Reducionism loses Phenomena of love and other Values

 


The topic is BT's statement that science tells us everything about feelings and emotions. These are just unimportant side effects of brain chemistry we know all about them and we can ignore them. My suspicion is aroused that these guys really hate being human. They have to ignore their feellings and emotions so as to avoid conviction of sin.

  The words in blue represent what I said in the previous discussion. The ordinary type is my editorial comment for this post.


 Bigthinker on carm

He claims:

Science explains emotions... We are the result of natural selection, "love" facilitates/leads to reproduction. This isn't much of a mystery unless you don't consider the science behind it

Meta:
In the discussion on the board I said:

It depends upon what kind of explanation you are seeking and what aspect of it you are including. Since feelings are so tied to the hard problem you can't answer questions related to that sort of thing until the hard problem is solved. There's also the problem of losing the phenomena which is just the result of reductionism.

The phenomenological aspects that can't be solved by merely understanding brain chemistry.

BT

This gets into the interpretation of the emotion. But if we can predictably manipulate emotions, then our understanding is sufficient; 

Meta:

so the fact that you are willing to stop with the surface even though you can't answer deeper things and you slough that off by saying 'we don't want to know that much.' that just proves that you can't answer it, you don't want to answer it, you are not really seeking understanding but just confirmation of the views you already hold.

BT

we don't necessarily have to know why we interpret an emotion or feeling in a particular way in order to understand it. 

Meta

you think that could be kind of important? All it tells us to manipulate feelings is that feeling are access through brain chemistry; that doesn't' tell us what the feelings are communicating to us.

Did you catch that? "we know all about emotions from sceince."

"here's something you don't know"

"we don't need to know that."

The only knowledge that counts as knowledge is what we can control with our methods. We can be so sure that anything we don't know we just saw off and it's there anymore. So we can reduce it all to what we know then we know it all.


BT

Now, if emotions weren't reliably predictable then that would be a different story.

why? that means all you want to know is how to control people, right?

Meta:

Guess what guys? The wildly unpredictable part is the part he doesn't like so that's the bit he pretends isn't there. So it is the case that are unpredictable so it is a different story but he's going to pretend that it's not.

Meta"

If you wanted to say mothers loving their children is biologically rooted therefore love is nothing more than a chemical process. That's apologizing about something of which we know only surface level. It wouldn't tell us "yes this is the right value" or "no it's not a valid value we can take it away."

BT

Value is subjective and is the result of self awareness. 

 The haters of being human. self awareness is something to ignore. I guess that's what we call "not being self aware."

 Meta

we are dealing with the core of subjectivity, feelings.It's apparent your research program is very subjective. you don't want to know things that might upset your world view. you want to know only that which confirms it. isn't that what you just said?

If we couldn't think about ourselves, then it wouldn't be a value, it would simply be cause and effect.

but then when we think about ourselves you write it off as "subjective." So how can you ever explore your core self when you refuse to even think about having one? Values are subjective and core self is subjective, you have to come to terms with that to study it.

you want to study the subjective form the standpoint of the objective and just eliminate anything that isn't objective. tha'ts losing the phenomena.

BT

Evolutionarily speaking, this has been effective enough for the survival of our species

Meta:

partly because we don't eliminate it as "subjective" but we pay attention to it and base values on it. Moreover, there's a lot more at issue than just finding stuff that helps us survive. you don't want us to continue to survive?

BT

It only makes sense with evolution. It doesn't make sense in a world governed by original sin. If original sin is the guiding force/principle, why should a mother care for her infant? 

 Notice the complete lack of understanding of anything about the Gospel. Because there's sin we shuld give in it, as though the point of the Gospel is not to overcome sin.



Meta

sorry my friend. Not say that I don't respect your view. Yet I think and feel you are working under a somewhat misguided view of what sin means. First of all no one is saying evolution doesn't happen. In the fashion of evolutionary psychology (sociobiology in Sunday go meeting garb) you are trying to account for all behaviors as the result of evolutionary heritage. that doesn't follow, it doesn't follow that if you don't do that they you are denying evolution.

Secondly, evolution doesn't negate the concept of sin. Both things can be true

No it has nothing to do with emotions. I have to wonder at this point if you actually read Heidegger?

You are only thinking of eros. eros is probably just a cultural fiction anyway. There's a much larger concept of love that is rooted in ideals.

It's like the is/ought problem. just showing there is a tendency doesn't prove there a behavior should be perused. You can't establish an ought from an is. By the same token you can't define a value based upon its appearance in brain chemistry. You can' reduce an ideal to brain chemistry.

BT

"oughts" are based in values. Values are subjective. I don't care what a person's philosophical interpretation of feeling they are in love; what matters is that over time, this feeling results in reproductive activity and therefore is selected for.

Meta:
spoken like a true evolutionary psychology guy.

But the idea is that those don't matter, behavior is all that matters. we can ignore the subjective those are philosophical premises. they are also values. you are employing values to make the value judgement that values aren't work dealing with because they are subjective. you are making a value judgement about the subjective.

somehow I don't think that's how we survived. I think we survived taking values seroiusly.

Look at the control you are trying to exert. people who say "this is in contradiction with my most improtant values" you just say "O poo poo values are unimportant." that's our value.

 In this exchange we see several things clearly. The illusion of technique creates the pretense that science tells all and yet what it can't tell us they just reduce and lose the phenomena and refuse to think about it. See how programatic their view is.  They have an ideological objective that is to eliminate values so that their notion of truth is all pervasive. Truth is defined as only that which can be determined by their methods and that which supports their ideology.

Truth About the Atehist Take on Knolwedge

One of the greatest ironies in life is how this group that prides itself upon being smarter than their hated enemy the Christians, and that prides itself on "free thinking," they think for themselves and love knowledge and learning, they are so very smart, are actually narrow minded and opposed to learning. Not only do they reduce all knowledge one kind (science) but they are also indignant and insulting toward those who seek learning. Nothing is more telling of the anti-intellectual than their hatred of scholarship.


Tralala
on CARM a few
days ago

 What does arguing and studying the minutia of bronze age mens writing really give back? Its not like they actually expect to find something that will have practical value.Mostly it seems it is just about confirming their own belief system. Not exactly the same results to give to the world as applying one mind to working on cancer research or even being an artist. Even Newton wasted a huge amount of his time doing this. It is such a waste of human potential.

Or am I missing something? Is there something useful that comes from all this effort other than self gratification?

 Square one

In the modern era I would say zero great minds are wasted on this.

A great mind would have the wherewithal to abandon religion.

I'm moderately intelligent and I managed. So those who are much smarter than I am, the "great minds" really have no excuse.

Newton's excuse was the general ignorance of his age.

MarkUK

 Being a Bible Scholar is like being a Batman scholar

What? Golden age Batman? Silver age Batman? Dark Knight?


My response?




Meta:

why do atheists want to be stupid?
Look at the attitude toward learning and knowledge:

linked to the stuff above.

History is nothing but study of the past is stupid. scinece is the only thing there is. But they can't think scientifically becuase they don't know anything. When faced with the the reality of social science reserach they fall back on silly prejudice and mocking rather than real methodological analysis.

