Why do christians hate evolution?

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



lord xyz
Can't put it better than Brett Keane.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=DV4XNkl6GUc

InnerRise
Ummm b/c it undermines everything that they believe in. no expression

anata wa wakarimasu ka.....

inimalist
I don't think it has as much to do with the findings of evolution being incompatable with the teachings of the church as mr Keane seems to insinuate.

Honestly, I don't think the majority of the people who oppose evolution have even the most rudimentary understanding of the concept. Look at the Chick tracts and other pieces of anti-evolutionary literature. There is no attempt what so ever to make evolution fit with scripture, even though as Keane shows, it does not take a whole lot of word mincing to come up with a non literal interpretation of genesis that fits with the fossil record.

So why then do Christians hate evolution? I think it is more related to who they turn to as the "purvayer of truth". All individuals, scientists, christians and everyone in between, have certain contextual characteristics that to them, tell them what they are hearing is true.

For most people, a piece of information told to them by a random stranger on the street is less pursuasive than the same information told in the context of a newsbroadcast. The same way people give increadable amounts of authority to their doctor, seeing as they "should know".

For Christians, these contextual cues have been built in from a very young age. Even in the least active and manipulative church services, one still engages in standing and sitting, reading and responding, all at the whim of an individual in a ceremonial costume, standing in front of everyone, normally on an elivated stage type thing.

Note, the only thing I am saying at this point is that Christians from a very young age are indoctrinated to believe the words that a pastor or priest utters more than those uttered by someone else. So when it comes to evolution, most Christians are just doing what their priest tells them.

Clearly it isn't this simple. There are economic factors to consider, cognitive dissonance effects, and many other reasons why the church would want people to furvently believe what they are selling, but for the most part, I would say christians hate evolution because they have been told to.

BobbyD
Originally posted by lord xyz

I don't hate it. I embrace it. And yes, I'm Christian. wink

JesusIsAlive
Originally posted by lord xyz
Can't put it better than Brett Keane.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=DV4XNkl6GUc

I hate lies and the theory of evolution is a lie. God created all life and He did not use evolution to do it based on the Scriptures.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I hate lies and the theory of evolution is a lie. God created all life and He did not use evolution to do it based on the Scriptures.

Then you should hate the bible, for it is filled with lies. wink

inimalist
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I hate lies and the theory of evolution is a lie. God created all life and He did not use evolution to do it based on the Scriptures.

could you sum up what the theory of evolution is, in your own words, say... in a paragraph?

Strangelove
Originally posted by InnerRise
Ummm b/c it undermines everything that they believe in. no expression

anata wa wakarimasu ka..... It undermines a fundamentalist viewpoint, but that's it. There are a lot of Christians who believe in evolution.

InnerRise
But we're talking about those Christians that HATE evolution.

anata wa wakarimasu ka.....

jollyjim311
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I hate lies and the theory of evolution is a lie. God created all life and He did not use evolution to do it based on the Scriptures.

So the world is flat?
People can only have the skin tone of Adam and Eve, because it would not change through evolution?
"Below" the Earth is Hell? Would that be the center?
Heaven is in the clouds?
The sun rotates around the Earth?

That book can't really be relied on.

AngryManatee
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I hate lies and the theory of evolution is a lie. God created all life and He did not use evolution to do it based on the Scriptures.

Your evidence to why evolution is a lie is quite compelling Happy Dance

Nellinator
Originally posted by jollyjim311
So the world is flat?
People can only have the skin tone of Adam and Eve, because it would not change through evolution?
"Below" the Earth is Hell? Would that be the center?
Heaven is in the clouds?
The sun rotates around the Earth?

That book can't really be relied on. You apparently haven't read the Bible.

Alliance
Originally posted by Strangelove
It undermines a fundamentalist viewpoint, but that's it. There are a lot of Christians who believe in evolution.

It undermines church authority, it undermines religious tradition, and it undermines the innerancy of the Bible.

Nellinator
Originally posted by Alliance
It undermines church authority, it undermines religious tradition, and it undermines the innerancy of the Bible. Maybe certain denominations, yes, though tradition is overrated, no it doesn't.

Robtard
Originally posted by Nellinator
You apparently haven't read the Bible.


Doesn't the Bible say the Earth rest on four pillars?

(It's been several years since I've read it)

debbiejo
Originally posted by Nellinator
You apparently haven't read the Bible. I have.

Nellinator
Originally posted by Robtard
Doesn't the Bible say the Earth rest on four pillars?

(It's been several years since I've read it) Yes, but that hardly qualifies the world as being flat. It was used as justification... obviously incorrectly.
Originally posted by debbiejo
I have. Good for you.

debbiejo
Yes it is good for me. Knowing the truth will make you free. Try it.

Nellinator
yawn

Robtard
Originally posted by Nellinator
Yes, but that hardly qualifies the world as being flat. It was used as justification... obviously incorrectly.



But the world (a globe like shape) does rest on four pillars regardless?

debbiejo
Originally posted by Nellinator
yawn

You need tucked in? Let mommy read you a fictionial story. Here it goes.

"In the beginning god created the Heavens and the earth, then the devil came. He pretended he was a snake. Jesus came and pretended he was a lamb. The snake fooled all the people. The lamb killed it's self. The people were happy. The end"

Alliance
Originally posted by Nellinator
Yes, but that hardly qualifies the world as being flat. It was used as justification... obviously incorrectly.
Good for you.

I belive the "four corners" of the earth was the flatness...

...but yes....the pillars.

JesusIsAlive
Originally posted by inimalist
could you sum up what the theory of evolution is, in your own words, say... in a paragraph?


