(via TheCounterweight1)
From The Genius of Charles Darwin Uncut Interviews
http://richarddawkins.net/store
http://atheistplanet.blogspot.com/
This blog is about being a Atheist who sometimes has to be hidden. I was raised as a lutheran, attended private schools most of my life. One day I came to my senses and realized everything I had been taught was a lie. I came to realize the stress believing in some imaginary god was hurting me. Myths are myths if the greek gods, the egyptian gods etc etc are all myths, then why must the christian god be real? Its not it too is a myth.
(via TheCounterweight1)
From The Genius of Charles Darwin Uncut Interviews
http://richarddawkins.net/store
http://atheistplanet.blogspot.com/
Don't be fooled by headlines suggesting neuroscience researchers have found the "God spot" in the brain that triggers religious devotion, say experts. Yes, it's back to the drawing board with our "worship me now, fools" raygun.
Reuters' FaithWorld blog has been covering the University of Pennsylvania's Neuroscience Boot Camp, going on now, and one message has become clear:
You can forget about the "God spot" that headline writers love to highlight (as in "‘God spot' is found in Brain" or "Scientists Locate ‘God Spot' in Human Brain"). There is no one place in the brain responsible for religion, just as there is no single location in the brain for love or language or identity. Most popular articles these days actually say that, but the headline writers continue to speak of a single spot.
"There isn't a separate religious area of the brain, from what we can tell from the data," said Dr. Andrew Newberg, an associate professor of radiology and psychiatry at the Penn university hospital and author of several books on neuroscience and religion. "It's not like there's a little spiritual spot that lights up every time somebody thinks of God. When you look at religious and spiritual experiences, they are incredibly rich and diverse. Sometimes people find them on the emotional level, sometimes on an ideological level, sometimes they perceive a oneness, sometimes they perceive a person. It depends a lot on what the actual experience is."
The image above shows two different brain scans, one from someone who is singing, and the other one from someone who is speaking in tongues. They look almost entirely identical, but you can just about glimpse a slight difference in blood flow to the frontal lobe, and specifically to the left caudate, among the "speaking in tongues" brains. (Thanks to The NeuroCritic for the image, and for pointing out that the study's authors admit their "results were hypothesis driven.")
The FaithBlog quotes neurological researcher Geoff Aguirre as pouring cold water on the idea that an fMRI scanner is like a mind reader, and calls the idea that you could use an fMRI to catch terrorists "science fiction, science fantasy." Adds Aguirre:
There's definitely an esthetic in the presentation of this data. People see this as a natural aspect of the brain, not the result of tests. Some groups made a very wise investment in the display technology for how neuroimaging results were reported. Those were the images that got displayed on the covers of the top scientific journals and made a splash.
I also love his comments about "Cartesian dualism," in which people try to claim that someone's actions weren't his fault because "his brain did that." (As if he and his brain are two separate beings.)
[Reuters and The NeuroCritic]
(via io9 - Can You See The "God Spot" In This Brain Scan? Neither Can We [Mad Neuroscience])
Charlie Jane Anders
Tue, 11 Aug 2009 23:30:00 GMT
I remember studying ancient Greek and Roman gods in high school. Everybody knew it was complete nonsense — those gods didn’t really exist — but it was interesting (or so we were told) because so much ancient literature revolved around those characters.
So if the teacher had made the comment that Greek mythical characters were “religious, superstitious nonsense” and had no basis in reality there would have been no problem.
But James Corbett said it about creationism in the classroom, and in March, he lost a 16-month legal battle, with the court concluding he violated the first amendment:
“Corbett states an unequivocal belief that Creationism is ’superstitious nonsense,’” U.S. District Court Judge James Selna said in a 37-page ruling released from his Santa Ana courtroom. “The court cannot discern a legitimate secular purpose in this statement, even when considered in context.”
The establishment clause prohibits the government from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion” and has been interpreted by U.S. courts to also prohibit government employees from displaying religious hostility.
Creationism is religious, superstitious nonsense. It is not based on history or science, but on an ancient book. If children want to believe that, they can — but I think it’s a teacher’s role to show them that those beliefs do not have a basis in reality.
But was Mr. Corbett going over the line when he called it “religious, superstitious nonsense” — or was he simply stating a fact that should be protected under his 1st Amendment rights?
Teachers Can’t Criticize Creationism?
Daniel Florien
Tue, 11 Aug 2009 09:00:05 GMT