Religion Deserves More Study by Scientists, Say Researchers

[cbayer]

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/science-religion-researchers-god-neglected-laboratory/story?id=16364587#.T7VC8O0ZfzI

COLUMN by LEE DYE
May 17, 2012

Two scientists who have met with would-be terrorists and cruel dictators in some of the world's hottest trouble spots have issued an unusual challenge to their colleagues: Focus your labs and your brain scanners and your cognitive skills on religion.

They aren't trying to convert anyone. They just think it's high time for scientists to stop ignoring something that plays a critical role in the lives of billions of people around the world.

"Religion is not something that scientists study very deeply," anthropologist Scott Atran, lead author of a study published in this week's issue of the journal Science, said in a telephone interview. "There is sort of an agreement between science and religion to remain separate, and I think that has not been a good thing."

more at link

[Vincardog]

1. I call on the religious to study science more. NT

[Thats my opinion]

21. a very sound and long overdue idea. nt

[struggle4progress]

2. "Religion" is an irremediably vague term that covers a variety of social phenomena

that may involve metaphysical speculation, ethics, social identity, and various other matters, in a way that is not well-defined: so "religion" per se is not likely to be a fruitful subject of scientific inquiry

[rug]

3. I think he's referring to the sociology of religion more than belief systems.

[longship]

4. I disagree with Atran

There is no more reason that science shouldn't study religion than that science shouldn't study any other aspect of human culture, behavior, or however else one may choose to characterize religion.

Interestly, recent advances in neurology have given brain science some pretty cool tools to analyze these type of things, fMRI, for example. Even if the science is not yet definitive, I can't see why anybody would rationally argue that science shouldn't look into religion. We may find out something very cool about our species by doing so. Who would argue with that?

Some of the arguments against sound like the argument Newton got about studying light. Why unweave the rainbow? Of course, the answer is that rainbows are just as beautiful and wonderful if you know how they happen. I suspect that religions would remain prevelant on this planet as well.

(However, I absolutely see no use for charlatans like Binnie Hinn and his ilk; Jimmie Bakker and his ilk, and those TBN douches, the Crouch's. I'm not cool with the Xenu crowd, either.)

Thanks.

[Thats my opinion]

22. re: you last sentence.

There people are charlatans and crooks and should be in jail. They are a hindrance and an embarrassment to religion.

[longship]

25. They are an embarrassment to humanity

Not just religion.

That's why I think people ought to study religion from all perspectives, especially with science. Psychology, esp. Psychological evolution, anthropology, etc. throw everything we have at it. Including the law books (with regards to the pious frauds, like Popoff, Hinn, Crouche, Bakker, Robertson, and their ilk who use religion like a salesman's cheap suit. It displays a veneer of legitimacy, but it's just a cheap suit.) And the so-called Church of Scientology should easily come under the RICO statutes.

I have no idea what would survive, but it would have to be better than the utter lunacy we have now.

Don't get me started about the Catholic Church protecting sexual predation.

We all understand, both theists and atheists, that these things are not religion is supposed to be about. Who knows how to solve this? I would bet that it's going to take both to do it.

[Politicalboi]

5. Religion is a belief

Just like Santa, and the Easter bunny. No science required. I truly believe we would be much better without it. Since religion has been trying to take over our laws in this country, it's time to stop it cold. We are becoming a country that lets religion trump over rights, and it should be war. We need more Atheists in office. Starting with the President. Religious nuts are just like children talking about Santa. All excited over a story that can't factually be right. Same as religion. All fairy tales written thousands of years ago. It doesn't belong in the 21st Century.

[LTX]

16. Excepting, of course, your own beliefs.

Which are much more sophisticated. And after "we" carve out nice little exceptions for "our" beliefs, "we" can then send "them" to re-education camps -- presumably as part of "our" war on the stupid little people.

[Jim__]

6. Jonathan Haidt: Religion, evolution, and the ecstasy of self-transcendence.

An 18 minute Ted Talk.

Haidt describes the capacity for self-transcendence - sometimes described as religious experience - as a part of being human. He then asks is that a feature that humans were selected-for, or is it an evolutionary bug, a ride-along. He thinks it is a feature. Self-transcendence leads to much stronger groups and Haidt believes that group selection played an important part in human evolution.

I think that question definitely makes religion a valid subject for scientific study.

[cbayer]

7. That looks great. Will watch later. Thanks!

[Warren Stupidity]

12. I'm not sure Haidt is all that interesting.

After listening to his interview on the skeptical Inquirer podcast I pretty much lost any interest in his book.

[Thats my opinion]

36. TED lectures are always brilliant

This one by Haidt is even more so. I encourage everyone to take a look. Thanks Jim for posting it.