The underlying principle of the theory of evolution states that all life (specifically all human and animal organisms) descended from a previous life form, all of which have a common ancestor. These life forms originally began as a primitive, single-celled amoeba and then evolved over billions of years into human beings (the higher, complex life form) due to natural selection.

Strangelove
Originally posted by Alliance
It undermines church authority, it undermines religious tradition, and it undermines the innerancy of the Bible. Then why does Europe, which has a predominately Christian/Catholic background, also have one of the highest rates of the population that believe in evolution?

Alliance
Becuase the US has a more contemporary background in religion...especially fundamentalism.

I think centuries of religious wars in Europe and progressive education is to thank for Europe's salvation.

inimalist
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
The underlying principle of the theory of evolution states that all life (specifically all human and animal organisms) descended from a previous life form, all of which have a common ancestor. These life forms originally began as a primitive, single-celled amoeba and then evolved over billions of years into human beings (the higher, complex life form) due to natural selection.

yes and no.

There is a lot of interpretation FROM the principals of evolutionary theory in there, but way too much emphasis on human origins and the origin of life in general.

A better definition would be: Evolution is the change in any unit of replication over time, provided that the units have both properties of heredity and variance, based on the ability of these units to replicate in a given environment.

So, as many people point out constantly, the theory of evolution say nothing about the origins of life. so these points:

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
all life (specifically all human and animal organisms) descended from a previous life form

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
These life forms originally began as a primitive, single-celled amoeba

Are factually inaccurate.

I will deal with the latter first. Evolution does not say what the original life form on the planet was. The only scientific fact remotely similar to this is as follows:

All life on earth, that we have look at the DNA of, shares a certain very small percentage of identical genes. This indicates that at some point in time, there was one thing that was alive that propagated all life on earth. This does not mean there were no other living things at the time, just that whatever property this unit of replication had made it that much more likely to continue replication.

To the first there are 2 comments. Obviously, to say that all life comes from prior life is a framing tactic that puts me at an instant disadvantage. At some point, life must have began. Scientists have some theories as to how, but the conditions of the earth 5 billion years ago is pretty hard to reproduce in a lab. That has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution only deals with the units of replication ONCE THEY BEGIN TO REPLICATE, and not the origins.

Secondly, all life did not come from another life form. That insinuates that one day a fish gives birth to a frog. Evolution does not create such distinct divides between species, except over long periods of time.

For instance, say there is a population of birds. Now, there are small flying birds that are eventually going to evolve into an ostrich. (this isn't fact by the way, I don't know the evolution of ostriches, it is to illustrate a point). The important thing to remember here is that for speciation of this kind to occur, there must be a reason for 2 populations to stop mating with each other. Once they become so genetically different from each other that they can no longer mate and produce offspring, they are considered to be different species.

So, we have this small bird. Now, the bird has some chicks. Some of them are smaller and can fly around and get all the food they need, but some are a little bit larger and it is better for them to only fly short distances and forage in shrubs or whatever for food. Now, the two species can still interbreed and probably still will for the next few generations. However, as time passes, the birds that are too large to get enough food to fly around constantly have to become more aggressive and therefore larger, or else they will starve. That is to say, the birds that are born with a greater disposition to be aggressive for food will replicate their genes (replicator units) more often than those who do not.

At this point there may be an interesting phenomena. The small flying birds may still be able to mate with these large shrub birds, but because of behavioural differences, they wont. This allows multiple generations to pass where the genes do not get shared between the two populations, and they become distinct from one another.

So, now we have this distinct species of large foraging bird with limited flight. Some of them reproduce better as they get larger and bigger/ longer claws. Those with a longer neck are able to reach more food and thusly reproduce more children. Those with smaller wings require less food and are able to survive longer in drought.

The whole thing of microevolution and macroevolution is bunk. Everything is microevolution, however, at massive timescales, it looks like macroevolution is occurring. At any given time, all members of a single species should be able to reproduce with each other, but over in some cases thousands of generations, they lose that ability, so we call them different species. Basically, all life is a continuum.

Your focus on human evolution is a little misguided too, at seems to illustrate a bias in your thinking. Human evolution is one of the least understood and reliable fields in evolutionary research. That doesn't mean we don't have evidence of human evolution, it is because of the statistical population of relatives we have the ability to compare our evolution to, that being none.

When studying the evolution of pigs, it is really simple because there are many ancestors that can be compared between, thus being able to tease our certain causes for certain features. For the human fossil record, this is much more difficult. There have been VERY few species of human, and only ONE homo sapiens. Not that this in any way discredits evolution, just that it points out your definition is fixated too squarely on your bias toward the subject.

Besides, there is much more convincing DNA evidence for evolution than fossil.

EDIT: This kinda flys in the face of my don't debate with creationists thing, and I guess I only replied because I got a PM from mr JIA...

Probably not going to say any more than this, kinda embarassed I got suckered in anyhow...

Alliance
haha. smile

Goddess Kali
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
The underlying principle of the theory of evolution states that all life (specifically all human and animal organisms) descended from a previous life form, all of which have a common ancestor. These life forms originally began as a primitive, single-celled amoeba and then evolved over billions of years into human beings (the higher, complex life form) due to natural selection.



Yes, that is not life coming from non-life. That is Life coming from prior Life babe wink

JesusIsAlive
I didn't say that I believed or subscribed to my definition or description for evolutionary theory, I just gave my understanding of it (in my own words) in response to a request from inimalist. In no way do I agree with either mine or inimalist's description of evolutionary theory relative to explaining and accounting for the differences among species.

