Interesting study. The result will certainly be the same with the word God because the word God is just a word, a sound attributed with a meaning. It is a creation of the human brain. Let us say that God exists . . . whatever concept of God the mind forms is automatically false. Whatever is said about this God is ultimately false because the concept is established through a dualistic perception and God (the hypothetical possibility) could not be perceived from the outside since there can be no outside of the ultimate otherwise it is not the ultimate).
It will be the same result because God is just a word. Funny thing is, God isn’t the word that was used in the Torah, Gospels or Quran, yet Jews, Christians and Muslims all believe in God now and will cringe at “God is dead” but do the study with Chrsitians and say to them, “Allah is dead” and see how their brain responds. Or say “Eyahuwah is dead” to the Jew and see if they respond. They will not. They can only respond if the brain has attached its manufactured identity (the illusory self) to the word. If it has never heard the word and hasn’t attributed any meaning to the word then there is no way that it can possibly associate any emotion to the word. The word is then nothing more than a sound.
Of course Sam will get the results he is looking for. It’s obvious that the results in this study will be the same. One does not even need to do the study to know that it will turn out the way he expects. The problem is, drawing a false conclusion between that study and faith. Faith is a form of letting go, of trust. To take something on faith means to let go and stop trying to dictate and control and allow life to happen as it happens, to let the cards fall as they may. This is faith. Faith is not a belief, it is a dropping of belief and of thought and of the incessant need to control. That is where Sam is mistaken. He is attributing only one meaning to the word and the word has more than one meaning, depending upon how it is used.
Religious beliefs as faith can easily be rejected and proven to be nonsense. It doesn’t take a brain study to see that religious belief as faith is utter nonsense. Can religious belief exist without a projection of the mind into the past, which it did not actually experience and cannot possibly know? Is there a religion in the world that is not based upon events that occurred at least 100 years before the believer was born?
I just posted this in a thread on Richard Dawkins.Net
An open letter to Richard Dawkins and David Robertson.
Do you remember, back in the 80’s when people were talking excitedly about NLP - neuro-linguistic programming? The pseudo-science that claimed to be “an interpersonal communication model and an alternative approach to psychotherapy based on the subjective study of language, communication and personal change”?
Whatever the defects inherent in NLP, it did shed an interesting light on problems of communication.
I am thinking here about the (in)famous theory of “representational systems” - ( visual, auditory and kinesthetic) and its applications to marriage guidance counselling and sales techniques.
In the context of marital conflicts, an example often cited was that of the architect and the vet.
HE (the architect) complained that SHE (the vet) made life at home impossible for him by never putting things back in their place and being generally untidy and messy.
SHE complained that HE was obsessed with almost military orderliness and cleanliness, almost to the exclusion of personal comfort.
HE said he could never relax in a room that looked like the aftermath of a tropical storm, and SHE said she couldn’t relax in a room that looked as if nobody ever lived in it.
HE said, “I fail to see the problem with a tidy room.”
SHE said, “I need to feel as if the place is lived-in.”
HE said, “You need to take a good look at yourself.”
SHE said, “You can’t understand my feelings.”
THEY divorced.
Or at least they would have done, had not a Master Practitioner of NLP explained why they couldn’t communicate.
The architect’s representational system was predominantly visual, whereas his wife, the vet had an inner representation of external reality that was mostly kinaesthetic (feelings and sensations.)
This meant that not only were their requirements for comfort quite different, but also that their respective uses of language (as an expression of their lead representational system) did not allow them to communicate.
“You really can’t see what I’m trying to say, can you?” ( see = visual)
“That’s because you’re such a cold, unfeeling creep.” (cold, unfeeling = kinaesthetic)
They aren’t speaking the same language.
Their ideas are coming from different representational systems. Almost as if one were speaking Urdu and the other, Welsh.
It must now be clear to everybody that the same problem exists in almost all attempts at communication between atheists and believers, be they discussions, debates or slanging matches which degenerate into non-overlapping hysteria. (And let us not forget that all communication is motivated by the intention to modify ideas, attitudes or behaviour. Absolutely all.)
Yes, I know, it has often been said that theists and rationalists don’t use words in the same way. (And we no longer have A.J. Ayer to irritate us with his, “What do you mean by…?)
That is an important point, but to my mind, it is not the main point here.
It all comes down to feelings.
