Caffeine is bad for you spiritually

[_JAK]

madeleine,

madeleine stated:

Scientific method can prove a lot of things, it is a useful tool, but it has yet to prove anything of a spiritual nature. Belief in God is not superstition, it an experience, a very human one as can be seen by looking at human history.

Indeed, the scientific method is based upon discovery and consensus regarding conclusion. That makes for the most reliable conclusions (based on available evidence). It’s the basis for your computer, knowledge of the universe, and that which we know. Science is not attempting “to prove” that for which there is no evidence. No consensus for any detailed God claim has been established. Christian groups exclusively do not agree on the multiplicity of “God” beliefs. That omits Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, etc. and their perspectives.

The discovery of the polio vaccine was “an experience.” How would you distinguish “spiritual” from emotional? Psychology and psychiatry recognize emotional responses to stimuli. You use the word “spiritual.” Just what does it mean? CSA failed to address that. Perhaps you would like to address it and define it. Can you distinguish it from emotion or emotional response? Mere assertion absent comparison and contrast is no definition.

Before God notions there were notions of the gods. The evolution of religion can be documented historically to a point from which we have archeological evidence of human thought. Belief in that for which there is an absence of consensus in evidence is belief based on superstition. In that, religion and superstition share common ground.

There is a lack of consensus on God myths as there was on myths of the gods centuries ago. In the case of religion, people tend to believe that religious mythology which they were taught. Since Christians do not agree on various God myths even though they use as source the same (or similar) scripts, such disparity makes for unreliable conclusions. The scripts (of Christianity) are inherently contradictory. Hence, one organized Christian group today believes something different from what another organized group believes. The “experience(s)” is unreliable for setting forward absolute claims. Religion tends to set forward absolute claims which tend to be fact-free.

This makes religion unreliable (like superstition). Consider this detailed list of Biblical contradictions. It’s a lengthy list. Reliability is not established. Superstition as we generally recognize it is unreliable as well.

This is not to dispute that religion is connected to experiences. So is superstition. The primary difference is in the fact that over many centuries religions (plural) have developed organized doctrines/dogmas/claims. These are generally assertions which ignore known fact today. This is quite contrary to the development and evolution of the scientific method which builds consensus conclusion upon accumulated facts which are independently verified and tested many times over.

Religion revises its conclusions based on what science discovers. It is not the other way around. Religion is compelled/forced to deal with scientific discovery wherein its own dogmas are contrary to the detailed, documented conclusions of science.

Comparative Studies of Great World Religions is a typical secular university course of inquiry which factually details similarities and differences in religious mythologies. (One’s personal experience with any of these religions is generally not particularly relevant.) Such a course tends to illuminate and highlight detail the student has never considered.

madeleine stated:

I don't go for the idea of different realities for everyone. There is one reality, experienced in different ways by different people. Including how people experience God. Science does not negate reality, it just explains it. God does not negate science, as He is the author of what is being studied, and of our reason and intellect.

Nor do I to your first sentence. You’re claiming and asserting “God” in the third (sentence fragment) and fifth sentences. However, God is a claim, an assertion for which no consensus evidence has been established. As stated previously, God notions are products of religious inculcation. Virtually every religious group uses indoctrination as a tool of mind control (and generally behavior control). Further, there is ample evidence to recognize that God notions of one group are at odds with God notions of other groups. (See contradictions above.)

Science does not address God notions directly. Why is that? It is because there is no consensus regarding the many God claims and because there is no reliable evidence for any of these claims. Even so, science indirectly addresses religious myths. Science reports what it finds and invites anyone to look, to test, to challenge, and even to present refutation of a scientifically arrived conclusions.

Perhaps I do not understand what you mean by “reality” in your paragraph. Science attempts to understand and to explain what it finds. God notions are irrelevant. They are made up.

Many God notions do, in fact, often deny what science has discovered and for which ample evidence has been established. Early scientists were imprisoned and worse for reporting what they had discovered and documenting those discoveries. Your claim: “He (God) is the author of what is being studied…” is a religious dogma for which there is no factual support. Your configuration asserts “God” is fact. No evidence supports such a conclusion. As with CSA, the burden of proof lies with you to establish the assertion. The claim is supported only by manufactured doctrine and dogma of religious pontificators. Science ignores religious pontifications. Science studies and report what it discovers. It modifies and revises conclusions as evidence expands. Scientists rigorously test their tentative conclusions. No such discipline exists for religious dogma.