Goddess Kali
Evolution makes a hell of a lot more sense than Creationism though. Also there's massive evidense to back up Evolution. There is absolutely no evidense to back up Creationism.

inimalist
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I didn't say that I believed or subscribed to my definition or description for evolutionary theory, I just gave my understanding of it (in my own words) in response to a request from inimalist. In no way do I agree with either mine or inimalist's description of evolutionary theory relative to explaining and accounting for the differences among species.

thats fine

if you like fiction, I really recommend reading up on the in depth of the theory. Try to detach what it is saying from your ideological perspective, its pretty breathtaking.

JesusIsAlive

inimalist

JesusIsAlive
Originally posted by inimalist
thats fine

if you like fiction, I really recommend reading up on the in depth of the theory. Try to detach what it is saying from your ideological perspective, its pretty breathtaking.

Personally, my affinity is for non-fiction (e.g., the Bible, Encyclopedias, History books, etc.). But thanks for the invitation.

Alliance
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Personally, my affinity is for non-fiction (e.g., the Bible, Encyclopedias, History books, etc.). But thanks for the invitation.

There is a reason science is non-fiction and the Bible is not in the non-fiction section.

You obviously care nothing for history, else you would actually know more about the bible.

inimalist
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Personally, my affinity is for non-fiction (e.g., the Bible, Encyclopedias, History books, etc.). But thanks for the invitation.

lol, I'd say the same, but I'm sure our "fiction" collections are going to be somewhat different

JesusIsAlive
Originally posted by inimalist
not entirely

since the 70's evolution has been revised by what is called the "selfish gene" theory. More focus on genes and replication, less on animals. There are many different levels of understanding evolution, but the best are at the genetic level because that is where it becomes the simplest to understand.... Once you get around the whole genetics thing.... its tricky stuff

Look, even your definition was good as a working definition, and is close enough that people probably understand what you are talking about. I was nitpicking, and to be honest, I know for a fact that your denial of evolution is in no way related to an honest and rational weighting of the facts.

Ya.... stopping now

No, not stopping yet. Inimalist, what is your view on how the universe came to be or in your erudition is the universe eternal? I have one small request you must limit your explanation to five to six sentences (in your own words).

inimalist
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
No, not stopping yet. Inimalist, what is your view on how the universe came to be or in your erudition is the universe eternal? I have one small request you must limit your explanation to five to six sentences (in your own words).

hahaha

thats easy.

Big Bang. I don't know. I study neuro psychology. Not my field. Evolution is a hobby.

JesusIsAlive
Originally posted by inimalist
hahaha

thats easy.

Big Bang. I don't know. I study neuro psychology. Not my field. Evolution is a hobby.


laughing

You are funny. Ok, how about explaining to me how the mind works i.e. conscience.

Burner
Why do evolutionists hate Christianity?

Alliance
WHy do you think "evolutionists" exist?


Why does someone who believe in evolution magically hate Christianity?

inimalist
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
laughing

You are funny. Ok, how about explaining to me how the mind works i.e. conscience.

ummmm

that post could take years.

For instance, I was going through a stack of journal articles today that I was supposed to alphabetize for the prof I work for. Probably over 100 articles, all of them about very specific parts of how pre-frontal attentional allocation affects how and what we see, and how we feel about it.

That is only the smallest part of the equation.

Also, when it gets into talking about the communications between the hypothalamus and amygdale, thats completely meaningless to people without the background in the field. Neuro science is comparable in its complexity to astrophysics and quantum mechanics. There are hundreds of billions of neurons in the brain, each with potentially thousands of connections to other neurons.

If you want me to make a stab at it, consciousness is likely the way we describe the way we experience certain mental functions. Consciousness is honestly what I one day want to get into the research of, but really, its generally unexplainable right now.

The biggest problem being that it looks like it doesn't really exist, and that we need a much more complex way of describing human experience.

If you really want an in depth look at how I feel about this I'll cut and paste some of the stuff I put in the philosophy forum... It goes into lots more detail.

JesusIsAlive
Originally posted by Burner
Why do evolutionists hate Christianity?

Good question.

JesusIsAlive
Originally posted by inimalist
ummmm

that post could take years.

For instance, I was going through a stack of journal articles today that I was supposed to alphabetize for the prof I work for. Probably over 100 articles, all of them about very specific parts of how pre-frontal attentional allocation affects how and what we see, and how we feel about it.

That is only the smallest part of the equation.

Also, when it gets into talking about the communications between the hypothalamus and amygdale, thats completely meaningless to people without the background in the field. Neuro science is comparable in its complexity to astrophysics and quantum mechanics. There are hundreds of billions of neurons in the brain, each with potentially thousands of connections to other neurons.

If you want me to make a stab at it, consciousness is likely the way we describe the way we experience certain mental functions. Consciousness is honestly what I one day want to get into the research of, but really, its generally unexplainable right now.

The biggest problem being that it looks like it doesn't really exist, and that we need a much more complex way of describing human experience.

If you really want an in depth look at how I feel about this I'll cut and paste some of the stuff I put in the philosophy forum... It goes into lots more detail.

Good job of attempting to explain conscience.

Second question: do you believe something as complex as the mind (notice that I did not say the brain. I think that every person on earth unanimously agrees that the brain is complex) evolved? Ok, now lets include the brain, do you believe that the brain with all of its complexity evolved from a single-celled amoeba?

inimalist
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Good job of attempting to explain conscience.

Second question: do you believe something as complex as the mind (notice that I did not say the brain. I think that every person on earth unanimously agrees that the brain is complex) evolved? Ok, now lets include the brain, do you believe that the brain with all of its complexity evolved from a single-celled amoeba?

I believe that the brain and the mind are one in the same.

I also believe that they are the product of evolution over time.

Alliance
Originally posted by inimalist
ummmm

that post could take years.

laughing out loud By years you mean forever.

Psychology....yuck.

Why don't we start by explaining evolution.

JesusIsAlive
Originally posted by inimalist
I believe that the brain and the mind are one in the same.

