hardwired’ for Buddhism?”

The answer lies in heredity and environment with emphasis on environment.

In your link helmets with magnetic fields is pseudo-science. And “neuroscience” on human brains does not address the evolution of the universe now 14.7 billion years old with the earth at 4.5 billion years in age (roughly). Nor does it address the appearance and disappearance of millions of species over the life of planet earth. It appears to reduce some God claim to the brain of humans.

The site while highly suggestive, psychological suggestion is speculation. And “Getting to what is real” is not accomplished by speculation and pseudo-science. Notice all the “Weblinks and bibliography.” They are all suggestive and rely on assertion. Note, for example: “The ‘God’ Part of the brain.” The title (along with other titles) assumes God and is suggestive absent genuine evidence for the assumption of God.

I agree that it is “moving away from…” dangers of religion. Yet, substitution of pseudo-science for genuine science carries its own dangers – dangers of unreliable conclusion and leaps to emotionally comfortable conclusions.

Moniker states:
This is sort of moving away from anything to do with dangers....... :) I too think spiritualism (talking with dead people, mediums, etc..) is definitely an "escape" -- yet, I think most Christians reject the occult. I understand spirituality to be a human condition that is being delved into by science. I don't view spirituality as dangerous, and even if it was -- we're stuck with it until our brains ever evolve enough so that it's no longer present. I hope that never happens -- I like that part of my brain. :)

“Most Christians reject” as you observe, but not all. Never lose sight of the fact that there are many hundreds of Christian denominations, sects, cults, and what some might regard as occult.

Moniker states:
Right, I wasn't linking spiritualism with fundamentalism. I was attempting to understand what you meant when you used the word "spiritualism" and why you mentioned that science wasn't delving into it. I was thinking of spirituality.

I only used the term here: “Spiritualism, the other side, the truth science can’t see, my personal truth are escape. More moderate religiosity relies less on escape and attempts to compartmentalize or to have it both ways.

Moniker states:
I'm not certain why you posted the scientific method aspects, and links above. I understand that as research is done that the scientific method will be used for it to be valid science. Valid science is occurring right now in an attempt to understand these "God feelings".

I disagree that any science is addressing God claims. If it addresses “feelings” it does so from the perspective of psychiatry and psychology with regard to how the brain/mind functions. That is clearly a physical matter. The brain works on electrical impulses and is a part of the central nervous system not only in humans but in other species as well.

+++
Because my response is so lengthy, I have omitted some of what each of us stated previously. It was not my intention to misrepresent in any way by shortening these two posts.

JAK

[_Moniker]

(A preface note. I don’t understand entirely the moving of posts, and while I was attempting to address yours, posts disappeared “moved.” I intended to break this into two parts because of length. I only hope that will be possible.)

Hi, JAK, I don't think anything relevant to this discussion was moved. I don't mind anything being broken up. I'm a pretty flexible gal.

Hi Moniker,

You have tried quite successfully in post Feb 29, 2008 8:15 pm, to have continuity. It’s difficult in this format to add posts on other posts with clarity beyond one or two. Second, thanks for posting links to websites.

The focus of this and the continuation here was on the “Dangers of Religion.” You observed that you thought: it is the zealots that are dangerous. They are. One of the problematic factors is being able to accurately identify such dangers. For example, someone who bombs an abortion clinic killing workers inside may have kept a very low profile prior to the act. So, we often can’t and don’t know about persons like this until there is a news event which identifies them. They are a danger driven by their religion.

Recently Warren Jeffs was the object of a man-hunt, and it was 2½ years before prosecutors would see the polygamist sect leader in court. He was a fugitive and on the FBI’s “Most Wanted” list. He was the leader of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. The law regarded him as dangerous. He claimed to be a representative of God. His followers believed he was and obeyed, without question, Jeffs’ commands.

While these are but two examples of individual cases, my posts (linked above) were more focused on dangers of fundamentalist Christians attempting to impose by law their morality, their truth on all American citizens. The attempts to have right-wing fundamentalists appointed to the Supreme Court is made by “zealots” of a different sort.

I don't disagree with you that there are those that seek to impose their own morality into legislation. I use my vote, and voice in the political process to defray the attempts that disagree with my political views. There are religious views that hold abortions should be outlawed and that the Bible should be back in the classroom. I am not uncomfortable with them stating their positions and voting them -- I just vote against them.

I am also in agreement with you that there are individuals that do despicable acts because of attempting to press their morality onto others.

It has two dangers. One, it blurs the separation of church (religion) and state. Second, it attempts to restrict and control secular rights guaranteed by the constitution.

It is my opinion that a person can have a certain belief, and this belief may not be popular and they have every right to look for and vote for candidates that will attempt to put their concerns into policy. Actually putting the Bible in the classroom, inserting religious views (ID) into schools is something that I clearly see as an attempt to put religious views into a section where the state has a responsibility to reject them. Yet, here's one that is interesting to note: There are religious folks that oppose the death penalty -- this is BECAUSE of their religious views. So, there are flip sides to this and that religious views can play into policy decisions I actually support and oppose does not make me decry all religion. There are religious people that oppose the war in Iraq (there are ministers -- the Methodist Church (Bush IS a Methodist -- amazing!) actually renounced the decision to go into Iraq and publicly chastised Bush and the decision. So, we can see that religious views are not in lock step and can be seen to be supportive of all sorts of policies that don't seem to line up with anyone one political emphasis. In the way that there IS religious diversity I am uncomfortable saying that someone can not vote their moral conscience just because it comes from their religious views.

Here's an article about the Methodist Church decrying the Iraq War:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1020-02.htm

President George Bush's own Methodist church has launched a scathing attack on his preparations for war against Iraq, saying they are 'without any justification according to the teachings of Christ'.

Jim Winkler, head of social policy for United Methodists, added that all attempts at a 'dialogue' between the President and his own church over the war had fallen on deaf ears at the White House.

His remarks came as the US continued its efforts to achieve agreement on a UN resolution that would open the way for a tough program of weapons inspections in Iraq. France is believed to be concerned that the current draft resolution might still act as a trigger for military intervention without a full Security Council debate if Iraq fails to comply.

Winkler is general secretary of the Board of Church and Society for the United Methodist church, which counts the President and the Vice-President, Dick Cheney, among its members. The church represents eight to nine million regular churchgoers and is the third biggest in America.

The Methodist Church, he says, is not pacifist, but 'rejects war as a usual means of national policy'. Methodist scriptural doctrine, he added, specifies 'war as a last resort, primarily a defensive thing. And so far as I know, Saddam Hussein has not mobilized military forces along the borders of the United States, nor along his own border to invade a neighboring country, nor have any of these countries pleaded for our assistance, not does he have weapons of mass destruction targeted at the United States'.

Those “Dangers of Religion” are much more subtle and far reaching than a Warren Jeffs or one who bombs abortion clinics.

I understand the subtlety you speak of in regards to policies that may be inacted. I just ask for your consideration that seeing that there are various religious views and there is disagreement within the different denominations that this is a GOOD thing as there is no one vote that is attempting to press their morality upon others.

There is no question that “zealots” (as you commented) use their religious beliefs to endanger. I argued that the more moderate people are religiously, the less danger they tend to pose. Previously, I argued the more agnostic religiously the less dangerous. It’s more difficult to find a “zealot” in a religious group which is open to ask questions, even to question its own beliefs. It’s not impossible that a “zealot” might be found there. Prior to masses being able to read, religious doctrine was imposed and accepted by the masses without question. Since they could not read, they had no way to challenge or question what the church authorities told them. The ability to read and the invention of the printing press strongly assisted in the Protestant Reformation in which Christianity was fractured into many divisions.

Yes! Before that time they relied on others to do the thinking for them! When there was an ability to read and interpret information for themselves questions were asked and dissent was seen -- dissent and questioning is ALWAYS a good thing, in my mind. :)

For some, that was enlightening and produced “tolerance.” In the past two decades, tolerance has been replaced in a fairly large number of religious proselytizers, the zeal and the “zealot” strive to impose their religious doctrines on all Americans.

You observed that you see “much tolerance and good in persons of religious faith.” There is no question that one can make that observation. To the degree that individuals practice freedom of religion in ways which you observe, may produce tolerance.

I think that the statistics I posted sort of correlate to what I stated. That most Americans are happy to live with their personal spiritual life and don't think too much about others with differing faiths. I am acutely uncomfortable with proselytizers and most Americans (as the stats reflect) are as well. They're happy with their beliefs, want to be left alone about them, and have no desire to reach out to others to "save them". Thankfully! Yet, I do see in regards to policy that there is an attempt to press their morality upon others. I AM uncomfortable with some of the policy in regards to women's health choices, and ID, etc... and YET, I am pleased that persons of other religious faith routinely and often vote against them.

I'm giving away A LOT of my political beliefs in this thread....... and that perhaps is not too wise....

In my many previous links (different thread), I cited numerous examples in which religious belief and practice epitomized the opposite of “tolerance” which you rightly recognize exists today in some people (zealots).

You will recall that the principle which I set forward was: “Where reason and evidence are turned aside in favor of dogma and claim absent evidence, danger prevails.” The “tolerance and good in persons…” may not turn aside reason and evidence. However, when it does, there is danger. That is, reliable evidence and reason is superior to truth by assertion when the objective is honest intellectual search for reliable conclusion. Regardless of how much “tolerance” or how much “good in many persons…,” that does not mitigate the “Dangers of Religion” which I have described. That’s not a contradiction of your observation.

