Forums | MacLife

We were created to commune with God.
No surprise there.

daemon wrote:

It would seem some are more communist/communistic than others, though.

Absolutely.
The early church was straight up communist.

mo' ron wrote:

resedit wrote:

We were created to commune with God.
No surprise there.

The study doesn’t look at if we were born this way or not, but it appears that at least some people DON’T have the right kind of brain to commune with God… were they created by non-God?

Please allow me to introduce myself,

Farmerkev wrote:

mo' ron wrote:

resedit wrote:

We were created to commune with God.
No surprise there.

The study doesn’t look at if we were born this way or not, but it appears that at least some people DON’T have the right kind of brain to commune with God… were they created by non-God?

Please allow me to introduce myself,

There is no theological basis in any major religion I know of that has the devil with the power to create humans, or at least there is no precedence.

mo' ron wrote:

The study doesn’t look at if we were born this way or not, but it appears that at least some people DON’T have the right kind of brain to commune with God… were they created by non-God?

Scientific answer: a brain-chemical reaction to a specific set of circumstances is not evidence of religion, only in a person's belief in religion.

resedit wrote:

We were created to commune with God.
No surprise there.

Spiritual answer (and this is my biggest beef with many people): Seeking quantitative evidence of one's faith only serves to undermine the faith itself, since faith is being sure of what you canot see (things you have no evidence of).  By removing your ability to doubt, you also remove your ability to have faith.  That is the essence of spirituality.

Last edited by Jokotai (2009-10-01 9:46 pm)

Jokotai wrote:

Spiritual answer (and this is my biggest beef with many people): Seeking quantitative evidence of one's faith only serves to undermine the faith itself, since faith is being sure of what you canot see (things you have no evidence of).  By removing your ability to doubt, you also remove your ability to have faith.  That is the essence of spirituality.

Yes, I certainly agree.

If someone HAS to prove that the Bible is absolutely, 100% true through physical evidence, and I also include by having lots of others validate his beliefs by having the same beliefs, then they have no faith. They are simply frightened little people who need something to take care of them.

Faith requires strength, courage, and above all, faith.

All those religious types who demonstrate their lack of faith by needing proof that what they believe in exists, or by needing lots of loud exclamations from others affirming that they all belive in the right things, are not particularly righteous or godly. But they do make wonderful soldiers in pograms, inquisitions, and persecutions.

From the same article:

The sum total of their results suggests that religious belief may have arisen as a natural extension of evolutionary advances in social cognition and behavior. Over time, the changes in brain volume that enabled humans to show empathy towards others may have also made it possible for some to develop intimate personal relationships with a supernatural entity, thus laying the foundation for the emergence of religion.

I don't believe that conclusion suits Pascal's philosophy.

Also, what does Pascal's philosophy say of people who feel a predisposition to seek other religions, such as Buddhism, Zorastrianism, Hinduism, or any of a diverse variety of pantheist spiritualities?

Jokotai wrote:

From the same article:

The sum total of their results suggests that religious belief may have arisen as a natural extension of evolutionary advances in social cognition and behavior. Over time, the changes in brain volume that enabled humans to show empathy towards others may have also made it possible for some to develop intimate personal relationships with a supernatural entity, thus laying the foundation for the emergence of religion.

I don't believe that conclusion suits Pascal's philosophy.

Also, what does Pascal's philosophy say of people who feel a predisposition to seek other religions, such as Buddhism, Zorastrianism, Hinduism, or any of a diverse variety of pantheist spiritualities?

"They may be believers, but they ain't suckers!"

I don't think you can qualify "believers" as being false or not.  Only a person can decide wether or not they believe in something, and they need not profess that belief to be a believer.

However, I do agree that there are some people who like to twist everything into a neat little ball that suits them, without giving any credence to other possibilities.  That concept doesn't seem to be limited to religion.

I dont see anything about "buying" religious doctrine at all in this- because whether the brain states were the result of the person's choices in life experience or their life experiences happened because their brains made them susceptible to certain kinds of experiences than others is balanced by comparison against the data in another area of the brain that correlates to yet another kind of relationship to God, not a lack of one.

I find the bicameral mind idea pioneered by Julian Jaynes to be a compelling neurological basis for the origin of gods, with religion naturally following.

Tallgeese wrote:

StaticAge wrote:

I would be curious to see the same areas studied where all the participants are Buddhist.

Closer examination reveals that the relevant brain areas are just illusions.