Religion on the brain

[RonO]

https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/religion-on-the-brain-68969

Science may be getting closer to figuring out the variation in
perception of reality that exists in humans, and the basis of the
differences.

Ron Okimoto

[Martin Harran]

>differences.Ferguson's work suggests that there *might* be a link between the periaqueductal gray area and religiosity/spirituality. Even if there is a link, there is nothing to indicate whether the neurological processes cause the religiosity/spirituality or whether the religiosity/spirituality cause the processes. There are issues with the sample population used. Neurotheology is regarded by many (most?) scientists as not being legitimate research.

In the same vein as you like to challenge Glenn when he posts links to
articles without discussion, why do you regard this work as notable,
how does it take us closer to "figuring out the variation in
perception of reality that exists in humans"?

[RonO]

Your post is messed up in both Google and eternal september.

This was my post:
REPOST:

https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/religion-on-the-brain-68969

Science may be getting closer to figuring out the variation in
perception of reality that exists in humans, and the basis of the
differences.

END REPOST:

I had all that anyone interested in the topic would want to know about
it if they wanted to further explore the material. The link was an
opinion piece with a title of "religion on the brain". My one sentence
summary of the opinion piece states what they were figuring out in terms
of brain function.

The article has obvious interest to TO, and no one needs my opinion on
what the research is about or what they are finding because both sides
of the TO issue have different reasons for understanding the research.

It is simply fact that research is going on into why humans have the
religious views that they have in terms of brain function.

Guys like you are stuck more on the side of defending your religious
beliefs than understanding nature. You may understand that scientific
creationism and IDiocy are bogus, but you can't give up on the denial
over stupid topics like geocentrism. Part of it is learned behavior,
but part of it is likely due to how your brain works in regulating the
level of denial that you are capable of.

In our current reality I have my religious views, and I understand them
to be religious views. At this time no one can really explain them, but
science seems to be getting closer. In some ways my brain likely works
just like yours to produce what becomes those religious beliefs. The
difference between us is that I don't let the religious beliefs get in
the way of understanding what was and what currently is. You don't have
as many denial barriers as most IDiot/creationists, but you still let
your religious beliefs get in the way of understanding when
understanding conflicts with those religious beliefs.

Your reaction to this post is such an example.

Ron Okimoto

[*Hemidactylus*]

And from the article:
“There’s also a misconception that scientists are trying to disprove
religious beliefs. Ferguson emphasizes that none of these studies will
confirm or refute the validity of specific religious beliefs. Instead, the
research is “helping us to understand how religion and spirituality
interact with brain systems,” he says. “

Seems their approach is a bit less locale reductive than the primitive
quasi-phrenological bias seen in much brain porn: ““One of the things
that’s really novel about lesion network mapping is that we’re not only
looking at the focused spot that was removed or that was damaged, but we’re
looking at the entire circuit that that spot is attached to,” says
Ferguson. It’s a bit like loosening a bulb on a string of Christmas lights
and seeing that not only that light, but many other lights, go out.”

[Martin Harran]

On Sun, 18 Jul 2021 07:35:47 -0500, RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:

>On 7/18/2021 3:13 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
>> On Sat, 17 Jul 2021 07:19:48 -0500, RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>> https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/religion-on-the-brain-68969
>>>
>>> Science may be getting closer to figuring out the variation in
>>> perception of reality that exists in humans, and the basis of the
>>> differences.Ferguson's work suggests that there *might* be a link between the periaqueductal gray area and religiosity/spirituality. Even if there is a link, there is nothing to indicate whether the neurological processes cause the religiosity/spirituality or whether the religiosity/spirituality cause the processes. There are issues with the sample population used. Neurotheology is regarded by many (most?) scientists as not being legitimate research.
>>
>> In the same vein as you like to challenge Glenn when he posts links to
>> articles without discussion, why do you regard this work as notable,
>> how does it take us closer to "figuring out the variation in
>> perception of reality that exists in humans"?
>>
>
>Your post is messed up in both Google and eternal september.

I don't know how that happened, my Sent post looks fine. For some
reason, my response starting at "Ferguson's work suggests that …" has
been merged into your original space without even a space between
them.

>
>This was my post:
>REPOST:
>https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/religion-on-the-brain-68969
>
>Science may be getting closer to figuring out the variation in
>perception of reality that exists in humans, and the basis of the
>differences.
>END REPOST:
>
>I had all that anyone interested in the topic would want to know about
>it if they wanted to further explore the material. The link was an
>opinion piece with a title of "religion on the brain". My one sentence
>summary of the opinion piece states what they were figuring out in terms
>of brain function.

You still haven't explained how On Sun, 18 Jul 2021 07:35:47 -0500,

RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:

>On 7/18/2021 3:13 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
>> On Sat, 17 Jul 2021 07:19:48 -0500, RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>> https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/religion-on-the-brain-68969
>>>
>>> Science may be getting closer to figuring out the variation in
>>> perception of reality that exists in humans, and the basis of the
>>> differences.Ferguson's work suggests that there *might* be a link between the periaqueductal gray area and religiosity/spirituality. Even if there is a link, there is nothing to indicate whether the neurological processes cause the religiosity/spirituality or whether the religiosity/spirituality cause the processes. There are issues with the sample population used. Neurotheology is regarded by many (most?) scientists as not being legitimate research.
>>
>> In the same vein as you like to challenge Glenn when he posts links to
>> articles without discussion, why do you regard this work as notable,
>> how does it take us closer to "figuring out the variation in
>> perception of reality that exists in humans"?
>>
>
>Your post is messed up in both Google and eternal september.

I don't know how that happened, my Sent post looks fine. For some
reason, my response starting at "Ferguson's work suggests that …" has
been merged into your original space without even a space between
them.

>
>This was my post:
>REPOST:
>https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/religion-on-the-brain-68969
>
>Science may be getting closer to figuring out the variation in
>perception of reality that exists in humans, and the basis of the
>differences.
>END REPOST:
>
>I had all that anyone interested in the topic would want to know about
>it if they wanted to further explore the material. The link was an
>opinion piece with a title of "religion on the brain". My one sentence
>summary of the opinion piece states what they were figuring out in terms
>of brain function.

