PDA

View Full Version : Least and most religious nations



leo9
10-14-2010, 01:16 AM
From an article in the Danish magazine "Indland" (translated by Google Toolbar, but readable.)

(Article from Thistle, Google toolbar operated by Leo9)

Denmark is the world's least religious country

By Lasse SHUTTLE

Published at 24.09.10. 20:50

Only every fifth Dane considers religion as an important part of everyday life.

A new Gallup poll shows that religion plays a crucial role in the daily lives of 84 per cent. of the planet's population.

But not with the Danes.

Here is the picture turn completely reversed - 81 per cent. of Danes consider not religion as an important part of their everyday lives.

And that makes Denmark the world's least religious country in the world along with Estonia (84 per cent.) And Sweden (83 percent)..
Poorest countries are most religious

The survey, conducted during 2009, based on interviews with adult residents in 114 countries. And the main conclusion is that religion fills most of the poorest nations.

Thus is poor countries like Bangladesh, Indonesia, Sri Lanka and Yemen top the list. Around 99 per cent. people of the countries have religion as an indispensable aspect of their lives.

"One theory is that religion plays a more functional role in the world's poorest countries, where faith helps people to cope with the daily struggle to support themselves and their families. A former Gallup analysis supports this idea. Last year we completed the following a three-year analysis that showed that the relationship between religiosity and emotional well-being is strongest in poor countries, "said Gallup editor Steve Crabtree.
U.S. stands out

United States differs markedly from the usual picture. The country is among the richest countries in the world, but still indicates 65 per cent. of Americans that religion is important in their daily lives.

Other high income countries, where religion is considered as important, are Italy, Greece, Singapore and countries in the Persian Gulf.It's a common experience that interest in formal religion falls as a country gets more prosperous, but the exceptions are more interesting than the rule. My guess would be that the key index is not prosperity in the crude measure of GDP or average income, but material security. Denmark and Sweden, despite falling victim to voodoo economics in recent years, have a history of being leaders in the welfare state. I suggest that the counter-examples are countries where, despite a high GDP, a weak welfare or social security system or an uncertain job market undermines the average citizen's security in life.

Considering that Scandinavia has such a solid Asatro movement, it would be fascinating if they could refine the study to distinguish between established religions and private spiritualities. I suspect that a lot of people who marked "religion unimportant" simply meant they didn't go to church (or mosque or temple).

Thorne
10-14-2010, 08:31 AM
It's a common experience that interest in formal religion falls as a country gets more prosperous, but the exceptions are more interesting than the rule. My guess would be that the key index is not prosperity in the crude measure of GDP or average income, but material security. Denmark and Sweden, despite falling victim to voodoo economics in recent years, have a history of being leaders in the welfare state. I suggest that the counter-examples are countries where, despite a high GDP, a weak welfare or social security system or an uncertain job market undermines the average citizen's security in life.
While I'm sure that these facets contribute to the lack of religion, I would be more inclined to believe that it is education which is primarily responsible. And politics, of course. In many of the poorer countries religion is at least encouraged by the state, if not actually mandated. Islamic countries, both rich and poor, mandate religion and the penalties for apostasy or heresy are as barbaric as they are deadly.

In the US, in particular, the religious groups have only recently seen their hold on the education systems being contested and diminished. They continue to fight back, sometimes successfully (Texas, for example). But the trend is still downward. Religious organizations are showing steadily declining memberships, with some losing as much as 70% of those children born into the religion.

I think we will find that those nations which have historically been very religious, and in which religion has infiltrated (or taken over) the government will have the higher rates of religious populations. Or perhaps it's just that those populations are more afraid of denying their religion, even in an anonymous poll?


Considering that Scandinavia has such a solid Asatro movement, it would be fascinating if they could refine the study to distinguish between established religions and private spiritualities. I suspect that a lot of people who marked "religion unimportant" simply meant they didn't go to church (or mosque or temple).
Spirituality is different than religion. You don't have to kowtow to a formal religion to be spiritual. Spirituality, like superstition, is inherent in humanity, a part of our genetic make-up. Understanding our world was, and is, an important survival mechanism for humans. Making up stories of gods and spirits and demons was one way to explain those things which we did not have the tools to study. In some religious groups they still do this. They fill in the gaps in our knowledge with their gods.

There was a talk given by the astronomer Neil DeGrasse Tyson where he talks of this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vrpPPV_yPY&feature=related). The basic idea is that spirituality, and religion, are basically a means for the human mind to fill the gaps in our knowledge. We create the gods in our own image, and modify them to suit our needs and the world around us.

MMI
10-14-2010, 03:12 PM
Deleted

CuddleDom
01-06-2011, 06:25 AM
The problem with comparing Scandinavia with religious countries is what country are you making a fair comparison too?
It should be one with the same ratio of natural resources to population and not suffering the ravages of colonialism.

lucy
01-06-2011, 09:06 AM
It should be one with the same ratio of natural resources to population and not suffering the ravages of colonialism.
What's the connection between the ratio of natural resources to population got to do with the percentage of people who declare themselves as religious?
Coming to think of it, what has colonialism to do with it?
I'm really just curious.

Thorne
01-06-2011, 10:00 AM
What's the connection between the ratio of natural resources to population got to do with the percentage of people who declare themselves as religious?
Coming to think of it, what has colonialism to do with it?
I'm really just curious.
This is just off the top of my head, but it seems to me that countries with a high ratio of natural resources to population would have a higher per capita income than a country with a low ratio. Higher income generally means better health and better living conditions, which reduces the hold which a religion can gain on the population. Historically, religious organizations have been used to control the poor to keep the rich happy. A financially stable population has more reason to enjoy their lives and less need to look to an afterlife.

The same applies, to some extent, to colonial countries. Most of the resources are taken by the colonizing people, with little remaining for the natives. Coupled with generally repressive missionary activities, the poor population becomes heavily religious.

Sorry, no evidence to support this, just my take from what I know of history.

lucy
01-06-2011, 03:49 PM
Thanks, Torq, but this theory doesn't make too much sense. I'm pretty sure that with the exception of Norway all Scandinavian countries are pretty low on natural resources, yet they all are among the richest countries. Same goes for Switzerland, which is literally bare of any natural resources, except of water, wood and rocks. Yet, although I don't have exact figures and have to rely on personal experience, I'd say that only a small minority of Swiss are religious.
On the other side there are countries like Saudi Arabia or most of the gulf states, most of them high among the richest countries in the world when it comes to natural resources (and per capita income). Yet they are about as religious as it gets.

So, no, your explanation isn't really satisfying.

Thorne
01-06-2011, 09:01 PM
When talking of natural resources don't forget tourism. I know Switzerland gets a lot of tourists, and they have their banking industry, which is a man-made resource. I assume the Scandinavian countries get a lot of tourists as well, seeking the beautiful countryside. And doesn't Norway have claims to some of the North Sea Oil?

As for the Middle East countries, how much of their income actually goes to the people? They are mostly monarchies, where they are not outright dictatorships. The relatively few rich people make the bulk of the income. Plus, Islam right now is reminiscent of the Catholic Church of the Dark Ages: believe or die. I wonder how many would choose to remain faithful if actually given the free choice.

CuddleDom
01-10-2011, 06:28 AM
What's the connection between the ratio of natural resources to population got to do with the percentage of people who declare themselves as religious?
Coming to think of it, what has colonialism to do with it?
I'm really just curious.

Sorry I should have made myself clearer.

It is not the correlation between religousness and natural resources. Rather that when comparing atheistic nations to theistic nations one has to take into account their natural resources and history of being plundared.

Also Geothermal energy which is a major natural resouces is used in Scandinivian countries like Sweden and Iceland. While Norway has Oil form the north sea.

CuddleDom
01-10-2011, 06:30 AM
Countries like Saudia Arabia fall into post-colonised nations. Till after WW2 they were occupied and now dominated by an elite. So have not had a democratic or other people's revolution to redistribute wealth.

CuddleDom
01-10-2011, 06:54 AM
When talking of natural resources don't forget tourism. I know Switzerland gets a lot of tourists, and they have their banking industry, which is a man-made resource. I assume the Scandinavian countries get a lot of tourists as well, seeking the beautiful countryside. And doesn't Norway have claims to some of the North Sea Oil?

As for the Middle East countries, how much of their income actually goes to the people? They are mostly monarchies, where they are not outright dictatorships. The relatively few rich people make the bulk of the income. Plus, Islam right now is reminiscent of the Catholic Church of the Dark Ages: believe or die. I wonder how many would choose to remain faithful if actually given the free choice.

Natural resources also include timber which these countries are rich in. Hence why they had no need to colonise as a means of bringing in resources for the purpose of industrialisation.

Yes Islam is still in it's teens (counting a religion in centuries) and is much like Christianity at the same age. So it is almost impossible to get accurate census on how many are actually religious.

Lion
01-14-2011, 12:17 PM
While I'm sure that these facets contribute to the lack of religion, I would be more inclined to believe that it is education which is primarily responsible.

Curious about the basis here. Living in Canada which I guess comes in between US and the Scandinavian countries when it comes to religion and your daily life, I've never seen 'education' being a factor for people being atheist or even agnostic here.

With the exception of some countries, I feel that religion is prevalent just because that's the last bit of hope and structure people can hold on to. Whether it's false or not, it's still more reliable then corrupt politicians, coorporations that seek to exploit whatever resources available for it's own needs and just general shittyness of living in terrible conditions. I feel it's human nature to reach out to a deity when that's the only option you have. Seeing the conditions of how millions live in a poor country like Pakistan, religion (whatever they believe in) might be the only thing keeping these people from complete dispair.

Thorne
01-14-2011, 10:17 PM
Curious about the basis here. Living in Canada which I guess comes in between US and the Scandinavian countries when it comes to religion and your daily life, I've never seen 'education' being a factor for people being atheist or even agnostic here.
From my observations (limited though they may be), I feel that the more people learn about religions, all religions, not just their own, the less they are likely to be taken in by them. I've read several articles by graduates of seminary schools who say it is virtually impossible for an intelligent person to get through graduate school and retain his faith.

Also, the more you learn about the real world, and science in particular, the more you realize how bizarre and unrealistic religious dogma is. While science can not prove there are no gods, it can show that the gods who are worshiped around the world cannot possibly exist as defined by their religions. One reason the Catholic Church tried to prevent the Bible form being published in the vernacular was to keep the faithful from actually reading it and learning how screwed up and contradictory it is, and how evil and nasty their God is.


With the exception of some countries, I feel that religion is prevalent just because that's the last bit of hope and structure people can hold on to. Whether it's false or not, it's still more reliable then corrupt politicians, coorporations that seek to exploit whatever resources available for it's own needs and just general shittyness of living in terrible conditions. I feel it's human nature to reach out to a deity when that's the only option you have. Seeing the conditions of how millions live in a poor country like Pakistan, religion (whatever they believe in) might be the only thing keeping these people from complete dispair.
I see it differently. Based on my own experience being raised in the Catholic Church, and on what I have learned over the years, religions are more useful in keeping people down than in helping them to rise up. For thousands of years the powers-that-be have used religion to control their populations, keeping themselves in control while making rebellion a sin which will keep you from whatever redemption the religion has to offer. I see virtually all religions as being oppressive, trying to keep people in their places rather than helping them to improve themselves. Again, an intelligent, educated population is a dangerous population. They can learn to see the fallacies behind the religions, and the politics. Teaching people they cannot improve themselves without God's help only makes them less likely to really try to improve. And, especially in the Catholic Church, forbidding any form of birth control almost guarantees large families which keeps a poorer population.

It is human nature to seek some kind of explanation for things we don't understand, and lacking any real understanding of some natural event it's very easy to ascribe it to some supernatural being. Yet history has shown that almost every such godlike power can be explained, without resorting to the supernatural. Disease was once considered a punishment sent by God: it is now understood to be a natural occurrence, and something which can be controlled, to a greater or lesser degree, without the need of prayer or gods. Lightning, volcanoes, earthquakes, floods, were all once thought to be sent by gods. We now know better. (Or at least we should. Some nuts still try to claim that natural events were sent by gods. It seems their gods have very poor aim, though.)

The more we learn about the real world, the less room there is for supernatural explanations. Teaching our children how the world really works will be far more beneficial for their futures than burdening them with superstitions.

thir
01-19-2011, 03:15 AM
" Only every fifth Dane considers religion as an important part of everyday life.

Here is the picture turn completely reversed - 81 per cent. of Danes consider not religion as an important part of their everyday lives."

If not for emigrants, this percent would be higher.

One thing that has educated me about other countries is the fact that for so many people religion is for real. I grew up with the notion that religion was not something anyone took seriously, plus the whole topic was more than a little embaressing. It took a long time for me to take in that religion is a reality for a big part of the world, and that in all the really dogmatic countries it determines people's fate. This in spite of the fact that Christianity is the 'state religion', which in this case is simply habit. Very few people take it seriously in DK, so 'religion' as a real concept was something I had in fact never encountered and took a lot of time getting my head around.

"Poorest countries are most religious,
"One theory is that religion plays a more functional role in the world's poorest countries, where faith helps people to cope with the daily struggle to support themselves and their families. A former Gallup analysis supports this idea. Last year we completed the following a three-year analysis that showed that the relationship between religiosity and emotional well-being is strongest in poor countries, "said Gallup editor Steve Crabtree."

Or maybe the history of the land shows that the rulers took up a certain religion for their own purposes, and the citizens had to follow suit. This way the religion would serve as both the instrument to keep people down (there is always a reason why a ruler accepts a new religion) but would also, in many cases, be the only comfort.