It has been demonstrated over and over again that theology is good and valuable. It' s utterly stupid to think that major intellectuals are wasting their time on something they spend their lives studying. they know more than you and they are smarter so obviously they see stuff you don't see. Maybe atheist are just too stupid to get it? HU? Everything has to be measured by scinece, but not real science, their little ideological version of scinece. The ideological version is actually anti- scientific.In their view scinece = atheism. scinece is the enforcement mechanism of atheists. all the studies and research they just ignore until it say stuff they like. that is anti-scientific.

down with history
down with social scinece
down with art
down with logic
down with thinking

the only thing there is is learning how the physical world works reduce everything to that lose the phenomena. Look BT he says we understand all about feelings because we know how to manipulate them with brain chemistry.

I say what about X,Y,Z we don't understand that

He says that's not worth understanding becuase its not derived at though our methods. that means it's subjective so we can wipe that out. That just means that you are losing the phenomena. Rather than explaining it you are just hiding the bit you can't answer. tha'ts not scinece.

He has this preconceived idea about objectivity and subjectivity and anything not amenable to his research method he's going to write off as unimportant is that scinece did it? I don't think so. I think that's ideology rather than scinece. They reduce everything to this one form of knowledge but then that one forms shows the inadequacy of their views They sacrifice even that one form of knowledge.

Do you get that? He says we understand all about it, I point out an area about ti we don' t understand, he says that's not worth understanding because it can't be subjected to our methods. So in others if we don't control it and we can't already understand, if it doesn't fit our agenda, then it's not worth understanding. He should say "we understand all that we care to understand about feelings." Which ant much.

Hilly Billy: "Your bald assertions are not demonstrations."

All you have to do is look at their words.

he says:

"You have yet to demonstrate even once "that theology is good and valuable".

Of course they wont accept that it matters that it's good at its own task because that's about God so that' no good. That's just circular reasoning. Typical circular reasoning that allows them to rationalize their ideology. When I've given examples of theolgoians doing good things in other areas such as the contribution of Alfred North Whitehead to Mathematics:

Alfred North Whitehead (1861–1947) was a British mathematician, logician and philosopher best known for his work in mathematical logic and the philosophy of science. In collaboration with Bertrand Russell, he co-authored the landmark three-volume Principia Mathematica (1910, 1912, 1913). Later he was instrumental in pioneering the approach to metaphysics now known as process philosophy.[1]

also:

Principia Mathematica, the landmark work in formal logic written by Alfred North Whitehead and Bertrand Russell, was first published in three volumes in 1910, 1912 and 1913. Written as a defense of logicism (the view that mathematics is in some significant sense reducible to logic) the book was instrumental in developing and popularizing modern mathematical logic. It also served as a major impetus for research in the foundations of mathematics throughout the twentieth century. Along with the Organon written by Aristotle and the Grundgesetze der Arithmetik written by Gottlob Frege, it remains one of the most influential books on logic ever written.[2]

 Also quoting Nancy Murphy in her book Downward Causation and the Neurobiology of Free Will states that theologian Hans Kung's article provides a fine overview for many of the conclusions reached by the volume. [3] The CARM atheist just say "big deal that's not their function as theologians so that's not a contribution from theology." Look at the ciruclar reasoning here. Theology is stupid becuase it's about God and we don't believe in God becuase theology is stupid. If that's not enough the when you show theologians doing good thing sin other ares it doesn't count for theology becuase it's not theology. But theology is stupid a priori becuase its about God so nothing could ever count in its favor.

 Is it just the CARM atheists who talk this way? See my article "anti-intellectual tendencies of New Atheism" [4] where I quote Larry Moran, PZ Myers, and Dawkins making more sophisticated version of the same kind of circular Bull Honky do do. this is from my article:

 The Courtier's Reply
by PZ Myers

I have considered the impudent accusations of Mr Dawkins with exasperation at his lack of serious scholarship. He has apparently not read the detailed discourses of Count Roderigo of Seville on the exquisite and exotic leathers of the Emperor's boots, nor does he give a moment's consideration to Bellini's masterwork, On the Luminescence of the Emperor's Feathered Hat. We have entire schools dedicated to writing learned treatises on the beauty of the Emperor's raiment, and every major newspaper runs a section dedicated to imperial fashion; Dawkins cavalierly dismisses them all. He even laughs at the highly popular and most persuasive arguments of his fellow countryman, Lord D. T. Mawkscribbler, who famously pointed out that the Emperor would not wear common cotton, nor uncomfortable polyester, but must, I say must, wear undergarments of the finest silk.

Dawkins arrogantly ignores all these deep philosophical ponderings to crudely accuse the Emperor of nudity.

Personally, I suspect that perhaps the Emperor might not be fully clothed — how else to explain the apparent sloth of the staff at the palace laundry — but, well, everyone else does seem to go on about his clothes, and this Dawkins fellow is such a rude upstart who lacks the wit of my elegant circumlocutions, that, while unable to deal with the substance of his accusations, I should at least chide him for his very bad form.

Until Dawkins has trained in the shops of Paris and Milan, until he has learned to tell the difference between a ruffled flounce and a puffy pantaloon, we should all pretend he has not spoken out against the Emperor's taste. His training in biology may give him the ability to recognize dangling genitalia when he sees it, but it has not taught him the proper appreciation of Imaginary Fabrics.

 In other words, knowledge of theological subjects is just plain bull shit and it doesn't matter if Dawkins doesn't understand it because it's not worth understanding. So it's not valid criticism of him to say that. Except the problem is, if he understood theology he would see that his criticisms are wrong. The criticisms he makes are almost always about fundamentalists views. Since he refuses to accept that there are other non fundamentalist types of theology, when you point it out he just says O that's ridiculous because all theology is crap so it doesn't matter--but if he knew that he might not make the criticisms becasue they don't apply. But it's not worthing knowing that. he's just reasoning in a cirlce.

They are basically saying that history, literature, philosophy, logic, Sociology, Anthropology all forms of human knowledge are as useless as outmoded fashion. Only scinece matters. They then deny that it's an ideology but one the major hall makrs of ideology is reducing all forms of knowledge to the ideology.

Why would anyone want to be part of movement that is dedicated to the destruction of learning? A movmeent that openly expresses it's contempt for intellectual endeavors?



sources

[1]Irvine, Andrew David, "Alfred North Whitehead", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2013 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), forthcoming URL = .http://plato.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/encyclopedia/archinfo.cgi?entry=whitehead
accesed 10/9/13

[2] Irvine, Andrew David, "Principia Mathematica", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2010 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = .http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/principia-mathematica/
accessed 10/9/13

[3]Nancy Murphy, George FR Ellis, Timothy O'Connor, Downward Causation and the Neurobiology of Free Will. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag, 2009, 24.

[4] Metacrock, "Anti-Intellectual Tendencies of New Atheism," Atheistwatch, Nov 13, 2012.
http://atheistwatch.blogspot.com/2012/11/anti-intellectual-tendencies-of-new.html
accessed 10/9/13

Scientific Evidence and God Arguments part 1

One should not be fooled into thinking that we need to "prove the existence of God." This a fools errand not even on them menu of reason. Like reality itself God is not something that can be demonstrated through empirical means. Scientific evidence can only be empirical. That means there can't be any evidence, not of a direct nature. Atheists capitalize on this with their contrast mantra demanding scientific proof and trying pretend that they have a scientific view point while denying that they have an ideology. If one has been following my posts on philosophy of science and religion one will see immediately the problem; to say "we have the scientific vie point" is by its nature an ideology. Thus to make that boast atheists are demonstrating that they have an ideology then dyeing they have one.



