In Oxytocin We Trust... Why believe in God?

[wiki trix]

Love, Belief, and Neurobiology of Attachment
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5fw9cH4p2c

[pnyikos]

On May 13, 3:49 pm, wiki trix <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Love, Belief, and Neurobiology of Attachmenthttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5fw9cH4p2c

"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

Accordingly, while I did click on your link about the "Easy to tell
which is designed..." I'm not clicking on this one until you provide a
synopsis.

Peter Nyikos

[prawnster]

On May 13, 12:49 pm, wiki trix <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Love, Belief, and Neurobiology of Attachmenthttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5fw9cH4p2c

Where did oxytocin come from? I'm not sure why our inherently
chemical nature precludes us from being designed or precludes God.
You're just begging the question again, as usual.

[Craig Franck]

It's not that we are physical beings or spiritual beings that's
problematical, but rather the claim we are both. Just what is it
about wandering around the desert with no food for over a month
that causes God to reveal himself?

Craig

[pnyikos]

Death, from whatever cause, is believed by Christians to do just
that. What's your problem with that?

Peter Nyikos

[drose...@yahoo.com]

He wasn't talking about death from any cause. The poster was talking
about divine revelation (e.g., God) that comes after a long fast,
sensory deprivation, self induced pain, and psycopharmaceutical
chemicals.
Much divine revelation in the Bible comes after the prophet or priest
has purposely exposed himself to one of the above. The implication is that
the prophet had to somehow sabotage his body for God to communicate.
If God can do anything, why can't he communicate to somebody directly
without hunger, isolation, or narcotics?
To be fair, this isn't just a Christian thing. Shamans and monks
of most denominations abuse their bodies and scramble their own senses
in order to communicate with their spirits. Apparently, one has to be high
on something to communicate with the Divine.
The poster mentioned hunger and sensory deprivation. However,
he forgot about drugs and alcohol. At the very least, the rituals of
many religions involve ingesting ethanol. The Bible at no point bans
any narcotic or alcohol. Some of the incense burnt at the Temple may
have been psycopharmaceutical chemicals (all natural, of course).
The association between self abuse and divine revelation suggests to
some that the divine revelation isn't real. If the body has to be
sabotaged to experience something, then maybe that something is a
sensory distortion caused by a damaged body.

[Craig Franck]

I was thinking about a Moses-like trek through the desert and
the divine illumination that supposedly follows. Russell used
the hypothetical example of a strike on the elbow inducing
religious experiences. There is no logical reason for God not
to do things this way, but it hardly instills confidence in the
process from an epistemological POV.

It's also puzzling that, according to the Catholic Church, even
after we die, we still require a body. This makes it seem as if
we are totally physical beings with spiritual aspirations.

Craig

[wiki trix]

On May 14, 10:40 am, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:
> On May 13, 12:49 pm, wiki trix <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Love, Belief, and Neurobiology of Attachmenthttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5fw9cH4p2c
>
> Where did oxytocin come from?

Almost all vertebrates (agnatha and forward) have an oxytocin-like
hormone used in reproductive behavior. Some mammals co-opted it for
empathy, however, I am not sure when. The gene is thought to have
originated from a mutation that occurred about 0.5 billion years ago.
Why do you ask? A better question would be where did Sonic hedgehog
homolog come from... (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonic_hedgehog).
That I would love to know.

> I'm not sure why our inherently
> chemical nature precludes us from being designed or precludes God.

Our chemical nature does not preclude us from being designed nor does
it preclude God. Chemistry is an illusion, and our bungling creator is
simply the idiot computer scientist that started this universe as an
it from bit experiment to try to understand himself and his kind
better. He is still clueless about the nature of reality, and is no
doubt off on another project, or applying for a grant. We are
abandoned. The sooner you accept that the better off you will be.

> You're just begging the question again, as usual.

Begging the question means to assuming the initial point, as a form of
cirular reasoning. That is not what you intended, is it? Very stupid.
It is that sort of error that makes me sick. Fuck off and die you
pathetic horseshit for a CNS.

[wiki trix]

That one is legit.

