barrelomonkeys wrote:How do I go about rejecting biological evidence to determine that God is responsible for my reactions to certain stimuli? I don't see that as an easy choice. Matter of fact I see that as rejection of all rational thought.
There is no biological evidence which can determine this. Even scientists who study the brain say that findings cannot determine whether or not there is a God. Many people have this fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of science. But we can choose how we interpret the evidence.
barrelomonkeys wrote:How do I go about rejecting biological evidence to determine that God is responsible for my reactions to certain stimuli? I don't see that as an easy choice. Matter of fact I see that as rejection of all rational thought.
There is no biological evidence which can determine this. Even scientists who study the brain say that findings cannot determine whether or not there is a God. Many people have this fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of science. But we can choose how we interpret the evidence.
There's theories that suggest we evolved with this sense of a deity to help us with death. I read this book about 4 months ago: http://godpart.com/html/the_premise.html
This is my favorite quote from the above site I linked to:
But the brain image cannot tell us whether or not there is actually a picture 'out there' or whether the person is creating the picture in their own mind. To a certain degree, we all create our own sense of reality. Getting to what is real is the tricky part.
*insert wacko smilie here*
So, I have some pretty rad spiritual experiences. Always have. Felt awe and reverence and otherworldliness throughout my life. I'm aware of it, appreciate it, and yet it makes me feel wacko. I can actually turn it off, and have often done so in the past. Anyway, when there are answers that delve into the whys of human nature to experience mystical or spiritual experiences and then on the flip side those that attribute these experiences to a deity it's not really such an easy choice to just go with God. Totally off-topic: What is amazing to me is those that do not have spiritual experiences (or lame ones ;) ) and still believe in God. There has to be more to it.
Perhaps because I wasn't indoctrinated with it I find more problems with just forcing myself to believe something that goes against all rational thought. Of course isn't that what faith is? Really?
barrelomonkeys wrote:Perhaps because I wasn't indoctrinated with it I find more problems with just forcing myself to believe something that goes against all rational thought. Of course isn't that what faith is? Really?
From one of the links you gave:
And they may trace a feeling of the divine to that one. But it is likely that they will never resolve the greatest question of all-namely, whether our brain wiring creates God, or whether God created our brain wiring. Which you believe is, in the end, a matter of faith.
It may be a "matter of faith", but one can't say it's a faith which has been "disproved by science".
barrelomonkeys wrote:Perhaps because I wasn't indoctrinated with it I find more problems with just forcing myself to believe something that goes against all rational thought. Of course isn't that what faith is? Really?
From one of the links you gave:
And they may trace a feeling of the divine to that one. But it is likely that they will never resolve the greatest question of all-namely, whether our brain wiring creates God, or whether God created our brain wiring. Which you believe is, in the end, a matter of faith.
It may be a "matter of faith", but one can't say it's a faith which has been "disproved by science".
Oh, no, I never say science disproves God. I don't say that. Yet, if there are competing theories how do I just choose God? I would have to force myself, wouldn't I? Forget everything I believed and make myself believe something that I don't believe. Is it really that easy for some? I don't know. I'm just surprised when people say I should be able to do that. And now, you're suggesting the same Ray, and I don't see how I can do it.
There are reams of research all claiming certain things. But even in this article the scientist concerned said:
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."
There sounds like a tinge of sarcasm there. There's a lot still unexplained, and there is rampant speculation in his comments, like:
"Buddha, Mohammed and Jesus all shared a series of mystical experiences or alterations in consciousness and thus probably carried the gene," he said. "This means that the tendency to be spiritual is part of genetic make-up. This is not a thing that is strictly handed down from parents to children. It could skip a generation - it's like intelligence."
Does he know whether Jesus even existed, much less had a "God gene"? You have to be aware of the ideological assumptions and personal beliefs behind this sort of research. If you look at much broader research, you will find scientists less and less likely to make any of the "conclusions" this scientist does, even after looking at the same evidence. It makes great reading matter, though, and newspapers love to highlight this, while downplaying less controversial and more reserved commentary.
I think likely a variety of factors all contribute to belief in God. It has long been established that one of the most important factors is simply familial and cultural background. If you were raised to believe in God, chances are good you will continue to do so. Chances are also good that you will continue to believe in that god through whatever expression your family provided, be it Mormonism, catholicism, muslim, etc.
