Brain Differences Found Between in Believers in God and Non-Believers
-
Nope. I would say that anyone who knows absolutely everything they think is right and there is nothing beyond that conforms quite nicely to a definition of arrogant though, I don't have those abilities. Of course, having belief is kind of like a global get out cause for that and almost anything else. There is a wonderful phrase that runs all through the laws of association football which reads "if in the opinion of the referee". This essentially means that the referee can never be wrong. Belief gives you the same get out. The answer to the question "why" can always be "because that is what I believe" and it cannot be countered in any way.
“I believe that there is an equality to all humanity. We all suck.” Bill Hicks
Quote:
I would say that anyone who knows absolutely everything they think is right and there is nothing beyond that conforms quite nicely to a definition of arrogant though
I don't think I know anyone who thinks everything they believe is completely correct.
Quote:
The answer to the question "why" can always be "because that is what I believe" and it cannot be countered in any way.
Agreed.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
There are plenty of other people I would have expected that answer from. It's easy to say that when you live in a country of relative freedom, but think of the fact that there are still many countries where it could render you a terminal punishment to have the wrong belief.
"The ones who care enough to do it right care too much to compromise." Matthew Faithfull
I'm sorry, I was applying this term purely to people from the UK. I know plenty of young people here in the UK who told their parents that they weren't interested in the religion (whichever religion it was) that their parents were trying to keep them to. I respect them. I also respect those who believe. The one's I don't respect here are the ones who don't believe but go out of some desire not to offend their parents. Ultimately, they will end up making their life and their parents life a complete misery.
I was brought up to respect my elders. I don't respect many people nowadays.
CodeStash - Online Snippet Management | My blog | MoXAML PowerToys | Mole 2010 - debugging made easier -
I believe that's the answer I didn't know I was looking for. :thumbsup:
"The ones who care enough to do it right care too much to compromise." Matthew Faithfull
-
I'm sorry, I was applying this term purely to people from the UK. I know plenty of young people here in the UK who told their parents that they weren't interested in the religion (whichever religion it was) that their parents were trying to keep them to. I respect them. I also respect those who believe. The one's I don't respect here are the ones who don't believe but go out of some desire not to offend their parents. Ultimately, they will end up making their life and their parents life a complete misery.
I was brought up to respect my elders. I don't respect many people nowadays.
CodeStash - Online Snippet Management | My blog | MoXAML PowerToys | Mole 2010 - debugging made easierI believe that those parents are atleast as much to blame. So, what are the reasons? Well you mentioned cowardice. Let me mention fear. Whos fault is that? You mentioned some desire not to offend. How about lack of integrity? Who's fault would that be? It's not that simple.
"The ones who care enough to do it right care too much to compromise." Matthew Faithfull
-
Jörgen Andersson wrote:
What would the word be for the ones that are "practicing" without believing
I'd call them cowards.
I was brought up to respect my elders. I don't respect many people nowadays.
CodeStash - Online Snippet Management | My blog | MoXAML PowerToys | Mole 2010 - debugging made easierAmen, brother... :)
I wasn't, now I am, then I won't be anymore.
-
The word we use in Sweden would translate to exercising. Both practicing and exercising are synonyms to training. What would the word be for the ones that are "practicing" without believing? Because I know several people that considers themselves as believers but they usually don't go to church and don't think of themselves as practicing. So in my world the ones believing were called believers, and the ones going to church, practitioners.
"The ones who care enough to do it right care too much to compromise." Matthew Faithfull
Quote:
Both practicing and exercising are synonyms to training.
"Practicing" also has the meaning of "actively doing", such as "a practicing doctor" is a doctor doing doctor stuff, usually in a doctor's "practice".
- Life in the fast lane is only fun if you live in a country with no speed limits. - Of all the things I have lost, it is my mind that I miss the most. - I vaguely remember having a good memory...
-
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090304160400.htm. I suspect believers make terrible programmers.
-
Jörgen Andersson wrote:
I remember a guy at school that was "practicing" because it was expected by his family, he didn't actually believe
Then he wasn't really practicing was he? He was just going through the motions.
I was brought up to respect my elders. I don't respect many people nowadays.
CodeStash - Online Snippet Management | My blog | MoXAML PowerToys | Mole 2010 - debugging made easierPete O'Hanlon wrote:
Then he wasn't really practicing was he? He was just going through the motions.
I doubt the validity of that definition. In normal terms "practicing" means the person's behavior meets the expect norms or rules of the church/religion. Thus it is actions, not belief that defines it. In support of that many people say when they are asked what their religion is that they are 'X' but that they are 'non-practicing'.
-
The word we use in Sweden would translate to exercising. Both practicing and exercising are synonyms to training. What would the word be for the ones that are "practicing" without believing? Because I know several people that considers themselves as believers but they usually don't go to church and don't think of themselves as practicing. So in my world the ones believing were called believers, and the ones going to church, practitioners.
