Would an Atheist accept an organ Donation from a vMurderer

CDfm

A recend Sunday Times article says that religious belief is natural and that children are predisposed to believe and that atheism is unatural.

It also says that atheists once surveyed say they would not accept an organ donation from a murderer.

Here is the Sunday times article

September 6, 2009
We are born to believe in God

Jonathan Leake and Andrew Sniderman



ATHEISM really may be fighting against nature: humans have been hardwired by evolution to believe in God, scientists have suggested.
The idea has emerged from studies of the way children’s brains develop and of the workings of the brain during religious experiences. They suggest that during evolution groups of humans with religious tendencies began to benefit from their beliefs, perhaps because they tended to work together better and so stood a greater chance of survival.
The findings challenge campaigners against organised religion, such as Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion. He has long argued that religious beliefs result from poor education and childhood “indoctrination”.
Bruce Hood, professor of developmental psychology at Bristol University, believes the picture is more complex. “Our research shows children have a natural, intuitive way of reasoning that leads them to all kinds of supernatural beliefs about how the world works,” he said.


“As they grow up they overlay these beliefs with more rational approaches but the tendency to illogical supernatural beliefs remains as religion.”
Hood, who will present his findings at the British Science Association’s annual meeting this week, sees organised religion as just part of a spectrum of supernatural beliefs.
In one study he found even ardent atheists balked at the idea of accepting an organ transplant from a murderer, because of a superstitious belief that an individual’s personality could be stored in their organs. “This shows how superstition is hardwired into our brains,” he said.
His work is supported by other researchers who have found evidence linking religious feelings and experience to particular regions of the brain. They suggest people are programmed to get a feeling of spirituality from what is nothing more than electrical activity in these regions.
Andrew Newberg, professor of radiology at the University of Pennsylvania, has used brain-imaging techniques to show that such feelings are invoked by activity in “belief networks” operating across the brain. This supersedes the earlier concept of a “God spot”, activated during meditation or prayer.
“The temporal lobe interacts with many other parts of the brain to provide the full range of religious and spiritual experiences,” he said.
This mechanistic view of religious experience is reinforced by separate research carried out by Michael Persinger of Laurentian University, Ontario, who has used powerful magnetic fields to induce visions and spiritual experiences in volunteers.
Barbara Hagerty became one of Persinger’s subjects while researching Fingertips of God, a book on brain processes underlying religion. “I saw images and cartoonish figures. It didn’t convince me there was no God, but it did show me how much the brain is connected to our beliefs and perceptions,” she said.
Some researchers argue that humans’ innate tendency towards supernatural beliefs explains why many people become religious as adults, despite not having been brought up within any faith. Scientists believe that the durability of religion is in part because it helps people to bond.
Professor Pascal Boyer, an anthropologist at Washington University and author of Religion Explained, supports Hood’s view that the origins of religion may lie in common childhood experiences. In a recent article in Nature, the science journal, he said: “From childhood, humans form enduring and important social relationships with fictional characters, imaginary friends, deceased relatives, unseen heroes and fantasised mates.
“It is a small step from this to conceptualising spirits, dead ancestors and gods, who are neither visible nor tangible.” Boyer holds out little hope for atheism. “Religious thinking seems to be the path of least resistance for our cognitive systems,” he said. “By contrast, disbelief is generally the work of deliberate, effortful work against our natural cognitive dispositions — hardly the easiest ideology to propagate.”
The Rev Michael Reiss, who is professor of science education at London University’s Institute of Education and also an Anglican priest, said he saw no reason why such research should undermine religious belief.
“I am quite sure there will be a biological basis to religious faith,” Reiss said. “We are evolved creatures and the whole point about humanity is that we are rooted in the natural world.”

Turtwig

Hasn't Dawkins already said that belief in the supernatural is one of the downsides that arose from evolution?
As a child's survival depended on taking their parent's word for absolute truth (otherwise the child would eat something REAL bad, or jump off a cliff) it was more or less going to lead to our brains developing 'flaws' that would lead to spiritual perceptions being true.
Isn't our emotion before logic neurological wiring an argument for this sort of theory?

Which is why, atheism can be viewed as the evolution of 'rational' mind???

Also, that whole thing about organ donors sounds baloney, firstly what study and who carried it out (i.e People with anti atheist interest,neutrals)???
.

ChocolateSauce

CDfm wrote: »

A recend Sunday Times article says that religious belief is natural and that children are predisposed to believe and that atheism is unatural.

It also says that atheists once surveyed say they would not accept an organ donation from a murderer.

Here is the Sunday times article

I've always found the opposite to be true: Children can see through the lies and fabrications of holy books, and while they will jump to conclusions regarding ghosts and other such nonsense, they don't have a problem accepting the scientific explanations once they're given (unlike adults).

I'd accept a organ from Hitler, why would who it came from matter?

Hey, do you like my new liver? It's Hitler's!

Dave!

Yes I would accept an organ donation from a murderer

Because it means that the murderer must be dead

So therefore, it is more moral to accept an organ donation from a murderer

Therefore, atheists are more moral than everyone else !

