THE ORIGIN OF RELIGION
  • HOME
  • BEN'S BLOG
  • About The Book
    • BookStore
  • Reviews
  • About The Origin of Religion
  • The origin of spirit
  • FINAL CONCLUSION
  • Contact
  • Blog

BEN'S  BLOG
Click on "Archives" for all blogs since November  2013

Critical thinking about "Nothing"

5/19/2024

0 Comments

 
To start off any discussion let us stick to facts and actual observations. As you know it is a fact that we humans have an unlimited imagination considering science fiction, magic, religions with thousands of Gods, Superman, Harry Potter and lots of other examples, so let us avoid using speculations.
Any Creationists will be surprised that most Atheists agree totally with their assertion of “Something cannot come from nothing”. This is such a logical conclusion that no one can argue with. The problem is with the meaning of the word “nothing”. It is often understood, to be a totally empty space, but space is not nothing, it is part of our universe. If “absolute nothing” existed we (including God), would not be here having this discussion, but since we are here, factually, it means that “nothing” does not exist in reality. It proves that there always must be something, Aha! says the Theist, that must be God! No, remember, no speculations!
The fact  that “absolute nothing” does not exist also indicates that, although we have no idea what this “something” is, that it is eternal. We do observe our universe, so we know it is real and so are the natural laws we know (fact) since we use them all the time, for example to fly to the moon. We do research and experiments all time. We observe the smallest particles or waves combine to form larger entities such as atoms. Atoms form molecules and molecules become more complicated (observed). We find that a hydrogen atom will readily combine with an oxygen atom but not with an argon one. How does a hydrogen atom know that? (remember: no speculation). It is obvious that there is some sort of primitive sense that makes this happen. Chemical reactions, governed by the natural laws we observe, are real, catalysts influence chemical reactions even if they do not participate. These reactions are governed by the laws of nature. We know they exist. Why? We don’t know yet, but do not attempt to fill the gaps in our knowledge with “God” or other magic.
There is another process called “emergence”.  Emergence occurs when a complex entity has properties or behaviours that its parts do not have on their own and emerge only when they interact in a wider whole. For a simple example, Salt is a molecule of Sodium and Chloride and has behaviours that neither of these atoms have on their own. All this takes place naturally without the need for a magic power as a result off observed natural laws.
Another misconception is that creationist seem to think that evolutionists rely on ‘chance’ to explain Abiogenesis (the appearance  of life from non-life). According to the creationist, chance to create life from non-life could not be the cause due to the ‘fact’ that the odds are so enormous that it could never happen. We will address that fallacy in the near future. Watch for it

Picture
0 Comments

ABIOGENESIS

5/19/2024

0 Comments

 
 A controversial theory posits that life began when RNA spontaneously began to replicate itself — and now researchers are claiming they've replicated part of that process in a lab.
In interviews with the Washington Post, scientists say they've created an RNA molecule that made copies of other types of RNA, which gets its experts ever closer to creating the conditions for early Earth life in a lab.
The Salk Institute for Biological Studies scientists worked from the theory that before there was DNA or proteins, RNA existed as the initial ingredient in the so-called "primordial soup."
As part of their research, WaPo reports, they created a lab-made RNA molecule that accurately copied others and resulted in a functioning enzyme. Now that the institute has done that, it's poised to study the earliest evolutionary stages of life in unprecedented ways.
Gerald Joyce, the president of Salk who co-authored a new paper about the research published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, told WaPo that although the researchers' lab-made molecule isn't yet self-replicating, the one they did create is a huge step to creating life in the lab.
If RNA is created that is able to replicate itself, the Salk president said, "then it would be alive."
"This is the road to how life can arise in a laboratory," Joyce said, "or, in principle, anywhere in the universe."
As WaPo explains, RNA must make extremely close copies to the original for Darwinian evolution to occur. If anything goes wrong, things start to deteriorate fast, and like an old, wonky photocopy machine — or, in the meme world, a "deep-fried" image that comes about from screenshotting ad infinitum — each subsequent copy gets fuzzier until it's unclear what the original source material was in the first place.
"If the error rate is too high, you can’t maintain the [genetic] information," the Salk president explained. "It just blows up."
That said, exact replication of RNA also doesn't work because it doesn't provide for the kinds of mutations that foster growth. To get just the right amount of deviation, Joyce and his team made an RNA that makes copies of what's known as "hammerhead RNA," which chops molecules. When the replicator molecule does its thing on the hammerhead RNA, each new generation, as WaPo reports, was also able to chop — and each subsequent generation gets better at replicating, too.
This new threshold, as pharmaceutical science professor John Chaput of the University of California at Irvine puts it, is "monumental."
"At first, I looked on it as a little bit jaw-dropping," Chaput, who was not involved in the research, told the newspaper. "It’s super-neat."
It's exciting research — though, if Salk or its fellow travelers succeed in making artificial life in the lab, sure to raise urgent new ethical questions about synthetic lifeforms.
Reference: From an article by NOOR AL-SIBA March 14, 2024
Picture
0 Comments

