A Must Read!

[Thorne]

There's a grey area here. People have built what amounts to a religion out of Lovelock's Gaia theory, that the Earth is an organism, and speak of Her as worshippers do of their god. But I agree that gods as I and most people think of them are by definition outside physical laws; if "supernatural" sounds too like "superstitious" then let's say "spiritual".

I don't particularly have a problem with the word "superstitious". I personally don't see the difference between believing that knocking on wood will deflect evil or believing that praying will deflect evil. What we call superstition now was once a part of someone's religion. What we call religion now will someday likely be part of someone else's superstition.

I can see a flaw in the design right there: if I were told I was being prayed for, I'd take it as meaning that my condition must be really bad, with consequent ill effects on my clinical outcome. They should have randomised which were told they were being prayed for, and which actually were. The better designed studies have been double-blind, and some have found positive results. Let's just say that more research is needed.

I think I see your point. There should have been a fourth group. Those told they would be prayed for (and who were NOT.) I didn't catch that, sorry.

But I believe part of their explanation for the results in the third group was the same as your conclusion. The patients became stressed because they thought they were worse off than they really were. And they (and I) also agreed that more study is needed.

I agree that's stretching the term. Let's just call it a belief system.

How can you call an attitude that denies beliefs a belief system! Or is it just that believers can't seem to overcome the idea that everybody has to believe in something?

But if that's all, why the vehement attacks, the reiteration that anyone who believes in an afterlife or a divinity must be motivated either by cowardice or venality?

Maybe I'm seeing this from the wrong perspective, since both you and denuseri have claimed these "vehement attacks". I'm not attacking anyone for their beliefs. I'm attacking those who put forth their beliefs as truth, and especially those who attempt to force others to accept those beliefs.

There is an entire school of painters who insist that they can see all the colours of the spectrum in, for example, a blue sky: and they paint it to prove it. But it's only their perception, and the fact that their paintings look real to many other people isn't evidence, because that's only subjective too. So shall we call them all liars, as well?But maybe he doesn't mind?

I've seen people who see and talk with invisible fairies and who hear voices coming from the sky. Are we to accept their pronouncements as valid perceptions? Or are they just crazy. My signature line explains my position on this.

To those who feel it, the world - and the glorious simplicity of science - are all the evidence we need for divinity. To those who are tone-deaf in that range, there is no music, and nobody can prove there is.

Yet even someone who is deaf can feel the vibrations of the music, or see the effects of the sounds in an oscilloscope. Where are the vibrations of your divinity? Which instruments can we use to see the results of his (or her) efforts?

You say that like it's a bad thing

Unless you happen to be studying emotions, allowing emotions to affect your experiments IS a bad thing.

Just as a little test, take a look through that Pharyngula blog. I'm sure you won't agree with what he has to say, more often than not, but see how often he provides links to the religious blogs he's castigating. See how often commenters deny his claims and try to refute them. While he will ban people from commenting when they get too over the top, he has a list which explains the reasons for their banning.

Now go to some of those religious sites. They seldom provide links to sites which argue against their claims, and they even more seldom allow commenters to attack their claims. They almost universally tend to edit the comments out before they can appear on the site. I understand that some of this is to eliminate vulgarity, which is sadly all to prominent among some of the more adamant atheist commenters. But I myself have attempted to make comments which are not vulgar and which are, I believe, rational and reasoned, but which refute the religious claims being made. I have seldom seen any of these comments get past moderation.

For my part, I'm more inclined to trust someone who allows you to see the "enemy's" blogs and listen to the "enemy" comments, than I am someone who is afraid to even print the opposition's name!

Which would you trust more?