*reads survey results*

Ahh sh*t...

MrPudding

Malty_T wrote: »

Hasn't Dawkins already said that belief in the supernatural is one of the downsides that arose from evolution?
As a child's survival depended on taking their parent's word for absolute truth (otherwise the child would eat something REAL bad, or jump off a cliff) it was more or less going to lead to our brains developing 'flaws' that would lead to spiritual perceptions being true.
Isn't our emotion before logic neurological wiring an argument for this sort of theory?

Which is why, atheism can be viewed as the evolution of 'rational' mind???

Also, that whole thing about organ donors sounds baloney, firstly what study and who carried it out (i.e People with anti atheist interest,neutrals)???
.

This exact subject has been covered a few times here. I don't think many of the regulars would disagree that humans appear to be predisposed to believing superstitious rubbish by default as a coping mechanism or a way to explain what we don't understand or to find reasons for why things are the way we are.

I think it is also quite a reasonable assertion that religion was a useful survival tool in the past, assuming of course you weren't lucky enough to be chosen to be sacrificed to the fickle god of the moment. People belonging to a group are more likely to look after each other. They are also, presumably, more likely to procreate with someone in the same group, thereby passing the believing genes on.

We are lucky to be living in an age where civilisation has advanced to a point where we have the luxury of not needing religion to increase the likelihood of survival. I think religion is a load of rubbish and have increasing difficulty understanding how people believe it, but I think think we should be good to each other and help those less fortunate than ourselves.

With the rise of fundamentalist religious adherents perhaps we are getting to a point where rather than giving a survival advantage perhaps religious belief will become a disadvantage. Unfortunately though I think it is a disadvantage to mankind as a whole rather than simply to those that believe it.

As for people who would turn down an organ that came from a murderer I think there are a number of possible reasons:

1) They are idiots.
2) They have never been in a position where they need an organ or they die.
3) They are idiots.

MrP

GLaDOS

Seeing how my choices would be

1)Live

or

2)Die

I think I'd take the organ

Myksyk

Yes. In fact we should kill the murderer to give me the organ.

ChocolateSauce

Myksyk wrote: »

Yes. In fact we should kill the murderer to give me the organ.

Like those godless Chinese?

Zombrex

I would happily accept an organ from a murder.

I get an organ and the murdered is dead. Win win isn't it?

Zombrex

The article is slightly misleading

Humans are hard wired to believe that human like agents are responsible for running the natural world around us. This belief leads to people happily accepting concepts like God, but it is inaccurate to say that children are hard wired to believe in God. They are hard wired to believe in things like God, but also a host of other similar concepts. Which is why if you are born in India you have little problem with the Hindu gods, born in America you have little problem with the Christian God, born in 8th century Norway the Viking gods. Exposed to no concept of a god, spirits and fairies.

Bloody Nipples

You're all assuming the murderer is dead when you receive one of his organs; what if you get one of his kidneys...

...and he wants it back! :eek:

fitz0

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Hey, do you like my new liver? It's Hitler's!

Hitler's liver would be cool, what a conversation starter.

As for the OP I would have no problem whatsoever taking an organ donation from a murderer, or criminal of any kind provided the tissue was healthy. Its not as though somebodies kidneys killed people or their heart burned down an orphanage(only in a metaphorical way).

Dades

I don't think I could take an organ from someone who had murdered an innocent person.

A small piano, alright. Or a baby grand, at a push.

fatmammycat

Re the article, Bruce Hood is pretty irritated at being misrepresented.
http://brucemhood.wordpress.com/2009/09/08/i-never-said/

Corkfeen

Myksyk wrote: »

Yes. In fact we should kill the murderer to give me the organ.

I agree, do you need an organ at the moment? Shouldn't have too much trouble finding serial killer.

Turtwig

fatmammycat wrote: »

Re the article, Bruce Hood is pretty irritated at being misrepresented.
http://brucemhood.wordpress.com/2009/09/08/i-never-said/

Thanks, feel sorry for Bruce.

Not surprisingly the media have twisted stuff yet again...honestly I don't even know why I bother reading their articles anymore.
As someone in NS once pleaded : leave science to the science media... not the general bulls@%tters

Nodin

Malty_T wrote: »

Thanks, feel sorry for Bruce.

Not surprisingly the media have twisted stuff yet again...honestly I don't even know why I bother reading their articles anymore.
As someone in NS once pleaded : leave science to the science media... not the general bulls@%tters

Or at least not a paper run by Rupert Murdoch....Theres even been a few 'political correctness gone mad' style rants in there lately. Maybe he thinks now theres a recession, 80's tabloidism will be in again.

Galvasean

I'd rather take a liver off a tee-totaling murderer than a very kind caring person who also happened to be a chronic alcoholic.

Zillah

Bloody hell who's the author of this confused article? At first they seem to be using this as an attack against the validity of atheism...but by the end they're presenting quote after quote presenting religion as a phenomenon with a naturalistic explanation.

