Creating God on Demand

[StuartJ]

I've been preaching "God" as never being shown to be anything more than the invention of human imaginations.

From my Sunday school and Bible class days, I recognised that "God" was only ever happening inside my head and the heads of those around me.

So have others ... and not JUST in the parietal cortex.

"In the last few years," says Dr. Anderson, "brain imaging technologies have matured in ways that are letting us approach questions that have been around for millennia."

"If the equipment and the experiment produced the presence that was God, then the extrapersonal, unreachable, and independent characteristics of the god definition might be challenged."Dr. Michael Persinger

Such neurophysiological effects of religion seem to give the dictum "Religion is the opium of the people" a new level of meaning. https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/322539.php

For what reasons should believers in "God" continue to believe that their "God" exists outside their minds ...?

[StuartJ]

[Replying to post 7 by Mithrae]

For what reasons should believers in "God" continue to believe that their "God" exists outside their minds ...?

[StuartJ]

[Replying to post 9 by Mithrae]

For what reasons should believers in "God" continue to believe that their "God" exists outside their minds ...?

[Mithrae]

[Replying to post 9 by Mithrae]

For what reasons should believers in "God" continue to believe that their "God" exists outside their minds ...?

There are numerous answers to that question, some better than others and some worse. Of course in other threads you've already demonstrated your unwillingness to engage in reasonable dialogue on the subject; what was it, something like five times over two weeks that I asked and you refused to answer whether the sworn testimony of four surgeons and medical workers about a regrown amputation would constitute evidence of a miracle? A question which as it turned out was not hypothetical (hence perhaps your reluctance to answer), so we have that alleged 'miracle of Calanda' as one of the reasons why folk might believe in god - though hardly the best reason.

Another reason given by this very thread is that some people experience god's presence. You have not provided any reason why they should reject their intuition of an external cause for that experience, particularly in light of the fact that the experience has been independently verified by many different people.

A third reason is suggested by the article which you linked, but curiously chose not to mention in your OP: "Religious belief can increase our lifespan and help us better cope with disease." That's a reason to believe too.

Personally I would rate the pragmatic but possibly incidental benefits of religion as the least worthy reason, of those three, and I'd be inclined to rate the subjective experience of god's presence lower than objective information... but that would probably depend on how powerful the experience is, and what kind of psychological toll it would take to dismiss it.

Which of those three do you think is the best reason for believing in god?

[StuartJ]

[Replying to post 13 by Mithrae]

One supposed regrown limb ...

Intuition ...

The possibility of living a little longer.

Thank you for actually addressing the topic.

These are reasons some may have.

They are all that anyone has come up with.

But you yourself have pretty much said that they are rubbish reasons.

They certainly don't stand against ...

Such neurophysiological effects of religion seem to give the dictum "Religion is the opium of the people" a new level of meaning.

... in my veiw.

I find your "reasons" SO bad, I'm not going to play the distraction of giving them an ordinal ranking.

But thank you once again for actually addressing the topic directly.

[Mithrae]

They certainly don't stand against ...

Such neurophysiological effects of religion seem to give the dictum "Religion is the opium of the people" a new level of meaning.

... in my veiw.

I'm not sure you understand what that means, because it isn't a counter-argument or contrasting position.

I find your "reasons" SO bad, I'm not going to play the distraction of giving them an ordinal ranking.

Of course you aren't - as expected - because you just can't bring yourself to acknowledge any legitimacy whatsoever in views different from your own. Given how determined you were in your refusal to avoid acknowledging the obvious fact that sworn testimony from four medical staff is inconclusive but definitely noteworthy evidence of a miracle, it pretty much follows that when we're discussing the slightly lower bar of 'reasons to believe' you would be even more recalcitrant. Hence why I didn't bother (re)posting even better reasons; you might spot some in various other threads, if you were interested in looking.

[StuartJ]

[Replying to post 15 by Mithrae]

inconclusive but definitely noteworthy

I definitely noted that I thought it was rubbish ...

In a topic specific to that "miracle".

Please note that have given your "miracle" more attention thin I think it deserves on several occasions now.

If a Seventeenth Century scam is the best that can be done to provide nothing more than "inconclusive" ...

Then God help Christianity.

Here is something much more down to Earth ...

