A religious voice of reason in the ID debate

David Swidler · 21st January 2006, 10:51 PM

I came across this article and found it a welcome counterpoint to the nonsense coming from some proponents of teaching ID.

From the article:

Quote:

If that’s the case, neuroscience is the worst thing to happen to God since the French mathematician Pierre de Laplace told Napoleon that he had no place for a divine being in his equations. What should God-fearing people do?

Clearly, we must forbid our universities to teach neuroscience. At the very least, we should require professors to tell students that acetylcholine and noradrenalin are "only theories" and to teach the Ten Commandments alongside journals like Neuron.

The absurdity of that last paragraph shows just how ridiculous the intelligent design debate has become. Of course we don’t want to eliminate an entire field of knowledge, especially not one as useful and as interesting as neuroscience. And when Ms. Yu and Mr. Dayan analyze how the brain makes decisions, they are not offering moral teachings, any more than Moses on Mt. Sinai was telling the Children of Israel which neurons to fire or what substances to swallow when they encountered a widow or an orphan.

RandFan · 21st January 2006, 11:17 PM

Excellent link. Those who only read the quote are missing a lot.

Thanks David.

Quote:

As an Orthodox Jew and a science writer, I have the unhappy task of breaking some bad news to my fellow-believers of all religions. If you thought evolution was a threat to God, wait until you hear the latest. Brain scientists are getting close to being able to explain our moral choices by charting chemicals in our heads.

In a recent research paper published in early 2005 in the journal Neuron, two British neuroscientists, Angela J. Yu and Peter Dayan, use a clever experiment and lots of equations to show that people’s decisions about whether or not to continue to hold a belief depends on how two molecules, acetylcholine and noradrenalin, interact in the human brain. Being British, Ms. Yu and Mr. Dayan give the example of whether or not to believe the weather forecast when deciding to leave home with an umbrella in the morning. But it could just as easily apply to a person’s decision to believe in intelligent design or evolution, in the rights or wrongs of abortion, or in the existence or non-existence of God.

Cool stuff.

geetarmoore · 22nd January 2006, 12:37 AM

Yea.. That is good!

After the Dover ruling, I'm seeing more and more non-fundamentalist religious followers who were embarrassed by the whole mess come out against religious overtones in the science class. I think they really fear a full on assault by science against religion if the practice of trying to intermingle the two continues.

SirPhilip · 22nd January 2006, 05:23 AM

Quote:

Clearly, we must forbid our universities to teach neuroscience. At the very least, we should require professors to tell students that acetylcholine and noradrenalin are "only theories" and to teach the Ten Commandments alongside journals like Neuron.

If they want proof acetycholine exists, just give them forbidden fruit that inhibits it's synaptic action. That'll teach them more about the human brain in two days than most neurology majors grasp in 11 years.

Dylab · 22nd January 2006, 06:20 AM

I wonder percentage of religious people accept that are actions and thoughts are directly interwined with the chemical processes in our brain. I agree with the article. I think many religious people would have trouble accepting "the astonishing hypothesis" more so than evolution.

Ryan O'Dine · 22nd January 2006, 06:31 AM

Good link. It reminds me of work done by Michael Persinger.

From a Wired article

Quote:

... My lobes are about to be bathed with precise wavelength patterns that are supposed to affect my mind in a stunning way, artificially inducing the sensation that I am seeing God.

I'm taking part in a vanguard experiment on the physical sources of spiritual consciousness, the current work-in-progress of Michael Persinger, a neuropsychologist at Canada's Laurentian University in Sudbury, Ontario. His theory is that the sensation described as "having a religious experience" is merely a side effect of our bicameral brain's feverish activities...

SirPhilip · 22nd January 2006, 07:35 PM

Originally Posted by Ryan O'Dine

Good link. It reminds me of work done by Michael Persinger. From a Wired article

From the article: "Technically speaking, what's about to happen is simple. Using his fixed wavelength patterns of electromagnetic fields, Persinger aims to inspire a feeling of a sensed presence - he claims he can also zap you with euphoria, anxiety, fear, even sexual stirring."