Conclusions vs Opinions

5/19/2024

0 Comments

 
Someone wrote me the following:
I read your website that seems to conclude that God is an imaginary figure and that Morals can be established without a supernatural being, dictating it to humans.
Well you have your opinion  and I have mine, let’s leave it at that.

No, I cannot leave it at that. There is a difference between “opinions” and “conclusions”. I have concluded that gods are in all cases, imaginary beings, resembling ancient emperors, after lots of reading, studying and researching, because there is no correlation between all the Gods that mankind has imagined. They are all completely different as we would expect them to be when many different cultures have had different ideas. Yes, there is a slight common thread between different religions but that is easily explained by the fact that all of humanity came from the same original group in Africa (see “in the beginning”).  The concept of  “spirit” is likely one of the oldest ideas that survived. If there was one God who inspired people to write his morals down than there should be one version only in the whole world distributed to all mankind since the beginning.

In North America, the majority religions are Abrahamic ones: Christian, Jewish and Muslim , so most comments I get are related to the Bible, Koran or Talmud with the Bible getting top  billing.  The Bible supporters are the most vocal in denying my take on the origin of religion, quoting bible texts  (often out of context) as “proof” that my conclusions are erroneous, well, pardon me if I cannot accept these kind of arguments. The Bible is a great historic book but there are many others and to single the Bible out as the only true word of god is an opinion and an arrogant one, to say the least. This word of god, has not been available to all humanity before the bible was written and it condemns any one to eternal hell even if one never had a chance to hear this “Word of God“ because they were born in a different “tribe” or in a different time period. So don’t give me the “ You have your opinion and I have mine” sop. You can question my “conclusions” anytime but they are based on research and logic and certainly are not just “opinions”.


Picture
0 Comments

Belief in the Supernatural

5/19/2024

0 Comments

 
Belief in the supernatural can be understood through various psychological, cultural, and evolutionary perspectives. While belief in the supernatural lacks empirical evidence, it has been a common aspect of human culture throughout history. Here are some factors that may help explain why belief in the supernatural persists:
Cognitive Biases: Human brains are wired to detect patterns, even when they don't exist. This tendency to see meaningful connections in random events can lead to the perception of supernatural phenomena. Additionally, our brains are susceptible to cognitive biases, like confirmation bias, which can reinforce supernatural beliefs.
Agency Detection: Humans have evolved to be sensitive to the presence and intentions of other agents in their environment. This evolved trait likely conferred a survival advantage by helping our ancestors detect potential threats or social interactions. As a result, people may attribute unexplained or random events to the actions of invisible agents or supernatural forces.
Cultural Transmission: Belief in the supernatural is often passed down through generations as part of cultural traditions and religious teachings. Cultural transmission plays a significant role in shaping beliefs and practices related to the supernatural.
Emotional Comfort: Belief in the supernatural can provide emotional comfort in the face of uncertainty, fear, or existential questions. It can offer a sense of control, purpose, and a way to cope with difficult or unexplainable life events.
Societal and Group Dynamics: Many societies and social groups have shared beliefs in the supernatural. Belonging to such groups and sharing their beliefs can be a powerful source of identity and social cohesion.
Evolutionary Hypotheses: Some researchers have proposed evolutionary hypotheses for the persistence of supernatural beliefs. For example, the theory of "promiscuous teleology" suggests that humans evolved to see purpose and intentionality in the world, even when it might not be there. This tendency may have provided an advantage in understanding other people's actions and motivations.
It's important to note that belief in the supernatural can vary significantly from one culture to another and between individuals. While belief in the supernatural itself may not be a product of evolution, some of the cognitive and social tendencies that contribute to supernatural belief might have been shaped by our evolutionary history.
Belief in the supernatural is a complex and multifaceted phenomenon, and there is no single explanation for why it persists. It is influenced by a combination of cognitive, cultural, emotional, and social factors that vary from person to person and from culture to culture,

