Here's one for the religious..

[PaliRichard]

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.

 

Thanks for contributing Anna, I'll have to come back to this one as I'm a bit short of time now, but I'll definitely get back to it

[flamingjimmy]

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.

Firstly, you haven't even come close to establishing that this is 'one of the most basic functions of the brain', just that people can have visions induced, how you drew that conclusion from that I do not know.

 

Secondly, even if some function of the brain seems pointless to you, that doesn't mean it is. And even if it were pointless that doesn't mean god exists. All in all this is a terrible argument.

 

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.

That's just not true, people from different cultures can have pretty different experiences. You never find a Christian having a vision of Vishnu and you never find a Hindu having a vision of Jesus.

 

These two mutually exclusive experiences cannot both be real, so the best explanation is that they are not, and come from within our minds.

 

Secondly, that is a pathetic argument from authority too! 'Look, there's one respected scientist whose name I can't remember who agrees with me'. Seriously? What about all the other thousands of neuroscientists who disagree with you?

 

Thirdly, I would question your 'millions' figure, that's way too high. You have not come across the testimony of millions of near death experiences I think you have made that up.

 

 

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.

Yes it can, why not?

 

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?

Ah, the god of the gaps rears its ugly head, how nice.

 

Science cannot explain everything perfectly therefore God exists, yup that makes total sense.

 

Not scientific proof

Not any sort of proof.

[Cavegirl]

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?

 

Would you humour me please and honestly answer this questionaire?:

 

http://themachine1.110mb.com/spq.html

 

It's a schizotypal personality test. These are my results:

 

Ideas of reference: 1.5 out of 9 (unsure: 0)

Excessive social anxiety: 6.5 out of 8 (unsure: 0)

Odd beliefs or magical thinking: 0 out of 7 (unsure: 0)

Unusual perceptual experiences: 0 out of 9 (unsure: 0)

Odd or eccentric behavior: 3.5 out of 7 (unsure: 0)

No close friends: 1.5 out of 9 (unsure: 0)

Odd speech : 0 out of 9 (unsure: 0)

Constricted affect: 0.5 out of 8 (unsure: 0)

Suspiciousness: 1 out of 8 (unsure: 0)

Total SPQ-A: 14.5 out of 74

 

It seems my schizotypal personality is that I'm a nervous public speaker with a moderate number of eccentricities, but generally I score very low, hence why I don't need religion in my life.

 

I think Dr Sapolsky's suggestion is that religion provides a sanctuary for people who score moderate to high on these categories. He suggests that the structure of religion in general- the need for rituals that inspire thought rather than for rituals sake, the shared solitude and a 'safe' space to share with others in- was invented by people who would have scored highly on this test, but not necessarily to the extent that they were debilitated by their social issues. This is what has dictated religious behaviour, if I'm understanding what you mean by 'religious behaviour'.

[Jabroni]

Quite worrying that people still believe in a God in this day and age.

 

Religion should be treat with the contempt it deserves, furthermore, people who take it seriously should be sectioned under the mental health act. Brainwashed idiots.

[PaliRichard]

Would you humour me please and honestly answer this questionaire?:

 

http://themachine1.110mb.com/spq.html

 

It's a schizotypal personality test. These are my results:

 

Ideas of reference: 1.5 out of 9 (unsure: 0)

Excessive social anxiety: 6.5 out of 8 (unsure: 0)

Odd beliefs or magical thinking: 0 out of 7 (unsure: 0)

Unusual perceptual experiences: 0 out of 9 (unsure: 0)

Odd or eccentric behavior: 3.5 out of 7 (unsure: 0)

No close friends: 1.5 out of 9 (unsure: 0)

Odd speech : 0 out of 9 (unsure: 0)

Constricted affect: 0.5 out of 8 (unsure: 0)

Suspiciousness: 1 out of 8 (unsure: 0)

Total SPQ-A: 14.5 out of 74

 

It seems my schizotypal personality is that I'm a nervous public speaker with a moderate number of eccentricities, but generally I score very low, hence why I don't need religion in my life.

