Evolution fine but no apology to Darwin: Vatican

[Wildo7]

Ok.

So suggest a scientific reason. Why do some people find the teachings of Jesus so helpful to the function of their daily lives, changing how they act and speak in a very short period of time? Why do some people believe in God and not others?

Are they predisposed, is it nature or nurture? are there biochemical or physiological changes when you "find God", are there psychological changes?

Does forgiving yourself for prior acts which you are not proud of release you to be happier? How come the belief and forgiveness of "God" seems to accomplish this act so much more quickly? Should we spend more time on the couch instead?

You can poo poo it all you want, but this stuff happens. Drug addicts, thieves, even murderers change dramatically overnight upon hearing the gospel. Pretending it doesn't is ignoring a valid bit of evidence (even if it is presented in a way that is offensive to you because of you distaste of religion). I don't think your bias is very good scientific practice. Saying it is supernatural therefore doesn't merit investigation is a copout IMHO.

I can make a guess, as far as I know there hasn't been a conclusive psychological study about why people cling to religion. Again, a lot of people believe a lot of things that aren't real (i.e. witchcraft etc.) so the fact that a lot of people believe it doesn't make it so.

As for my guess (not saying this is true, just a guess); As humans evolved an intellect along with being conscious animals, their inquisitive nature and tool-using/problem solving brains began contemplating their biological fear of death (found in all animals). This juxtaposition could encourage the mind to come up with some kind of answer quickly and answer questions it is unable to come up with.

The social nature of humans also encourages ideas to be spread and ingrained within cultures, so in the absence of verifiable new answers they tend to stick with the old. There's also a vast human propensity for indoctrination, especially at the most vulnerable of times (childhood), and I'd be willing to bet that in today's world if you didn't see children being indoctrinated at developmental stages, before they even had the ability to make a rational decision for themselves there would be far fewer believers in the world. The human mind is a very complex computer that operates as any computer does, by being programmed. In this case the survival benefit of children that listened and learned from their parents experiences probably stood a greater chance at survival, so there's a rewarding of children or people that believe what other people, especially authority figures, say.

As a psychological aid I'm sure that there are a great many brainwashing techniques you could use that would motivate people to change, religion being the most popular in our culture for previously stated reasons. There's also the matter of society encouraging these changes through "faith" as getting up before a judge or a parole board is probably the most well known way of gaining sympathy. Also, having a verifiable answer that reconciles the fear of death, reduces guilt, gives confidence etc. is probably a psychological boon for most people, especially the emotionally and intellectually vulnerable.

Imagine if the real answer (and I don't believe this for a second) was that all living animals suffer an unimaginable amount of pain and suffering when they die, would believing something other than that happens alleviate fear? Provide a psychological benefit? Does it make it true? Our intellect evolved to survive in our environment through technology and problem solving. In primitive times, this often led to a great many answers people came up with that were false and projected human intent onto what they didn't understand; fire is "God," lightning is "God" etc.. People on death row or in prison for a long period of time probably have a feeling of guilt and regret, a biological function designed to make animals productive and not deleterious to the species. If people can't understand that feeling the readily available "God" or "Hell" answer might suffice. There may not be an an evolutionary function in understanding concepts at such on such a huge scale simply because there was never any evolutionary advantage to it. Recognizing that may not give certain people peace of mind, but at least it's honest.


The only evidence you have presented is the dubious psychological benefit of the individual belief in God or believing you have answers that comfort you. "Evidence" of "the opium of the masses." The entire Placebo effect in double blind scientific studies shows the psychological benefits of "believing" in something that isn't true. And I'd be willing to bet that if you could perform a double blind study on two similar babies into their adulthood where you indoctrinated one with Christianity and the other with another superstition you made up on the spot the results would be largely the same; both in the psychological benefit and the strength in which they ended up believing. Unfortunately the study is not only unethical but also impossible for a variety of reasons.

 

[OldEngland]

Where did your altruism link go? That was a great point and very interesting, something i'd completely missed on the BBC website.

