We are all born with the idea of God

Sarky · 18-03-2013 6:42pm

I'm not sure you realise how evidence works.

Zombrex · 18-03-2013 6:50pm

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Agreed, so it would be a bit stupid to completely write something off with no evidence to the contrary.

But again can't you say that for everything?

Which means one notion with no evidence has no more validity than any other notion, particularly not because it just happens to be the one you thought of.

nagirrac · 18-03-2013 9:36pm

All major world religions have far more in common at their core than is obvious on the surface. The varied descriptions of God are misleading, as if God cannot be comprehended by humans how could they possibly describe him? What all religions have in common is they are all based on altered states of consciousness, descriptions of the out of body journeys of shamen who told of their encounters. They are the ancient version of the types of experiences reported by modern day OOB practicioners like Robert Monroe.

There is strong evidence that all the ancient religions from India, central America, China, to Indo-European (including Greek, Judaism and Christianity) were inspired from the use of entheogens, in particular the divine mushroom (the fly agaric mushroom). While the first reaction is to laugh this off, it actually makes perfect sense. So, yes in short they were all high, very high at that. There are some great authors on the subject, Terence McKenna, R. Gordon Wasson, and John M. Allegro.

Zombrex, your post describing how the brain works and how this relates to religion is accurate from a left brain perspective. The features you describe are what have led us to where we are from an evolutionary standpoint, the ability to survive in what would have been a very dangerous environment for most of human history. However, to understand religion we have to look at the right side of the brain, the creative side, and this is where the use of entheogens comes in. Indeed, DMT, the most active of all in terms of producing mystical experiences, occurs naturally in the brain in very low amounts.

There are valid reasons for believing that all advances in human civilization as we know it (not the biological evolutionary advances that helped us survive) came from ingesting hallucinogenics. We certainly would be much poorer in terms of art and music without their influence.

Waking-Dreams · 18-03-2013 10:43pm

nagirrac wrote: »

...your post describing how the brain works and how this relates to religion is accurate from a left brain perspective. The features you describe are what have led us to where we are from an evolutionary standpoint, the ability to survive in what would have been a very dangerous environment for most of human history. However, to understand religion we have to look at the right side of the brain, the creative side, and this is where the use of entheogens comes in. Indeed, DMT, the most active of all in terms of producing mystical experiences, occurs naturally in the brain in very low amounts.

Just to point out: the whole left brain/right brain thing, the way a lot of people misunderstand it, is one of those myths that won't go away.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/am-i-my-genes/201301/myths-about-our-right-and-left-brains

nagirrac · 18-03-2013 11:20pm

Waking-Dreams wrote: »

Just to point out: the whole left brain/right brain thing, the way a lot of people misunderstand it, is one of those myths that won't go away.[/QUOTE]

I agree that left-right brain theory can be misinterpreted and exagerated, but it is the easiest way to make the point I am making. There is no question there are functional asymmetries in the brain (Roger Sperry's work), but recent research would suggest functions are not as localized as were once thought. Indeed there is quite a bit of research that shows functions that were lost through injury or disease can be regained through development in other locations.

nagirrac · 18-03-2013 11:42pm

This is a modern update on the original Sperry research work in the field of left-right brain theory.

http://cwx.prenhall.com/bookbind/pubbooks/morris4/medialib/readings/split.html

Knasher · 19-03-2013 1:52pm

The Clown Man wrote: »

The point is that humans have always created manifestations of the same thing; a higher consciousness. It's extremely consistent, to the point that it cannot be chance.

To take the example you already used, guardian angels, I'd imagine any consistency is more a product that the idea addresses a common desire, rather than having some deeper spiritual meaning. Human beings have a habit of personifying things, we do it to animals, inanimate objects, weather, random chance, and so on. I'm sure everyone at some point has been in a situation where circumstances could have been slightly different and ended your life, it is very human to personify that into guardian angels rather than admit it was simply chance that your life didn't end. Personifying it allows people to relate to it and in some small way and feel some small measure of control over it, guardian angels might be swayed by prayer or virtuous living or sacrifice, where chance cannot.

That need for control is the common thread in most spiritual beliefs, whether it was paying to Poseidon for safe passage across a sea or sacrificing to Xiuhtecuhtli for a good harvest, or praying to Yahweh that your favorite sports team wins whatever competition they are in. It is simply people personifying some part of their life which is beyond their control. I'd imagine this is also why countries which have a high standard of living tend towards being irreligious, as your security in life goes up, the need for old gods to give you the illusion of security diminishes.

The irony of the whole situation is that the price for this illusion of control is to abdicate control over parts of your life.

Undergod · 21-03-2013 10:41pm

The Clown Man wrote: »

It's an odd notion to me but it's so consistent over time that it cannot be simply written off.

Sure it can.

