Comments on: Cognitive Neuroscience book reveals why humans believe in gods

By: jsmith

jsmith — Fri, 20 May 2011 18:05:28 +0000

if you analyse what knowing is or try to clarify what thought is…and its relationship to what appears to be an objectively viewed universe, it becomes apparent that scientific proof only correlates to an impression of the universe…an impression that it is easy to assume is the reality. its possible that consciousness is not limited to matter, since you only know that matter exists because you are conscious and all the scientific laws you are aware of are fabricated in your consciousness..or appear so. the reality is mysterious and to know it would involve not having preconceptions or placing human limits on an infinite reality of potentially unlimited awareness. the alternative is to worship the high priests of modern rationalism and assume they havent missed anything.

By: danielle

danielle — Thu, 19 May 2011 19:41:58 +0000

lol ok there is no god, everyone knows that.
NEXT.

By: smith

smith — Sun, 15 May 2011 14:22:17 +0000

Dear AllanW. Thankyou for the reply. Whatever you think will appear true, and you will select whatever evidence that suits your view. The words indeed don’t mean what I think they meant..concepts have their own existence and the words mean whatever you want them to. You could choose to take the concept of the truest, highest science (or religion or philosophy since they would become the same thing) seriously rather your interpretation of my interpretation of them and my lack of understanding. All statements can show the understanding or otherwise of the speaker but also of the listener. When a lack of understanding is evident, it is incumbent on a true scientist or philosopher to educate those percieved as ignorant of the truth..and to percieve the reality, so please correct my error.

By: AllanW

AllanW — Sat, 14 May 2011 20:26:15 +0000

Dear Smith,

Many of those words don’t mean what you think they mean. ‘True philosophy/religion is the highest science’; I think the only word in that phrase that can be taken seriously in any way is ‘the’. Every possible way of understanding the rest of those words and their combined meanings reveals your lack of understanding.

Regards

By: smith

smith — Sat, 14 May 2011 14:25:06 +0000

Re: the pro Dawkins thing- logic and rationality are constructs existing within consciousness. When scientists describe their view of reality or try to represent the universe with “laws” based on “observations” it is only going to come up with a narrow-band provisional set of rules that appear to be true. These rules may appear universal or rational, but they are actually an expression of how an ego thinks that it is aware of enough of the universe to generalise about it..and to prove its own relevance and therefore existence: ” I think I am Dawkins, therefore I am”. Infinity is always going to be unobservable, because it contains the observer and shis means of observing. True philosophy/religion is the highest science..devising unlimited awareness through identifying the nature of things

By: Gemma

Gemma — Fri, 13 May 2011 15:11:04 +0000

Wow, this guy sounds like a blast. I especially like the way he knows about all global politics and has managed to pin this all down to religion (just pick up a paper , he clearly knows how to find reliable sources) – he must be a very busy man!

In all seriousness, he seems a bit narrow minded and claiming that he knows that all religions are entirely harmful is pretty bold, possible naive, and at worst very offensive.

By: Don

Don — Thu, 12 May 2011 18:55:06 +0000

Berber Anna,

(how does one obtain a death experience, by the way — by interviewing a ghost?)

If you interview someone who has had a near-death experience they will say that they saw a bright light, had a sense of traveling down a tunnel, felt peaceful and met people who had been important in their personal lives and/or iconic figures from whatever religious culture they adhere to. Inexplicable, huh?

If you interview someone who has had a death experience, the most you will get from them is ‘Braaains’.

By: Don

Don — Thu, 12 May 2011 18:38:09 +0000

Bill,

What do you mean by exploring the physical evidence? Did you have access to these artifacts? Were you able to carry out tests? Are you claiming expertise?

By: Nicholas

Nicholas — Thu, 12 May 2011 16:12:36 +0000

Not sure about anyone else, but religious and non-religious are incredibly simplistic categories to work with fellow human beings.

It seems the whole world is engaged in this type of power struggle, to enforce one doctrine or another. I told my dad I was going to attend a Jehovah s witness meeting, I have never heard him speak with so much prejudice. I explained to the family I have no religious background and was interested.

They do a good job of making an effort once a week to review their life ethically.

Society would benefit from this sought of effort, however some ethical questions that Jesus hadn’t given direction caused discomfort.

Nice example: Jesus has “freedom of speech”, and so can you, if you have experience but not addiction to the behaviour upon which you offer advice

By: Berber Anna

Berber Anna — Thu, 12 May 2011 14:10:50 +0000

Bill: Interesting strawman argument. Where did it say that reading this book would make one an instant expert? Did one of those books on ‘near death and death experiences’ (how does one obtain a death experience, by the way — by interviewing a ghost?) make you an instant expert on the subject? I doubt it — no single book will do that.

The guy wrote a book on the insights cognitive neuroscience provides into the religious experience. Reading it would, thus, provide you with some knowledge of these insights. Reading the sources he doubtlessly used would probably provide you with even more knowledge, but that’s what popular science books are for — to condense dry research papers into an enjoyable read.

I really don’t see what all your research has to do with that fact.