Consider the earliest surgeries from which most people died. Medical science didn’t know about bacteria or germs at that time. Medical science could not see them. Discovery of sterilization for everything used in surgery made for a gigantic leap in recovery of patients who underwent surgery. (It’s but one example of how increasing knowledge leads to more reliable conclusion.) God claims are irrelevant.

Again, religion and religious dogma has no such disciplines of testing and intellectual scrutiny. Truth by assertion does not make or reveal truth. The method of religion is assertion. “Spiritual,” whatever that is, does not have relevance to reliable conclusion. Have you decided how you will define “spiritual”?

madeleine stated:

As I said, I come from an atheist background, and I not only knew all the arguments you are making, I made them. I also had strong nihilist leanings. There came a point where I saw through them, and still do. I know for you they are ironclad, but my experience is, they are not. It is a weak position, comparable for me to the emperor who has no clothes. In other words, I see assertions coming from you, just as you see them coming from me.

You’re mischaracterizing my position. Specifically, what “assertions” do you contend that I have made and with which you disagree? Show exact words in context. While this is not a form for much academic discussion, I have provided several links to thoughtful, detailed analysis which cannot be written with detail in a post on a bb such as this. You have offered no objection to the links which I provided. Therefore, I assume you agree with the points made in them. If not, what is your challenge to them? (It’s rather late to address that if you had objection.) Not only do you not speak for me in the paragraph above, you demonstrate that you have not comprehended what I have stated.

Why not take verbatim quotes from the screen and address them? Assumption or paraphrase generally results in mischaracterization.

madeleine stated:

The first is, an assumption that we can prove or disprove anything using only the tools we're born with, or those we make, and our intellect....this doesn't hold up for someone who has strong nihilist leanings. For such a person, you can't prove anything.

The paragraph above is not an assumption I have made nor have I stated it. Only in the past few hundred years has it been clearly established that the earth is a sphere and that it is not the center of the universe. (Neither is our sun the center of the universe.) Only in the past few decades has it been established that there are billions and billions of suns in the universe. What we humans have learned (and can know by honest intellectual inquiry resulting in consensus) is continually expanding. Your paragraph above does not address that which I stated nor does it address questions which I posed for CSA.

madeleine stated:

You have similar leanings, as a nihilist will always question experience, you have just chosen to accept the experiences you want to accept, and discard the ones you want to discard. You think it is methodical, but it isn't, it is subjective.

Your analysis is quite incorrect. We all have experiences in the plural. I ask CSA to defend and support his/her conclusions. The interrogatives are based on what appeared in CSA’s writing. You appear to have an obsession with nihilism here. Why? Consensus on reasoned, factually supported conclusion is reliable over personal responses which individuals associate with “experiences.” Witnesses to an accident or a crime often have different perspectives (their experience). Not all are correct or reliable. People tend to believe they saw what they did not. They are convinced. That is not to suggest they are lying (but they might be). It does suggest that they are wrong. Experience is not reliable necessarily. But where there are different perceptions of the same observed event, there are inaccuracies. Some perception (reported) may be quite accurate. (a reliable experience)

Medical sciences (or any other sciences for that matter) work for reliable conclusion which can be seen by all and evaluated by all. We have a reliable vaccination for polio as a result of applied medical science. That is not to suggest that people who got polio were free from emotion. Of course they were not. Nor does it suggest that once the vaccine was established as reliable prevention, those who avoided polio (as a result of the vaccine) were also not free from emotion.

In many respects, subjectivity cannot be avoided. A funded research program dedicated to a cure for cancer which suddenly has its funding terminated is an example of subjectivity in how and if we humans are able to examine and accumulate information (or not). If we are precluded from studying something which requires a high educational level of expertise, we cannot study it. That does not suggest it ought not to be studied.

I notice you do not address the primary issues I raised with CSA even though my remarks were detailed in some posts addressed to you.

madeleine stated:

Either experience proves things, or it doesn't. You're just picking and choosing which experiences do and which experiences don't.

That’s a false either/or conclusion and choice (first sentence above). The multiple experiences of observing the universe via the Hubble Space Telescope yield experiences to a few which can be conveyed to the many. The studies and research on specific diseases and illnesses are experiences of researchers that benefit the many who never know the names of those who took part in the research and in the “experience” by which we have advantage.

On the other hand, people who believe and consider that they “experience” in ways that are contrary to fact garner false perceptions. Some “experiences” tend to establish correct conclusions. Other “experiences” (by others) tend to reach false conclusions. Experiences which lead to false, unreliable conclusion are relatively useless if not dangerous. Some illegal drugs, for example, give people “experiences” and give them a sense of euphoria and well-being. It’s a wrong sense of well-being.