How is scientific data used in relation to God arguments when God is not given in sense data? The point is not to prove the existence of God, which is a contradiction in terms if one uses Paul Tillich's understanding of divine reality. Instead we want to demonstrate that belief is rationally warranted. Thus we can use scientific to establish premises. One of the primary examples of this would be the cosmological argument. Several of its' incarnations thrives upon understanding modern cosmology and that is certainly the result of scientific data. See my God argument list no's:1, 31, 42, and others. The fine tuning argument relies quite heavily upon scientific data and it's conclusion is rooted entirely in the empirical. There's a quite a bit of data there.

The God pod argument is rooted in scientific data. Researchers study how chemical dye travels through the blood vessels of the brain and coordinate that with ideas the people are thinking about to correlate ideas with the parts of the brain that are stimulated when they think bout them. They find that thoughts about God talk stimulate the brain in ways nothing else does. Based upon that many propose that ideas of God are innate, or that they are result of genetic endowment. That's not really born out yet. It's too early to tell. There two really good books on it. One is Why God Wont Go Away by Andre Newberg. Newberg is one of the pioneers of the field although this book is written on a popular level. A lot of atheists have compared about it becuase they don't feel like they are getting big time scientific stuff since it doesn't read like a big time scientist wrote it. That doesn't mean that Newberg's research is not important. The other book is:

Lee A Kirckpatrick, “Religion is Not An Adaptation,” in Where God and Science Meet: How Brain and Evolutionary Studies Alter Our Understanding of Religion Vol I: Evolution, Genes, and Religious Brainm .Patrick McNamara (ed). London, Westport Connecticut: Praeger. 2006. 159-180,

The Kirckpartick book is written in a much more scientific seeming way and includes a great deal more research. It's an anthology and has articles form many researchers. The two books are at odds in that Newberg argues that there is a gene for religion, far from seeing that as counting against belief in God he sees it as a reason to believe in God. Several authors in the Kirckpatrick book argue that there is no nearly enough data yet to establish a gene for religion and that the explanation could be a spandrels, a combination of genes coming together to produce a certain behavior. Whichever is the case what is clear that they all agree upon there a lot of evidence that belief is a result of some kind of genetic endowment in some way.

There are atheists who argue this a counter to belief but I it's much more likely to be a good reason to believe. A God argument based upon this evidence would center around the fact that innate ideas are considered impossible but here is an innate idea. this clearly innate idea that is clearly part of our "wiring"just happens to be around the one thing perpurts to give us meaning and exaplin everything. Since innate ideas are supposed to be impossible that's a good to think some higher aspect of reality "designed it in to us in some way." Newberg says:

A skeptic might suggest that a biological origin to all spiritual longings and experiences, including the universal human yearning to connect with something divine, could be explained as a delusion caused by the chemical misfiring of a bundle of nerve cells. But …After years of scientific study, and careful consideration of the a neurological process that has evolved to allow us humans to transcend material existence and acknowledge and connect with a deeper, more spiritual part of ourselves perceived of as an absolute, universal reality that connects us to all that is. Newberg(ibid 7-10)

…Tracing spiritual experience to neurological behavior does not disprove its realness. If God does exist, for example, and if He appeared to you in some incarnation, you would have no way of experiencing His presence, except as part of a neurologically generated rendition of reality. You would need auditory processing to hear his voice, visual processing to see His face, and cognitive processing to make sense of his message. Even if he spoke to you mystically, without words, you would need cognitive functions to comprehend his meaning, and input form the brain’s emotional centers to fill you with rapture and awe. Neurology makes it clear: there is no other way for God to get into your head except through the brain’s neural pathways. Correspondingly, God cannot exist as a concept or as reality anyplace else but in your mind. In this sense, both spiritual experiences and experiences of a more ordinary material nature are made real to the mind in the very same way—through the processing powers of the brain and the cognitive functions of the mind. Whatever the ultimate nature of spiritual experience might be—weather it is in fact an actual perception of spiritual reality—or merely an interpretation of sheer neurological function—all that is meaningful in human spirituality happens in the mind. In other words, the mind is mystical by default.(newberg Ibid, 10)

He goes on to destroy the convenient little atheist pretense of the pile of scientific facts secuaring thier world view:

The medieval German mystic Meister Echkart lived hundreds of years before the science of neurology was born. Yet it seems he had intuitively grasped one of the fundamental principles of the discipline: What we think of, as reality is only a rendition of reality that is created by the brain. Our modern understanding of the brain’s perceptual powers bears him out. Nothing enters consciousness whole. There is no direct, objective experience of reality. All the things the mind perceives—all thoughts, feelings, hunches, memories, insights, desires, and revelations—have been assembled piece by piece by the processing powers of the brain from the swirl of neural blimps. The idea that our experiences of reality—all our experiences, for that matter—are only “secondhand” depictions of what may or may not be objectively real, raises some profound questions about the most basic truths of human existence and the neurological nature of spiritual experience. For example our experiment with Tibetan mediators and Franciscan nuns showed that the events they considered spiritual were, in fact, associated with observable neurological activity. In a reductionist sense this could support the argument that religious experience is only imagined neurologically, that God is physically ‘all in your mind.’ But a full understanding of the way in which the brain and the mind assemble and experience reality suggests a very different view.(ibid.34)

The atheist pile of facts is high selective and dishonestly arranged to screen out facts that count against it.  There's a huge fortress of pr God facts that make up the God arguments on my list, but of course when it comes to those  "you don't understand scinece." In other words, in their science means atheism. Here are links to some arguments:

The M Scale and the Universal Nature of Mysticism

Empirical Evidence of Supernatural

Part 2 next Monday.

More of what atheist do when It's obvious they can't beat a God argument

 Over the last month I've been putting up God arguemnts every day or so and arguing for them. I put up five. They were answered badly. As usual the atheist just let them drift off then pretend like they really kicked ass on them. This time I made a post looking back over them and arguing that they didn't answer them:


 This is the old routine. It's what atheist count on. the thread goes away and they pretend it never happened. I just got through discussing a bunch of arguemnts and none of them were disproved and they each one accomplished two things:

(1) demonstrated that there's valid rational reasons to believe

(2) they correlate with the atheist retrenchment into theory and hypothetical data rather than empirical data.

the atheist says "we may not have empirical data for multiverses but the mathematical theories make up for that." But we can match that with the logic of God arguments. Half my arguments are empirical.

here are the arguments the one pointed needed to beat each one.



(1) God is the basis of reality: the idealist argument (aka Berkeley arguemnt)



*To beat this argument one would have to be able to prove that:

(a) no mind behind universe--or that it's not needed

(b) that mental medium for reality is merely surface level

(c) show how time could emerge from non time without rules change.



(2) empirical miracles



*disprove Lourdes and Casdrough miracles


(3) epistemic judgement argument



*Disprove the criteria of epistemic judgement and no one came close


(4) God on the Brain



*have to prove that innate ideas are possible, nowhere near close


(5) primary Cosmological Status




*have to prove what caused BB expansion-- show that it's possible for naturalistic means to have infinite causal regression.


the upshot is we have a huge number of reason to believe in God and no logical basis for the claims that there are no reasons.

they went nuts on this. It's apparent that it does stick in their crows that they can't answer the arguments.


 America:

 Your manner (and not your arguments) causes your posts to be ignored, Metacrock.

 We had this really stupid exchange where they were saying my ideas are incomprehensible. No one can understand them. Then I said what are all those response about why do you try arguing with the arguemnts? HRG tried to argue I said "wow that's really amazing becuase it sounds just like you know what I'm saying." I made fun of America saying "what? I can't understand you. your words are incomprehensible." at one point he says "it's because you are so rude." I said how do you know that if what I say is incomprehensible? When he tried ot respond I said "what? is Timmy hurt? find Timmy, take us to Timmy."