It also dismisses the fact that altruism is a human only evolutionary development, fitting in with the chromosome 2 development (from ape chromosome 2 and 3 linked together).

Could you post it again please Wildo?

EDIT: apologies. computer crashed. seen it now.

 

[Wildo7]

Where did your altruism link go? That was a great point and very interesting, something i'd completely missed on the BBC website.

It also dismisses the fact that altruism is a human only evolutionary development, fitting in with the chromosome 2 development (from ape chromosome 2 and 3 linked together).

Could you post it again please Wildo?

EDIT - Nevermind, that was a different article. I think you have this thread confused with the other ("Power of Speech"). If you look I never deleted that link in the other thread:

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Altruism 'in-built' in humans

 

[OldEngland]

I can make a guess, as far as I know there hasn't been a conclusive psychological study about why people cling to religion. Again, a lot of people believe a lot of things that aren't real (i.e. witchcraft etc.) so the fact that a lot of people believe it doesn't make it so

Would be an interesting study though, especially if you could combine, biochemistry, physiology and psychological tests with neuroimagary like PET, SPECT and fMRI. Science and God.

Witchcraft, tarot, Reiki etc are also interesting points. Do they have any scientific foundation?
Reiki for example attempts (to my limited knowledge and understanding) to open energy channels within the body. Although from what limited knowledge I have they demand payment for training to show commitment and rely on symbology. The distinguishing factor between Christianity and these more "occult" or unconventional methods (please excuse the grouping) is that Christianity only attempts to access a "highest, pure, altruistic" force, that only acts with benevolent love (and is therefore safe). The other more unconventional practices access anything they can, good or not. (But i do not pretend to be authoritative on these matters).

for my guess (not saying this is true, just a guess); As humans evolved an intellect along with being conscious animals, their inquisitive nature and tool-using/problem solving brains began contemplating their biological fear of death (found in all animals). This juxtaposition could encourage the mind to come up with some kind of answer quickly and answer questions it is unable to come up with.

Agree with the development of intellect. But you for example don't seem to need this biological reasoning to justify and correct your fear of death, why would others? God is supposed to eliminate this fear of death as a factor, allowing you to concentrate on living a worthwhile life. This was taught by the ancients to channel the mind. The question is does it work?

social nature of humans also encourages ideas to be spread and ingrained within cultures, so in the absence of verifiable new answers they tend to stick with the old. There's also a vast human propensity for indoctrination, especially at the most vulnerable of times (childhood), and I'd be willing to bet that in today's world if you didn't see children being indoctrinated at developmental stages, before they even had the ability to make a rational decision for themselves there would be far fewer believers in the world. The human mind is a very complex computer that operates as any computer does, by being programmed. In this case the survival benefit of children that listened and learned from their parents experiences probably stood a greater chance at survival, so there's a rewarding of children or people that believe what other people, especially authority figures, say

Again, I have trouble with this, I didn't understand Christ until adulthood (and wasn't ever taught about it as a child whatsoever, same as many others who later become believers). Many are taught about God as children but don't follow Christ until later if at all. I feel your "brainwashing of children" examples are somewhat false. Children make there own minds up from experience, as any parent will tell you. Teaching morals to children is hardly a bad thing, but it doesn't mean they listen.
Plus your computer analogy is very limited when compared to the adaptive neuroplasticity of the human brain.

As a psychological aid I'm sure that there are a great many brainwashing techniques you could use that would motivate people to change, religion being the most popular in our culture for previously stated reasons. There's also the matter of society encouraging these changes through "faith" as getting up before a judge or a parole board is probably the most well known way of gaining sympathy. Also, having a verifiable answer that reconciles the fear of death, reduces guilt, gives confidence etc. is probably a psychological boon for most people, especially the emotionally and intellectually vulnerable.

You sound like friends of mine

Socially encouraging faith at parole hearings or in court for reward? Are you serious?
I don't know what you have experienced, but this arm-twisting into faith is morally objectionable. Does this happen?