Picture
0 Comments

Global Neuronal Workspace Theory

5/19/2024

0 Comments

 
The term "GNW" in neuroscience typically refers to the "Global Neuronal Workspace" theory, which was proposed by neuroscientist Bernard Baars. The Global Neuronal Workspace theory is a hypothesis about the neural mechanisms underlying consciousness.
According to this theory, the brain operates with a "global workspace" that serves as a kind of central information processing and broadcasting system. It suggests that information processing in the brain occurs in a distributed and specialized manner, but only a small fraction of this information becomes conscious and enters the global workspace. Once information reaches the global workspace, it can be accessed and shared across different parts of the brain, making it available for conscious awareness.
The Global Neuronal Workspace theory posits that conscious experiences are a result of the competition among various neural processes to gain access to this global workspace. When specific information or representations are broadcast to this global workspace, they become part of our conscious experience. This theory has been influential in the field of cognitive neuroscience and has contributed to our understanding of the neural basis of consciousness and how different brain regions contribute to our subjective experience.

Picture
0 Comments

Critical Thinking suppressed in Supernatural belief

5/19/2024

0 Comments

 
Critical thinking suppressed in brains of people who believe in the supernaturalThe opposition between religious beliefs and scientific evidence may be attributed to differences in brain structures and cognitive processes. A study published in PLOS One (A  peer-reviewed open access mega journal published by the Public Library of Science (PLOS) since 2006) reveals that critical thinking tends to be suppressed in individuals who embrace supernatural beliefs.
Examining the relationship between brain regions responsible for empathy, analytical reasoning, and faith, the research suggests that religious beliefs and scientific thinking often clash due to the involvement of distinct brain areas in these cognitive processes. Those who hold supernatural beliefs seem to inhibit regions associated with critical thinking.
Lead author Tony Jack, a professor of philosophy at Case Western Reserve, explains, "From what we understand about the brain, the leap of faith to belief in the supernatural amounts to pushing aside the critical/analytical way of thinking..."
Previous research by Jack and colleagues identified two competing networks of neurons, revealed through fMRI scans, which determine whether individuals perceive the world through religious or scientific lenses. The brain's analytical network promotes critical thinking, while the social network facilitates empathy and spiritual thinking.
In the latest study, researchers conducted eight experiments involving 159 to 527 adults to explore the connection between belief in God, analytic thinking, and moral concern. Each experiment demonstrated a positive association between spiritual belief, empathic concern, and frequent religious practice. The more religious a person was, the more likely they were to suppress the analytical network in the brain while exhibiting empathy.
When individuals experience conflict between scientific and religious views, their brain structures play a crucial role in determining how they address this opposition. The study highlights that engaging with both the analytical and social networks without suppressing either enhances one's ability to understand the world and make scientific discoveries.
The research also points out that some of history's prominent scientists were deeply spiritual. Jack notes, "Far from always conflicting with science, under the right circumstances, religious belief may positively promote scientific creativity and insight." Emphasizing that there is no inherent conflict between religion and science, Jack suggests that individuals who integrate both networks without suppression are better equipped for comprehensive understanding and scientific breakthroughs

Picture
0 Comments
Forward>>


    Ben Vande       
    Weerdhof
    Andrews


    Retired Teacher
    Author
    Videographer






    Archives of
    previous Blogs

    August 2025
    April 2025
    December 2024
    November 2024
    August 2024
    July 2024
    May 2024
    January 2024
    December 2023
    June 2023
    April 2023
    February 2023
    January 2023
    November 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    March 2022
    January 2022
    October 2021
    August 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    February 2021
    December 2020
    October 2020
    August 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013

    Categories

    All

    RSS Feed

    Click RSS feed for previous blogs

Ben's Blog

About Origin OF Religion

About THe Book

BooKStore

Contact

  • HOME
  • BEN'S BLOG
  • About The Book
    • BookStore
  • Reviews
  • About The Origin of Religion
  • The origin of spirit
  • FINAL CONCLUSION
  • Contact
  • Blog