Leo9:
" It's a common experience that interest in formal religion falls as a country gets more prosperous, but the exceptions are more interesting than the rule. My guess would be that the key index is not prosperity in the crude measure of GDP or average income, but material security. Denmark and Sweden, despite falling victim to voodoo economics in recent years, have a history of being leaders in the welfare state. I suggest that the counter-examples are countries where, despite a high GDP, a weak welfare or social security system or an uncertain job market undermines the average citizen's security in life."

I think that is definitly part of it.
But it is also noteworthy that the run-away materialism eventually lead to new kinds of religions and spiritualism. Well fed and free people who simply found something lacking.

" Considering that Scandinavia has such a solid Asatro movement, "

Actually, the Asatro movement is quite small in terms of numbers. I think without the emigrants and their religions the Asatro would never have been accepted and allowed to marry people. All religion - before the emigrants - being considered a bit of a joke.

thir
01-19-2011, 03:22 AM
While I'm sure that these facets contribute to the lack of religion, I would be more inclined to believe that it is education which is primarily responsible.


Yes, but education and prosperity hangs together. Poor people often do not get educated.



And politics, of course. In many of the poorer countries religion is at least encouraged by the state, if not actually mandated. Islamic countries, both rich and poor, mandate religion and the penalties for apostasy or heresy are as barbaric as they are deadly.


Absolutely! In fact, as I see it, it would be extremely difficult to find out how many people would be religious if they had a choice, since they do not.



In the US, in particular, the religious groups have only recently seen their hold on the education systems being contested and diminished. They continue to fight back, sometimes successfully (Texas, for example). But the trend is still downward. Religious organizations are showing steadily declining memberships, with some losing as much as 70% of those children born into the religion.


So why do you think that is?

thir
01-19-2011, 03:35 AM
This is just off the top of my head, but it seems to me that countries with a high ratio of natural resources to population would have a higher per capita income than a country with a low ratio.


As has been said elsewhere, the picture is muddled by the fact that per capita income is really fiction and income can, in reality, vary enormously.



Higher income generally means better health and better living conditions, which reduces the hold which a religion can gain on the population. Historically, religious organizations have been used to control the poor to keep the rich happy. A financially stable population has more reason to enjoy their lives and less need to look to an afterlife.


I would agree that good living conditions and education reduces the hold of dogmatic religions. People are less dependent on a god's goodwill, and more inclined to crave more freedom. This has been seen often enough.

But it does not mean that nobody wants religion. As said earlier, in DK, US and UK, and quite possibly other places, the dogmatic religions are simply, in some cases, replaced with undogmatic ones. "Freedom religions" you might call them. They do not convert, they do not seek power, there is nothing between whatever people believe in and themselves, and nobody, but nobody, tells them what to think ;-)



The same applies, to some extent, to colonial countries. Most of the resources are taken by the colonizing people, with little remaining for the natives. Coupled with generally repressive missionary activities, the poor population becomes heavily religious.


I am afraid that is a most shameful fact.

thir
01-19-2011, 04:07 AM
From my observations (limited though they may be), I feel that the more people learn about religions, all religions, not just their own, the less they are likely to be taken in by them.


I do not see it that way. A lot of people search for something meaningful in various religions, and choose one that fulfil their needs the most.



I've read several articles by graduates of seminary schools who say it is virtually impossible for an intelligent person to get through graduate school and retain his faith.


Interesting. Do you still have a link to one?



Also, the more you learn about the real world, and science in particular, the more you realize how bizarre and unrealistic religious dogma is.


Ah, here we are again :-)
But being able to explain how things work does not nessecarily have anything to do with who or what makes it so, right? A religious scientist would simpy marvel at Gods infinite creativity!

You are back to some people saying "it works like that because it works like that" and some would say "it works like that because someone made it so."
And there you are.



One reason the Catholic Church tried to prevent the Bible form being published in the vernacular was to keep the faithful from actually reading it and learning how screwed up and contradictory it is, and how evil and nasty their God is.


It is hard to see any other reason but oppression for such a way to conduct a service. Religion was for people in the know, and the rest could just stand there and feel stupid, and or frightened/awed!



I see it differently. Based on my own experience being raised in the Catholic Church, and on what I have learned over the years, religions are more useful in keeping people down than in helping them to rise up. For thousands of years the powers-that-be have used religion to control their populations, keeping themselves in control while making rebellion a sin which will keep you from whatever redemption the religion has to offer.


Or get you killed. Yes, dogmatic religions are certainly excellent tools for control. And yet people - some people - maybe those who love their gods rather than fear them - manage to get something out of religion that is good for them.

Again, I think the whole problem is in dogmatism. As soon as a religion is forced on someone, it is no better than facism.
A private religion is a private matter, and no threat to anyone.



Again, an intelligent, educated population is a dangerous population.


YES! And not just for religious power mongers. I ask myself why education so often has nothing to do with learning to think, and why tv is so brain dead and tame. Even in our so-called democratic societies the government does not want people to think. Religion has little hold, but there are other ways to manipulate.

A discussion of democracy would be very interesting indeed!


Teaching people they cannot improve themselves without God's help only makes them less likely to really try to improve.


Actually, that may work the opposite way. "You can do this, God will help you."



And, especially in the Catholic Church, forbidding any form of birth control almost guarantees large families which keeps a poorer population.


Forbidding birth control is one of the biggest sins I can think of! The world is groaning under a much, much too big human population.




See above. And, while natural explanations are incredibly valuable, they do not nessecarily take the place of spiritual needs.

[quote]
Disease was once considered a punishment sent by God: it is now understood to be a natural occurrence, and something which can be controlled, to a greater or lesser degree, without the need of prayer or gods. Lightning, volcanoes, earthquakes, floods, were all once thought to be sent by gods. We now know better. (Or at least we should. Some nuts still try to claim that natural events were sent by gods. It seems their gods have very poor aim, though.)


Well, I think what you are not taking into consideration here is that whether or not you understand the disease/earthquake/flood that kills you or your kin, your fear them as forces which in many cases are out of your control. We simply cannot control all nature, and what we cannot control we often fear. So understanding or not, we are just as dead!

That brings us to the argument of gods to help with these matters. When all else fails, even atheists sometimes pray. Because you have to do something.

As a side issue, I do not think that humans have a right to be safe.



Teaching our children how the world really works will be far more beneficial for their futures than burdening them with superstitions.

They are not nessecarily mutually exclusive. Only when we talk dogmatic religions. - and in such cases I entirely agree.

Thorne
01-19-2011, 06:51 AM
Yes, but education and prosperity hangs together. Poor people often do not get educated.
This is true, and in many places around the world, those poor who are educated are taught by religious missionaries. One of the reasons why religious organizations in the US are losing members is because of state-run education, which cannot, by law, include religious instruction. And with the law requiring all children to be educated into high school, the failures of religious instruction are being laid bare. Young people are learning that those "mysteries of the gods" they have been taught as children are little more than wishful thinking, warped psychology and belief in magic.

leo9
01-19-2011, 09:00 AM
From my observations (limited though they may be), I feel that the more people learn about religions, all religions, not just their own, the less they are likely to be taken in by them.
If you mean exposure to a wide variety, I don't see evidence for this. For example, most of today's British Muslims have, whether they wanted it or not, been exposed to calculatedly multi-cutural religious studies from primary school. The result, in many cases, seems to have been to make them much more devout believers than their parents for whom Islam was just the way things were.


I've read several articles by graduates of seminary schools who say it is virtually impossible for an intelligent person to get through graduate school and retain his faith.
I'm not clear if you mean seminary school or college in general?


Also, the more you learn about the real world, and science in particular, the more you realize how bizarre and unrealistic religious dogma is. While science can not prove there are no gods, it can show that the gods who are worshiped around the world cannot possibly exist as defined by their religions. Obviously, in the crude sense that you can't treat science and any creation myth as co-existing descriptions of the material world. But religions have been coping with that ever since people discovered that there weren't really any gods at the top of Mount Olympus.

You underestimate the human ability to hold contradictory beliefs in parallel. Doublethink is a normal and necessary part of human nature, even scientists have to do it. Quantum mechanics and relativistic physics are not compatible as descriptions of the world, but very few scientists conclude that one of them must be false; they just accept that each description is true (or, to be strictly accurate, "the best working description of reality we have so far") in its proper context. Plenty of us are equally able to accept that materialism and religion are each true in their proper context, even though, like quantum and relativity, they contradict each other if we try to apply them together.

One reason the Catholic Church tried to prevent the Bible form being published in the vernacular was to keep the faithful from actually reading it and learning how screwed up and contradictory it is, and how evil and nasty their God is.
At the time, it had more to do with keeping people from finding how much there was in it about exalting the poor, and putting God's laws before the state's, and everyone being equal in the sight of God, and subversive stuff like that. It led to massive social upheavals led by fanatical believers who had read the book from cover to cover, and only lost faith in the established Church and State.

I see virtually all religions as being oppressive, trying to keep people in their places rather than helping them to improve themselves. Again, an intelligent, educated population is a dangerous population. They can learn to see the fallacies behind the religions, and the politics.
History doesn't bear you out. In the golden age of Islam, Muslims were far better educated than Europeans, but their faith was no weaker. When Europeans became better educated, it led to Protestantism, not materialism; a Church led by a handful of fanatics was replaced by one with fanatics in every little chapel. And, of course, for a thousand years Europe's Jews were the most highly educated people, but didn't lose their faith in consequence.

Teaching people they cannot improve themselves without God's help only makes them less likely to really try to improve.There are countless examples of people who have improved themselves because they believed that they had God's help. I am totally neutral on the question of whether they actually had any supernatural aid: all I'm saying is that, by their own testimony, their faith didn't hold them back, it helped them on.

And, especially in the Catholic Church, forbidding any form of birth control almost guarantees large families which keeps a poorer population.
True, but mostly irrelevant to the topic. Your insistence on seeing all forms of religion as slightly different versions of your birth faith constantly misleads you.

The more we learn about the real world, the less room there is for supernatural explanations. Teaching our children how the world really works will be far more beneficial for their futures than burdening them with superstitions.
Unless we're talking about creationists, or the religious opponents of sex education, this is a straw man. My children, and everyone else's, learn science. Whether they also learn religion is a separate issue.

lucy
01-19-2011, 11:50 AM
If you mean exposure to a wide variety, I don't see evidence for this. For example, most of today's British Muslims have, whether they wanted it or not, been exposed to calculatedly multi-cutural religious studies from primary school. The result, in many cases, seems to have been to make them much more devout believers than their parents for whom Islam was just the way things were.
That, as a matter of fact, has very little to do with exposure to other religions but a lot with embracing their own culture and religion in an environment that is both alien and sometimes even hostile.
Same happens to Ex-Yugoslavs when they emigrate to Switzerland, as well as probably Latinos when they emigrate to the US. Second and even third generations of immigrants are often much more conservative when it comes to their culture and religion than their parents or grandparents who originally emigrated.

I don't think that natural resources is a helpful idea here. Western Europe is more or less devoid of any natural resouces (no need to take into account the little bit of coal Germany and France produce, because it isn't even chickenshit compared to their economic output), yet it is here were we find the lowest rates of theists/religious people.
Per capita income and especially it's distribution is most likely a better marker. But ultimately I believe that the downfall of religions in western Europe is a result of hedonism. I wouldn't even say that people believe less, but they believe less in a certain religion. Instead, they pick whatever damn well they please, be it a little bit buddhism there, a little bit cabalism there and of course tons of esoteric hocus pocus, all that based on christian believes they once learned about in school.

At least that's the impression I get when I look around at my friends. Most of them do believe in something, but don't really have a clue in what they believe.

Thorne
01-19-2011, 02:02 PM
If you mean exposure to a wide variety, I don't see evidence for this. For example, most of today's British Muslims have, whether they wanted it or not, been exposed to calculatedly multi-cutural religious studies from primary school. The result, in many cases, seems to have been to make them much more devout believers than their parents for whom Islam was just the way things were.
I'm not sure of the schooling available in Britain, so I don't know what kind of in-depth studies they have available for younger students. Here in the US there are virtually none. Any religious instructions, outside of religious schools themselves are invariably Christian, and illegal. As lucy pointed out, this kind of teaching would tend to alienate rather than educate non-Christians, making them cling more tightly to their religion.


I'm not clear if you mean seminary school or college in general?
I mean seminary school.


Obviously, in the crude sense that you can't treat science and any creation myth as co-existing descriptions of the material world. But religions have been coping with that ever since people discovered that there weren't really any gods at the top of Mount Olympus.
Yes, generally by denying the science for as long as they can, then, when forced to accept it, giving gods credit for it anyway.

Quantum mechanics and relativistic physics are not compatible as descriptions of the world, but very few scientists conclude that one of them must be false; they just accept that each description is true (or, to be strictly accurate, "the best working description of reality we have so far") in its proper context.
The key point here is, "proper context". Quantum mechanics applies primarily to sub-microscopic matter while relativity is more properly applied to larger structures and forces. Just as Newtonian physics is perfectly adequate to describe most non-relativistic motions, while breaking down at relativistic speeds. Each in their proper context will provide a testable, predictable description of the universe. Religion, on the other hand, is neither testable or predictable, and does not provide even an approximation of the real world.


At the time, it had more to do with keeping people from finding how much there was in it about exalting the poor, and putting God's laws before the state's, and everyone being equal in the sight of God, and subversive stuff like that.
Precisely. Too much knowledge is, in the view of religion, a bad thing! When people learn that their Church is not following the very book which it claims to be based upon, people will be upset.


It led to massive social upheavals led by fanatical believers who had read the book from cover to cover, and only lost faith in the established Church and State.
And they established their own religions, which were equally inadequate in explaining the real world, and which diverged just as badly from the Bible over time.


