The term ‘peer’ is subjective and depending on how one defines it. It no point getting too serious about it.
As I had stated what counts is the substance of the counter arguments from the other side.
When I post in philosophy forums I am expecting the following;
Sound and credible counter arguments of substance,
Even if the arguments are not of substance, I will still discuss some it [in this case and others] that enable a refresher of knowledge I have learned. Note I don’t participate in all areas and questions raised in this forum.
Even at present scientists are able to link religious variables to certain parts of the brain using fMRI imagings. But this is still at a very crude stage.
Note the Human Connectome Project.
The objective of the HCP is to map all the neuron pathways in the brain and relate them to their functions.
Once it was thought mapping the Human Genome was impossible, but scientists had already done that - which give optimism for the possibility of the HCP.
HCP is definitely tough but not impossible, even if we can achieve a 75% completeness it would something significant and will enable scientists to differentiate anxiety cells and their pathways between being religious and eating a piece of chocolate.
Correct. We are free of the law. Salvation has superseded it, but the caveat of salvation is that we must believe in order to be saved. I find no aspect of theistic religions that is without a conditional clause.
That’s a good point. It is problematic for someone in the dark to find a way out as they’re not able to see the way out. That’s where a set of guiding principles comes in, which can be offered by a religion or a secular means of self-improvement.
Which law do I follow / which thing do I believe? (presumption to know)
I do the right works and you don’t / I believe the right thing and you don’t. (cause for bragging)
How can I make myself do the unnatural / how can I make myself believe in something? (voluntarily doing the involuntary)
So, nothing has changed; only the names.
How can we decide which guiding principles to choose?
This reminds me of something Alan Watts said:
[i]I went to a meeting of geneticists not so long ago where they gathered in a group of philosophers and theologians and said, “Now look here; we need help! We now are on the verge of figuring out how to breed any kind of human character we would want to have. We can give you saints, philosophers, scientists, great politicians, anything you want; just tell us what kind of human beings ought we to breed.”
So I said how will those of us who are genetically unregenerate make up our minds what genetically generated people might be? Because I’m afraid very much that our selection of virtues and may not work. It may be like, for example, this new kind of high-yield grain which is made and which is becoming ecologically destructive. When we interfere with the processes of nature and breed ‘efficient plants’ and ‘efficient animals’, there’s always some way in which we have to pay for it and I can well-see that eugenically produced human beings might be dreadful; we could have a plague of virtuous people![/i]
If we are in a state of disrepair, how can we presume to know how to repair ourselves? All too often it is arrogance and if arrogance is the defect, then how can we cavalierly prune it out? We’re beating a drum in search of a fugitive lol
That is the claim, but I remain sceptical. Because certain cells react to certain “anxiety” causing stimuli in mice, does not as a certainty mean that they are “anxiety cells". If you want to buy that it is your discretion, but don’t expect others to jump in the boat with you.
Again, from 4 to 5 is an epic leap.
Yet another epic leap. That you think these points demonstrate anything substantive is an error of judgement or logic IMV. These points are at best speculative.
I don’t doubt that there are many effective methods of reducing anxiety, but I’m not willing to speculate about the possibility of there being “anxiety cells” that can be modulated, because scientists claim to have found anxiety cells in mice. If such a breakthrough is made in the study of human physiology and is well supported, then I will begin to speculate.
That is entirely your choice. Note, there is no negative reflection on others if they choose not to think as you are. There are differing degrees of what people find acceptable and reasonable.
Sorry, but I don’t understand what you mean here.
I think that my refutations of your argument are valid, you don’t. We will have to agree to disagree.
Think of me what you will. The fact is, you stated that your argument/syllogism re “God is an impossibility” is perfect.
Are you serious? There is a reason that I don’t link anxiety, mice and religion as a whole. I don’t see the correlation and certainly not causation at this stage.
I don’t agree that existential angst is “DNA ordained” rightly or wrongly. I think that the cause of existential angst is the knowledge that we will one day cease to exist.
Not really no, it doesn’t state anything that I wasn’t generally aware of. I don’t think that your excerpt supports your argument that existential angst is “DNA ordained” and I don’t see why you think it does either?
I disagree. Can you support your argumentation here?
Hold on a minute. The claim is that scientists found anxiety cells in mice, how does it follow therefrom that anxiety cells led to the creation of religion? Not in terms of your opinion, but factually.
That is the million dollar question. I suppose that when we’re down, we choose the guiding principle that offers the best potential view of our future selves?
Human beings already know what’s good them, but they become distracted and confused. Once they realize their error, then they can choose the good guiding principles. That’s a common concept in all but the nihilistic philosophies/religions.
The whole process of nature is an integrated process of immense complexity and it is really impossible to tell whether anything that happens in it is good or bad because you never know what will be the consequences of the misfortune or you never know what will be the consequences of good fortune.
What does it mean to be down? Yes I think when people are down they choose religion as a convenient way to feel uplifted (superior). Churches prey on praying people.
That’s why the Stoics say that the things over which you have no control are neither good or bad … they are indifferent. The things over which you have control are either good or bad - your thoughts and your actions.
The Taoist are opposite and claim that your nature is infinitely more wise than your consciousness. The Zen school is often called the sudden school because it discourages thinking about solutions in lieu of spontaneity; in other words, do something quickly even if it’s “wrong”.
Yeah, I thought of that. I’m not sure how the Taoists rationalize that. Apparently, I am the illusion and therefore any conscious thoughts I have aren’t real, but the illusion also exists in reality, so I’m not sure of the differentiation.
Animals think.
I don’t think the idea is to throw the brain in the trash but to let the unconscious part take more control than the conscious. Don’t think, but feel.
Haha yeah I can see that, but I see them stop and appear to be pondering what to do next so they’re not always spontaneous. And animals evolved into humans right? So where is the line drawn between the thinkers and instincters?
By “down”, I mean at a point where self destructive behaviours have led to a person hitting rock bottom, where their life is in tatters and they’re not able to function effectively. I think that at this stage people are very vulnerable, because if they cannot lift themselves out of the bad situation, any course of action or guiding principle offering redemption will seem like a way out to them. So I agree that churches can prey on praying people, but if they can offer a route out of trouble a person could take a calculated risk. If religion does help them, then the person who’s helped (should they become religious) may conclude that it is God who has helped them; not seeing how much they did to help themselves.
I agree, but some people aren’t able to abate self-destructive behaviours, even though they’re aware that such behaviours are extremely detrimental to their well-being. Good guiding principles are practicably a form of “a saviour”, but not everyone has the self-awareness necessary to recognise when they need them.
.