I found God on my own, reading the Bible. No gun was held to my head. I had a good life, worthwhile job, friends, relationships and wanted for nothing. Don't make the mistake that finding God is for mentally vunerable people. Smart or successful people think they need nothing, that doesn't necessarily make them strong and happy, we are all weak when compared to the grand scheme of things. I don't know quite how the "psychological boon" works, but the fact it does merits scientific investigation.

a psychological benefit? Does it make it true? Our intellect evolved to survive in our environment through technology and problem solving.

technology is a recent development, the human race has been around for significantly longer.

In primitive times, this often led to a great many answers people came up with that were false and projected human intent onto what they didn't understand; fire is "God," lightning is "God" etc..

Healings are God, people being saved and changing their behaviour are God.........
Science eventually catches up, i have alluded to this before......

on death row or in prison for a long period of time probably have a feeling of guilt and regret, a biological function designed to make animals productive and not deleterious to the species. If people can't understand that feeling the readily available "God" or "Hell" answer might suffice. There may not be an an evolutionary function in understanding concepts at such on such a huge scale simply because there was never any evolutionary advantage to it. Recognizing that may not give certain people peace of mind, but at least it's honest.

We all have guilts and regrets and we all want peace......
If there is a way to get peace.....
I'm not saying religion in its current format is perfect, we all know it is not, but "The Way" when you read it is so radical, so pure, so faultless.....
Do you fault any of the core values of the sermon of the mount for example?
Can you fault the mechanism for giving your sins (and personal hangups) away (to Jesus) allowing you to forgive yourself and others for example?
I can't see a biological advantage in your example as because as far as I'm aware animals haven't locked each other up for life. When you look at evolutionary function and advantage the Bible itself says some are predisposed to find "God", why I don't know. I hope and pray others find their rainbow in another way.

only evidence you have presented is the dubious psychological benefit of the individual belief in God or believing you have answers that comfort you. "Evidence" of "the opium of the masses." The entire Placebo effect in double blind scientific studies shows the psychological benefits of "believing" in something that isn't true. And I'd be willing to bet that if you could perform a double blind study on two similar babies into their adulthood where you indoctrinated one with Christianity and the other with another superstition you made up on the spot the results would be largely the same; both in the psychological benefit and the strength in which they ended up believing. Unfortunately the study is not only unethical but also impossible for a variety of reasons.

I haven't written about this yet, but have been thinking about doing it for a while. Just out of interest have you ever tried to do a double blind study on human subjects? I have, it's a real pain. There is a reason why double blind data does not always match with clinical trials, which in turn does not always correlate with clinical experience.

The limitations of scientific experiments are vast. You have to standardise everything apart from very specific variables. Some you specifically control, others that you measure. The problem is that humans and the environment we live in are not closed standardised systems. There are so many factors that vary and change dramatically in a small timeframe, as the chaos theory demonstrates.

A person with the same biomechanical problem will not necessarily test the same on two different days. Two different people, with varying psychological and social behaviour and nuturing, can present vastly different with exactly the same biomechanical problem even when you control everything.

To get the best valid and reliable results you have to standardise everything, limit the variables to a select few, blind everyone to what is going on and eliminate chance. Unfortunately the world is full of subtle variables. Science and scientific methods are far from perfect. This is why I have been attempting to say that relying on science alone is a blinkered existence and may (may) not reflect reality entirely.

 

[Wildo7]

Would be an interesting study though, especially if you could combine, biochemistry, physiology and psychological tests with neuroimagary like PET, SPECT and fMRI. Science and God.

Witchcraft, tarot, Reiki etc are also interesting points. Do they have any scientific foundation?
Reiki for example attempts (to my limited knowledge and understanding) to open energy channels within the body. Although from what limited knowledge I have they demand payment for training to show commitment and rely on symbology. The distinguishing factor between Christianity and these more "occult" or unconventional methods (please excuse the grouping) is that Christianity only attempts to access a "highest, pure, altruistic" force, that only acts with benevolent love (and is therefore safe). The other more unconventional practices access anything they can, good or not. (But i do not pretend to be authoritative on these matters).