And what Steve Zara has called the “Wow!” feeling.
That sensation of intense satisfaction and exhilaration that is experienced when we gain some profound insight, when something suddenly “makes sense”, when we “see the light”.
When we seem to have a better grip on perceived reality. (And that’s something which the human brain is always trying to do. Evolution made it that way / God made it that way.)
The “Ah, yes!” sensation.
“Isn’t that wonderful!”
“Awesome!”
The sensation that so many if us regularly experience here on R.D. Net.
The sensation that others experience in religious assemblies, holy writings and through prayer and meditation.
Which brings me to my key point - what do you both have in common?
I’m going to have to guess here, but I know that you will correct me if I’m mistaken.
1. A love of truth.
2. The desire to make the world a happier place to live.
3. The desire to give life a “sense” - from external or internal sources.
4. A profound respect for living things in general and other human beings in particular.
5. A profound satisfaction from your chosen life-styles.
6. The desire to make accessible to others a source of meaning and satisfaction.
7. A love of art, literature and music.
8. A hatred of evil.
9. A revulsion for flying planes into skyscrapers and bombing abortion clinics.
The words I want to highlight here are “love”, “desire”, “happier”, “satisfaction” and “hatred.”
Feelings. Or more correctly, emotions.
We all have them.
Where they come from, how they are formed, are not questions that concern me here (though they are questions of concern.)
Somebody has said here, “Since when have feelings been considered as evidence?”
But that is the wrong question. (I have explained elsewhere that feelings play at least an equally important role in the way we live our lives, as evidence-based reality.)
For some, an unfolding religious experience will be as satisfactory as rational evidence. It will “deliver the goods” - whatever the required goods may be.
For others, rational enquiry, observation, reason and logic will be satisfying.
Somebody recently tried (unsuccessfully) to trip up Richard Dawkins with a stupid non-question : “But what is belief?”
I would have a.j.ayared straight back at her with, “What do you mean by “belief”.”
I believe in God.
Believe in yourself.
I believe in my mom.
I believe it will rain tomorrow.
I believe in life after death.
I believe you love me.
Take your pick.
Again, I’m not looking just for semantic analyses, but for the emotional charge behind that word when a given person uses it.
The neurosciences, and to a certain extent, quantum physics (which I don’t understand! Don’t shout at me!) have demonstrated quite clearly that we can no longer stay with the “I believe what I see” approach . “I see what I believe” is also very often the case.
But in either case, a feeling of personal satisfaction will determine our modus operandi in life.
C.S. Lewis was “surprised by joy”. Surprise? Joy? Both feelings.
Satisfying the appetite for wonder? Feelings again.
An interesting question would be, “What makes faith a satisfying experience for David, and what makes (the search for) scientific truth satisfying for Richard?”
I have no intention of trying to psycho-babble an answer to that one (my psychoanalyst would not approve.)
But it seems to me that atheists and believers are the opposite ends of a broken ring-shaped continuum, and what makes interbreeding (debate and exchange, communication) impossible is that there are too many memetic differences ( the memes in question being psycho-linguistic values, the mutations often being an adaptation to the social environment..)
You do not speak the same language Ensatina eschscholtzi : dark blotches or yellow eyes?
Herring gulls or black-backed gulls.?
Theists or atheists?
Many debates are useful, if not essential.
But flea-biting?
No, only incoherently, Richard. In your mad rush to say it all, you ended up saying precisely nothing. Care to have another go, only just a tad more deliberately?
Vovo Morgan - 28 February 2008 10:32 PM
Feelings. Or more correctly, emotions.
We all have them.
And?
Vovo Morgan - 28 February 2008 10:32 PM
I have no intention of trying to psycho-babble an answer to that one (my psychoanalyst would not approve.)
“No, only incoherently, Richard. In your mad rush to say it all, you ended up saying precisely nothing.”
Yes - I was afraid this might be the case, though elsewhere, some have appreciated my open later.
“Care to have another go, only just a tad more deliberately?”
Yes - I will try.
“Oh, get over yourself.” - I receive your comments with openness and humility. What a pity your are such a bitter, humourless person. I guess psycho-analysis didn’t work for you either.
I have no intention of trying to psycho-babble an answer to that one (my psychoanalyst would not approve.)