History doesn't bear you out. In the golden age of Islam, Muslims were far better educated than Europeans, but their faith was no weaker.
I believe you will find that the golden age you speak of began dying out after Muhammad and the advent of Islam, not gaining strength from it. Indeed, the case might be made that Islam is responsible for the decline of the Arab world, rather than its savior.


for a thousand years Europe's Jews were the most highly educated people, but didn't lose their faith in consequence.
For that same thousand years the Jews were the most persecuted people in Europe, and elsewhere. That tends to drive people back to their faith, not away from it.


There are countless examples of people who have improved themselves because they believed that they had God's help.
And more examples of people who have improved themselves without submitting to superstition. But having faith in God's help is not the same as following a specific religion. Faith can help support people, certainly. And if they want to put that faith in an imaginary friend instead of in themselves, more power to them.

Your insistence on seeing all forms of religion as slightly different versions of your birth faith constantly misleads you.
I try not to do this, but I freely admit that I am far more familiar with Roman Catholicism than any other religions.


Unless we're talking about creationists, or the religious opponents of sex education, this is a straw man. My children, and everyone else's, learn science.
Our children will only continue to learn science as long as we can keep the religions out of the schools. See Texas for how well that's working. Or look at some of the anti-science crap coming from the newly elected Congress.


Whether they also learn religion is a separate issue.
Personally, I think it's wrong to teach children religious dogma, since at their age such teaching is tantamount to brainwashing. Unless, of course, you are willing to teach them about ALL religions, and about the history of religions. Good luck getting that past the churches, though.

Thorne
01-19-2011, 02:06 PM
But ultimately I believe that the downfall of religions in western Europe is a result of hedonism.
I don't know if I'd go that far. I think it has more to do with people rejecting organized religion because it's ultimately proven to be bad for modern society. Retaining their faith in some kind of gods is one thing, but accepting some lunatic preachers' definitions of what god they should believe in is something else again.


Most of them do believe in something, but don't really have a clue in what they believe.
That's because most people NEED to believe in something. That doesn't give them the right to tell me what I have to believe in, though. As long as they keep it to themselves, we can get along fine.

thir
01-20-2011, 06:11 AM
That, as a matter of fact, has very little to do with exposure to other religions but a lot with embracing their own culture and religion in an environment that is both alien and sometimes even hostile.


Good point. That does happen a lot, and very natural too. I even think that the religion becomes the culture, whether people are very relgious or not. An identity marker, as it were.



Same happens to Ex-Yugoslavs when they emigrate to Switzerland, as well as probably Latinos when they emigrate to the US. Second and even third generations of immigrants are often much more conservative when it comes to their culture and religion than their parents or grandparents who originally emigrated.


That, however, does suprise me. What I was taught was the parents and grandparents were very conservative - as we talked about above they are the ones who experience the cultural shock on entering a new country - but research shows that after 3-4 generations most people have adopted the identity of the now homecountry.



But ultimately I believe that the downfall of religions in western Europe is a result of hedonism.


Commercialism, materialism, indulgence-culture..
Your primal function in life is to BUY.



I wouldn't even say that people believe less, but they believe less in a certain religion. Instead, they pick whatever damn well they please, be it a little bit buddhism there, a little bit cabalism there and of course tons of esoteric hocus pocus, all that based on christian believes they once learned about in school.


Nonsense. The new (or old) pagan religions are not based on Christianity - rather the other way around.



At least that's the impression I get when I look around at my friends. Most of them do believe in something, but don't really have a clue in what they believe.

And that is the impression people get when they are used to dogmatic religions.
However, I think the important thing here is that dogmatic religions tend to diminish with better conditions, but non-dogmatic religions or spiritualism are still there - or again there.

thir
01-20-2011, 06:22 AM
Any religious instructions, outside of religious schools themselves are invariably Christian, and illegal.


In all states?



Yes, generally by denying the science for as long as they can, then, when forced to accept it, giving gods credit for it anyway.


Yep! :-)



Precisely. Too much knowledge is, in the view of religion, a bad thing! When people learn that their Church is not following the very book which it claims to be based upon, people will be upset.


Or, to put it another way, as I see it: when people discover that the church is simply a power structure with little to do with the person who founded it, they leave it.



I believe you will find that the golden age you speak of began dying out after Muhammad and the advent of Islam, not gaining strength from it. Indeed, the case might be made that Islam is responsible for the decline of the Arab world, rather than its savior.


Actually, Mohammad founded Islam in the 4th century, and the "Golden age" of Islam with science and math, which we btw owe a lot to, was from mid 7th cemtury to mid 13th century.



Our children will only continue to learn science as long as we can keep the religions out of the schools. See Texas for how well that's working. Or look at some of the anti-science crap coming from the newly elected Congress.


I heard a bit about that, and it seems - no offence meant - quite Medieval to me!



Personally, I think it's wrong to teach children religious dogma, since at their age such teaching is tantamount to brainwashing.

Me too.

leo9
01-20-2011, 06:37 AM
One thing that has educated me about other countries is the fact that for so many people religion is for real. I grew up with the notion that religion was not something anyone took seriously, plus the whole topic was more than a little embaressing.

That was the attitude in my circle of society. One was in favour of the Church (meaning that big place with the tower in the middle of town, not the organisation, which was a bit of a joke) because it was part of tradition, like morris-dancing and easter-egg hunts; but people who made a fuss about their religion were, as you say, embarrassing. Even Tony Blair's supporters were mostly apologetic about his open religiousity: it sounded, well, un-British.

It took a long time for me to take in that religion is a reality for a big part of the world, and that in all the really dogmatic countries it determines people's fate.
We had to face it as part of practical politics, because the Northern Irish religious divide was a major issue for most of my life. As Americans have recently discovered, you have to pay some attention to people who are blowing up your towns for their beliefs :(

But it is also noteworthy that the run-away materialism eventually lead to new kinds of religions and spiritualism. Well fed and free people who simply found something lacking.

Most of the new leaders of Muslim fundamentalism (and terrorism) are not poor and uneducated, as Thorne would argue: they're from the upper-middle class of the oil-rich nations (and of Europe's Muslim immigrants). They argue that they've been offered Western-style materialism, and found it worthless.

Myself, I suspect this has more to do with politics than religion. They remind me most of all of the UK's last lot of home-grown terrorists, the Angry Brigade and other anarchists of the 1970s. They were mostly militant atheists, but their language against Western capitalism and materialism was almost identical to that of today's Islamists; they even shared the Palestinians as a cause celebre.

thir
01-20-2011, 06:45 AM
We had to face it as part of practical politics, because the Northern Irish religious divide was a major issue for most of my life. As Americans have recently discovered, you have to pay some attention to people who are blowing up your towns for their beliefs :(


That, however, was also politics. Catholics were oppressed.



Most of the new leaders of Muslim fundamentalism (and terrorism) are not poor and uneducated, as Thorne would argue: they're from the upper-middle class of the oil-rich nations (and of Europe's Muslim immigrants). They argue that they've been offered Western-style materialism, and found it worthless.


It is.



Myself, I suspect this has more to do with politics than religion. .[/I]

I think there is no religious violence that is not more based on politics that religion.

Thorne
01-20-2011, 07:00 AM
In all states?
Technically it's illegal to teach religion in any public schools (separation of church and state) but as far as I know there's no real way to enforce this except by filing a lawsuit against the school (or school district) in question. There have been teachers who have stepped outside of their curriculum and taught religious instruction, even if only for brief periods. Invariably these are Christian teachers, at least the ones we hear about.


Or, to put it another way, as I see it: when people discover that the church is simply a power structure with little to do with the person who founded it, they leave it.
Yes, they do. But when people actually read the Bible (or Quran, or almost any religious text) and see the contradictions and downright insanity written there they tend to become somewhat miffed at being misled.


Actually, Mohammad founded Islam in the 4th century, and the "Golden age" of Islam with science and math, which we btw owe a lot to, was from mid 7th cemtury to mid 13th century.
Yes, you're right. Sorry, I was thinking more about the Arab culture in general, not Islam specifically.


I heard a bit about that, and it seems - no offence meant - quite Medieval to me!
Exactly! These people want to take us back into the dark ages, to the good old days of feudalism and the Inquisition. Anyone who doesn't believe just as they do is automatically guilty.

lucy
01-20-2011, 08:29 AM
Most of the new leaders of Muslim fundamentalism (and terrorism) are not poor and uneducated, as Thorne would argue: they're from the upper-middle class of the oil-rich nations (and of Europe's Muslim immigrants). They argue that they've been offered Western-style materialism, and found it worthless.


It is.
It is? Really? Having a choice is worthless? Having economic safety is worthless? Having more or less achieved equality for women and men is worthless? Having a life expectancy of 83,71 years (for Swiss women in the year 2008), most of them in pretty good health is worthless? Having the right to voice your opinion is worthless? Having the choice to believe or not believe and more or less be unmolested by those who believe the opposite is worthless?

You know, you don't HAVE to buy all the crap you probably COULD buy. Because, unlike a lot of people who don't live in Western-style materialism, you have a choice. Or several, even.

Plus, if it wasn't for that worthless Western-style materialism, those terrorists still would be screwing sheep in the Arabian desert. Those idiots can't even be terrorists without relying on what they despise so much.

Thorne
01-20-2011, 01:15 PM
Most of the new leaders of Muslim fundamentalism (and terrorism) are not poor and uneducated, as Thorne would argue: they're from the upper-middle class of the oil-rich nations (and of Europe's Muslim immigrants). They argue that they've been offered Western-style materialism, and found it worthless.
For the record, it's not the leaders of religions, fundamentalist or not, that I claim are uneducated. It's the followers who are kept in thrall to those leaders through poverty and lack of education. And these leaders are telling their followers that Western-style materialism is worthless while using the products which can only be obtained from those Western nations. Keeping their followers from demanding those same products is another tool for keeping them controlled.

thir
01-20-2011, 01:43 PM
It is? Really? Having a choice is worthless? Having economic safety is worthless? Having more or less achieved equality for women and men is worthless? Having a life expectancy of 83,71 years (for Swiss women in the year 2008), most of them in pretty good health is worthless? Having the right to voice your opinion is worthless? Having the choice to believe or not believe and more or less be unmolested by those who believe the opposite is worthless?

You know, you don't HAVE to buy all the crap you probably COULD buy. Because, unlike a lot of people who don't live in Western-style materialism, you have a choice. Or several, even.

Plus, if it wasn't for that worthless Western-style materialism, those terrorists still would be screwing sheep in the Arabian desert. Those idiots can't even be terrorists without relying on what they despise so much.

Yes, really. It is the materialism I am talking about, living in a consumer society where it seems the only function you have is to buy and buy and buy. I wasn't talking about anything else. I do not believe we have to have that in order to have equality or long life expectancy, rather the opposite.

Thorne
01-20-2011, 07:19 PM
Yes, really. It is the materialism I am talking about, living in a consumer society where it seems the only function you have is to buy and buy and buy.
Yeah, I for one am getting very tired of all those corporation thugs coming around and forcing me into the stores to buy and buy and buy. I don't seem to have a choice anymore. Just spend, spend, spend or they'll take my family away and torture them. [/sarcasm]

To my mind, anyone who complains about "materialism" is only complaining because people have the choices and the means to buy things. No one is required to buy anything except the essentials. But having the choice implies having the freedom to choose, and to some people that freedom is heresy. People who have the freedom to choose which car to buy, or which TV program to watch, or which religion to believe in just might realize that they can have a choice in whether or not some asshole preacher/minister/priest/rabbi/imam should really be allowed to control other peoples' lives! Can't have that, now, can we?

leo9
01-22-2011, 03:20 PM
To my mind, anyone who complains about "materialism" is only complaining because people have the choices and the means to buy things. No one is required to buy anything except the essentials. But having the choice implies having the freedom to choose, and to some people that freedom is heresy. People who have the freedom to choose which car to buy, or which TV program to watch, or which religion to believe in just might realize that they can have a choice in whether or not some asshole preacher/minister/priest/rabbi/imam should really be allowed to control other peoples' lives! Can't have that, now, can we?
Many people of the old Soviet Union felt they had freedom of choice, too. From outside, it was easy to see that they only had the freedom to choose what they were offered, and if one steps back and looks, the same goes for the freedom of choice in the Western world.

If you choose something not on the menu offered by the corporate system - like TV programs not controlled by the Murdoch corporation, or guaranteed GM-free food, or cars built to be fuel efficient rather than to make money for the industry, or a bank account that doesn't subsidise overpaid fiscal gamblers, and don't even think of a political party not controlled by big money - suddenly it gets a lot harder, and you realise that maybe you and everyone else were never as free as you thought.

Because if people really had the freedom they imagine they have, they might have a choice in whether some billionaire financer should be allowed to control people's lives, and that would be a change far more radical than squabbles over whether to worship Allah or Darwin. There's more than one way of making religion the opium of the people, and having them focus all their energy on hating their neighbour's faith works just as well.

Thorne
01-22-2011, 03:43 PM
If you choose something not on the menu offered by the corporate system - like TV programs not controlled by the Murdoch corporation, or guaranteed GM-free food, or cars built to be fuel efficient rather than to make money for the industry, or a bank account that doesn't subsidise overpaid fiscal gamblers, and don't even think of a political party not controlled by big money - suddenly it gets a lot harder, and you realise that maybe you and everyone else were never as free as you thought.
Perhaps a little disingenuous here, don't you think? If you don't like what's on the TV, don't watch it. And make sure you tell advertisers that you won't watch it. And convince your neighbors to tell advertisers the same thing. That's how the system works. If people don't watch, the advertisers don't spend money, and the show goes away.