We got other responses.

Originally Posted by Darth Pringle

 this is about the epistemic judgement argment

 

Meta, that is a personal attack on frikki (ad hominem) with this particular type being a motive fallacy.

Meta;

I don't think anyone who refuses to read the evidence can claim they care about truth. Every atheist here has refused to read the evince on several issues. With Tillich I put the paper I wrote on the board no one would read it. then 5 years no one has read a single study of the 200. So when you guys do that I'll admit you might care for truth.

Darth P.

Would they? So why is no-one holding a Nobel Prize for having proved God from these studies?

 

 

 Meta:

How many times have I answered that? about every single time you have intoned that mantra. yet I know you can't remember even a sentence of my answer.

The answer is that they studies don't claim to prove the existence of God, that's not what they are about. As Ralph Hood says he considers that to be beyond the domain of science. No reaosn why I can't extrapolate form what the studies show to the understanding of God's existence based upon what the data suggests. It's stupid to think they would give a Nobel prize for proving the existence of God.



Darth P

It is simply factually incorrect to say that anyone would find these compelling.

 Meta
He means the 200 studies.
that's absolute nonsense and you know it. 200 studies. come off it1 that's a huge body of work over 50 years! totally absurd. it only took 3 studies to get air bags approved.

Darth p

And that's an unsupported appeal to popularity (when did more people believing something mean that what they believe is more likely to be true?)

Meta

wrong-0 old sport! see you don't even understand the basic concept of the arrangement how can you claim you answered it. O yea you are so deeply concerned about truth you can't even follow what the argument says!

it doesn't say the criteria is what the majority think it' says this is THE WAY WE AS A SPECIES UNDERSTAND REALITY. It's universal.

no one thinks that "did you see that" is just an appeal to popularity.


Darth P

And we don't when some experiences that are known to be inaccurate fit the same criteria. 

 

 Meta

that's a meaningless statement. the whole concept is that we don't have the facts behind the appearance we have to make a judgement. We all use the same criteria to make the judgment. you can't prove we don't. I have proved we do.


 Originally Posted by Deist

These ALLEGED 200 were reviewed by someone a year or so back, and found to be severely lacking, and NOT saying that there was a god behind the self reported experiences of the humans.

Meta
none of them were ever reviewed by anyone. that girl claimed to have read one but when I forced her to give me the URL turns out it was the article by the auhro not the study I have pointed this out over and over again. it was the article not the study.she didn't read the study. I know form the URL. no methodology no abstract, no findings.

I know the URL she got it form me. Backup bought a study that examined a study that was on the 200 both of those supported the M scale. Royce read Spanos and Moreti but he didn't understand it because he trued to use it against Hood and it says point blank "we agree with Hood's findings."

you have demonstrated over again that you don't have the facts.

Deist

At best, they showed again what I've been saying all along, which is that these humans BELIEVED that "something" was behind their SELF REPORTED and ALLEGED experiences and they call that something "god" in the language of their country. It's almost like Meta thinks someone in Africa or Australia never heard of God and since these ANONYMOUS individuals (who can't be cross examined) all report similar experiences and they contend they came from"god" that God is universal, and they, therefore have to right. 

 

 Meta

since you have not read even one you don't know. that's not what they say. not one of them says that. they all say in the findings that RE is good> isn't not mental illness 'ts not stupid it is soemthing real. They show regular constant and shared just like my criteria and they show good effects, which fits my argument.

I'VE POINTED THIS OUT OVER AND OVER AGAIN. EVERY TIME YOU MAKE ONE OF THES LITTLE DIATRIBES i'VE POINTED THIS OUT, YOU NEVER ANSWER IT.


Diest

For all we know, the SELF REPORTED "god" could be a three headed Leprechaun for some but they contend their ALLEGED experience came from whatever concept they have of god. IOW, they had a BELIEF.

Meta
that's unimportant. if you want to think God a 3 headed leprechaun so what? how dose that free you from his judgment? you are speaking as though God is real not just an idea in the mind I assume you believe that he does exist you just hate him right?



Deist

Thus, these statements by unknown people who we cannot now question, are taken as gospel.

This is really crazy. he thinks at on all the corroborating validation studies where they did the study over again in another country, India, Japan, Iran, Sweden, USA, UK, that all these third world peasants who have never heard of W.T. Stace could lie their way to validating Stace's theory. Or that with 32 questions  in six different cultures and languages they would just accidentally all luck out and validate the theory by accident. That means people who knew nothing about Stace would have to lie about their experiences (for no reason) in just teh same way to produce the same results in six different countries. Think about Darth P above who said it's not impressive!


 Meta
what unknown people? this is make no sense at all. I've demonstrated statically now there no way they could lie their way to validating Stace. you remember? I did my own study and had you truly to lie your way to validating something and you couldn't. somehow you conveniently forgot that.

Do you mean the respondents are unknown why would you think that? why do we need to know them as long as the researchers know. You have no evidence that the researchers don't know them.





Deist

Even assuming they experienced "god", it was a generic feeling of wellness and nirvana and oneness. An airy fairy feeling that they BELIEVE cam from their particular god concept and in no way alludes to any ridiculous bible type god. 

 

Meta

no it was not wellness and nirvana even if it was that would still serve the argument.

 So pathetic. stupid as mud. he doesn't understand the most basic issues about belief in God. He's so intimated and in hate with the Bible that's all he can think about. Mystical experience is more than just loony tune niceness feelings. the results include getting offer heroin and alcohol and remission form cancer and getting your life on track, self actualization and they have to reduce it to "getting hjappy" so they can put it down. that's such a vast commitment to truth. they are so dedicated to finding that they have to lie and distort the data in order to cover up the fact that they lost.

Is Belief in God Magical Thinking?

On Huff post there is an article by Matthew Hutson, author of The Seven Laws of Magical Thinking. The article is called "All Paths Lead to Magical Thinking." (Posted: 09/19/2013 8:32 pm).

In recent years, psychologists have come to understand religion and paranormal belief as resulting, in most people, from simple errors in reasoning. You believe in God or astrology or a purpose in life because you apply ideas about people -- that they have thoughts and intentions -- to the natural world. Some display this tendency more than others, but it's there in everyone, even atheistic heathens like me. What has not been clarified is exactly how the various cognitive biases interact to produce specific ideas about the supernatural -- until now.

He presents a tour de force in the form of a bunch of studies that supposedly prove that religious belief is magical thinking. "In the November 2013 issue of Cognition, Aiyana Willard and Ara Norenzayan of the University of British Columbia report on the relative influence of three cognitive tendencies on three types of supernatural belief, as well as the role of cultural influence." This study supposedly shows that "cognitive biases explain religious belief."

 several studies show that people who think more intuitively are also more susceptible to magical thinking. One intuition that's been proposed as a foundation for religious thought is Cartesian mind-body dualism, the idea that a mind can exist independently of a body. (See chapter 5 of my book The 7 Laws of Magical Thinking, "The Soul Lives On.") This proposition allows for souls, ghosts, spirits, and gods, all made of disembodied mind-stuff. Explanations for dualism include belief in free will and the mutual inhibition of brain areas responsible for pondering feelings and physics.