The Clown Man wrote: »

OK, it could be a flaw in human psychology but it's too widespread to be a flaw. Any flaw in the biological construct of the human being is usually limited to a minority, e.g. downes syndrome to physical defects to schizophrenia to anxiety/depression to glucose intolerance. This is a logical product of evolution. If anything is flawed in evolutionary terms, the flaw is gradually but inevitably lost in the process of natural selection. But in fact, in this case the minority in the world are those that ignore the "spiritual" path, like me, and do not innately feel like there is a greater knowledge and understanding out there. So, by that logic, does that mean that since I am in the minority which does not feel "God", I am flawed?

Well the first population of creatures to have a beneficial mutation will be in the minority too, right?
And "flaw" is a very loaded term.
No animal is perfect - scorpions have a flaw that often they don't know how to eat. Flaws aren't necessarily in the minority, and the minority is not necessarily flawed.
The tendency towards religiosity is very useful in lots of ways, but it doesn't make it true. Selections pressures on humans reward holding accurate beliefs, they rewarded not getting eaten by tigers or freezing to death. There are tons of mental errors and biases we suffer.

The Clown Man wrote: »

You could say that the process of natural selection takes longer than the time we've had civilisation exist on the planet and that is certainly arguable. But the rapid human evolution we have seen in the last 3000 years has done nothing to quash this "God" demand in humans. It's still going very strong. We've gone from simple engineering to molecular manipulation in the blink of a geological eye.

So now I'm thinking that the logical explanation to the God phenomenon is that there simply has to be something else, some other force, driving this human desire, something that is obvious probably in hindsight, something that we cannot yet comprehend, something we cannot yet quantify.

But as you point out, 3000 years is the blink of an eye. It isn't a lot of time to exert strong pressure on us. There doesn't have to be anything else; the fact many people think it has no bearing on whether it is true.

The Clown Man wrote: »

I mean, so far, evolution has managed an awful lot. It has managed to almost universally decode "stuff" to the point where an advanced life-form can interpret everything around us based on physics; waves of sub-atomic particles (sight), utterly miniscule disturbances in matter (hearing), molecular composition (taste and smell) and chemical reactions (touch) are how we decipher the world and it is very, very precise and nothing to do with chance.

We can't decode remotely near "everything" around us. We have no magnetic sense (well some people might apparently; most of us don't). We see a tiny fraction of the EM spectrum. We only smell and taste certain chemicals. We can't sense nuclear radiation or ionized particles.

I don't understand what you mean by "nothing to do with chance."

The Clown Man wrote: »

I am now starting to think that it is simply illogical to think that we are alone and that a higher and more advanced life-form is not present and somehow unknown to us. Actually, I'm jumping a little here but I think that the above should be a valid point for theorising. It's only a fraction of my thinking but I would like to hear rebuttal on this first.

I take your point, but until there's some reason to believe this or some evidence on which we can begin theorising, what's the point? You might as well say "evolution fairies" or "Cthulhu" as "God" for all the meaning it holds.
We have no data on a higher life-form so we can't theorise on it, and any attempt would currently be meaningless speculation.

The Clown Man wrote: »

So, am I just a lunatic trapped in a lunatics mind or does the above not make sense to anyone who favours logic and reason over flight and fancy?

Not for me, I'm afraid.

nozzferrahhtoo · 21-03-2013 11:22pm

The Clown Man wrote: »

My real issue lies with the fact that there really are so many people believing there is something beyond themselves to look to.

Fact is that every civilisation has inevitably veered towards a deity or deities as core to their civil functions at some point and to varying degrees thereafter. But all had a very consistent approach - something else is watching over me and controls the stuff I don't.

It's an odd notion to me but it's so consistent over time that it cannot be simply written off.

I think it would be disingenuous of us to think we had just "written it off" too. We have not. There are many many reasons to explain why we are "born" with these feelings there is a "god".

For example take the simple comparison between two life forms.

One life form assumes that every thing it sees or hears is benign and without intent until it is obvious they are wrong. They hear a creeping in the bushes and think nothing of it. Most of the time they are right... but sometimes that creeping is a predator and their false assumptions lead to their death.

Another life form assumes that every thing has an intention behind it however. A rustle leads to the mind asking "Who is that... what do they want... what is their intention towards me???". Their whole survival is predicated on them assuming there is some intent behind everything.

Which species would survive better? Species 1 when wrong... dies. Species 2 when wrong... looks a little silly.

We are evolved and have survived by seeing intent and design and a mind behind everything and anything. It is literally no surprise at all therefore that we look at the world around us and find ourselves "born with the idea of God". Of course we are. We are "Born with the idea of design and intent" behind everything we see, hear or find.

This is not a "flaw in human psychology" so much as it is a mis-firing of a strength in human make up.