I also believe that they are the product of evolution over time.


But how can the brain and the mind be one and the same? The mind is incorporeal (it has no tangibility). The brain is composed of matter the mind is not.

inimalist
Originally posted by Alliance
laughing out loud By years you mean forever.

Psychology....yuck.

Why don't we start by explaining evolution.

haha, different strokes for different folks I guess

but ya, so much amazing stuff out there that we will probably never know in our life time.

We are pretty small...

Alliance
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
But how can the brain and the mind be one and the same? The mind is incorporeal (it has no tangibility). The brain is composed of matter the mind is not.

Not if they are one and the same. If the mind can't exist without the brain...there must be some connection. The mind is simply the brains image of itself.Originally posted by inimalist
haha, different strokes for different folks I guess

but ya, so much amazing stuff out there that we will probably never know in our life time.

We are pretty small...

Well, psychology wont figure it out. NeuroBIOLOGISTS will wink

inimalist
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
But how can the brain and the mind be one and the same? The mind is incorporeal (it has no tangibility). The brain is composed of matter the mind is not.

wrong

really, brain=mind

oh whatever, ill find that post....

Originally posted by inimalist
It depends on what you mean by "thought" and how specific of an answer you want.

To begin with, there is not yet a human action or function or behaviour that has been found to be inexplicable through neuroscience. Everything we have observed has supported the idea that thought originates in the brain.

To begin with, "thoughts" is not a scientific or provable concept, so I will abandon it right now. However, there are many cognitive processes that amount to what we would consider to be "thoughts". For instance, all of our sensory organs relay information to our brain, which is then assembled by various regions into our general perception. Yes, there is proof that this is how our senses work, it is a massively robust field of psychology and biology. Pick up a biopsychology and sensation & perception textbook, the specifics of this type of "thought" are gone into in GREAT detail.

Well, what about knowledge? Sure, the brain can explain how the light from my computer screen gets into my eye and I become aware of it, but how do I know what is in that light? Well, thats simple. Every time stimuli hits a sensory organ, it elicits a pattern of responses that goes from the receptors to the cortex by way of the thalamus (smelling is a little different, but not enough so to throw off this point). From the cortex, the information travels to the infotemporal cortex and the amygdala (this is specific for sight, I will be honest in saying I don't know where emotional processing of other senses occurs), where semantic and emotional identification of the stimuli occurs. This all happens well before you become conscious of an object. For instance, there is a disorder known as agnosia, which is a disconnection between the amygdala and the hypothalamus (oh man, i think thats the one...). In this disorder, people are able to recognize and interact with everything, except they are unable to retrieve emotional memories for the purpose of identification. For instance, an agnosia patient who sees their father would describe them as "A person who looks exactly like my father, though clearly not them". The reason that the person cannot identify their father is because their brain is not sending the proper father signal. The information never makes it to the hypothalamus, so it can never be emotionally processed. This proof is two fold. To begin with, it shows that parts of the brain are specifically responsible for attributing information to certain aspects of perception. Why would your soul not be able to identify your father just because some brain thing is messed up? The second point is that conscious perception is completely dependent on subconscious processing. Before you become consciously aware of an item, your brain has already decided what it is, how you feel about it, and what you need to do to deal with it.

Well, what about "consciousness". To begin with, I hate the term. It is misleading in the first place, because asking about consciousness supposes that there is a consciousness to look for. The western philosophical and religious traditions basically named and defined the mental process we would term "consciousness" long before science had a chance to look at it. Now that we have things like EEGs and fMRIs, we find that "consciousness" is really diaphanous. For instance, there are things called brainwaves that are the byproduct of electrical charge in active neurons and things called glial cells which create synchronization in neuron activation. Some of these brainwaves, when they occur in certain parts of the brain, can be associated with certain patterns of neural activation, which can be used to determine what people are "thinking". Now, in an experiment, people were asked to move their hand and say when they become consciously aware of their intention to move their hand. What was found, when measuring brainwave activity from the motor cortex (the place responsible for movement) was activation much sooner than the person indicated awareness of the conscious intent to move. This means that people do not become aware of what they are going to do until after their brain has prepared to make that movement. This is a very standard result in cognitive neuroscience.

There is also the existence of something called, by Dr. Gazzaniga, the interpreter. It is within the left side of the brain, and all information must pass through it in order to be included in our interpretation of reality. For instance, a cure for some types of Epilepsy is to cut the corpus callosum, a nerve that connects the left and right sides of the brain. Once this is done, certain types of information can no longer pass from one side to the other. While this is ok in normal conditions, it can be manipulated in experimental conditions to show the inability of the brain to account for all stimuli. A person's left eye sends information to the right side of the brain, and vica versa. So, if a subject with their callosum cut is presented a ball in their left eye and a bike in the other, they will ONLY be aware of the bike (the ball is being sent to the right side of the brain which cannot communicate with the interpreter). Well, you say, thats because they are ignoring the ball (or some other argument that still supports some type of dualism) but wait, if after showing them those images you were to show them a page consisting of 4 images, say a horn, a baseball bat, a birdhouse and a bike helmet, they are most likely to pick something like the baseball bat because it is associated with the ball on the right side of the brain (although they are only consciously aware that they have seen the bike). When asked WHY they pointed to the bat, they will come up with a story like, "oh, well, i used to play baseball as a kid and sometimes my brother would bike up to see me play". This is because the "interpreter" is there, it can see you are pointing at the bat and you saw a bike, now it is looking for the rational explanation. Since it is unable to get the information from the left eye, it can not attribute the selection of the bat to the ball. And yes, this experiment was done with controls. People without a cut in the callosum will generally be able to justify what they selected. There are many, many, MANY experiments like these, many dealing with things like morality or more existential concerns. The have all uniformly shown us that our own beliefs and perceptions are directly related to mental processes, and can be subject to predictable error under experimental conditions. I can't imagine a definition of a "soul" that allows for this type of error.

