Here's one for the religious..

[billlaunty]

Your talking the millions again nobody knows how old the earth is but I am saying written history only goes back 6000 years and you wont get proof of anything different from that

evolution was once a theory now the scientists say its a fact they teach it as a fact in schools wheres the proof oh \I forgot the million year thing its like the catholics they believe in hell fire because some man in a purple frock told them that any way you enjoy

your life snaily and your travelling I will stick to the bible which has been proved a thousand times over

[SnailyBoy]

Your talking the millions again nobody knows how old the earth is but I am saying written history only goes back 6000 years and you wont get proof of anything different from that

evolution was once a theory now the scientists say its a fact they teach it as a fact in schools wheres the proof oh \I forgot the million year thing its like the catholics they believe in hell fire because some man in a purple frock told them that any way you enjoy

your life snaily and your travelling I will stick to the bible which has been proved a thousand times over

 

Yes we do, the Earth is 4.74 Billion years old. The evidence is readily available.

 

Evolution is a scientific theory, you'll need to look up the definition of a scientific theory to get the full picture.

 

As for the evidence for evolution, where have you actually looked? The reason I ask is because what you are claiming is an argument from ignorance.

 

As for the proof of the Bible, 'a thousand times over'? Give me the best example.

[RootsBooster]

Does anyone else think that Billauntie sounds a little Dronesque?

[PaliRichard]

Your talking the millions again nobody knows how old the earth is but I am saying written history only goes back 6000 years and you wont get proof of anything different from that

evolution was once a theory now the scientists say its a fact they teach it as a fact in schools wheres the proof oh \I forgot the million year thing its like the catholics they believe in hell fire because some man in a purple frock told them that any way you enjoy

your life snaily and your travelling I will stick to the bible which has been proved a thousand times over

 

You haven't actually given us anything to disprove evolution or the age of the Earth yet, all you've done is call them into question.

 

Nor have you shown us how the Bible has been 'proved', quite alot of it has been disproved so I would be very interested, given the topic of this thread, for you to point out specifically those parts that have been proved, and for you to cite the evidence used to 'prove' it.

 

Thankyou.

 

---------- Post added 23-05-2013 at 18:06 ----------

 

Does anyone else think that Billauntie sounds a little Dronesque?

 

I was wondering but wasn't quite sure, not until he had a go at Catholicism but said he believed the Bible, now I am leaning towards the 'new account' idea myself.

[Cavegirl]

This is an interesting concept. I'm not sure I agree with us having a gene for religion. If you were to take a look at my family I am the only one out of nine cousins who is religious. Only one of my blood aunts/uncles is even remotely religious and none of my grandparents were.

 

[snipped for space saving]

 

Definately not lost the plot but in my opinion your thinking could be refined. I think that thing we talked about may have coloured slightly what you understand of the deeper dimensions of religious thought - or maybe I'm just being prejudice! That's for you to decide

 

In a bizarre twist of serendipity the unrelated link I provided you with by pm has actually led to me having much more to add to our discussion. I was looking at Dr Sapolsky's (a hero of mine) full video list and came across one titled 'The Biological Underpinnings of Religiosity' which covers an awful lot of what we've been talking about. It's so interesting I had to summarise his main points for you.

 

Is there a gene for religious belief?

 

There is a gene and it isn't a spandrel gene, but is actually a direct adaptive gene. In genetics adaptive genes enable a person to pass on their genes through their offspring whilst maladaptive genes tend to prevent genes from being passed on. For example:

- the adaptive gene that prevents malaria in its maladaptive form causes the often fatal disease Sicle cell anaemia.

- the adaptive gene that protects against cholera in its maladaptive form causes cystic fibrosis.

- the adaptive gene that protects against tuberculosis in its maladaptive form causes the fatal Tay Sachs disease.

 

With regard to religion:

- the adaptive gene that allows people to think 'metamagically' in its maladaptive form causes schizophrenia.

- that adaptive gene that leads humans to perform religious rituals in its maladaptive form leads to OCD.

 

Metamagical thinking.