So are we "flawed" for not thinking there is a god? No of course not. No more than we are "flawed" for taking anti biotics for over coming an infection. In both cases.... which is the point of the analogy.... we are over coming the simple tools evolution has long relied on and excelling them. Realising that there is no reason to rely on just those tools... but that our capability for thought elevates us above them.

We are not slaves any more to the point evolution has brought us to. Be that the infections that our biological chemistry leave us open to.... or the memetic infections that our mental evolution has left us prone to.

The Clown Man wrote: »

So how could evolution get God so consistently wrong?

How... you could just as reasonably ask.... has evolution got the common cold so consistently wrong? We have evolved and evolved and evolved and yet we still get infected many times over our life time.

Evolution has no foresight and in doing what is "best" for us it leaves us prone to all kinds of failures. Mentally and physically.

nagirrac · 22-03-2013 12:12am

Undergod wrote: »

We have no data on a higher life-form so we can't theorise on it, and any attempt would currently be meaningless speculation.

We have no objective data on a higher life form, but we have subjective data, which is an important distinction. I am not suggesting that we believe what is claimed in terms of eye witness data by religious believers, for example the miracles performed by Jesus Christ. We simply can't time travel back to validate or invalidate them, so you either believe them based on faith or you reject them based on how unlikely they are give our objective experience of the world. What I am suggesting is that we should take seriously the experiences of mystical experiences.

There are two approaches to knowledge and wisdom, the analytical scientific approach and the mindful mystical approach. Atheists generally discount the latter as having any value. I would argue strongly with this. For example, if I were faced with a difficult moral dilemna, I would not employ science to try and resolve it, I would rely in deep meditative reflection and my life experience tells me this generally has a positive moral outcome. There have been countless mystics in history that have made enormous contributions to how we evolved in terms of our knowledge and civilization. The methods employed vary, from mind altering drugs to meditation to chanting, dancing, etc.

The data is subjective but mystics accessing altered states of reality have lead to huge breakthroughs in all areas of human endevour in history (including science). Without drug induced mystical experiences the Beatles would have never moved much beyond their early 3 minute pop songs, we wouldn't have the wonderful novels of Philip Dick, Steve Jobs said one of the most important things he ever did in his life in terms of inspiration was taking LSD. There is strong evidence that all world religions originally stemmed from people taking mind altering substances like soma, mescaline and DMT.

I am not advocating indulging in these substances, but the reality described by those who have is nothing like the reality we normally experience, and this same state can be accessed more safely through meditation. What we normally think of as consciousness is nothing like these experiences, they involve complete dissolution of the sense of self, out of body experiences, a reality that is completely holistic and yes, encounters with higher life forms, both benevolent and malevolent. What is interesting from a scientific point of view is that entering these altered states has led to significant scientific breakthroughs. The Nobel Prize winning Biochemist Kary Mullis who invented PCR made the somewhat shocking claim that he would never have achieved what he did without the use of LSD.

So to suggest that only objective reality matters and mystical altered states of mind are not valuable to the human condition or valuable to expanding our knowledge is false. We can discount some of the subjective claims of mystics such as encounters with higher beings, but we cannot discount the significant creative power unleashed by people in these states.

fitz0 · 22-03-2013 12:23am

nagirrac wrote: »

We have no objective data on a higher life form, but we have subjective data, which is an important distinction. I am not suggesting that we believe what is claimed in terms of eye witness data by religious believers, for example the miracles performed by Jesus Christ. We simply can't time travel back to validate or invalidate them, so you either believe them based on faith or you reject them based on how unlikely they are give our objective experience of the world. What I am suggesting is that we should take seriously the experiences of mystical experiences.

There are two approaches to knowledge and wisdom, the analytical scientific approach and the mindful mystical approach. Atheists generally discount the latter as having any value. I would argue strongly with this.

While on important distinctions I think it important to note that the 'mindful mystic' approach has no demonstrable value. It may have value in the mind of the faithful but it cannot demonstrate the claims it makes. Therein lies the main divide between these two approaches.

Of course, if you are going to include subjective 'data' then you have to include all the beliefs of all the people throughout all time. There have been so many small gods, aliens, creatures in the night that have been fervently believed real that to pick just one, whether it be the Christian god, the Hindu pantheon or any of the others, would be completely arbitrary. Rejecting other beliefs that are also subjectively understood as real just can't be done without relegating the mindful mystical approach to them to a lower level of truth than that which you choose to believe.

Zombrex · 22-03-2013 12:52am

nagirrac wrote: »

There are two approaches to knowledge and wisdom, the analytical scientific approach and the mindful mystical approach. Atheists generally discount the latter as having any value. I would argue strongly with this. For example, if I were faced with a difficult moral dilemna, I would not employ science to try and resolve it, I would rely in deep meditative reflection and my life experience tells me this generally has a positive moral outcome.

