Where Religious Belief And Disbelief Meet

[lamminium]

?

As a theory it is valid, as a field tested truth its not. Empirical observation trumps theory anytime.

?

You could use Einstein to demonstrate the point but if you looked at history, his 1905 doctoral thesis was the one that shook the ground. That automatically granted him some credential because he was a PhD.

As a test, why don't try submitting a paper to a Neurological Journal and see if they like your work?

Remember our discussion on the Fat is bad theme. I clearly demonstrated that accepted peer reviewed science that fat is bad and a causative risk factor fro health was false.

Wouldn't say it's false. As stated many times before, fat is not bad. "Too much fat" is bad. The obesity paradox does not justify a motion to reverse our position on obesity.

Presumably, you have read about the advantages and disadvantages of both techniques. You may want to go back to those sources. Accepting one but not the other is weird.

No it's not weird. EEG is a very coarse analog measurement of brain activity. What you see is what you get.

FMRI is a very sophisticated abstract mathematical model representing with a good margin of doubt the oxygenation of the brain. It also assumes blandly that more oxygenation equals more activity regarding the phenomenon you are studying. Which may or may not be the case.

petrossa, grab a biochemistry textbook and a physiology textbook. It will help.

Yeah, like i'm going to dump a 1000 links to articles on the matter. Since i at minimum shown a correlation between religiosity and a defined are of the brain exists its way beyond the scope of this discussion to 'prove' it.?

I posed a known fact, founded it with enough venue for your own confirmation. If you say it's not true its up to you to disprove it.

In the literature, religiosity turns up a small amount of articles. If it was such an established field, I would have known about it. The fact that people are still researching sufficiently suggests that what you're saying is at best conjectural. You can draw on brain lesion and TCM study cases but as long as we can't establish what is going under the hood, there is still something that is calling out for us.?

Let me put that in other words:

https://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?auto...;showentry=3080

Talked about this before. Philosophy without reference to justifiable empirical evidence. That's the traditional psychology style of doing things. I don't refute it because any theory in psychology is a good theory as long as it makes sense. True or not. No one knows.?

It says completely nothing Lam. The guy puts 30 persons in a lab, poses some inane questions which to his mind consist of religious/non religious content (angels, come on. I first thought it was a joke when i read it)

makes colorized images cleaned from a data analysis on oxygenation of the brain and comes up with:

I've seen something, don't know what, but since i asked questions which i think are relevant to religion it must be something which has to do with belief systems.

OK. If you're so good, take your time to design a substitute experiment. I'm interested.

This is exactly the kind of science which makes me believe the often heard complaint that the level of education gets dumbed down to accommodate for the less intelligent.

The 60's thinking that everyone must have a proper chance at education, so to open up education we lower the standards.

This film is meant as a satire, but its more true than is comfortable:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/quotes

Pvt. Joe Bowers: [addressing Congress] There was a time when reading wasn't just for fags. And neither was writing. People wrote books and movies. Movies with stories, that made you care about whose ass it was and why it was farting. And I believe that time can come again!

Well, I'll let you in on a secret: in science, in addition to writing papers with all the usual jargons, you have to practise writing for the general audience, i.e. write in a way that any person with reasonable literacy can read and understand the topic perfectly.?

Also in science, you learn to respect each other's expertise. That's why whenever my friends from other disciplines discuss their things, I listen and learn from them. More so with masters and PhD people.

And for your information, the dumbing down of education actually occurs in pre-tertiary levels. That's why lots of high school kids struggle when they enter university. A few people told me that they barely coped with my uni's standards even though they came from the same course but of another university. Different institutions set different levels of courseworks but the general consensus is high school is a world different from uni.

[petrossa]

?

You could use Einstein to demonstrate the point but if you looked at history, his 1905 doctoral thesis was the one that shook the ground. That automatically granted him some credential because he was a PhD.

As a test, why don't try submitting a paper to a Neurological Journal and see if they like your work?

Well, I'll let you in on a secret: in science, in addition to writing papers with all the usual jargons, you have to practise writing for the general audience, i.e. write in a way that any person with reasonable literacy can read and understand the topic perfectly.?