Of cousre that doesn't say that any of these studies show that religious belief is magical thinking. Instead they present a possibility based upon the notion that more intuitive people are susceptible   to magical thinking. So that says "if you are not careful you  might do some magical thinking." Nor is a link provided between being more intuitive and religious belief. Although I would not doubt that believers are more intuitive, but the lack of prevision of that link is telling.

There just brings up a bait and switch that the Aiyana and Norenzayan study is pulling off. They discuss their methodology:

We used a path model to assess the extent to which several interacting cognitive tendencies, namely mentalizing, mind body dualism, teleological thinking, and anthropomorphism, as well as cultural exposure to religion, predict belief in God, paranormal beliefs and belief in life’s purpose. Our model, based on two independent samples (N = 492 and N = 920) found that the previously known relationship between mentalizing and belief is mediated by individual differences in dualism, and to a lesser extent by teleological thinking. Anthropomorphism was unrelated to religious belief, but was related to paranormal belief. Cultural exposure to religion (mostly Christianity) was negatively related to anthropomorphism, and was unrelated to any of the other cognitive tendencies. These patterns were robust for both men and women, and across at least two ethnic identifications. The data were most consistent with a path model suggesting that mentalizing comes first, which leads to dualism and teleology, which in turn lead to religious, paranormal, and life’s-purpose beliefs. Alternative theoretical models were tested but did not find empirical support.

Notice that anthropomorphism is not linked to religoius beilef but they are going to use it anyway because it's involved in belief. In fact all of these things are descriptions of various overlapping historical artifacts form religious thought because it goes back so far in human history. Most of them have not been disproved, none of them are magical thinking. What's the link bewteen teleology and magical thinking? Teleology means an end goal,  so religious thinking is teleological if and only if it assumes there's a creator who has a plan that's being fulfilled. Why is that in itself magical thinking? It's just logical if there is a creator. Has teleological thinking been proved to always be wrong? No, of course not and it's logical if there is a creator. So actually they are just begging the question. They are assuming there can't be a creator so therefore anything connected with belief must also be connected with magical thinking. This probably goes back to the biases of anti-clerical prejudice, that religion is superstition. So they start with the assumption religion beilef must be magical thinking because it's superstition, thus they just look for typical aspects of religious thought (many of which are connected to ancinet religious texts) and assume it's all magical thinking. No psychological link is provided that proves that teleological thinking is magical thinking.

When he says "several studies" he links back to his own website for the book 7 laws of magical thinking (he uses the number 7 rather than writing "seven"). So his article is just a rehash of his website. What are these studies what do they really show? Those are the ones that supposedly show that intuitive thinkers are apt to be suckers for magical thinking if they are not careful, but does it access the percentage of the time that they are not careful? Can't we still check the results by our own logic and empirical data?

One such satment in disclosing these "several studies:"

Psychologists who study the origins of religion say belief in God relies on several intuitions, including a teleological bias (the assumption that certain objects or event were designed intentionally) and Cartesian dualism (the belief that mind can exist independently of the body). So to become an atheist one must second-guess these automatic ways of thinking. And recently a number of studies have supported the idea that belief in God is influenced by cognitive style–how much of a second-guesser you are.

Why is teleology "intuitive" any more than it is logical? If God is what you believe in then is it not logical to assume God has a purpose in crating? it's not prove that necessarily intuitive. Not that they link intuitive thinking with magical thinking. His comment about Cartsteian thinking is ironic since major aspects of atheist thinking is also based upon Cartesian thinking. E.O. Wilson's world view is largley Cartesian and he produced evolutionary psychology which is important to atheist thinking.

One such  study: paper published last year in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: General by Amitai Shenhav studuents took cognitive reflection test and answered questions. This is so telling he says "The number of intuitive (incorrect) responses they gave on the CRT was correlated with their belief in God and immortal souls," so in other words intuitive means "wrong." How could one possibly study the validity of intuitive thinking when one defines it as "wrong form the outset? Moreover, they are judging it wrong because it's connected to God, is that not also what makes it "intuitive?" They are just running around in circles demanding that what they believe has to be true and using their baises as the basis for proof. When we look at the actual tests on the study (see link above) we find that the real way they administer it (reported badly by Hustson) was to compare math answers arrived at intuitively with the persons individual belief in God. They compared believers answers to non believers answers. We are infer that the believers missed more. Actually that would mean that intuitive thinking does not correlate to belief in God and that the better intuitive thinking is done by non believers. Why? Because they got more math problems right by intuitive means. That would destroy their link from intuitive thinking to magical thinking. Wouldn't it also matter what one used intuitive sense for? Perhaps intuitive sense is better at God finding than at mathematics. What if that's what it was made for? Massimp Pigliucci sights research and argues that intuition is domaion specific. Some things lend themselves to it and some don't. [1]  

Moreover, both studies demonstrated that intuitive CRT responses predicted the degree to which individuals reported having strengthened their belief in God since childhood, but not their familial religiosity during childhood, suggesting a causal relationship between cognitive style and change in belief over time. Study 3 revealed such a causal relationship over the short term: Experimentally inducing a mindset that favors intuition over reflection increases self-reported belief in God. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)[2]

So in other words because they have some evidence that initiative thinking is part of the stronger religious belief that means that religious belief is produced by intuitive thinking which is mostly wrong and is magical thinking. There are a number of things wrong with that methodology. That's not the same as proving that religion itself is derived from intuitive thinking. That is not even investigating the logic that goes into it. Nor does it investigate the right answers in one's personal life that lead to believe, they don't even offer a theological measuring devices for such answers. Putting up a bunch of math problems is not valid. People don't arrive at belief by just saying "I sense that God is really there." There is a sense of God's presence that people  have and they are totally confusing that sense with 'intuitive' thinking,' they don't have it they don't know how it feels or works so they assume it's "intuitive." Moreover, the term "intuitive" can refer to different things. There's no link that the kind of intuitive thinking (guessing) about the math is the same kind done by religious thinkers.


 There's an article in N.Y. Times that illustrates scientific work depending upon and being  conformed by intuitive thinking. The article is a chapter form a book by Philip Lieberman, Eve Spoke, Human Language and Human Evolution.[3]  The book is based upon scholarly work.

Over the past thirty years my colleagues and I have studied monkeys, chimpanzees, infants, children, normal adults, dyslexic adults, elderly people, and patients suffering from Parkinson's disease and other types of brain damage. We have also examined the skulls of our fossil ancestors, comparing them with those of newborn infants and apes. The focus of these studies has been the puzzle surrounding human evolution. Why are we so different from other animals, although we are at the same time so similar?...In some deep, unconscious way we "know" that dogs, cats, chimpanzees, and other intelligent animals would be human if they could only talk. Intuitively we know that talking = thinking = being human. The studies discussed below show that this intuition is correct.

 This may upset young earth creationists, which I don't  mind doing, but it doesn't disrupt my Christian faith because I don't see evolution as a disruption. Nor does it disprove the existence of the soul because that depends upon answering the question "why is it we did evolve to talk and other animals did not? There are two points that refute Hutson's ideas: (1) not only does religious belief depend upon intuitive thinking of a kind (at certain points) but so does scinece as well. (2) this scientist thinks that the intuitive thinking is proved correct by the scinece. So intuitive thinking is not always wrong. Some studies backing this up have shown that the correct results of intuitive thinking, while not better than other forms of knowing, are not worse.[4]

 U.S. Navy reserach has yielded so much scientific data backing the notion that there is an intuitive sense that aids troops in battle that they started a program to teach troops how to be more intuitive.