Similar things can be said about the conception of self, the way we attribute cause to events, and our ability (or inability) to properly remember situations. Hell, the fact that we can trick our perceptive system with optical illusions even when we know how they work seems to indicate that there is nothing inside of us watching through our eyes and making our decisions. Probably the best evidence for this is that there is no place where the "soul" or "self" would be located. For the soul to be sending thoughts and actions to the brain it would need a direct connection. This connection does not exist. Not to mention that you would need to suppose a new type of communication between neurons other than neurotransmitters that allows for "spirit energy" to become electro-chemical energy.

I guess all I can ask you is, what part of your "mind" do you not think is explained by neuroscience?

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Alliance
Not if they are one and the same. If the mind can't exist without the brain...there must be some connection. The mind is simply the brains image of itself.

Well, psychology wont figure it out. NeuroBIOLOGISTS will wink

The mind is a holographic biological byproduct of the physical connections of billions of nerve cells: chemical-electrical.

Alliance
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The mind is a holographic biological byproduct of the physical connections of billions of nerve cells: chemical-electrical.

You mean electro-chemical? smile

inimalist
Originally posted by Alliance
Well, psychology wont figure it out. NeuroBIOLOGISTS will wink

not to nit pick, but psychology is neurobiology, only at the behavioural and perceptive levels.

its come a long way since Freud and the couches. The stuff I'm working on right now deals with what kinda of preview objects help people locate similar objects in a field of other similar ones.

I don't really like using the term psychology just for the reason that the first thing people think of when they hear the term is Freud and Dr Phil.

FeceMan
Dewd. Wtf. JIA is actually making sense.

Alliance
or just the fact that psychology is not real science, despite its supposed reliance on the scientific method.

I feel, and maybe I'm being overzealous, that all real advances in Psychology are simply the product of advnaces in neurobiology. I find behaviour and perception to be unscientific.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Alliance
You mean electro-chemical? smile

Ya, Hey! At least I got the right words. My dyslexia gets me every time.

FeceMan
Originally posted by Alliance
or just the fact that psychology is not real science, despite its supposed reliance on the scientific method.

I feel, and maybe I'm being overzealous, that all real advances in Psychology are simply the product of advnaces in neurobiology. I find behaviour and perception to be unscientific.
Go back to Greece, newb.

Alliance
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Ya, Hey! At least I got the right words. My dyslexia gets me every time.

well, electro d.n.e. electrical.

Its ok...I forgive you....but only this time.

inimalist
Originally posted by Alliance
or just the fact that psychology is not real science, despite its supposed reliance on the scientific method.

I feel, and maybe I'm being overzealous, that all real advances in Psychology are simply the product of advnaces in neurobiology. I find behaviour and perception to be unscientific.

I guess you are entitled to your opinion.... Though I think its interesting how definitive you want to draw the line between biology and psychology.

C'est la vie. If you want I'll make a case for psychology, but I'm faily sure you are set smile

JesusIsAlive
Originally posted by inimalist
wrong

really, brain=mind

oh whatever, ill find that post....



I guess all I can ask you is, what part of your "mind" do you not think is explained by neuroscience?

Originally posted by inimalist
It depends on what you mean by "thought" and how specific of an answer you want.

To begin with, there is not yet a human action or function or behaviour that has been found to be inexplicable through neuroscience. Everything we have observed has supported the idea that thought originates in the brain.

To begin with, "thoughts" is not a scientific or provable concept, so I will abandon it right now. However, there are many cognitive processes that amount to what we would consider to be "thoughts". For instance, all of our sensory organs relay information to our brain, which is then assembled by various regions into our general perception. Yes, there is proof that this is how our senses work, it is a massively robust field of psychology and biology. Pick up a biopsychology and sensation & perception textbook, the specifics of this type of "thought" are gone into in GREAT detail.

Well, what about knowledge? Sure, the brain can explain how the light from my computer screen gets into my eye and I become aware of it, but how do I know what is in that light? Well, thats simple. Every time stimuli hits a sensory organ, it elicits a pattern of responses that goes from the receptors to the cortex by way of the thalamus (smelling is a little different, but not enough so to throw off this point). From the cortex, the information travels to the infotemporal cortex and the amygdala (this is specific for sight, I will be honest in saying I don't know where emotional processing of other senses occurs), where semantic and emotional identification of the stimuli occurs. This all happens well before you become conscious of an object. For instance, there is a disorder known as agnosia, which is a disconnection between the amygdala and the hypothalamus (oh man, i think thats the one...). In this disorder, people are able to recognize and interact with everything, except they are unable to retrieve emotional memories for the purpose of identification. For instance, an agnosia patient who sees their father would describe them as "A person who looks exactly like my father, though clearly not them". The reason that the person cannot identify their father is because their brain is not sending the proper father signal. The information never makes it to the hypothalamus, so it can never be emotionally processed. This proof is two fold. To begin with, it shows that parts of the brain are specifically responsible for attributing information to certain aspects of perception. Why would your soul not be able to identify your father just because some brain thing is messed up? The second point is that conscious perception is completely dependent on subconscious processing. Before you become consciously aware of an item, your brain has already decided what it is, how you feel about it, and what you need to do to deal with it.

