Court case: Cognitive neuro science of religion

[rez]

So ladies and gentlemen it has been predicted by many scientists that there will be a new trial like the Scopes trial, but involving Psychology instead.

As time goes on and as scientists learn about the human brain more and more definitions and explanations are written about religion. There are many psychologists studying the psychology of religion and there are conclusions written that won't make a theist very happy. They call it "cognitive neuro science of religion" and they make a lot of predictions based on studies and experiments that have been conducted over the years.

I am interested to see some of the arguments that are going to be made by both sides and how each would like to refine their logic in order to persuade the other side.

Some of the words that will anger theists are.

Decoupled Cognition: Complex social interactions with unseen others.

Hyperactive Agency Detection:

Intuitive Reasoning:

Common Sense Dualists

Childhood credulity

Deference to Authority

Reciprocal Altruism

Religious Morality vs Morality: The difference between what we are told no matter what is right vs Doing what is right regardless of what we are told.

Empathy: Watching someone else suffer causes others to suffer in some way causing guilt and obligation.

Hard to fake, costly honest signals of commitment: Suicide bombing, fasting etc...

Gestalt Law of the Whole

Concepts such as

it is natural to think of disembodied minds

That there is a natural belief in some form of life apart from that experienced in a body.

The study conducted by the National Institute of Health demonstrating that "components of religious belief served by well known neural circuits which mediate evolutionary adaptive cognitive functions"

[Cruella]

Any links, rez? Some further reading may be in order.

[rez]

For right now the goal is for individuals to look up the words and ideas I supplied and read from there. There is actually a link to a speaker, but I know nobody is going to watch it. However if people start showing they are looking up the words, then I will supply the links. I've been at volconvo for a very long time and one thing I know is that you have to introduce topics in little baby steps, especially nowadays.

[Cruella]

Riiiiiiiiiight. Life's too short for homework to prove things to strangers on the internet, thanks.

[barts]

rez, the language in your initial post is inherently inflammatory not because that is what you intend to be but rather because it is the effect of the jargon of psychology. To large extent, psychology (it seems to me) sets out to pathologize perfectly normal human behaviour. A sense of insecurity or lack of self-esteem, for example, needs to treated, when both can be overcome by accomplishment. Often someone who is insecure and lacks self-esteem is making a very valid judgment about themselves.

At any rate, as the instigator of this thread, what your views on the subject of your post?

[GeminiBrian]

Quote by: barts rez, the language in your initial post is inherently inflammatory not because that is what you intend to be but rather because it is the effect of the jargon of psychology. To large extent, psychology (it seems to me) sets out to pathologize perfectly normal human behaviour. A sense of insecurity or lack of self-esteem, for example, needs to treated, when both can be overcome by accomplishment. Often someone who is insecure and lacks self-esteem is making a very valid judgment about themselves. At any rate, as the instigator of this thread, what your views on the subject of your post?

Agreed, Barts.

[rez]

Quote by: barts rez, the language in your initial post is inherently inflammatory

Of course it is going to sound that way. I am suggesting that basic psychology will be under scrutainity by creationists because it contradictions their superstitous sensibilities.

Even within that paragraph I am insulting creationists because in their mind. I am not talking about "basic psychology" and in their mind they are not "superstitious".

However, considering that creationists do not understand very basic Biology many people can make the prediction that creationists will not understand basic psychology.

not because that is what you intend to be but rather because it is the effect of the jargon of psychology. To large extent, psychology (it seems to me) sets out to pathologize perfectly normal human behaviour.

Psychology, to me, seems to identify human behavior on the macro level.

For example half of 4 year old's have an imaginary friend. Decoupled cognition seems to be a very natural part of the human brain and it obviously contradicts everything a creationist "believes".

A sense of insecurity or lack of self-esteem, for example, needs to treated, when both can be overcome by accomplishment.

In this thread we do not talk about how to over come social cognitive issues. In this thread we just discuss social cognitive issues.

At any rate, as the instigator of this thread, what your views on the subject of your post?

Again, I have been on volconvo for a long time. I gave out some basic vocabulary of the subject. I don't require people to already know the definitions to the words, but I do require people to learn about them, so we can discuss the issues.

I don't participate in debates with a creationist who does not know how a cell replicates because if they don't understand that then how will they understand more complex subjects like genetic drift? Yet for some reason many posters here just wanna debate just to argue and prove someone wrong.

[rez]

Quote by: CruellaDeChaCha Riiiiiiiiiight. Life's too short for homework to prove things to strangers on the internet, thanks.

Wonderful because I am looking for posters that understand that life is short and are still willing to look up a few words to educate themselves and be a responsible debater. I don't want people to come in my thread that don't have a clue what I am talking about

[barts]

I doubt whether psychology is a science at all. I tend to agree with Paul Lutus when he concludes in Is Psychology Science? that,

...psychology and psychiatry have never been based in science, and therefore are free of the constraints placed on scientific theories. This means these fields will prevail far beyond their last shred of credibility, just as religions do, and they will be propelled by the same energy source — belief. That pure, old-fashioned fervent variety of belief, unsullied by reason or evidence.