Studies of human fingertip regeneration exist; however, the underlying molecular and environmental changes have yet to be completely elucidated. Studying the regenerative capabilities of lower organisms and fetal wound healing has allowed scientists to understand the mechanisms behind regeneration, coming closer to a human application. Much research relies on the idea that the developing embryo shares a great deal in common with regenerating appendages of organisms such as the salamander. This review will cover historical perspectives of regeneration biology and current topics in limb regeneration, with particular interest given to the upper extremity, including the commonalities between human embryological development and amphibian regeneration, growth factors and pathways that show correlation with development and regeneration, recently discovered differences in fetal and adult wound healing, and current research and knowledge regarding human extremity tissue regeneration. With a greater understanding of the mechanisms and mediators involved in regeneration, the application of cognitivebehavioral practices may assist in seeing the future goals of regeneration come to fruition. https://nyaspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.co ... 09.04413.x

[Jagella]

...you cited a couple of examples in which Christians (many Christians in fact, not just those credited with the initial breakthroughs) discovered, accepted and promoted religiously controversial information. In fact Darwin found his discoveries particularly challenging and ended his life an agnostic. Of course you could always equivocate or pull a no true scotsman on whatever it is you mean when you say 'apologist,' but given that Copernicus was Catholic clergy and both Galileo and Darwin had seriously considered that calling, I think we can safely say that your would-be 'gotcha' moment was poorly chosen at best.

OK--so to save your argument, you want us to see Charles Darwin as a Christian apologist. I think that's asking a lot.

But as you seem to have realized, I said that there is a tendency on the part of apologists to oppose any scientific theory they fear is in opposition to their beliefs. I think there are often exceptions to any rule. Heck, I used to be a Christian apologist, and we all know the result.

So you're not making any new argument, then; just re-asserting that god's existence cannot be proved, and failing to substantiate the claim that brain manipulation tells us something new. In order for it to tell us something new (ie, that god doesn't exist) you'd have to ask "Is this information consistent with an existing god,or not?" If the information is consistent with an existing god, then it tells us nothing new about whether or not god exists.

But I think that the science in the OP does tells us something new. This new data is consistent with the view that no gods exist outside of the imagination--an idea that until now was more in the realm of philosophy than in science. So once again science is on the side of atheism.

That should be blindingly obvious to anyone interested in sound reasoning, rather than cheap attempts at point-scoring.

I would not call superior reasoning on my part "cheap attempts at point-scoring." This forum is for debate, and if I post demonstrations of my better use of reason, then that's all part of the game.

Clearly, the information is entirely consistent with an existing god, since it's also consistent with existing parents.

Talk about what doesn't logically follow! Just because something that exists outside of the brain can stimulate the brain, it does not necessarily follow that a stimulated brain is reacting to an external agent. In fact, in the OP there are no gods involved--only experimental equipment which could easily mimic what occurs naturally in the brain.

Being able to artificially induce any given experience is not in any way evidence that the non-induced experience isn't caused by an external stimulus. It's really quite poor reasoning to imagine that it is. Especially if/when there are many independent verifications of the experience.

If it's any consolation to you, this scientific evidence does not disprove the existence of gods. It's still possible that gods might cause people to have "religious experiences." But what it does demonstrate that religious experiences can have purely natural causes, and we don't need gods to explain religious experiences.

[Mithrae]

...you cited a couple of examples in which Christians (many Christians in fact, not just those credited with the initial breakthroughs) discovered, accepted and promoted religiously controversial information. In fact Darwin found his discoveries particularly challenging and ended his life an agnostic. Of course you could always equivocate or pull a no true scotsman on whatever it is you mean when you say 'apologist,' but given that Copernicus was Catholic clergy and both Galileo and Darwin had seriously considered that calling, I think we can safely say that your would-be 'gotcha' moment was poorly chosen at best.

OK--so to save your argument, you want us to see Charles Darwin as a Christian apologist. I think that's asking a lot.

But as you seem to have realized, I said that there is a tendency on the part of apologists to oppose any scientific theory they fear is in opposition to their beliefs. I think there are often exceptions to any rule. Heck, I used to be a Christian apologist, and we all know the result.

• "When going to Cambridge to become an Anglican clergyman, he did not doubt the literal truth of the Bible.[32] He learned John Herschel's science which, like William Paley's natural theology, sought explanations in laws of nature rather than miracles and saw adaptation of species as evidence of design.[34][35] On board HMS Beagle, Darwin was quite orthodox and would quote the Bible as an authority on morality.[183] He looked for "centres of creation" to explain distribution,[58] and suggested that the very similar antlions found in Australia and England were evidence of a divine hand.[60]"

I notice that you have snipped where I pointed out that you originally said that "They never let such evidence ruin their faith in the past," following your affirmative declaration that "obviously apologists aren't going to let some scientific evidence get in their way." It's good that after reading and responding to my critique you realized the need to rein in your overblown rhetoric.