You still haven't explained how it takes us closer to "figuring out
the variation in
>> perception of reality that exists in humans".

>
>The article has obvious interest to TO, and no one needs my opinion on
>what the research is about or what they are finding because both sides
>of the TO issue have different reasons for understanding the research.
>
>It is simply fact that research is going on into why humans have the
>religious views that they have in terms of brain function.
>

It's good that research is taking place but it is not producing
anything in terms of real answers.

>Guys like you are stuck more on the side of defending your religious
>beliefs than understanding nature.

Where have I ever defended my religious beliefs against any
established science [1]? I can tell you now that you won't be able to
produce a single example because I have repeatedly made clear my
position that religion has to come to terms with science, never the
other way around. What religion does *not* have to do is accept
half-baked ideas with nothing to support them in the way of evidence.

>You may understand that scientific
>creationism and IDiocy are bogus, but you can't give up on the denial
>over stupid topics like geocentrism. Part of it is learned behavior,
>but part of it is likely due to how your brain works in regulating the
>level of denial that you are capable of.

I have never denied anything. You are the one who couldn't come to
terms with the fact that you got it wrong about heliocentrism being a
heresy; you obviously still can't let it go so *you* are the one with
the hang-ups".

>
>In our current reality I have my religious views, and I understand them
>to be religious views. At this time no one can really explain them, but
>science seems to be getting closer.

Can you give any examples of how it is getting closer.

> In some ways my brain likely works
>just like yours to produce what becomes those religious beliefs. The
>difference between us is that I don't let the religious beliefs get in
>the way of understanding what was and what currently is. You don't have
>as many denial barriers as most IDiot/creationists, but you still let
>your religious beliefs get in the way of understanding when
>understanding conflicts with those religious beliefs.

Yet again, you make wild-assed accusation without being able to
produce a single example of where I ever denied established science.

>
>Your reaction to this post is such an example.

I think it is *your* reaction to my comments that tells the most.

[1] by "established science" I mean scientific explanations backed by
evidence and generally accepted by the scientific community. ToE and
the Big Bang are two examples.
takes us closer to "figuring out the variation in

>> perception of reality that exists in humans".

>
>The article has obvious interest to TO, and no one needs my opinion on
>what the research is about or what they are finding because both sides
>of the TO issue have different reasons for understanding the research.
>
>It is simply fact that research is going on into why humans have the
>religious views that they have in terms of brain function.
>

It's good that research is taking place but it is not producing
anything in terms of real answers.

>Guys like you are stuck more on the side of defending your religious
>beliefs than understanding nature.

Where have I ever defended my religious beliefs against any
established science [1]? I can tell you now that you won't be able to
produce a single example because I have repeatedly made clear my
position that religion has to come to terms with science, never the
other way around. What religion does *not* have to do is accept
half-baked ideas with nothing to support them in the way of evidence.

>You may understand that scientific
>creationism and IDiocy are bogus, but you can't give up on the denial
>over stupid topics like geocentrism. Part of it is learned behavior,
>but part of it is likely due to how your brain works in regulating the
>level of denial that you are capable of.

I have never denied anything. You are the one who couldn't come to
terms with the fact that you got it wrong about heliocentrism being a
heresy; you obviously still can't let it go so *you* are the one with
the hang-ups".

>
>In our current reality I have my religious views, and I understand them
>to be religious views. At this time no one can really explain them, but
>science seems to be getting closer.

Can you give any examples of how it is getting closer.

> In some ways my brain likely works
>just like yours to produce what becomes those religious beliefs. The
>difference between us is that I don't let the religious beliefs get in
>the way of understanding what was and what currently is. You don't have
>as many denial barriers as most IDiot/creationists, but you still let
>your religious beliefs get in the way of understanding when
>understanding conflicts with those religious beliefs.

Yet again, you make wild-assed accusation without being able to
produce a single example of where I ever denied established science.

>
>Your reaction to this post is such an example.

I think it is *your* reaction to my comments that tells the most.

[1] by "established science" I mean scientific explanations backed by
evidence and generally accepted by the scientific community. ToE and
the Big Bang are two examples.

[Martin Harran]

I don't have any issue with research going on in this area; on the
contrary, I'd like to see more going on. My issue is Ron blowing the
results of the work into something far more than what they actually
are.

[Bill]

Martin Harran wrote:

> On Sun, 18 Jul 2021 07:35:47 -0500, RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>On 7/18/2021 3:13 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
>>> On Sat, 17 Jul 2021 07:19:48 -0500, RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/religion-on-the-brain-68969
>>>>
>>>> Science may be getting closer to figuring out the variation in
>>>> perception of reality that exists in humans, and the basis of the
>>>> differences.Ferguson's work suggests that there *might* be a link
>>>> between the periaqueductal gray area and religiosity/spirituality.

Science, according to some. has already figured out the cause of
religiousity: it's entirely natural. There can be no other cause because
nature is all there is. We know this because those who believe it tell us
so. We know these people are right because they say they are.

Bill

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 18 Jul 2021 17:38:04 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bill <fre...@gmail.com>:

>There can be no other cause...
>
Your preconceptions are showing, sweetie.
>
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[RonO]

Why would that be necessary? All I needed was the link and enough
information for anyone to figure out if they wanted to read it or not.
Really, reread what I wrote. I am not making any claims that would
require me to explain what you think that I should have put in the post.

>>> perception of reality that exists in humans".
>
>>
>> The article has obvious interest to TO, and no one needs my opinion on
>> what the research is about or what they are finding because both sides
>> of the TO issue have different reasons for understanding the research.
>>
>> It is simply fact that research is going on into why humans have the
>> religious views that they have in terms of brain function.
>>
>
> It's good that research is taking place but it is not producing
> anything in terms of real answers.

That is your opinion, and it is likely based on your ability to deny
what you do not want to understand. Look at your objection to what I
posted. What was your intent? Why was it bogus? Why would I have
needed to explain what you wanted me to explain? What is wrong with
fussing about something that the poster did not have to do in order to
discredit what was in the link provided?

