Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
There's been quite a lot of research on this, yes. Here's a recent paper.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/03/170308131158.htm
Balancing Skepticism and Faith
- Thread starter attempt5001
- Start date
-
- Tags
- faith skepticism
There's been quite a lot of research on this, yes. Here's a recent paper.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/03/170308131158.htm
David Mo
Philosopher
As far as I know there are some articles on the relationship between epilepsy and religion. In general, they establish a relationship between these two concepts. Especially in the field of "religious experiences", associated with mysticism.
However, the term "religion" is quite broad and not all people feel religious in the same way. Not every believer is a mystic.
There are curious things, such as an article pointing out a minority (2%) who not only do not become more religious after suffering from epilepsy, but abandon religion.
Hi, thanks for the reply. If I were to adopt your level of touchy-feely PC standards I could easily consider your accusation that my post is a “clear example of an aggressive post” to itself be a clear example of an aggressive post. I don’t however, I take it to be perhaps a deliberate (and clever) passive-aggressive debating tactic that attempts to chastise the other party whilst giving yourself a moral high ground. This doesn’t upset me even slightly as this is after all an international, public debating forum in which people defend and challenge ideas and beliefs using all manner of debating tactics.
Oh no!, I used an exclamation point! Oh the humanity! Oh dear, I just used three exclamation points! (there’s another) How unnecessarily aggressive of me! (and another). Will this aggression never end? Won’t someone think of the poor children? Yes, I’m sarcastically taking the piss to make a point (did you get it), and I make no apology for doing so.
If you honestly think this post is a clear example of an aggressive post then I respectively suggest you should perhaps get out into the real world a bit more. In the meantime I won’t be allowing you to be the PC police of my posts. If you want to ignore and not respond to my posts then that’s your choice. Regardless, I will continue to read and respond to your posts as I find them to be refreshingly intelligent and honest, and I believe your explained purpose here is genuine.
Last edited:
Exactly!
To me and many (if not most) other atheists they are demonstrably the same, simply by the fact that there is no credible evidence that they are all anything more than fantasy characters made up by humans.
If enduring in adulthood is a criteria for establishing the validity of claims and beliefs then it follows that claims and beliefs of alien abductions, Bigfoot, chemtrails, astrology, talking to the dead, etc, are equally as valid as god claims and beliefs.
Last edited:
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
AIUI the effect depends on where in the brain the epileptic attack occurs. It has to occur in a specific part of the brain to generate a religious experience. Perhaps attacks in other parts of the brain have different effects?
Chanakya
,
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2015
- Messages
- 5,821
Thank you!
This paper, though, apparently seeks (and finds) a correlation between religiosity (that is, "philosophical religious thoughts") and epilepsy.
Not what I'd expected. One would imagine that religiosity as such would probably be better explained by, well, by how gullible one generally is, how given to swallowing 'popular' ideas, how given one is to questioning things, how susceptible one is to peer pressure, that sort of thing. Still, if they say this conclusion is scientifically valid, well then, perhaps it is, but somehow I doubt it.
I was thinking more along the lines of epilepsy directly giving you visions of bushes burning, et cetera, the sort of thing that gets religions going in the first place (the root around which a whole host of other factors like suggestibility, vested interest, all that, would tend to coalesce, to get a religious movement up and running).
But thanks for that link!
I'll root around a bit myself, see if I can find something myself. Might start a thread around this, if I find enough material for a more detailed discussion.
Chanakya
,
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2015
- Messages
- 5,821
Agreed. I'd imagine only a minority amongst the religious, only a small minority, would answer to being described as "mystic".
However, I guess the core of most religions might be based on mystical experiences. Not necessarily, not always, but usually. And if this core can be conclusively shown to be attributable to something as mundane as epilepsy, well then, we'll have gone a long way towards disproving religious beliefs, wouldn't we?
Not quite what I was getting at -- you speak here of religiosity in general, not necessarily mysticism per se -- but still, this is interesting! Would you have a cite readily available?
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
From what I've read in the past, there does seem to be a direct link between epileptic attacks and religious experiences. Not so much burning bushes, but sensing a presence which is presumed to be God.
The guy I've most seen associated with this stuff is Michael Persinger:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Persinger
attempt5001
Muse
Hi, thanks for the reply. If I were to adopt your level of touchy-feely PC standards I could easily consider your accusation that my post is a “clear example of an aggressive post” to itself be a clear example of an aggressive post. I don’t however, I take it to be perhaps a deliberate (and clever) passive-aggressive debating tactic that attempts to chastise the other party whilst giving yourself a moral high ground. This doesn’t upset me even slightly as this is after all an international, public debating forum in which people defend and challenge ideas and beliefs using all manner of debating tactics.
Oh no!, I used an exclamation point! Oh the humanity! Oh dear, I just used three exclamation points! (there’s another) How unnecessarily aggressive of me! (and another). Will this aggression never end? Won’t someone think of the poor children? Yes, I’m sarcastically taking the piss to make a point (did you get it), and I make no apology for doing so.
If you honestly think this post is a clear example of an aggressive post then I respectively suggest you should perhaps get out into the real world a bit more. In the meantime I won’t be allowing you to be the PC police of my posts. If you want to ignore and not respond to my posts then that’s your choice. Regardless, I will continue to read and respond to your posts as I find them to be refreshingly intelligent and honest, and I believe your explained purpose here is genuine.