[dimbear]

8. If religion could be reduced to a daily pill or monthly injection, there might be a reliable profit

motive here. Some of our more adventurous pharmaceutical companies ought to investigate, if they haven't already.

[LARED]

9. "God and the New Physics"

is an interesting book written by Paul Davies, that explores some of this subject in an interesting way.

http://www.amazon.com/s/?ie=UTF8&keywords=god+the+new+physics&tag=googhydr-20&index=stripbooks&hvadid=2896964571&hvpos=1t1&hvexid=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=957581756585258088&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=b&ref=pd_sl_4hfd47eiub_b

It's a bit dated regarding current thought around cosmology (written in 1984) but worth the read IMO.

[trotsky]

10. The problem when this has been done in the past...

is the reaction the religious have to the results of studying religion. For example, the known connections between deep religious experience and epilepsy.

[Warren Stupidity]

11. I agree. Perhaps it would then get listed in the DSM.

Actually it is listed, we just have a tacit agreement to ignore those delusions.

[cbayer]

13. A delusion is a fixed false belief that is held despite substantial evidence to the contrary.

Religious beliefs do not fit this definition.

But nice swipe to call all believers psychiatrically ill.

[Warren Stupidity]

14. Actually if you read the section and commentary on the section

There is an admonition to be sensitive to local religious beliefs.

Religious beliefs frequently do fit the definition of delusional thinking.

[cbayer]

15. That's because beliefs held by groups of people also do not generally fit the definition.

At any rate, until there is evidence showing someone beliefs to be patently false and not shared by others, calling religious believers psychiatrically ill is just a cheap shot used by people with weak arguments.

So much for being sensitive to local religious beliefs.

[laconicsax]

19. Why don't you alert if you believe the comment is insensitive?

[skepticscott]

17. Under your definition

The fundamental Catholic belief in transsubstantiation clearly qualifies as a delusion. Can we agree on that?

[laconicsax]

18. Is creationism not a religious belief?

It certainly fits the definition you give.

What about the transubstantiation (as skepticscott pointed out)?

What about the belief that prayer can influence events?

Are none of these religious beliefs?

[cbayer]

20. If the term delusion is to be used correctly as a psychiatric symptom,

then, according to the DSM, certain religious beliefs are exempted.

Some of the questions one must ask when evaluating for a delusional or psychotic disorder is the degree to which a person's behavior is directed by such a belief, whether it is shared by others, whether someone is preoccupied with their false beliefs, and whether the false belief becomes extended into other areas.

No psychiatrist worth anything would call the things you point out delusions. The DSM would not support such a diagnosis.

When someone makes a broad brush statement that all religious people are suffering from a psychiatric disorder, that is just an attempt to smear them. It has no validity in reality. As someone who bases their beliefs or lack thereof on scientific evidence, I would hope you would understand that there is no scientific evidence to back up that claim.

Quite the contrary.

[laconicsax]

23. Is creationism not a religious belief?

What about the transubstantiation (as skepticscott pointed out)?

What about the belief that prayer can influence events?

[cbayer]

24. What part of my answer did you not understand?

[skepticscott]

26. The part that dishonestly avoided

applying your own definition: "A delusion is a fixed false belief that is held despite substantial evidence to the contrary" to the beliefs cited.

Try again. Under YOUR definition of delusion, is belief in creationism or transsubstantiation a delusion? Yes or no? (and please, don't weary our ears with evasionist crap about how this is such a complex issue and can't be answered yes or no). These things either qualify as delusions under YOUR definition, or they don't. Period. Which is it?

[LARED]

31. Would it be correct to say you believe

religious faith is a mental illness?

I once believed Hanna Montana and Miley Cyrus were two different people. Was that a delusion in the context of "A delusion is a fixed false belief that is held despite substantial evidence to the contrary"?

Of course I barely had any idea who either "person" was, but I held that beleif very strongly of a number of years.

[skepticscott]

32. I've said no such thing, now have I?

I've never said that all aspects of all religions and religious beliefs constitute mental illness. My question was about 2 specific beliefs. So why did you need to jump into the discussion just to dodge that question? Did you think cbayer needed some company in the evasionist lifeboat?

And presumably you disabused yourself of the notion that Hannah Montana and Miley Cyrus were different people sometime before your 21st birthday (but correct me if I'm wrong). And when you did believe it, were you always aware from the first moment you did of overwhelming evidence that it wasn't true? Or were you like most normal and rational people who shed such misconceptions as evidence to the contrary gradually accumulates? If you're capable of answering that, you've answered your own question.

[LARED]

33. Thanks for clarifying something I never said you said.

I've never said that all aspects of all religions and religious beliefs constitute mental illness.