>
>> Guys like you are stuck more on the side of defending your religious
>> beliefs than understanding nature.
>
>
> Where have I ever defended my religious beliefs against any
> established science [1]? I can tell you now that you won't be able to
> produce a single example because I have repeatedly made clear my
> position that religion has to come to terms with science, never the
> other way around. What religion does *not* have to do is accept
> half-baked ideas with nothing to support them in the way of evidence.

What about your denial about geocentrism and Christianity? All I stated
was that you were more on one side of this type of religious issue than
understanding what nature actually is. You understand that current
cosmology is incompatible with the early Christian beliefs, and how do
you deal with that in terms of what those errant beliefs once were?

Your notion of what I should have put in my post is a reflection of that
attitude.

>
>
>> You may understand that scientific
>> creationism and IDiocy are bogus, but you can't give up on the denial
>> over stupid topics like geocentrism. Part of it is learned behavior,
>> but part of it is likely due to how your brain works in regulating the
>> level of denial that you are capable of.
>
>
> I have never denied anything. You are the one who couldn't come to
> terms with the fact that you got it wrong about heliocentrism being a
> heresy; you obviously still can't let it go so *you* are the one with
> the hang-ups".

You are denying your denial. How is that working?

>
>>
>> In our current reality I have my religious views, and I understand them
>> to be religious views. At this time no one can really explain them, but
>> science seems to be getting closer.
>
>
> Can you give any examples of how it is getting closer.

You read the piece, you should know the answer to that. What did they
do differently from other studies? Again, why would I need to post
that, when anyone interested could read it for themselves?

>
>> In some ways my brain likely works
>> just like yours to produce what becomes those religious beliefs. The
>> difference between us is that I don't let the religious beliefs get in
>> the way of understanding what was and what currently is. You don't have
>> as many denial barriers as most IDiot/creationists, but you still let
>> your religious beliefs get in the way of understanding when
>> understanding conflicts with those religious beliefs.
>
>
> Yet again, you make wild-assed accusation without being able to
> produce a single example of where I ever denied established science.

It is how you deal with the established science.

>
>>
>> Your reaction to this post is such an example.
>
>
> I think it is *your* reaction to my comments that tells the most.

You are just demonstrating what I wrote in my response. There was no
reason for me to post what you thought that I should post, and why did
you want me to post such material?

>
> [1] by "established science" I mean scientific explanations backed by
> evidence and generally accepted by the scientific community. ToE and
> the Big Bang are two examples.
> takes us closer to "figuring out the variation in
>
>>> perception of reality that exists in humans".
>
>>
>> The article has obvious interest to TO, and no one needs my opinion on
>> what the research is about or what they are finding because both sides
>> of the TO issue have different reasons for understanding the research.
>>
>> It is simply fact that research is going on into why humans have the
>> religious views that they have in terms of brain function.
>>
>
>
> It's good that research is taking place but it is not producing
> anything in terms of real answers.

Fussing about my post isn't going to change the contents of the opinion
piece. I put it up as no more than what it was, and what was your reaction?

>
>> Guys like you are stuck more on the side of defending your religious
>> beliefs than understanding nature.
>
>
> Where have I ever defended my religious beliefs against any
> established science [1]? I can tell you now that you won't be able to
> produce a single example because I have repeatedly made clear my
> position that religion has to come to terms with science, never the
> other way around. What religion does *not* have to do is accept
> half-baked ideas with nothing to support them in the way of evidence.

What about this post?

QUOTE from above:

It's good that research is taking place but it is not producing anything
in terms of real answers.

END QUOTE:

What are you defending by denying that what is discussed in the opinion
piece is not producing real answers?

Why fuss about my post when you really want to deny that science is
getting anywhere in terms of what you don't want to understand?

>
>
>> You may understand that scientific
>> creationism and IDiocy are bogus, but you can't give up on the denial
>> over stupid topics like geocentrism. Part of it is learned behavior,
>> but part of it is likely due to how your brain works in regulating the
>> level of denial that you are capable of.
>
>
> I have never denied anything. You are the one who couldn't come to
> terms with the fact that you got it wrong about heliocentrism being a
> heresy; you obviously still can't let it go so *you* are the one with
> the hang-ups".

Again, what about this post of yours? There is obviously something that
you want to deny about the subject of this thread, but you are not going
about it in a straight forward manner.

Your post seems to be repeating for some reason.

Ron Okimoto

[Martin Harran]

On Sun, 18 Jul 2021 19:25:57 -0500, RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:

>On 7/18/2021 4:52 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
>> On Sun, 18 Jul 2021 07:35:47 -0500, RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/18/2021 3:13 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 17 Jul 2021 07:19:48 -0500, RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/religion-on-the-brain-68969
>>>>>
>>>>> Science may be getting closer to figuring out the variation in
>>>>> perception of reality that exists in humans, and the basis of the
>>>>> differences.Ferguson's work suggests that there *might* be a link between the periaqueductal gray area and religiosity/spirituality. Even if there is a link, there is nothing to indicate whether the neurological processes cause the religiosity/spirituality or whether the religiosity/spirituality cause the processes. There are issues with the sample population used. Neurotheology is regarded by many (most?) scientists as not being legitimate research.
>>>>
>>>> In the same vein as you like to challenge Glenn when he posts links to
>>>> articles without discussion, why do you regard this work as notable,
>>>> how does it take us closer to "figuring out the variation in
>>>> perception of reality that exists in humans"?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Your post is messed up in both Google and eternal september.
>>
>> I don't know how that happened, my Sent post looks fine. For some
>> reason, my response starting at "Ferguson's work suggests that …" has
>> been merged into your original space without even a space between
>> them.
>>
>>>

[... snip duplication ...]

>>> This was my post:
>>> REPOST:
>>> https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/religion-on-the-brain-68969
>>>
>>> Science may be getting closer to figuring out the variation in
>>> perception of reality that exists in humans, and the basis of the
>>> differences.
>>> END REPOST:
>>>
>>> I had all that anyone interested in the topic would want to know about
>>> it if they wanted to further explore the material. The link was an
>>> opinion piece with a title of "religion on the brain". My one sentence
>>> summary of the opinion piece states what they were figuring out in terms
>>> of brain function.
>>
>> You still haven't explained how it takes us closer to "figuring out
>> the variation in
>
>Why would that be necessary? All I needed was the link and enough
>information for anyone to figure out if they wanted to read it or not.

