|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,418 Year: 3,675/9,624 Month: 546/974 Week: 159/276 Day: 33/23 Hour: 0/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Blasphemy Challenge | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Doddy Member (Idle past 5930 days) Posts: 563 From: Brisbane, Australia Joined: |
I found a nice test: which face is happier?
If you said right side, then you use your right for emotion, pattern recognition and intuition. If you said left side, then your left hemisphere does the patterns and emotions. "Der Mensch kann was er will; er kann aber nicht wollen was er will." (Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills.) - Arthur Schopenhauer
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5974 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
Doddy writes: Probably not. I think it is more of a 'calibration' thing than a dominance thing - as far as I know there is no correlation between hemisphere dominance and religious belief. They are more likely to see patterns, and that includes patterns which may not actually be there, but seem like it when you look at it. So all participants utilized both parts of the brain equally? Yet there is a difference in 'how' they used them? I do not quite understand the 'calibration' thing. Without a question of dominance, how do you account for the different results?
I'm fairly positive that it can't be taught. Left brain does math, language , logic etc. Right brain does abstract pattern perception, intuition, creativity etc I understand this. I guess I am curious if there are other types of people who seem to have the same results in detecting abstract patterns as do relgious people. Actually I can research it a bit myself, it is one of those things where I want to know more about it and it is hard to narrow down my questions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1488 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
We all need to dictate less to our imagination, and we all need to dictate more if our imagination takes us beyond the scope of sanity. The thing is, the imagination is not limited to the creation of things that are true. Which is its strength, obviously; but that same strength basically discounts imagination alone as a tool for truth-seeking, which is something I think you admit here:
In the end, the issues of death and beyond death, are beyond our ability to do anything BUT imagine, so in that sense, one belief is as good as another. I agree, but we definitely should not make the mistake of confusing this process with one that leads to truth. Which is what religion's proponents invariably do; which is what results in so much bloodshed when people with made-up beliefs assert theirs are true and others are false. People like to assert that there's no harm done when make-believe is substituted for truth, and it seems that you just did that. But the history of human religious conflict makes it very clear indeed how harmful that behavior can be.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2191 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
OK, so let us review your post that I commented upon:
quote: I asked:
So, is what you are saying is that it is less limiting of one's mind to observe a phenomena and say "I don't understand how this could happen, therefore Godidit"? You replied:
quote: But you seem to be saying in your first post quoted above that one is limiting their mind by sticking to naturalistic explanations of natural phenomena instead of also including supernatural explanations of natural phenomena. IOW, you seem to be saying that it's "limiting", in your opinion, to not allow "Godidit" as an explanation for phenomena. Please correct me if I'm misrepresented you. The reason I bring this up is that it has been shown through many centuries that the best way to learn anything reliable about anything natural is to study it using methodological naturalism i.e. the scientific method. Supernatural explanations are investigative dead ends that freeze inquiry in it's tracks. Tell me, would you actually like to return to a Dark Age mentality, where superstition and irrationality ruled over all? 'Explanations like "God won't be tested by scientific studies" but local yokels can figure it out just by staying aware of what's going on have no rational basis whatsoever.' -Percy "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool."- Richard Feynman "Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends! Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!"- Ned Flanders
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Doddy Member (Idle past 5930 days) Posts: 563 From: Brisbane, Australia Joined: |
Anastasia writes: So all participants utilized both parts of the brain equally? Yet there is a difference in 'how' they used them? Yes, the difference is between dominance and participation. Right Hemisphere dominance would mean that right brain would have taken over more of the pattern recognition, which doesn't happen. Enhanced Right Hemisphere participation though, which I'd say is the case here, is that believers take more notice of what the RH is telling them. "Der Mensch kann was er will; er kann aber nicht wollen was er will." (Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills.) - Arthur Schopenhauer
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5974 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
Crashfrog writes: People like to assert that there's no harm done when make-believe is substituted for truth, and it seems that you just did that. But the history of human religious conflict makes it very clear indeed how harmful that behavior can be. Nah, you have forgotten already this; we need to dictate more if our imagination takes us beyond the scope of sanity. It is not belief in religion alone that can drive men to insanity; there is lust, money, ambition, and power, to name a few.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5974 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
