Thanks for the clarification Polycarp good to “see” you and Libertarian again… you two pop up in pairs in most threads I read… great minds think alike I guess
What you say is true and the key words are: no scientifically measurable properties.
Love
Leroy
Libertarian quoted Ramachandran:
I feel that this is a poor analogy on Ramachandran’s part.
If human beings had not been born with the ability to see colors, we would still, eventually, have discovered that only a certain range of frequencies of light are detectable by the human eye. We would then discover that even within that narrow range of frequencies, the human eye was more sensitive to some than to others. We could then have built light-sensing machines that could tell us precisely how bright each frequency of light was when “looking” at a given scene.
So, even though the sensation we perceive as “color” would be alien to our understanding, we could still build machines that would enable us to make use of the same information that color would otherwise impart to our senses. Color – or at least, the information contained within the sensation of color – is detectable. But can you build a machine that allows you to detect “God”?
You could build an “Everything Detector”, and if God, Leprechauns, and Unicorns weren’t detected, some folks would just say our detector wasn’t good enough. Basically, to the faithful, it doesn’t matter whether something is real or not. At least using any useful definition of the word real.
DaLovin’ Dj
You are spirit inhabiting a physical body. The physical body has five senses that we believe in. The spirit also has senses to see beyond the body and the physical. Most are not aware of them because they are not aware of spirit. Many times they are activated through accidents like near death experiences. One famous psychic had a brain fever and another fell off a ladder to activate theirs. Anyone can use them to some extent with practice. Knowing God is simple knowing God. Science does not have the tools to understand at this time, and I personally don’t see them becoming available in the future.
Love
Leroy
Also, doesn’t the Ramachandran line of thinking suggest things like if the ability to detect color is better wiring, then people who murder because of voices in their head are just “chosen” ones who are wired to hear the voices? Foolish line of thinking to me . . .
DaLovin’ Dj
Cite?
Just to pour some petrol on;
I interpret Ramchandran’s quote differently.
He’s just saying:’ I have demonstrated that religious experience depends on how your brain is wired.’ ‘Lest I offend any religious people I will offer you a different interpretation from the obvious, so that you won’t feel too insulted.’
Didn’t someone, not too long ago, find the part of the brain that was different for homosexuals? Seems like a bit of the same situation. People feel their own persona being under attack by it just being some connection in the brain.
The “chosen ones” excuse is a feeble try at best. It would also entail that, no matter how hard I tried, I could never ever connect with God, the way other people could, because my wiring is different. What use then is witnessing? How am I being dealt a fair hand in my choice of accepting Jesus as my saviour or fry in Hell?
Connecting to God is not a function of the brain. The spirit lives on after the brain and body is dead. Science has not come up with evidence of memory stored in the brain.
There are some more interesting studies being down other than those quoted on my site. One of them is looking for:
http://www.healthsystem.virginia.edu/internet/personalitystudies/case_types.cfm#NDE
This and other studies I believe will eventually prove what NDEers have said all along.
Love
Leroy
Tracer wrote:
What is your favorite color?
Sure. An EKG. You really should get the book. It was recommended to me by an atheist.
Latro wrote:
That’s ridiculous.
That’s like interpreting Dr. King’s Dream speech to mean that he was bored with the plight of Blacks, and didn’t want to offend them by telling him that they put him to sleep.
No it’s not.
Yes it is.
Is it?
Yes. Yes, it is.
You have no basis whatsoever to question Ramachandran’s motives, veracity, or even his point. You haven’t read the chapter. And his reputation as both a neurosurgeon and researcher is exemplary. He is entirely capable of writing what he means, and honest enough to do so.
Your alternate interpretation is as arbitrary as the one I offered of Dr. King’s speech. If I were to begin interpreting your posts in the same reckless manner that you’ve interpreted Ramachandran’s partial paragraph, this debate could go sour real quick.
No, true I haven’t read the chapter. I don’t know the first thing about the research. all I had was your quote.
But having reread it, I feel my interpretation wasn’t as arbitrary by half as you make it out to be. Why did you post it? To show that even such research can’t be used for any measurable proof on religion, no? See, the researcher himself won’t draw any such conclusions.
There is some basis in seeing someone play down his views in order not to step on any religious toes. It happens all the time.
Maybe you’re right and that isn’t the case here. It is, however, not an arbitrary interpretation to the extent of your Dr King example.
And why aren’t we allowed to question people’s motives?
We could all stop our debates right now.
Who are we to question the motives and veracity of Bush, Saddam, Ritter, the Bible and God knows who and what.
haha! That was beautiful!
I thought an EKG measured heart beats. I think you meant an EEG, that measures brain waves. It does not measure God, He is too big for anything we have to measure.
Love
Leroy
He did not measure ‘spiritual activity’ in brains. He measured peoples responses (people with various neurological ailments, mind you) to ‘religeous stimuli’. Even he states that this is not the same as finding a ‘God Module’, as has been reported.
Why? What would that mean?