I trust you won't mind me quoting you on that the next time you tackle
Glenn for posting a link without explaining what he regards as the
significance of it.

>Really, reread what I wrote. I am not making any claims that would
>require me to explain what you think that I should have put in the post.

I have reread it. You said "Science may be getting closer to figuring

out the variation in perception of reality that exists in humans, and
the basis of the differences."

I see nothing in that article to support your statement; apparently
you can't identify anything either, that's likely why you want to try
and divert attention by trying to resurrect a previous argument about
geocentrism which has nothing to do with either science or this
particular topic.

>
>>>> perception of reality that exists in humans".
>>
>>>
>>> The article has obvious interest to TO, and no one needs my opinion on
>>> what the research is about or what they are finding because both sides
>>> of the TO issue have different reasons for understanding the research.
>>>
>>> It is simply fact that research is going on into why humans have the
>>> religious views that they have in terms of brain function.
>>>
>>
>> It's good that research is taking place but it is not producing
>> anything in terms of real answers.
>
>That is your opinion, and it is likely based on your ability to deny
>what you do not want to understand. Look at your objection to what I
>posted. What was your intent?

My intent was to question how you came to your conclusion from that
article. Clearly, that is something you are incapable of addressing.


>Why was it bogus?


I didn't say anything was *bogus*, I pointed out that the article
doesn't provide any real answers that support your conclusion about
it.

>Why would I have
>needed to explain what you wanted me to explain? What is wrong with
>fussing about something that the poster did not have to do in order to
>discredit what was in the link provided?
>
>>
>>> Guys like you are stuck more on the side of defending your religious
>>> beliefs than understanding nature.
>>
>>
>> Where have I ever defended my religious beliefs against any
>> established science [1]? I can tell you now that you won't be able to
>> produce a single example because I have repeatedly made clear my
>> position that religion has to come to terms with science, never the
>> other way around. What religion does *not* have to do is accept
>> half-baked ideas with nothing to support them in the way of evidence.
>
>What about your denial about geocentrism and Christianity? All I stated
>was that you were more on one side of this type of religious issue than
>understanding what nature actually is. You understand that current
>cosmology is incompatible with the early Christian beliefs, and how do
>you deal with that in terms of what those errant beliefs once were?

What on earth has any of that rubbish to do with the topic at hand -
that article and your conclusions about it.

>
>Your notion of what I should have put in my post is a reflection of that
>attitude.

I didn't suggest *anything* that you should put in your post; I simply
asked you to explain how the article supports your conclusion.

>
>>
>>
>>> You may understand that scientific
>>> creationism and IDiocy are bogus, but you can't give up on the denial
>>> over stupid topics like geocentrism. Part of it is learned behavior,
>>> but part of it is likely due to how your brain works in regulating the
>>> level of denial that you are capable of.
>>
>>
>> I have never denied anything. You are the one who couldn't come to
>> terms with the fact that you got it wrong about heliocentrism being a
>> heresy; you obviously still can't let it go so *you* are the one with
>> the hang-ups".
>
>You are denying your denial. How is that working?

Ah, the usual Ron hubris where anyone who disagrees with his opinions
is a *denier*.

>
>>
>>>
>>> In our current reality I have my religious views, and I understand them
>>> to be religious views. At this time no one can really explain them, but
>>> science seems to be getting closer.
>>
>>
>> Can you give any examples of how it is getting closer.
>
>You read the piece, you should know the answer to that.

I've read the post and I don't see the answer to it so I've asked you
to explain iot. Clearly you can't but your hubris won't let you admit

that.


>What did they
>do differently from other studies? Again, why would I need to post
>that, when anyone interested could read it for themselves?

I've read it and I don't see anything significant in it. Here's my
summary of it again, which got mangled earlier:

Ferguson's work suggests that there *might* be a link between the
periaqueductal gray area and religiosity/spirituality. Even if there
is a link, there is nothing to indicate whether the neurological
processes cause the religiosity/spirituality or whether the
religiosity/spirituality cause the processes. There are issues with
the sample population used. Neurotheology is regarded by many (most?)
scientists as not being legitimate research.

Have I missed something of significance?

>
>>
>>> In some ways my brain likely works
>>> just like yours to produce what becomes those religious beliefs. The
>>> difference between us is that I don't let the religious beliefs get in
>>> the way of understanding what was and what currently is. You don't have
>>> as many denial barriers as most IDiot/creationists, but you still let
>>> your religious beliefs get in the way of understanding when
>>> understanding conflicts with those religious beliefs.
>>
>>
>> Yet again, you make wild-assed accusation without being able to
>> produce a single example of where I ever denied established science.
>
>It is how you deal with the established science.

Can you give even one example of my dealing with *established science*
that was unacceptable?

What *established science* is involved in this post?

>
>QUOTE from above:
>It's good that research is taking place but it is not producing anything
>in terms of real answers.
>END QUOTE:
>
>What are you defending by denying that what is discussed in the opinion
>piece is not producing real answers?
>
>Why fuss about my post when you really want to deny that science is
>getting anywhere in terms of what you don't want to understand?
>
>>
>>
>>> You may understand that scientific
>>> creationism and IDiocy are bogus, but you can't give up on the denial
>>> over stupid topics like geocentrism. Part of it is learned behavior,
>>> but part of it is likely due to how your brain works in regulating the
>>> level of denial that you are capable of.
>>
>>
>> I have never denied anything. You are the one who couldn't come to
>> terms with the fact that you got it wrong about heliocentrism being a
>> heresy; you obviously still can't let it go so *you* are the one with
>> the hang-ups".
>
>Again, what about this post of yours? There is obviously something that
>you want to deny about the subject of this thread, but you are not going
>about it in a straight forward manner.

There is nothing whatsoever that I am seeking to deny. Let's get away
from all the distraction you are creating and get back to basics
again.

