It’s the limbic system, but you should have finished reading.
Why is the revealed truth of such transcendent experiences in any way “inferior” to the more mundane truths that we scientists dabble in? Indeed, if you are tempted to jump to this conclusion, just bear in mind that one could use exactly the same evidence – the involvement of the temporal lobes in religion – to argue for, rather than against, the existence of God.VS Ramachandran, Phantoms in the Brain, pp 184-185
To be honest, Liberal, I find a tension between (a) your claims that your Christianity is rational, and is based on evidence and your experiences and (b) that you are **irreversibly ** Christian. To grant any belief immunity to revision means you have removed it from the space of evidence and reasons. And while you as a person no doubt have many admirable qualities, and I have no wish to demonize you or your fellow believers, I see no reason to accord any respect to the practice of declaring a belief or set of beliefs *de jure * unrevisable.
But perhaps I have misunderstood where you are coming from.
I never read that book, so I didn’t not finish reading it. And the quote is nonsense. The fact that one can artificially induce a religious experience shows that people’s claim that we unbelievers should take their unsupported word of THEIR alleged religious experiences as proof of God’s existence is wrong.
And “transcendent experiences” ARE inferior to the “mundane truths” that “scientists dabble in”, for the simply reason that the “mundane truths” have evidence behind them.
Of course, you have to make the false claim that all theists insist on any such thing in order to support your assertion. I have never offered a proof of god to you or anyone else. Billions of religious persons have never felt compelled to assert that they have proof of god. By claiming that (all) theists are demanding that you accept some imagined proof, you appear to be demonstrating the same irrationality of which you are so fond of accusing believers.
And if I said that ALL believers made that claim you’d have a point. But I didn’t, so you don’t. I was speaking of the particular believers who make such claims about “feeling” God; a common claim on the SDMB.
Okay, but that’s all a moot point to how to convey that respectfully.
Whether or not the idea is one you agree with or find valid, etc. is a separate thread as far as I’m concerned I just threw it out there as a thought I’ve currently been exploring.
One doesn’t have to buy my idea (which is just that, even to me) to posit what the appropriate way would be to express it respectfully, which is the OP.
And I really am curious; I think it would go a long way towards the point at hand.
Funny. I’ve read this statement several times now and I cannot find the word “some” or any other modifier that indicates that the bolded words did not apply to all believers. It appears to be the same sort of broad brush application with which you take swipes at all believers in the vast majority of your posts.
*Originally Posted by Der Trihs
The fact that one can artificially induce a religious experience shows that people’s claim that we unbelievers should take their unsupported word of THEIR alleged religious experiences as proof of God’s existence is wrong.
Funny. I’ve read this statement several times now and I cannot find the word “some” or any other modifier that indicates that the bolded words did not apply to all believers. It appears to be the same sort of broad brush application with which you take swipes at all believers in the vast majority of your posts.*
Really? It seems to me that if one says “people’s claim that…” then one is referring to people that make that claim. Not to people that don’t make that claim.
Presumably, let’s hope, most believers don’t claim that their “unsupported word of THEIR religious experience” is proof of god’s existence.
What’s being referred to there, clearly it seems to me, is those that **do **make that claim.
Given Der Trihs’s posting history (see the second post in this thread), it is not at all “clear” that that was his intent, although I will agree that he can retroactively declare that that was his intent.
It simply would not have been that difficult (and it would have been much more clear) had he posted
“The fact that one can artificially induce a religious experience shows that those people who claim that we unbelievers should take their unsupported word of THEIR alleged religious experiences as proof of God’s existence is wrong.”
And I am trying to point out one of the problems-that if one holds one’s religion too close to the heart, every question about it could trigger such a defensive reaction. I do not feel I have the same problem, I I think I show this by actively seeking out evidence of that which I don’t yet believe. My only stipulation for such evidence is that it is at least of the quality of evidence as is found in any other field. I am willing to examine said evidence, and I am willing to change my mind if said evidence warrants it. If this board was full of believers that claimed that non-believers suffered from delusions, it wouldn’t change the way I post one whit, because I’ll still use the same methods to determine what is right and what is wrong.
It would seem more respectful and more accurate to say
“I don’t believe your god exists”
And the theologist’s response to this would be what, exactly?
And isn’t it interesting how often something like that occurs?
