The 'God particle'

bye bye Opus Dei 😀

I find it interesting that the PET scans of Christian believers reading Psalms stimulated the regions known for their involvement in rational thought.

and reading the Revelations ?

I find it interesting that the PET scans of Christian believers reading Psalms stimulated the regions known for their involvement in rational thought.

Yes that bit was a bit dodgy. I noticed they said they observed this
activity in those reading the psalms but not in those listening to
them. They also neglected to mention if the same activity was shown
when reading the happy story. It stands to reason that the brain
will exhibit logical activity during the process of reading.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage

http://www.economist.com/daily/news/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10903480&fsrc=nwl

Of any interest to RHP heads?

Religion's only place in science is to provide ethical guidelines for research. Attributing genes to systematic belief is silly. Reminds me of the possibility of claims that genes are directly linked to behaviors as noted in the book "Next".

Expect media to report news like this in future. 😉

http://video.stumbleupon.com/#p=k6qfemvr33

Originally posted by Yuga
Religion's only place in science is to provide ethical guidelines for research.

By religion, do you mean any religion or some religion in particular? What have shamaism, or hinduism, contributed to science?

Even christianity, what has they contributed to science? How many centuries was the Earth considered the centre of the universe? And if you was opposed to this dogma you was burned by fier, like Bruno was by the christian church.
Or what about evolution? Is the christian church promote this science?

Then you wrote about ethics. Let me remind again of the Bruno's punish by discarding the geocentric universe, genocides of numerous peoples in South America, in the name of god. Crusades and wars conducted. No, I dont' see that religion and ethics has anything in common.

What about people without a religous beliefs, don't they have any ethics? Of course they do. Ethics is not sprung by religion, but a laws in the community you live in, in large and in small.

I say that religion has done much bad for science and ethics through history.

Originally posted by FabianFnas

I say that religion has done much bad for science and ethics through history.

People have character; people have beliefs regarding how to live a fulfilling life. What do you mean by ethics? Perhaps my use of the word ethical wasn't precise as I applied the term specifically to science as acting according to correct moral principles and I understand the term has broader connotations.

Religion has made some positive contributions to ethics although I disagree with natural law ethics on principle as espoused by many forms of Christianity for instance; I value virtues such as love and forgiveness but not some other aspects of Christianity. Religion and ethics provide guidelines to leading a good life. It is imperative to consider ethics in science to ensure that research is done responsibly. For instance, I don't consider falsification of scientific research good science or some practices in animal experimentation morally correct according to many schools of thought as found in philosophy and religion; any scientist would agree.

Originally posted by Yuga
People have character; people have beliefs regarding how to live a fulfilling life. What do you mean by ethics? Perhaps my use of the word ethical wasn't precise as I applied the term specifically to science as acting according to correct moral principles and I understand the term has broader connotations.

Religion has made some positive contributions to e ...[text shortened]... ing to many schools of thought as found in philosophy and religion; any scientist would agree.

But still - what religion are we talking about? Christianity is not more than one religion of many.

I think we are agreed on the broad definition of the world ethics. And I don't find any etical about slaughtering other peoples of the sole reason that they don't want to adopt the christian view of point. (Many tribes of the Amazonas are now gone.) And if you want me to repeat myself, how ethical is it to kill people because they think that the Earth is not the center of the Universe? (Bruno thought so and gave his life for it.) What contribution to the science of evolution does the official church give?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
But still - what religion are we talking about? Christianity is not more than one religion of many.

I think we are agreed on the broad definition of the world ethics. And I don't find any etical about slaughtering other peoples of the sole reason that they don't want to adopt the christian view of point. (Many tribes of the Amazonas are now gone.) And ...[text shortened]... his life for it.) What contribution to the science of evolution does the official church give?

Religion in itself goes not lend itself constructively towards scientific research in any other way than to provide some sound, acceptable moral principles. Science can benefit from these moral principles. That is all I intended to say in my statement that you quoted.