Well, what about "consciousness". To begin with, I hate the term. It is misleading in the first place, because asking about consciousness supposes that there is a consciousness to look for. The western philosophical and religious traditions basically named and defined the mental process we would term "consciousness" long before science had a chance to look at it. Now that we have things like EEGs and fMRIs, we find that "consciousness" is really diaphanous. For instance, there are things called brainwaves that are the byproduct of electrical charge in active neurons and things called glial cells which create synchronization in neuron activation. Some of these brainwaves, when they occur in certain parts of the brain, can be associated with certain patterns of neural activation, which can be used to determine what people are "thinking". Now, in an experiment, people were asked to move their hand and say when they become consciously aware of their intention to move their hand. What was found, when measuring brainwave activity from the motor cortex (the place responsible for movement) was activation much sooner than the person indicated awareness of the conscious intent to move. This means that people do not become aware of what they are going to do until after their brain has prepared to make that movement. This is a very standard result in cognitive neuroscience.

There is also the existence of something called, by Dr. Gazzaniga, the interpreter. It is within the left side of the brain, and all information must pass through it in order to be included in our interpretation of reality. For instance, a cure for some types of Epilepsy is to cut the corpus callosum, a nerve that connects the left and right sides of the brain. Once this is done, certain types of information can no longer pass from one side to the other. While this is ok in normal conditions, it can be manipulated in experimental conditions to show the inability of the brain to account for all stimuli. A person's left eye sends information to the right side of the brain, and vica versa. So, if a subject with their callosum cut is presented a ball in their left eye and a bike in the other, they will ONLY be aware of the bike (the ball is being sent to the right side of the brain which cannot communicate with the interpreter). Well, you say, thats because they are ignoring the ball (or some other argument that still supports some type of dualism) but wait, if after showing them those images you were to show them a page consisting of 4 images, say a horn, a baseball bat, a birdhouse and a bike helmet, they are most likely to pick something like the baseball bat because it is associated with the ball on the right side of the brain (although they are only consciously aware that they have seen the bike). When asked WHY they pointed to the bat, they will come up with a story like, "oh, well, i used to play baseball as a kid and sometimes my brother would bike up to see me play". This is because the "interpreter" is there, it can see you are pointing at the bat and you saw a bike, now it is looking for the rational explanation. Since it is unable to get the information from the left eye, it can not attribute the selection of the bat to the ball. And yes, this experiment was done with controls. People without a cut in the callosum will generally be able to justify what they selected. There are many, many, MANY experiments like these, many dealing with things like morality or more existential concerns. The have all uniformly shown us that our own beliefs and perceptions are directly related to mental processes, and can be subject to predictable error under experimental conditions. I can't imagine a definition of a "soul" that allows for this type of error.

Similar things can be said about the conception of self, the way we attribute cause to events, and our ability (or inability) to properly remember situations. Hell, the fact that we can trick our perceptive system with optical illusions even when we know how they work seems to indicate that there is nothing inside of us watching through our eyes and making our decisions. Probably the best evidence for this is that there is no place where the "soul" or "self" would be located. For the soul to be sending thoughts and actions to the brain it would need a direct connection. This connection does not exist. Not to mention that you would need to suppose a new type of communication between neurons other than neurotransmitters that allows for "spirit energy" to become electro-chemical energy.

How do you know that no connection between the soul and the brain exists?

Goddess Kali
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
How do you know that no connection between the soul and the brain exists?


How do you know the Soul exists ?

FeceMan
Anything that puts on airs of being scientific and tries to disprove (or prove) the existence of a soul needs to be thrown out the window.

inimalist
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
How do you know that no connection between the soul and the brain exists?

thats proving the negative, which is impossible.

All I can say is that there is no experience that is currently unexplainable by psychology or if you want to be an ass neurobiology stick out tongue. And there is no part of the brain that appears to connect to or receive information from anywhere outside of the body.

I think it may be up to you to do some fMRI scans and locate some soul.

Alliance
Originally posted by inimalist
I guess you are entitled to your opinion.... Though I think its interesting how definitive you want to draw the line between biology and psychology.

C'est la vie. If you want I'll make a case for psychology, but I'm faily sure you are set smile

laughing out loud "set"

...and yes, it is interesting.

JesusIsAlive
Originally posted by inimalist
thats proving the negative, which is impossible.

All I can say is that there is no experience that is currently unexplainable by psychology or if you want to be an ass neurobiology stick out tongue. And there is no part of the brain that appears to connect to or receive information from anywhere outside of the body.

I think it may be up to you to do some fMRI scans and locate some soul.


What do you believe animates your body?

inimalist
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
What do you believe animates your body?

define "animates" please

I'm not trying to be smart, its really not a word I would use when describing human life.

inimalist
Originally posted by Alliance
laughing out loud "set"

...and yes, it is interesting.

laughing laughing out loud wink

ya, being set is good. I got nothing against being set.

debbiejo
Originally posted by inimalist
And there is no part of the brain that appears to connect to or receive information from anywhere outside of the body.

There are some new studies in quantum physics that see the brain as a receiver of the mind and the body a shell of what the person is. A brain and a body are only the mechanism of what the entity and universe is or may be.

JesusIsAlive
Originally posted by inimalist
define "animates" please

I'm not trying to be smart, its really not a word I would use when describing human life.

What gives life to your physical body (I do not mean the blood, because the Bible states that the life of the flesh is in the blood). Blood only sustains, supports, and maintains the body. But what causes your body to live?

inimalist
Originally posted by debbiejo
There are some new studies in quantum physics that see the brain as a receiver of the mind and the body a shell of a person.

links?

sources?

http://www.theness.com/articles.asp?id=63
http://www.csicop.org/si/2006-04/quantum-mechanics.html

Alliance
Originally posted by inimalist
laughing laughing out loud wink

ya, being set is good. I got nothing against being set.

Look at JIA and then we might want to rethink that.

debbiejo
I'll have to look it up. It's mostly books.

inimalist
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
What gives life to your physcial body (I do not mean the blood, because the Bible states that the life of the flesh is in the blood). Blood only sustains, supports, and maintains the body. But causes your body to live?