I think what keeps the dangers of religion in check (IN AMERICA) is that people of religious faith vote across the spectrum, have varying beliefs and often hash it out in the ballot box. I find the more diversity we have the better. There is no group of faithful that can ultimately have all of their desires enacted as there are others that oppose them. If and when this changes I will be more vocal, no doubt.

In the George Gallup poll, Gallup was giving no affirmation to any God claims. Rather, he was reporting the results of his poll. (I quote here from your source) "People are reaching out in all directions in their attempt to escape from the seen world to the unseen world," pollster George Gallup, Jr., tells U.S. News. "There is a deep desire for spiritual moorings--a hunger for God."

The George Gallup organization is affiliated with no religious organization.

In the results from the poll, the desire to escape is not limited to Americans who adhere to an ultra-conservative religion. But escape underlies religious fundamentalism and occurs in the thrust of a pervasive anti-intellectualism that reinforces more extreme forms of religion and seeks to contaminate the broader public views about science and education. “Dangers of Religion” prevails where rational consensus and rationalism is replaced by dogma and claim. That is at the heart of my contention regarding the dangers of religion.

I don't know if you looked at the link I supplied. I AGREE that strict adherence to an authority outside your own conscience and rational thoughts can be rife with dangers and is not wise. Yet, in the poll results it shows that the majority of poll respondents relied on their own reason to make decisions. There was skepticism of dogma and rules. THIS, I believe, is telling and shows an American landscape that goes to Church for reasons beyond just the beliefs. Many of the respondents reported that they just went to Church to have a personal spiritual experience and that the beliefs were not as important. I found that reassuring. This also plays into just what I've witnessed going to many different denominations through out my life. People go to Church for community, to sing, to eat potlucks, let their kids play, to gossip, some burning chest moments, and then go back out into the real world. I'm not a Christian, yet, have attended many different denominations and that's been my overall take -- MATTER OF FACT the poll results said that many people don't even understand the doctrines or views in religion -- it seems to me that it's just not that important to them.

It applies to those who would manipulate law to mandate religious dogma or those like Jim Jones, the founder of the Jonestown suicide cult in Guyana. In many respects the far less visible right-wing fundamentalists who attempt to control law are worse. (I will clarify later)

Let’s assume for the moment that the data from Fairfield University, a Roman Catholic Jesuit university is correct.

It demonstrates a high propensity toward religious doctrines. Among those who are so inclined there are those who use and have used the legal system to institute their religious doctrines as law. In that, there are “Dangers of Religion.” If it’s my religious doctrine, I think it’s a good idea. If it’s another’s religious doctrine with which I strongly disagree, I think it’s a bad idea.

I thought the poll said the opposite? That people more rely on religion for spiritual experiences than doctrine. Yet, it may be unclear. I again, think that if certain doctrine is instituted (let's say the Methodists doctrine that says the Iraq War is unjustified) by policy (and may be supported by many secularists) it doesn't necessarily correlate to a danger. I think certain doctrine being instituted into policy (I spoke earlier about some of my concerns) would be harmful for our nation.

As a matter of principle, it’s a bad idea even if it’s my religious doctrine. It’s bad because it imposes my religious doctrine on everyone else by law. People who want to do this are “zealots” of quite a different sort than one who bombs an abortion clinic.

Again, it depends upon the doctrine. The Methodists believe the Iraq War is unjustified. Would you attempt to squelch their voice? I'm hesitant to say those with religious views (against wars, against the death penalty, for more health care for the uninsured, concerned for equal rights -- the Methodist church by the way was HEAVILY involved in the equal rights movement) must be silenced ..... these views have played an important role in our nation in the past, and still. That their doctrines also align with my secular political concerns makes them an ally to me.

They also traumatize those of diverse religious beliefs causing fear that their own religious beliefs and freedoms may be subjugated to the law imposed on their religious beliefs and practices. It threatens the principle freedom of religion. That’s a clear, present “danger of religion” as people like James Dobson, the late Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Jim Bakker, Ronnie Hill, and many others.

The agenda of the religious right is not “to live and let live” as we understand its efforts to control the Supreme Court Justices, institute its own brand of religion in public schools, and subvert the law to its own goals.

I understand that you're saying that certain policies that you see important to the religious right is against your views. I understand that. I am asking you to consider that religious people vote across party lines and that there is no set of doctrines that follow with one policy. That there is dissent and disagreements between denominations in regards to policy is okay by me. I find this important to our political process. I don't wish to silence those on the religious right -- for in doing so would I have to silence the preachers that lined up for the Civil Rights Movement? The religious that picket outside of prisons as the death penalty is being enacted? The religious that vote against war hawks? I choose not to silence anyone and have faith that the American political landscape is so diverse that all voices can and should be heard.

[_Moniker]

]Moniker stated:
It seems to me that all Christians rely on God claims, so, you think moderates are less fanatical in their devotion to God? Or are you using God claims here as a way to tie that into teachings of the Bible? I think what confuses me is I don't see a mere belief in God as necessarily dangerous. I think the teachings in the Bible, if taken to an extreme could be dangerous.

JAK stated:
Yes to your first 11 words. Since the various “claims” do not agree (a plethora of Christian options), they are unreliable. (This always seems to require detailed analysis which I’ll forego presently.) To your question, “moderates” tend to be less fanatical, yes. How is “devotion” in your question measured? To what extent is there genuine consensus here?

I don't know that I have a way to measure devotion. I don't know what you mean with "claims" -- are you talking about a claim to the belief in God or to doctrine? I'm sorry -- I fear we're going to talk past each other!

Does any religious group assert “mere belief in God”? Those groups go on to add multiple claims regarding the nature, character, conduct, relevance, presence (or lack thereof), power, level of knowledge, involvement, and more. Certainly Christian groups lay out much specificity in multiple (and contradictory) God claims.

Sure, there is a lot of contradictory beliefs, emphasis and doctrines between denominations. I'm not suggesting that God is a reality or the claims are "real" -- I think again, I'm just saying that I don't see that certain doctrines or beliefs are necessarily harmful. Even more than that, I see that there is such WIDE variance between denominations that this is actually a good thing.

There is significant disagreement among Christians as to “teachings in the Bible.” This is not a disagreement with you, but an addition (I think). Right-wing fundamentalists do not see themselves as “extreme.” They do not see themselves as “dangerous.” (A nine-year old playing with a gun does not see himself as dangerous.) Just when does religion become “extreme”? Moniker, that is a large question upon which there lacks agreement. “Extremists” are generally perceived as other people.

Right, I know that there are disagreements. I think if I was trying to say "God is real -- I know God! Jesus saved me!" and then talked about this and that and the other you could ask me about the different denominations and point out that others know a "truth" different than I. Yet, that's not where I am, and so I have no qualms with different denominations interpretations. Some of them strike me as against my own personal secular beliefs, but I'm not against them having them as there are other religious views that do line up with my secular beliefs when it comes to some "teachings in the Bible".

I think right wing fundamentalists seem extreme to you, perhaps, because you disagree with their policy stances. Correct me if I'm wrong. I just don't know that (since they're only 1/3 of Protestants) that this should damn all Protestants. Varying beliefs are acceptable to me, and their ability to vote upon them is acceptable to me likewise. If I want to get rid of certain religious views then wouldn't I have to be consistent to scrap those that line up with my secular views?

Those who want their brand of Christian domination in the courts including the Supreme Court and those who want “prayer” their prayer reinstated in public, secular educational institutions do not see themselves as “extreme.” Is bombing a Family Planning Clinic (offering contraceptive information) “extreme”? The law says it is. Those who plan and have carried out such bombings saw themselves as inspired by the word of God (in the Bible) to save the lives of “the unborn.” While few undertake such action, many secretly (or not) applaud the motives and the abolition of the 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision.

Sure, they don't view themselves as extreme. My grammie (an old Southern woman) and I fussed relentlessly that American was going to hell in a hand basket 'cause prayer was taken out of schools. She didn't think she was extreme -- matter of fact she thought she had the answer to solve all our problems! :)

OF COURSE bombing and killing is extreme! Yet, that there are those that are horrified by their actions and point to the Bible to say that this goes against Christianity occurs, as well. That there are moderate voices that do step out and that outnumber the fanatical actions of a few make me consider that there is GOOD in religion.

In general, religious groups indoctrinate their young to believe not to think. And thinking, asking intellectually honest questions is discouraged if those questions are “the wrong questions.” I should like to explore some of these, but this post is too long as is.

I think, and I hate to be blunt here, but this may be an overstatement. I think most indoctrination likely occurs in homes and that a place you spend 1 hour a week (for MOST denominations) where kids scribble all over a worksheet and then eat graham crackers doesn't make as much a dent as seeing they spend more time in secular schools and in their homes. That the poll I linked to showed that there is skepticism of dogma and rules shows that there IS thinking, as well. That Jersey Girl was able to THINK and question her religious views showed how this supposed indoctrination didn't work too well on her. The ex-mos on this board that THOUGHT and rejected dogma shows how religion (and the LDS quite possibly is MORE heavily involved in members lives and heavy indoctration than other mainstream denominations) wasn't as good in this endeavor with the indoctrination.