But that's certainly not the whole story. As you state, monekys, even within people who believe, there is a wide variety of spiritual experiences. My boyfriend is not really "wired" for religious belief in that despite his best efforts and his familial background, he did not have a powerful numinous event that helped him believe. He was one of those plodding along, banking on interpreting more mundane experiences in a way that resulted in strengthened belief. I was the opposite - I tended to have numinous experiences. I think even religions recognize these variances and reassure believers that it's ok - not everyone has the same "gift", and some have to rely on the "gifts" of others. But the fact that God either cannot or will not reliably communicate with anyone who seeks him is a strike against his existence, at least in terms of a theist framework, in my opinion.
Every now and then I meet an exmormon who just never believed, even as a child. I believe Blixa falls under this category. The best efforts of their family and culture can't trigger the belief - they always tended to look at it logically and it just didn't measure up. I used to feel somewhat inferior to these people because I wondered if my own "spiritual" tendencies led to more gullibility on my part, or more willingness to suspend reason. But as the years go on I become more convinced it's just a reflection of our different traits.
I strongly believe that religion is evolutionarily useful. It's a method of organizing extremely loyal tribal units, and that was always helpful in the ancestral environment. And people just end up with different talents that lend to the evolutionary purpose. People with the "talent" to "feel God" tend to end up leading others, organizing others, encouraging others to share that belief. I view it as somewhat similar to a talent to sing, or draw, or make money. In the end, they can all be seen to serve the same purpose - to make a place for oneself in a tribe and to gain enough attention to have more mating opportunities.
I have just accepted that I have a "talent" for this, just like I have a talent for acting (and I often wonder if the two are related talents). I hope, in the future when I have more time and privacy when my kids are on their own, I hope to capitalize on that talent and learn to meditate to invoke the numinous state at will, which is really quite enjoyable and likely has health benefits as well.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
barrelomonkeys wrote:Oh, no, I never say science disproves God. I don't say that. Yet, if there are competing theories how do I just choose God? I would have to force myself, wouldn't I? Forget everything I believed and make myself believe something that I don't believe. Is it really that easy for some? I don't know. I'm just surprised when people say I should be able to do that. And now, you're suggesting the same Ray, and I don't see how I can do it.
I don't recall saying you "should be able to do that". Not even suggesting it. I think people have "stages" where they believe, and stages where they don't believe. The stages of belief, or unbelief, can dominate the majority of one's life, and I think this may have a lot to do with life experiences, and of course "intellect" as well, the way we interpret things we read. When some people leave Mormonism, it's not unusual for them to lose all belief, including a belief in God. This, however, is a false "connection". Even if Mormonism is a fraud - that doesn't mean God doesn't exist. Yet some do conclude this, and that boils down to their personal interpretations, and life experiences, especially having been indoctrinated into Mormonism. If the fabric of their belief in God is torn away (Mormonism), then God no longer makes sense to them.
I don't doubt Phillip simply can't believe, no matter how hard he tries (and I corresponded with him at some length in the '90s). Yet in his introduction to Darryl Reanney's book The Death of Forever: A New Future for Human Consciousness, he wrote:
Darryl Reanney's attempt to synthesise the discoveries and speculations of the finest minds resonates with my sense of the numinous and makes me willing, more than willing, to reassess my beliefs and disbeliefs - to review what I think about God.
Reanney was a prominent Australian microbiologist who was an atheist, and started writing his book from an atheist viewpoint. By the end of the book his views totally changed, and he veered to a belief in God, but not, it should be noted, the God of the Bible. He believed that Buddhism was the religion which synthesised most with his belief in God.
There are reams of research all claiming certain things. But even in this article the scientist concerned said:
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."
There sounds like a tinge of sarcasm there. There's a lot still unexplained, and there is rampant speculation in his comments, like:
"Buddha, Mohammed and Jesus all shared a series of mystical experiences or alterations in consciousness and thus probably carried the gene," he said. "This means that the tendency to be spiritual is part of genetic make-up. This is not a thing that is strictly handed down from parents to children. It could skip a generation - it's like intelligence."
Does he know whether Jesus even existed, much less had a "God gene"? You have to be aware of the ideological assumptions and personal beliefs behind this sort of research. If you look at much broader research, you will find scientists less and less likely to make any of the "conclusions" this scientist does, even after looking at the same evidence. It makes great reading matter, though, and newspapers love to highlight this, while downplaying less controversial and more reserved commentary.
Well I've seen believers refer to the God gene as the way in which God created us to recognize his presence. I suppose whichever way you come to the discussion you could twist it to fit the niche you need it to. I just think there is research into why we feel a presence (and I have before -- and if I let myself get into that state I still can do that at times) and that explores the human nature of it. This doesn't discount that God exists. Yet, it doesn't offer proof of his existence either.