Your either/or option is a false choice regarding “experience.”

It is not I who picks and chooses what experiences are reliable. Generally, it is not a single individual who does it. That is not to marginalize the importance of those single individuals who make a huge break-through in discovery and establish what is ultimately regarded as correct, reliable, and beneficial.

In this response, I have quoted you in context and verbatim. A problem in some of your misconceptions about my comments is that you have not quoted in context and verbatim. In that, you assumed my view contrary to what I stated.

Let’s see your definitions of some of those ambiguous terms which I have identified. I may have some questions for you.

JAK

[_CSA]

You use the word “spiritual.” Just what does it mean? CSA failed to address that. Perhaps you would like to address it and define it. Can you distinguish it from emotion or emotional response? Mere assertion absent comparison and contrast is no definition.

I don't think it is possible for me to put together the words necessary for you to understand. If I tried to explain or describe emotions, feelings, spirituality or even love it seems as if it would fall upon your deaf ears and never be understood.

I will leave the describing to the wiki-masses.

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

[_jon]

CSA,

Here is an example of a proper scientific study into the effects of caffeine consumption.

Women who drink two or more cups of coffee a day are less likely to get depressed, research suggests.

It is not clear why it might have this effect, but the authors believe caffeine in coffee may alter the brain's chemistry. Decaffeinated coffee did not have the same effect.

The findings, published in Archives of Internal Medicine, come from a study of more than 50,000 US female nurses.

The experts are now recommending more work to better understand the link.

And they say it is certainly too soon to start recommending that women should drink more coffee to boost mood.

Caffeine lift
The Harvard Medical School team tracked the health of the women over a decade from 1996 to 2006 and relied on questionnaires to record their coffee consumption.

“This fits nicely with a lot of the previous work and what we know about caffeine and the brain”
Prof Bertil Fredholm
Karolinska Institute

Just over 2,600 of the women developed depression over this time period.

More of these women tended to be non- or low-coffee drinkers rather than frequent coffee consumers.

Compared with women who drank one cup of caffeinated coffee or less per week, those who consumed two to three cups per day had a 15% decreased risk of developing depression.

Those who drank four or more cups a day cut their risk by 20%.

Regular coffee drinkers were more likely to smoke and drink alcohol and were less likely to be involved in church, volunteer or community groups. They were also less likely to be overweight and have high blood pressure or diabetes.

Even after controlling for all of these variables, the trend of increasing coffee consumption and lower depression remained.
(article from BBC News)

Do you believe that the women who are more susceptible to depression, more overweight, with higher blood pressure or diabetes because they don't consume caffeine are feeling more spiritual?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-15059266

[_JAK]

It starts innocently enough with a Cola which is not officially against the Word of Wisdom but changes the way the Holy Ghost will influence the mind. I have finished working with a man and his wife who had trouble finding their lost testimonies.

They had tried early this year regaining their testimonies based on a new years resolution nine months ago. I suggested three months ago that they follow the Word of Wisdom a little differently. Interpreting the items in the Word of Wisdom as things which can deter the influence of the Holy Ghost, I suggested that maybe caffeine should be completely eliminated. Following the Word of Wisdom was easy but giving up their caffeine drinks was not without difficulty.

They both failed that first week because they said they were getting headaches. I suggested that although this was simply caffeine withdrawal to think of it as clearing up the spiritual conduits within the brain. It seems as each week they went without caffeine they gained spiritual clarity. They began to feel the spirit again and both have found their testimonies again.

I for one, think the LDS church is not doing enough in defining and interpreting the Word of Wisdom in terms that could be used in this day and age. Hot drinks were later interpreted to be coffee and tea, while so many LDS are drinking Colas and ice tea with some even drinking frozen or iced coffee because it does not specifically state these in the Word of Wisdom.

If my theory is correct and caffeine itself blocks the receptiveness of spiritual conduits in the brain, why do we allow cola drinkers to get temple recommends?

CSA,

This is a comment related to your first post. According to a most recent study reported on National Public Radio, depression in women is reduced by them drinking three cups of coffee a day.

Here is the link Coffee Cuts Risk of Depression in Women.

JAK

[_JAK]

jon,

An additional link to your comment and link from this reference to your post.

