Least and most religious nations

[denuseri]

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]

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]

But there is no direct cuasitive link that hasnt been shown to be spurious that applies catagorically between educational levels and religious adherence.

[thir]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Sometimes eastrn medical procedures qi gong, acupunture etc...work where the west's prefered treaments ALL failed.

[Thorne]

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]

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]

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]

Sometimes eastrn medical procedures qi gong, acupunture etc...work where the west's prefered treaments ALL failed.

From here: "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]

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]

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]

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 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]

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]

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]

Thorne, you should sponsor this research!

Except it isn't very scientific!

[thir]

Sometimes eastrn medical procedures qi gong, acupunture etc...work where the west's prefered treaments ALL failed.

My point exactly.

[thir]

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]

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]

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]

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/he...ists-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-st...s-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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.