Also in science, you learn to respect each other's expertise. That's why whenever my friends from other disciplines discuss their things, I listen and learn from them. More so with masters and PhD people.

And for your information, the dumbing down of education actually occurs in pre-tertiary levels. That's why lots of high school kids struggle when they enter university. A few people told me that they barely coped with my uni's standards even though they came from the same course but of another university. Different institutions set different levels of courseworks but the general consensus is high school is a world different from uni.

Now read the above again Lam. Its staring you right in the face in your own words.

a) There once was a time where science was not a cult, but an endeavor anyone could partake in. It got us lasers, nuclear energy and microwaves.

b) Since science has become a cult, only members are allowed to partake, so me submitting a new theory of everything to any science paper would get stranded on my CV. The guy opening the mail would look at my name, my CV, ?and throw my paper in the dustbin.

c) Now that science is a cult is has become a self centered bastion of preconceived notions, which get perpetuated by forming the cult leaders themselves. Climategate is not an incident, it's structural. Peer review has become a system for filtering out dissent, data manipulation the norm.

The system is flooded by mediocre members whose only goal is to score. So you get weirdos having found the cure for MS, others claiming to be able to follow the flow of conscious thought by looking at a computer simulation.

[lamminium]

Now read the above again Lam. Its staring you right in the face in your own words.

a) There once was a time where science was not a cult, but an endeavor anyone could partake in. It got us lasers, nuclear energy and microwaves.

Even in the past, science was something that only people who possessed knowledge could participate in. If you look at it rationally, science was a lot more conservative back then than it is now.

Those inventions that you name were achieved by people who had training in the respective fields.

b) Since science has become a cult, only members are allowed to partake, so me submitting a new theory of everything to any science paper would get stranded on my CV. The guy opening the mail would look at my name, my CV, ?and throw my paper in the dustbin.

You have no research experience or any formal qualification in neuroscience, apart from reading articles and blogs. You don't have the required detailed knowledge about the other disciplines that are critical in neuroscience such as physiology, biochemistry and physics. How do you expect the peer reviewers to put some weight on your proposals? To qualify as a researcher, you must first complete at least an Honours degree where you take part in a project which you design yourself. That gives you the skills, experience and critical thinking needed. Then as your works begin to cumulate, you gain reputation and a higher credential.

With Einstein, he studied in the field and published the thesis in his field.?

If you're so passionate about this, go back to uni and pursue the road of research.

c) Now that science is a cult is has become a self centered bastion of preconceived notions, which get perpetuated by forming the cult leaders themselves. Climategate is not an incident, it's structural. Peer review has become a system for filtering out dissent, data manipulation the norm.

The system is flooded by mediocre members whose only goal is to score. So you get weirdos having found the cure for MS, others claiming to be able to follow the flow of conscious thought by looking at a computer simulation.

Refer to what I said above. I can read a lot about pathology, pharmacology, etc. but would I try replacing doctors? No. Because they have what I don't: proper training.

On that note, we should conclude it here. Sorry if I was too harsh, I just have to say what is right.

Edited December 4, 2009 by lamchopz

[petrossa]

You have no research experience or any formal qualification in neuroscience, apart from reading articles and blogs. You don't have the required detailed knowledge about the other disciplines that are critical in neuroscience such as physiology, biochemistry and physics. How do you expect the peer reviewers to put some weight on your proposals? To qualify as a researcher, you must first complete at least an Honours degree where you take part in a project which you design yourself. That gives you the skills, experience and critical thinking needed. Then as your works begin to cumulate, you gain reputation and a higher credential.

Refer to what I said above. I can read a lot about pathology, pharmacology, etc. but would I try replacing doctors? No. Because they have what I don't: proper training.

On that note, we should conclude it here. Sorry if I was too harsh, I just have to say what is right.

Harsh? No you just voiced the opinion of your cult. WE decide who gets past the gates, WE set the rules of engagement, its our cult. WE don't suffer criticism, and surely not from the uneducated masses.

Einstein sure doesn't qualify being a mere maths teacher.

And for me, i call Groucho Marx on this:

I don't care to belong to a club that accepts people like me as members.

