chairman bill wrote:

Shrunk wrote:It should be pointed out that paarsurrey has carefully selected a quote ...

Quote mining? Who'd have thought, eh? The quote I posted above also suggests a less than generous take on theism by Prof. Tiger.

The interview as a whole depicts Tiger as trying to soft-pedal any anti-theist sentiments he may hold. This could, of course, just be a legitimate effort to maintain his scientific objectivity. However, the more cynical would suggest he is trying to maximize his potential market base....

The human brain is naturally more comfortable after smoking weed.

/thread.

anthroban wrote:

num1cubfn wrote:The human brain is naturally more comfortable after smoking weed.

/thread.

Either I'm not human, or you're very wrong..

However, the human brain is certainly naturally more comfortable on 8 milligrams of benzodiazapines.

It's ok, my brain is not naturally more comfortable "believing", but at least we can agree that believing in delusion is on par with taking drugs.

P.S. I'm sure this was the OP's point. "If it feels good, it must be right." Odd how so much of the muslim religion seems to go directly against that notion, but he chooses to employ it in defense of the muslim religion.

katja z wrote:paarsurrey, I actually posted the link to an interview with Lionel Tiger a few days ago. Well, since the discussion seems to be here, I'd love to ask you a question:

Are you, as a believer, comfortable with Lionel Tiger's views on religion? Doesn't he belittle your belief by suggesting that it is basically an equivalent of a Prozac pill - not something big and important, but just something to give you an extra dose of serotonin?

Hi friends

I just submitted the article to find out the views of the Atheists; what they do with the Scientists if they don't agree with them. I don't follow anybody's views blindly.

Thanks

tytalus wrote:
On the subject of Ghost

Hi friends

I don't believe in the Ghosts.

Thanks

paarsurrey wrote:

tytalus wrote:
On the subject of Ghost

Hi friends

I don't believe in the Ghosts.

Thanks

Paarsurray, nobody was talking about Ghosts. It's a movie and it's called "Ghost in the Shell" - you should watch it, it's very good and philosophically interesting.

paarsurrey wrote:I just submitted the article to find out the views of the Atheists; what they do with the Scientists if they don't agree with them. I don't follow anybody's views blindly.

Well, since the particular scientist you quoted happens to actually agree with atheism, you probably should have chosen a different example.

Do you think the article provides evidence for the existence of God? If so, you need to read it again more carefully.

katja z wrote:paarsurrey, I actually posted the link to an interview with Lionel Tiger a few days ago. Well, since the discussion seems to be here, I'd love to ask you a question:

Are you, as a believer, comfortable with Lionel Tiger's views on religion? Doesn't he belittle your belief by suggesting that it is basically an equivalent of a Prozac pill - not something big and important, but just something to give you an extra dose of serotonin?

Isn't it great that god rewards belief with extra happiness? What could possibly be wrong with that.

michael^3 wrote:

katja z wrote:paarsurrey, I actually posted the link to an interview with Lionel Tiger a few days ago. Well, since the discussion seems to be here, I'd love to ask you a question:

Are you, as a believer, comfortable with Lionel Tiger's views on religion? Doesn't he belittle your belief by suggesting that it is basically an equivalent of a Prozac pill - not something big and important, but just something to give you an extra dose of serotonin?

Isn't it great that god rewards belief with extra happiness? What could possibly be wrong with that.

The premise!

michael^3 wrote:

katja z wrote:paarsurrey, I actually posted the link to an interview with Lionel Tiger a few days ago. Well, since the discussion seems to be here, I'd love to ask you a question:

Are you, as a believer, comfortable with Lionel Tiger's views on religion? Doesn't he belittle your belief by suggesting that it is basically an equivalent of a Prozac pill - not something big and important, but just something to give you an extra dose of serotonin?

Isn't it great that god rewards belief with extra happiness? What could possibly be wrong with that.

According to the article, it seems belief works just as well whether of not God actually exists. So your idea of this being some sort of "reward" is just a fantasy.

michael^3 wrote:

katja z wrote:paarsurrey, I actually posted the link to an interview with Lionel Tiger a few days ago. Well, since the discussion seems to be here, I'd love to ask you a question:

Are you, as a believer, comfortable with Lionel Tiger's views on religion? Doesn't he belittle your belief by suggesting that it is basically an equivalent of a Prozac pill - not something big and important, but just something to give you an extra dose of serotonin?

Isn't it great that god rewards belief with extra happiness? What could possibly be wrong with that.

But L.T. doesn't make any claims about god. He just says that religion (organized religion, mind you, not personal spirituality) is a good thing because it makes people's brain flow with serotonin.

I'm not saying it's wrong for believers to feel happy about what they believe, michael. I was just suggesting that Tiger's arguments in favour of religion would seem offensive to me, if I were religious.