"The ones who care enough to do it right care too much to compromise." Matthew Faithfull
Jörgen Andersson wrote:
What would the word be for the ones that are "practicing" without believing?
I doubt there is a need for that word because there are few that would admit to it. If one is practicing without belief then it would be for gain or fear of reprisal. And admitting non-belief would lead to both of those.
-
It's quite simple: a practising Christian is one who believes in God, and tries to follow the teachings of Jesus. Whether they go to church or not is irrelevant, it is what is in the heart that matters. And we use the term 'practising', because however much we try, we will never be perfect.
Use the best guess
Richard MacCutchan wrote:
It's quite simple: a practising Christian is one who believes in God, and tries to follow the teachings of Jesus. Whether they go to church or not is irrelevant, it is what is in the heart that matters. And we use the term 'practising', because however much we try, we will never be perfect.
Sorry but I have never heard that definition before. The usage of the word that I have heard does not agree with that.
-
As our Hungarian friend so succinctly put it : "what bollocks". Tests such as these are far from scientific, and have as much relationship to truth and reality as a politician's promises.
Use the best guess
Richard MacCutchan wrote:
Tests such as these are far from scientific, and have as much relationship to truth and reality as a politician's promises.
Huh? You are disputing the results of the study? And/or the current understanding of the brain? Or are you just disputing the conclusion of the first poster which has far as I can tell has nothing to do with the article (and thus nothing to do with science either)?
-
AspDotNetDev wrote:
I suspect believers make terrible programmers.
I fail to see the correlation between what was reported in that article and your conclusion.
-
ryanb31 wrote:
How so? The article states, "They're much less anxious and feel less stressed when they have made an error."
It also says that they have less activity in recognizing their own errors. That is horrible programming and horrible engineering... In fact science itself is the based on the idea of making a hypothesis and then proving it wrong or right. If you can not even recognize your own errors, then by default you are a poor scientist.
Quote:
"Obviously, anxiety can be negative because if you have too much, you're paralyzed with fear," he says. "However, it also serves a very useful function in that it alerts us when we're making mistakes. If you don't experience anxiety when you make an error, what impetus do you have to change or improve your behaviour so you don't make the same mistakes again and again?"
Quote: Albert Einstein
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
I have a few other definitions of insanity that are applicable here, but I will keep it civil ;)
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
It also says that they have less activity in recognizing their own errors. That is horrible programming and horrible engineering... In fact science itself is the based on the idea of making a hypothesis and then proving it wrong or right. If you can not even recognize your own errors, then by default you are a poor scientist.
Sorry but that is not how I read the article. What is says is that WHEN they spot an error they are less anxious about it. It has nothing to do with whether they spot it or not in the first place.
-
Pete O'Hanlon wrote:
Then he wasn't really practicing was he? He was just going through the motions.
I doubt the validity of that definition. In normal terms "practicing" means the person's behavior meets the expect norms or rules of the church/religion. Thus it is actions, not belief that defines it. In support of that many people say when they are asked what their religion is that they are 'X' but that they are 'non-practicing'.
Oh, that's what I thought. But since everyone told me I was wrong and English isn't my first language...
"The ones who care enough to do it right care too much to compromise." Matthew Faithfull
-
ryanb31 wrote:
But that is not what it said. It said there was less activity. It did not say they are brain dead and can't see their own errors. They don't freak out over them.
Actually you are reading it wrong....
Quote:
Compared to non-believers, the religious participants showed significantly less activity in the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), a portion of the brain that helps modify behavior by signaling when attention and control are needed
This means the believers have less control. In other words they are ignoring the state around them. While in some cases this results in less error, that is because instincts kick in and often are correct. The non-believers over think the situation and an error can occur. However, in the world of science and new territory instinct is not enough.
ryanb31 wrote:
For one, standards and ethics. This article does not go into it but those who believe in God also tend to have better work ethics and standards.
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: Says you! Now you are just backing up your claim that belief is better with asinine assertions that have no evidence. *golf clap*
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
This means the believers have less control. In other words they are ignoring the state around them. While in some cases this results in less error, that is because instincts kick in and often are correct. The non-believers over think the situation and an error can occur. However, in the world of science and new territory instinct is not enough.
Sorry but that isn't what it says. The section that you quote also follows with... "...the less their ACC fired in response to their own errors, and the fewer errors they made." You certainly can't respond to an error if you never saw it in the first place. There is nothing at all in the article that suggests that the test had anything to do with finding errors in the first place. And since the article states that a "Stroop task" was used it would seem to me virtually impossible that finding errors had any part in the study. The response measured could have only occurred as the participants recognized their own mistakes or had their mistakes specifically pointed out to them.
-
Deities and belief in them stems from man trying to explain things he couldn't. No deity has ever dictated levels of standards or morals, men claiming to act on behalf of deities have done that in order to control other men. If it doesn't matter what you believe in, as long as you pick something, then that gives anyone free range to act as they want so long as their particular deity has provided them the mandate.