Moniker stated:
Then, again, if someone just focuses on the New Testament and the teachings of Christ I see the likelihood of dangers (physically) incredibly remote. I also see little likelihood that a strong belief in the teachings of Christ could even correlate to other dangers (looking at information critically), as his teachings mostly rely on how to treat humanity tolerantly and with love. Matter of fact, I just see Jesus as Character Education 101. [/color]

JAK stated:
How long has the whole Bible been used (along with the Apocrypha or the J. Smith’s Book of Mormon)? The New Testament ends about 125 A.D. The New Testament was a part of Christianity throughout the wars fought in the name of Christianity. The oldest roots of pacifism (a belief that rejects the use of violence) are found in Buddhism around 500 B.C. Christianity has been a relatively late comer to pacifism primarily since the 1600s when the Quakers and other religious groups evolved following the Protestant Reformation (World Book Enclyclopedia 1985 Library Edition).

There are non-religious roots for pacifism including the moral judgment that people act against their own interests in the costs of war. But that cannot be said of Christianity, historically.

Well, we even see with current conflicts that there are splits upon denominations when it comes to war and other policies. I'm really not comfortable reaching back in time and rehashing what HAS occurred. There are many reasons that there were conflicts in the past and if you would like to continue on that avenue, that's fine -- I just won't have much to say on the matter.

During the 1950s and 1960s, Martin Luther King Jr. used a technique similar to Gandhi to fight for equality for American blacks.

Only some Christian groups teach non-violence and “turn the other cheek” and “pray for your enemies.” They are in the minority in applied Christianity today. “God Bless America” (George W. Bush Christianity) resonates with many Christians today in the USA. Never mind that God should care in the least about other countries. And when our government sends its men and women into war, our Christians pray for the safety of our people not the people we intend to kill with our superior weapons.

Are you aware that George Bush's and Cheney's denomination was against the War in Iraq? I guess they weren't indoctrinated too well. ;)

Christians offer prayers which seek to manipulate God to favor “our people”. It’s not peaceful or tolerant in war. And Christians use God in war. I’m not being satirical nor do I suggest any credibility for any God inventions. People operate out of their environment, and that environment includes religious indoctrination.

Sure, there's no dispute, from me, that God is asked for help for self and others, at certain times. Yet, that there are Christians that are against war certainly shows that there is some concerned for humanity outside the narrow niche of borders. Again, I'm not disagreeing with everything you state -- I just am not certain that your views totally reflect the diversity seen in religious denominations.

Moniker states:
Then, again, if someone just focuses on the New Testament and the teachings of Christ I see the likelihood of dangers (physically) incredibly remote. I also see little likelihood that a strong belief in the teachings of Christ could even correlate to other dangers (looking at information critically), as his teachings mostly rely on how to treat humanity tolerantly and with love. Matter of fact, I just see Jesus as Character Education 101. [/color]

JAK states:
My point in review of this is that there are indeed great “dangers” and likelihood of physical harm from current public officials who regard themselves as God believing Christians. Your view is a nice, pretty, and simplistic view. But Christians are modern myth-makers and invent Christian doctrine to benefit themselves, their institutions, and their country.

Well, I don't think my view is simplistic -- rather I think my view reflects the knowledge that different denominations emphasize different things, and that people are not in lock-step. I'd just like to state that I'd rather you not make comments to me about my views being simplistic and what not... to be perfectly honest it comes across to me condescendingly. Perhaps it's warranted, and perhaps not. Yet, it makes me uncomfortable. Thanks.

The “born again Christian” George W. Bush took the USA into a preemptive attack of Iraq on false “intelligence”. Keep in mind that Bush is a Christian who claims to “talk to God daily.” God claims are unreliable. Why?... because there are many and they are contradictory.

Others who also claim to “talk to God daily” get different messages from God. Those different God claims are also unreliable.

Right, yet Bush's denomination fought against him. Cheney and Bush both are Methodists and they went against doctrine when they decided to attack Iraq. Sure, claims about God are unreliable. Not in dispute, at least, not from me!

I'm sort of exhausted JAK and see you discuss neurotheology and spiritual experiences in your post. I'll come back to them tomorrow.

[Guest]

Moniker states:
Well, I wasn't certain what you were speaking of with your statement that science doesn't (sorry for the paraphrase but I don't see your original quote above - please forgive), see spiritualism. No doubt that are people that believe in new age stuff and science has rebuked most (if not all) of those claims.

JAK states:
Science ignores religious mythologies. While it does not address them directly, it does address them indirectly with evidence that is unsupportive of any spiritual notions.

Okay, I am speaking of spiritual experiences and science does and is active in understanding why people have these experiences. I'm not talking about religious mythologies. Science also directly takes on new age claims and debunks them. Please see skeptic.com for more information on this.

When you say "spritual notions" what are you speaking of?

Moniker states:
I thought of spirituality. You were discussing religions and most mainstream Christians don't dabble with the occult -- yet, spirituality has no boundaries -- it's seen all across the spectrum.

JAK states:
Exactly correct. But “spirituality” lacks open, transparent, skeptically reviewed analysis. Further, it hides from scrutiny and objective view.

I have no idea what you're saying above. I'm not certain I understand you. There is valid science that goes into neurotheology, the God gene and understanding why people have spiritual experiences the world over. There is also valid science that delves into mirror neurons that discusses why some may be swept up into what is seen and have a feeling of "oneness" that likewise may be part of spiritual experiences. There is plenty of science that is valid that is dealing with spiritual experiences. Why do you say it hides from objective view? What do you mean by that?

Moniker states:
Science is exploring spirituality in neurotheology (I see you posted some links below), and in the God gene.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... wstop.html

JAK states:
From this source which you provided, there is no scientific consensus. While work on genes and DNA is on-going, science makes no statement regarding God claims directly.

JAK, the God gene -- it does not delve into God claims at all. It attempts to understand why people have numinous experiences. Matter of fact that it is being shown to be brain chemistry is could actually be supportive in dispelling God claims.

Moniker states:
Well, that's why I asked for you to clarify what you were speaking of when you spoke of spiritualism. When I think of spiritualism, I think of spirituality and the numinous experience an individual may have -- this is not necessary for God belief. It's just a human condition. [/color]

JAK states
How is any distinction made between claims of “spiritualism” and emotions? Emotions are a product of “numinous experience an individual may have…” The invention of gods in the plural evolved to the invention of God in the singular. And those inventions lack credibility.

Okay, I don't know why you keep linking God to spirituality. It is being traced to brain chemistry -- unless you want to credit God for that (some can of course say God created us to understand his presence) then I don't know where you're going with this. I don't know why you're talking about the invention of Gods above when discussing science delving into spirituality. I see the two as unrelated, really. Although certainly people could latch onto some of these findings and make a case that God created humans to be able to have a link with him -- this is done.

Moniker states:
Okay, well I wasn't talking about a movement. I was talking about the spiritual experiences that is seen the world over. [/color]

JAK states:
O.K. But keep in mind that “spiritual experiences” are no more than emotional reactions to some perception or real-life episode. That is, no evidence supports unseen spirit or spiritual anything.
[/b]

JAK spritual experiences are being located in the brain, through neurotheology. No, it's not evidence for anything other than that we are hardwired to have spiritual experiences.

What, then, is a clear, transparent distinction between what someone calls “spiritual” and what psychiatry calls emotion or emotional response? We should be skeptical of claims absent evidence.

Well, science is separating the two by looking at brain and at biology to understand why these spiritual experiences occur. They can be replicated by stimulating the brain in some individuals that are more predisposed to these experiences.

Moniker states:
Indeed it may be different from person to person.

JAK states:
Exactly correct! People have different emotional responses to stimuli which generates emotional response.

Well, it's not merely an emotion -- it's a spiritual experience that is being looked into by science.

Moniker states:
Yet, there is scientific scrutiny into the God part of our brain that can be stimulated to recreate these experiences. I'm not talking about the occult. [/color]

JAK states:
Incorrect. Science does not address religious mythologies such as “…scrutiny into the God part of our brain…”

JAK, there is research to understand brain science that deals with people having spiritual experiences. It is called the God part of the brain by quite a few people (lay term I suppose), and there are numerous books, articles, that deal with this. It has NOTHING to do with religious mythologies, as far as I'm aware.

Science makes no comment on religious mythologies directly. I understand you’re not referring to “the occult.” However, it’s not necessarily any less rational than God claims.
They are speculation. Some rely on ancient doctrine and dogma. Others forge their own claims in more recent times.

I referred to the occult to tell you that I wasn't speaking of talking to dead people, psychics, and was actually referring to spiritual experiences.

Moniker cites:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/20 ... inqa.shtml [/color]

I read the website. Religious “hallucinations” generally result from religious indoctrination. A unique experience can also produce such hallucinations. There is no transparent science here.

These experiences are had by atheists. Religion is not a necessary factor. It's a human phenomenon.

God part of the brain and neuroscience: http://www.andrewnewberg.com/qna.asp

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Persinger

DMT produced by the brain: http://www.rickstrassman.com/

The God gene: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_gene

There is plenty of transparent science here.

Are we 'hardwired' for god?
The term 'hardwired' suggests that we were purposefully designed that way. Neuroscience can't answer that question. However what it can say is that the brain does seem to predisposed towards a belief in spiritual and religious matters. The big mystery is how and why this came about.

Moniker states:
I'm not attempting to link neuroscience to religion or a "real" God in this thread. I'm not doing so. I'm just attempting to explain that spiritual experiences exist outside of religion, they are a human phenomenon, there is science that is exploring this that attempts to understand why people have these experiences.