And the history of humanity tells us otherwise. History is over flowing with examples of mistakes, errors and down right atrocities being carried out after the advice of prophets and oracles.

nagirrac wrote: »

The data is subjective but mystics accessing altered states of reality have lead to huge breakthroughs in all areas of human endevour in history (including science). Without drug induced mystical experiences the Beatles would have never moved much beyond their early 3 minute pop songs, we wouldn't have the wonderful novels of Philip Dick, Steve Jobs said one of the most important things he ever did in his life in terms of inspiration was taking LSD. There is strong evidence that all world religions originally stemmed from people taking mind altering substances like soma, mescaline and DMT.

None of those "advances" are tangible, nor can you show that they were the product of these drugs. Or to put it another way, people have written better music than the Beatles, written better novels that Philip K Dick and invented more amazing things than Steve Jobs without using mind altering substances.

There is no documented evidence that these drugs produce ideas or information that couldn't be gathered normally, ie no evidence that they extend human mental ability beyond normal parameters. Sure the people on the drugs might claim they had amazing experiences, but that is as much due to the mood altering effects as the drugs actually producing new physical methods of thinking.

nagirrac · 22-03-2013 1:19am

Zombrex wrote: »

None of those "advances" are tangible, nor can you show that they were the product of these drugs. Or to put it another way, people have written better music than the Beatles, written better novels that Philip K Dick and invented more amazing things than Steve Jobs without using mind altering substances.

There is no documented evidence that these drugs produce ideas or information that couldn't be gathered normally, ie no evidence that they extend human mental ability beyond normal parameters.

Sadly you are completely incorrect. Do a little digging on the LSD research that was done in the US before the government intervened and banned the use of the substance. It is quite mindblowing to say the least. Multiple scientists who were unable to solve problems after months of work came up with solutions after ingesting LSD. Why would the Nobel prize winning scientist who invented PCR claim what he did, it is a highly controversial thing to admit to.

Opinions on music and literature are subjective by the way.. and I was talking about the visionary creativity of Jobs in terms of consumer tastes, he didn't invent anything.

Kidchameleon · 22-03-2013 8:25am

Zombrex wrote: »

And the history of humanity tells us otherwise. History is over flowing with examples of mistakes, errors and down right atrocities being carried out after the advice of prophets and oracles.
.

Worth nothing the atrocities that science has led to. Atomic bomb etc.

Zombrex · 22-03-2013 9:06am

nagirrac wrote: »

Sadly you are completely incorrect. Do a little digging on the LSD research that was done in the US before the government intervened and banned the use of the substance. It is quite mindblowing to say the least.

Can you provide an example of something that was "mind blowing" (I assume you aren't using that literally).

nagirrac wrote: »

Multiple scientists who were unable to solve problems after months of work came up with solutions after ingesting LSD. Why would the Nobel prize winning scientist who invented PCR claim what he did, it is a highly controversial thing to admit to.

Which of these scientists came up with solutions that were impossible to come up with without taking LSD?

nagirrac wrote: »

Opinions on music and literature are subjective by the way.. and I was talking about the visionary creativity of Jobs in terms of consumer tastes, he didn't invent anything.

And no one has ever been a visionary about consumer tastes without taking LSD? According to Jobs the lesson he learned from taking LSD was that it is better to create things rather than make money. Hardly profound, was it?

Zombrex · 22-03-2013 9:07am

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Worth nothing the atrocities that science has led to. Atomic bomb etc.

Science doesn't claim to be a method of expanding the human mind and moral thinking beyond its natural limitations.

Banbh · 22-03-2013 9:35am

Thank you Zombrex for pursuing reason through the shifting sands of nonsense. You have the patience of Jobs.

Zombrex · 22-03-2013 9:42am

Banbh wrote: »

You have the patience of Jobs.

Er ... is that a complement?

kylith · 22-03-2013 10:43am

Zombrex wrote: »

Can you provide an example of something that was "mind blowing" (I assume you aren't using that literally).

Francis Crick admits to being on LSD when he discovered the DNA double helix.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2007/02/10/discoverer-of-dna-helix-was-high-on-lsd-when-he-figured-it-out.aspx

King Mob · 22-03-2013 11:17am

kylith wrote: »

Francis Crick admits to being on LSD when he discovered the DNA double helix.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2007/02/10/discoverer-of-dna-helix-was-high-on-lsd-when-he-figured-it-out.aspx

I would not take that article in any way seriously considering who wrote it.

Geomy · 22-03-2013 11:34am

Zombrex wrote: »

Science doesn't claim to be a method of expanding the human mind and moral thinking beyond its natural limitations.

Can you explain the above in layman's terminology please Zombrex.

It seems to me you did a bit of a begora jig around that one

kylith · 22-03-2013 11:59am

King Mob wrote: »

I would not take that article in any way seriously considering who wrote it.