You posted a link to an article and claimed that "Science may be

getting closer to figuring out the variation in perception of reality

that exists in humans". I can't see anything in that article to
support your claim and I've asked you to explain how you think it
does. You are clearly either incapable or unwilling to give that
explanation.

>
>Your post seems to be repeating for some reason.

I don't know why that is. It only seems to be happening with your
posts so maybe it's something Google Groups did to your original post.
I see regular complaints here about GG screwing stuff up, including
yourself if memory serves me right.

[Oxyaena]

Can you give specific examples of anyone saying and doing these things
you allege they do? I won't hold my breath until the unlikely event you
actually do.

>
> Bill
>

[RonO]

I trust that you will do it as incorrectly as you are doing it now.

>
>
>> Really, reread what I wrote. I am not making any claims that would
>> require me to explain what you think that I should have put in the post.
>
>
> I have reread it. You said "Science may be getting closer to figuring
> out the variation in perception of reality that exists in humans, and
> the basis of the differences."
>
> I see nothing in that article to support your statement; apparently
> you can't identify anything either, that's likely why you want to try
> and divert attention by trying to resurrect a previous argument about
> geocentrism which has nothing to do with either science or this
> particular topic.

The whole opinion piece was about that in terms of your religious views
of reality.

>
>
>>
>>>>> perception of reality that exists in humans".
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The article has obvious interest to TO, and no one needs my opinion on
>>>> what the research is about or what they are finding because both sides
>>>> of the TO issue have different reasons for understanding the research.
>>>>
>>>> It is simply fact that research is going on into why humans have the
>>>> religious views that they have in terms of brain function.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It's good that research is taking place but it is not producing
>>> anything in terms of real answers.
>>
>> That is your opinion, and it is likely based on your ability to deny
>> what you do not want to understand. Look at your objection to what I
>> posted. What was your intent?
>
>
> My intent was to question how you came to your conclusion from that
> article. Clearly, that is something you are incapable of addressing.

Your intent was to deny what the opinion piece was about, and for your
own reasons you needed me as some type of scape goat.

>
>
>> Why was it bogus?
>
>
> I didn't say anything was *bogus*, I pointed out that the article
> doesn't provide any real answers that support your conclusion about
> it.

Denial is all you were in the post for. You should have learned
something from it, but what are you doing instead?

>
>
>> Why would I have
>> needed to explain what you wanted me to explain? What is wrong with
>> fussing about something that the poster did not have to do in order to
>> discredit what was in the link provided?

What was wrong with what you are doing?

>>
>>>
>>>> Guys like you are stuck more on the side of defending your religious
>>>> beliefs than understanding nature.
>>>
>>>
>>> Where have I ever defended my religious beliefs against any
>>> established science [1]? I can tell you now that you won't be able to
>>> produce a single example because I have repeatedly made clear my
>>> position that religion has to come to terms with science, never the
>>> other way around. What religion does *not* have to do is accept
>>> half-baked ideas with nothing to support them in the way of evidence.
>>
>> What about your denial about geocentrism and Christianity? All I stated
>> was that you were more on one side of this type of religious issue than
>> understanding what nature actually is. You understand that current
>> cosmology is incompatible with the early Christian beliefs, and how do
>> you deal with that in terms of what those errant beliefs once were?
>
>
> What on earth has any of that rubbish to do with the topic at hand -
> that article and your conclusions about it.

You asked I provided. Where have you ever done what you claim not to
have done?

>
>
>>
>> Your notion of what I should have put in my post is a reflection of that
>> attitude.
>
>
> I didn't suggest *anything* that you should put in your post; I simply
> asked you to explain how the article supports your conclusion.

You stated that you didn't think that the opinion piece was about
anything substantial. Isn't that denial of what the opinion piece was
about?

>
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> You may understand that scientific
>>>> creationism and IDiocy are bogus, but you can't give up on the denial
>>>> over stupid topics like geocentrism. Part of it is learned behavior,
>>>> but part of it is likely due to how your brain works in regulating the
>>>> level of denial that you are capable of.
>>>
>>>
>>> I have never denied anything. You are the one who couldn't come to
>>> terms with the fact that you got it wrong about heliocentrism being a
>>> heresy; you obviously still can't let it go so *you* are the one with
>>> the hang-ups".
>>
>> You are denying your denial. How is that working?
>
>
> Ah, the usual Ron hubris where anyone who disagrees with his opinions
> is a *denier*.

You are the one doing it.

>
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> In our current reality I have my religious views, and I understand them
>>>> to be religious views. At this time no one can really explain them, but
>>>> science seems to be getting closer.
>>>
>>>
>>> Can you give any examples of how it is getting closer.
>>
>> You read the piece, you should know the answer to that.
>
>
>
> I've read the post and I don't see the answer to it so I've asked you
> to explain iot. Clearly you can't but your hubris won't let you admit
> that.

Why lie about something this stupid?

>
>
>> What did they
>> do differently from other studies? Again, why would I need to post
>> that, when anyone interested could read it for themselves?
>
>
> I've read it and I don't see anything significant in it. Here's my
> summary of it again, which got mangled earlier:
>
> Ferguson's work suggests that there *might* be a link between the
> periaqueductal gray area and religiosity/spirituality. Even if there
> is a link, there is nothing to indicate whether the neurological
> processes cause the religiosity/spirituality or whether the
> religiosity/spirituality cause the processes. There are issues with
> the sample population used. Neurotheology is regarded by many (most?)
> scientists as not being legitimate research.
>
> Have I missed something of significance?

Why would I need to have an opinion on that? That would just be your
own foible.

>
>
>>
>>>
>>>> In some ways my brain likely works
>>>> just like yours to produce what becomes those religious beliefs. The
>>>> difference between us is that I don't let the religious beliefs get in
>>>> the way of understanding what was and what currently is. You don't have
>>>> as many denial barriers as most IDiot/creationists, but you still let
>>>> your religious beliefs get in the way of understanding when
>>>> understanding conflicts with those religious beliefs.
>>>
>>>
>>> Yet again, you make wild-assed accusation without being able to
>>> produce a single example of where I ever denied established science.
>>
>> It is how you deal with the established science.
>
>
> Can you give even one example of my dealing with *established science*
> that was unacceptable?