 

People who have the beneficial gene that leads to moderate/ fundamentalist religious belief but NOT schizophrenia are known as 'schizotypal' personalities. These personalities are recognised by traits such as:

- socially solitary, but not outside society (such as monks, lighthouse keepers, cinema projectionists). Socially functioning but not socially inclined.

- 'metamagical thinking' such as a belief in New Age spiritualism or UFO's, a strong passion for sci-fi, fantasy or horror. If they're within a religious social structure they tend to strongly believe that stories or myths are absolute truth- they have difficulty determining what is metaphor and what is truth. The strength of this belief determines who is a moderate and who is fundamentalist.

 

People with metamagical thinking have always been tolerated in wider society, in fact they've often become the most powerful members of society, hence why it's considered an adaptive trait. Moderate religious people tend to have an ability to hold several beliefs at once even if they appear contradictory whereas fundamentalists can only see the metamagical perspective of reality. People with schizotypal characteristics are often better able to learn and understand than those without the gene, but they suffer when it comes to non-metamagical interpretation of reality. Religious people are usually tolerated by those without the gene because of their ability to perform communal rituals that relieve social anxiety and ensure a person's place in the afterlife.

 

Religious ritual:

 

Religious ritual is about performing small mundane daily acts, not to relieve anxiety, but to share and consider the anxiety in a socially meaningful way. We all use some form of ritual to relieve our anxieties and we all have invasive thoughts during times of stress. Schizotypal people who cannot share rituals socially tend to suffer from an OCD disorder- they think that if they just perform the ritual properly they can escape the anxiety- there is no sense that the ritual has a thought context, just a practice. Religious ritual is about using ritual to aid thinking which can overcome anxiety rather than using ritual to alleviate anxiety.

There are 4 main characteristics that religious ritual and OCD share-

1. Cleansing

2. Food preparation

3. Entering and leaving (holy) buildings

4. Numerology

However, for OCD sufferers the use of ritual becomes debilitating, whilst for schizotypal people it serves as an aid to thought.

 

Religion in society:

 

Religious leaders tend to be the people most able to perform appealing rituals in a socially acceptable way. If they get the rituals they invent right they can still be practiced by people several millenia later, however if they get it wrong they can end up with short-lived cults and these sometimes become socially dangerous (eg Jonestown, Charles Manson).

 

Society can also be damaged by having too many religious leaders, by becoming too religious, and even traditional communities recognise that having one or two shamans is fine, but they don't welcome more than that- there needs to be a high ratio of hunters/ farmers to religious practitioners. If this ratio is acceptable they are happy to give some of their food surplus towards supporting the shaman's work. These same traditional societies are known to marginalise anyone that they consider to be mentally ill because even without academic psychology studies they are aware that there is a clear distinction.

 

This is the full lecture by Dr Sapolsky if anyone would like to learn more:

 

[Obelix]

Your talking the millions again nobody knows how old the earth is but I am saying written history only goes back 6000 years and you wont get proof of anything different from that

evolution was once a theory now the scientists say its a fact they teach it as a fact in schools wheres the proof oh \I forgot the million year thing its like the catholics they believe in hell fire because some man in a purple frock told them that any way you enjoy

your life snaily and your travelling I will stick to the bible which has been proved a thousand times over

 

I have a piece of Lewisian gneiss here, that is dated to being 3.05 billion years old. I've also got a nice chondrite dated to 4.566 billion years ago. Isochron data for both is available to you if you wish to propose another means for the observed data...?

 

On the other hand the Bible can have holes poked in it a thousand times over, rather than it being proved. It may be a good moral book and a historical tome but it makes a really poor science textbook.

[SnailyBoy]

I have a piece of Lewisian gneiss here, that is dated to being 3.05 billion years old. I've also got a nice chondrite dated to 4.566 billion years ago. Isochron data for both is available to you if you wish to propose another means for the observed data...?

 

On the other hand the Bible can have holes poked in it a thousand times over, rather than it being proved. It may be a good moral book and a historical tome but it makes a really poor science textbook.

 

That's very much debatable, unless slavery and genocide are your thing...

[Ryedo40]

Cavegirl, I think that is a good and interesting post. I do think something needs to be clarified: the genes forming the mechanisms of our brain are not specifically for religion or religious behaviour – but they, depending on our world-view or reference point, lead to the creation of x and x behaviour (creation x can take the form of religious and non-religious belief – and both can act as reference points influencing further beliefs and behaviours).