Edit: typo

katja z wrote:

michael^3 wrote:

katja z wrote:paarsurrey, I actually posted the link to an interview with Lionel Tiger a few days ago. Well, since the discussion seems to be here, I'd love to ask you a question:

Are you, as a believer, comfortable with Lionel Tiger's views on religion? Doesn't he belittle your belief by suggesting that it is basically an equivalent of a Prozac pill - not something big and important, but just something to give you an extra dose of serotonin?

Isn't it great that god rewards belief with extra happiness? What could possibly be wrong with that.

But L.T. doesn't make any claims about god. He just says that religion (organized religion, mind you, not personal spirituality) is a good thing because it makes people's brain flow with serotonin.

I'm not saying it's wrong for believers to feel happy about what they believe, michael. I was just suggesting that Tiger's arguments in favour of religion would seem offensive to me, if I were religious.

Edit: typo

Well if happiness is nothing but a right mix of chemicals in the brain, why should I be offended to discover that the practice of religion brings about this right mix? As a believer I would naturally conclude that god wanted it to be that way.

michael^3 wrote:

katja z wrote:

michael^3 wrote:

katja z wrote:paarsurrey, I actually posted the link to an interview with Lionel Tiger a few days ago. Well, since the discussion seems to be here, I'd love to ask you a question:

Are you, as a believer, comfortable with Lionel Tiger's views on religion? Doesn't he belittle your belief by suggesting that it is basically an equivalent of a Prozac pill - not something big and important, but just something to give you an extra dose of serotonin?

Isn't it great that god rewards belief with extra happiness? What could possibly be wrong with that.

But L.T. doesn't make any claims about god. He just says that religion (organized religion, mind you, not personal spirituality) is a good thing because it makes people's brain flow with serotonin.

I'm not saying it's wrong for believers to feel happy about what they believe, michael. I was just suggesting that Tiger's arguments in favour of religion would seem offensive to me, if I were religious.

Edit: typo

Well if happiness is nothing but a right mix of chemicals in the brain, why should I be offended to discover that the practice of religion brings about this right mix? As a believer I would naturally conclude that god wanted it to be that way.

I could be mistaken but I think the suggestion is that that might be all that it is. A mix of chemicals and nothing more. No God. No afterlife. No nothing. Just chemistry.

michael^3 wrote:Well if happiness is nothing but a right mix of chemicals in the brain, why should I be offended to discover that the practice of religion brings about this right mix? As a believer I would naturally conclude that god wanted it to be that way.

No reason. Except if somebody suggests this is the sole benefit of religion, and that was my point. If I were a believer, I'd consider that religion was important for more important reasons (truth and meaning and all that), not primarily as a source of serotonin. Feeling good I might consider as a nice side effect, not as a valid reason to believe.

anthroban wrote:I can see someone using this as fuel for the group selectionist's theory of the evolutionary benefit of religion.

Now you've hit on a whole new problem ... yes, I can just see that possibility with Tiger, although I think he hasn't actually suggested it (other than saying "if so many people believe, religion must have some positive function"). Maybe in that case you could start by questioning the concept of group selection itself

katja z wrote: But L.T. doesn't make any claims about god. He just says that religion (organized religion, mind you, not personal spirituality) is a good thing because it makes people's brain flow with serotonin.

Just going by the article, I don't think it can be said that Tiger thinks religion is a "good thing" for that reason. He just thinks it explains why religious belief is so widespread.

Crack cocaine increases serotonin levels, too. By michael^3's reasoning, then, crack is a gift from God.

Shrunk wrote:

katja z wrote: But L.T. doesn't make any claims about god. He just says that religion (organized religion, mind you, not personal spirituality) is a good thing because it makes people's brain flow with serotonin.

Just going by the article, I don't think it can be said that Tiger thinks religion is a "good thing" for that reason. He just thinks it explains why religious belief is so widespread.

Oh, sorry. Maybe not in the article paarsurrey posted. My bad for just assuming that without checking. He does say so in this interview.

katja z wrote:

Shrunk wrote:

katja z wrote: But L.T. doesn't make any claims about god. He just says that religion (organized religion, mind you, not personal spirituality) is a good thing because it makes people's brain flow with serotonin.

Just going by the article, I don't think it can be said that Tiger thinks religion is a "good thing" for that reason. He just thinks it explains why religious belief is so widespread.

Oh, sorry. Maybe not in the article paarsurrey posted. My bad for just assuming that without checking. He does say so in this interview.

Hmm. I still don't see him making any value judgement on religion, one way or the other, in that interview. His primary interest seems to be explaining whether there is a neurobiological explanation for the existence of religious belief. I don't see why any atheist would have difficulty with the explanation he provides. I certainly don't.

IIRC, Dawkins quotes LT in TGD.

Shrunk wrote: Hmm. I still don't see him making any value judgement on religion, one way or the other, in that interview. His primary interest seems to be explaining whether there is a neurobiological explanation for the existence of religious belief. I don't see why any atheist would have difficulty with the explanation he provides. I certainly don't.

I'm not saying I have a problem with his explanation. My point was that I would have a problem with it if I were a believer. Well, I'm guessing I would, I've no way of knowing