Defining Spirit and Spiritual

[Netti-Netti]

I do not single religion out except in so much that this thread has a subject heading to which I responded. And I am not a scientist.

But you cite scientific conclusions as though you can vouch for them.

It's very easy to design a study that confirms an a priori conclusion simply by not giving an alternate hypothesis a chance. Unless one is trained in research design and unless one has an opportunity to evaluate a given study's methodology, one has no way of determining whether or not an investigator has designed such a systematically biased study.

For the average consumer, scientific conclusions are just pretentious and esoteric nonsense. Why would any reasonable person base their world view on science given these obvious problems?

 

[seattlegal]

In studies of the brain during religious/spiritual action there is a definitive dissociation from reality of the subject:

The two observed a decreased level of activity particularly in the orientation association area (OAA) of the brain, the part of the brain responsible for enabling people to distinguish between themselves and objects in the outside world.
…And this is your brain on prayers « Psychology in the News

Interestingly, ending the separation between subject and object is a big deal in Buddhism--separation of subject and object is what leads to craving and clinging, aversion and attachment--and suffering.

The article goes on to make the claim that this is evidence that 'God' is hardwired into the human brain but that is wholly misleading. Quite the contrary, it suggests that spiritual thoughts are a product of imagination.

Perhaps it is our imagination that makes the separation of subject/object?

Mass hysteria is a well documented phenomena. That people can share an experience does not prevent it being a product of mind.

I'm not talking about mass hysteria. I'm talking about information.

 

[seattlegal]

But you cite scientific conclusions as though you can vouch for them.

It's very easy to design a study that confirms an a priori conclusion simply by not giving an alternate hypothesis a chance. Unless one is trained in research design and unless one has an opportunity to evaluate a given study's methodology, one has no way of determining whether or not an investigator has designed such a systematically biased study.

Also known as cherry picking data. Screening out the awareness of the moonwalking bear is a form of cherry-picking data.

 

[Tao_Equus]

But you cite scientific conclusions as though you can vouch for them.

I do? maybe that is because science gave me this medium with which to talk to you? Science works, has solid results that are beyond speculation. Religion is only speculation with not a single result to its credit.

For the average consumer, scientific conclusions are just pretentious and esoteric nonsense. Why would any reasonable person base their world view on science given these obvious problems?

lmfao. What a pretentious irrational and ill thought through statement to make. If you cannot see what science HAS given mankind then your head is buried way deeper in the sand than I ever imagined. Science delivers real tangible observable useable practical results. Religion delivers gobbledygook. Despite the reality of what science does deliver I do not accept every single 'scientific' claim. I make my own philosophy based on what I have learned. If you took the time to look my take on the above quoted article differs from it. It is my opinion. Not a scientific one but one based on what I have learned by study and by experience. You on the other hand appear to have this policy in your words that if some religion says it is so it is so. I am sure there is a word for someone like you, but at the moment it escapes me.

tao

 

[Netti-Netti]

I do? maybe that is because science gave me this medium with which to talk to you? Science works, has solid results that are beyond speculation. Religion is only speculation with not a single result to its credit.

For someone who presumably values science and a rational basis for conclusions, you obviously haven't been looking very hard, friend Tao. There have been literally hundreds of studies that have demonstrated a positive association between religiosity and subjective well-being.

Your reaction to my pointing this out, I expect, will be to dismiss these findings as being two sides of the same coin - i.e., co-occurring delusional states. In view of that anticipated response, I would call your attention to the fact that intercessory prayer has been found to be associated with lower admission rates for coronary care. A fluke you might say. ok, fine.

A review of of 23 randomized trials for various studies across separate samples for a total of 2774 patients revealed positive impact of "Distant Healing" for a majority of the trials.

It took me all of two minutes to track this research down. Given your stance, I'm puzzled you've been unwilling to take two minutes. The most convincing way to argue a position is to be able to anticipate and explain contrary evidence. Pretending that contrary evidence does not exist is not the way to go.

 

[Tao_Equus]

For someone who presumably values science and a rational basis for conclusions, you obviously haven't been looking very hard, friend Tao. There have been literally hundreds of studies that have demonstrated a positive association between religiosity and subjective well-being.

Your reaction to my pointing this out, I expect, will be to dismiss these findings as being two sides of the same coin - i.e., co-occurring delusional states. In view of that anticipated response, I would call your attention to the fact that intercessory prayer has been found to be associated with lower admission rates for coronary care. A fluke you might say. ok, fine.

A review of of 23 randomized trials for various studies across separate samples for a total of 2774 patients revealed positive impact of "Distant Healing" for a majority of the trials.

It took me all of two minutes to track this research down. Given your stance, I'm puzzled you've been unwilling to take two minutes. The most convincing way to argue a position is to be able to anticipate and explain contrary evidence. Pretending that contrary evidence does not exist is not the way to go.

lol, I think every one of us here is capable of doing a quick google to find support for any argument we want to make. Am I meant to be impressed?

On another thread somewhere I posted results for a study hailed as "the biggest of its kind ever" in which the results showed no virtually no difference between study group and control group. What differences there were were negative, infact the slight imbalance suggested that those that were aware they were being prayed for were marginally worse off. That study was carried out by a bunch of Christian scientists that hoped to definitively prove prayer works.

I do not presume to think what your next question will be. I give you the courtesy of assuming you are capable of doing that for yourself. And, unlike you, I will not attempt to put words in your mouth. I am not a scientist, no matter how hard you try and for whatever reasons it may be important to you to call me one. But I suggest you do not attempt to challenge me with poor statistics as the foundation for any argument. I am well used to sifting the wheat from the chafe in that regard.



tao

 

[seattlegal]

The most convincing way to argue a position is to be able to anticipate and explain contrary evidence. Pretending that contrary evidence does not exist is not the way to go.

Those pesky individual circumstances! The stuff from which reality is formed!

Examining contrary examples help to keep one from overgeneralizing, and avoid the damage that might occur from it. It brings perspective to collateral damage, which from a collective perspective some might deem acceptable, but from an individual perspective, collateral damage can be quite devastating.

 

[Netti-Netti]

if, hand on heart, ur spirit, ur divine aspect, pales at the thought of committing an act, and yet you still commit the act, knowing it is wrong, and knowing that it is against your own spirit, and everything you supposedly stand for...you sin against the spirit...

if you deliberately go against what this ephemeral part of urself decides is the best course of action, however foolish it may appear, you have sinned against the spirit...

if you have adopted a faith, exploited it for yourself, trampled it's teachings into the metaphorical dirt, you have committed that same sin...

What you describe here would seem to be the hight of alienation from Self and from G-d. It is a form of severe dysfunctionality. It has no spiritual value for the individual at all. It is truly at odds with the Spirit.

I would be very interested in your thoughts on why this modality is commonplace. Why would one go against one's true self interest ... especially when the consequences leave little doubt that the course of action was foolish?

Thanks in advance, Francis King.