Problem is, the people DO watch. Programmers are smart enough to appeal to the lowest common denominator, virtually guaranteeing viewers for their advertisers. If you don't like it, of course, you're free to start your own network and create your own programming. Or just don't watch, find something else to amuse you.


Because if people really had the freedom they imagine they have, they might have a choice in whether some billionaire financer should be allowed to control people's lives, and that would be a change far more radical than squabbles over whether to worship Allah or Darwin.
As sad as it may be, people with money have always had far too much control over the people who do not have money. That's also the way things work. Mostly because the people without money are hoping that some of that money will pass on down to them somehow. Maybe if they wear the right clothes, eat the right food, drink the right wine, they can be rich as well. Meanwhile, they are spending what little they have and making the rich even richer.

The solution, of course, is to not succumb to hero worship and live your life, and spend your money, for your own benefit and not to benefit a corporation. Buying the expensive brand instead of the more economical brand is not going to make you more attractive/sexy/desirable. It will only make you poorer.

And just to satisfy my curiosity, could you please point me in the direction of the nearest Temple/Church/Mosque of Darwin? I've been dying to pray to old Chuck, but can't seem to find anyplace where I can worship Him.

leo9
01-23-2011, 02:59 AM
Perhaps a little disingenuous here, don't you think? If you don't like what's on the TV, don't watch it.My point exactly. Your freedom of choice turns out to be the freedom to take what you're offered.
And make sure you tell advertisers that you won't watch it. And convince your neighbors to tell advertisers the same thing. That's how the system works. If people don't watch, the advertisers don't spend money, and the show goes away. And gets replaced with something almost identical with detail changes. When did you last see something genuinely different?


If you don't like it, of course, you're free to start your own network and create your own programming. And compete with Sky and News International, good luck with that. But in fact, that *is* happening now with online news and entertainment sites, which is why the media giants are trying to get a grip on the Net so they can squeeze out content they don't like.

My point was, I feel your dedication to the war on religion sometimes blinds you to other social problems. The great consumer society is not part of the solution.

And just to satisfy my curiosity, could you please point me in the direction of the nearest Temple/Church/Mosque of Darwin? I've been dying to pray to old Chuck, but can't seem to find anyplace where I can worship Him.In this country he's got his face on the most widely circulated banknote, that's about as close to cannonisation as a secular figure gets.

denuseri
01-23-2011, 06:21 AM
Ive been following the thread for some time but reserving comment and doing some reaserch on the subject.

One interesting point that I think bears looking at was a corolation, not between a countries direct prosperity level and low precentage rates of religious responcers so much as an inverse relationship between precentages of religious respondants and the level of comprehensive social welfare that was employed by each country.

Not all countries catagorically fit into a relationship where the more money was made the less religion was practiced, notable exceptions like the United States and others stood out.

A much higher degree of social welfare being employed by a given nation did apply in far more cases as the cuasitive agent.

In that regard then...is one not simpley replacing religion with something else in one's life?

Is such a replacement most often a headonisitc one?

Thorne
01-23-2011, 07:32 AM
One interesting point that I think bears looking at was a corolation, not between a countries direct prosperity level and low precentage rates of religious responcers so much as an inverse relationship between precentages of religious respondants and the level of comprehensive social welfare that was employed by each country.
An interesting point, and one which doesn't surprise me. Religious organizations seem to be more interested in helping people get to heaven than in helping them get a job.


In that regard then...is one not simpley replacing religion with something else in one's life?
Simply? There's nothing simple about it. But yes, you would replace religion with something else. Hopefully it would be rationality, but there's no guarantees.


Is such a replacement most often a headonisitc one?
In some people it probably will be, I'm sure. It doesn't have to be. At one point I replaced religion with bowling, hardly a hedonistic activity. Unfortunately the Christian powers-that-be in this county decided that actually doing something enjoyable on a Sunday morning was a threat to our culture and forced the business to remain closed until after 1:30 PM. So much for worshiping at the Church of Earl Anthony!

thir
01-23-2011, 08:55 AM
Yeah, I for one am getting very tired of all those corporation thugs coming around and forcing me into the stores to buy and buy and buy. I don't seem to have a choice anymore. Just spend, spend, spend or they'll take my family away and torture them. [/sarcasm]

Thanks, but I think I just about spotten that sarcasm ;-)

[quote]
To my mind, anyone who complains about "materialism" is only complaining because people have the choices and the means to buy things. No one is required to buy anything except the essentials.


True, of course, except that we are told that we will not be happy if we do not buy this that or the other, for one thing.
It tends to take away the attention from other more important things as well.
I do not have all the words in my head right now, but I truly believe that 'the people' are there to buy, and the corps are the masters.

Having 15 kind of soap powder is not really nessecary for freedom, IMO, but this tendency does empty our the resources of the world which are not infinite.



But having the choice implies having the freedom to choose, and to some people that freedom is heresy. People who have the freedom to choose which car to buy, or which TV program to watch, or which religion to believe in just might realize that they can have a choice in whether or not some asshole preacher/minister/priest/rabbi/imam should really be allowed to control other peoples' lives! Can't have that, now, can we?

The funny thing is that in so many mails on mine I have gone on and on about how important choices are, and how taking people's choices away from them is treating them like things.
But I cannot see that having the choice of 124 kinds of radio is important, nor does it have anything to do with freedom of religion, or of the press, or any other freedom.

If it does, please explain, because I do not see it.

thir
01-23-2011, 09:10 AM
Problem is, the people DO watch. Programmers are smart enough to appeal to the lowest common denominator, virtually guaranteeing viewers for their advertisers. If you don't like it, of course, you're free to start your own network and create your own programming. Or just don't watch, find something else to amuse you.


So, the freedom of choice here is Watch Our Shit (meant for the lowest common denominator) or Nothing. Some choice.
The only channels worth watching are often the non-commercial ones.



As sad as it may be, people with money have always had far too much control over the people who do not have money. That's also the way things work.


'Always'? How far back do we go?
Anyway it isn't 'the way things work.' It is the way some powerful people make it work. It is not a law of nature.



The solution, of course, is to not succumb to hero worship and live your life, and spend your money, for your own benefit and not to benefit a corporation. Buying the expensive brand instead of the more economical brand is not going to make you more attractive/sexy/desirable. It will only make you poorer.


But, according to you these choices are what gives you freedom! Why?

thir
01-23-2011, 11:12 AM
"It’s Official. We Are All Contaminated
It’s all over the Internet by now. Research carried out by the University of California reveals that of 268 expectant mothers each of them showed levels of toxic chemicals. The study, recently published in Environmental Health Perspectives, concluded, “Certain PCBs, organochlorine pesticides, PFCs, phenols, PBDEs, phthalates, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and perchlorate were detected in 99 to 100% of pregnant women.” Read the report HERE."

Read more: http://www.care2.com/greenliving/its-official-we-are-all-contaminated.html#ixzz1BspkqdH2




http://www.care2.com/greenliving/its-official-we-are-all-contaminated.html?page=2

Thorne
01-23-2011, 03:00 PM
So, the freedom of choice here is Watch Our Shit (meant for the lowest common denominator) or Nothing. Some choice.
The only channels worth watching are often the non-commercial ones.
So what are you saying? We'd be better off with only one TV network? No choice at all? That hardly seems an improvement. As I said earlier, in this country you have the freedom to establish your own network if what's available doesn't suit you. Just get the money. And I agree, the non-commercial channels often have the better quality programming. Not necessarily the most enjoyable, but the better quality.


'Always'? How far back do we go?
At least as far back as the establishment of money.


Anyway it isn't 'the way things work.' It is the way some powerful people make it work. It is not a law of nature.
Sadly it's a law of human nature. Far too many people are willing to accept the advice and opinions of wealthy people than of poorer people.


But, according to you these choices are what gives you freedom! Why?
No, freedom allows me to have the choices. Just because all the choices may be bad doesn't take away from the benefit of having choices. Better to choose among three or four (or 124) bad choices than to not have any choice at all.

Thorne
01-23-2011, 03:12 PM
[QUOTE=Thorne;904608]True, of course, except that we are told that we will not be happy if we do not buy this that or the other, for one thing.
Well I can tell you right now that you will not be happy until you, and everyone you know, send me $100 right away. After all, isn't happiness more important than money? Just because someone tells you, or some commercial shouts at you repeatedly, that you need this, that or some other thing to be happy, does not mean you must buy it. The choice is still yours! Get the truth, study the data, so you can make an informed choice.


I do not have all the words in my head right now, but I truly believe that 'the people' are there to buy, and the corps are the masters.
That sounds more like an excuse than a philosophy. The corporations exist to make money. They do that by convincing people to buy their products. As in everything else, those with the money are in control. If you don't buy from the corporations they will have to change. If you decide that you just HAVE to have what they're selling, then you give them the power.


Having 15 kind of soap powder is not really nessecary for freedom, IMO, but this tendency does empty our the resources of the world which are not infinite.
Agreed. You only need ONE kind of soap powder. You only need ONE kind of canned soup. You only need ONE kind of razor blade. So which one will you accept? The one I choose? Or do you want to choose your own? Quick! Decide! while you still have the choice!


But I cannot see that having the choice of 124 kinds of radio is important, nor does it have anything to do with freedom of religion, or of the press, or any other freedom.
What about the freedom of CHOICE? What about the freedom of businesses to promote their own brand of radio? Once again we come to the fact that, as long as people are buying those 124 different radios, there is a demand which the corporations are more than willing to fulfill.

One other thing to consider is that, if you eliminate the choices, make it so that there is only one kind of radio, one brand of soap powder, than the corporation can charge whatever it wishes for it. Without competition, they absolutely DO control the prices. And the buyers.

lucy
01-23-2011, 04:18 PM
"It’s Official. We Are All Contaminated
It’s all over the Internet by now. Research carried out by the University of California reveals that of 268 expectant mothers each of them showed levels of toxic chemicals. The study, recently published in Environmental Health Perspectives, concluded, “Certain PCBs, organochlorine pesticides, PFCs, phenols, PBDEs, phthalates, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and perchlorate were detected in 99 to 100% of pregnant women.” Read the report HERE."

Read more: http://www.care2.com/greenliving/its-official-we-are-all-contaminated.html#ixzz1BspkqdH2

http://www.care2.com/greenliving/its-official-we-are-all-contaminated.html?page=2
And how ist that news?
Plus: Have they made comparative studies, to see whether those leves of contamination have risen or fallen over the last 10 years? Not too long ago, they'd have found large amounts of lead, too. Then unleaded fuel was introduced and lo and behold, lead's off the list.
Face it: Never before in the history of humankind have so many people had the possibility to live so healthy as today.
If people decide to stuff themselves with oversized meals and drive the 100 m from McDonalds to Walmart, then that's their choice. It's also what kills them, not a bit of PCB.
With that I don't want to insinuate that I think PCBs and all that other crap shouldn't be taken off the market.

I just want to say that compared to the health risks people take willingly and knowingly (i.e. not move their asses, eat too much, eat the wrong stuff, no hygiene in their kitchens) the health risks of those poisons you mentioned are chickenshit.

Besides, as Thorne said: Choice FTW.

leo9
01-24-2011, 05:02 AM
One interesting point that I think bears looking at was a corolation, not between a countries direct prosperity level and low precentage rates of religious responcers so much as an inverse relationship between precentages of religious respondants and the level of comprehensive social welfare that was employed by each country.

Not all countries catagorically fit into a relationship where the more money was made the less religion was practiced, notable exceptions like the United States and others stood out.

A much higher degree of social welfare being employed by a given nation did apply in far more cases as the cuasitive agent.


Sounds like it confirms my guess at the start of this thread: it's about security rather than prosperity. If the state makes you feel secure, you don't need to get it from the church.

And contrariwise, this probably also explains why rising prosperity in Africa and the Middle East has in many cases led to more, not less religiosity. Between neoliberal advisers, and the direct influence of the corporations, very little of the new money has been spent on any sort of welfare, and people's jobs and status are at the mercy of unpredictable corrupt officials. So the new middle classes, for all their money, are actually more insecure than their parents back in the villages.

denuseri
01-24-2011, 04:20 PM
I just hope that such state replacement isnt worse in the end than what it is attempting to replace.

The biological need for the spiritual itch to be scratched is a perplexing one, its as much a part of our hardware as any other component of human pycology according to the latest reaserch.

Perhaps Mill and other Utilitarians were prophets to some degree.

leo9
01-25-2011, 02:50 AM
I just hope that such state replacement isnt worse in the end than what it is attempting to replace.

The difference is that state-provided security leaves you free to choose your own spiritual path if you feel drawn to one. The state doesn't demand to be worshipped. (Those states that did, failed the security test, as shown by the explosion of religiosity in the ex-USSR.)

The consumer economy, on the other hand, does demand worship, full time and devoted, but that's another branch of this thread, which IMO needs to be split off into a topic of its own.

Thorne
01-25-2011, 08:07 AM
The biological need for the spiritual itch to be scratched is a perplexing one, its as much a part of our hardware as any other component of human pycology according to the latest reaserch.
What do you mean by "spiritual itch"? In fact, what do you mean by spiritual anything? I hear, and see, people using that word all the time and it seems to mean just about anything the user wants it to mean.

What is spiritual? How do you measure it? How do you touch it? You mention a spiritual itch, and all I can think of is that annoying itch I sometimes get that seems to keep moving around whenever I try to scratch it. leo9 talks of a 'spiritual path', which conjures up images of hippies sitting around getting high while pretending to make some magical journey into Neverland or something.

As near as I can figure, spirituality is something like virtual reality, in that it seems to be real but isn't. It has the appearance of truth, but is all smoke and mirrors. There's nothing there to grab hold of, nothing to feel, nothing at all. It's like eating virtual food: looks good, but doesn't fill your stomach.