[prawnster]

On May 14, 5:57 pm, wiki trix <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 14, 10:40 am, prawnster <zweibro...@ymail.com> wrote:

> [...]

> Almost all vertebrates (agnatha and forward) have an oxytocin-like
> hormone used in reproductive behavior. Some mammals co-opted it for
> empathy, however, I am not sure when. The gene is thought to have
> originated from a mutation that occurred about 0.5 billion years ago.

> [...]

> Begging the question means to assuming the initial point, as a form of
> cirular reasoning.  That is not what you intended, is it? Very stupid.
> It is that sort of error that makes me sick. Fuck off and die you
> pathetic horseshit for a CNS.

So where did oxytocin come from? That many animals have oxytocin
coursing through their blood tells us nothing about its origin.

You're assuming that oxytocin somehow means there is no God, or at
least that's what I understood your point to be, this being
talk.origins. So, since I know you have faith in evolution, that
means you're assuming the truth of your claim in the body of your
argument; i.e., begging the question.

And you don't want me to die, trickiwiki. You enjoy my postmodernist
poetry, remember?

And what's a CNS? ChristiaN Studmuffin?

[Burkhard]

Evolution, of course. If we were constantly reminded of the presence
of deities all around us, sabre tooth tigers would eat us.
Hence our sensory organs developed in such a way as to ignore in its
normal operating mode all stimuli that could detract from spotting and
running away from predators. We find the same in every day illusion
(the famous "Gorilla movie clip") or when dealing with things like
death. Drugs etc circumvent the normal reality filters, as you can
see, they all result in a state of vulnerability where the predators
would have a field day

[Burkhard]

On May 13, 8:49 pm, wiki trix <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Love, Belief, and Neurobiology of Attachmenthttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5fw9cH4p2c

V. good video, thanks, but how does it relates to your post title?
Generally, I find pasting bare urls without saying why/what you make
of it yourself bad posting practice

[wiki trix]

All rather good points. Thanks you.

[wiki trix]

You are welcome. BTW, the video talks about oxytocin, trust, and faith
in God.

[pnyikos]

Christian newsgroups added

On May 14, 9:00 pm, Craig Franck <craiglfra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/14/2012 4:31 PM, pnyikos wrote:
> > On May 14, 3:28 pm, Craig Franck<craiglfra...@gmail.com>  wrote:
> >> On 5/14/2012 1:40 PM, prawnster wrote:
>
> >>> On May 13, 12:49 pm, wiki trix<wikit...@gmail.com>    wrote:
> >>>> Love, Belief, and Neurobiology of Attachmenthttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5fw9cH4p2c
>
> >>> Where did oxytocin come from?  I'm not sure why our inherently
> >>> chemical nature precludes us from being designed or precludes God.
> >>> You're just begging the question again, as usual.
>
> >> It's not that we are physical beings or spiritual beings that's
> >> problematical, but rather the claim we are both. Just what is it
> >> about wandering around the desert with no food for over a month
> >> that causes God to reveal himself?
>
> >> Craig
>
> > Death, from whatever cause, is believed by Christians to do just
> > that.  What's your problem with that?
>
> I was thinking about a Moses-like trek through the desert and
> the divine illumination that supposedly follows.

It is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition. For most
people, it may just put them in a mood where they are more likely to
think spiritual thoughts.

> Russell used
> the hypothetical example of a strike on the elbow inducing
> religious experiences.

Bertrand?

Anyway, an extensive treatment of religious experiences being induced
by things like fasting can be found in Aldous Huxley's _Heaven and
Hell_. He does go a bit overboard in the comparison with drug-induced
religious experiences, but the book is a good starting point for all
that.

>There is no logical reason for God not
> to do things this way, but it hardly instills confidence in the
> process from an epistemological POV.

It may enhance the probabilities by demonstrating how serious the
individual is about following a religious path.

> It's also puzzling that, according to the Catholic Church, even
> after we die, we still require a body.

That is because the hereafter is not supposed to be a solitary thing,
and we need something analogous to our bodies to interact with each
other.