It seems to me contrasting creationism or religion with cognitive neuroscience is simply comparing different religious-like beliefs.

For the record, I have no trust or belief in either religion or psychology for the very same reasons. They are both based on faith for the most part.

[GeminiBrian]

Quote by: barts I doubt whether psychology is a science at all. I tend to agree with Paul Lutus when he concludes in Is Psychology Science? that, It seems to me contrasting creationism or religion with cognitive neuroscience is simply comparing different religious-like beliefs. For the record, I have no trust or belief in either religion or psychology for the very same reasons. They are both based on faith for the most part.

Thanks for that useful link, barts - I tried without much success to find something similar recently, since I, too (see some of my posts), have held a similar view view regarding the unscientific nature of this dubious discipline for quite some time.

I'm printing the article out to take to bed with me! (such is the sadness of my life)... !!

[Morality Games]

For the record, I have no trust or belief in either religion or psychology for the very same reasons. They are both based on faith for the most part.

Why is psychology like religion again?

[rez]

Quote by: barts I doubt whether psychology is a science at all. I tend to agree with Paul Lutus when he concludes in Is Psychology Science? that, It seems to me contrasting creationism or religion with cognitive neuroscience is simply comparing different religious-like beliefs. For the record, I have no trust or belief in either religion or psychology for the very same reasons. They are both based on faith for the most part.

barts, part of the debate is to specifically show how the words I have given are based on faith. Saying psychology is based on faith without supplying reasoning is derailing my thread.

[rez]

Quote by: GeminiBrian Thanks for that useful link, barts - I tried without much success to find something similar recently, since I, too (see some of my posts), have held a similar view view regarding the unscientific nature of this dubious discipline for quite some time. I'm printing the article out to take to bed with me! (such is the sadness of my life)... !!

Don't waste your time. Print out an article about evolutionary psychology and definitions to the vocabulary that I shared so you can stay on topic and show that you comprehend what you read.

[GeminiBrian]

Quote by: rez Don't waste your time. Print out an article about evolutionary psychology and definitions to the vocabulary that I shared so you can stay on topic and show that you comprehend what you read.

No intelligent reading is a waste of time.

Angling for the moderator's job, are we?

[SoylentGreen]

Quote by: barts I doubt whether psychology is a science at all It seems to me contrasting creationism or religion with cognitive neuroscience is simply comparing different religious-like beliefs. For the record, I have no trust or belief in either religion or psychology for the very same reasons. They are both based on faith for the most part.

I agree with what you say that psychology is not a science, but disagree with your quote that "..psychology and psychiatry have never been based in science".

Both are held to a high standard of peer review, undergo rigid examination and conform to known facts. The difference is that the information gathered for psychology is purely statistical in nature.

That is why a psychologist, unlike a scientist, cannot comment on any one particular event with certainty. But it does not require faith born of ignorance to understand it. It requires a specific education in the ability to crunch numbers and develop recognisable patterns.

[GeminiBrian]

Quote by: rez barts, part of the debate is to specifically show how the words I have given are based on faith. Saying psychology is based on faith without supplying reasoning is derailing my thread.

Try reading the link Barts provided.

[SoylentGreen]

rez I am interested to see some of the arguments that are going to be made by both sides and how each would like to refine their logic in order to persuade the other side

This isn't new, it is a logical extension of other threads that have discussed scientific findings of the brain. Theists tend to have a hard time understanding the science I do not rate there chances at understanding psychology as being any better.

The study conducted by the National Institute of Health demonstrating that "components of religious belief served by well known neural circuits which mediate evolutionary adaptive cognitive functions"

That's the trouble with psychology, like law it's obvious that someone is being payed by the word to write it and someone else is been paid by the minute to read it.
It would have been easier just to say, "It's all in your head, man."

[barts]

Quote by: rez barts, part of the debate is to specifically show how the words I have given are based on faith. Saying psychology is based on faith without supplying reasoning is derailing my thread.

Not my intention, rez. That's why a posted the link. Perhaps, I'm missing the point of the thread. I've had the problem from time to time.

[GeminiBrian]

Quote by: SoylentGreen That's the trouble with psychology, like law it's obvious that someone is being payed by the word to write it and someone else is been paid by the minute to read it. It would have been easier just to say, "It's all in your head, man."

ONE of the troubles with psychology, I would say. How can you trust a non-scientific confection of assumptions that can't even be falsified - as all proper scientific theories must be to claim legitimacy?

[Whatssnew]

Proving or disproving God is the same as proving or disproving the distance, volume or or extent of space. All that can be proven is what we can see, and what we can see extends only as far as light has traveled to and from.