It isn't established science it is your religious leanings and the
Geocentric example is exactly applicable to your denial of such subjects.

Is this repeating again or is it just your repitition?

Ron Okimoto

[Mark Isaak]

> I see nothing in that article to support your statement [....]

Support for Ron's statement were not hard to find of the article. If
you want specifics, here's one bit:

"In the 2010s, the team decided to look for differences in the brain
between patients at high risk for depression who said religion was
important and those who didn’t. Using MRI, the team scanned the brains
of 106 children and grandchildren of people from the initial cohort.
One of the major findings, says Svob, was that participants who believed
in the importance of religion had less cortical thinning . . ."

And another:

"The researchers compared their answers to the sections of the brain the
patients had had removed and found that patients whose spirituality
changed in either direction had a portion of the brain removed that
connected to the PAG."


[snipping stuff because, with the long back-and-forth, I often don't
know what the bits of text refer to]

>
> I've read it and I don't see anything significant in it. Here's my
> summary of it again, which got mangled earlier:
>
> Ferguson's work suggests that there *might* be a link between the
> periaqueductal gray area and religiosity/spirituality. Even if there
> is a link, there is nothing to indicate whether the neurological
> processes cause the religiosity/spirituality or whether the
> religiosity/spirituality cause the processes. There are issues with
> the sample population used. Neurotheology is regarded by many (most?)
> scientists as not being legitimate research.
>
> Have I missed something of significance?

I did not see anything in the article to justify your last sentence,
that neurotheology is not regarded as legitimate.


[More snips, for the same reason]

>>> Where have I ever defended my religious beliefs against any
>>> established science [1]? I can tell you now that you won't be able to
>>> produce a single example because I have repeatedly made clear my
>>> position that religion has to come to terms with science, never the
>>> other way around. What religion does *not* have to do is accept
>>> half-baked ideas with nothing to support them in the way of evidence.
>>
>> What about this post?
>
> What *established science* is involved in this post?

If you're still referring to the same "The Scientist" post, it has
several links in it to the published science it refers to.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred
to the presence of those who think they've found it." - Terry Pratchett

[Martin Harran]

The next part of that paragraph says::

<quote>
"While the study couldn't show causality, Svob says, it suggested
"that religious beliefs might have some kind of neuroprotective
effect, and there might be a biomarker in the brain that might
actually be related to religion, spirituality, and depression."
</quote>

Three *mights* is far from conclusive.

>
>And another:
>
>"The researchers compared their answers to the sections of the brain the
>patients had had removed and found that patients whose spirituality
>changed in either direction had a portion of the brain removed that
>connected to the PAG."

I would regard all of it as interesting and potentially worth more
research but far from conclusive or providing some sort of significant
breakthrough. The article does recognise several issues with it
including:

<quote>
"Other inconsistencies also plague the literature. Researchers define
"spirituality" and "religiosity" differently in each study, for
example. "Most of these studies have been based on a single measure,"
says Connie Svob, a neuropsychiatrist in Weissman's lab. Some might
ask participants how important religion is to them, while others ask
how often they pray or if they consider themselves religious people.
"What does it mean to consider yourself a religious person?" she asks.
This lack of precision is one reason that Schjoet says he "remains
skeptical" of Ferguson's findings, which relied on a single yes or no
question to determine a person's spirituality in one part of the
study.
</quote>

The article also points out that current research in this area has
focused mostly on Christian patients rather than purposely recruiting
patients of various belief systems.

>
>
>[snipping stuff because, with the long back-and-forth, I often don't
>know what the bits of text refer to]
>
>>
>> I've read it and I don't see anything significant in it. Here's my
>> summary of it again, which got mangled earlier:
>>
>> Ferguson's work suggests that there *might* be a link between the
>> periaqueductal gray area and religiosity/spirituality. Even if there
>> is a link, there is nothing to indicate whether the neurological
>> processes cause the religiosity/spirituality or whether the
>> religiosity/spirituality cause the processes. There are issues with
>> the sample population used. Neurotheology is regarded by many (most?)
>> scientists as not being legitimate research.
>>
>> Have I missed something of significance?
>
>I did not see anything in the article to justify your last sentence,
>that neurotheology is not regarded as legitimate.

From the article:

<quote>
Studies on religion and the brain, a field dubbed neurotheology or
neurospirituality, are sparse. The research is "difficult to get
funded, and also difficult to get published in high-level journals
because it's not considered legitimate," says Myrna Weissman, an
epidemiologist and psychiatrist at Columbia University.
</quote>

In my comment, I was reflecting what the article said, not my personal
view. FWIW, I regard *all* research as legitimate - I'm a great
believer in serendipity - provided we recognise the constraints within
which it is carried out and do hyperbolise the results.

>
>
>[More snips, for the same reason]
>
>>>> Where have I ever defended my religious beliefs against any
>>>> established science [1]? I can tell you now that you won't be able to
>>>> produce a single example because I have repeatedly made clear my
>>>> position that religion has to come to terms with science, never the
>>>> other way around. What religion does *not* have to do is accept
>>>> half-baked ideas with nothing to support them in the way of evidence.
>>>
>>> What about this post?
>>
>> What *established science* is involved in this post?
>
>If you're still referring to the same "The Scientist" post, it has
>several links in it to the published science it refers to.

I said *established* science*, not *published* science. There is
plenty of published science that is speculative rather than
conclusive; again, I don't have any issue with that provided we
recognise it for what it is.

Just to be clear, I am not disputing anything in the article, apart
perhaps from taking a more generous view about the legitimacy of this
type of research than some scientists do. What I asked Ron to explain
is why he seems to believe there has been some sort of significant
breakthrough.