Three woos for Mr.Persinger. The hell with God, I want a weaponized version of that thing to fire at women.

Dr Adequate · 22nd January 2006, 07:43 PM

Quote:

Being British, Ms. Yu and Mr. Dayan give the example of whether or not to believe the weather forecast when deciding to leave home with an umbrella in the morning.

THAT IS SO RACIST!

* removes bowler hat and jumps on it in fit of rage *

I must sip some tea now to calm me down, I say, what.

* rings for butler *

Ryan O'Dine · 23rd January 2006, 08:35 AM

Originally Posted by SirPhilip

snip

Three woos for Mr.Persinger.

snip

Are you saying Persinger is bunk? I'm not sure, but here's a partial list of peer reviewed journal articles.

He may be wrong, but he's legit.

SirPhilip · 23rd January 2006, 10:44 AM

Originally Posted by Ryan O'Dine

Are you saying Persinger is bunk? I'm not sure, but here's a partial list of peer reviewed journal articles.

He may be wrong, but he's legit.

No, I meant that literally - woo! The grandfather of the sex ray. But on a serious note, he has his work cut out for him replicating spiritualism around the world, much less making people feel that they are genuinely experiencing God, in a messy room. It should also be noted that substances such as DMT and 5-MEO-DMT, have been around for years that overwhelmingly replicate transcedental states of mind, including an absolute state, but while overpowering, they're still just that, and qualitatively in the same catagory as other hallucinatory drugs. In other words, there isn't a strong dissonance between subjective and objective, the person knows they didn't go anywhere or actually see anything.

21st January 2006, 10:51 PM	#1
David Swidler Carrot Mohel Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Right here, obviously. Posts: 8,302	A religious voice of reason in the ID debate I came across this article and found it a welcome counterpoint to the nonsense coming from some proponents of teaching ID. From the article: Quote: If that’s the case, neuroscience is the worst thing to happen to God since the French mathematician Pierre de Laplace told Napoleon that he had no place for a divine being in his equations. What should God-fearing people do? Clearly, we must forbid our universities to teach neuroscience. At the very least, we should require professors to tell students that acetylcholine and noradrenalin are "only theories" and to teach the Ten Commandments alongside journals like Neuron. The absurdity of that last paragraph shows just how ridiculous the intelligent design debate has become. Of course we don’t want to eliminate an entire field of knowledge, especially not one as useful and as interesting as neuroscience. And when Ms. Yu and Mr. Dayan analyze how the brain makes decisions, they are not offering moral teachings, any more than Moses on Mt. Sinai was telling the Children of Israel which neurons to fire or what substances to swallow when they encountered a widow or an orphan.

21st January 2006, 11:17 PM	#2
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,156	Excellent link. Those who only read the quote are missing a lot. Thanks David. Quote: As an Orthodox Jew and a science writer, I have the unhappy task of breaking some bad news to my fellow-believers of all religions. If you thought evolution was a threat to God, wait until you hear the latest. Brain scientists are getting close to being able to explain our moral choices by charting chemicals in our heads. In a recent research paper published in early 2005 in the journal Neuron, two British neuroscientists, Angela J. Yu and Peter Dayan, use a clever experiment and lots of equations to show that people’s decisions about whether or not to continue to hold a belief depends on how two molecules, acetylcholine and noradrenalin, interact in the human brain. Being British, Ms. Yu and Mr. Dayan give the example of whether or not to believe the weather forecast when deciding to leave home with an umbrella in the morning. But it could just as easily apply to a person’s decision to believe in intelligent design or evolution, in the rights or wrongs of abortion, or in the existence or non-existence of God. Cool stuff.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

22nd January 2006, 06:20 AM	#5
Dylab Critical Thinker Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 313	I wonder percentage of religious people accept that are actions and thoughts are directly interwined with the chemical processes in our brain. I agree with the article. I think many religious people would have trouble accepting "the astonishing hypothesis" more so than evolution.
Dylab Critical Thinker Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 313