An answer is embedded in the question. The answer is suggested in the question. Perhaps “neuroscience” can answer that question.

The fact that from cradle up many babies to adult are indoctrinated with God notions is sufficient to explain why they believe those God notions..

Spiritual experiences happen even to atheists, and this is outside God notions.

In your link helmets with magnetic fields is pseudo-science. And “neuroscience” on human brains does not address the evolution of the universe now 14.7 billion years old with the earth at 4.5 billion years in age (roughly). Nor does it address the appearance and disappearance of millions of species over the life of planet earth. It appears to reduce some God claim to the brain of humans.

I'm not sure I'm following you? There is research to understand if we've evolved with a brain that is more susceptible to spiritual experiences. It absolutely does point to brain chemistry to explain why people have these experiences.

Moniker states:
I'm not certain why you posted the scientific method aspects, and links above. I understand that as research is done that the scientific method will be used for it to be valid science. Valid science is occurring right now in an attempt to understand these "God feelings". [/color]

JAK states:
I disagree that any science is addressing God claims. If it addresses “feelings” it does so from the perspective of psychiatry and psychology with regard to how the brain/mind functions. That is clearly a physical matter. The brain works on electrical impulses and is a part of the central nervous system not only in humans but in other species as well.

Right, I didn't say that science was addressing God claims... I said it is addressing spiritual experiences -- that is seen in neuroscience . There are brain scans that are done on those that meditate to watch blood flow and watch what is occurring in the brain when participants feel a "presence".

http://www.science-spirit.org/article_d ... cle_id=132

Ramachandran, director of the Center for Brain and Cognition at the University of California, San Diego, is talking about the research detailed in his latest book, Phantoms in the Brain, particularly the chapter devoted to the intense religious experiences associated with some types of temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE). The latter has aroused widespread interest, along with a rash of "overinterpretations" in the media —especially among some church leaders, who claim that Ramachandran has found an "antenna" in the temporal lobes for receiving the presence of God. Oddly enough, atheists have also seized on the same research as "proof" that God does not exist — "spiritual experience" is just a misinterpreted tickling in the brainpans.

But Ramachandran dismisses these extremes, these leaps of faith — and non-faith: "The findings are interesting in themselves, without need for exaggerations. My agenda in studying temporal lobe epilepsy is about religious experience and its origin in the brain, not proving whether God does or doesn’t exist."

The work focuses on the approximately 25 percent of TLE patients who have intense religious experiences during seizures. "They have an aura, they feel the presence of God, or they make statements that sound religious — not necessarily, ‘I see God,’ but some say, ‘Suddenly the whole universe makes sense to me, I feel enlightened, I see deep meaning in everything,’" Ramachandran says. "But the big question for a scientist is, Why do these people have these experiences, what does it mean, how can we investigate it further?"

[_JAK]

(A preface note. I don’t understand entirely the moving of posts, and while I was attempting to address yours, posts disappeared “moved.” I intended to break this into two parts because of length. I only hope that will be possible.)

Hi, JAK, I don't think anything relevant to this discussion was moved. I don't mind anything being broken up. I'm a pretty flexible gal.

Hi Moniker,

You have tried quite successfully in post Feb 29, 2008 8:15 pm, to have continuity. It’s difficult in this format to add posts on other posts with clarity beyond one or two. Second, thanks for posting links to websites.

The focus of this and the continuation here was on the “Dangers of Religion.” You observed that you thought: it is the zealots that are dangerous. They are. One of the problematic factors is being able to accurately identify such dangers. For example, someone who bombs an abortion clinic killing workers inside may have kept a very low profile prior to the act. So, we often can’t and don’t know about persons like this until there is a news event which identifies them. They are a danger driven by their religion.

Recently Warren Jeffs was the object of a man-hunt, and it was 2½ years before prosecutors would see the polygamist sect leader in court. He was a fugitive and on the FBI’s “Most Wanted” list. He was the leader of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. The law regarded him as dangerous. He claimed to be a representative of God. His followers believed he was and obeyed, without question, Jeffs’ commands.

While these are but two examples of individual cases, my posts (linked above) were more focused on dangers of fundamentalist Christians attempting to impose by law their morality, their truth on all American citizens. The attempts to have right-wing fundamentalists appointed to the Supreme Court is made by “zealots” of a different sort.

I don't disagree with you that there are those that seek to impose their own morality into legislation. I use my vote, and voice in the political process to defray the attempts that disagree with my political views. There are religious views that hold abortions should be outlawed and that the Bible should be back in the classroom. I am not uncomfortable with them stating their positions and voting them -- I just vote against them.

I am also in agreement with you that there are individuals that do despicable acts because of attempting to press their morality onto others.

It has two dangers. One, it blurs the separation of church (religion) and state. Second, it attempts to restrict and control secular rights guaranteed by the constitution.

It is my opinion that a person can have a certain belief, and this belief may not be popular and they have every right to look for and vote for candidates that will attempt to put their concerns into policy. Actually putting the Bible in the classroom, inserting religious views (ID) into schools is something that I clearly see as an attempt to put religious views into a section where the state has a responsibility to reject them. Yet, here's one that is interesting to note: There are religious folks that oppose the death penalty -- this is BECAUSE of their religious views. So, there are flip sides to this and that religious views can play into policy decisions I actually support and oppose does not make me decry all religion. There are religious people that oppose the war in Iraq (there are ministers -- the Methodist Church (Bush IS a Methodist -- amazing!) actually renounced the decision to go into Iraq and publicly chastised Bush and the decision. So, we can see that religious views are not in lock step and can be seen to be supportive of all sorts of policies that don't seem to line up with anyone one political emphasis. In the way that there IS religious diversity I am uncomfortable saying that someone can not vote their moral conscience just because it comes from their religious views.

Here's an article about the Methodist Church decrying the Iraq War:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1020-02.htm

President George Bush's own Methodist church has launched a scathing attack on his preparations for war against Iraq, saying they are 'without any justification according to the teachings of Christ'.

Jim Winkler, head of social policy for United Methodists, added that all attempts at a 'dialogue' between the President and his own church over the war had fallen on deaf ears at the White House.

His remarks came as the US continued its efforts to achieve agreement on a UN resolution that would open the way for a tough program of weapons inspections in Iraq. France is believed to be concerned that the current draft resolution might still act as a trigger for military intervention without a full Security Council debate if Iraq fails to comply.

Winkler is general secretary of the Board of Church and Society for the United Methodist church, which counts the President and the Vice-President, Dick Cheney, among its members. The church represents eight to nine million regular churchgoers and is the third biggest in America.

The Methodist Church, he says, is not pacifist, but 'rejects war as a usual means of national policy'. Methodist scriptural doctrine, he added, specifies 'war as a last resort, primarily a defensive thing. And so far as I know, Saddam Hussein has not mobilized military forces along the borders of the United States, nor along his own border to invade a neighboring country, nor have any of these countries pleaded for our assistance, not does he have weapons of mass destruction targeted at the United States'.

Those “Dangers of Religion” are much more subtle and far reaching than a Warren Jeffs or one who bombs abortion clinics.

I understand the subtlety you speak of in regards to policies that may be inacted. I just ask for your consideration that seeing that there are various religious views and there is disagreement within the different denominations that this is a GOOD thing as there is no one vote that is attempting to press their morality upon others.

There is no question that “zealots” (as you commented) use their religious beliefs to endanger. I argued that the more moderate people are religiously, the less danger they tend to pose. Previously, I argued the more agnostic religiously the less dangerous. It’s more difficult to find a “zealot” in a religious group which is open to ask questions, even to question its own beliefs. It’s not impossible that a “zealot” might be found there. Prior to masses being able to read, religious doctrine was imposed and accepted by the masses without question. Since they could not read, they had no way to challenge or question what the church authorities told them. The ability to read and the invention of the printing press strongly assisted in the Protestant Reformation in which Christianity was fractured into many divisions.

Yes! Before that time they relied on others to do the thinking for them! When there was an ability to read and interpret information for themselves questions were asked and dissent was seen -- dissent and questioning is ALWAYS a good thing, in my mind. :)

For some, that was enlightening and produced “tolerance.” In the past two decades, tolerance has been replaced in a fairly large number of religious proselytizers, the zeal and the “zealot” strive to impose their religious doctrines on all Americans.

You observed that you see “much tolerance and good in persons of religious faith.” There is no question that one can make that observation. To the degree that individuals practice freedom of religion in ways which you observe, may produce tolerance.

I think that the statistics I posted sort of correlate to what I stated. That most Americans are happy to live with their personal spiritual life and don't think too much about others with differing faiths. I am acutely uncomfortable with proselytizers and most Americans (as the stats reflect) are as well. They're happy with their beliefs, want to be left alone about them, and have no desire to reach out to others to "save them". Thankfully! Yet, I do see in regards to policy that there is an attempt to press their morality upon others. I AM uncomfortable with some of the policy in regards to women's health choices, and ID, etc... and YET, I am pleased that persons of other religious faith routinely and often vote against them.

I'm giving away A LOT of my political beliefs in this thread....... and that perhaps is not too wise....

In my many previous links (different thread), I cited numerous examples in which religious belief and practice epitomized the opposite of “tolerance” which you rightly recognize exists today in some people (zealots).

