Scientific Evidence for God

[joshua 1 9]

"To believe in a supernatural god or universal spirit, people appear to suppress the brain network used for analytical thinking and engage the empathetic network, the scientists say. When thinking analytically about the physical world, people appear to do the opposite." http://blog.case.edu/think/2016/03/23/the_conflict_between_science_and_religion_lies_in_our_brains

"Recent advances in neuroscience and brain-imaging technology have offered researchers a look into the physiology of religious experiences. In observing Buddhist monks as they meditate, Franciscan nuns as they pray and Pentecostals as they speak in tongues, Dr. Andrew Newberg, a radiologist at the University of Pennsylvania, has found that measurable brain activity matches up with the religious experiences described by worshippers." http://www.pewforum.org/2008/05/05/how-our-brains-are-wired-for-belief/

 

[Shemjaza]

"To believe in a supernatural god or universal spirit, people appear to suppress the brain network used for analytical thinking and engage the empathetic network, the scientists say. When thinking analytically about the physical world, people appear to do the opposite." http://blog.case.edu/think/2016/03/23/the_conflict_between_science_and_religion_lies_in_our_brains

"Recent advances in neuroscience and brain-imaging technology have offered researchers a look into the physiology of religious experiences. In observing Buddhist monks as they meditate, Franciscan nuns as they pray and Pentecostals as they speak in tongues, Dr. Andrew Newberg, a radiologist at the University of Pennsylvania, has found that measurable brain activity matches up with the religious experiences described by worshippers." http://www.pewforum.org/2008/05/05/how-our-brains-are-wired-for-belief/

Certainly evidence for religious belief.

I wasn't aware that the existence of religions was controversial.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Certainly evidence for religious belief.

I wasn't aware that the existence of religions was controversial.

The point is if you scan the brain of a theist and compare that to an atheist different areas of the brain function. That is why both sides claim that the brain of the other group is shut down and not functioning and there is scientific evidence that can show that is true.

 

[Loudmouth]

The point is if you scan the brain of a theist and compare that to an atheist different areas of the brain function. That is why both sides claim that the brain of the other group is shut down and not functioning and there is scientific evidence that can show that is true.

It appears that the analytical side or your brain was shut off when you crafted this argument. You appear to be agreeing that belief in God is based on emotion, not evidence.

 

[lesliedellow]

It appears that the analytical side or your brain was shut off when you crafted this argument. You appear to be agreeing that belief in God is based on emotion, not evidence.

You are presupposing that prayer cannot impart knowledge of a being called God. A thorough going solipsist can doubt whether there is any objective reality behind his sense experiences, but that does not mean that there is no reality there. In both cases, proof that some kind of objective reality exists is impossible, so it comes down to deciding whether or not it makes sense to you to believe that an objective reality exists.

 

[Loudmouth]

You are presupposing that prayer cannot impart knowledge of a being called God.

If you have evidence that a supernatural deity imparts knowledge during prayer, then it is up to you to provide the evidence that this is so. The burden of proof doesn't lie with people who are skeptical of a claim.

In both cases, proof that some kind of objective reality exists is impossible, so it comes down to deciding whether or not it makes sense to you to believe that an objective reality exists.

I would agree that you have to ignore objectivity in order to hold on to religious beliefs.

 

[lesliedellow]

If you have evidence that a supernatural deity imparts knowledge during prayer, then it is up to you to provide the evidence that this is so. The burden of proof doesn't lie with people who are skeptical of a claim.

It can't be proved, as I said in the second half of my post.

I would agree that you have to ignore objectivity in order to hold on to religious beliefs.

You are deliberately missing the point.

 

[joshua 1 9]

It appears that the analytical side or your brain was shut off when you crafted this argument. You appear to be agreeing that belief in God is based on emotion, not evidence.

Yes from the results of the scan shows that Christians have one part of the brain turned off and another part turned on and also atheists have one part of the brain turned off and another part turned on. So communication is very difficult between them. One always accusing the other of being in darkness.

 

[Loudmouth]

It can't be proved, as I said in the second half of my post.

That's what the opening post is talking about. The analytical part of your brain makes judgements based on evidence and facts. The emotive part of your brain makes decisions on emotion.

You are deliberately missing the point.

The irony is noted.

 

[joshua 1 9]

If you have evidence that a supernatural deity imparts knowledge during prayer, then it is up to you to provide the evidence that this is so.

The ct scan evidence shows that there is brain activity during prayer. Analytical thinking can cause people to believe less in God. Intuitive processing that seems to promote religious beliefs.

http://www.livescience.com/19923-analytic-thinking-religious-disbelief.html#sthash.9Iyc4dSy.dpuf

 

[Loudmouth]

The ct scan evidence shows that there is brain activity during prayer.

There is also brain activity when people write fictional stories.

Analytical thinking can cause people to believe less in God.

Couldn't agree more.

Intuitive processing that seems to promote religious beliefs.

Intuitive thinking is also what leads to false conclusions.

 

[lesliedellow]

That's what the opening post is talking about. The analytical part of your brain makes judgements based on evidence and facts. The emotive part of your brain makes decisions on emotion.

We have a disagreement over whether the right hand side of our brains can contribute anything useful, and your presupposition is that it can't. It is, nevertheless, a presupposition.

The irony is noted.

No irony.

 

[Loudmouth]

We have a disagreement over whether the right hand side of our brains can contribute anything useful, and your presupposition is that it can't.

Do you find emotional responses lacking analytical and objective reasoning to be useful?

 

[lesliedellow]

Do you find emotional responses lacking analytical and objective reasoning to be useful?

Yes I do. Not when I am reading a physics textbook, admittedly.

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes I do. Not when I am reading a physics textbook, admittedly.

Do you find it useful for determining what is true about reality?

 

[lesliedellow]

Do you find it useful for determining what is true about reality?

1.)I find it useful when communing with God, and in more mundane situations here on Earth.

2.) If you ask a professional physicist what his criteria for determining whether a theory might be true, one of his responses will be to say that it has a greater chance of being true if the mathematics is beautiful. Clearly he is using his aesthetic sense there. Admittedly he will also say that beauty doesn't guarantee the truth of a theory, but, if it is ugly, you don't stand a chance of it being correct.

 

[Loudmouth]

1.)I find it useful when communing with God, and in more mundane situations here on Earth.

Doesn't answer the question.

2.) If you ask a professional physicist what his criteria for determining whether a theory might be true, one of his responses will be to say that it has a greater chance of being true if the mathematics is beautiful. Clearly he is using his aesthetic sense there. Admittedly he will also say that beauty doesn't guarantee the truth of a theory, but, if it is ugly, you don't stand a chance of it being correct.

As you say, professional physicists use objective evidence and analyze data to determine if a theory is true. They don't determine the accuracy of a theory using emotions.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Do you find emotional responses lacking analytical and objective reasoning to be useful?

If your so analytical then why do you keep substituting the word emotional for intuitive? Does being analytical mean you deny the truth? I would think if your mind really was analytical then you would know the truth all the more.

 

[Loudmouth]

If your so analytical . . .

The proper word to use is "you're" which is a contraction for "you are".

then why do you keep substituting the word emotional for intuitive?

Same thing.

Does being analytical mean you deny the truth?

How do you jump from intuitive to true? Intuitively, humans thought the Sun moved about the Earth because they couldn't feel the Earth moving. Does that make it true?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I'm having trouble seeing how scans showing that different areas of the brain are more or less active depending on the kind of mental activity being undertaken (as one would surely expect?) is supposed to be evidence for God...

Perhaps the OP could explain what I'm missing here?