Fair enough. I'm in work at the mo and don't really have time to properly search, I figured that it was better than starting my post with 'I read on Cracked that...'. I know that it was reported in the Mail on Sunday:

Crick, who died ten days ago, aged 88, later told a fellow scientist that he often used small doses of LSD then an experimental drug used in psychotherapy to boost his powers of thought. He said it was LSD, not the Eagle's warm beer, that helped him to unravel the structure of DNA, the discovery that won him the Nobel Prize.

PopePalpatine · 22-03-2013 12:19pm

kylith wrote: »

Fair enough. I'm in work at the mo and don't really have time to properly search, I figured that it was better than starting my post with 'I read on Cracked that...'. I know that it was reported in the Mail on Sunday:

That claim had credibility...

...and now it's gone!

Undergod · 22-03-2013 1:09pm

nagirrac wrote: »

We have no objective data on a higher life form, but we have subjective data, which is an important distinction.

Subjective data? You mean anecdote?
If not, what on earth does "subjective data" mean? If it's open to interpretation and experienced differently by different individuals, what use is it in forming solid hypotheses?

nagirrac wrote: »

What I am suggesting is that we should take seriously the experiences of mystical experiences.

There are two approaches to knowledge and wisdom, the analytical scientific approach and the mindful mystical approach. Atheists generally discount the latter as having any value.

I think a mindful/mystical outlook can have many benefits, for example for mental health, but it isn't good at dealing with data or forming good theories about how the world works.

nagirrac wrote: »

I would argue strongly with this. For example, if I were faced with a difficult moral dilemna, I would not employ science to try and resolve it, I would rely in deep meditative reflection and my life experience tells me this generally has a positive moral outcome. There have been countless mystics in history that have made enormous contributions to how we evolved in terms of our knowledge and civilization. The methods employed vary, from mind altering drugs to meditation to chanting, dancing, etc.

What has this go to do with OP?
I am sure most people don't do scientific analyses of moral problems - but so what? That doesn't mean that such analyses can't be done. And people are notoriously bad at holding consistent moral positions.

nagirrac wrote: »

The data is subjective but mystics accessing altered states of reality have lead to huge breakthroughs in all areas of human endevour in history (including science).

I would argue that they're experiencing altered states of perception, rather than altered states of reality. The objective world doesn't change just cause you screwed around with your brain chemistry.

nagirrac wrote: »

Without drug induced mystical experiences the Beatles would have never moved much beyond their early 3 minute pop songs, we wouldn't have the wonderful novels of Philip Dick, Steve Jobs said one of the most important things he ever did in his life in terms of inspiration was taking LSD. There is strong evidence that all world religions originally stemmed from people taking mind altering substances like soma, mescaline and DMT.

I don't think Soma is a real thing.
I'm not gonna disagree that drugs and altered mental states can create good art - nice choice with PKD - but that's really got nothing to do with what I was talking about anyway.

nagirrac wrote: »

I am not advocating indulging in these substances, but the reality described by those who have is nothing like the reality we normally experience, and this same state can be accessed more safely through meditation. What we normally think of as consciousness is nothing like these experiences, they involve complete dissolution of the sense of self, out of body experiences, a reality that is completely holistic and yes, encounters with higher life forms, both benevolent and malevolent.

Doing specific things to brain chemistry triggers consistent results. Wow.

nagirrac wrote: »

What is interesting from a scientific point of view is that entering these altered states has led to significant scientific breakthroughs. The Nobel Prize winning Biochemist Kary Mullis who invented PCR made the somewhat shocking claim that he would never have achieved what he did without the use of LSD.

Don't see that as shocking - I have read of people who take moderate doses of LSD to help them with maths. It's an altered mental state, you can see things from a different point of view. How does this relate to collecting data on a higher life-form?

nagirrac wrote: »

So to suggest that only objective reality matters and mystical altered states of mind are not valuable to the human condition or valuable to expanding our knowledge is false.

I never said that, and it doesn't even make sense from my point of view. Objective reality is all that exists. Altered states of mind are interesting and may be useful.

nagirrac wrote: »

We can discount some of the subjective claims of mystics such as encounters with higher beings,

So... why bring this up as a counterargument to what I said?

nagirrac wrote: »

but we cannot discount the significant creative power unleashed by people in these states.

Agreed. But as data, all it tells us is "these states make people act different." So nothing to do with what I said.

Zombrex · 22-03-2013 1:10pm

kylith wrote: »

Francis Crick admits to being on LSD when he discovered the DNA double helix.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2007/02/10/discoverer-of-dna-helix-was-high-on-lsd-when-he-figured-it-out.aspx

And...? Was working out the structure of DNA beyond the powers of a normal, not on drugs, human brain?

Zombrex · 22-03-2013 1:13pm

Geomy wrote: »

Can you explain the above in layman's terminology please Zombrex.