"life" is really hard to pin down....

for instance, are we as individuals alive or is our life a byproduct of trillions of other living things?

I'm more inclined to believe the second, and put all mental function in the realm of electro-chemical action and amazing pattern recognition + memory function.

Alliance
Originally posted by debbiejo
There are some new studies in quantum physics that see the brain as a receiver of the mind and the body a shell of what the person is. A brain and a body are only the mechanism of what the entity and universe is or may be.

You seem to be confusing quantum mechanics with pseudoscience again.

inimalist
Originally posted by Alliance
Look at JIA and then we might want to rethink that.

laughing laughing rolling on floor laughing

debbiejo
Originally posted by Alliance
You seem to be confusing quantum mechanics with pseudoscience again. Stop it. AT one time pseudoscience was quantum mechanics. smart

JesusIsAlive
Originally posted by inimalist
"life" is really hard to pin down....

for instance, are we as individuals alive or is our life a byproduct of trillions of other living things?

I'm more inclined to believe the second, and put all mental function in the realm of electro-chemical action and amazing pattern recognition + memory function.

Interesting. But why does electicity and chemicals react symbiotically? Why do we recall?

Alliance
not really. smile

inimalist
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Interesting. But why does electicity and chemicals to react symbiotically? Why do we recall?

electro-chemical means that it is an electrical signal carries by chemical carriers. Basically charged ions moving down an axon.

debbiejo
Where do our thoughts come from? And where do they go once they leave our brains? roll eyes (sarcastic)

inimalist
Originally posted by debbiejo
Where do our thoughts come from? And where do they go once they leave our brains? roll eyes (sarcastic)

what is a "thought", cognitive psychologists only use this term coloquially.

Give me a specific thought or experience.

FeceMan
"This is a dumb conversation."

JesusIsAlive
Originally posted by inimalist
electro-chemical means that it is an electrical signal carries by chemical carriers. Basically charged ions moving down an axon.

Let me digress from this line of questions. Inimalist, in your scholarly opinion what is nature?

debbiejo
Yes, what is a thought? Were do they originate. Could it be outside of our brains?

Is that a new thought?

inimalist
ok, guys, im out

really

wtf

Alliance
laughing out loud

debbiejo
blink

I'm trying to have an intelligent conversation here........

JesusIsAlive
Originally posted by inimalist
ok, guys, im out

really

wtf

laughing

debbiejo
E=MC2
Cosmos --> Universe --> Galaxy --> Earth --> Individuals --> Organ Systems --> Cells --> Molecules --> Atoms --> Subatomic Particles = Energy (thoughts)

Everything that exists whether nature, sound, colors, oxygen, the wind, thoughts, emotions, the chair your sitting in, your house, your car, your physical body, the stars, your dog, your ability to see, hear, smell, etc. etc., exists only as a result of this very same energy.


To put it another way, ANYTHING and EVERYTHING which exists in the entire cosmos which when broken down and analyzed into it's purest form with sophisticated scientific tools and instruments, is merely a vibrating frequency of energy which joins together with energies of the same harmonious frequency to form what we "perceive" and as a result experience in the physical world.

lord xyz
This is the only post that is worth commenting in the thread.

Originally posted by Burner
Why do evolutionists hate Christianity? I don't think they do, seeing as a lot of evolutionists are christian. ATHEISTS might hate CREATIONISTS, but don't get caught in the belief that evolution is an atheist thing, evolution is a science and atheists have no reason not to believe in it, christians do. Also, not all christians are fundamentalists, and not all are hated. If Christians were more like Sihks, open-minded and calm, they would get the respect atheists try to give them.

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Alliance
well, electro d.n.e. electrical.

Its ok...I forgive you....but only this time.

You will have to forgive me every time. wink

lord xyz
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You will have to forgive me every time. wink Everyone has to forgive you everytime. wink

debbiejo
What, nobody liked my little E=MC2 Thingie?? miffed

lord xyz
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
laughing He said that because you were making no sense, not because "he was afraid of the truth."

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by lord xyz
Everyone has to forgive you everytime. wink

I was talking to Alliance, not you... stick out tongue wink laughing out loud

Burnt Pancakes
Originally posted by jollyjim311
So the world is flat?
People can only have the skin tone of Adam and Eve, because it would not change through evolution?
"Below" the Earth is Hell? Would that be the center?
Heaven is in the clouds?
The sun rotates around the Earth?

That book can't really be relied on.

The bible actually refers to Earth as a sphere.

It took Scientists a thousand years to realize that roll eyes (sarcastic)

Nellinator
Originally posted by Alliance
or just the fact that psychology is not real science, despite its supposed reliance on the scientific method.

I feel, and maybe I'm being overzealous, that all real advances in Psychology are simply the product of advnaces in neurobiology. I find behaviour and perception to be unscientific. A lot of psychology is science because a lot of neurobiologists are psychology majors. The counselling part and a lot of social psychology is not really science but a lot is.

inimalist
Originally posted by Burnt Pancakes
The bible actually refers to Earth as a sphere.

It took Scientists a thousand years to realize that roll eyes (sarcastic)

The Greeks knew this, and it was forgotten under Christian rule of Europe.

Alliance
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You will have to forgive me every time. wink
evil face
Originally posted by Burnt Pancakes
The bible actually refers to Earth as a sphere.

Where! eek! It must be the part where its resting on four pillars?

ANd yes, some Greek schools of thought thought that the Earth was a sphere. A few Roman and Greek Philosophers actually porposed heliocentric models of the Universe.

However, Chirstianity repressed all those schools of thought and destroyed most enlightened knowledge in Europe until a few very smart men got a hold of some Arabic texts in the 1400s.