How does one follow a spiritual path? Are there spiritual hiking boots to protect your feet? Will spiritual camping equipment be needed, or is this a one day spiritual hike? What about spiritual protection against spiritual dangers?

So many questions, and no meaningful answers.

Thorne
01-25-2011, 08:19 AM
The consumer economy, on the other hand, does demand worship, full time and devoted
Nonsense. The consumer economy only demands consumers and suppliers. There's nothing to worship. Suppliers provide the products, consumers purchase them. If the suppliers don't provide quality products, consumers don't, or at least shouldn't, buy them.

People want to believe that their lives are controlled by the evil corporations, but in reality the corporations can only exist as long as we continue to purchase their products. If you aren't happy with the products, stop buying them! If you don't like the way the corporations do business, start your own business. People start new businesses every day around the world. (And businesses fail every day, too.)

And I am sick and tired of hearing people complain about the corporations making profits. That's what corporations are there for! It's what they do! If you want to develop a product, manufacture it, sell it and not make a profit at it, then I have to think the problem lies with you, and not with those who DO make a profit. How many people are willing to work for just enough money to pay their bills, with nothing left for extras? No movie tickets, no restaurant outings, no cable TV. Just food and housing, the basic necessities. Yet this is exactly what they expect the corporations to do: make no profits, nothing above the cost of actually doing business. That's just silly, and selfish.

lucy
01-25-2011, 11:32 AM
The biological need for the spiritual itch to be scratched is a perplexing one, its as much a part of our hardware as any other component of human pycology according to the latest reaserch.
Says who? I haven't been researched. Nobody ever researches me. That's probably why the come up with that. Dammit!
I don't feel no spiritual itch. I sometimes feel an itch between my legs, but that usually goes away with a good hearty screwing, so I guess it's not spiritual.

thir
01-26-2011, 07:11 AM
"But I cannot see that having the choice of 124 kinds of radio is important, nor does it have anything to do with freedom of religion, or of the press, or any other freedom."

"What about the freedom of CHOICE? What about the freedom of businesses to promote their own brand of radio? Once again we come to the fact that, as long as people are buying those 124 different radios, there is a demand which the corporations are more than willing to fulfill."

I think this is a new thread in its own right, and worth exploring. I will start one on democracy, freedom and commercialism here, and hope many will contribute, as I am running into thoughts here which are new to me!

One other thing to consider is that, if you eliminate the choices, make it so that there is only one kind of radio, one brand of soap powder, than the corporation can charge whatever it wishes for it. Without competition, they absolutely DO control the prices. And the buyers.

thir
01-26-2011, 07:39 AM
If the suppliers don't provide quality products, consumers don't, or at least shouldn't, buy them.


However, things are just not that easy. How do your know if a product is quality, or even safe? Do you think the ads will tell you? I recently posted an article about medicine, and how the medicinal industry largely control release of their products, safe or not, useful or not. That is just one example.

You can do things in some cases, but first you have to know.


And I am sick and tired of hearing people complain about the corporations making profits.

Then stop reading about it. Nobody is forcing you.



That's what corporations are there for! It's what they do! If you want to develop a product, manufacture it, sell it and not make a profit at it, then I have to think the problem lies with you, and not with those who DO make a profit. How many people are willing to work for just enough money to pay their bills, with nothing left for extras? No movie tickets, no restaurant outings, no cable TV. Just food and housing, the basic necessities. Yet this is exactly what they expect the corporations to do: make no profits, nothing above the cost of actually doing business. That's just silly, and selfish.

Poor little coporations - how they must suffer! ;-)

thir
01-26-2011, 07:41 AM
What do you mean by "spiritual itch"?

I would guess that the fact that some people cannot be content with a full stomach, and loads of gadgets.

Thorne
01-26-2011, 10:00 AM
However, things are just not that easy. How do your know if a product is quality, or even safe? Do you think the ads will tell you? I recently posted an article about medicine, and how the medicinal industry largely control release of their products, safe or not, useful or not. That is just one example.

You can do things in some cases, but first you have to know.
One way is to do the research, something which is vastly easier, on the consumer level, due to the access granted by the internet. Check out consumer groups, look for others who have tried the product, develop a list of "trusted" producers that you will be more likely to purchase from. For example, I enjoy eating fresh peaches. We generally buy those which are grown locally, and they are generally delicious. At one point, when the local supply was gone, my wife bought some peaches which had been imported from Chile. They were terrible! We don't buy those kinds of peaches anymore.

Granted, you can't always know everything you need to know, but people have to stop blaming corporations and take a little responsibility on themselves to find out.


Then stop reading about it. Nobody is forcing you.
Touche! <grin> But if I stop reading about it I can't argue about it. And that's more than half the fun.

Thorne
01-26-2011, 10:02 AM
I would guess that the fact that some people cannot be content with a full stomach, and loads of gadgets.
Yes, I see. They always want more, more, more. Just like those corporations they complain about. ;)

denuseri
01-26-2011, 11:12 AM
According to reaserchers in California:

"Is humankind hardwired to be spiritual? Recent research suggests that we just might be, as scientists from the University of Udine in Italy identify areas of the brain in which levels of activation regulate spirituality. This study, published in the February 11 issue of the journal Neuron, serves as a first step in pinpointing the biological root of spiritual and religious feelings. Looking for a direct link between neural activity and spiritualism, Dr. Cosimo Urgesi and his colleagues interviewed eighty-eight cancer patients with brain tumors of varying severities before and after their surgeries. They discovered that the people who had tumors removed in the left and right posterior parietal regions of the brain showed a considerable increase in self-transcendence. Though spirituality in many ways is seen as separate from religion, both incorporate a complex of attitudes and behaviors relating to a transcendent human condition. Religious beliefs and practices have been a source of succor and conflict for nearly all of recorded human history, making this study significant in that it paves the path for future investigation that can advance our understanding of the neurobiological reasoning behind disparate outlooks on spirituality. While some experts discourage comparing the neural mechanisms involved in spirituality with those of religious practices, the causative link between brain functioning level and state of transcendence should be further pursued as it may lead to answers of why humans are religious, and potentially reveal our genetic predisposition for belief."

"Previous reports confirm the relationship between spirituality and frontal, parietal, and temporal cortexes. In particular, the brain's right parietal lobe defines the aspect of "me." According to Brick Johnstone, a neuropsychologist at University of Missouri, this region assesses the body's position and location in space. Any modifications to the area would disrupt this awareness and feelings of individuality would fade. In essence, the sensation of transcendence would be heightened. By comparing imaging of damaged brains and the subjects self-described spirituality, one study, published in the journal Zygon in 2008, provides evidence that people with less active parietal lobes (i.e., "Me-Definers") are more likely to be spiritual. However, the research conducted by Dr. Urgesi is the first to suggest a causative link. His team surveyed the spirituality of a person by scoring their level of self-transcendence, which is an allegedly unvarying personality trait that abstractedly reflects a decreased ability to sense individual self and largely identify oneself as incorporated with the universe. In order to gauge self-transcendence (or ST), patients underwent formal interviews focusing on their level of religiosity, report of personal mystical experiences or extrasensorial consciousness (including the presence of God), and acceptance of their illness. "Damage to posterior parietal areas induced unusually fast changes of a stable personality dimension related to transcendental self-referential awareness," Dr. Urgesi concluded. Because a specific area of the brain closely controls this trait, spirituality and religious behaviors may be a direct result of diminished activity in the parietal area."

In other words...since people are spiritual and religious and any number of other things, and since in science we have found that structure equals function in all things from basic atomic principles to higher brain function...then there must be a physical area of the brain that governs said spiritualism and religion and any other number of human enmotive responses to stimuli.

Ergo we are to a certian degree "hardwired" to be what we are.

Thorne
01-26-2011, 08:16 PM
Ergo we are to a certian degree "hardwired" to be what we are.
Perhaps that's true, perhaps not. Hard to tell at this point. But even if it were true, what does that mean? After all, men are "hardwired" to be polygamous. People are "hardwired" to kill enemies. There are numerous traits which can be considered to be "hardwired" in our brains, yet we have the ability to overcome them. That's a part of being human, too.

Just because there was once a survival advantage in believing in the supernatural doesn't mean that we must still do so. As humans haven't we advanced to the point where such simplistic explanations for the world around us are no longer necessary? And perhaps no longer advantageous. We no longer can afford to believe that mumbling a few trite phrases will help us to overcome disease and adversity. There are better ways which actually work. Our survival, MY survival right now, is dependent upon those rational methods of curing disease. No gods are going to help me, or you, or anyone else. Doctors and medicine and science just might.

denuseri
01-26-2011, 09:30 PM
Being spiritual may be no different in medical terms than one's sexual prefrerence is my point.

As for your apparently biological compulsion to continuous attack, smear, and use sophistry when addressing people of religious faith I can only say that I am sorry you feel the need to belittle others in such fashion and scincerely hope and pray that one day you come to respect the belief systems of others as you would wish for them to respect your own.

I have pointed out a corolation between the level of social wellfare and the level of of reported religious adherence being the primary cuasitive effect involved in the relationship between church and state and I have provided further support for this contention found by medical reaserchers and other scientiests conserning the physical structures in the brain that directly corolate to religious orinetated adherences expounding upon how intellegent people of learning can and do still follow their beliefs in said manner.

In fact...some of the worlds smartest people...leading scientists in every field of study...are religious and some contend that they have no logical reason to be otherwise.

The fact that the more advanced a countries level of science is, and its level of prosperity in general apparently plays little in how many people are reported to follow a religion or claim to be spiritual only gives further evidence to my argument as to the real cuases.


Perhaps instead of putting down all people of faith we could discuss the topic for a change?

Thorne
01-27-2011, 07:42 AM
[B][COLOR="pink"]Being spiritual may be no different in medical terms than one's sexual prefrerence is my point.
Perhaps that's true, though the evidence for either of these statements is far from conclusive. A lot of study must still be done before we can accept those hypotheses as proven.

But even if it were true, what does it mean? It's still not evidence for gods or other supernatural beings, any more than it's evidence for Santa Clause or unicorns. If it's true must we now release all those currently housed in asylums who believe they are Jesus Christ, or who believe they are angels? Does it mean that people who kill others because "God told me to" should be considered innocent of their crimes? No, it only means that there was some kind of evolutionary advantage to believing in invisible beings of immense power. It doesn't mean that such belief is endowed upon us by those beings.

As for your apparently biological compulsion to continuous attack, smear, and use sophistry when addressing people of religious faith I can only say that I am sorry you feel the need to belittle others in such fashion and scincerely hope and pray that one day you come to respect the belief systems of others as you would wish for them to respect your own.
I'm afraid I don't agree with your assessment of my actions, unless you think that NOT believing in your particular gods constitutes an attack. I do, and will continue to, attack religious organizations, which I feel are generally perversions of faith rather than caretakers of it. Personally, I have no quarrel with those who profess a faith, as long as they don't claim it to be the one TRUE faith.


I have pointed out a corolation between the level of social wellfare and the level of of reported religious adherence being the primary cuasitive effect involved in the relationship between church and state and I have provided further support for this contention found by medical reaserchers and other scientiests conserning the physical structures in the brain that directly corolate to religious orinetated adherences expounding upon how intellegent people of learning can and do still follow their beliefs in said manner.
Correlation does not mean causation. The USA, for example, has one of the highest rates of religious adherence in the world, yet one of the lowest levels of social welfare. And even a cursory look at the politics of this country will show that the religious right are the ones fighting hardest against any social welfare. The Catholic Church (which I use as an example because it is the one I am most familiar with) is directly responsible for the deaths of thousands, if not millions, of AIDS victims because of its proscription of the use of condoms, not to mention its outright lies regarding their effectiveness. Many religious organizations are misogynistic in nature, assigning a lower status to women simply because of their sex. And what of those religious organizations, and people, who advocate against the rights of homosexuals? Those same homosexuals whom you are willing to admit might be genetically predisposed to be what they are. How are any of these things consistent with social welfare?


In fact...some of the worlds smartest people...leading scientists in every field of study...are religious and some contend that they have no logical reason to be otherwise.
Rather say that some of the world's smartest people still have faith. Few are actually religious, as in following a specific religious organization. But even granting your comments: so what? At one point the smartest people in the world believed the Earth was flat, and held up on the backs of turtles. Does that make it so?


The fact that the more advanced a countries level of science is, and its level of prosperity in general apparently plays little in how many people are reported to follow a religion or claim to be spiritual only gives further evidence to my argument as to the real cuases.
Sorry, I don't see how that has any bearing on it. People are generally raised from birth in a specific religion. Breaking away from it is very hard, especially when it could result in alienation from a community or even a family. I would say, rather, that some people retain their religions against all evidence, despite the higher level of science or their level of prosperity. Whether or not they actually retain their faith, though, is a different story. I wonder how many of the people who attend services every week are really true believers, and how many are just going through the motions because it's something they've always done? I think the number of the latter would surprise a lot of people. But how do you get people to admit that?


Perhaps instead of putting down all people of faith we could discuss the topic for a change?
I thought I was! But all right, let's try this:
How much money did American churches spend to try to keep homosexuals from having equal rights, illegally involving them in politics? Don't you think that money could have better been spent to help homeless people? Where is the social welfare?
How many different religious institutions actively fought against the idea of women's rights? How many still keep women in virtual slavery? Where is the social justice?
Throughout history you can find religious organizations not at the forefront of advancement, but fighting savagely against any advancement. Europe's feudal system could not have been maintained were it not for the Catholic Church bolstering the nobility. Any study will show that billions of people throughout history and around the world suffered far more due to the teachings of religious organizations than were helped by those teachings. Religion has been proven to be the most effective means for controlling a population, capitalizing on that genetic predisposition to believe in things which are not there. So show me how that is a benefit to people.