Coffee Cuts Risk of Depression in Women

JAK

[_Wisdom Seeker]

jon,

An additional link to your comment and link from this reference to your post.

Coffee Cuts Risk of Depression in Women

JAK

I was thinking that CSA's thoughts on caffeine were incorrect. But I am rethinking this after reading about coffee cutting the risk of depression and this from a psychiatric news website:
http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/content/41/21/26.full

[_Called2Swerve]

I was thinking that CSA's thoughts on caffeine were incorrect. But I am rethinking this after reading about coffee cutting the risk of depression and this from a psychiatric news website:
http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/content/41/21/26.full

This clearly would explain why those friends of mine who have divorced themselves from the LDS religion and have taken up drinking coffee have expressed to me of being depressed when a member and being more happy now.

So if spirituality causes depression then coffee is the cure. Pastors of various other religions probably figured this out many years ago and many other religions often serve coffee at their various functions.

[_Wisdom Seeker]

Spirituality can make you depressed and may put a damper on your spirituality, it's like you may want to obtain greater spirituality but your depression gets in the way, kind of like erectile dysfunction and sex.

So coffee may be like Viagra for your spiritual well being. CSA you have it all wrong. A lack of caffeine is only making people more depressed. You are misidentifying greater depression as greater spirituality.

[_JAK]

CSA’s Post Reference


CSA,

Perhaps it would not be possible for you to clarify, but we can address “emotions,” “feelings,” and “love” in quite descriptive detail. Those have been well studied under the broader umbrella of psychology/psychiatry (branches of medicine).

Without question, people have emotional responses to various stimuli. In fact, most of us have some emotional reaction to nearly everything. Events make us happy and/or sad. The degree to which we are either happy or sad is relative to the situation with which we are confronted or made aware. Deep sadness over long periods often yields depression (a medical term).

I think it’s a bit more difficult to distinguish “feelings” from “emotions.” They are surely related if not part of the same mental response/reaction to events around us.

“Love” also is relative to the circumstances which evoke that emotion. We love our cats and dogs. But that is not like the love we feel for our children. And neither of these is the same as the love we feel (feelings) for a wife or a husband or another relative (exclusive “or”).

Those emotional responses are highly connected to our individual situation. That is, they are connected to our age, our close or distant relationship to circumstances which evoke those emotions. I can say, for example, that I deplore (hate) poverty and what it does to fellow humans. But that “feeling/emotion” is relative to just how close I am personally to poverty. If I am the one facing poverty (have no job, have no prospect of acquiring one, have debts to pay, have creditors pressing me for money I don’t have) – if I have all that, my emotional response, my “feelings” are vastly different than to have sympathy for others far more remote to me personally.

So, I think that “emotions” and “feelings” are quite relative to the particulars of a situation in which an individual finds himself.

Absent any comment directly from you in addressing “spirituality,” it appears that this term is inherently and intractably a term which encompasses “emotions” and “feelings.”

Vague and direct references to religion generally connect to “emotions” and “feelings.” Anyone who argues otherwise will need to present the case in language which makes distinction.

I continue to encourage you to engage in honest, intellectual inquiry on my comments and the links which I provided and will provide here. Likewise, I accept the link which you provided as effort to communicate. However, I think “caffeine” is rather lost at this point in your original assertion in the “Post subject.”

“Words translatable as ‘spirituality’ first began to arise in the 5th century…” History

In your link, “History” is a good place to begin. My link just above is from yours. In order to address an emerging term, it is necessary to study how and when it appears to have first come into use. As we read under “History” (in your link), we can see that the term is vague and mercurial.

The second sentence in “History” states: “Spiritual innovators who operated within the context of a religious tradition often became marginalized or suppressed as heretics or separated out as schismatics.”

An “innovator” is an inventor in modern English usage. We can see that both the term “spirituality” and the attempts to apply it demonstrate the processes involved in invention. One thing of interest here is that such “spiritual innovators” became “marginalized or suppressed as heretics…” long ago. But they re-emerge.

In the 18th Century “Enlightenment thinkers” became “skeptical of religion…” We should recognize that to the 21st Century skepticism of religion has increased as knowledge and accumulated information has been established. This has been accelerated by the great invention of the printing press. It was invented by Johannes Gutenberg around 1440. Of course things moved far more slowly in the 15th Century, and it took a considerable amount of time before the printing press was absolutely a dominate factor in making permanent that which could only be copied by hand and with far less sophisticated devices than our pens and paper today. (Now we have libraries and computers to preserve exact construction of words.)