Around 1886 Albert Einstein began his school career in Munich. As well as his violin lessons, which he had from age six to age thirteen, he also had religious education at home where he was taught Judaism. Two years later he entered the Luitpold Gymnasium and after this his religious education was given at school. He studied mathematics, in particular the calculus, beginning around 1891.

In 1894 Einstein's family moved to Milan but Einstein remained in Munich. In 1895 Einstein failed an examination that would have allowed him to study for a diploma as an electrical engineer at the Eidgen?ssische Technische Hochschule in Zurich. >Einstein renounced German citizenship in 1896 and was to be stateless for a number of years. He did not even apply for Swiss citizenship until 1899, citizenship being granted in 1901.

Following the failing of the entrance exam to the ETH, Einstein attended secondary school at Aarau planning to use this route to enter the ETH in Zurich. While at Aarau he wrote an essay (for which was only given a little above half marks!) in which he wrote of his plans for the future, see [13]:-

If I were to have the good fortune to pass my examinations, I would go to Zurich. I would stay there for four years in order to study mathematics and physics. I imagine myself becoming a teacher in those branches of the natural sciences, choosing the theoretical part of them. Here are the reasons which lead me to this plan. Above all, it is my disposition for abstract and mathematical thought, and my lack of imagination and practical ability.

Indeed Einstein succeeded with his plan graduating in 1900 as a teacher of mathematics and physics. One of his friends at ETH was Marcel Grossmann who was in the same class as Einstein. Einstein tried to obtain a post, writing to Hurwitz who held out some hope of a position but nothing came of it. Three of Einstein's fellow students, including Grossmann, were appointed assistants at ETH in Zurich but clearly Einstein had not impressed enough and still in 1901 he was writing round universities in the hope of obtaining a job, but without success.

He did manage to avoid Swiss military service on the grounds that he had flat feet and varicose veins. By mid 1901 he had a temporary job as a teacher, teaching mathematics at the Technical High School in Winterthur. Around this time he wrote:-

I have given up the ambition to get to a university ...>

Another temporary position teaching in a private school in Schaffhausen followed. Then Grossmann's father tried to help Einstein get a job by recommending him to the director of the patent office in Bern. Einstein was appointed as a technical expert third class.

Einstein worked in this patent office from 1902 to 1909, holding a temporary post when he was first appointed, but by 1904 the position was made permanent and in 1906 he was promoted to technical expert second class. While in the Bern patent office he completed an astonishing range of theoretical physics publications, written in his spare time without the benefit of close contact with scientific literature or colleagues.

[lamminium]

Harsh? No you just voiced the opinion of your cult. WE decide who gets past the gates, WE set the rules of engagement, its our cult. WE don't suffer criticism, and surely not from the uneducated masses.

Nar, it's your opinion that science is a cult. In every field, you're naturally more respected if you have the proper training. That goes for economics, psychological therapy, engineering, architecture, etc. Not just science. Look around you, petrossa. The evidence is all there. ?

Einstein sure doesn't qualify being a mere maths teacher.

And for me, i call Groucho Marx on this:

I don't care to belong to a club that accepts people like me as members.

Around 1886 Albert Einstein began his school career in Munich. As well as his violin lessons, which he had from age six to age thirteen, he also had religious education at home where he was taught Judaism. Two years later he entered the Luitpold Gymnasium and after this his religious education was given at school. He studied mathematics, in particular the calculus, beginning around 1891.

In 1894 Einstein's family moved to Milan but Einstein remained in Munich.In 1895 Einstein failed an examination that would have allowed him to study for a diploma as an electrical engineer at the Eidgen?ssische Technische Hochschule in Zurich. b>Einstein renounced German citizenship in 1896 and was to be stateless for a number of years. He did not even apply for Swiss citizenship until 1899, citizenship being granted in 1901.

Following the failing of the entrance exam to the ETH, Einstein attended secondary school at Aarau planning to use this route to enter the ETH in Zurich. While at Aarau he wrote an essay (for which was only given a little above half marks!) in which he wrote of his plans for the future, see [13]:-

If I were to have the good fortune to pass my examinations, I would go to Zurich. I would stay there for four years in order to study mathematics and physics. I imagine myself becoming a teacher in those branches of the natural sciences, choosing the theoretical part of them. Here are the reasons which lead me to this plan. Above all, it is my disposition for abstract and mathematical thought, and my lack of imagination and practical ability.