I never said you did. I asked you if you believed this as in general your responses regarding issues of faith are generally dismissive as if you think you are dealing with children or somewhat dim people that just won't listen to the adults. Also delusions are significantly associated (both medically and socially) with mental illness or disease so I thought it was a reasonable question.

My question was about 2 specific beliefs.

Yes, you ask if creationism or transubstantiation is delusional. Well I don't believe in transubstantiation, but I don't think those that do are delusional, but rather have been taught something false. This is a matter of faith and opinion not science. You would like to measure religious beliefs as you would scientific evidence, How would one even measure contrary evidence to this belief? Anyway it does not work that way. As said in Heb 11:1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. EVS.

Regarding creationism, frankly there is hardly "substantial evidence to the contrary." There is of course much debate around many of the elements of how creation unfolded, but at the end of the day there are a number of theories about creation, both theological and science based.

So why did you need to jump into the discussion just to dodge that question?

I was not dodging your question, I was asking you a different question. Is that inappropriate, or just confusing you?

Did you think cbayer needed some company in the evasionist lifeboat?

I think cbayer is quite capable of responding on his/she own.

And presumably you disabused yourself of the notion that Hannah Montana and Miley Cyrus were different people sometime before your 21st birthday (but correct me if I'm wrong). And when you did believe it, were you always aware from the first moment you did of overwhelming evidence that it wasn't true? Or were you like most normal and rational people who shed such misconceptions as evidence to the contrary gradually accumulates? If you're capable of answering that, you've answered your own question.

Actually I am over fifty years old, but do not follow pop culture. My question to you in response id was I delusional at the time I believed this? According to your definition the answer is yes.

[skepticscott]

34. Pretty much fail on all counts

I've never said that all aspects of all religions and religious beliefs constitute mental illness.

I never said you did. I asked you if you believed this as in general your responses regarding issues of faith are generally dismissive as if you think you are dealing with children or somewhat dim people that just won't listen to the adults. Also delusions are significantly associated (both medically and socially) with mental illness or disease so I thought it was a reasonable question.

I never accused you of putting words in my mouth, now did I? I simply stated what was already obvious from reading what I had written here (since many here seem to need that), and clarified that I believe no such thing. Sorry if that was confusing to you.



My question was about 2 specific beliefs.

Yes, you ask if creationism or transubstantiation is delusional. Well I don't believe in transubstantiation, but I don't think those that do are delusional, but rather have been taught something false. This is a matter of faith and opinion not science. You would like to measure religious beliefs as you would scientific evidence, How would one even measure contrary evidence to this belief? Anyway it does not work that way. As said in Heb 11:1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. EVS.

Yes, many people are taught false things, and believe in them fervently because they are so sheltered that they have never been exposed to any contrary evidence. But neither I nor anyone else here thinks that a six year old is delusional for believing the crap that his fundy parents force-feed him, since he has no way of knowing any better. But some people ARE exposed to mountains of contrary evidence and cling to their beliefs anyway. At that point it is not a matter limited to "faith". Transsubstantiation is a belief that the wine and host change to actual, literal blood and human flesh. The chemical composition of those materials is a matter of scientific fact and physical reality. They are either one or the other, no matter how much "faith" you have. When the host still affects people with a wheat gluten allergy, that's a matter of physical reality. People who invent all kinds of wild and crazy rationalizations to explain that away have crossed into the delusional.


Regarding creationism, frankly there is hardly "substantial evidence to the contrary." There is of course much debate around many of the elements of how creation unfolded, but at the end of the day there are a number of theories about creation, both theological and science based.

Fine, if you want to play word games and be disingenuous, I'll clarify the obvious again, that we're talking about the creationism that the majority of Christians believe in, that claims god created the world and all the life on it substantially as we see it, less than 10,000 years ago. Anyone who wants to claim that "there is hardly substantial evidence to the contrary" of that, has also fallen into delusion.



So why did you need to jump into the discussion just to dodge that question?

I was not dodging your question, I was asking you a different question. Is that inappropriate, or just confusing you?

You responded to a post which was a direct question, and chose to provide no answer, but to deflect the discussion elsewhere. Call that what you want



Did you think cbayer needed some company in the evasionist lifeboat?

I think cbayer is quite capable of responding on his/she own.

Apparently not. She hasn't answered me at all, and her answers to laconicsax have been nothing but more evasion.



And presumably you disabused yourself of the notion that Hannah Montana and Miley Cyrus were different people sometime before your 21st birthday (but correct me if I'm wrong). And when you did believe it, were you always aware from the first moment you did of overwhelming evidence that it wasn't true? Or were you like most normal and rational people who shed such misconceptions as evidence to the contrary gradually accumulates? If you're capable of answering that, you've answered your own question.

Actually I am over fifty years old, but do not follow pop culture. My question to you in response id was I delusional at the time I believed this? According to your definition the answer is yes.