 Research in human pattern recognition and decision-making suggest that there is a "sixth sense" through which humans can detect and act on unique patterns without consciously and intentionally analyzing them. Evidence is accumulating that this capability, known as intuition or intuitive decision making, enables the rapid detection of patterns in ambiguous, uncertain and time restricted information contexts, that it informs the decision making process and, most importantly, that it may not require domain expertise to be effective. These properties make intuition a strong candidate for further exploration as the basis for developing a new set of decision support training technologies.[5]

 Ivy Estabrook, program manager at the office of Naval Resarch, says, "There is a growing body of anecdotal evidence, combined with solid research efforts, that suggests intuition is a critical aspect of how we humans interact with our environment and how, ultimately, we make many of our decisions."[6]

 Published in Popular source Sarah Moore form Alberta School of Business and colleagues from Duke and Cornell have produced research that proves that the first choice one makes is often the right choice. [7] That certainly implies an intuitive choice. While Trisha Greenhalgh discusses research that shows that intution is a valuable aid in medical diagnosis and that it improves with critical thinking about the process.

Intuition is not unscientific. It is a highly creative process, fundamental to hypothesis generation in science. The experienced practitioner should generate and follow clinical hunches as well as (not instead of applying the deductive principles of evidence-based medicine. The educational research literature suggests that we can improve our intuitive powers through systematic critical reflection about intuitive judgements--for example, through creative writing and dialogue with professional colleagues. It is time to revive and celebrate clinical storytelling as a method for professional education and development.[8]

 Not only is it not unscientific, not only can it assist in medical care, but it there's a large body of literature that shows it can be improved. How can it be improved (meaning the answers are right) if it's no good and it never works and it's just magical thinking?


Summary

(1) None of the studies demonstrate a real link between intuitive thinking and religious belief. They make an unsupported assertion that teleology and other quasi religious ideas are intuitive thinking. The closest thing to a link is one study that shows that believe was strengthened apart form family tie, but that does rule out logic, empirical data, discussions with friends and individual thought.

(2) The studies that claim to link religious belief with magical thinking are doing a bait and switch whereby the substitute intuitive thinking. They don't bother to consider the venue or the domain but merely assume that if intuitive thinking is wrong for math then it must be wrong for all things. They assume intuitive = magical, probably because they think belief in God is magic or supernatural is magic. Then they assert that since intuitive thinking doesn't work in one domain it work in any domain. Since that tag that as religious thinking then religious thinking is wrong. They actually prove nothing at accept that they are biased against religion.

(3) A vast body of scientific research disproves the idea that intuition is always wrong and doesn't work. It's not only backed by science it's part of science. I give examples of scientific work that is based upon intuitive thinking. It's not more special and unique to religious thought than is logic. Nor is it always wrong. The scientific reserach shows it has it's place where it's right, that including not only some scientific work but also medicine.


sources


[1]Massimo Pigliucci, Answers for Aristotle: How Science and Philosophy Can Lead Us to A More Meaningful Life , New York: Basic books, 2012.

Massimo Pigliucci (Italian pronunciation: [ˈmassimo piʎˈʎuttʃi]; born January 16, 1964) is the chair of the Department of Philosophy at CUNY-Lehman College.^[1] He is also the editor in chief for the journal Philosophy & Theory in Biology.^[2] He is an outspoken critic of creationism and advocate of science education.

[2] Shenhav, Amitai; Rand, David G.; Greene, Joshua D. "Divine intuition: Cognitive style influences belief in God." abstract on line: Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, Vol 141(3), (Aug 2012), 423-428 abstract on Apa Psychnet http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/xge/141/3/423/  accessed 10/2/13.
[3] Philip Lieberman, "The Mice Talked at Midnight," except from Eve Spoke: Human Language and Human Evolution, New York: W.W. Norton, published in New York Times, on line http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/l/lieberman-eve.html  accessed 10/2/13
[4]AJ Giannini, ME Barringer, MC Giannini, RH Loiselle. Lack of relationship between handedness and intuitive and intellectual (rationalistic) modes of information processing. Journal of General Psychology. 111:31-37 1984.
[5] Office of naval research Basic Research Challenge: Enhancing intuitive deicsion making.

Solicitation Number: 12-SN-0007

Agency: Department of the Navy
Office: Office of Naval Research
Location: ONR

  https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&tab=core&id=be0a1ab47e05fe0f9c2bd0ffd5e40b1a&_cview=1
 accessed 10/2/13.
[6] Ivy Estabrook, uoted in Channing Joseph, "U.S. Program to Study How Troops Use Intuition," New York Times, Wednesday (Oct 2, 2013) story filed March 27, 2012, 5:09 pm on line
 http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/27/navy-program-to-study-how-troops-use-intuition/?_r=0
 accessed 10/2/13.
[7]Leon Watson ."why we are right to trust out gut intincts:Scientists discover First Decision is the Right One." Mail online updated 30 (August 2011)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2031848/Why-right-trust-gut-instincts-Scientists-discover-decision-IS-right-one.html accessed 10/2/13
[8]Trisha Greenhalgh, "Intution and Evidence--Uneasy Bedfellows?" BJGP:British Journal of General Practice. 52, (478) May (2002) 395-400. On line article http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1314297/  accessed 10/2/13.

Imposing Our Values Upon God and Science

 
Lee D. Ross, Stanford Psychology Dept.



Two studies seem to suggest that Christians project their own social values onto God. Nicholas Epley fins that:

People often reason egocentrically about others’ beliefs, using

their own beliefs as an inductive guide. Correlational, experimen-

tal, and neuroimaging evidence suggests that people may be even

more egocentric when reasoning about a religious agent’s beliefs

(e.g., God). In both nationally representative and more local sam-

ples, people’s own beliefs on important social and ethical issues

wereconsistentlycorrelatedmorestronglywithestimatesofGod’s

beliefs than with estimates of other people’s beliefs (Studies 1–4).

Manipulating people’s beliefs similarly influenced estimates of

God’s beliefs but did not as consistently influence estimates of

other people’s beliefs (Studies 5 and 6). A final neuroimaging study

demonstrated a clear convergence in neural activity when reason-

ing about one’s own beliefs and God’s beliefs, but clear diver-

gences when reasoning about another person’s beliefs (Study 7).

In particular, reasoning about God’s beliefs activated areas asso-

ciated with self-referential thinking more so than did reasoning

about another person’s beliefs. Believers commonly use inferences

about God’s beliefs as a moral compass, but that compass appears

especially dependent on one’s own existing beliefs.[1]

 The other is by Lee D. Ross

The present study explores the dramatic projection of one’s own views onto those of Jesus among conservative and liberal American Christians. In a large-scale survey, the relevant views that each group attributed to a contemporary Jesus differed almost as much as their own views. Despite such dissonance-reducing projection, however, conservatives acknowledged the relevant discrepancy with regard to “fellowship” issues (e.g., taxation to reduce economic inequality and treatment of immigrants) and liberals acknowledged the relevant discrepancy with regard to “morality” issues (e.g., abortion and gay marriage). However, conservatives also claimed that a contemporary Jesus would be even more conservative than themselves on the former issues whereas liberals claimed that Jesus would be even more liberal than themselves on the latter issues. Further reducing potential dissonance, liberal and conservative Christians differed markedly in the types of issues they claimed to be more central to their faith. A concluding discussion considers the relationship between individual motivational processes and more social processes that may underlie the present findings, as well as implications for contemporary social and political conflict. [2]