Well personally I think they're all rubbish with no evidence to support them. Meditation, or a relaxed state of mind has been shown to have benefits, but these vague "energies" and such have no evidence in support of them. I've pretty much always despised organized religion and a couple of years ago I really opened up to the occult, and got really into hallucinogenics thinking there was something "other-worldly" going on. I no longer believe any of this simply because I understand the power of the human mind to see what it wants to see. People have a strong tendency to convince themselves of things in subconscious ways that they never truly admit to themselves or don't consciously acknowledge. That's why I refer to God as a "delusion," because I don't doubt that people actually believe it and convince themselves of the subjective evidence after the fact.

If you believe the number 11 o 23 (or whatever myth you want) is somehow magical, you are likely to see the number 23 or 11 everywhere simply because when you do see i you say "aahhh what a coincidence" and when you do see it you pay no attention and forget. This psychological mechanism is all that more powerful for religion. When you are either strongly indoctrinated with religion or want to believe, you tend to see God in everything because you are subconsciously shoe-horning the world into a strong presupposition and filtering out the pieces that don't fit.

Agree with the development of intellect. But you for example don't seem to need this biological reasoning to justify and correct your fear of death, why would others? God is supposed to eliminate this fear of death as a factor, allowing you to concentrate on living a worthwhile life. This was taught by the ancients as channel the mind. The question is does it work?

Perhaps for some. I can appreciate my remarkable place in the evolutionary chain. There's also not much point dwelling on death. But it's not just a fear of death, it's the basic question of existence. Once you free your mind from faith you can really start thinking about these things in broad, creative terms, and marvel at the mystery, a mystery that's all that much more awe-inspiring when you truly don't know. It also makes you appreciate the "cutting edge" of science and each new piece we unravel. Personally I think it's just a matter of stubbornness and an unwillingness to admit they don't know after basing their entire lives off of it. There's also just some people that cannot lie to themselves or accept an answer just because someone else said it was so. I have to understand, and when I don't I can't accept any answer. Recognition of this also makes a person more logical in ways they didn't realize. There are different forms of intelligence, but some are more inquisitive than others. It may even provide a psychological benefit to me but it's impossible for me to believe because logic, evidence and my understanding of religion prohibits me from buying into it. As it should anyone because it's just a fairy tale made to make people happy. I think once you get over the hump there's a real psychological reward of knowing you aren't deluding yourself.

Again, I have trouble with this, I didn't understand Christ until adulthood (and wasn't ever taught about it as a child whatsoever, same as many others who later become believers). Many are taught about God as children but don't follow Christ until later. I feel your "brainwashing of children" examples are somewhat false. Children make there own minds up from experience, as any parent will tell you. Teaching morals to children is hardly a bad thing, but it doesn't mean they listen.
Plus your computer analogy is very limited when compared to the adaptive neuroplasticity of the human brain.

If children "made up their own minds" you wouldn't see children being indoctrinated with religion. It's that reason the vast majority characterize themselves as religious; how they were brought up as children. How you are raised between the age of 0-6 forms the majority of your personality and how you see the world. It's the most crucial developmental stage, any psychologist will tell you that.

This goes beyond simply religion, but into personality and other opinions that children are likely to share with their parents. It's stronger with religion though because of how powerfully it's drilled into people's heads. Even most of the ones that don't buy into it until adulthood are most likely primed for it by their upbringing since it shapes how they view the world and ask questions in many aspects. Any developmental psychologist will tell you that what a child learns in childhood likely defines most of what they will be for the rest of their lives beyond the genetic. And "morals" have the luxury of being observationally beneficial, reinforced by law and logically understandable. The golden rule is one of the most basic logical morals we have.

You sound like friends of mine

Socially encouraging faith at parole hearings or in court for reward? Are you serious?
I don't know what you have experienced, but this arm-twisting into faith is morally objectionable. Does this happen?