Indeed Einstein succeeded with his plan graduating in 1900 as a teacher of mathematics and physics. One of his friends at ETH was Marcel Grossmann who was in the same class as Einstein. Einstein tried to obtain a post, writing to Hurwitz who held out some hope of a position but nothing came of it. Three of Einstein's fellow students, including Grossmann, were appointed assistants at ETH in Zurich but clearly Einstein had not impressed enough and still in 1901 he was writing round universities in the hope of obtaining a job, but without success.

He did manage to avoid Swiss military service on the grounds that he had flat feet and varicose veins. By mid 1901 he had a temporary job as a teacher, teaching mathematics at the Technical High School in Winterthur. Around this time he wrote:- I have given up the ambition to get to a university ...b>

Another temporary position teaching in a private school in Schaffhausen followed. Then Grossmann's father tried to help Einstein get a job by recommending him to the director of the patent office in Bern. Einstein was appointed as a technical expert third class.

Einstein worked in this patent office from 1902 to 1909, holding a temporary post when he was first appointed, but by 1904 the position was made permanent and in 1906 he was promoted to technical expert second class. While in the Bern patent office he completed an astonishing range of theoretical physics publications, written in his spare time without the benefit of close contact with scientific literature or colleagues.

He graduated with a maths and physics degree. Why exactly wasn't he qualified to be a maths teacher?

Einstein is an exceptional and interesting case. He was born during the era of conservative education and most notably, his youth occurred after the conception of Maxwell's electromagnetism equations which were deemed the ultimate physics (it was the triumph of classical physics as we now know). The contemporary view at the time was that if you proposed something that could not utilise the known classical physics, you were largely in the wrong. This was what Einstein suffered when he was a kid because he saw something beyond the coursework. That is, he was [geniusu>[/b]b> that only came around every millennium and rose above the restrictive mindset that the time imposed. The groundbreaking proposition of energy-mass relation was entirely new to classical physics and Einstein himself was an advocate of the presence of atoms which was only recognised in chemistry. (But like anyone else, his ideas and many equations were based on his predecessors' works)

These days, you don't see that happening. If a student says something interesting and substantial, the idea may be pursued. As long as it is a good idea that can bsubstantiatedi>, it is worth a shot to consider it. That's how education has opened up over the past centuries. Science has taken a similar approach.?

What has remained is that as long as you don't have a proper training, you're likely not to be well received. That's the general rule that has been and always is. The same can be observed in other specialised fields such medicine, nursing, engineering, commerce, etc.?

Admittedly, university these days isn't the only way to become a success story but it takes ingenuity and luck to make it.

However, research is academic and the only way to be recognised in research is go through the usual procedure. Skills are what this procedure offer. What's so hard to get about it?

So let me finish this quarrel by citing my motivation:

I like your ideas. I like the fact that you pursued personal reading and forming your own opinions. However, you cross the line by displaying your arrogance: that is, you ridicule the people who actually went through years of training and are experts in their own fields while promulgating your own conjectures as if they're facts and nothing else matters. Do I make myself clear there?

A climategate is restricted to a small group. Yet, you mindlessly associate it to the entire scientific community which comprises thousands of individual groups in hundreds of different disciplines who are willing to give up thholidays, Christmas, New Year, etc. to see the end of what they consider a promising outcome that benefits the human race. It is the sort of dismissive, ignorant and arrogant attitude you have shown now and again that irked me.

Edited December 4, 2009 by lamchopz

[petrossa]

Nar, it's your opinion that science is a cult. In every field, you're naturally more respected if you have the proper training. That goes for economics, philosophy, engineering, architecture, etc. Not just science. Look around you, petrossa. The evidence is all there. ?

It just has all the properties of a cult of late Lam. Let's replace einstein with bill gates if you will. Same thing, the guy wouldn't get a foot in the door.