 

Those same genes, or mechanisms, result in the creation of conspiracy theories – which in-turn can influence behaviour. Religions, in the scheme of things, are conspiracy theories that have had time to run amok, evolve and take hold of society.

[PaliRichard]

In a bizarre twist of serendipity the unrelated link I provided you with by pm has actually led to me having much more to add to our discussion. I was looking at Dr Sapolsky's (a hero of mine) full video list and came across one titled 'The Biological Underpinnings of Religiosity' which covers an awful lot of what we've been talking about. It's so interesting I had to summarise his main points for you.

 

Is there a gene for religious belief?

 

There is a gene and it isn't a spandrel gene, but is actually a direct adaptive gene. In genetics adaptive genes enable a person to pass on their genes through their offspring whilst maladaptive genes tend to prevent genes from being passed on. For example:

- the adaptive gene that prevents malaria in its maladaptive form causes the often fatal disease Sicle cell anaemia.

- the adaptive gene that protects against cholera in its maladaptive form causes cystic fibrosis.

- the adaptive gene that protects against tuberculosis in its maladaptive form causes the fatal Tay Sachs disease.

 

With regard to religion:

- the adaptive gene that allows people to think 'metamagically' in its maladaptive form causes schizophrenia.

- that adaptive gene that leads humans to perform religious rituals in its maladaptive form leads to OCD.

 

Metamagical thinking.

 

People who have the beneficial gene that leads to moderate/ fundamentalist religious belief but NOT schizophrenia are known as 'schizotypal' personalities. These personalities are recognised by traits such as:

- socially solitary, but not outside society (such as monks, lighthouse keepers, cinema projectionists). Socially functioning but not socially inclined.

- 'metamagical thinking' such as a belief in New Age spiritualism or UFO's, a strong passion for sci-fi, fantasy or horror. If they're within a religious social structure they tend to strongly believe that stories or myths are absolute truth- they have difficulty determining what is metaphor and what is truth. The strength of this belief determines who is a moderate and who is fundamentalist.

 

People with metamagical thinking have always been tolerated in wider society, in fact they've often become the most powerful members of society, hence why it's considered an adaptive trait. Moderate religious people tend to have an ability to hold several beliefs at once even if they appear contradictory whereas fundamentalists can only see the metamagical perspective of reality. People with schizotypal characteristics are often better able to learn and understand than those without the gene, but they suffer when it comes to non-metamagical interpretation of reality. Religious people are usually tolerated by those without the gene because of their ability to perform communal rituals that relieve social anxiety and ensure a person's place in the afterlife.

 

Religious ritual:

 

Religious ritual is about performing small mundane daily acts, not to relieve anxiety, but to share and consider the anxiety in a socially meaningful way. We all use some form of ritual to relieve our anxieties and we all have invasive thoughts during times of stress. Schizotypal people who cannot share rituals socially tend to suffer from an OCD disorder- they think that if they just perform the ritual properly they can escape the anxiety- there is no sense that the ritual has a thought context, just a practice. Religious ritual is about using ritual to aid thinking which can overcome anxiety rather than using ritual to alleviate anxiety.

There are 4 main characteristics that religious ritual and OCD share-

1. Cleansing

2. Food preparation

3. Entering and leaving (holy) buildings

4. Numerology

However, for OCD sufferers the use of ritual becomes debilitating, whilst for schizotypal people it serves as an aid to thought.

 

Religion in society:

 

Religious leaders tend to be the people most able to perform appealing rituals in a socially acceptable way. If they get the rituals they invent right they can still be practiced by people several millenia later, however if they get it wrong they can end up with short-lived cults and these sometimes become socially dangerous (eg Jonestown, Charles Manson).

 

Society can also be damaged by having too many religious leaders, by becoming too religious, and even traditional communities recognise that having one or two shamans is fine, but they don't welcome more than that- there needs to be a high ratio of hunters/ farmers to religious practitioners. If this ratio is acceptable they are happy to give some of their food surplus towards supporting the shaman's work. These same traditional societies are known to marginalise anyone that they consider to be mentally ill because even without academic psychology studies they are aware that there is a clear distinction.