You're taking a very narrow interpretation of what I was saying. I wasn't saying that people are told "be a christian or you won't get parole," I was saying that christianity is so pervasive in our society that it becomes a reward, and it's widely known that if you want to gain sympathy from a parole board or a judge, saying "I've found God" or "I seek salvation through christ" is a quick way to do it because it doesn't require actual remorse, only a superficial adherence to the religion du jour. It's pretty much a cliche in our culture now, the prisoner who finds God. Again prisons are a perfect storm of vulnerability, relentless guilt and the pressure to show remorse. You won't find better candidates for either disingenuous or genuinely psychologically beneficial religious adherence. If you can't show genuine remorse or lack the ability to empathize (the basis for morality) then the easiest way to feign it is with talk of being "saved." It requires zero emotional thought process but is likely to spark sympathy from the parole board member or warden sitting across from you that just came from bible study. It's also the reason why it's not a good barometer for rehabilitation; because there's no way to determine whether someone is BSing you or whether they genuinely believe and have changed. But even the latter isn't real change since believing doesn't require actual guilt.

It's a book that tells you; "everything you did was bad, but be good now and pray to Jesus and you'll be all set." What more appealing way of ridding yourself of guilt is there? Anyone can get up and say that stuff, but if you can't articulate in your own words why what you did was wrong, who it hurt, why you did it, why you won't do it anymore in your own words, then you haven't rehabilitated anything. It's like A Clockwork Orange; changing to do good because you feel sick when you do bad or because you fear hell or like the reward of eternal happiness isn't real rehabilitation because it doesn't involve any emotional thought process or self evaluation.

Any moral found in religion that can't be explained with real world reasons and logic is completely useless. And the ones that can shouldn't need religion to be taught.

 

[Wildo7]

I found God on my own, reading the Bible. No gun was held to my head. I had a good life, worthwhile job, friends, relationships and wanted for nothing. Don't make the mistake that finding God is for mentally vunerable people. Smart or successful people think they need nothing, that doesn't necessarily make them strong and happy, we are all weak when compared to the grand scheme of things. I don't know quite how the "psychological boon" works, but the fact it does merits scientific investigation.

I didn't say that it was only for the mentally vulnerable, I said those are the ones that are are easily drawn to religion. There are probably a whole host of benefits that apply to the non-vulnerable in believing in God. Most notably, it gives people a quick answer and assigns order to the chaotic or unanswerable in a way that makes sense to that person. Again, you can probably find a whole host of non-vulnerable people that believe a great many things that aren't true. Simply liking the answer may be enough to make certain people believe. But I do believe that certain people are more inclined to let their minds rest in certain areas and be content with simple answers that may not make sense. The fact that not many religious people are used to thinking about their religion in a logical way may be because religion has carved out a very unique place for it in society where it's never tested like that.

technology is a recent development, the human race has been around for significantly longer.

Not really, the use of the tool (technology) and problem solving is what gave our ancestor the original evolutionary advantage over other species of apes.

Healings are God, people being saved and changing their behaviour are God.........
Science eventually catches up, i have alluded to this before......

What does this mean? Science eventually figures out the real answer behind the mystery?

Lightning was God, Fire was God before science "caught up" and actually explained it.

We all have regrets and we all want peace......
If there is a way to get peace.....
I'm not saying religion in its current format is perfect, we all know it is not, but "The Way" when you read it is so radical, so pure, so faultless.....
Do you fault any of the core values of the sermon of the mount for example?
Can you fault the mechanism for giving your sins (and personal hangups) away (to Jesus) allowing you to forgive yourself and others for example?