It wasn't my definition, as you well know, but I guess you're at the point where you need to make things up, and hope nobody will notice (not a good sign). But under cbayer's definition, a belief only becomes a delusion if it continues "despite substantial evidence to the contrary". Did you have "substantial evidence to the contrary", but continued to believe they were two different people in spite of that? Or were you not paying enough attention to be exposed to any contrary evidence? Again, answer your own question.

[laconicsax]

28. I understood it just fine. It just happened to answer a question I didn't ask.

You said:

A delusion is a fixed false belief that is held despite substantial evidence to the contrary.

Religious beliefs do not fit this definition.

I name two very common religious beliefs that are unequivocally "fixed false beliefs that [are] held despite substantial evidence to the contrary" and asked if you deny that they are religious beliefs.

Your answer was a non sequitur, so I asked again thinking that perhaps you had mistakenly replied to my post thinking you were replying to someone else.

Now that we're clear on who said what and why, please answer my question: Are creationism and transubstantiation religious beliefs?

[cbayer]

29. I have no need to answer your question or defend anyone's religious beliefs.

My point is that religious beliefs are, for the most part, not psychiatric symptoms. If an individual deviates significantly from the cohort with which they identify, they may be exhibiting signs of illness.

There appeared to be a need to further explain exactly what is and is not considered delusional by the professional community.

Those that call religions believers delusional or label them as having some psychiatric illness are offering very weak arguments and reveal themselves as bigoted.

Now are we clear?

[laconicsax]

30. Perfectly clear. You moved the goalposts rather than admit making a mistake.

Creationism, transubstantiation, and other specific religious beliefs clearly fall into the category of "fixed false beliefs that [are] held despite substantial evidence to the contrary," which you defined as a delusion. This demonstrates your statement that religious beliefs are not delusional to be false. Rather than admit that you were in error, you first dodged the issue entirely and then added "for the most part" in classic goalpost-moving fashion.

Something I decided to not post in response to your initial non-answer was a mention of how specifically exempting religious beliefs indicates a clear and recognized commonality between those exempted beliefs and DSM-grade delusion.

If they were completely dissimilar, such an exemption would be completely unnecessary.

Religious belief often displays signs of delusion and some common beliefs are clearly delusional. That's simply a statement of fact. It doesn't say that all religious beliefs are, in themselves, delusions nor that all religious persons are in need of psychiatric care.

[cbayer]

35. Once again, your condescension and need to "school" others and win your point

make it most unpleasant to have a discussion with you.

If you want to go on saying that religious beliefs are delusional, so be it. It makes you look foolish and it is patently untrue with no data to back it up.

If you just want to corner someone, poke your finger in their face and argue semantics, go find someone else.

I think I am done with you.

[skepticscott]

37. Please stop pretending

that you are interested in having anything resembling a meaningful discussion with anyone who doesn't reinforce your preconceived views, or who dares to ask questions that require you to re-examine your own publicly stated beliefs. To you, the only "meaningful" discussions seem to be limited to "good read!", "good, thoughtful post", or "I agree with you completely".

Apparently anyone who has the gall to demolish your arguments, expose your hypocrisy or generally make you look bad gets put on ignore.

[laconicsax]

38. LOL! Two counter examples is condescension?

I provided two examples of religious beliefs that clearly met your definition of "delusion." I'd say that's plenty "data" to claim, as I have, that some religious beliefs are clearly delusional.

Did I say that all religious beliefs are delusional? No.
Did I say that some are? Yes, and I gave examples that met your definition of "delusion."
Did I say that religious beliefs often display signs of delusion? Yes, and you actually provided the support for that one.

There's something very interesting in your feeling condescended to and cornered by a single comment that provides two counter examples to something you claimed is universally true. If you can't handle being contradicted with clear evidence that you're mistaken, Internet discussion forums may not be for you.

A friendly suggestion though, if you disagree and wish to continue discussing things on the Internet: Try to avoid sweeping generalizations and learn to acknowledge mistakes and move on. I think you'll find that you're met with "condescension" in the form of brief counter examples if you do.

[longship]

27. A good, in-depth read.

I keep pitching this book here because it lays down some very important suggestions on how to proceed. It is constructive, although many fundementalists will not see it as such.

Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon by Daniel C. Dennett is a very erudite look at religion from the very point of view as is recommended in this article. Dennett, a philosopher and neuroscientist by trade, delves into the evolutionary, cultural, and other origins of religion. It's a very probing, insightful read. It is decidedly not a polemic against religion (ala Hitchens, and to a lesser extent, Dawkins and Harris). But it puts many aspects of the religious experience into (hopefully) sharper focus.

Here's the Wiki link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breaking_the_Spell:_Religion_as_a_Natural_Phenomenon