Let’s assume for a moment that your right hand really knows what your left hand is doing, Richard. Still, you managed to produce the following stream of nonsense:
Vovo Morgan - 28 February 2008 10:32 PM
The neurosciences, and to a certain extent, quantum physics (which I don’t understand! Don’t shout at me!) have demonstrated quite clearly that we can no longer stay with the “I believe what I see” approach . “I see what I believe” is also very often the case.
If you don’t understand quantum physics, you have no basis to assert your interpretations of it. In fact, quantum mechanics has no comment to make about the relationship between seeing and believing. So don’t try to psycho-babble your way into a discussion on neuroscience of belief underneath that sort of New Age crap, to shore up a feeble analysis concluding that the conflict between belief and evidence is nothing but a linguistic quibble. It’s much more than that.
Science is specifically interested in the identification and correction of errors in understanding the world.
Vovo Morgan - 28 February 2008 10:32 PM
Somebody has said here, “Since when have feelings been considered as evidence?”
But that is the wrong question. (I have explained elsewhere that feelings play at least an equally important role in the way we live our lives, as evidence-based reality.)
Tell you what, Richard. Let’s make it the right question. I don’t think your feelings about the question are at all relevant in this case. Your feelings about it cannot make the question disappear.
Vovo Morgan - 28 February 2008 10:32 PM
An interesting question would be, “What makes faith a satisfying experience for David, and what makes (the search for) scientific truth satisfying for Richard?”
Certainly one can make a case that someone “satisfied” with religious experience in cases where the evidence is lacking, or even contrary, is guided more by feelings than by facts. Scientists, when faced with a total lack of evidence, generally find it acceptable to say “We don’t know”. Believers, when faced with a total lack of evidence tend to say “God did it”, even when commenting about a state of the world.
How you feel about your beliefs has no relation to whether your beliefs are founded in reality. I just think you are being totally dishonest (not only with us, but with yourself) about the proportion of your life you live in evidence-based reason, and how much you depend in the rest on flights of religious fancy.
Vovo Morgan - 28 February 2008 10:32 PM
Their ideas are coming from different representational systems. Almost as if one were speaking Urdu and the other, Welsh.
And now, on top of your New Age misrepresentation of quantum mechanics, you want to show us that some of your ideas are cribbed from a most banal, doctrinaire sort of linguistic post-structuralism? In spite of the generous efforts of huge numbers of post-modernist hacks, the scientific conception of reality is still the order of the day, and you can’t make it go away by shutting your eyes and putting your fingers in your ears and yelling “La-la-la! I can’t hearrrrrrrrr you!”
Vovo Morgan - 28 February 2008 10:32 PM
Satisfying the appetite for wonder? Feelings again.
The sort of wonder scientists talk about is derived from contemplating the actual evidence.
Vovo Morgan - 28 February 2008 10:32 PM
It all comes down to feelings.
No, Richard, not all. Don’t overstate your case. Humorless drudges the likes of me are liable to make fun of you.
I accept nearly all of your criticisms.
Just a little worried when you take my suggestion: “I have explained elsewhere that feelings play at least an equally important role in the way we live our lives, as evidence-based reality.” and in your rebuttal you deform what I said so that evidence-based reality is no longer opposed to “feelings” but to “flights of religious fancy.” I sense this is a little dishonest.
As when you say “The sort of wonder scientists talk about is derived from contemplating the actual evidence” whereas I had quoted Dawkins’ words “the appetite for wonder.” For the rest, you are absolutely right.
“New Age”? You’re right. It is awful isn’t it.Sorry about that - I’m an old geezer and my language does sometimes resemble that New Age shit I wallowed in thirty years ago. I’ll try to have linguistic scrub-down before I post again. Perhaps it doesn’t show in my Open Letter but I am a convinced, died-in-the-wool atheist.
One last thing please : you accuse me of using ideas that are “are cribbed from a most banal, doctrinaire sort of linguistic post-structuralism”.
I’m sorry, but I don’t actually know what “linguistic post-structuralism” is.
Are you going to tell me, or am I going to have to Google for it?
And, yes, nearly all of my ideas are cribbed from somewhere.
Well, the good ones, at least.
Tell me, is it a deliberate stance on your part, or is it by inadvertence that you come across as very clever but thoroughly unpleasant?
[ Edited: 29 February 2008 12:23 PM by Vovo Morgan]
I accept nearly all of your criticisms.