I say "analogous to", mindful of St. Paul's words in I Corinthians 15:
"It is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body."

Also, the Roman Catholic Church has an elaborate theology about "the
Resurrection body" of Jesus, no longer subject to many of the
limitations of his pre-death physical body.

>This makes it seem as if
> we are totally physical beings with spiritual aspirations.

Not in the hereafter, according to the NT.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/
nyikos @ math.sc.edu

> Craig-

[pnyikos]

That is not a synopsis.

Try again.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On May 15, 7:14 am, wiki trix <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 15, 2:00 am, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > On May 13, 8:49 pm, wiki trix <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Love, Belief, and Neurobiology of Attachmenthttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5fw9cH4p2c
>
> > V. good video, thanks, but how does it relates to your post title?
> > Generally, I find  pasting bare urls without saying why/what you make
> > of it yourself bad posting practice

Too bad Burkhard has killfiled me -- we agree on something for once.

> You are welcome. BTW, the video talks about oxytocin, trust, and faith
> in God.

In what way? Once you answer this question, you may have provided the
synopsis I am seeking.

Peter Nyikos

[wiki trix]

Oh just click it for Christ's sake.

[Burkhard]

I think it was the way you worded the "why believe in God" that threw
me, which I read as "why should we believe in God" (on which the video
is silent either way) as opposed to "why do we believe in God"

[Steven L.]

"Craig Franck" <craigl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:EqadnTBMR81DwSzS...@giganews.com:

One obvious explanation is that the person is *isolated*--and God often
reveals Himself to someone alone.

Secondly, wandering in the desert without food wasn't as rare an
occurrence back then as it is today. Hebrews wandered in the desert
because they were desert nomads. And they often went hungry.




-- Steven L.

[wiki trix]

On May 15, 6:47 am, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> "Craig Franck" <craiglfra...@gmail.com> wrote in message

>
> news:EqadnTBMR81DwSzS...@giganews.com:
>
> > On 5/14/2012 1:40 PM, prawnster wrote:
> > > On May 13, 12:49 pm, wiki trix<wikit...@gmail.com>  wrote:
> > >> Love, Belief, and Neurobiology of Attachmenthttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5fw9cH4p2c
>
> > > Where did oxytocin come from?  I'm not sure why our inherently
> > > chemical nature precludes us from being designed or precludes God.
> > > You're just begging the question again, as usual.
>
> > It's not that we are physical beings or spiritual beings that's
> > problematical, but rather the claim we are both. Just what is it
> > about wandering around the desert with no food for over a month
> > that causes God to reveal himself?
>
> One obvious explanation is that the person is *isolated*--and God often
> reveals Himself to someone alone.

True. The fact that god tends to only reveal himself to individuals
rather than groups is an indication that the revelation is all in
one's own subjective mind. When you have groups sharing an experience,
there is slightly more reason to view it as at least partially
objective. Part of the scientific methods is based on that, so that
observations are repeated by others in a way that yet others can see.

[wiki trix]

I see. I should have worded it as such: "why *we do* believe in God".

[Syamsu]

On 15 mei, 16:02, wiki trix <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 15, 6:47 am, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:

> > One obvious explanation is that the person is *isolated*--and God often
> > reveals Himself to someone alone.
>
> True. The fact that god tends to only reveal himself to individuals
> rather than groups is an indication that the revelation is all in
> one's own subjective mind.

I think you have discovered that religion is based on faith.

[Roger Shrubber]

Discover the metaphorical valley that leads to the metaphysical promised
land.

[Craig Franck]

Our senses are naturally offline approximately 1/3 of our lives; you
would think that would give God a window of opportunity.

Craig

[deadrat]

Nothing in science prevents us from being designed by a god (with an
apparently sadistic sense of humor). It's just that nothing in science
has the tools to examine the issue.

[Burkhard]

Well, Lord Morpheus of the Endless is technically in charge of that
time, but otherwise yes, that too seems to be SOP for deities - it's
not called e.g. "the dreaming" in aboriginal religion for nothing

[wiki trix]

That would be cholesky's method.