You will recall that the principle which I set forward was: “Where reason and evidence are turned aside in favor of dogma and claim absent evidence, danger prevails.” The “tolerance and good in persons…” may not turn aside reason and evidence. However, when it does, there is danger. That is, reliable evidence and reason is superior to truth by assertion when the objective is honest intellectual search for reliable conclusion. Regardless of how much “tolerance” or how much “good in many persons…,” that does not mitigate the “Dangers of Religion” which I have described. That’s not a contradiction of your observation.

I think what keeps the dangers of religion in check (IN AMERICA) is that people of religious faith vote across the spectrum, have varying beliefs and often hash it out in the ballot box. I find the more diversity we have the better. There is no group of faithful that can ultimately have all of their desires enacted as there are others that oppose them. If and when this changes I will be more vocal, no doubt.

In the George Gallup poll, Gallup was giving no affirmation to any God claims. Rather, he was reporting the results of his poll. (I quote here from your source) "People are reaching out in all directions in their attempt to escape from the seen world to the unseen world," pollster George Gallup, Jr., tells U.S. News. "There is a deep desire for spiritual moorings--a hunger for God."

The George Gallup organization is affiliated with no religious organization.

In the results from the poll, the desire to escape is not limited to Americans who adhere to an ultra-conservative religion. But escape underlies religious fundamentalism and occurs in the thrust of a pervasive anti-intellectualism that reinforces more extreme forms of religion and seeks to contaminate the broader public views about science and education. “Dangers of Religion” prevails where rational consensus and rationalism is replaced by dogma and claim. That is at the heart of my contention regarding the dangers of religion.

I don't know if you looked at the link I supplied. I AGREE that strict adherence to an authority outside your own conscience and rational thoughts can be rife with dangers and is not wise. Yet, in the poll results it shows that the majority of poll respondents relied on their own reason to make decisions. There was skepticism of dogma and rules. THIS, I believe, is telling and shows an American landscape that goes to Church for reasons beyond just the beliefs. Many of the respondents reported that they just went to Church to have a personal spiritual experience and that the beliefs were not as important. I found that reassuring. This also plays into just what I've witnessed going to many different denominations through out my life. People go to Church for community, to sing, to eat potlucks, let their kids play, to gossip, some burning chest moments, and then go back out into the real world. I'm not a Christian, yet, have attended many different denominations and that's been my overall take -- MATTER OF FACT the poll results said that many people don't even understand the doctrines or views in religion -- it seems to me that it's just not that important to them.

It applies to those who would manipulate law to mandate religious dogma or those like Jim Jones, the founder of the Jonestown suicide cult in Guyana. In many respects the far less visible right-wing fundamentalists who attempt to control law are worse. (I will clarify later)

Let’s assume for the moment that the data from Fairfield University, a Roman Catholic Jesuit university is correct.

It demonstrates a high propensity toward religious doctrines. Among those who are so inclined there are those who use and have used the legal system to institute their religious doctrines as law. In that, there are “Dangers of Religion.” If it’s my religious doctrine, I think it’s a good idea. If it’s another’s religious doctrine with which I strongly disagree, I think it’s a bad idea.

I thought the poll said the opposite? That people more rely on religion for spiritual experiences than doctrine. Yet, it may be unclear. I again, think that if certain doctrine is instituted (let's say the Methodists doctrine that says the Iraq War is unjustified) by policy (and may be supported by many secularists) it doesn't necessarily correlate to a danger. I think certain doctrine being instituted into policy (I spoke earlier about some of my concerns) would be harmful for our nation.

As a matter of principle, it’s a bad idea even if it’s my religious doctrine. It’s bad because it imposes my religious doctrine on everyone else by law. People who want to do this are “zealots” of quite a different sort than one who bombs an abortion clinic.

Again, it depends upon the doctrine. The Methodists believe the Iraq War is unjustified. Would you attempt to squelch their voice? I'm hesitant to say those with religious views (against wars, against the death penalty, for more health care for the uninsured, concerned for equal rights -- the Methodist church by the way was HEAVILY involved in the equal rights movement) must be silenced ..... these views have played an important role in our nation in the past, and still. That their doctrines also align with my secular political concerns makes them an ally to me.

They also traumatize those of diverse religious beliefs causing fear that their own religious beliefs and freedoms may be subjugated to the law imposed on their religious beliefs and practices. It threatens the principle freedom of religion. That’s a clear, present “danger of religion” as people like James Dobson, the late Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Jim Bakker, Ronnie Hill, and many others.

The agenda of the religious right is not “to live and let live” as we understand its efforts to control the Supreme Court Justices, institute its own brand of religion in public schools, and subvert the law to its own goals.

I understand that you're saying that certain policies that you see important to the religious right is against your views. I understand that. I am asking you to consider that religious people vote across party lines and that there is no set of doctrines that follow with one policy. That there is dissent and disagreements between denominations in regards to policy is okay by me. I find this important to our political process. I don't wish to silence those on the religious right -- for in doing so would I have to silence the preachers that lined up for the Civil Rights Movement? The religious that picket outside of prisons as the death penalty is being enacted? The religious that vote against war hawks? I choose not to silence anyone and have faith that the American political landscape is so diverse that all voices can and should be heard.

Hi Moniker,

Thanks for your comments and observations.

One point which may appear a disagreement may be only misunderstanding.
Since my time is limited, let me take that one first which occurs nearer the end of your Mar 09,2008 7:32 pm (time stamp).

Quote JAK:
As a matter of principle, it’s a bad idea even if it’s my religious doctrine. It’s bad because it imposes my religious doctrine on everyone else by law. People who want to do this are “zealots” of quite a different sort than one who bombs an abortion clinic.


Moniker:
Again, it depends upon the doctrine. The Methodists believe the Iraq War is unjustified. Would you attempt to squelch their voice? I'm hesitant to say those with religious views (against wars, against the death penalty, for more health care for the uninsured, concerned for equal rights -- the Methodist church by the way was HEAVILY involved in the equal rights movement) must be silenced ..... these views have played an important role in our nation in the past, and still. That their doctrines also align with my secular political concerns makes them an ally to me.

JAK:
My point above was that it’s a bad idea to impose by law the religious doctrine of any single group or individual, including mine. I stated that as a matter of principle in harmony with the US Constitution.

Moniker responded: “It depends upon the doctrine.”

JAK:
If you mean that, we may disagree. The US Constitution supports the separation of church and state. My comment was to say “the doctrine” and we are speaking of religious doctrine itself is irrelevant as to whether it should be the prerogative of the government to impose it on ALL Americans.

Denying women a choice to end a pregnancy is based on religious dogma of the religious right. The Supreme Court ruled on this in 1973 in favor of women rather than in favor of restricting women’s rights. That ruling in effect supported freedom of religious practice.

So my disagreement (if in fact there is one) is with “It depends upon the doctrine.” The Supreme Court upheld the right of any woman to exercise her convictions relevant to her own personal situation.

In the Terri Schiavo case, the government intervened and forced family, physician, and hospital to re-insert a feeding tube into a woman who had been in a vegetative state since 1990. Her husband (who normally would have made primary care decisions) was excluded, and the court ordered against the recommendation of her doctors and her husband. In effect, the court (the law) contradicted the doctor’s (actually many doctors) who agreed that this vegetative state for nearly 15 years was a case in which there was no hope of recovery. This situation was largely a result of a right-wing Supreme Court with appointments by Reagan and Bush and which has 5 out of 9 Justices who are Roman Catholic. Despite this intervention, Terri Schiavo died (physically) in 2005.

In your further discussion, while the Methodist Church may take an official position on any issue does not necessarily mean that all Methodists will agree with or accept that position. You mentioned the Iraq War as a case in point.

The Roman Catholic Church has an official position on family planning and prohibits artificial birth control. Not all RCC members agree with that position and practice limiting the number of children their family has by choice.

Moniker asked: “Would you attempt to squelch their voice?”

Of course not. My objection is to the successful efforts to impose on ALL the religious bias of a minority by law. That pro-war individuals express that view is appropriate where free speech is protected. Likewise anti-war individuals are also free to express their views.

We agree (I think) that individual freedoms not only to express but to make decision, which is quite personal and private, should be protected.

Nothing I suggested used the phrase “must be silenced.”

I have no objection to the expression of views different from my own. The objection was/is that organized effort has been mounted to suppress by law the views and personal choices which have been previously supported by both the Constitution and by secular law. It is a “danger of religion” today.

On the face of it, it seems to me that we have general agreement. (perhaps not)

You observed: “That there is dissent and disagreements between denominations in regards to policy is okay by me. I find this important to our political process. I don't wish to silence those on the religious right -- for in doing so would I have to silence the preachers that lined up for the Civil Rights Movement?”

I agree with you. I am not sure what the question is as you end with a question mark. Those disagreements demonstrate that no one view (dogma) is reliable as conclusion.

Moniker observed: “The religious that picket outside of prisons as the death penalty is being enacted? The religious that vote against war hawks? I choose not to silence anyone and have faith that the American political landscape is so diverse that all voices can and should be heard.”

I agree with your declarative “I choose not to silence anyone…” Where you use question marks, I don’t see a question but rather additional declaratives with which I would generally agree. However, when there is an organized, concerted effort to impose by law the views of a minority on everyone or on individuals, I think that is an attempt to mis-use law and an attempt to diminish freedoms inherent in the Constitution.

In closing, I appreciate your thoughtful observations here. With quite limited time, I should like to respond to (2nd Part of response). It was really a continuation of analysis even though I posted it as a second item since I wanted to be inclusive of what you had stated. (Please overlook typos and question if you wish that which seems unclear.)