First of all, yes, we have a natural predisposition towards assuming agency in the world we experience, which results in a belief in the supernatural. Surely this is an argument against the validity of religion instead of for: Humans don't believe in the supernatural because there is good evidence for it, they do it because in the past the phenomenon has been useful to survival.

Second of all, the fact that humans naturally believe in supernatural entities does not conflict with Dawkin's assertion that religion is a result of a lack of education and childhood indoctrination. It is natural to be ignorant and it is natural to both believe our elders, and when an elder, to pass on our beliefs. This in no way conflicts with what Dawkins argues. I am in fact a little bit baffled by the mentality of the author here. Am I missing something? Did they just not really think about it when writing this article?

This article shows us that convincing others of atheism is hard because of their innately stubborn brains, not because it's not true.


As for the whole murderer thing, I would of course take an organ from an otherwise healthy murderer, and I would lambast any fool who would do otherwise.

Galvasean

Zillah wrote: »

As for the whole murderer thing, I would of course take an organ from an otherwise healthy murderer, and I would lambast any fool who would do otherwise.

Everyone's seen that episode of the Simpsons were Snake's hair posesses Homer..

Zillah

Galvasean wrote: »

Everyone's seen that episode of the Simpsons were Snake's hair posesses Homer..

That's exactly what occurred to me reading the thread.

Dammit why are people so freaking stupid all the time? They seem so reasonable day to day.

CDfm

Wicknight wrote: »

The article is slightly misleading

Humans are hard wired to believe that human like agents are responsible for running the natural world around us. This belief leads to people happily accepting concepts like God, but it is inaccurate to say that children are hard wired to believe in God. They are hard wired to believe in things like God, but also a host of other similar concepts. .

But Hood does not go with the hardwired or indoctrination theories as per his website and says its more complicated then that.

Zillah

CDfm wrote: »

But Hood does not go with the hardwired or indoctrination theories as per his website and says its more complicated then that.

The cause of the economic recession can not be attributed purely to a construction bubble, it is more complex than that. A construction bubble, however, certainly played a significant part.

In the same way, religion cannot be accounted for entirely by a genetic pre-disposition or early indoctrination, but they certainly play a part.

CDfm

Zillah wrote: »

The cause of the economic recession can not be attributed purely to a construction bubble, it is more complex than that. A construction bubble, however, certainly played a significant part.

In the same way, religion cannot be accounted for entirely by a genetic pre-disposition or early indoctrination, but they certainly play a part.

Hood does not say that on his website what he says is

I talked about the early emergence of mind body dualism and how it relates to the notion of an after-life and my particular research interest, psychological essentialism. I said that I thought many supernatural beliefs had a natural origin in the way children reason about the world and that while story-telling was one way of transmitting beliefs, in many instances cultural stories reflected notions that were intuitively plausible to children. In fact, I categorically said that religions were cultural constructs as Richard Dawkins had proposed. Where I differ from Dawkins (and again this is very clear in the book) is the likelihood of removing supernatural beliefs through education but this is an empirical question that is not yet resolved. I also think that we need to understand individuals differences. Belief formation is not simply hard-wired or indoctrination. To use Ben Goldacre’s dictum, “I think you’ll find it more complicated than that”

Zillah

He says there is an element of 'hardwiring', as you put it. He also says he disagrees with Dawkins about education reducing religious beliefs, but that it needs to be tested. I'm not sure exactly why he is saying this, if we statistically analyse education versus religious belief we see a trend of the more the education the less religion. How else he proposes to empirically test it I'm not sure.


Anyway, you're not saying much yourself here. What exactly are you getting at? Are you leading up to claiming that this "more complex" answer is that God exists and we can sense it?

CDfm

Zillah wrote: »

Anyway, you're not saying much yourself here. What exactly are you getting at? Are you leading up to claiming that this "more complex" answer is that God exists and we can sense it?

He is saying that he disagrees with Dawkins on a science issue so disagrees that the evidence supports the theory. So he says more investigation is needed.

I am not building up to any conclusion here btw.

Zillah

CDfm wrote: »

He is saying that he disagrees with Dawkins on a science issue so disagrees that the evidence supports the theory. So he says more investigation is needed.

Ok I'm really having trouble following what you're getting at here. The only point that he disagrees with Dawkins about is Dawkins' claim that education can reduce belief in the supernatural.

He states:

story-telling was one way of transmitting beliefs

So some of it is spread from parent to child, aka, indoctrination. We can use a less negative word if you like.

He also states

I thought I made my position relatively clear as we discussed the evidence and studies that indicate that we are born with brains to seek out patterns and infer hidden mechanisms, forces and entities.

Which is what Wicknight was saying, which is the 'hardwired' element we're referring to.

He also says

Belief formation is not simply hard-wired or indoctrination.

So they both play a part, but it is very complex. So I will ask you again, what is your point?

toiletduck

The findings challenge campaigners against organised religion

And it's all downhill from there... What a laugh.



Yes I'd accept an organ donation from a murderer. And from the murdered aswell. Just to even things out.