I mention this history to give a little context to the invention of the notion of “spirituality.” Upon close reading, the term is vague in application and is often associated with religion. By this point in time, notions of many gods had given way to the notion of one God. This is an important evolution of religion which I’ll not attempt to discuss here. Suffice it to recognize that the term “spirituality” has (today) a multiplicity of meanings often (not always) closely associated with religion.

Further, suffice it to say that religion is, itself, widely varied in its doctrines and dogmas. Hence, different religious groups which refer to “spirituality” do so in a variety of contexts. As monotheism gained popularity, so did the idea that humans could search for an absolute God.

It’s worth noting that under Religion in your source, we find this description: ”Those who speak of spirituality outside of religion often define themselves as ‘spiritual but not religious’ and generally believe in the existence of many different ‘spiritual paths’ - emphasizing the importance of finding one's own individual path to spirituality. According to one poll, about 24% of the United States population identifies itself as spiritual but not religious.” (This quotation is from your source.)

I cite this to recognize that not everyone uses “spirituality” in the same context. You, CSA, likely use it in the context of your own indoctrination religiously since this is essentially a religious bb.

Some who use the term may be agnostics/atheists. Others may be religious as in one of those 1,500 different groups mentioned in Religious Tolerance. (You may need to click on “skip this ad” as pop-ups often are embedded in web links.) Those “Christian denominations” detailed are primarily emergences/evolution of Christian groups following the Protestant Reformation which began 1517 AD. That is when people such as Martin Luther (Lutheran) and John Calvin challenged some of the Roman Catholic Church’s doctrines. Protestant Reformation

Indeed, the 16th Century began a time of great fragmentation of Christianity and many terms and interpretation of terms were revised, challenged, and fell from favor. (Of course the Mormons are very late comers to the protest of prevailing Christian divisions resulting from the Protestant Reformation.)

The birth of science was an important transition in how humans view the world (the universe). At the same time, science has not negated a sense of personal well-being. That, in fact, has been addressed by medical science (psychology/psychiatry).

Personal well-being is a subject area under the link which you provided. “Spiritually” could refer to the detailed analysis discussed there.

It seems that in whatever one’s context of reference, the term “spiritually” is about emotions/feelings. Both of those are related to perceptions regardless of whether those perceptions are in harmony with fact. Certainly wishful thinking is perception. We usually associate it with a positive result but not always. One might wish ill on others or a particular person. This latter is clearly a part of emotion/feeling.

Like many drugs (medical) or drug-like substances, not all of them affect people the same way. Caffeine has a positive effect on many people as they describe that effect. Certainly, there are some people (such as those prone to nervousness or heart irregularities, etc.) who do not benefit from caffeine and should avoid it. And the use of caffeine may play a role in one’s sense of “personal well-being.” Without question, there is the issue of moderation or quantity. Someone who drinks a cup of coffee (one cup) a week may have a greatly reduced effect than someone who drinks eight cups of coffee a day. Keep in mind that this is relative to multiple factors.

You might spend some time on Timeline of Religion. In addition, Evolutionary origin of religions could expand your perspective.

I am not sure of this because I suspect you are so indoctrinated in a given religious mythology that these comprehensive, larger perspectives may be out of your reach.

So, I’m optimistic and recommend the above for your enlightenment.

JAK

[_CSA]

So, I’m optimistic and recommend the above for your enlightenment.
JAK

I am thinking in some other dimension we would share a pot of coffee and have a good discussion about this.

I was called on the carpet in a meeting with my Bishop tonight. The Stake President asked the Bishop to meet with me about this whole Word of Wisdom thing. First off I told him that I have been too critical of the Prophet and First Presidency for not clearing up the Word of Wisdom. I was told that while I can have a more strict definition in regards to the Word of Wisdom that I must keep this interpretation of the Word of Wisdom to myself.

I asked the Bishop how he would respond in a temple recommend interview if a member stated that they drink green tea or iced coffee. He said all forms of coffee and tea are forbidden, regardless of what color it is, or how cold it is. I asked if a person took a green tea capsule for health purposes would he refuse a temple recommend to that person. He said he would have to abide by what is found in the Church Handbook. He was not sure if there was anything specific in the handbook.

I enjoyed a diet Dr. Pepper this evening, which was really stupid now that I think of it, considering it was late and I had not caffeine for a very long time. I think if I was a regular user I would have some sort of resistance to the effects of caffeine. I guess I might as well test another theory and see if caffeine can help resolve some newly found depression.