JAK

[_Moniker]

Hi, JAK - as far as my questions, they were asking whether I would have to decry certain policies because they came from religious viewpoints:

I don't wish to silence those on the religious right -- for in doing so would I have to silence the preachers that lined up for the Civil Rights Movement? The religious that picket outside of prisons as the death penalty is being enacted? The religious that vote against war hawks? I choose not to silence anyone and have faith that the American political landscape is so diverse that all voices can and should be heard.

Sorry, I get very sloppy with my grammar, and hope that if I'm unclear that you can still understand me. If not, just ask for clarification.

Thanks for your reply, and I'll be back to it later. It's a beautiful Sunday and I'm heading out to play. :)

[_JAK]

Hi Moniker,

A second time, thanks for your comments and observations. (2nd Part of response)

I read and copied your post apparently before you edited. So, there are some things here not in your edited post.
Only some can I sort through. But since I have addressed what I copied from your post Mar 02, 2008, 7:30 am, I’ll address from that. Even when and if there is intent to have genuine discussion, this format and changes which can be made make it all the more difficult. Having recognized these inherent problems, I'll post this with that tacit understanding.

Re: Dangers of Religion (2nd Part of response)
JAK wrote:
JAK
Moniker states:
Well, I wasn't certain what you were speaking of with your statement that science doesn't (sorry for the paraphrase but I don't see your original quote above - please forgive), see spiritualism. No doubt that are people that believe in new age stuff and science has rebuked most (if not all) of those claims.

JAK states:
Science ignores religious mythologies. While it does not address them directly, it does address them indirectly with evidence that is unsupportive of any spiritual notions.

Moniker:
Okay, I am speaking of spiritual experiences and science does and is active in understanding why people have these experiences. I'm not talking about religious mythologies. Science also directly takes on new age claims and debunks them. Please see skeptic.com for more information on this.

When you say "spritual notions" what are you speaking of? If you're discussing spiritual experiences as seen in neurotheology then science is not quiet on the subject.
JAK:
Perhaps we are considering meanings in different contexts. Medical science is clearly interested in brain functions. By spiritual notions, I referred to speculations which some individuals make primarily as a result of their environment and perhaps heredity, their experiences which cause them to jump to conclusions not supported by accurate information or accurate understand of available evidence.

Neurotheology “also known as biotheology or spiritual neuroscience…” was a term first used by A. Huxley (according to the above source). Also according to this source: “Neurotheology…is the study of correlations of neural phenomena with subjective experiences of spirituality and hypotheses to explain these phenomena. Proponents of neurotheology claim that there is a neurological and evolutionary basis for subjective experiences traditionally categorized as spiritual.”

The “claim” is lacking in clarity in the use of muddy terminology in the very definition itself.
What’s the evidence? Where is the genuine science? Terms like “God gene” and “God helmet” also listed under the description “see also” are pseudoscience. Books by people like Matthew Alpert: The God Part of the Brain are not science.
JAK wrote:
Moniker states:
I thought of spirituality. You were discussing religions and most mainstream Christians don't dabble with the occult -- yet, spirituality has no boundaries -- it's seen all across the spectrum.

JAK states:
Exactly correct. But “spirituality” lacks open, transparent, skeptically reviewed analysis. Further, it hides from scrutiny and objective view.

Moniker:
I have no idea what you're saying above. There is valid science that goes into neurotheology, the God gene and understanding why people have spiritual experiences the world over. There is also valid science that delves into mirror neurons that discusses why some may be swept up into what is seen and have a feeling of "oneness" that likewise may be part of spiritual experiences. There is plenty of science that is valid that is dealing with spiritual experiences. It's valid science, and there is scrutiny. Why do you say it hides from objective view? What do you mean by that?

JAK:
It’s pseudoscience to speak of “the God gene.” No evidence has established any God claims. If you mean a search for why people believe something for which no evidence has been established, the answers may not be very complex. When people perceive (see or hear) that which they don’t understand, they have few options. One is to investigate, to search for evidence on the matter. Another option is to generate a made-up story which masquerades as explanation. There is plenty of pseudoscience in print.

Psychology and psychiatry (branches of science at large) have interest in how the brain works and why it may construct fiction as if it were fact. But I think the general answer is relatively clear. Today, most people (psychologically) like to consider that they are rational. Today, most people want reasoned explanations. Science is interested in reasoned explanations. And for those, it looks at available evidence while searching for additional evidence.

I cannot simplify very much. Any claims which rely on subjective, secretly held assertions, rely on that which they withhold from “transparent skeptically reviewed analysis.” (my expression).

Quote:
Moniker states:
Science is exploring spirituality in neurotheology (I see you posted some links below), and in the God gene.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... wstop.html

JAK states:
From this source which you provided, there is no scientific consensus. While work on genes and DNA is on-going, science makes no statement regarding God claims directly.

Addition:
According to the article you link, “His findings, published in a book, The God Gene: How Faith Is Hard-Wired Into Our Genes, were greeted sceptically by many in the religious establishment.” The source did not even spell skeptically correctly. And real science would dismiss the publication outright.
Look at the last part of that source you gave:
Dr Hamer insisted, however, that his research was not antithetical to a belief in God. He pointed out: "Religious believers can point to the existence of god genes as one more sign of the creator's ingenuity - a clever way to help humans acknowledge and embrace a divine presence."
This is truth by assertion not by science. “Believers can point to…”
There is not the slightest evidence that “believers” are dealing with fact. There is evidence in the statement that they are dealing with assumption from which they jump to another assumption. This is not science. The claim is bogus.

JAK:
It’s more truth by assertion. That is not science.
Moniker:
JAK, I'm not certain you are understanding neurotheology, the God gene -- it does not delve into God claims at all. It attempts to understand why people have numinous experiences. Matter of fact that it is being shown to be brain chemistry is could actually be supportive in dispelling God claims. I think you have this backwards.


JAK wrote:

Moniker states:
Well, that's why I asked for you to clarify what you were speaking of when you spoke of spiritualism. When I think of spiritualism, I think of spirituality and the numinous experience an individual may have -- this is not necessary for God belief. It's just a human condition.

JAK states:
How is any distinction made between claims of “spiritualism” and emotions? Emotions are a product of “numinous experience an individual may have…” The invention of gods in the plural evolved to the invention of God in the singular. And those inventions lack credibility.

Moniker:
Okay, I don't know why you keep linking God to spirituality. It is being traced to DNA as well as brain chemistry -- unless you want to credit God for that (some can of course say God created us to understand his presence) then I don't know where you're going with this. I don't know why you're talking about the invention of Gods above when discussing science delving into spirituality. (bold added to demonstrate lack of clarity in statement)

JAK:
What is the antecedent of It? I don’t make the link, religion does. There is no evidence which has been established for any God claim. Religion, specifically Christianity, is about the invention of God as the many Christian groups make make various claims. Those God inventions are irrelevant to science. Pseudoscience is not science.

“Spirituality” is a muddy term. It evades and avoids clear, transparent, skeptical review. So does religion. Truth by assertion is unreliable. That applies to religious dogma as well as any mercurial references to “spirituality.” No evidence. There is evidence for emotions and emotional responses not only with humans but in various animals as well. For example: Some pet dogs refuse to eat when their owners are gone even though someone else comes and makes food available. Those dogs experience emotions as they behave in emotional ways. Those same dogs exhibit joy (emotion) at the return of their owner. Particularly trained seeing eye dogs identify and emotionally commit to their owners. God claims with regard to emotions, human or animal are irrelevant and not established.


JAK wrote:
Moniker states:
Okay, well I wasn't talking about a movement. I was talking about the spiritual experiences that is seen the world over. (Here in your post you fail to identify it’s JAK who responds. I’ll identify.)

JAK:
O.K. But keep in mind that “spiritual experiences” are no more than emotional reactions to some perception or real-life episode (anecdotal). That is, no evidence supports unseen spirit or spiritual anything.

Moniker states (you fail to identify and misspell spiritual):
JAK spritual experiences are being located in the brain. No, it's not evidence for anything other than that we are hardwired to have spiritual experiences.

JAK:
You were correct after the word “anything.” It’s not evidence for anything.

Moniker: “It’s not evidence for anything.” JAK: (period) We have evidence (psychiatry and psychology, branches of medical science) for emotions. “…seen over the world” Certainly we have evidence for emotions. That’s a physical/psychiatric reference and included in medical science.

JAK wrote:
What, then, is a clear, transparent distinction between what someone calls “spiritual” and what psychiatry calls emotion or emotional response? We should be skeptical of claims absent evidence.

Moniker:
Well, science is separating the two by looking at brain and at biology to understand why these spiritual experiences occur. They can be replicated by stimulating the brain in some individuals that are more predisposed to these experiences.

JAK:
No evidence for “spiritual” anything. The evidence is for emotional responses. Medical science in psychology and psychiatry address emotions. Only pseudoscience pontificates on “spiritual.”

JAK: (Misidentified on Moniker’s response.):
Indeed it may be different from person to person.

Exactly correct! People have different emotional responses to stimuli which generates emotional response.

Moniker:
Well, it's not merely an emotion -- it's a spiritual experience that is being looked into by science. I fear I'm just repeating myself.

JAK:
Incorrect. Science does not address “spiritual” anything. You confuse pseudoscience with real science.