 

I think Dr Sapolsky's suggestion is that religion provides a sanctuary for people who score moderate to high on these categories. He suggests that the structure of religion in general- the need for rituals that inspire thought rather than for rituals sake, the shared solitude and a 'safe' space to share with others in- was invented by people who would have scored highly on this test, but not necessarily to the extent that they were debilitated by their social issues. This is what has dictated religious behaviour, if I'm understanding what you mean by 'religious behaviour'.

 

what do you mean 'humour you' I'm not criticizing you, just asking a couple of questions. I'll answer the questions when I have a wee bit more time.

 

---------- Post added 26-05-2013 at 16:23 ----------

 

Quite worrying that people still believe in a God in this day and age.

 

Religion should be treat with the contempt it deserves, furthermore, people who take it seriously should be sectioned under the mental health act. Brainwashed idiots.

 

I'm not a brainwashed idiot.

 

thanks for your concern though.

[flamingjimmy]

Religion should be treat with the contempt it deserves, furthermore, people who take it seriously should be sectioned under the mental health act. Brainwashed idiots.

 

That is a bad point and you should feel bad for expressing it.

[Cavegirl]

what do you mean 'humour you' I'm not criticizing you, just asking a couple of questions. I'll answer the questions when I have a wee bit more time.

 

I didn't mean anything by it- it's just asking someone you don't really know to fill in a personality quiz is a bit awkward and I was trying to lighten the tone...probably badly, sorry.

 

---------- Post added 26-05-2013 at 20:01 ----------

 

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.

 

If the genetic research I've been discussing in my last few posts is correct, then the bugs with the genetic trait that enables them to climb out of the 'murky pond' you call reality and breed only with other 'gossamer winged' bugs, they'll largely end up driven insane as the trait would become too strong. Your gossamer winged wonder bugs would probably be wiped out by purposefully flying into the mouth of the giant toad lurking on the lilipad.

 

It's the interbreeding of those with the trait and those without it that keeps the trait adaptive and beneficial. In essence, the gossamer winged bugs only have gossamer wings so that they can attract and interbreed with the mud lurkers.

[Obelix]

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.

 

None of those defy explanation though at all. Certainly none of them provide any insurmountable problems that mean science is fundamentally wrong.

 

---------- Post added 26-05-2013 at 22:33 ----------

 

Ideas of reference: 2.5 out of 9 (unsure: 0)

Excessive social anxiety: 4.5 out of 8 (unsure: 0)

Odd beliefs or magical thinking: 0 out of 7 (unsure: 0)

Unusual perceptual experiences: 0 out of 9 (unsure: 0)

Odd or eccentric behavior: 4 out of 7 (unsure: 0)

No close friends: 3.5 out of 9 (unsure: 0)

Odd speech : 3.5 out of 9 (unsure: 0)

Constricted affect: 4 out of 8 (unsure: 0)

Suspiciousness: 3.5 out of 8 (unsure: 0)

Total SPQ-A: 25.5 out of 74

[Anna B]

I didn't mean anything by it- it's just asking someone you don't really know to fill in a personality quiz is a bit awkward and I was trying to lighten the tone...probably badly, sorry.

 

---------- Post added 26-05-2013 at 20:01 ----------

 

 

If the genetic research I've been discussing in my last few posts is correct, then the bugs with the genetic trait that enables them to climb out of the 'murky pond' you call reality and breed only with other 'gossamer winged' bugs, they'll largely end up driven insane as the trait would become too strong. Your gossamer winged wonder bugs would probably be wiped out by purposefully flying into the mouth of the giant toad lurking on the lilipad.

 

It's the interbreeding of those with the trait and those without it that keeps the trait adaptive and beneficial. In essence, the gossamer winged bugs only have gossamer wings so that they can attract and interbreed with the mud lurkers.

 

Errr... it's just a story....

[Cavegirl]

Errr... it's just a story....

 

...designed to convert atheists into religion.

 

It's not 'just a story', it's religious propaganda and based upon your usual posts I'd normally have have given you more credit than to try and spread thoughtless propaganda.