[Martin Harran]

On Mon, 19 Jul 2021 18:18:11 -0500, RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:

>On 7/19/2021 8:21 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
>> On Sun, 18 Jul 2021 19:25:57 -0500, RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:

[ snip for focus]

>>> What did they
>>> do differently from other studies? Again, why would I need to post
>>> that, when anyone interested could read it for themselves?
>>
>>
>> I've read it and I don't see anything significant in it. Here's my
>> summary of it again, which got mangled earlier:
>>
>> Ferguson's work suggests that there *might* be a link between the
>> periaqueductal gray area and religiosity/spirituality. Even if there
>> is a link, there is nothing to indicate whether the neurological
>> processes cause the religiosity/spirituality or whether the
>> religiosity/spirituality cause the processes. There are issues with
>> the sample population used. Neurotheology is regarded by many (most?)
>> scientists as not being legitimate research.
>>
>> Have I missed something of significance?
>
>Why would I need to have an opinion on that? That would just be your
>own foible.

You did express an opinion; I'm asking you to explain how you arrived
at it. You are clearly either unwilling or incapable of explaining how
you arrived at it.

>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> In some ways my brain likely works
>>>>> just like yours to produce what becomes those religious beliefs. The
>>>>> difference between us is that I don't let the religious beliefs get in
>>>>> the way of understanding what was and what currently is. You don't have
>>>>> as many denial barriers as most IDiot/creationists, but you still let
>>>>> your religious beliefs get in the way of understanding when
>>>>> understanding conflicts with those religious beliefs.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yet again, you make wild-assed accusation without being able to
>>>> produce a single example of where I ever denied established science.
>>>
>>> It is how you deal with the established science.
>>
>>
>> Can you give even one example of my dealing with *established science*
>> that was unacceptable?
>
>It isn't established science it is your religious leanings and the
>Geocentric example is exactly applicable to your denial of such subjects.

>
>Is this repeating again or is it just your repitition?

It's repetition of you yet again being unable to give even one example
of what you accuse me of.

{…]

[RonO]

On 7/20/2021 2:51 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Jul 2021 18:18:11 -0500, RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> On 7/19/2021 8:21 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
>>> On Sun, 18 Jul 2021 19:25:57 -0500, RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> [ snip for focus]
>
>>>> What did they
>>>> do differently from other studies? Again, why would I need to post
>>>> that, when anyone interested could read it for themselves?
>>>
>>>
>>> I've read it and I don't see anything significant in it. Here's my
>>> summary of it again, which got mangled earlier:
>>>
>>> Ferguson's work suggests that there *might* be a link between the
>>> periaqueductal gray area and religiosity/spirituality. Even if there
>>> is a link, there is nothing to indicate whether the neurological
>>> processes cause the religiosity/spirituality or whether the
>>> religiosity/spirituality cause the processes. There are issues with
>>> the sample population used. Neurotheology is regarded by many (most?)
>>> scientists as not being legitimate research.
>>>
>>> Have I missed something of significance?
>>
>> Why would I need to have an opinion on that? That would just be your
>> own foible.
>
> You did express an opinion; I'm asking you to explain how you arrived
> at it. You are clearly either unwilling or incapable of explaining how
> you arrived at it.

Nope. You just use me as an excuse for your continued denial. Even you
should be able to understand that by now. What have you consistently
been doing in your responses? You obviously do not agree with the
opinion piece. So what?

Title of thread: Religion on the brain

REPOST:
https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/religion-on-the-brain-68969

Science may be getting closer to figuring out the variation in
perception of reality that exists in humans, and the basis of the
differences.
END REPOST:

What do I need to explain? What would any more of an explanation from
me accomplish? You obviously did not need any input from me to have
your opinion on the article.

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

Instinctive behaviors can be very complex, and you don't expect one
magic part of the brain to be responsible for it all. Just think about
getting angry. There may be one region of the brain that is mostly
responsible for triggering the response, but just as your optic or other
sensory apparatus were involved in inducing the response, pretty much
your whole brain is involved in progressing the response.

Reproduction in birds is my usual example of complex instinctive
behaviors, and that is still pretty far from being understood. You can
raise chicks and they never have any role models, but males will still
perform their mating display, and females will still respond to it. The
hens can lay a clutch of eggs, incubate them and brood the chicks after
hatch. There is some learned behavior. In my experience hens can do
things better the second time around, and songbird chicks learn their
fathers calls.

What kind of brain program is there to accomplish such things? Mound
builder chicks will hatch, dig themselves out and grow up on their own
in the forest, but one day they will build their own mound, some have
even progressed to monitoring temperature and maintaining the mound in
order to do that.

How the brain works in order to accomplish these things is still a
mystery, but that doesn't mean that we will not one day understand such
things. In terms of religious belief some people obviously do not want
to understand such things.

Ron Okimoto

[Mark Isaak]

Which is *exactly* what Ron's statement said, except he used "may"
instead of "might." You are vehemently supporting Ron's statement yourself.

Further supporting Ron's statement.

Thank you. I missed that.

>>
>>
>> [More snips, for the same reason]
>>
>>>>> Where have I ever defended my religious beliefs against any
>>>>> established science [1]? I can tell you now that you won't be able to
>>>>> produce a single example because I have repeatedly made clear my
>>>>> position that religion has to come to terms with science, never the
>>>>> other way around. What religion does *not* have to do is accept
>>>>> half-baked ideas with nothing to support them in the way of evidence.
>>>>
>>>> What about this post?
>>>
>>> What *established science* is involved in this post?
>>
>> If you're still referring to the same "The Scientist" post, it has
>> several links in it to the published science it refers to.
>
> I said *established* science*, not *published* science. There is
> plenty of published science that is speculative rather than
> conclusive; again, I don't have any issue with that provided we
> recognise it for what it is.
>
> Just to be clear, I am not disputing anything in the article, apart
> perhaps from taking a more generous view about the legitimacy of this
> type of research than some scientists do. What I asked Ron to explain
> is why he seems to believe there has been some sort of significant
> breakthrough.

I'm curious why you brought up the issue of *established* science at
all? Everything I have seen from other people in and out of t.o. is
quite clear that this research is still in early stages.

[DB Cates]

Hmm, could you point to me where in Ron's post he even remotely claims
there is any kind of significant breakthrough in relation to this paper?

--
--
Don Cates ("he's a cunning rascal" PN)

[youngbl...@gmail.com]

Hence the need for more research.