It seems to me you did a bit of a begora jig around that one

It is pretty simple, science doesn't claim to do the things that people are claiming mind altering drugs allowed prophets and oracles to do, so comparing the two is rather irrelevant.

kylith · 22-03-2013 1:17pm

Zombrex wrote: »

And...? Was working out the structure of DNA beyond the powers of a normal, not on drugs, human brain?

Maybe it just need him to come at it from a different perspective, and LSD helped with that.

Zombrex · 22-03-2013 1:23pm

kylith wrote: »

Maybe it just need him to come at it from a different perspective, and LSD helped with that.

Possibly, but that isn't the claim. The claim is that these drugs advance human mental ability beyond what is naturally occurring.

LSD might have helped him look at things differently. But so could a walk in the mountains (a favorite of Einstein). I haven't seen any evidence that LSD or other drugs allow the brain to do things it normally couldn't do.

joseph brand · 22-03-2013 1:32pm

"We are all born with the idea of God. "

I'm going to assume that we are all introduced to the idea of god, which starts with baptism (for us Irish folks). Which god, depends on geography.

I'm not sure if looking back through time would do any good, as people knew less and believed in cloud gods, grass gods and sock gods. They were ignorant, through no fault of their own.

All it took was some smooth snake oil salesman such as; Jesus, Joseph Smith, L. Ron Hubbard, Jim Jones, David Koresh etc . . to con a group, with the lure of a fluffy heaven, and like a snowball, it kept rolling, gathering more victims.

We are all born (most of us) with the idea that we're not terribly excited about our own death. Religion purports that it has the magical key to 'everlasting' life. All you have to do is give the church some money, and let them tell you how to live. It's not much. :rolleyes:

Btw, in every argument / debate that I have with my folks, the words 'death' and 'heaven' appear more than most. Nothing ever about the teachings of jesus. It basically boils down to; "I want to go to heaven." That's. It.

joseph brand · 22-03-2013 1:42pm

Zombrex wrote: »

Possibly, but that isn't the claim. The claim is that these drugs advance human mental ability beyond what is naturally occurring.

LSD might have helped him look at things differently. But so could a walk in the mountains (a favorite of Einstein). I haven't seen any evidence that LSD or other drugs allow the brain to do things it normally couldn't do.

One thing that drugs do, for sure, is, they open the mind. Drugs are probably an antidote for theism and conservatism. Probably.

The drugs I have in mind (not literally), are weed and MDMA. Sam Harris talked about experimenting with MDMA on a podcast with Joe Rogan. He didn't knock it, but he was also nervous of promoting it.
IIRC, Harris likened meditation to 'tripping'. No wonder those monks like meditating so much, they're all out of their bins.

Anyway, an open mind is a better mind.

Geomy · 22-03-2013 2:08pm

Zombrex wrote: »

It is pretty simple, science doesn't claim to do the things that people are claiming mind altering drugs allowed prophets and oracles to do, so comparing the two is rather irrelevant.

Maybe irrelevant to yo but to others who lean more twoards an esotheric/mystical way of thinking its relevant

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 22-03-2013 2:52pm

joseph brand wrote: »

Drugs are probably an antidote for theism and conservatism. Probably.

That just reminded me of a quote, sounding a element of caution about the nature of the antidote.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Fear_and_Loathing_in_Las_Vegas_(novel)
What Leary took down with him was the central illusion of a whole life-style that he helped to create...a generation of permanent cripples, failed seekers, who never understood the essential old mystic fallacy of the Acid Culture: the desperate assumption that somebody-or at least some force-is tending the Light at the end of the tunnel.

Cork Boy · 22-03-2013 3:18pm

Zombrex wrote: »

Possibly, but that isn't the claim. The claim is that these drugs advance human mental ability beyond what is naturally occurring.

LSD might have helped him look at things differently. But so could a walk in the mountains (a favorite of Einstein). I haven't seen any evidence that LSD or other drugs allow the brain to do things it normally couldn't do.

Psychotropic drugs (mushrooms, LSD, DMT, etc) drugs operate by temporarily affecting a person's neurochemistry, which in turn causes changes in a person's mood, cognition, perception and behavior.

It's not just about a different viewpoint or seeing things from a different angle. Like hypnosis, LSD has been used in therapy in order to regress through a person's memory that they cannot do by themselves.

This is just one example. In layman's terms, psychotropic drugs have the ability to (de)enhance brain functions as neurotransmitters and receptors are affected by the drug

nagirrac · 22-03-2013 4:27pm

Zombrex wrote: »

Possibly, but that isn't the claim. The claim is that these drugs advance human mental ability beyond what is naturally occurring.

LSD might have helped him look at things differently. But so could a walk in the mountains (a favorite of Einstein). I haven't seen any evidence that LSD or other drugs allow the brain to do things it normally couldn't do.