If people don't genuinely understand why things are wrong then no matter how poetic a story is in giving them other reasons, unless it is true it's innately flawed. Some people probably shouldn't be forgiving themselves, especially if they never understood why it was wrong and others shouldn't have to especially if it's an unnecessary religious moral handed down from ancient societies. Other people may do one good thing because of religion and then another bad thing because of it too. Whenever you have a set of beliefs not based in logic and reason you will have people behaving in irrational ways, whether good or bad. It's a double edge sword and the fact that they don't truly understand logically why they should or shouldn't do something makes them dangerous. This is where your religious beliefs veer off into an area where they don't really make sense to me. The story may be nice and if you honestly believe it then I don't doubt your emotional reaction, but "faultless" and "pure?" I don't even know what you mean here....I'm in no way comparing you to Tom Cruise but look at the way he acts and talks in those scientology videos. He genuinely believes that stuff and he thinks it makes sense so he talks with passion. But objectively there's no substance to what he's saying.

I haven't written about this yet, but have been thinking about doing it for a while. Just out of interest have you ever tried to do a double blind study on human subjects? I have. There is a reason why double blind data does not always match with clinical trials, which in turn does not always correlate with clinical experience.

The limitations of scientific experiments are vast. You have to standardise everything apart from very specific variables. Some you specifically control, others that you measure. The problem is that humans and the environment we live in are not closed standardised systems. There are so many factors that vary and change dramatically in a small timeframe, as the chaos theory demonstrates.

A person with the same biomechanical problem will not necessarily test the same or two different days. Two different people, with varying psychological and social behaviour and nuturing, can present vastly different with exactly the same biomechanical problem.

To get the best valid and reliable results you have to standardise everything, limit the variables to a select few, blind everyone to what is going on and eliminate chance. Unfortunately the world is full of subtle variables. Science and scientific methods are far from perfect. This is why I have been attempting to say that relying on science alone is a blinkered existence and may (may) not reflect reality.

Well that's why they attach statistical significance and margin of error to it. The power of double blind studies is that they eliminate the enormous placebo effect. Since you cannot possibly standardize the makeup of each person and how they interact with the world you get the largest possible sample size to cut down the likelihood of these factors affecting the results. Drug studies that use a large amount of similar people are very reliable because while there are unpredictable differences between individuals, if you have 300 people on a drug that show significant improvements and 300 people on a placebo that do not, the chances are practically null that the results are incorrect. As I said, indoctrinating children is clearly unethical and completely impossible for a variety of reasons.

Nevertheless, science isn't infallible, but rationalism is the most reliable method for understanding the world because it demands the most out of it's conclusions.

 

[godef]

technology is a recent development, the human race has been around for significantly longer.

This is wrong. Technology has existed for ages. It is simply the "state of the advancements" of a particular culture. Chimpanzees using tools such a sticks or other objects to help them reach something of desire would be the technology of that species. Bronze was the technology of the bronze age. Electricity was the technology of the 19th century.

 

[Synovia]

People have a strong tendency to convince themselves of things in subconscious ways that they never truly admit to themselves or don't consciously acknowledge.

I would just like to restate this. The power of the human mind to convince itself of things is amazing, and there are many, many examples.

 

[DisgruntledTunaFan]

This is not the only issue The Vatican is off base with.

Apparently, the Our Lady Queen of Heaven Mary they pray to isn't the same Mary mother of Jesus.

BibleGateway.com - PassageLookup: Jeremiah 44:19-23;

19And the women said,[a] "When we made offerings to the queen of heaven(A) and poured out drink offerings to her, was it(B) without our husbands’ approval that we made cakes for her bearing her image and poured out drink offerings to her?"

20Then Jeremiah said to all the people,(C) men and women, all the people who had given him this answer: 21(D) "As for the offerings that you offered in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem, you and your fathers, your kings and your officials, and the people of the land,(E) did not the LORD remember them? Did it not come into his mind? 22(F) The LORD could no longer bear your evil deeds and(G) the abominations that you committed.(H) Therefore your land has become(I) a desolation and a waste and a curse,(J) without inhabitant, as it is this day. 23It is because you made offerings(K) and because you sinned against the LORD and did not obey the voice of the LORD or walk in his law and in his statutes and in his testimonies(L) that this disaster has happened to you, as at this day."