Obviously being properly trained in research procedures helps. But imo by consistently lowering the schooling standards we have since a good 2 decades a whole lot of mediocre professionals in any field.

In fact mediocrity is the standard now, and being mediocre they are more obsessed with status quo than the advancement of science which results in a daily deluge of incredible 'scientific' claims which quite often contradict themselves or each other.

And the more this gets perceived by the uneducated masses the less credible science becomes. And this causes scientists to groupthink, ferociously fighting of any dissenting voice. They have created heir own little world of grantseeking, egoboosting claims in the knowledge that dissent is easily ridiculed by having a few of your friendly 'peers' write up a negative review.

Look at pharmaceuticals. Extremely toxic products get the go ahead based on 'peer reviewed' research.

Renewable energy, the latest craze. A flood of absurd studies go to 'prove' how it is feasible, the lone voice saying: but a perpetual motion machine is against the laws of nature gets blasted away in a sandstorm of peer reviewed disdain.

[lamminium]

See the blue text in my previous post above. I went this far because of that. I had no interest in defending this particular study because the outcome is cursory and suggestive. It is the novelty of the outcome that I want to bring to everyone's attention. Neither I nor the authors advocated that the result was the everything of study of religiosity. More research is needed. Period.

[petrossa]

See the blue text in my previous post above. I went this far because of that. I had no interest in defending this particular study because the outcome is cursory and suggestive. It is the novelty of the outcome that I want to bring to everyone's attention. Neither I nor the authors advocated that the result was the everything of study of religiosity. More research is needed. Period.

I think highly of you Lam, don't let my arrogance bother you. I am not much of a blind follower of authority i am afraid. I get prickly when reading yet another facetious claim, doesn't reflect on you personally so don't take it as such.

Climategate is not an incident, it's a porthole to settled science. This doesn't mean there aren't ****loads of enthusiastic integer people out there, it just means most Universities are now bastions of the settled order.

As an example, in the Netherlands all significant Uni's are politicized. And towards the leftwing politics.

Not to go into to great detail here, but the government actually stipulates the results they need and the Uni's provide the science to prove it's true.

[lamminium]

I never thought of it as a personal attack on my character. I just think you should sometimes step back and appreciate what is happening, or if you want to input your opinion, have people consider it but don't outright dismiss the authors' proposal.

Had I not taken up a research project and seen it first hand, I would think the OP's study was funny. However, I now know that in research, there's nothing silly unless the design strays too far from conventions. The study mentioned conformed to the guidelines and accepted standards of neuroimaging (having the people read text/see pictures is a way to trigger cognitive processes). If they had used EEG to complement fMRI (which admittedly is tough work), the result would have been something more sensational but fMRI alone can serve as an indicator of something for future topic. My lecturer who majored in Physics but obtained PhD in physiology never saw anything wrong with fMRI and included it in his lecture on neuroimaging. If he (who obviously knows both physics and physiology a lot more than I do) still didn't see a problem with fMRI, I believe I can trust him.

Another point is that you totally forgot that I came from the Human Physiology background so while I have no idea what the other disciplines are doing (no doubt the climategate is a godforsaken mess), I know for a fact that most of the biological sciences (which make up numerous groups - private or institutional) don't yield to any political influences because the researchers simply provide the outcomes and recommendations, how the people use them is up to the people; nor the politicians can tell them what to do because the accuracy of the research means millions of lives are prolonged and saved. At my uni, a group didn't take their Christmas and New Year breaks because they were so close to the results involving promising treatment for sarcopenia. Such enthusiasm and dedication must not be tainted by association to the team (from another discipline) responsible for climategate.

[petrossa]

I never thought of it as a personal attack on my character. I just think you should sometimes step back and appreciate what is happening, or if you want to input your opinion, have people consider it but don't outright dismiss the authors' proposal.

Glad to read that. We always have good discussions.?

As i wrote before, i already read the OP a while ago and had ample time to further look up how it fitted in with other literature on the subject because it was by accident a subject i researched very profoundly. Probably more profoundly then the OP since i'm not bound by any time/work issues nor am i preconceived by having a formal education in the field. Lets call it an open mind.