The claim is that mystical experiences enhance creativity. Regardless of the method used (meditation and drugs being the two most common) the result is the same, quieting the mind and suppressing the noisy chatter of the ego leads to enhanced creativity. Exactly what Einstein would have been doing in his mountain walks by the way. The following quotes from Einstein actually sums up perfectly what I am referring to:

"The finest emotion of which we are capable is the mystic emotion. Herein lies the germ of all art and all true science (my italics). Anyone to whom this feeling is alien, who is no longer capable of wonderment and lives in a state of fear, is a dead man. To know that what is impenetrable for us really exists and manifests itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, this knowledge, this feeling is the core of the religious sentiment. In this sense, and in this sense alone, I regard myself as a profoundly religious man..... The true value of a human being is determined primarily by the measure and the sense in which he has attained liberation from the self".

From "After Einstein" by Barker and Shugart, and "The World as I See It" by Albert Einstein. Einstein is making the distinction here between mysticism and religion, a distinction that sadly most atheists miss because of their (quite valid) anti organized religion mindset. Mysticism involves an open mind, organized religion involves a shut mind for most of its adherents. Religion is dogma, but strict belief in materialistic reductionist science is also dogma.

You will not find much contemporary scientific data on LSD, etc. as these substances have been illegal since the mid 60s. Very few people would openly admit to taking an illegal substance, Jobs and Dr. Karl Mullis would be exceptions (although apparently Mullis was told to shut up talking about LSD if he wanted to get his Nobel prize). The research into LSD was mainly done from 1950 to 1965, there were over 1,000 scientific papers generated during this time and 6 conferences held. LSD was hugely beneficial in treating mental illness and alcoholism (much higher rates of recovery than any other method ever tried) as studies from the time showed. Ironic that the substance that helped people addicted to the most dangerous of all drugs was banned.

For more on the topic, in particular the link between meditation and creativity, and indeed the link between mental illnes and creativity, I would recommend the work of Nancy Andreason.

nagirrac · 22-03-2013 4:34pm

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

That just reminded me of a quote, sounding a element of caution about the nature of the antidote.

Timothy Leary was almost singlehandedly responsible for the war on drugs which started in the mid 60s. Advocating mass consumption of psychedelics was totally irresponsible. He was a complete idiot and his legacy is the 50 year suppression of valuable research using psychedelics.

dybbuk · 22-03-2013 5:46pm

I can understand that you feel that strongly about the war on drugs.
But you must understand yourself that you are at least exaggerating.
Blaming Leary for the war on drugs is like blaming the witches for the witch-hunt or the Jews for the Holocaust, and the fact that his advocacy backfired does not make him an idiot just unskilled in politics.

fitz0 · 22-03-2013 5:54pm

nagirrac wrote: »

Advocating mass consumption of psychedelics was totally irresponsible.

Why?

nagirrac · 22-03-2013 6:26pm

fitz0 wrote: »

Why?

From what I know of it, LSD in low dosage is one of the safest recreational drugs. However, in large doses and in uncontrolled settings I believe it can be psychologically dangerous. I think there were better ways of advocating the use of recreational drugs than the confrontational Leary approach which ultimately led to a harsh government crackdown. In fact, it can be argued that it didn't effect recreational use much as it is still available on the street, but it did put an end to the research and the use of LSD to treat certain conditions.

nagirrac · 22-03-2013 6:30pm

dybbuk wrote: »

Blaming Leary for the war on drugs is like blaming the witches for the witch-hunt or the Jews for the Holocaust, and the fact that his advocacy backfired does not make him an idiot just unskilled in politics.

I accept that to some degree. There were certainly better approaches that may not have led to such severe government intervention in my opinion.

dybbuk · 22-03-2013 6:38pm

That may be. But ultimately it is the Government that wages the war on drugs. Making Leary to a scapegoat is absolutely not fair and I suggest you search your soul for your motives.

fitz0 · 22-03-2013 6:48pm

I'm reading David Nutt's Drugs Without the Hot Air at the minute and he goes into LSD in one chapter. He states that LSD is one of the safest drugs in existence and that it is almost impossible to overdose on. He also says that psychosis and anxiety are usually caused by unknowingly consuming the drug or using it without being prepared for it. Both of which wouldn't apply to somebody willing to and actively seeking to take the drug. The likelihood of anxiety is higher in people who are more cautious and are not likely to want to take the drug at all. Overall (although I'm not finished the chapter) he presents a relatively positive image of LSD and psychadelics in general.

dybbuk · 22-03-2013 6:54pm

I know several people who never came back from the trip. So that is a lie.
But even more true is that "LSD is a substance which can cause psychotic reactions in people that don't take it." (Tim Leary)

nagirrac · 22-03-2013 8:01pm

Undergod wrote: »

Subjective data? You mean anecdote?
If not, what on earth does "subjective data" mean? If it's open to interpretation and experienced differently by different individuals, what use is it in forming solid hypotheses?

Sorry, I did go off on a bit of a tangent but I was responding to the specific argument about no evidence for a higher power.