There are no gods unless we create them.

[Martin Harran]

On Tue, 20 Jul 2021 09:34:54 -0700, Mark Isaak

It was in response to Ron accusing me of being a *denier*. I asked
him to give a single example of established science that I ever
denied. He couldn't but still insists I am a "denier*.

>quite clear that this research is still in early stages.

Your last statement is exactly what I have been saying.

The article summarises the current state of play on the research. As I
previously stated, I think it is great that it is going on and would
like to see more of it. As I read the article, however, it reflects
that the research is at a very early stage and nothing conclusive or
significant can be drawn from it at this point.

Ron posting the article and his accompanying statement that science
may be getting closer to figuring things out suggested to me that he
saw some sort of progress that I couldn't see. I asked him to explain
why he thought that way and he has declined to do so, preferring to
accuse me as a "denier" without ever explaining what I am supposed to
be denying. Make of that what you will.

[Martin Harran]

Which is exactly what I have been saying.

[...]

[Martin Harran]

Can you point to me anything in the article that says science is
getting closer to figuring things out as claimed by Ron?


>--

[DB Cates]

No, but if further research changes that "might be a link" to 'there is
a link' would support changing Ron's "may be getting closer" (note: not
necessarily 'close') to 'is getting closer'.

You seem to have taken an adversarial position with Ron on this subject.
Perhaps due to your own biases?
>
>> --

[Martin Harran]

On Sun, 25 Jul 2021 09:56:24 -0500, DB Cates

<cate...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:

>On 2021-07-25 3:46 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
>> On Tue, 20 Jul 2021 15:59:59 -0500, DB Cates
>> <cate...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:

[匽

>>> Hmm, could you point to me where in Ron's post he even remotely claims
>>> there is any kind of significant breakthrough in relation to this paper?
>>>
>>
>> Can you point to me anything in the article that says science is
>> getting closer to figuring things out as claimed by Ron?
>>
>No,

So you agree with my conclusion about the article.

>but if further research changes that "might be a link" to 'there is
>a link' would support changing Ron's "may be getting closer" (note: not
>necessarily 'close') to 'is getting closer'.

Sorry, as I have said before, I have no particular appetite for
getting into semantical arguments, especially about things that might
or might not happen in the future. My question to Ron was about how
things *currently* stand in regard to this area of research.

>
>You seem to have taken an adversarial position with Ron on this subject.
>Perhaps due to your own biases?

Not sure how you think my biases come into it when you can't find
anything wrong about the conclusions I drew from the article. The only
possible "bias" on my part that I can think of is my low tolerance for
people engaging in behaviour for which they criticise other people and
I make no apology for that. Ron regularly criticises others - Glenn
being a prime example - for posting links to articles without any
indication of how or why they think the article is significant or how
it supports their claims. That is what he did here and all I asked him
was to explain why he thought that article was significant. He created
the adversariness by refusing to give an explanation and instead
launching an attack on me for being some sort of *denier* even though
he was unable to give any example of what I was supposed to be
denying.

[DB Cates]

On 2021-07-25 11:48 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Jul 2021 09:56:24 -0500, DB Cates
> <cate...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 2021-07-25 3:46 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
>>> On Tue, 20 Jul 2021 15:59:59 -0500, DB Cates
>>> <cate...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:
>

> […]

>
>>>> Hmm, could you point to me where in Ron's post he even remotely claims
>>>> there is any kind of significant breakthrough in relation to this paper?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Can you point to me anything in the article that says science is
>>> getting closer to figuring things out as claimed by Ron?
>>>
>> No,
>
> So you agree with my conclusion about the article.

Yes, but you are also agreeing with the article and Ron! Neither are
claiming any 'breakthrough' or even actual progress. They are claiming a
*possible* incremental advance. It is *you* who is making (IMHO wrongly)
a big deal of this and that there is some much stronger claim being made.

>
>> but if further research changes that "might be a link" to 'there is
>> a link' would support changing Ron's "may be getting closer" (note: not
>> necessarily 'close') to 'is getting closer'.
>
> Sorry, as I have said before, I have no particular appetite for
> getting into semantical arguments,

ISTM that your whole argument is based on semantics. The meaning of
'may, 'might', and 'closer'.

especially about things that might
> or might not happen in the future. My question to Ron was about how
> things *currently* stand in regard to this area of research.
>

And the current position in regard to the cited article is that there
"might be a link' that 'may move things closer" to answering the
question. That you want more does not impose anything on anyone else.

>>
>> You seem to have taken an adversarial position with Ron on this subject.
>> Perhaps due to your own biases?
>
> Not sure how you think my biases come into it when you can't find
> anything wrong about the conclusions I drew from the article. The only
> possible "bias" on my part that I can think of is my low tolerance for
> people engaging in behaviour for which they criticise other people and
> I make no apology for that. Ron regularly criticises others - Glenn
> being a prime example - for posting links to articles without any
> indication of how or why they think the article is significant or how
> it supports their claims.

You may well be right but in my recollection I see this type of
response, and not just from Ron, to someone posting a link with
virtually no context. But between the subject of his initial post and
the one line precis of the main conclusion of the cite, that is not what
Ron did.

That is what he did here and all I asked him
> was to explain why he thought that article was significant.

Not quite. You also asked him to defend something that neither he nor
the cited article claimed. you ignored the tentative "may" and "might"
and treated things as if there was a strong positive claim being made.

He created
> the adversariness by refusing to give an explanation and instead
> launching an attack on me for being some sort of *denier* even though
> he was unable to give any example of what I was supposed to be
> denying.
>

Yeah, Ron isn't exactly the most diplomatic guy but he's like that with
everyone.

[Martin Harran]

On Sun, 25 Jul 2021 19:03:42 -0500, DB Cates

I'm not looking for anything more than recognising what we know at any
point for what it is.

Fair point, Ron is more and more reminding me of an old uncle I had.
He was a wonderful guy and I was extremely fond of him but as he got
older, he got ever more cantankerous. When he did get into one of his
moods, there was no point trying to reason with him, it was better
just to ignore his muttering and ranting until he got it out of his
system.