Yes, the point about the exclamation point was meant to be tongue-in-cheek, (I felt I was over-using the winky-face), but problem is not that the tone is insufficiently polite, but that aggressive posts tend to diminish the productivity of the discourse. In the limited time I'm here (rather than interacting with the real world
) the productive discussions are the ones I'll naturally gravitate towards. I like hearing and discussing your perspectives and will continue to read and respond, but I think your points are better articulated sans vitriol. Anyway I see you did make a reply to another part of my response (thank you for that), so let's return to that. Cheers!sphenisc
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2004
- Messages
- 6,233
Another change of tack by arth. Nobody cares about my definition of Christian because I aren't one. Quite right of course, you have to be one to know one. Mind you how do you know if you are one if the definition is so vague?
Oh I guess a marine biologist can't define different kinds of fish because, well because he isn't one, a fish that is.
Have you asked any marine biologists? Many of them are devout cladists.
attempt5001
Muse
Right. I understand your point, but you're moving the goalposts here I think. The original challenge was that both beliefs are "the same" and I responded because I felt that was a claim worth debating. Now you are switching to both beliefs being "valid" and I don't expect there is any perspective I could share that would productive in that respect.
attempt5001
Muse
Well I agree with ynot here (no great surprise I assume
You have to have something to hang the shingle "Christianity" on. A lot of stuff about "Christian values" ect just doesn't cut it. There are lots of other belief structures that have this same stuff and some do it much better than Christianity.
Hi Thor 2. I guess I've responded indirectly with the back and forth with ynot. I understand your point that there needs to be at least some kind of God for Christianity (and religion in general) to be built on and as I mentioned, I think most believers (and leaders) experience doubt about this at some point; frequently for many. And they are either re-convinced or adjust how they think about God, or become skeptical, unconvinced, and/or cynical. (Notably, this process can go the other direction as well). Fair point that most religions don't make a practice of encouraging their members to re-think the existence of God and there would be some obvious conflicts of interest in doing so, but it certainly happens nonetheless.
Thanks. I agree that reasonable politeness is conducive to productive discussion and unreasonable aggression is not. We seem to differ however on what constitutes reasonable politeness and unreasonable aggression. I’m not prepared to dilute or sugarcoat what I believe to be facts of reality just because someone who prefers to believe in fantasies of supernatural gets upset by them. If you want to call that impolite or aggressive that’s your choice. Offense can often be taken when it wasn’t intended to be given.Yes, the point about the exclamation point was meant to be tongue-in-cheek, (I felt I was over-using the winky-face), but problem is not that the tone is insufficiently polite, but that aggressive posts tend to diminish the productivity of the discourse. In the limited time I'm here (rather than interacting with the real world
Take your post quoted above. You have asserted (implied at the very least) that my posts are insufficiently polite, aggressive, and diminish the productivity of the discourse. I could easily interpret your post as being impolite and aggressive, but I don’t (even if it is). I guess I look more for intellect in peoples words rather than emotions. But perhaps your subjective opinions would better articulated sans vitriol
.I will continue to read and respond to your posts even if you totally excommunicate me. Mind you I tend to loose interest in this forum on a regular basis, and feel such a loss of interest approaching. So if I stop posting and replying don’t take it personally
.Thor 2
Philosopher
Oh, so some may put themselves in the same clade as fish and can therefore speak with authority?
And I explained in what way I think they are the same (they are all nothing more than fantasy characters made up by humans).
The second paragraph wasn’t an extension of my “they are the same” argument, it was purely a response to your “they are different" argument (your goalposts).
I read that as essentially saying kid beliefs are different than adult beliefs because adult beliefs are validated by superior adult brains. That's why I posted this . . .
If I’ve got that wrong please explain how else “endure into adulthood” has any relevance. Cheers.
Last edited:
attempt5001
Muse
Thanks. I agree that reasonable politeness is conducive to productive discussion and unreasonable aggression is not. We seem to differ however on what constitutes reasonable politeness and unreasonable aggression. I’m not prepared to dilute or sugarcoat what I believe to be facts of reality just because someone who prefers to believe in fantasies of supernatural gets upset by them. If you want to call that impolite or aggressive that’s your choice. Offense can often be taken when it wasn’t intended to be given.
Take your post quoted above. You have asserted (implied at the very least) that my posts are insufficiently polite, aggressive, and diminish the productivity of the discourse. I could easily interpret your post as being impolite and aggressive, but I don’t (even if it is). I guess I look more for intellect in peoples words rather than emotions. But perhaps your subjective opinions would better articulated sans vitriol
I will continue to read and respond to your posts even if you totally excommunicate me. Mind you I tend to loose interest in this forum on a regular basis, and feel such a loss of interest approaching. So if I stop posting and replying don’t take it personally
Fair enough. I'll do my best to give you the benefit of the doubt that offence isn't intended (and I do believe that). But when you use the term "babble book" to describe texts like the bible, which, like it or not, is the most published, distributed, read, quoted, and almost certainly influential peice of literature of all of western culture, that doesn't really seem like "not sugarcoating facts", it sounds like indulging in a favourite, derogatory/inflammatory made-up term.
But, I'm confident we can carry on nonetheless and am happy to do so.
It was "babble-books" actually and I was using it as a catch-all title for all religious books/texts, not just the Bible. I’m fully aware that millions take these text/books very seriously and have a strong emotional investment in them. I don’t however (quite the opposite), and using the term "babble-books" is a way I represent my position using banter (“the playful and friendly exchange of teasing remarks”). To take it as derogatory/inflammatory represents an emotional overreaction that reflects the degree of overly emotional investment (IMO).
arthwollipot
Limerick Purist Pronouns: He/Him
I think it would be very reasonable for someone to take it as derogatory. I happen to agree with you, and I think it's derogatory. It certainly doesn't come across as "playful banter".