22nd January 2006, 06:31 AM	#6
Ryan O'Dine OD’ing on Damitol Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Walk in an ever expanding Archimedean spiral and you’ll find me eventually Posts: 1,184	Good link. It reminds me of work done by Michael Persinger. From a Wired article Quote: ... My lobes are about to be bathed with precise wavelength patterns that are supposed to affect my mind in a stunning way, artificially inducing the sensation that I am seeing God. I'm taking part in a vanguard experiment on the physical sources of spiritual consciousness, the current work-in-progress of Michael Persinger, a neuropsychologist at Canada's Laurentian University in Sudbury, Ontario. His theory is that the sensation described as "having a religious experience" is merely a side effect of our bicameral brain's feverish activities...
	__________________ I collect people like you in little formaldehyde bottles in my basement. (Not a threat. A hobby.)

23rd January 2006, 08:35 AM	#9
Ryan O'Dine OD’ing on Damitol Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Walk in an ever expanding Archimedean spiral and you’ll find me eventually Posts: 1,184	Originally Posted by SirPhilip snip Three woos for Mr.Persinger. snip Are you saying Persinger is bunk? I'm not sure, but here's a partial list of peer reviewed journal articles. He may be wrong, but he's legit.
	__________________ I collect people like you in little formaldehyde bottles in my basement. (Not a threat. A hobby.)

22nd January 2006, 12:37 AM	#3
geetarmoore Critical Thinker Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Small planet in the milky way. Posts: 280	Yea.. That is good! After the Dover ruling, I'm seeing more and more non-fundamentalist religious followers who were embarrassed by the whole mess come out against religious overtones in the science class. I think they really fear a full on assault by science against religion if the practice of trying to intermingle the two continues.

22nd January 2006, 05:23 AM	#4
SirPhilip Bittersweet Symphony Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Athens, Ohio Posts: 2,444	Quote: Clearly, we must forbid our universities to teach neuroscience. At the very least, we should require professors to tell students that acetylcholine and noradrenalin are "only theories" and to teach the Ten Commandments alongside journals like Neuron. If they want proof acetycholine exists, just give them forbidden fruit that inhibits it's synaptic action. That'll teach them more about the human brain in two days than most neurology majors grasp in 11 years.

22nd January 2006, 07:35 PM	#7
SirPhilip Bittersweet Symphony Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Athens, Ohio Posts: 2,444	Originally Posted by Ryan O'Dine Good link. It reminds me of work done by Michael Persinger. From a Wired article From the article: "Technically speaking, what's about to happen is simple. Using his fixed wavelength patterns of electromagnetic fields, Persinger aims to inspire a feeling of a sensed presence - he claims he can also zap you with euphoria, anxiety, fear, even sexual stirring." Three woos for Mr.Persinger. The hell with God, I want a weaponized version of that thing to fire at women.

22nd January 2006, 07:43 PM	#8
Dr Adequate Banned Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Waiting Long Enough By The River Posts: 17,897	Quote: Being British, Ms. Yu and Mr. Dayan give the example of whether or not to believe the weather forecast when deciding to leave home with an umbrella in the morning. THAT IS SO RACIST! * removes bowler hat and jumps on it in fit of rage * I must sip some tea now to calm me down, I say, what. * rings for butler *

23rd January 2006, 10:44 AM	#10
SirPhilip Bittersweet Symphony Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Athens, Ohio Posts: 2,444	Originally Posted by Ryan O'Dine Are you saying Persinger is bunk? I'm not sure, but here's a partial list of peer reviewed journal articles. He may be wrong, but he's legit. No, I meant that literally - woo! The grandfather of the sex ray. But on a serious note, he has his work cut out for him replicating spiritualism around the world, much less making people feel that they are genuinely experiencing God, in a messy room. It should also be noted that substances such as DMT and 5-MEO-DMT, have been around for years that overwhelmingly replicate transcedental states of mind, including an absolute state, but while overpowering, they're still just that, and qualitatively in the same catagory as other hallucinatory drugs. In other words, there isn't a strong dissonance between subjective and objective, the person knows they didn't go anywhere or actually see anything.
	Last edited by SirPhilip; 23rd January 2006 at 10:49 AM.