Putting Religion Under Scientific Scrutiny

[Born Free]

ABC Radio National - All in the Mind ran this interesting program:

Breaking the Spell: Daniel Dennett on religion

"As the world wages war over geographical, religious and historical turf - a growing number of big note scientists want religious faith put under the microscope. Uber philosopher of mind and popular provocateur, Daniel Dennett, author of Darwin's Dangerous Idea, is one of them. He joins Natasha Mitchell to discuss his latest controversial offering, Breaking the Spell. Be provoked..."

The program is the one from the 29th July. It can be downloaded from:

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/allinthemind/default.htm

Daryl

[helemon]

'Scientists don't celebrate the things that they don't know.' :D

[Born Free]

This makes me stop and appreciate this country, where people can become Prime Minister or politicians regardless of their religious beliefs, but that said, I always note with interest how many politicians have had significant religious influence in their life.

Whilst they have rejected religion, the best part of its influence in the belief in making the world a better place appears to persist.

I like the idea of the meme of 'belief in belief' discussed here, and I wonder whether these guys share a meme of 'attempting to make a difference'.

Daryl

[helemon]

This makes me stop and appreciate this country, where people can become Prime Minister or politicians regardless of their religious beliefs, but that said, I always note with interest how many politicians have had significant religious influence in their life.

Whilst they have rejected religion, the best part of its influence in the belief in making the world a better place appears to persist.

I like the idea of the meme of 'belief in belief' discussed here, and I wonder whether these guys share a meme of 'attempting to make a difference'.

Daryl

Yeah, I highly doubt that an openly agnostic or athiest person could be elected to public office. With over half the population of the US believing in God it is in politicians interest to present themselves as also believing in God. I also wonder if the cold war fight against "Godless Communisim" hasn't had a lasting impact on the political landscape of US politics. If someone says that they don't believe in God then they might as well say they are a Communist. Is it any wonder then that we see religion and big business capitalism together in one party?

[helemon]

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/DyeHard/story?id=2288095&page=1
The parasite, Toxoplasma gondii, has been transmitted indirectly from cats to roughly half the people on the planet, and it has been shown to affect human personalities in different ways.

Research has shown that women who are infected with the parasite tend to be more warm, outgoing and attentive to others, while infected men tend to be less intelligent and probably a bit boring. But both men and women who are infected are more prone to feeling guilty and insecure.


I wonder if anyone has done a study to see if people who own cats are also more religious?

[helemon]

I thought his statement about how in a shamanistic world if you couldn't be hypnotized you had no health insurance was interesting. Makes you realize how many of those miracles may have happened. Water turned into wine, feeding 5,000, healing the sick. They were hypnotized...:Crazy:

[Born Free]

I thought his statement about how in a shamanistic world if you couldn't be hypnotized you had no health insurance. Makes you realize how many of those miracles may have happened. Water turned into wine, feeding 5,000, healing the sick. They were hypnotized...:Crazy:
What I like about the accumulation of new knowledge in these areas, is that they help us let go of the idea of religion as 'wrong', and reframe it as a developmental phase.

This interview really promotes that notion. I also like the idea of toxic and non-toxic religion that was raised. Religion should have to and be able to demonstrate that it produces 'more skillful' outcomes in the real world. It is insufficient to simply lay claim to the high moral ground in isolation of problematic facts like higher divorce rates amongst fundamentalists.

Not only should they not be conceded any high ground; they should be on the defensive to explain the gap between their talk and their walk.

Daryl

[Jeff_Ricks]

What I like about the accumulation of new knowledge in these areas, is that they help us let go of the idea of religion as 'wrong', and reframe it as a developmental phase.

This interview really promotes that notion.I agree. I'd compare it to the developmental phases of the caterpillar/butterfly. Is it wrong for the butterfly to choose a self-imposed prison for a time? No, but it is wrong to fight to maintain that self-imposed prison when its usefulness and purpose has long past, because doing so would be self-destructive. In my view, right and wrong should no longer be determined by how an act relates to an edict, such as a declaration from in the Koran, Bible, or list of commandments. Instead, I think right and wrong should be defined by how an act relates to the long-term health of the world’s physical and social ecosystems.

So, in terms of religion, I think human culture today is like the butterfly at that point that it has started breaking through its self-imposed cocoon and has had a glimpse of what’s really out there. It's at the point at which it is deciding if it’s in its best interest to leave and risk trading security for freedom or to close up the hole and maintain status quo. Like the butterfly (this butterfly is self-aware for the sake of argument) human culture collectively peers out at the real world and is torn (in the US torn right down the middle in terms of the risks/benefits of religion) between whether it’s in our best interest to defend religion with all our might or to realize that it has outlived its usefulness, let it go, and move on.

Jeff

[dogzilla]

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/DyeHard/story?id=2288095&page=1


I wonder if anyone has done a study to see if people who own cats are also more religious?

I don't know but one data point for you: This here Dogzilla is owned by a cat and we're not religious at all in our house.

[helemon]

I don't know but one data point for you: This here Dogzilla is owned by a cat and we're not religious at all in our house.

I have also noticed that cat people tend to have a more intellectual liberal bent. Oh well, so much for that theory. But then your cat may not have the parasite. Has it eaten any rats lately? :Puking

[skeptic]

ABC Radio National - All in the Mind ran this interesting program:

Breaking the Spell: Daniel Dennett on religion

"As the world wages war over geographical, religious and historical turf - a growing number of big note scientists want religious faith put under the microscope. Uber philosopher of mind and popular provocateur, Daniel Dennett, author of Darwin's Dangerous Idea, is one of them. He joins Natasha Mitchell to discuss his latest controversial offering, Breaking the Spell. Be provoked..."

The program is the one from the 29th July. It can be downloaded from:

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/allinthemind/default.htm

Daryl
__________________________________________________ _

SoUtSkeptic is currently reading “The End of Faith” by Sam Harris. Talk about examine religion. I highly recommend it.


SoUtSkeptic

[dogzilla]

I have also noticed that cat people tend to have a more intellectual liberal bent. Oh well, so much for that theory. But then your cat may not have the parasite. Has it eaten any rats lately? :Puking

Not that he's told me about. He's so fat and lazy, I bet a rat could run right up to him and smack him right on the ass and he'd look at me as if to say, "Do something! That rat just smacked me!"

Useless cat. :D

In other unrelated anecdotal tidbits: My vet once told me that the most perfectly nutritionally balanced meal for a cat is a small whole rodent. Rats, mice and gerbils contain all the necessary nutrients for a healthy cat. Unfortunately, my cat prefers crab legs.