Burnt Pancakes
I know, hence why I shake my head in sadness at false religion.

FeceMan
Pretty sure all the references to pillars and the "corners" of the Earth are metaphorical.

inimalist
Originally posted by FeceMan
Pretty sure all the references to pillars and the "corners" of the Earth are metaphorical.

what standard do you use to determine literal truth from metaphor in the bible?

FeceMan
Originally posted by inimalist
what standard do you use to determine literal truth from metaphor in the bible?
Well, for one thing, we know the Earth isn't suspended on pillars, and we know that the Earth doesn't literally have corners. The Earth does, however, have four cardinal directions.

Also, Job 26:7 says that the Earth hangs upon nothing. We can see that the statement of pillars is metaphorical because it would otherwise contradict this statement. There is no real metaphorical way to interpret "nothing," though.

inimalist
Originally posted by FeceMan
Well, for one thing, we know the Earth isn't suspended on pillars, and we know that the Earth doesn't literally have corners. The Earth does, however, have four cardinal directions.

Also, Job 26:7 says that the Earth hangs upon nothing. We can see that the statement of pillars is metaphorical because it would otherwise contradict this statement. There is no real metaphorical way to interpret "nothing," though.

ok, thats fair

are there parts of the bible that you think are literal fact?

FeceMan
Originally posted by inimalist
ok, thats fair

are there parts of the bible that you think are literal fact?
Yes.

...Oh, you wanted to know what parts? Well, let's see. I believe that Genesis accurately describes the creation of the Earth. I believe in Adam and Eve. I believe in Noah and the Flood and the Nephilim and Anakim. I believe in Job and Elisha and Elijah and Nehemiah and Moses and the Exodus and the ten plagues on Egypt and that the Law was communicated to us by angels. Speaking of angels, I believe in those. I believe in demons and spiritual warfare. I believe in the prophesies of Isaiah. I believe that Christ's birth was predicted and fulfilled. I believe that Jesus came and worked miracles and died upon the cross to save us all. I believe that Christ rose again after three days and ascended into heaven. I believe that Revelation accurately describes the end of the world. I believe that there is one way and one way only into heaven, that other deities are false, that non-Christians are deceived, that there is one God who is the creator of the universe and all things seen and unseen.

Adam_PoE
Originally posted by FeceMan
Yes.

...Oh, you wanted to know what parts? Well, let's see. I believe that Genesis accurately describes the creation of the Earth. I believe in Adam and Eve. I believe in Noah and the Flood and the Nephilim and Anakim. I believe in Job and Elisha and Elijah and Nehemiah and Moses and the Exodus and the ten plagues on Egypt and that the Law was communicated to us by angels. Speaking of angels, I believe in those. I believe in demons and spiritual warfare. I believe in the prophesies of Isaiah. I believe that Christ's birth was predicted and fulfilled. I believe that Jesus came and worked miracles and died upon the cross to save us all. I believe that Christ rose again after three days and ascended into heaven. I believe that Revelation accurately describes the end of the world. I believe that there is one way and one way only into heaven, that other deities are false, that non-Christians are deceived, that there is one God who is the creator of the universe and all things seen and unseen.

laughing

FeceMan
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
laughing
roll eyes (sarcastic)

inimalist
Originally posted by FeceMan
Yes.

...Oh, you wanted to know what parts? Well, let's see. I believe that Genesis accurately describes the creation of the Earth. I believe in Adam and Eve. I believe in Noah and the Flood and the Nephilim and Anakim. I believe in Job and Elisha and Elijah and Nehemiah and Moses and the Exodus and the ten plagues on Egypt and that the Law was communicated to us by angels. Speaking of angels, I believe in those. I believe in demons and spiritual warfare. I believe in the prophesies of Isaiah. I believe that Christ's birth was predicted and fulfilled. I believe that Jesus came and worked miracles and died upon the cross to save us all. I believe that Christ rose again after three days and ascended into heaven. I believe that Revelation accurately describes the end of the world. I believe that there is one way and one way only into heaven, that other deities are false, that non-Christians are deceived, that there is one God who is the creator of the universe and all things seen and unseen.

I'm not entirely interested in what parts you think are true.

However, I am interested in what you use to determine that these parts are literally true as opposed to the parts that are metaphorically true?

Is there a specific part of the Bible that says what is true vs what is a metaphor?

FeceMan
Originally posted by inimalist
I'm not entirely interested in what parts you think are true.
Those are the parts I think are literal.

In order to determine what is metaphorical and what is true, one must determine the context. For instance, I know a lot of Revelation is metaphorical because there is heavy symbolism that would be recognized by people during that time period. Similarly, some parts of the Psalms are figurative language, as they are music/poetry. For instance, in Psalm 135, it speaks of God bringing out winds from "his treasuries." Now, we know that God doesn't actually have a treasury filled with wind (although that'd be...interesting nonetheless), and we recognize the metaphorical nature of the verse.

inimalist
Originally posted by FeceMan
Those are the parts I think are literal.

In order to determine what is metaphorical and what is true, one must determine the context. For instance, I know a lot of Revelation is metaphorical because there is heavy symbolism that would be recognized by people during that time period. Similarly, some parts of the Psalms are figurative language, as they are music/poetry. For instance, in Psalm 135, it speaks of God bringing out winds from "his treasuries." Now, we know that God doesn't actually have a treasury filled with wind (although that'd be...interesting nonetheless), and we recognize the metaphorical nature of the verse.

wow

i disagree 100%, but that is a pretty good answer smile

danke

EDIT: Disagree is probably the wrong term. I don't necessarily disagree with anything you have said in principal, just that I look at the entire book in a different way than you. Thats a totally respectable position though, way more progressive than some.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.