It's somewhat less impressive that rather than acknowledging the error of your insulting generalizations, you chose such dismal would-be counterexamples thinking that they would somehow prove your point, and declaring me to be ignorant of science and the history of science. If anything you've proved the opposite on both counts.

Being able to artificially induce any given experience is not in any way evidence that the non-induced experience isn't caused by an external stimulus. It's really quite poor reasoning to imagine that it is. Especially if/when there are many independent verifications of the experience.

If it's any consolation to you, this scientific evidence does not disprove the existence of gods. It's still possible that gods might cause people to have "religious experiences." But what it does demonstrate that religious experiences can have purely natural causes, and we don't need gods to explain religious experiences.

We've known for millennia that grand ceremony and emotional music, natural beauty and tranquility, meditation and inner peace, or even simply liberal doses of certain drugs can all aid or induce religious experiences or transcendent euphoria. Neuroscience might help us understand what regions of the brain are involved and perhaps even why those particular stimuli are efficacious, but there's no big new revelation there. And it still doesn't answer - or at least so far has not answered - the question of whether some or all of those stimuli are inducing misleading experiences divorced from reality, or if some or all of them are simply making our minds more receptive to an aspect of reality which most of us don't normally perceive very well.

Contrary to your initial premature exuberation, there's really nothing there that even most ardent fundamentalists should feel threatened by. If anything, the strained attempts by you and others to turn science such as this against religion does more to damage the perception of science than religion... hence why I felt obliged to have my 2c defending the science against your rhetoric and misapprehensions

[Jagella]

I notice that you have snipped where I pointed out that you originally said that "They never let such evidence ruin their faith in the past,"

LOL. I see you're making me eat my words or trying to. When I said "never" it was hyperbole.

You are using a very common apologetics' debating tactic of digging up what your interlocutor may have said and "interpreting" it to try to make him look bad. The goal is to make your arguments look good by making your interlocutor's arguments look bad by comparison.

It's good that after reading and responding to my critique you realized the need to rein in your overblown rhetoric.

Yes. Please do not "overblow" what I say.

It's somewhat less impressive that rather than acknowledging the error of your insulting generalizations...

If I said that Nazis were evil, would you then cite Oskar Schindler as an exception and then deride me for making "an error of insulting generalizations" about Nazis? Of course not. In the same way we all know that Christian apologists in most cases are just like I said they are. It is not an error to tell a general truth. Sensible people without a counter agenda know that exceptions are always implied whenever a general truth is stated.

You then are using another common apologetics' tactic of playing the hurt-feelings card complaining about generalizations made about Christians when you know full well that we all make generalizations in our discourse.

...it still doesn't answer - or at least so far has not answered - the question of whether some or all of those stimuli are inducing misleading experiences divorced from reality, or if some or all of them are simply making our minds more receptive to an aspect of reality which most of us don't normally perceive very well.

Well by all means let us all see that "aspect of reality which most of us don't normally perceive very well." So far all I've seen are words. If and when you back up what you're saying with some actual substance, you cannot prove me wrong when I maintain that religious experiences are delusions brought on by nothing more than natural stimuli.

If anything, the strained attempts by you and others to turn science such as this against religion does more to damage the perception of science than religion... hence why I felt obliged to have my 2c defending the science against your rhetoric and misapprehensions

Let's just give it some time. As scientists study the brain I think it's likely that they will discover more about it that explains religion as being based solely in the brain. Such discoveries no doubt will keep apologists busy as they work to keep new knowledge from threatening the faith of Christians who want to believe there's a reality to their beliefs beyond their heads.

[Mithrae]

You then are using another common apologetics' tactic of playing the hurt-feelings card complaining about generalizations made about Christians when you know full well that we all make generalizations in our discourse.

Sheesh. I'm not a Christian nor an 'apologist' (whatever you mean by that), as I'm sure I have had to remind you at least twice in the past month or so. Sloppy rhetoric yet again I do have Christian relatives, but haven't had them in mind and I'd like to think that I would reject the wildly unjustified 'more rational than thou' attitude you generalize against them - your self-declared "superior reasoning" - even if I were not related to any folk you perceive as your opposition.