JAK wrote:
Moniker states:
Yet, there is scientific scrutiny into the God part of our brain that can be stimulated to recreate these experiences. I'm not talking about the occult.

Addition JAK:
No genuine science configures language to “into the God part of our brain.” It’s bogus. It’s a misrepresentation of science by a variety of people who are attempting to link science to some God claim.

JAK states:
Science does not address religious mythologies such as “…scrutiny into the God part of our brain…”

Moniker states:
JAK, there is research to understand brain science that deals with people having spiritual experiences. It is called the God part of the brain by quite a few people (lay term I suppose), and there are numerous books, articles, that deal with this. It has NOTHING to do with religious mythologies.

JAK:
Incorrect. No real science quantifies God claims[/b] as you state. Anyone claiming “God part of the brain” is not dealing in science. You are incorrect in your assumptions. Of course there are “books, articles” which attempt to claim truth by assertion. All fail in real science. Such [i]books have everything to do with “religious mythologies.”
God claims have to do with religious mythologies.

(In the first part, I sensed that we had much agreement. Here, you substitute a variety of claims and attempt to establish them by assertion. That is anti-science. I’ll not repeat detail in Scientific Method.)

JAK wrote:
Science makes no comment on religious mythologies directly. I understand you’re not referring to “the occult.” However, it’s not necessarily any less rational than God claims.
They are speculation. Some rely on ancient doctrine and dogma. Others forge their own claims in more recent times.

I referred to the occult to tell you that I wasn't speaking of talking to dead people, psychics, and was actually referring to spiritual experiences. I was referring to spiritual experiences...

Addition JAK:
Claims absent evidence are unreliable. That applies to “spiritual claims” as it applies to “religious claims” if there be any difference.

JAK wrote:
Moniker cites:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/20 ... inqa.shtml

I read the website. Religious “hallucinations” generally result from religious indoctrination. A unique experience can also produce such hallucinations. There is no transparent science here.

Moniker: (not identified in post)
These experiences are had by atheists. Religion is not a necessary factor. It's a human phenomenon.

God part of the brain and neuroscience: http://www.andrewnewberg.com/qna.asp

JAK:
The first statement in your website:
“Beliefs are based on four key components - perceptions, emotions, cognitions, and social interactions - which are also deeply interconnected.”
There is nothing here which offers evidence for God claims. The opening statement is quite generic and certainly can garner the support of medical science. Look at all those words. There is overlap and no evidence is established for “God part of the brain…”
Your own source fails to support your assertion regarding “God part of the brain.” No such thing has been established.

Moniker:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Persinger
JAK:
Your claim to “God part of the brain” is not supported by the source you cite.

Moniker:
DMT produced by the brain: http://www.rickstrassman.com/

JAK:
How does this source benefit your assertion? It does not.

Moniker:
The God gene: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_gene

JAK:
The claim is “The god gene hypothesis states…” There is no science here, it’s speculation by God pundits. “It has been postulated and promoted by…” That’s not clear, transparent, skeptically reviewed material. It’s [b]not science. It’s pseudoscience.

Moniker:
There is plenty of transparent science here.

JAK:
Incorrect. There is nothing “transparent” in claims absent evidence. Your assertion is bogus. What is the science? None is confirmed in your website. There is no skeptical review. There is no testing. There is no consensus. Science does not address “God claims” directly. You have offered no science here. Nor have you offered any “God claims” made by science directly.

JAK wrote: No JAK did not write this, Moniker wrote this.
Moniker left out Example from your source:
Moniker asks this question:
Are we 'hardwired' for god?

Moniker answers her own question:
The term 'hardwired' suggests that we were purposefully designed that way. Neuroscience can't answer that question. However what it can say is that the brain does seem to predisposed towards a belief in spiritual and religious matters. The big mystery is how and why this came about.

Moniker:
I'm not attempting to link neuroscience to religion or a "real" God in this thread. I'm not doing so. I'm just attempting to explain that spiritual experiences exist outside of religion, they are a human phenomenon, there is real science that is exploring this that attempts to understand why people have these experiences.
Moniker, your scrambling your claims placing they mixed with my responses. I’m sure it was by accident.
JAK:
You fail to “explain” anything. You make claims and assertions. That does not establish. You have yet to distinguish between your claims for “spiritual experiences” as anything other than emotional responses. And as I previously pointed out, emotional responses are identified in animals not exclusively in humans. Whether inside or outside “religion,” such claims are not clear, transparent, or subject to skeptical review. Whether one regards them as religious or non-religious is immaterial.
For example: DNA comparison finds vast similarities, key differences.

From the article:
“Humans and chimps each have some 3 billion base units of DNA in their genomes, differing by only 1.2 percent when compared in this way. Other methods of comparison estimate a genetic difference of at most 4 percent. (emphasis added for focus)
"We're not that different," Waterston said.”
It has long been established that chimps experience “moods” which are “emotions” in human terms. So while not quite so far removed as dogs in my previous reference, emotions are clearly identified in species other than human. You have made no clear, transparent distinction between emotions and spiritual claims. Nor have you established any God claim either by your argument or by your evidence.
(I am direct here because you continue to rely on truth by assertion which is soundly discredited by genuine science. Pseudoscience fails.

JAK wrote:
An answer is embedded in the question. The answer is suggested in the question. Perhaps “neuroscience” can answer that question. Added: “Neurotheology” is bogus.

The fact that from cradle up many babies to adult are indoctrinated with God notions is sufficient to explain why they believe those God notions..

Moniker:
Okay, JAK, I don't know why you keep bringing up God notions when we're discussing the science foray into spiritual experiences. I made a lil snip of mention and we're off to a huge post and my replies. Spiritual experiences happen even to atheists, and this is outside God notions -- I only made mention 'cause you said science doesn't look into it and I was unclear what you meant.

I see now that you do not think this is valid science, for some reason or another.

JAK:
Claims of “spiritual experience” are often if not generally linked to God notions. There has been no, no distinction between “spiritual experiences” and emotional responses. What is the distinction? You have not clarified it. None of your sources have distinguished between emotional and spiritual. And real science, not pseudoscience, addresses brain functions. See Brain Structures and their Functions. Not a single reference is made to “spiritual” anything. Such claims are bogus, pseudoscience.

Of course your references to “the god gene” are not valid science. The reason is clearly articulated. Absence of clear, transparent, well-defined terms, and skeptical review is science. That’s the reason that “spiritual experiences” fail to qualify as genuine science. It’s a very specific reason.

JAK wrote:
In your link a reference to helmets with magnetic fields is pseudo-science. And “neuroscience” on human brains does not address the evolution of the universe now 14.7 billion years old with the earth at 4.5 billion years in age (roughly). Nor does it address the appearance and disappearance of millions of species over the life of planet earth. It appears to reduce some God claim to the brain of humans.

Moniker:
I don't know what you're talking about? There is research to understand if we've evolved with a brain that is more susceptible to spiritual experiences. It absolutely does point to brain chemistry to explain why people have these experiences. I'd think (if you were actually thinking about this instead of just arguing with me) that you would be tickled pink about this.

JAK:
What are you talking about. “…susceptible to spiritual experiences” is a meaningless phrase. Distinguish that phrase from susceptible to emotional experiences. That’s an imperative. Make a clear, transparent, skeptically reviewable distinction between the two.

JAK wrote:
Moniker states:
I'm not certain why you posted the scientific method aspects, and links above. I understand that as research is done that the scientific method will be used for it to be valid science. Valid science is occurring right now in an attempt to understand these "God feelings".

Added JAK:
I posted it because science, genuine science relies on scientific method. There is no science addressing any God mythologies directly. Feelings are emotions which psychiatry and psychology address. God claims are irrelevant. Science does not comment on God claims. What you call “God feelings” are God claims.

JAK states:
I disagree that any science is addressing God claims. If it addresses “feelings” it does so from the perspective of psychiatry and psychology with regard to how the brain/mind functions. That is clearly a physical matter. The brain works on electrical impulses and is a part of the central nervous system not only in humans but in other species as well.

Moniker:
Right, I didn't say that science was addressing God claims -- quote that for me. I said it is addressing spiritual experiences -- that is seen in neuroscience . There are brain scans that are done on those that meditate to watch blood flow and watch what is occurring in the brain when participants feel a "presence". I don't know why you keep repeating the part about God claims or religions, as this exists outside of that.

JAK:
Again, and I recognize the repeat, distinguish between spiritual experiences and emotional experiences. You have yet to do that. Forget God. Just explain with clarity and transparency the difference between emotional and spiritual.

You use a term which you have never defined. I’m asking for a distinction.

Moniker:
http://www.science-spirit.org/article_d ... cle_id=132
Quote:

Ramachandran, director of the Center for Brain and Cognition at the University of California, San Diego, is talking about the research detailed in his latest book, Phantoms in the Brain, particularly the chapter devoted to the intense religious experiences associated with some types of temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE). The latter has aroused widespread interest, along with a rash of "overinterpretations" in the media —especially among some church leaders, who claim that Ramachandran has found an "antenna" in the temporal lobes for receiving the presence of God. Oddly enough, atheists have also seized on the same research as "proof" that God does not exist — "spiritual experience" is just a misinterpreted tickling in the brainpans.

But Ramachandran dismisses these extremes, these leaps of faith — and non-faith: "The findings are interesting in themselves, without need for exaggerations. My agenda in studying temporal lobe epilepsy is about religious experience and its origin in the brain, not proving whether God does or doesn’t exist."