And I still have no idea what you, or anyone, means by 'spirituality'. What is a spiritual experience? How does it differ from a physical experience? And, most importantly to me, how do you know it really happened?

Thorne
01-27-2011, 08:21 AM
denuseri,

Apropos of your statements regarding the brain's structure, this (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/01/stephen_asma_responds.php#more)was posted today.

Taking a few comments from there:
"The older brain --built by natural selection for solving survival challenges -was not built for rationality. Emotions like fear, love, rage, even hope or anticipation, were selected for because they helped early mammals flourish. Fear is a great prod to escape predators, for example, and aggression is useful in the defense of resources and offspring. Care or feelings of love (oxytocin and opioid based) strengthen bonds between mammal parents and offspring, and so on. Emotions are in many cases quicker ways to solve problems than deliberative cognition."

"People who critique such emotional responses and strategies with the refrain "But is it true?" are missing the point. I agree with the atheists: Most religious beliefs are not true. But here's the crux. The emotional brain doesn't care."

"Science and rationality are not best suited to navigate some of those crags and chasms of feeling, but other human cultural tools (like religion and art) can engage them effectively."

Anyway, I think this says what I was saying, though more eloquently. Our brains have developed to respond to things, even things which might not be true. That doesn't mean that gods exist. It only means that we can understand WHY people think gods may exist. Because it makes them feel good. It would be just as rational to proclaim that ice cream is a gift from heaven, just because it tastes so good.

denuseri
01-27-2011, 01:25 PM
I think you have missed the boat entirely here and are still on an anti religion/faith rant Thorne and quotes provided by you from well known biased atheist iconoclastic demegouges really dont lend any wieght to such arguments.



The corolation between levels of religious adherence in any given state and its level of social welfare is an inverse one.

In other words the higher the level of social welfare...the lower the level of religious adherence.

All the other factors you have mentioned as possible cuasitive agents have proven to be spurious in so far as providing any single catagorically aplicable cuasative arangment.

Thorne
01-27-2011, 07:46 PM
I think you have missed the boat entirely here and are still on an anti religion/faith rant Thorne and quotes provided by you from well known biased atheist iconoclastic demegouges really dont lend any wieght to such arguments.
Ahh, so I should be quoting FATHEIST iconoclastic demagogues? The ones who basically agree with you? Seems to be counterproductive, from my point of view.


The corolation between levels of religious adherence in any given state and its level of social welfare is an inverse one.
In other words the higher the level of social welfare...the lower the level of religious adherence.

I must have misunderstood what you were saying. I thought you were implying a direct correlation, not an inverse one. I agree with you about that. Which, again, doesn't say all that much for religious organizations.


All the other factors you have mentioned as possible cuasitive agents have proven to be spurious in so far as providing any single catagorically aplicable cuasative arangment.
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. Would you please clarify this statement?

denuseri
01-28-2011, 11:27 AM
All Im trying to point out is:

A countires overall level of wealth and prosperity apparently have little to do with the level of religious adherence reported.

Where as...the higher the degree of social wellfare imployed, the lower the religious adherence.

Which suggests that whatever it is that religion was providing for these people is being replaced by something else now...what that something is, shrugs...I don't know as of yet, I hope its not overindulgence is all.

That its a need being replaced as opposed to some kind of evolutionary change in human thinking is also part of this imho and there is plenty of evidence in a number of studies out there from non-biased scources to support that observation...I only provided one source to support it.

Furthermore:

I never used some pro-religious/biased anti atheist or vice versa scource for anything Ive postulated in the thread and I didnt see any reason for anyone else to eaither, nor have I tried to highjack the thread (and any other thread with the merest mention of the word religion or faith in it) and use it as some kind of bully pulpit to bash someone elses belief system whatever it may be and cant for the life of me figure out why someone would still continue to do so at every opportunity throughout the forums.





Ive said pretty much all I can say about this topic now.

Good day to you.

Thorne
01-28-2011, 12:47 PM
Which suggests that whatever it is that religion was providing for these people is being replaced by something else now
Or perhaps it suggests that, by meeting the physical needs of people, their "spiritual" needs are placed into perspective, and no longer seem as important to them.


That its a need being replaced as opposed to some kind of evolutionary change in human thinking is also part of this imho and there is plenty of evidence in a number of studies out there from non-biased scources to support that observation.
I don't claim that there is an evolutionary change in thinking at all. In an evolutionary sense we are predisposed towards believing in these kinds of things. I think it's more a change in education, not filling young minds with religious dogma from day 1, which makes the biggest difference. And there are plenty of studies, from all over, to support that!


nor have I tried to highjack the thread (and any other thread with the merest mention of the word religion or faith in it) and use it as some kind of bully pulpit to bash someone elses belief system whatever it may be and cant for the life of me figure out why someone would still continue to do so at every opportunity throughout the forums.
I have never tried to hijack any threads, and I try not to bring religion into the topic unless someone else has. I can't say I haven't done it inadvertently, but certainly not deliberately. But this is, after all, a religion and philosophy forum, so it's natural that religion will have some part in almost any topic here, I would think. I'm only sorry that you take any negative comments about religion as a personal attack. I certainly never meant for any of my comments to be taken personally.

denuseri
01-28-2011, 12:55 PM
But there is no direct cuasitive link that hasnt been shown to be spurious that applies catagorically between educational levels and religious adherence.

thir
01-29-2011, 11:13 AM
One way is to do the research, something which is vastly easier, on the consumer level, due to the access granted by the internet


Good thinkg we have it then, or we would be at the mercy of the corps!



Check out consumer groups, look for others who have tried the product, develop a list of "trusted" producers that you will be more likely to purchase from.


Does anyone have the time to do this for every product??

I happen to think that it is more reasonable and logical that an official independent body does this research, rather than we all do it individually. And anyway official authority and laboratories would be nessecary.



Granted, you can't always know everything you need to know, but people have to stop blaming corporations and take a little responsibility on themselves to find out


What you are saying is that the corps can do what they like as long as it makes money, and it is up to us to survive the products.

[/QUOTE]

thir
01-29-2011, 11:27 AM
Quote Originally Posted by thir View Post
I would guess that the fact that some people cannot be content with a full stomach, and loads of gadgets.


Yes, I see. They always want more, more, more. Just like those corporations they complain about. ;)

I walked into that one, didn't I? :-)

But you know that what I meant was that some cannot be content or happy simply by not starving or having lots of toys.

Even if you rule out religion, there are needs that are not strictly material. The material ones are more or less food, shelter, safety, sex.

But there are others. Fellowships/friendship, respect, self/respect, freedom, self-actualization - and so on.

Marlowe adds others, morality, for instance.

What about creativity, musicality? Where does that come from?

And we are on the way to spirituality.

leo9
01-29-2011, 11:46 AM
Sadly it's a law of human nature. Far too many people are willing to accept the advice and opinions of wealthy people than of poorer people.

Well, thank goodness for that. Where would we be if people had listened to that crazy Ghandi in his homespun loincloth, rather than the rich Indians (and Westerners) who were making a good thing out of the British Raj? And as for those Reds like Mao and Lenin, who talked like they were proud of not being rich... yes, it's a good thing it's a law of human nature that people listened to the rich folk instead of them.

(I'm not getting into religious figures because it's too easy, and because I don't want to annoy you too much ;))

thir
01-29-2011, 11:54 AM
Perhaps that's true, perhaps not. Hard to tell at this point. But even if it were true, what does that mean? After all, men are "hardwired" to be polygamous. People are "hardwired" to kill enemies. There are numerous traits which can be considered to be "hardwired" in our brains, yet we have the ability to overcome them. That's a part of being human, too.


There is absolutely no scientific evidence that we have such a hard-wirering.

Nor for listening to the rich, nor that seeking profit at all costs is a human trait we absolutely must obey



Just because there was once a survival advantage in believing in the supernatural doesn't mean that we must still do so.


What advantage was that?



As humans haven't we advanced to the point where such simplistic explanations for the world around us are no longer necessary?


I don't know..this hard-wire thing for one seems pretty simplistic to me. And so do a good many other manipulative, simplistic ideas and slogans.



And perhaps no longer advantageous. We no longer can afford to believe that mumbling a few trite phrases will help us to overcome disease and adversity.


Why not? In so many places that is all people have.



There are better ways which actually work. Our survival, MY survival right now, is dependent upon those rational methods of curing disease. No gods are going to help me, or you, or anyone else. Doctors and medicine and science just might.

For those who can afford it, you mean.
Other methods are used by people who cannnot, and some of them work, even if not a part of Western medicine.

denuseri
01-29-2011, 12:54 PM
Sometimes eastrn medical procedures qi gong, acupunture etc...work where the west's prefered treaments ALL failed.

Thorne
01-29-2011, 03:11 PM
Does anyone have the time to do this for every product??
Probably not, but it's not always necessary. Word of mouth works well. If your friends and neighbors are happy with something, at least it's worth giving it a try. It's only in expensive items, such as appliances, cars, tv's, etc., that research would prove beneficial.


I happen to think that it is more reasonable and logical that an official independent body does this research, rather than we all do it individually. And anyway official authority and laboratories would be nessecary.
There is Consumer Reports, of course, which is supposed to be independent. But you still have to look for their reports, research what they have learned. You can't expect them to send out info to everyone.


What you are saying is that the corps can do what they like as long as it makes money, and it is up to us to survive the products.
Not at all! The corporations should be controlled, to at least some degree, by the government. But making sure their products are suitable FOR YOU is your responsibility.

Thorne
01-29-2011, 03:23 PM
I walked into that one, didn't I? :-)
"Step into my parlor...."


But you know that what I meant was that some cannot be content or happy simply by not starving or having lots of toys
That's part of being human, I suppose. The urge to have more. The security of excess. I don't see a problem with it as long as it's not hurting others.


Fellowships/friendship, respect, self/respect, freedom, self-actualization - and so on.
Emotional needs. Not sure what the corporations have to do with these. These are more of a personal nature. And I'm not sure if they're actual needs or simply desires. We may WANT respect, generally, but I don't know that we actually NEED it.


Marlowe adds others, morality, for instance.
This one is more of a societal need than a personal one. Individuals don't NEED morality, except to function within a society. And the moral rules are generally set by that society, not by the individuals.


What about creativity, musicality? Where does that come from?
And we are on the way to spirituality.
I don't see what these have to do with spirituality. Creativity is a mental process, strictly biological, not spiritual. The same with music and art. They are functions of the mind, no different than any other kind of thought process. What need of spirituality here?

Thorne
01-29-2011, 03:29 PM
Well, thank goodness for that. Where would we be if people had listened to that crazy Ghandi in his homespun loincloth, rather than the rich Indians (and Westerners) who were making a good thing out of the British Raj? And as for those Reds like Mao and Lenin, who talked like they were proud of not being rich... yes, it's a good thing it's a law of human nature that people listened to the rich folk instead of them.
I didn't say EVERYONE will listen to the rich over the poor. Again, I feel it's a function of education. Those who are better educated tend to put more stock into another person's words and actions than in his wealth. But given a particular issue, I think most people will tend to listen to a wealthy person rather than a poor one. Until the wealthy person screws up one time too many. Plus, once you get the mob involved all bets are off.

Thorne
01-29-2011, 03:54 PM
Sometimes eastrn medical procedures qi gong, acupunture etc...work where the west's prefered treaments ALL failed.
From here (http://www.skepdic.com/acupuncture.html): "The evidence from both personal testimony and from scientific studies clearly shows that acupuncture works and is an effective medical treatment for many ailments. The evidence from the scientific studies also shows clearly that sham acupuncture is just as effective as true acupuncture. What is not so clear to some people, but is easily ferreted out from the evidence, is that acupuncture most likely works by classical conditioning and other factors that are often lumped together and referred to as "the placebo effect." Furthermore, in some cases sham acupuncture works better than other placebos."

Some of the "traditional" medicines really do work. Pharmaceutical companies investigated them, determined WHY they worked, then made easily accessible substitutes for them. When you have a headache you can always go out to find a willow tree, strip off the bark and boil up a nice tea to make the headache go away. Or you can take a couple of aspirin, which has the same active ingredient. Perhaps the first method will be cheaper, but the second is far more convenient.

Many more treatments and medicines have been shown to have little or no therapeutic value beyond the placebo effect. It's similar to treatments for the common cold. You can do nothing, and the cold will go away in 14 days, or you can take all kinds of medications and get rid of it in only 2 weeks. Our bodies have built in healing mechanisms which can be far more powerful than many medications. Placebo medicines rely on this natural ability. Snake oil salesmen rely on human nature to fall for the sales pitch and buy such placebos.

So you can pay the scientists, or you can pay the witch doctors. Take your pick, and hopefully it won't kill you.

Thorne
01-29-2011, 04:06 PM
There is absolutely no scientific evidence that we have such a hard-wirering.
Of course not. We call it reflex (such as "fight or flight"), or instinct, or innate ability. Kinda hard to have hard wiring in a soft and squishy brain.


What advantage was that?
Who knows? Perhaps declaring a place to be the "abode of the gods" was a good way to keep people from walking in places where they could be killed. Maybe it just made people feel good to believe there were powerful beings looking out for them. Why do we consider it bad luck to walk under a ladder? It isn't, really. It could be dangerous, though.


I don't know..this hard-wire thing for one seems pretty simplistic to me. And so do a good many other manipulative, simplistic ideas and slogans.
It IS simplistic. It's a metaphor for autonomic responses in our brains. And those manipulative ideas and slogans try to access those responses and nudge people to move in a particular direction.