There is a huge distinction between an anecdotal data point and subjective data. The whole field of Psychology is largely based on subjective data. We would literally know very little about the human mind were it not for psychological studies utilizing the scientific method. These studies are carefully designed and involve significant numbers of data sets to minimize the effect of individual experience.

I agree hypotheses from subjective data are not "solid" compared to objective data, but we can't just discard them because we don't have objective methods to study them in more detail.

Soma is the psychedelic plant mentioned in Indian mystical literature. There are numerous proposals for what it actually was, the most credible seems to be the fly agaric mushroom, although there are other candidates.

Brian Shanahan · 23-03-2013 1:49am

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Worth nothing the atrocities that science has led to. Atomic bomb etc.

An atomic bomb is not an atrocity, it is a tool which can be used to cause an atrocity.

There is an important distinction between the two. And it lies in the fact that knowledge knows nothing from good or evil, it only on the uses to which that knowledge is put that the labels good and evil can be applied, e.g. using tri-nitro-toluene to get at the contents of a bank vault is evil, but using it to unearth valuable minerals is good (of course even then both terms are relative).

Brian Shanahan · 23-03-2013 1:52am

kylith wrote: »

Fair enough. I'm in work at the mo and don't really have time to properly search, I figured that it was better than starting my post with 'I read on Cracked that...'. I know that it was reported in the Mail on Sunday:

Well then we can be reasonably (i.e. greater than 99%) certain that this story is a lie. 99% of Der Heil am Sontag stories are a lie (the weekly paper is worse).

Brian Shanahan · 23-03-2013 1:57am

kylith wrote: »

Maybe it just need him to come at it from a different perspective, and LSD helped with that.

Or maybe robbing the photographic evidence gathered by another team trying to solve the same problem was more important?

nagirrac · 23-03-2013 5:53am

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Or maybe robbing the photographic evidence gathered by another team trying to solve the same problem was more important?

I assume you are talking about the x-ray crystallography work of Rosalind Franklin and Maurice Wilkins, which Francis Crick openly said was used in the model Watson and himself developed. Watson and Crick acknowledged the work of Wilkins and Franklin in their original paper describing the double helix structure of DNA. Wilkens was invited to co-author their paper and declined. The xrd data was one just one piece of the puzzle, not at all unusual in that all science evolves through the work of various researchers. It is one of the interesting aspects of scientific discovery that very often similar discoveries are made by different groups. Crick also said in correspondence that Wilkins should have shared in the 1962 Nobel prize (Rosalind Franklin had died in 1958, so was not eligible).

If there was such a thing as a posthumous Nobel prize, Rosalind Franklin should get one. There is no question her xrd work was instrumental in the discovery of DNA as a double helix structure. I do think however there is a bit of an urban myth associated with the suggestion her work was "stolen", even if there is some anecdotal evidence to suggest this. The fact that she was close friends with Crick and his wife through the period of her later career, illness and up to her untimely death would seem to refute this. Thankfully she has received enormous recognition for her work in recent decades. She died in 1958 at the age of 37.

Zombrex · 23-03-2013 11:53am

Geomy wrote: »

Maybe irrelevant to yo but to others who lean more twoards an esotheric/mystical way of thinking its relevant

And ... ? Some people think the world is flat. The world is full of idiots.

Zombrex · 23-03-2013 11:56am

Cork Boy wrote: »

Psychotropic drugs (mushrooms, LSD, DMT, etc) drugs operate by temporarily affecting a person's neurochemistry, which in turn causes changes in a person's mood, cognition, perception and behavior.

It's not just about a different viewpoint or seeing things from a different angle. Like hypnosis, LSD has been used in therapy in order to regress through a person's memory that they cannot do by themselves.

This is just one example. In layman's terms, psychotropic drugs have the ability to (de)enhance brain functions as neurotransmitters and receptors are affected by the drug

All psychotropic drugs can do is effect the parts of the brain that are already there, in a manner that is already in the range of effects of the brain. They cannot produce effects that a human brain already cannot achieve.

Or to put it another way, a 5 euro pocket calculator enhances the human brain a million times more than the most powerful psychotropic drug.

Zombrex · 23-03-2013 12:00pm

nagirrac wrote: »

Exactly what Einstein would have been doing in his mountain walks by the way.

Yes Nagirrac that is exactly the point. These drugs have no more profound physical effect on the mental capacity of the brain than a good walk does. Einstein was Einstein, Jobs was Jobs, Lennon was Lennon not because they took drugs that gave them these abilities but because these abilities were already their, present in their brains. The idea that these drugs advance human mental ability is bogus.

Your mobile phone has enhanced your mental and cognitive abilities far beyond anything a drug could do.

When did this forum turn into the forum of unmitigated nonsense. It is like the Enlightenment never happened ....

We are all born with the idea of God

Comments