I was very exited at first when fmri studies which came out in general, hopeful it'd give a more detailed view without cutting someones head open. Which doesn't happen frequently enough and anyway the experiments done in the 60' are deemed unethical now.

After following up on researches done using fmri i started to realize its flaws as a tool.?

When i read this and other higher order research attempts i noticed a, let's say, eagerness to jump to conclusions. Which i voiced here.

I wasn't just shooting of my mouth.

[lamminium]

The conclusions made from fMRI are usually indicative, not conclusive. Its purpose is to encourage more investigation into the brain region of interest. However, fMRI results are always accurate in pointing out the brain areas that are associated with stimulated tasks - how this association plays out will need to be further explored (fMRI gives the starting point; we then follow up on its outcome by using more laborious and sometimes invasive methods which may cost a fortune to do and at times require specificity, which fMRI provides). What you read is the standard set of suggestions that any author would draw from fMRI results. That's called "discussion" where they apply their interpretation based on conventional knowledge of the technique. It's how a paper is usually written. Its validity can only be confirmed by subsequent replications and further studies but as long as it conforms to guidelines, it's considered a valid finding.

[petrossa]

The conclusions made from fMRI are usually indicative, not conclusive. Its purpose is to encourage more investigation into the brain region of interest. However, fMRI results are always accurate in pointing out the brain areas that are associated with stimulated tasks - how this association plays out will need to be further explored (fMRI gives the starting point; we then follow up on its outcome by using more laborious and sometimes invasive methods which may cost a fortune to do and at times require specificity, which fMRI provides). What you read is the standard set of suggestions that any author would draw from fMRI results. That's called "discussion" where they apply their interpretation based on conventional knowledge of the technique. It's how a paper is usually written. Its validity can only be confirmed by subsequent replications and further studies but as long as it conforms to guidelines, it's considered a valid finding.

Proper science at its best as you describe it. As usual the sensationalists mess it up in the public view.?

funny: http://neuroskeptic.blogspot.com/2009/09/f...-dead-fish.html

[petrossa]

[McCordRm]

There's an old saying, especially preached here in the military:

"You'll never find an Athiest in a foxhole."

I still disagree with the way this "study" was carried out. But it does bring up some interesting questions.

The ones I posted above, along with examples like:

1. When someone is in a life-threatening postition- or at least believes themself to be- what area of the brain lights up when

they start yelling for help. Is it the same for athiests as it is for those believing in a Higher Power?

2. I would like to see the comparisson of someone lost in prayer and someone lost in meditation. (I firmly believe that

the basis of meditation is why prayer actually works.)

[petrossa]

There's an old saying, especially preached here in the military:

"You'll never find an Athiest in a foxhole."

I still disagree with the way this "study" was carried out. But it does bring up some interesting questions.

The ones I posted above, along with examples like:

1. When someone is in a life-threatening postition- or at least believes themself to be- what area of the brain lights up when

they start yelling for help. Is it the same for athiests as it is for those believing in a Higher Power?

2. I would like to see the comparisson of someone lost in prayer and someone lost in meditation. (I firmly believe that

the basis of meditation is why prayer actually works.)

1) there have been crosscultural studies into the neardeath experience. Apparently it depends on the culture what kind of neardeath experience is most common. Also there have been results that the neardeath experience reflected the persons expectations. Criminals more frequently having a negative neardeath experience.

2) This is the case as far as current assumptions go this makes interesting reading: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1828618/religionbrain.pdf

RELIGIOUS AND MYSTICAL STATES:

A NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL MODEL

by Eugene G. d’rlquili and Andrew B. Newberg

Abstract. This paper first considers the current confusion in categorizing and even describing mystical states, including experiences of God, the Void, and lesser religious experiences.

The paper presents the necessity of studying the neuropsychological substrate of such experiences both to understand them in greater depth and to help resolve scholarly confusion in this area. As a prelude to presenting a neuropsychological model, the basic principles of brain organization are reviewed, including hemispheri- city; primary, secondary, and tertiary sensory receptive areas; their motor analogues; prefrontosensorial polarity; and the integration of limbic functioning into cortical activity. A neuropsychological model for mystical states is then presented in terms of differential stimulation and deafferentation of various tertiary sensory association areas, along with integration of various patterns of limbiction areas, along with integration of various patterns of limbic stimulation. ?