The work focuses on the approximately 25 percent of TLE patients who have intense religious experiences during seizures. "They have an aura, they feel the presence of God, or they make statements that sound religious — not necessarily, ‘I see God,’ but some say, ‘Suddenly the whole universe makes sense to me, I feel enlightened, I see deep meaning in everything,’" Ramachandran says. "But the big question for a scientist is, Why do these people have these experiences, what does it mean, how can we investigate it further?"

JAK:
First, what are “religious experiences” that exclude God claims either implied or stated? You emphasize part of his statement. What you don’t emphasize is his own self-contradiction in the third paragraph. See here:

"They have an aura, they feel the presence of God, or they make statements that sound religious…”

So the very “religious experience” to which the source makes reference also makes reference to God as a perception. (No evidence has been established for God claims.)

Second, it’s not a “big question for a scientist” as he claims. It’s a question of speculation absent clear, transparent data.

Top 25 Big Questions Facing Science

Scroll down for those “Top 25” big questions facing science.

Not one of them is concerned about “spiritual” anything. None.

THE QUESTIONS
The Top 25
Essays by our news staff on 25 big questions facing science over the next quarter-century.
>
What Is the Universe Made Of?

>
What is the Biological Basis of Consciousness?

>
Why Do Humans Have So Few Genes?

>
To What Extent Are Genetic Variation and Personal Health Linked?

>
Can the Laws of Physics Be Unified?

>
How Much Can Human Life Span Be Extended?

>
What Controls Organ Regeneration?

>
How Can a Skin Cell Become a Nerve Cell?

>
How Does a Single Somatic Cell Become a Whole Plant?

>
How Does Earth's Interior Work?

>
Are We Alone in the Universe?

>
How and Where Did Life on Earth Arise?

>
What Determines Species Diversity?

>
What Genetic Changes Made Us Uniquely Human?

>
How Are Memories Stored and Retrieved?

>
How Did Cooperative Behavior Evolve?

>
How Will Big Pictures Emerge from a Sea of Biological Data?

>
How Far Can We Push Chemical Self-Assembly?

>
What Are the Limits of Conventional Computing?

>
Can We Selectively Shut Off Immune Responses?

>
Do Deeper Principles Underlie Quantum Uncertainty and Nonlocality?

>
Is an Effective HIV Vaccine Feasible?

>
How Hot Will the Greenhouse World Be?

>
What Can Replace Cheap Oil -- and When?

>
Will Malthus Continue to Be Wrong?


At the bottom of the page are listed “100 additional problems that should keep researchers busy for years to come.”
++++++

In the 2nd Part of response, I have addressed and questioned issues and points which you raised. In the 1st Part of response, I considered that we may have had limited disagreement.

In closing, my compliments for your efforts to organize and maintain sequence in our discussion. Additionally, as my time is most limited, I apologize for typos, or misinterpretation, neither of which were my intent. But haste makes errors.

I have looked exclusively at your response on this thread and comment here as a result of limited time. Repeating, I copied your post prior to your edit and did not look back at the board as I commented on what is replicated here.

JAK

[_Moniker]

Hi, JAK -- I went back and edited my post to be more succint and soften some of my responses as I reread them as being a bit snippy, perhaps. I just went back and reedited to fix who was saying what. All the color coding and lack of quotes gets me rather confused. It takes quite a bit of time to reply to you because of the color coding which I have to take out and show who said what. Sorry for the confusion.

Moniker states:
Well, I wasn't certain what you were speaking of with your statement that science doesn't (sorry for the paraphrase but I don't see your original quote above - please forgive), see spiritualism. No doubt that are people that believe in new age stuff and science has rebuked most (if not all) of those claims.

JAK states:
Science ignores religious mythologies. While it does not address them directly, it does address them indirectly with evidence that is unsupportive of any spiritual notions.

Moniker:
Okay, I am speaking of spiritual experiences and science does and is active in understanding why people have these experiences. I'm not talking about religious mythologies. Science also directly takes on new age claims and debunks them. Please see skeptic.com for more information on this.

When you say "spiritual notions" what are you speaking of? If you're discussing spiritual experiences as seen in neurotheology then science is not quiet on the subject.

JAK:
Perhaps we are considering meanings in different contexts. Medical science is clearly interested in brain functions. By spiritual notions, I referred to speculations which some individuals make primarily as a result of their environment and perhaps heredity, their experiences which cause them to jump to conclusions not supported by accurate information or accurate understand of available evidence.

Well, I know that people have experiences and they may attribute them to God. This of course is done often since there hasn't been much research in the past that attempted to understand these experiences. Yet, that there is research into these very experiences is in an attempt to understand why people have them.

Neurotheology “also known as biotheology or spiritual neuroscience…” was a term first used by A. Huxley (according to the above source). Also according to this source: “Neurotheology…is the study of correlations of neural phenomena with subjective experiences of spirituality and hypotheses to explain these phenomena. Proponents of neurotheology claim that there is a neurological and evolutionary basis for subjective experiences traditionally categorized as spiritual.”

The “claim” is lacking in clarity in the use of muddy terminology in the very definition itself.
What’s the evidence? Where is the genuine science? Terms like “God gene” and “God helmet” also listed under the description “see also” are pseudoscience. Books by people like Matthew Alpert: The God Part of the Brain are not science.

When I read that above link all I take away from it is there is research being conducted by neuroscientists in an attempt to understand why people have spiritual experiences. I'm not suggesting that it is science that is then making claims that God wired us with antennae to know him, or those that say this disproves God. Yet, that there is research into the VMAT2 gene, into our very brains to understand these phenomenons is scientific research.There is no doubt that this is pop science and being gobbled up by the press and everyone is eager to make claims with the findings -- yet, that doesn't discount that research is being done. Neuroimaging is being done in individuals to understand what changes occur in the brain during mystical or spiritual experiences.

That research is done and that it is later over turned by new findings does not in and of itself make it pseudoscience. I know there are criticisms into neurotheology that decries it as pseudoscience. Yet, that there is current research into the mind to understand mystical experiences, that are being done by reputable neuroscientists, that publish their findings, and their colleagues can look at them and attempt to replicate the findings suggests to me that it is science. Yet, that it may not be the ANSWER does not make it non-scientific. That we do not know all the answers does not suggest to me that it is non-scientific.

For instance, I mentioned mirror neurons. This is a relatively new discovery as well and SOME are hypothesizing a link between mirror neurons and possible spirituality as well. This does NOT suggest that this IS the answer to explain what occurs in people... it seems that there is a VARIETY of research and then some make claims from that research. Yet, that claims for God are made from the research does not mean the research should stop and that what has been done should be relegated to the scrap heap. That there IS current research into understanding mystical/spiritual experiences does not in and of itself make it pseudoscience.

http://www.cognitiveliberty.org/neuro/neuronewswk.htm

What all the new research shares is a passion for uncovering the neurological underpinnings of spiritual and mystical experiences-for discovering, in short, what happens in our brains when we sense that we "have encountered a reality different from-and, in some crucial sense, higher than-the reality of everyday experience," as psychologist David Wulff of Wheaton College in Massachusetts puts it.

OUTSIDE OF TIME AND SPACE

In neurotheology, psychologists and neurologists try to pinpoint which regions turn on, and
which turn off, during experiences that seem to exist outside time and space. In this way it differs from the rudimentary research of the 1950s and 1960s that found, yeah, brain waves change when you meditate. But that research was silent on why brain waves change, or which specific regions in the brain lie behind the change.

Neuroimaging of a living, working brain simply didn't exist back then. In contrast, today's studies try to identify the brain circuits that surge with activity when we think we have encountered the divine, and when we feel transported by intense prayer, an uplifting ritual or sacred music.

Although the field is brand new and the answers only tentative, one thing is clear. Spiritual experiences are so consistent across cultures, across time and across faiths, says Wulff, that it "suggest[s] a common core that is likely a reflection of structures and processes in the human brain."

Moniker states:
I thought of spirituality. You were discussing religions and most mainstream Christians don't dabble with the occult -- yet, spirituality has no boundaries -- it's seen all across the spectrum.

JAK states:
Exactly correct. But “spirituality” lacks open, transparent, skeptically reviewed analysis. Further, it hides from scrutiny and objective view.

Moniker:
I have no idea what you're saying above. There is valid science that goes into neurotheology, the God gene and understanding why people have spiritual experiences the world over. There is also valid science that delves into mirror neurons that discusses why some may be swept up into what is seen and have a feeling of "oneness" that likewise may be part of spiritual experiences. There is plenty of science that is valid that is dealing with spiritual experiences. It's valid science, and there is scrutiny. Why do you say it hides from objective view? What do you mean by that?

JAK:
It’s pseudoscience to speak of “the God gene.” No evidence has established any God claims. If you mean a search for why people believe something for which no evidence has been established, the answers may not be very complex. When people perceive (see or hear) that which they don’t understand, they have few options. One is to investigate, to search for evidence on the matter. Another option is to generate a made-up story which masquerades as explanation. There is plenty of pseudoscience in print.

NO! The research is NOT necessarily attempting to establish GOD CLAIMS! Some use the research to refute the very idea of God.

Do you dispute that people have spiritual experiences? That they occur in atheists, as well. If this is in dispute by you then I think this conversation may just be over for us, unfortunately.

I think we should stop there until you answer my above question.

Also, can you just answer me succinctly? I don't need a whole page full of type to talk to you. It's a lot of repetitions.