This has led some atheists on message boards to advance these studies as proof of the illogical nature of Christianity. It reinforces the atheist's idea that if God did exist it would be impossible to understand what he wants. "So why should atheists (or anyone, for that matter) take theists seriously when theists talk about what God is like, what God wants, what God commands, etc., if theist's are just unconsciously using God as a sound-board for their own positions?."[3]


These studies are put over as a disproof of the veracity of Christian thought, but in reality they are nothing of the kind. They are actually making good points (not that I have evaluated their validity as studies). These are not points that undo the validity of Christian belief, far from it, they are points I've thought about deeply since the Reagan era. I think these are things God wants us to think about. We should understand that we have a tendency to project our social projects and our prejudices and our cultural constructs on to God. We should ask "how can we know the difference?" The problem is the atheists make assumptions about the ultimate inability to know God, from a position of unbelief. Thus they sometimes blind themselves to the prospect that we can know God. We can understand the distinction between our own ideas and what God wants. We can know God and we can Know what God wants. Before going into that I want to make another argument: it doesn't invalidate Christianity in any way becuase it's certainly not unique to Christianity. It's very much in line with the sort of thing that marks humans as human. In every walk of life, in all politics, atheist are no exception, it's an occupational hazard of being human.

The second researcher mentioned above, Lee Ross,  has another study that was conviently over looked. That study says that Objectivity is not a human characteristic and we all project our things onto others no matter who we are or what our world view.

Important asymmetries between self-perception and social perception arise from the simple fact that other people’s actions, judgments, and priorities sometimes differ from one’s own. This leads people not only to make more dispositional inferences about others than about themselves (E. E. Jones & R. E. Nisbett, 1972) but also to see others as more susceptible to a host of cognitive and motivational biases. Although this blind spot regarding one’s own biases may serve familiar self-enhancement motives, it is also a

product of the phenomenological stance of naive realism.It is exacerbated, furthermore, by people’s tendency to attach greater credence to their own introspections about potential influences on judgment and behavior than they attach to similar introspections by others. The authors review evidence, new and old, of this asymmetry and its underlying causes and discuss its relation to other psychological phenomena and to interpersonal and intergroup conflict.[4]

The Ross article quotes, right after the abstract:

And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye but

considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

—Matthew 7:3 (King James Version)

The atheist stock in trade is objectivity. They like to employ the fortress of facts idea that they have the big pile of facts and objective thinking and religion is just subjective nonsense with no facts behind it. In fact, humans research according to their biases and objectivity is an illusion. The same criticisms being made of Christianity can also be made of atheism or any other "ism" or any other view point. In fact while this is put over as the triumph of scinece over Christianity it's actually good example of atheists imposing their own views upon scinece. Those who evoke these first two studies without being aware of Ross's second study are merely employing the fortress of facts strategy. Rather than seeking to ask himself "are we doing this ourselves" they are content to assume it's only Christians and thus fall prey to the same idea.

The more insightful theological types are very aware of the metaphorical and analogical nature of all religious language. God is beyond our understanding. We can't discuss directly what we get from religious experience because we get it at a subliminal level. We can only relate to it and discuss it when we filter it through cultural constructs. That's what give each tradition it's won unique character.

It's not less true of secular philosophy or ethics. We are imposing culturally constructed values on scinece. The book Leviathan and the Air Pump by Shapin and Shaffer proved this is the case in the making of modern scinece. All the brave talk about "objectivity" is just so much crap. we are not objective. Look at how afraid the atheists have been to read my studies. not one study have their read. they refused to look at Hood's chapter (Put it up 147 times 2 people looked at it one of them admitted he didn't understand it and the other claimed she did but she didn't). Objectivity on the part of humans is a joke and a propaganda device. Shapin and Shaffer prove that science is based upon political space.

Ross writes:

This familiar biblical quotation describes an age-old double

standard in the way people perceive themselves versus their peers.

We suspect that people not only are subject to this double standard

but also are inclined to believe that their peers are more subject to

it than they are themselves. In the present article, we argue that

people readily detect or infer a wide variety of biases in others

while denying such biases in themselves. We place this argument

in the larger context of theory and research on the relationship

between self-perception and social perception. In particular, the

ideas we advance can be seen as an extension of Jones and

Nisbett’s (1972) conceptual analysis of divergent actor– observer

attributions, with the focus of our analysis shifting from judgments

about traits to judgments about biase. [5]

Of course we as Christians We should be not only self aware but also self critical. We should have the guts and honesty to be brutal enough with ourselves to say "is this really what god wants or is it just me?" How do we know what God wants? Of cousre there is no magic assurance that we get it right. That's the whole point of  Grace. We seek to please God in our hearts and whatever is in the gap or the short coming is covered by God's grace. There's no great mystery about how to know God's will.We have to learn the teachings of Jesus and keep to understand them in terms of general principles then apply those principles to our own context, heuristically, culturally, personally. Where that becomes hard is where it gets int the way of our personal expectations and biases. It's not prejudice that stands in the way of following God but our expectations, what we personally want the way we have it all "cracked up." That's where applying the principles becomes difficult. James 4:3 tells us: "When you ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, that you may spend what you get on your pleasures." As the quote above reveals we need to put ourselves in the other guys shoes more often.

The only real "cure" requires diligence and strength but it is to spend time in prayer. The time we spend with God, imbibing of the divine presence and learning to know what is really God from what we want is the difference between maturity and immaturity.



 Soruces

[1]Nicholas Epley, et al, "Believer's estimates of God's beliefs are more egocentric than estimates of other people's beliefs." PDF
http://www.uvm.edu/~pdodds/files/papers/others/everything/epley2009a.pdf
accessed 9/9/13
[2]Lee D. Ross, et al, "How Christians Reconcile thier Personal Political Views and Teachings of their faith: Projection as a means of dissonance of Reduction." PDF, Department of Pschology Standford University.
http://ylelkes.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/PNAS-2012-Ross-3616-22.pdf
accessed 9/9/13
[3] A poster on a message board.
http://forums.carm.org/vbb/showthread.php?160243-Theists-Project-Onto-God accessed 9/9/13
[4] Lee D. Ross, Thomas Gilvoich. "Objetivity is in the Eye of the Beholder: Divergent Perceptions of Bias In Self Verus Others. " PDF http://psych.princeton.edu/psychology/research/pronin/pubs/Pronin%20Gilovich%20Ross.pdf  accessed 9/9/13.
Thomas Gilvoich is at Cornell University.
[5] Ibid.

My Answer to Austin Cline: Kind God Makes You Kind

 
 Dancing over the hill with death from Bergman's Seventh Seal



On the CADRE blog to today BK argues with atheist pundit Austin Cline who says that cruel people choose a cruel God. He's quoting Bertrand Russell. BK says:

If I understand this argument (which isn’t really so much an argument as an assertion), Cline believes that non-belief in God allows the Atheist to be kind. Yet, his paragraph on kindness does not really support this idea. He apparently agrees with Bertrand Russell’s statement (which I believe to be nonsense) that, “Men tend to have the beliefs that suit their passions. Cruel men believe in a cruel god and use their belief to excuse cruelty. Only kindly men believe in a kindly god, and they would be kindly in any case.”(CADRE comments, "Does Atheism Promote Kindness?" June 19th, 2013).

I basically agree with you BK but there are a couple of things I want to add.