Doddy writes: Enhanced Right Hemisphere participation though, which I'd say is the case here, is that believers take more notice of what the RH is telling them. And non-believers are lacking this 'enhancement'?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2191 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Nobody is saying anything about "insanity". There are, and have been over the millenia, plenty of sane people killing, oppressing, abusing, discriminating, and hating because they believe that their god requires/allows them to. I mean, all those good Christians who orchestrated, cheered on, or fought in the Holy Crusades were, by and large, perfectly sane.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Doddy Member (Idle past 5930 days) Posts: 563 From: Brisbane, Australia Joined: |
And non-believers are lacking this 'enhancement'? Equivocate all you must. I'll quote what my friend once said when I told him about such research: "I'm going to be very annoyed if lack of oxygen to a certain part of the brain during development causes me to miss out on heaven." "Der Mensch kann was er will; er kann aber nicht wollen was er will." (Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills.) - Arthur Schopenhauer
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5974 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
nator writes: Supernatural explanations are investigative dead ends that freeze inquiry in it's tracks. The reason I bring this up is that it has been shown through many centuries that the best way to learn anything reliable about anything natural is to study it using methodological naturalism i.e. the scientific method. Why do you keep making science and relgion competitors? It is so unneccesary when you could just accept the fact that they deal with different areas.
But you seem to be saying in your first post quoted above that one is limiting their mind by sticking to naturalistic explanations of natural phenomena instead of also including supernatural explanations of natural phenomena. You seem to be having difficulty understanding. I said;
nasti writes: Of course not. All of us are welcome to observe and study phenomena, whether we believe God created it or not. It is limiting to dictate your imagination so much that it can not concieve of anything beyond the natural, not 'instead of' the natural.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5974 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
Doddy writes: Equivocate all you must. I'll quote what my friend once said when I told him about such research: "I'm going to be very annoyed if lack of oxygen to a certain part of the brain during development causes me to miss out on heaven." It won't, don't worry. You have been given all that you need, a conscience. There is no religion required.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1488 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
There are, and have been over the millenia, plenty of sane people killing, oppressing, abusing, discriminating, and hating because they believe that their god requires/allows them to. Indeed. There's nothing insane about killing two women in a ditch because the local religious belief dictated that they could be sold for more money as "ghost brides" than as living brides, as recently happened in China. It's a perfectly rational financial decision, based on make-believe.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2191 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Of course they do, and I don't believe it is me that is making them compete. I do think that you are, though. Remember, it is you who seems to have chosen the supernatural "explanation" and rejected the naturalistic one WRT the origins of moral behavior.
quote: Well, nobody does this. Everybody imagines stuff, and makes stuff up, and dreams up makebelieve. What we are talking about, however, is the way to find out what is true about the world. And "making stuff up" and deciding to accept it as truth is not a good way to do that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2191 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
There's also nothing insane about tearing the foreskin off the penis of your newborn child for religious custom, even though there is no medical reason to do so.
And the vast majority of Nazis and Nazi supporters weren't insane, even though they participated in or condoned terrible acts. The Stanford Prison Experiment, and the Milgram Experiment both show that otherwise normal, perfectly sane people can be rather easily and quickly led to do, and even enjoy, despicable and horrible acts against fellow human beings, given the correct social influences.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5974 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
nator writes: Remember, it is you who seems to have chosen the supernatural "explanation" and rejected the naturalistic one WRT the origins of moral behavior. Unless you can prove that there is no God, no creator of nature, there is no conflict.
And "making stuff up" and deciding to accept it as truth is not a good way to do that. Making stuff up and deciding to investigate whether it could be true, is exactly what scientists do. I am not a fundamentalist, remember. There are many, many ways to incorporate spirituality into one's life. I have chosen to do that, and I will continue to do so. I am not going to continue in this vein any longer. If there is something you would like to discuss about atheist indoctrination, this would be the place to do it.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024