IMO If your honest opinion is that religious belief in general is foolish, immature, ridiculous bullshit, or any number of other unflattering descriptors, then out of respect, keep it to yourself until someone either asks you for your honest opinion or makes some attempt to push their beliefs on you.
I think it’s also mutual respect for either side to make a sincere attempt to listen and understand the opposing view.
How would I know?
Depends on the person doesn’t it?
Personally I recognize it as a perfectly valid option and respect the person’s right to hold that opinion.
Fair enough. I have no idea what his intent was, but the construction of the sentence seemed to suggest the subject that was being referred to, IMO.
Well, it didn’t occur in the case referenced so please don’t use me as an example.
I was stating an idea which I’m currently exploring that interests me. That’s not the same as a fundamentalist’s firmly held religious beliefs that require as part of that belief that they not be questioned and are held in the absence of evidence.
As for me, I’ve stated I believe there is some supporting evidence for my hypothesis but I’m not stating it as an intransigent belief that I’m sure about; and dude’s information about how evolution works can certainly affect my thinking.
As for keeping one’s opinions to oneself unless one is asked, all I can is wow.
But that was all besides the point anyway; I’d still like someone to tell me what would be a respectful way of expressing the opinion that religion could be a function of older, less evolved brains that we’re still grappling with today.
Maybe some religious people are so accustomed to witty dismissals, a la Huckabee, of other viewpoints that they assume that one is trying to think of fucked up things to say for the sake of being insulting or something. I’m not. I’m sincerely exploring that opinion and wanting to express it, that’s all.
It’s an idea. In a discussion about the subject of religion, what would be the respectful way of conveying that idea? (Assuming I’m permitted to speak.)
Accompanied by actual information and a logical argument, it would not bother me in the least to simply have the issue laid out: “Here is paleontological or current biological evidence of a specific brain function that appears to control religious belief and it appears to be one that was much more prevalent in earlier times than today. Here is the evidence that its diminution corresponds with a reduction in religious belief among humans, today.”
If you open your discussion with a claim that religion is an infectious disease–one for which you cannot provide a scintilla of evidence of the actual biological agent that would convey the disease–I will dismiss you as a crank, although I would still be polite to you until you invaded my personal space with your baseless attacks.
(Sadly, many believers would still lash out at either presentation, just as many non-believers would lash out at any equivalent presentations that portrayed their views as mentally deficient, but that is the subject of this thread.)
So you’re saying that an opinion cannot be expressed respectfully unless it is accompanied by evidence and a logical argument that supports its validity. Any opinions expressed without evidence and a logical argument cause dismissal as a crank. Interesting, I’ll keep that in mind and apply it both ways.
While cosmosdan has stated that the best way to be respectful is to keep my opinions to myself unless asked if those opinions see a given belief system as being somehow flawed or immature, etc.
Oh and by the way, if you’re going to speak of ‘actual information’ then I’d ask that you not misrepresent my opinion. I didn’t say anything about infectious diseases so please dismiss the strawman that said that as a crank, and not me who didn’t.
Furthermore, there was no attack baseless or otherwise. I stated an opinion.
Once again, see the name of the thread for why you’d label that an attack.
It seems that what you’ve said is that there is no way to express that opinion respectfully unless it’s backed up by evidence.
In my view, whether or not there is evidence for a given opinion has nothing to do with being respectful in expressing the thought. Those are two different issues.
How about this: “I wonder if religion was borne out of a time when man had a less evolved brain and that as time has gone on, it will be evolved out of existence?”
Am I permitted to wonder that and say so in a discussion about religion?
Oh yes, and I for one would not ‘lash out’ at an equivalent presentation that portrayed (or more accurately, posited) that my views are ‘mentally deficient’ – to accept your liberal paraphrasing. I’d be intrigued and want to hear more.
To me, that’s the fabric of a discussion. Defensiveness is just embarrassing.
So, to summarize: one shouldn’t express **those **kinds of opinions at all unless asked or else it’s disrespectful, and one shouldn’t express an opinion without “actual information” (I actually did present a logical argument, so I won’t include that; you can argue with it and even poke holes in it or debunk it successfully, but I nonetheless presented my reasoning which was sincere to the best of my ability) or else it’s an attack and therefore disrespectful.
Fascinating, really.