[lamminium]

Proper science at its best as you describe it. As usual the sensationalists mess it up in the public view.?

Limitation exists with study design. The OP's study was restricted (probably by funding problems which all researchers face) so it made the best of the results by making various suggestions. Remember in science, one paper is not the end point but only an open invitation for challenges and/or confirmations.

funny: http://neuroskeptic.blogspot.com/2009/09/f...-dead-fish.html

Well, that's the researcher's duty to report both corrected and uncorrected results as recommended. It is a fair point and it will be adopted sooner or later:

Some say that multiple comparisons correction is too conservative, and could lead to genuine activations being overlooked - throwing the baby salmon out with the bathwater, as it were. This is a legitimate point, but as Bennett says, in this case we should report both corrected and uncorrected results, to make it clear to the readers what is going on.

@McCordRm: religiosity doesn't seem to be a hot topic at the moment so don't expect lots of studies to roll out. With the advent of gene/cell therapy, a lot of research focus has been directed to neuropathology or exploring neural functions and their relationship to bodily controls (such as sustained sympathetic activity by the rostral ventrolateral medulla leads to pathological hypertension).

[petrossa]

Limitation exists with study design. The OP's study was restricted (probably by funding problems which all researchers face) so it made the best of the results by making various suggestions. Remember in science, one paper is not the end point but only an open invitation for challenges and/or confirmations.

Well next time i challenge something try not to get irked?:rofl::

[lamminium]

Nar. I repeatedly said that the OP put up some suggestions so everyone should take it at that because the authors did mention that more study was needed. I just didn't see how you could jump right in and say it was totally wrong (ugh). The OP's article wasn't even the original article. It just reported what the authors suggested.

The same goes for MS thread. The group found a high incidence of arteriosclerosis and MS so it set out to see if that was the case and potentially adding to our understanding. I pointed to the pathophysiology of stroke which, if you read in depth, took you by surprises because of the complex interactions at the molecular and organismic levels. As long as something has not been shown to be definitely wrong, it can be true.

[petrossa]

Nar. I repeatedly said that the OP put up some suggestions so everyone should take it at that because the authors did mention that more study was needed. I just didn't see how you could jump right in and say it was totally wrong (ugh). The OP's article wasn't even the original article. It just reported what the authors suggested.

I did tell you i'd read the original study a while back and found many a fault with it and therefore discarded it for use in my religion blog.

[lamminium]

I did tell you i'd read the original study a while back and found many a fault with it and therefore discarded it for use in my religion blog.

Shouldn't fault a study if it only used fMRI. Reasons as explained before.

[carmatic]

you know, i think that this should have been called 'Where Belief of Existence and Belief of Non-Existence Meet'

because they are the same thing...as far as the brain is concerned...

[petrossa]

you know, i think that this should have been called 'Where Belief of Existence and Belief of Non-Existence Meet'

because they are the same thing...as far as the brain is concerned...

good one.?

[lamminium]

you know, i think that this should have been called 'Where Belief of Existence and Belief of Non-Existence Meet'

because they are the same thing...as far as the brain is concerned...

Not a bad suggestion, actually. :p

[McCordRm]

@McCordRm: religiosity doesn't seem to be a hot topic at the moment so don't expect lots of studies to roll out. With the advent of gene/cell therapy, a lot of research focus has been directed to neuropathology or exploring neural functions and their relationship to bodily controls (such as sustained sympathetic activity by the rostral ventrolateral medulla leads to pathological hypertension).

Naw, when it comes to religion I don't really expect a whole lot on the intellectual level. It's the chicken and the egg arguement: I doubt we'll EVER be able to prove it one way or the other... but that doesn't stop people from arguing it incoherently 'till they're blue in the face. lol

[lamminium]

Naw, when it comes to religion I don't really expect a whole lot on the intellectual level. It's the chicken and the egg arguement: I doubt we'll EVER be able to prove it one way or the other... but that doesn't stop people from arguing it incoherently 'till they're blue in the face. lol

A few centuries ago, laser was sci-fi. :)