The statement by Russell was not original.When I was at Agape Force in the East Texas Branch (their golden age: Keith Green and Second chapter of Acts lived next door) they had us read an old 19th book by some evangelist, can't remember the name, called "Philosophy of the Plan of Salvation." He argued the very same thing. He was saying that pagan religions do this. That's why violent people like the Thugees had Kali goddess of evil as their goddess. That's really a misunderstanding of Kali and of Indian culture.

In any case I don't think that atheism frees one to be kind, but makes it "cool" to be cruel. Look at the rationalizations for using mockery and ridicule--we have to stop stupid ideas so it's ok to hurt people because its so important they emulate our brilliant ideas. Atheist guru Keith Parsons say:

I am. I ain’t a Christian. I don’t turn the other cheek or love my enemies or pray for those that say mean things about atheists.

What justifies ridicule? The ridiculous deserves to be ridiculed. Well, we should spare the innocent ridiculousness of those who cannot help it–the genuinely, pathetically dimwitted or uneducated. But pernicious, aggressive ridiculousness by smart, educated people who are attempting to foist their ridiculousness on the rest of us–that richly deserves ridicule. Those who attempt to use the power of the state to cram their fatuous, hateful ideology down the throats of everyone else–by having creationism taught in the public schools, say–are contemptible and fully deserving of contemptuous laughter. I heard Lewis Black do a terrific rant on creationism. Priceless.

Ah, yes the soul of kindness.

We need to use empirical study to compare populations. Cline's statement, no surprise, is anecdotal. The empirical facts show that religious people are much less likely to depressed or mentally ill. Of those religious people who are depressed or mentally ill or have low self esteem it's more likely to be those with a  negative God image.

It is true that Christians can have a negative view of God. A huge body of empirical study shows that those who do have low self esteem. That is not limited to atheists but is true of atheists as well.

I notice that atheists are quite likely to mock the idea of "happiness" when they attack the religious experience studies. As though happiness is just nothing at all we don't even need it. Then we find Cline using it as an inducement to become an atheist. You will be happier, of course if Christianity makes you happier then happiness is something we don't need. The empirical facts are that studies show religion makes one happier, like it or not.

Kind God Makes you Kind

Those have religious experiences, especially those labeled "mystical" tend to be more socially conscious and kinder than those who don't have such experiences.

State of Unitive Consciousness http://csp.org/experience/docs/unitive_consciousness.html

"Furthermore, Greeley found no evidence to support the orthodox belief that frequent mystic experiences or psychic experiences stem from deprivation or psychopathology. His ''mystics'' were generally better educated, more successful economically, and less racist, and they were rated substantially happier on measures of psychological well-being. "

A major aspect of mystical experience is an overwhelming all pervasive sense of love and being loved. We should take this as the sense of God's love, thus loving God makes you kind.


Religion and Happiness

by Michael E. Nielsen, PhD

Many people expect religion to bring them happiness. Does this actually seem to be the case? Are religious people happier than nonreligious people? And if so, why might this be?

Researchers have been intrigued by such questions. Most studies have simply asked people how happy they are, although studies also may use scales that try to measure happiness more subtly than that. In general, researchers who have a large sample of people in their study tend to limit their measurement of happiness to just one or two questions, and researchers who have fewer numbers of people use several items or scales to measure happiness.

What do they find? In a nutshell, they find that people who are involved in religion also report greater levels of happiness than do those who are not religious. For example, one study involved over 160,000 people in Europe. Among weekly churchgoers, 85% reported being "very satisfied" with life, but this number reduced to 77% among those who never went to church (Inglehart, 1990). This kind of pattern is typical -- religious involvement is associated with modest increases in happiness

Religion is the most powerful Factor in well being.

Poloma and Pendelton The Faith Factor: An Annotated Bibliography of Systematic Reviews And Clinical Research on Spiritual Subjects Vol. II, David B. Larson M.D., Natiional Institute for Health Research Dec. 1993, p. 3290.

Quote:

"The authors found that religious satisfaction was the most powerful predictor of existential well being. The degree to which an individual felt close to God was the most important factor in terms of existential well-being. While frequency of prayer contributed to general life satisfaction and personal happiness. As a result of their study the authors concluded that it would be important to look at a combination of religious items, including prayer, relationship with God, and other measures of religious experience to begin to adequately clarify the associations of religious commitment with general well-being."

Recent Empirical Studies Prove Religious Believers have less depression, mental illness lower Divorce rate, ect.

J. Gartner, D.B. Allen, The Faith Factor: An Annotated Bibliography of Systematic Reviews And Clinical Research on Spiritual Subjects Vol. II, David B. Larson M.D., National Institute for Health Research Dec. 1993, p. 3090

Quote:

"The Reviews identified 10 areas of clinical status in which research has demonstrated benefits of religious commitment: (1) Depression, (2) Suicide, (3) Delinquency, (4) Mortality, (5) Alcohol use (6) Drug use, (7) Well-being, (8) Divorce and marital satisfaction, (9) Physical Health Status, and (10) Mental health outcome studies....The authors underscored the need for additional longitudinal studies featuring health outcomes. Although there were few, such studies tended to show mental health benefit. Similarly, in the case of teh few longevity or mortality outcome studies, the benefit was in favor of those who attended chruch...at least 70% of the time, increased religious commitment was associated with improved coping and protection from problems."

[The authors conducted a literature search of over 2000 publications to glean the current state of empirical study data in areas of Spirituality and health]

2) Shrinks assume religious experience Normative.
Dr. Jorge W.F. Amaro, Ph.D., Head psychology dept. Sao Paulo

[ http://www.psywww.com/psyrelig/amaro.html]

a) Unbeliever is the Sick Soul

"A non spiritualized person is a sick person, even if she doesn't show any symptom described by traditional medicine. The supernatural and the sacredness result from an elaboration on the function of omnipotence by the mind and can be found both in atheist and religious people. It is an existential function in humankind and the uses each one makes of it will be the measure for one's understanding."

b. psychotheraputic discipline re-evalutes Frued's criticism of religion

Quote:

Amaro--

"Nowadays there are many who do not agree with the notion that religious behavior a priori implies a neurotic state to be decoded and eliminated by analysis (exorcism). That reductionism based on the first works by Freud is currently under review. The psychotherapist should be limited to observing the uses their clients make of the representations of the image of God in their subjective world, that is, the uses of the function of omnipotence. Among the several authors that subscribe to this position are Odilon de Mello Franco (12), .... W. R. Bion (2), one of the most notable contemporary psychoanalysts, ..."

[sources sited by Amaro BION, W. R. Atenção e interpretação (Attention and interpretation). Rio de Janeiro: Imago, 1973.

MELLO FRANCO, O. de. Religious experience and psychoanalysis: from man-as-god to man-with-god. Int. J. of Psychoanalysis (1998) 79,]

c) This relationship is so strong it led to the creation of a whole discipline in psychology; transactionalism

Neilson on Maslow

Quote:

"One outgrowth of Maslow's work is what has become known as Transpersonal Psychology, in which the focus is on the spiritual well-being of individuals, and values are advocated steadfastly. Transpersonal psychologists seek to blend Eastern religion (Buddhism, Hinduism, etc.) or Western (Christian, Jewish or Moslem) mysticism with a form of modern psychology. Frequently, the transpersonal psychologist rejects psychology's adoption of various scientific methods used in the natural sciences."
"The influence of the transpersonal movement remains small, but there is evidence that it is growing. I suspect that most psychologists would agree with Maslow that much of psychology -- including the psychology of religion -- needs an improved theoretical foundation."