Why not? In so many places that is all people have.
Because it has been shown that such things do not really work! We need to make sure people have things which DO work.


For those who can afford it, you mean.
I'm not going to get into the whole poverty issue here.


Other methods are used by people who cannnot, and some of them work, even if not a part of Western medicine.
See my response to denuseri, above, regarding acupuncture.

denuseri
01-29-2011, 05:31 PM
It really helps when one doesnt go to only a single and clearly biased source for their information.

In Nursing school they said pretty much what this acredited government site had to say about it, I highly reccomend you do more than just read the intro I posted bellow:
http://nccam.nih.gov/health/acupuncture/

"Acupuncture is among the oldest healing practices in the world. As part of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), acupuncture aims to restore and maintain health through the stimulation of specific points on the body. In the United States, where practitioners incorporate healing traditions from China, Japan, Korea, and other countries, acupuncture is considered part of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM)."

It isnt even remotely considered snake oil. smh


And as for scientific evidence of humans being hardwired...just open any medical textbook...I would quote straight from all the ones on my bookshelf but that would simply be too much typing.

Thorne
01-29-2011, 10:29 PM
It really helps when one doesnt go to only a single and clearly biased source for their information.
I didn't think it was necessary to do months of research and provide footnotes. I used that particular source because he has already done the research, and has links to his sources.


In Nursing school they said pretty much what this acredited government site had to say about it, I highly reccomend you do more than just read the intro I posted bellow:
So you don't like my using real scientists as sources, yet you can use an organization which promotes alternative medicines? Well here's another (http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/acu.html)for you.

And while I didn't go really in depth into the site you linked to, I did look at their section on clinical trials. I saw plenty of descriptions of what clinical trials are, and lots of claims of ongoing clinical trials, yet not one link to a true, reproducible, scientific study which supports their claims. To my knowledge, the practitioners of acupuncture, in particular, can't even prove the basic claim of their craft, which is something along the lines of realigning energy flows in the human body. They can't define these energy flows, can't measure them, can't study them, yet they insist they are there. Show me the proof! And no, I don't care about how many people use alternative medicines. That's irrelevant to whether or not it actually works.


It isnt even remotely considered snake oil.
Except by reputable scientists and doctors.

Many believers of these "magical" practices believe that scientists and medical professionals haven't looked into these things. They have. There have been plenty of real studies, with valid testing procedures, which have shown them to be no better than placebos.

thir
01-30-2011, 07:59 AM
This is a most interesting article, but like so many of its kind, it is all up to the journalist to get it right, and they don't always, or they do not think people are interested in the details.

It would be interesting to know if Cosimo Urgesi is religious himself, just wondering because lately I have seen a number of articles on research on various matters concerning religion or belief, among which one on belief and health, and they were all sponsored by a Christian organisation. But maybe it is a trend in research.
It also has a bearing on what questions he asked in the survey.

I wonder what was his reason for asking his informers about both religion and sprituality, seeng how the article shows that it is debated whether the two should be kept apart.

I miss a proper definition on religion, and much more one on spirituality! Also on 'self-transcendence,' and 'a transcendant human condition'.

It does say that the team surveyed 'the spirituality of a person by scoring their level of self-transcendence, which is an allegedly unvarying personality trait that abstractedly reflects a decreased ability to sense individual self and largely identify oneself as incorporated with the universe.'

So, by way of asking, he is trying to determine an alleged trait which abstractedly reflects a decreased awareness of self, and a larger identification of being one with the universe.

So, if he sees spirtuality as being sort of the opposite of an awareness of self, why does he not continue to use purely scientific methods to investigate that?

Right back in the 60's it was discovered that people who meditated had different brain waves from people who were sleeping, or awake.
There are lots of situations where people loose track of self: apart from meditating, being creative or seriously intent on something, listening to music, or being completely exhuasted, for instance. It would be easy enough to measure people's brain waves during such situations, wouldn't it? And much more reliable.

I can understand that spirituality is seen as having to do with a feeling being one with the universe - after all we are made of the same stuff, and it is not to be wondered if that can be felt. Indeed, it can.

But why does he see a sense of self as versus transcendence? As if you have more of one, you must have less of the other, and vice verca.
The way I see it, they are just two different mind sets.

I know this is not what is meant, but it seems to be that he is saying that religion comes from brain damage!



According to reaserchers in California:

"Is humankind hardwired to be spiritual? Recent research suggests that we just might be, as scientists from the University of Udine in Italy identify areas of the brain in which levels of activation regulate spirituality. This study, published in the February 11 issue of the journal Neuron, serves as a first step in pinpointing the biological root of spiritual and religious feelings. Looking for a direct link between neural activity and spiritualism, Dr. Cosimo Urgesi and his colleagues interviewed eighty-eight cancer patients with brain tumors of varying severities before and after their surgeries. They discovered that the people who had tumors removed in the left and right posterior parietal regions of the brain showed a considerable increase in self-transcendence. Though spirituality in many ways is seen as separate from religion, both incorporate a complex of attitudes and behaviors relating to a transcendent human condition. Religious beliefs and practices have been a source of succor and conflict for nearly all of recorded human history, making this study significant in that it paves the path for future investigation that can advance our understanding of the neurobiological reasoning behind disparate outlooks on spirituality. While some experts discourage comparing the neural mechanisms involved in spirituality with those of religious practices, the causative link between brain functioning level and state of transcendence should be further pursued as it may lead to answers of why humans are religious, and potentially reveal our genetic predisposition for belief."

"Previous reports confirm the relationship between spirituality and frontal, parietal, and temporal cortexes. In particular, the brain's right parietal lobe defines the aspect of "me." According to Brick Johnstone, a neuropsychologist at University of Missouri, this region assesses the body's position and location in space. Any modifications to the area would disrupt this awareness and feelings of individuality would fade. In essence, the sensation of transcendence would be heightened. By comparing imaging of damaged brains and the subjects self-described spirituality, one study, published in the journal Zygon in 2008, provides evidence that people with less active parietal lobes (i.e., "Me-Definers") are more likely to be spiritual. However, the research conducted by Dr. Urgesi is the first to suggest a causative link. His team surveyed the spirituality of a person by scoring their level of self-transcendence, which is an allegedly unvarying personality trait that abstractedly reflects a decreased ability to sense individual self and largely identify oneself as incorporated with the universe. In order to gauge self-transcendence (or ST), patients underwent formal interviews focusing on their level of religiosity, report of personal mystical experiences or extrasensorial consciousness (including the presence of God), and acceptance of their illness. "Damage to posterior parietal areas induced unusually fast changes of a stable personality dimension related to transcendental self-referential awareness," Dr. Urgesi concluded. Because a specific area of the brain closely controls this trait, spirituality and religious behaviors may be a direct result of diminished activity in the parietal area."

In other words...since people are spiritual and religious and any number of other things, and since in science we have found that structure equals function in all things from basic atomic principles to higher brain function...then there must be a physical area of the brain that governs said spiritualism and religion and any other number of human enmotive responses to stimuli.

Ergo we are to a certian degree "hardwired" to be what we are.

All people are not religious, and many would not say that they are spiritual either.
I do think that there is no basis for any theory of 'hard-wireing' of us. It sis an expression that has been so abused lately.

My own personal conviction is that we are all spiritual, in the sense that we are made of the same stuff as our surroundings, and that I think that if you want, you can feel it.

leo9
01-30-2011, 08:55 AM
You are aware that the article you are quoting from is headlined "Selective Brain Damage Modulates Human Spirituality, Research Reveals" - or put more simply, as the authors explicitly say in the text, brain damage makes us religious? I don't think that was the message you wanted to convey!


According to reaserchers in California:

"Is humankind hardwired to be spiritual? Recent research suggests that we just might be
Maybe some research does, but this doesn't, except inasmuch as having colour vision and depth perception "hardwires" us to perceive beauty in a sunset. There is a world of difference between having the neural hardware to do something, and having the emotional and intellectual software to do it.

To take a safely materialistic example: it was believed for centuries (on the basis of the same sort of symptom-lesion studies as this) that the organ called Brocca's Area was key to human speech, to the point where paleologists used it as the test of whether a newly found species could talk. Then more careful research found that most of the activity associated with speech took place in quite different places. It's now suspected that Brocca's Area may be some sort of motor control: without it you can't form words, but you can have it and still be incapable of speech.

I am even more suspicious of using lesion studies to track down something as fuzzy and ill defined as spirituality. But even if they could find which areas are active in those mental processes we call spiritual, that would tell us exactly as much as identifying Brocca's Area told us about how we can deliver speeches that make people angry or poetry that makes people weep.
Though spirituality in many ways is seen as separate from religion, both incorporate a complex of attitudes and behaviors relating to a transcendent human condition. Religious beliefs and practices have been a source of succor and conflict for nearly all of recorded human history, making this study significant in that it paves the path for future investigation that can advance our understanding of the neurobiological reasoning behind disparate outlooks on spirituality. While some experts discourage comparing the neural mechanisms involved in spirituality with those of religious practices, the causative link between brain functioning level and state of transcendence should be further pursued as it may lead to answers of why humans are religious, and potentially reveal our genetic predisposition for belief." There are so many contradictions and unexamined assumptions in that passage that I'm surprised it made it into a scientific journal: probably because it was peer-reviewed by doctors, not by philosophers. They start by recognising that spirituality and religion are apples and oranges, then go right ahead and add them up and get the answer in pears.


"Previous reports confirm the relationship between spirituality and frontal, parietal, and temporal cortexes. In particular, the brain's right parietal lobe defines the aspect of "me." According to Brick Johnstone, a neuropsychologist at University of Missouri, this region assesses the body's position and location in space. Any modifications to the area would disrupt this awareness and feelings of individuality would fade. In essence, the sensation of transcendence would be heightened. By comparing imaging of damaged brains and the subjects self-described spirituality, one study, published in the journal Zygon in 2008, provides evidence that people with less active parietal lobes (i.e., "Me-Definers") are more likely to be spiritual.That is actually an interesting point, and there's been some fascinating research into this using magnetic effects to temporarily disrupt parietal function. But there's a big unanswered question about whether the level of activity in a particular brain area is physically caused ("hard-wired") or simply indicates that the way that particular personality works is currently making less use of that area.

When I'm using this PC, the graphics card has much less activity than when my game-playing son does. The PC's physical ability to do fast high-res graphics is the same, I just don't use it. Is someone with a less active parietal area less "me-defined" because they don't have the hardware for it, or is their personality just using the "me-definer" less? The answer you get may depend on whether you're a neurologist or a psychologist.
His team surveyed the spirituality of a person by scoring their level of self-transcendence, which is an allegedly unvarying personality trait that abstractedly reflects a decreased ability to sense individual self and largely identify oneself as incorporated with the universe.Emphasis added! That's the first time I've seen a scientist use "allegedly" like a tabloid journalist. Maybe he hoped nobody would notice it in all that high-level waffle.


In order to gauge self-transcendence (or ST), patients underwent formal interviews focusing on their level of religiosity, report of personal mystical experiences or extrasensorial consciousness (including the presence of God), None of which are the things which he claims to have a mechanism for linking to parietal fucntion, so he's out on a limb already. In particular, experiences of the presence of God(s) by definition don't involve loss of awareness of self, because there must be a self to be meeting God: self-transcenders don't meet God, they become one with God. I doubt if this researcher groks the difference; the full text of the article clearly implies that he's a hardcore materialist trying to prove that religious experiences are just brain malfunctions. In the hope of curing them? Thorne, you should sponsor this research!

thir
01-30-2011, 09:05 AM
Thorne, you should sponsor this research!

Except it isn't very scientific!

thir
01-30-2011, 09:07 AM
Sometimes eastrn medical procedures qi gong, acupunture etc...work where the west's prefered treaments ALL failed.

My point exactly.

thir
01-30-2011, 09:10 AM
But there is no direct cuasitive link that hasnt been shown to be spurious that applies catagorically between educational levels and religious adherence.

True - as far as I know.
But I think that education is good in that it releases the strangle-hold of dogmatic religion on many, leaving whatever religion people choose to have optional. I mean, their own choice and decision.

thir
01-30-2011, 09:22 AM
Quote Originally Posted by thir View Post

Does anyone have the time to do this for every product??

It's only in expensive items, such as appliances, cars, tv's, etc., that research would prove beneficial.


What about food, drinks, medicine, clothes with chemicals in them and other household stuff?





I happen to think that it is more reasonable and logical that an official independent body does this research, rather than we all do it individually. And anyway official authority and laboratories would be nessecary.



There is Consumer Reports, of course, which is supposed to be independent. But you still have to look for their reports, research what they have learned. You can't expect them to send out info to everyone.



What I expect is that nothing that is not safe is sent out!





What you are saying is that the corps can do what they like as long as it makes money, and it is up to us to survive the products.



Not at all! The corporations should be controlled, to at least some degree, by the government. But making sure their products are suitable FOR YOU is your responsibility.



That is not what I am discussing at all - obviously we all have our individual health problems.

Thorne
01-30-2011, 09:40 AM
Thorne, you should sponsor this research!
If I only had the money!

But then, I think I'd rather buy an island in the middle of the Pacific, far away from anyone. Just me and my harem.

The problem I have with this kind of research, and this kind of discussion actually, is the tossing about of the terms 'spirituality' and 'transcendence' as if they were real, measurable effects. I'm not so sure that they are. Place three people in a room and you're liable to get four different descriptions of spirituality. What one person might consider a spiritual, or transcendent, experience, another will consider to be a pretty good high. Almost every description of such an experience which I have ever heard could have come just as easily from a drug or alcohol abuser. Could this tie in with the implication that such things are a construct of a damaged brain? Or, like you on the PC, from someone who is not using the full potential of their brain? I don't know that I'd want to go quite that far, but it does tend to imply that any such spiritual experiences are constructs of the mind, and not of some outside, supernatural origin.

thir
01-30-2011, 09:42 AM
It really helps when one doesnt go to only a single and clearly biased source for their information.


