|
A Plea for Religion (pg. 15)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| VAR |
| quote: | Originally posted by srussell0018
wiener is a sunday school teacher :p |
yes, and a good one. |
|
|
| Lira |
Is she? I wonder if she agrees or disagrees with my defence of religion then.
On topic: I find those Mormon pairs that roam around the streets here so incredibly nice. I've always dodged the religious talk and chatted about the US (they're usually from Utah) and I learnt quite a lot from them. As a matter of fact, I first learnt how to snowboard with a Mormon lost here in Brazil, years before I tried for the first time. That's why I believe I picked it up so easily :) |
|
|
| wienerschnitzel |
yes i agree with you lira, and that's mighty nice of you to think kindly of those missionaries.. most people hate them, lol.
and stephen is just sad that he's not in my class. |
|
|
| Vector A |
| Wait, so wiener is Mormon? |
|
|
| srussell0018 |
| quote: | Originally posted by wienerschnitzel
and stephen is just sad that he's not in my class. |
Only because I don't have a peanut allergy. :p |
|
|
| VAR |
| quote: | Originally posted by Vector A
Wait, so wiener is Mormon? |
you failed to capitalize Wiener, but i will ignore that.
Wiener is whatever She wants to be. |
|
|
| Vector A |
| Her username is not capitalized in the first place... |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by wienerschnitzel
yes i agree with you lira, and that's mighty nice of you to think kindly of those missionaries.. most people hate them, lol. |
I think it helps that they don't knock on anyone's door around here. They just approach random people on the street and ask if they can "share something they feel strongly about". If you say you're busy, they just move on and don't bother you.
Not all denominations are this nice though: I remember this one time a friend and I were just waking by a random church when a woman came out of nowhere and offered my friend a pamphlet. He decline and started to walk a bit faster. The woman then started to chase him as she tried to give him the damned pamphlet. Fast forward a few seconds and he was literally running away from the plumpy woman who was bouncing around, waving the pamphlet and screaming he had to hurry up because the end was nigh. She lost her breath after just a few seconds but it was still hilarious :stongue:
And I hate Kardecists with a passion. They often phone me asking for donations early in the morning... even Presbyterians have the decency to call me in the afternoon, when I’m awake. They usually just ask me if they can pray for my soul. I reckon it’s cute so I can’t say I mind. |
|
|
| srussell0018 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Vector A
Her username is not capitalized in the first place... |
Don't worry, VAR just has this delusion that the girls on this site are his responsibility to defend, that they want him to defend them, and that they want him to talk to them at all. |
|
|
| VAR |
| quote: | Originally posted by srussell0018
Don't worry, VAR just has this delusion that the girls on this site are his responsibility to defend, that they want him to defend them, and that they want him to talk to them at all. |
hey!!! let me have my fantasy! |
|
|
| Dj Nacht |
If anyone is interested, the book, The God part of the brain, deals with a lot of topics talked about here. Let me leave the premise quoted from the website.
"For every physical characteristic that is universal to a species, there must exist some gene or set of genes responsible for the emergence of that particular trait. For example, the fact that all cats possess whiskers means that somewhere within a cat's chromosomes there must exist "whisker" genes. Of our own species, that all humans possess a nose in the middle of our face means that somewhere within our chromosomes there must exist "nose" genes that instruct our emerging bodies to develop one in that very place. It's not, for instance, as if a nose can develop anywhere on one's body, only by mere coincidence, it always ends up on our face. Apparently, humans are genetically "hard-wired" to develop in a very specific and particular way.
The same principle not only applies to universal physical traits, but to universal behaviors as well. Take, for instance, the fact that all honeybees construct their hives in the same hexagonal pattern. That all honeybee colonies, regardless of whether they've been exposed to any other, construct their hives in such an identical fashion means that they must be "hard-wired" to do so. It's not as if honeybees can build their hives any way they "desire," only by sheer coincidence all construct them in the same exact way. Apparently, honeybees are innately, that is, genetically "hard-wired" to construct their hives in this particular fashion. This would suggest that somewhere in the honeybees' brains there must exist a specific cluster of neurons that contain genetically inherited instructions which compel the bees to construct hexagonally shaped hives. The same principle holds true for anything from a peacock's instinct to display its feathers when exposed to an aroused peahen to a cat's instinct to groom itself. In essence, any behavior that is universal to any species is, more than likely, the consequence of a genetically inherited impulse or instinct. The above principle not only applies to honeybees, peacocks, or cats but to every life form, including our own. The fact, for instance, that every human culture - no matter how isolated - has communicated through language suggests that our species' linguistic capacities constitute a genetically inherited trait. Since our capacity for language represents a cognitive function, there must exist some very specific cluster of neurons within the brain from which our linguistic capacities are generated.
As we know such "linguistic" sites do exist in the human brain and include the Wernicke's area, Broca's area, and angular gyrus. Damage incurred to any one of these "language" specific sites will impair some very specific part of one's language capacities. What this clearly demonstrates is that our linguistic capacities are directly related to our neurophysiological makeup. Furthermore, this supports the notion that for every cross-cultural behavior our species exhibits there must exist a specific part of the brain from which that behavior is generated.
If it's true that this principle applies to all of our cross-cultural behaviors, should we not also apply it to spirituality? Every known culture from the dawn of our species has maintained a belief in some form of a "spiritual" reality. Wouldn't this suggest that human spirituality must represent an inherent characteristic of our species, that is, a genetically inherited trait? Furthermore, being that spirituality, just like language, represents a cognitive function, wouldn't this suggest that our "spiritual" instincts, just like our linguistic ones, must be generated from some very specific physical part within the brain? I informally refer to this site as the "God" part of the brain, a cluster of neurons from which spiritual cognitions, sensations, and behaviors are generated.