Just a little worried when you take my suggestion: “I have explained elsewhere that feelings play at least an equally important role in the way we live our lives, as evidence-based reality.” and in your rebuttal you deform what I said so that evidence-based reality is no longer opposed to “feelings” but to “flights of religious fancy.” I sense this is a little dishonest.
As when you say “The sort of wonder scientists talk about is derived from contemplating the actual evidence” whereas I had quoted Dawkins’ words “the appetite for wonder.” For the rest, you are absolutely right.
“New Age”? You’re right. It is awful isn’t it.Sorry about that - I’m an old geezer and my language does sometimes resemble that New Age shit I wallowed in thirty years ago. I’ll try to have linguistic scrub-down before I post again. Perhaps it doesn’t show in my Open Letter but I am a convinced, died-in-the-wool atheist.
One last thing please : you accuse me of using ideas that are “are cribbed from a most banal, doctrinaire sort of linguistic post-structuralism”.
I’m sorry, but I don’t actually know what “linguistic post-structuralism” is.
Are you going to tell me, or am I going to have to Google for it?
And, yes, nearly all of my ideas are cribbed from somewhere.
Well, the good ones, at least.
Tell me, is it a deliberate stance on your part, or is it by inadvertence that you come across as very clever but thoroughly unpleasant?
Not to worry, Salt Creek dumps on just about everybody every chance he gets. It’s his only form of enjoyment. Well, not quite, but he is really committed to the most narrow scientistic view of the world and hates anything that threatens to go beyond that.
Thank you so much, Burt. I love truth and reason but I also like nice people. My son, who is more familiar with the Internet and fora etc than I am, has also explained to me that “anonymity plus audience equals ass-hole”. Guess I’m just going to have to get used to it.
Thank you again for having taken the time to leave me this message.
Well, not quite, but he is really committed to the most narrow scientistic view of the world and hates anything that threatens to go beyond that.
You might as well have said that to any critic of all this airhead “spirituality” that purports to disencumber itself of worldly “attachments” and spread nothing but love and goodness. Be honest: your idealism leans toward the stance that none of reality is actually “real”, and then falls flat on its face, repeatedly. You have lately treated us to another fine example of this sort of meandering drunkard’s walk in another thread, where you quote a character from J.K. Rowling as if Rowling’s market success is the measure of the profundity of one of her characters’ words. The quote you chose was nothing but a blatant tautology, and the implication is far from reflecting the airy “spirituality” of positions you typically take. Where you see profundity, I see confusion and incoherence.
No, I don’t hate it, really. I just like to maintain a polite (excuse the irony) refusal to become completely unmoored from reality, a state you seem unable to avoid from time to time, and which leads you to the kind of vacuous posturing we see from you here and elsewhere, all over this forum. You remind me of those bozos who drive around with bumper stickers saying “Not all those who wander are lost”.
Well, not quite, but he is really committed to the most narrow scientistic view of the world and hates anything that threatens to go beyond that.
You might as well have said that to any critic of all this airhead “spirituality” that purports to disencumber itself of worldly “attachments” and spread nothing but love and goodness. Be honest: your idealism leans toward the stance that none of reality is actually “real”, and then falls flat on its face, repeatedly. You have lately treated us to another fine example of this sort of meandering drunkard’s walk in another thread, where you quote a character from J.K. Rowling as if Rowling’s market success is the measure of the profundity of one of her characters’ words. The quote you chose was nothing but a blatant tautology, and the implication is far from reflecting the airy “spirituality” of positions you typically take. Where you see profundity, I see confusion and incoherence.
No, I don’t hate it, really. I just like to maintain a polite (excuse the irony) refusal to become completely unmoored from reality, a state you seem unable to avoid from time to time, and which leads you to the kind of vacuous posturing we see from you here and elsewhere, all over this forum. You remind me of those bozos who drive around with bumper stickers saying “Not all those who wander are lost”.
Just keep that nose to the grindstone Salty, the ear to the ground, and try to get along in that position. I quoted from J.K. Rowling because the quote was something worth thinking about and relevent. Even the most commercially exploitative hack (and I’m not saying that that is what Rowling is) can occasionally include a worthwhile sentence. Because you think of it as nothing but a meaningless tautology you cannot gain from contemplating it. Your loss, and indicative of your overall closed mindset. You certainly don’t seem to understand anything that I’ve ever posted. Again, your loss.