 

This is the full lecture by Dr Sapolsky if anyone would like to learn more:

 

 

Is a gene that makes us prone to religious behaviour the same as a gene that causes religious behaviour?

 

What does the Dr consider 'religious behaviour' to entail?

[Anna B]

Who think they can back up their claims with science.

 

I'm getting a little bit bored of certain religious posters claiming science provides proof that their religion is true then when they are questioned on it mysteriously disappearing from the forum or blatantly avoiding the questions.

 

So here is a thread where if you genuinely believe that science provides evidence that your religion in true you can post your claims with the aim of allowing open debate on them.

 

If no one posts I will simply take it that you don't have the evidence you claim and you are a lying toe rag who has 0% faith and more than likely belongs to some cultish off shoot of a mainstream religion.

 

This isn't an attack on people of faith - it's specifically to debate those who claim that there is evidence to show what they believe is true.

 

The ball court is now open.

 

 

 

Ok. I haven't read all the posts, so forgive me if this has already been said.

 

First of all can we qualify what you really mean? It's easy to see religion exists just by looking - at a church, mosque, synagogue etc, so I presume you mean the existence of a 'God' or an 'afterlife' which all religions, I believe, have at their heart and also which people can believe in without the benefit of a temple or church. (I'm one of these.)

 

1. The fact that people can ask this question and have an area of the brain designed simply to provide them with an answer seems strange to me. A part of the hypocampus; the oldest, lowest part of the brain which functions without the benefit of reason or imput can be stimulated to induce visions and the like. Why? What is the reason for this? It would seem totally pointless that one of the most basic functions of the brain is to recognise a Godlike figure, or a sense that there is more to this world than is visable, if it were not so. I know this theory can be turned round on itself, but compare it with 'love', which can also be stimulated in a particular part of the brain, cannot be seen and defies logic. Who would say that love doesn't exist?

 

2. The testimony of millions of near death experiences: A respected scientist and accademic (sorry can't remember his name,) has spent his life studying these by applying full scientific rigour, and has concluded that there is something to them other than the 'brain starved of oxygen' theory. They cross all religions and are common to the entire human species regardless of belief and circumstances. He's written a very good, scientific book on the subject. It suggest anyone struggling with this question read it.

Ands he's not the only one, a good many scientists also believe in 'God' for some very profound reasons. And of course there is tons of annecdotal evidence of all sorts of strange occurances. Not all can be fake.

 

3. Science itself: As scientists search for a unified theory of everything, they are turning up more and more anomallies that defy explanation; Dark matter, the god particle, multiverses, particles which blip in and out of existence, membranes, veils, string theory, black holes, electromagnetic fields and so on. Some will surely be explained in the future, but more will be discovered. The more we find out, the less we seem to know. Surely that gives way to at least some doubt that this is all there is?

 

Not scientific proof, but enough for me to at least believe in a possibility of an existence after death.

 

Finally (with apologies - just indulge me..) a story called 'Waterbugs and Dragonflies' that explains better than I can, why we can never know for sure.

 

Two waterbugs, very good friends, live at the bottom of a murky pond. They notice that every so often one of their number gets an unrelenting urge to climb the reeds that reach to the surface of the pond, afterwhich they are never seen again.

 

The two friends discuss this at length, wondering where on earth the climbing bugs go. They finally agree that if this should ever happen to them they will come back and tell their friend what happens.

 

Sure enough, one day the older bug gets the urge to climb the reed. He bids farewell to his friend with the promise that he will come back and tell him what happens. Up and up he goes until he emerges at the top into a strange and stunningly beautiful world with a bright blue sky and clouds and flowers and sunshine. He's so excited he can't wait to go back and tell his pal just how wonderful it all is.

 

But when he tries to climb back down the reed he realises his body has changed, and now has these beautiful gossamer fine wings to fly with and he can no longer breath under the water. He flies up high and can just about see the waterbugs scuttling about in the mud at the bottom of the pond, but he knows he will never be able to go back, and will just have to wait until they too make their way up the reeds to the sunshine, as they surely will.