In my previous post I stated how science can benefit from ethics. Science strives for truth, an admirable virtue I think, but moral considerations have to be taken into account in scientific research.

I am not going to discuss the atrocities committed in the name of religion or science. My opinion likely regards all such atrocities as wrong.

Originally posted by Yuga
Religion in itself goes not lend itself constructively towards scientific research in any other way than to provide some sound, acceptable moral principles. Science can benefit from these moral principles. That is all I intended to say in my statement that you quoted.

In my previous post I stated how science can benefit from ethics. Science strives for tr ...[text shortened]... ted in the name of religion or science. My opinion likely regards all such atrocities as wrong.

Thank you Yoga, your viewpoint is valuable.

However, according to my biliefs there is no ethics in religions in general that can contribute to science in general that any non-religious ethics can do, in general.

In contrary, religions do hinder scientific progress in general.

(I write religions in plural because no religion in particular is better (?) than any other religion in this consern.)

Originally posted by FabianFnas

Even christianity, what has they contributed to science?

Isaac Newton's fanatical zeal to discover the secrets of the universe was fuelled by ardent, albeit unorthodox (he was an Arian) faith. It is difficult to disentangle his interests as a natural philosopher (or 'scientist', as from 1833) from the alchemical and theological pursuits that preoccupied him his life long. Had you denied the existence of God to his face, Newton would have held you in contempt. How times do change ...

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Isaac Newton's fanatical zeal to discover the secrets of the universe was fuelled by ardent, albeit unorthodox (he was an Arian) faith. It is difficult to disentangle his interests as a natural philosopher (or 'scientist', as from 1833) from the alchemical and theological pursuits that preoccupied him his life long. Had you denied the existence of God to his face, Newton would have held you in contempt. How times do change ...

So was Darwin. Did the church support him? A clue: No.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
So was Darwin. Did the church support him? A clue: No.

Your belligerent non sequitur not only avoids the issue but is false: "I do not believe in the Bible as revelation and thus I do not believe in Jesus Christ as the Son of God," said Darwin.

I offered Newton as an example of an incredibly important scientist whose research was impelled by a desire to know the mind of God; his ideas rapidly became common currency and met, to the best of my knowledge, with no church opposition whatsoever.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Your belligerent non sequitur not only avoids the issue but is false: "I do not believe in the Bible as revelation and thus I do not believe in Jesus Christ as the Son of God," said Darwin.

I offered Newton as an example of an incredibly important scientist whose research was impelled by a desire to know the mind of God; his ideas rapidly became common currency and met, to the best of my knowledge, with no church opposition whatsoever.

But the church didn't support his scientific work, did they? No wonder his beliefs was torn.

You're right about Newton. But he was were clever too. He said the colour of the rainbow was a spectrum of colors, despite that the bible says it was created by god. He was more cautious. One has to be if you wants to keep life, Bruno didn't know that.

Do you say that religion actually supports science?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
But the church didn't support his scientific work, did they? No wonder his beliefs was torn.

You're right about Newton. But he was were clever too. He said the colour of the rainbow was a spectrum of colors, despite that the bible says it was created by god. He was more cautious. One has to be if you wants to keep life, Bruno didn't know that.

Do you say that religion actually supports science?

All irrelevant. Religion and church are not the same thing. In Bosse's example, he describes how Newton's religious beliefs were a prime motivation for his research. Not about the 'church' promoting or hindering his work. You're just attacking the 'church' strawman, without really dealing with the issue at hand: religion.

Originally posted by Palynka
All irrelevant. Religion and church are not the same thing. In Bosse's example, he describes how Newton's religious beliefs were a prime motivation for his research. Not about the 'church' promoting or hindering his work. You're just attacking the 'church' strawman, without really dealing with the issue at hand: religion.

Religion is not to be discussed in this Forum. I gladly discuss religion in Spiritual Forum. Let's continue the discussion there.
I'm glad you reminded me.