How else are we to explain the fact that all human cultures - no matter how isolated - have maintained a belief in some form of a spiritual/transcendental reality, in a god or gods, a soul, as well as an afterlife? How else are we to explain the fact that every human culture has built houses of worship through which to pray to such unseen forces? Or that every known culture has buried (or at least disposed of) its dead with a rite that anticipates sending the deceased person's "spiritual" component, or what we call a soul, onward to some next plane, or what we call an afterlife? Wouldn't the universality with which such perceptions and behaviors are exhibited among our species suggest that we might be "hard-wired" this way? How about the fact that every known culture has related undergoing what we refer to as spiritual experiences? Perhaps we are "hard-wired" to experience such sentiments as well. Just as all honeybees are compelled to construct hexagonally shaped hives, perhaps humans are compelled to perceive a spiritual reality...as a reflex, an instinct.
Essentially, what I'm suggesting is that humans are innately "hard-wired" to perceive a spiritual reality. We are "hard-wired" to believe in forces that transcend the limitations of this, our physical reality. Most controversial of all, if what I'm suggesting is true, it would imply that God is not necessarily something that exists "out there," beyond and independent of us, but rather as the product of an inherited perception, the manifestation of an evolutionary adaptation that exists within the human brain. And why would our species have evolved such a seemingly abstract trait? -In order to enable us to deal with our species' unique and otherwise debilitating awareness of death.
With the dawn of human intelligence, for the first time in the history of terrestrial life, an organism could point its powers of perception back upon its own being; it could recognize its own self as an object. For the first time, when an animal kneeled down to drink from the watering hole, it recognized its own reflection. Only humans possess the advanced capacity for self-awareness. Though, in many ways, this capacity has helped to make our species the most versatile and powerful creature on earth, it also represents the source of our greatest affliction. This is because once we became aware of the fact that we exist, we became equally aware of not just the possibility that one day we might not, but the certainty that one day we will not. With the advent of our species, with the emergence of self-conscious awareness, a life form became cognizant of the fact that it is going to die. All we had to do was to look around us to see that death was inevitable and inescapable. More terrifying yet, death could befall us at anytime. Any moment can be our last.
All life is "hard-wired" to avoid those things that represent a threat to its existence. When an animal gets too close to fire, for example, it reflexively pulls away. It is this negative stimulus, this experience we call pain, that prompts all forms of life to avoid such potential life threats. Pain, therefore, acts as nature's electric prod that incites us to avoid those things which may jeopardize our existence.
In the "higher" animals, most particularly among the mammals, threatening circumstances elicit a particular type of pain we refer to as anxiety. Anxiety constitutes a type of pain meant to prompt these "higher" order animals to avoid potentially hazardous circumstances. For example, a rabbit is cornered by a mountain lion. In such a situation, the rabbit is pumped with adrenaline, charged with the painful symptoms of anxiety, all meant to incite the rabbit to most effectively escape from the source of its discomfort, in this case the mountain lion. In its healthiest form, anxiety is meant to prompt an animal to avoid or escape a potentially hazardous experience. In humans, however, once we became aware of the fact that death was not only inescapable but that it could come at any moment, we were left in a state of constant mortal peril, a state of unceasing anxiety - much like rabbits perpetually cornered by a mountain lion from which there is no escape. With the emergence of self-awareness, humans became the dysfunctional animal, rendered helpless by an inherent and unceasing anxiety disorder. Unless nature could somehow relieve us of this debilitating awareness of death, it's possible our species might have soon become extinct. It was suddenly critical that our animal be modified in some way that would allow us to maintain self-conscious awareness, while enabling us to deal with our unique awareness of our own mortalities, of death.
Here lies the origin of humankind's spiritual function, an evolutionary adaptation that compels our species to believe that though our physical bodies will one day perish, our "spirits" or "souls" will persist for all eternity. Only once our species was instilled with this inherent (mis)perception that there is something more "out there," that we are immortal beings, were we able to survive our debilitating awareness of death. " |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | The fact, for instance, that every human culture - no matter how isolated - has communicated through language suggests that our species' linguistic capacities constitute a genetically inherited trait. Since our capacity for language represents a cognitive function, there must exist some very specific cluster of neurons within the brain from which our linguistic capacities are generated.
As we know such "linguistic" sites do exist in the human brain and include the Wernicke's area, Broca's area, and angular gyrus. Damage incurred to any one of these "language" specific sites will impair some very specific part of one's language capacities. What this clearly demonstrates is that our linguistic capacities are directly related to our neurophysiological makeup. |
I just had to comment about this bit.
Although this is a bit of a Chomskyan dogma, there's no reason whatsoever to take it for granted: We do not know as of yet what, if anything, is hard-wired when it comes to language. Language only exist among individuals that are exposed to it - feral children, for example, do not come up with a language of their own, which is something you'd hope for if it were hard-wired. Also, our brain is only adapted to language insofar as it is exposed to speech at an early age. As we grow up and the plasticity of the brain is not nearly as extraordinary as it used to be, our language skills decrease dramatically. That's why children pick up languages faster than adults (as long as they're immersed in different linguistic communities).
As for Broca's and Wernicke's areas, all they show is that speech is impaired when one of the two areas is not working properly. But that's akin to saying music is hard-wired if you can't play an instrument after a specific brain damage.
I still need to read this book in order to judge its central claims. But social psychologists sometimes point out that it is well possible that social cognition came before non-social cognition... which means we tend to see everything as "personally" motivated and this explains why religious explanations are more appealing than scientific ones. |
|
|
|
|