True for all of us. With many things the official Western world of science sneers at various treaments, but in many cases, after a while, when properly investigated, they find out why it works. I think there is the believe that noone else knows anything - for one thing.

Chiropractic is one example.

Further on acupuncture:

Acupuncture does work as it stimulates a natural pain killer, scientists find

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/7785824/Acupuncture-does-work-as-it-stimulates-a-natural-pain-killer-scientists-find.html

Health: As a painkiller, they're pretty sharp: Acupuncture needles can dramatically reduce the use of anaesthetics in operations.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/health-as-a-painkiller-theyre-pretty-sharp-acupuncture-needles-can-dramatically-reduce-the-use-of-anaesthetics-in-operations-german-doctors-are-making-advances-will-britain-follow-richard-davy-reports-1494541.html




And as for scientific evidence of humans being hardwired...just open any medical textbook...I would quote straight from all the ones on my bookshelf but that would simply be too much typing.

I guess it depends on what exactly is meant by 'hard-wired'. Lately it seems to be used by anyone to prove their point, and so the meaning of it (if any) is completely watered down.

Can you define what you mean by it for me?

Thorne
01-30-2011, 09:44 AM
But I think that education is good in that it releases the strangle-hold of dogmatic religion on many, leaving whatever religion people choose to have optional. I mean, their own choice and decision.
This is basically what I have been saying all along. Learning about how religions work, especially the dogmatic ones, will tend to turn people away from such religions. Not from faith, necessarily, but certainly from the harsh, mind-warping effects of those religions. It's one reason they start teaching children early, so that they grow up believing before they have a chance to learn whether what they believe is actually true or not.

thir
01-30-2011, 09:45 AM
The problem I have with this kind of research, and this kind of discussion actually, is the tossing about of the terms 'spirituality' and 'transcendence' as if they were real, measurable effects. I'm not so sure that they are. Place three people in a room and you're liable to get four different descriptions of spirituality. What one person might consider a spiritual, or transcendent, experience, another will consider to be a pretty good high. Almost every description of such an experience which I have ever heard could have come just as easily from a drug or alcohol abuser.

Which is why the debated research with Urgesi is out the window!

Thorne
01-30-2011, 09:48 AM
That is not what I am discussing at all - obviously we all have our individual health problems.
Which is a part of my point. Something which I can consume without any problems, such as peanuts, can have devastating effects on someone else. Does that mean that all peanut products should be banned? Of course not! But yes, anything containing peanut products should be marked as such, and that's what the government should strive to control. That's why producers are required to list ingredients.

Thorne
01-30-2011, 09:58 AM
True for all of us. With many things the official Western world of science sneers at various treaments, but in many cases, after a while, when properly investigated, they find out why it works.
And then it is incorporated into scientific medicine! That's what I've been saying. The problems arise when, after thorough study, the scientists not only cannot figure out HOW something works, but can't even prove that it DOES work, at least any better than a placebo.


Acupuncture does work as it stimulates a natural pain killer, scientists find
Which is quite true. But it doesn't work in the way that it's proponents claim it works. And it doesn't necessarily do many of the other things it's claimed to do. A punch in the eye can trigger endorphins, too. That doesn't mean it's a good idea to use it for pain relief.


I guess it depends on what exactly is meant by 'hard-wired'. Lately it seems to be used by anyone to prove their point, and so the meaning of it (if any) is completely watered down.
Can you define what you mean by it for me?
As I understand it, something hard-wired into our brains is something which has developed through evolution, passed down through generations in our DNA. One thing to remember, though, is that this does NOT necessarily mean it's beneficial to survival. There are many bad mutations which are passed down, probably just as many as good mutations. All it means is that either the mutation was not necessarily inimical to survival, or that it was possibly necessary for survival at one time, under certain conditions.

denuseri
01-30-2011, 12:25 PM
What I mean by hardwired...is exactly what any doctor who passed boards any nurse who remebers her prereq courses, and any scientist worth his or her salt: can tell you...its the most basic axion of not only anatomy and phisiology but all the physical sciences as well. From subatomic particles to the largest of blackholes.

Structure = function.

This applies from the smallest of mesurable objects to the largest.

Rearange somethings atomic structure and you have changed it's function.

Its how we design drugs and engineer space stations or computers etc etc.

Without knowing that axion, one is only blindly plodding along like a blind person in a roller derby.

When the human brain...or that of any of the animals with a brain..does something, anything, or is even at rest and just thinking or dreaming, massive ammounts of chemical chains called hormones are being released by different glands in the body in direct responce to the transfer of even more electrical chemical impulses that are a a result of various transfers of physical structures within one's celluar metabolism...such as the sodium/potasium gated channels that pass one electron loaded particle on from one nerve cell to the next until the charge is distributed thus popogating a command from the higher regions of one's brain to oh say..scratch that thing thats making your nose itch. All these little messengers have physical stuctures...as do the cells they travel through...every square in of one's body is made up of some kind of physical structure working in accordance with its counterparts becuase of it.

That includes the brain itself.

Much of what we think is completely free will is a reaction to electro-chemicals in your body structurally interacting with other structures in your brain as well, even "memories" have such coresponding structural patterns.

Its the structural hardware of the brain that determines the functions of the brain.

Not everyone can become a grand master in chess can they?

Nor can just anyone become an olympic athelete can they?

The reason isnt always becuase all the people who try and fail just up and decided to quit, it is allmost allways becuase those people have something inside them that the others didn't that let them press on despite whatever dificulties.

Science just happen to be proving that nature plays a larger role than the nurture crowd would like it too is all and its disturbing for some.

I am not saying the software (one's personal experiences or deductive reasoning or "free will" has nothing to do with it...I am only saying that it is becuase of it (it being the hardware or the structural arrangments and interactions between them) that we even have the illusion of it.

Thorne
01-30-2011, 01:59 PM
Structure = function.
I don't know if I'd go that far. Certainly, structure IMPLIES function, but does not necessarily mean it's limited to that function. The human foot is obviously designed to walk, but can also be used to kick a football. We can learn to use different things for different purposes. And some parts of our body, such as the appendix, have outlived their original purpose, but can still function in a different manner. This applies to the brain as well. How else to explain stroke victims reprogramming themselves to utilize undamaged parts of their brains in order to at least partially regain abilities which were lost in the damaged portions.


This applies from the smallest of mesurable objects to the largest.
Then how do you explain the carbon atom? It can be arranged into the hardest known material, diamond, yet is integral to organic molecules, which are generally far from hard. Even graphite, which is as pure a form of carbon as diamond, has a far different function.


Much of what we think is completely free will is a reaction to electro-chemicals in your body structurally interacting with other structures in your brain as well, even "memories" have such coresponding structural patterns.
And yet, different people, with arguably the same, or very similar, structures, will respond in markedly different ways.


Its the structural hardware of the brain that determines the functions of the brain.
Again, this is a generalization, since parts of the brain can be retrained to perform functions for which they were not meant to perform.


Not everyone can become a grand master in chess can they?
Again, this argues against structure being a strict controller of function. If that were true then we COULD all become grand masters.


Science just happen to be proving that nature plays a larger role than the nurture crowd would like it too is all and its disturbing for some.
This is true. We are learning more and more about WHY we do things, and a lot of it is because we are predisposed to do them due to our genetic makeup. But predisposed does not necessarily mean required. Part of being human is the ability to recognize these traits and, hopefully, gain some kind of control over them. This is what makes one person risk his life to save someone while another person runs away.

denuseri
01-30-2011, 02:20 PM
No its an argument that not everone's structure is exactly the same...thats how evolution works...smh..I am not making this up...go talk to any doctor of medicine or any real scientist of any caliber and they will tell you the same thing.

The foot is designed to preform a large number of functions Thorne, not just the one you mentioned, yes it can kick things and run and walk etc...it cant flap and make you fly though...to do that it would have to have a different overall structure!

As for generalizations about the brain...if the function your trying to preform doesnt have a structure behind it...you simpley wont be able to do it...the brain is designed to do what it does just the way it does it, it hasnt majically changed since we have began delving into it, nor does it show any evidence of having done so in mankinds recent past.

So are carbon atoms...which when pressure is apllied to for a long enough duration and tempurature just so happen to become really dense and become diamond...the atomic structure however is still there yet becuase its arranged differently diamond has different aplications compared to its less dense forms just like any other structure does when its altered..it too takes on different characteristics.

You may find it helpful to try and keep some sence of logic or study up on the subject in more detail if your going to argue from a scientific standpoint with non-lay people.

Thorne
01-31-2011, 08:59 AM
No its an argument that not everone's structure is exactly the same...thats how evolution works...smh..I am not making this up...go talk to any doctor of medicine or any real scientist of any caliber and they will tell you the same thing.
I don't think you're making it up, denuseri. I'm just saying that strictly equating function with structure is too simplistic.


The foot is designed to preform a large number of functions Thorne, not just the one you mentioned, yes it can kick things and run and walk etc...it cant flap and make you fly though...to do that it would have to have a different overall structure!
And I'm saying that the brain is also designed to perform many functions.


So are carbon atoms...which when pressure is apllied to for a long enough duration and tempurature just so happen to become really dense and become diamond...the atomic structure however is still there yet becuase its arranged differently diamond has different aplications compared to its less dense forms just like any other structure does when its altered..it too takes on different characteristics.
Yes, the arrangement of the carbon atoms changes, forming a more dense crystalline structure when compressed to form diamonds, not so dense when forming coal. But the atoms themselves do not change! What I'm saying is that the activity of the brain is similar, in that the basic structure remains the same, but the overall interaction between structures, the electro-chemical signals which the brain uses, can vary greatly, and thereby give varying results. Function being influenced by structure, but not absolutely defined by it.

denuseri
01-31-2011, 02:51 PM
Yes the brain is also...like most organs of the body made do a wide variety of things...duh. That doesnt change the fact that the structures of the brain are what they are and that they determine what functions if any one is capable of.

And its the doctors and scientists, both east and west and everywhere inbetween who are saying that structure does indeed equal function, plain and simple: the complicated part is figuring out every nuiance and function of every structure or structual variation and how it exactly works in relationship to its various functions....a task which is a long duanting one but they make more and more proccess in every day.

Open any modern day science school book book if you dont believe me.

In the case of acupuncture and most eastrn medicines, the question was approached in the exact opposite manner from the west...european doctors studied such things from observations of structures first...its what early gross anatomy is all about...where as in the east they looked at function first and experiemneted (much of the time through trial and error just like in the west) and found that when A is done to the body, it alleviated or corrected whatever B was in as minimally an envasive manner as possible. Thankfully the medical communities of both east and west have begun to embrace each others ways of thinking instead of clinging to pig headed euro-centrism and come to formally recognize and study in more detial the other way of thinking in equal measure. A fact that is easily recognized if one were to open any modern day medical textbook.

As for carbon...when the arangments between the atoms changed...so did the stucture...stucture is completely dependent upon such arrangments to begin with...its basic science 101...its why the lump of coal's function is so very different from the diamonds. Yes the little atoms themselves are still all carbon,,, but like little bricks in a house, how they are arranged determines the difference between there being a plain wall, a window or door or a thick castle wall etc etc.

Thorne
01-31-2011, 11:45 PM
As for carbon...when the arangments between the atoms changed...so did the stucture...stucture is completely dependent upon such arrangments to begin with...its basic science 101...its why the lump of coal's function is so very different from the diamonds. Yes the little atoms themselves are still all carbon,,, but like little bricks in a house, how they are arranged determines the difference between there being a plain wall, a window or door or a thick castle wall etc etc.
So the structure of the bricks does not force the function of the building. Bricks can serve many different functions while maintaining their structure. And the structure of a building does not force its function, either. The same structure can serve many different functions.

I agree that scientists are studying the brain, learning how structure and function are interrelated. I just haven't seen anything that defines specific functions based upon specific structures. There are many generalities, and a hell of a lot left to learn.


found that when A is done to the body, it alleviated or corrected whatever B
And yet when scientists test these claims they find that, while A will sometimes alleviate B, sometimes it will do nothing, and sometimes it will affect C. They also find that sometimes when D is done to the body, B will seem to be alleviated, despite the fact that the acupuncturists claim something completely different. The placebo effect is well documented, and nothing I've seen regarding acupuncture, or many other alternative medicines and procedures, shows any greater effects than the placebo. Sure, poking a needle into the body is going to induce the body to produce endorphins, which alleviate pain. No big surprise there. But there is, as yet, no credible, verifiable evidence to show that acupuncture does any more than that. And it certainly does not perform as claimed by its proponents.

denuseri
02-01-2011, 09:30 PM
Several billion people in the east and more than a just a few from the west myself included would beg to differ.

Such methods have been used successfully for thousands of years and have been recognized by their governemnts and our own along with most of the wests medical peer group to the point of being added to our textbooks as valid alternatives to seek as being just as valid as conventinoal medicine from the west...go figure.

Thorne
02-02-2011, 06:55 AM
The numbers of people who believe in it, or the length of time that they have, are irrelevant to whether or not they actually do anything real. Billions have believed in astrology for even longer times, yet it's still garbage. As for textbooks, after watching what Texas has been doing for the last couple of years, I'm beginning to doubt them myself. I challenge you to show me one real, scientific study, published in a real, scientific journal, which shows that these alternatives are as valid as conventional medicine. Everything I've seen has shown just the opposite.