“I believe that there is an equality to all humanity. We all suck.” Bill Hicks
ChrisElston wrote:
No deity has ever dictated levels of standards or morals, men claiming to act on behalf of deities have done that in order to control other men.
Which is your belief held by you to explain it. Basic logic is based on assumptions and so is science. If one starts with an assumption in a diety then one can't circularly argue that the assumption is invalid because they don't like the assumption. If you don't accept the assumption then that is the end of the argument. But if you start with the assumption then positing an explanation for everything else is trivial. Consequently if one starts with the assumption that diety exists then it is easy to state that standards\morales came from it. If one states that the diety doesn't exist the of course standards\morales didn't come from it. But neither of those validate\invalidate the assumption. And it is belief and only belief that leads one to accept one assumption over the other.
-
That's quite a cynical view and I would protest that most people that believe in God do not fit into your description. You clearly do not believe and you are biased by the radicals that make the news or your own isolated experiences.
Quote:
Deities and belief in them stems from man trying to explain things he couldn't.
Certain men, prophets, have claimed to talk with God. Billions and billions believe in God and it has nothing to do with trying to explain things we can't on our own. I challenge you to survey people who do believe in God and find out why. It has nothing to do with trying to fill a gap of knowledge.
Quote:
No deity has ever dictated levels of standards or morals
That's your opinion. I disagree.
Quote:
in order to control other men.
Again, quite cynical. Yes, some in history have been that way. But what benefit do I get from claiming that god says killing is wrong? How am I "trying to control other men." What's the purpose then?
Quote:
then that gives anyone free range to act as they want so long as their particular deity has provided them the mandate.
And how is that different than not believing in God? Where do morals come from then?
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
ryanb31 wrote:
Again, quite cynical. Yes, some in history have been that way. But what benefit do I get from claiming that god says killing is wrong? How am I "trying to control other men." What's the purpose then?
Err....except of course history if full of examples where that morale code existed and yet the religion that was pushing it ALSO accept that it was completely ok to kill people for a vast number of things and in a vast number of ways. The fact that you do not attempt to control other people doesn't mean that others are not using it to control people. Matter of fact anyone with even a some knowledge of history and current events would be hard pressed to claim that there are many people being 'controlled'. As one example the Catholic church specifically forbids birth control. For that church it isn't a matter of the people making that decision but rather the church itself - specifically the Pope and bishops. Not sure how anyone could claim that wasn't control and that religiion wasn't specifically doing it. And noting of course that per the basis of that religion if you do not follow the edicts of the Pope then you are not a Catholic.
ryanb31 wrote:
Where do morals come from then?
Kidding right? Same place the US Constitution came from. Same place the Euro came from. Same place the banning of teaching women comes from.
-
I believe suspecters make terrible reviewers of articles.
“I believe that there is an equality to all humanity. We all suck.” Bill Hicks
-
ryanb31 wrote:
Again, quite cynical. Yes, some in history have been that way. But what benefit do I get from claiming that god says killing is wrong? How am I "trying to control other men." What's the purpose then?
Err....except of course history if full of examples where that morale code existed and yet the religion that was pushing it ALSO accept that it was completely ok to kill people for a vast number of things and in a vast number of ways. The fact that you do not attempt to control other people doesn't mean that others are not using it to control people. Matter of fact anyone with even a some knowledge of history and current events would be hard pressed to claim that there are many people being 'controlled'. As one example the Catholic church specifically forbids birth control. For that church it isn't a matter of the people making that decision but rather the church itself - specifically the Pope and bishops. Not sure how anyone could claim that wasn't control and that religiion wasn't specifically doing it. And noting of course that per the basis of that religion if you do not follow the edicts of the Pope then you are not a Catholic.
ryanb31 wrote:
Where do morals come from then?
Kidding right? Same place the US Constitution came from. Same place the Euro came from. Same place the banning of teaching women comes from.
Quote:
The fact that you do not attempt to control other people doesn't mean that others are not using it to control people.
Yes, agreed and already stated.
Quote:
As one example the Catholic church specifically forbids birth control.
But they also forbid murder, right? And aren't you OK with that one? They also forbid stealing, which I can imagine you agree with. So, doesn't that say you agree with them controlling some things?
Quote:
Kidding right? Same place the US Constitution came from. Same place the Euro came from. Same place the banning of teaching women comes from.
No, morals are personal. So, answer the question then, where do your morals come from?
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
AspDotNetDev wrote:
I suspect believers make terrible programmers.
I fail to see the correlation between what was reported in that article and your conclusion.
I'd rather call it my hypothesis than my conclusion. Here's the bit that stood out to me:
Article:
If you don't experience anxiety when you make an error, what impetus do you have to change or improve your behaviour so you don't make the same mistakes again and again?
Errors are a common occurrence in programming. Learning from them is key to become better at programming.