Andrew4Handel wrote:
I am pointing out that speciesism and prejudice are natural and prevalent. Science doesn't prove we are all equal. Do you have the same cash and power as Bill Gates?

I never said it proves we are equal!

Andrew4Handel wrote:

I thought we were all descended from Adam and Eve according to biblical folk? Any belief system can be used to promote racism. Remember "The Bell Curve" book and its attempt to use science and statistics to find real racial differences in intelligence?

According to the Bible black people are the cursed children of Ham after God turned their skin black. I've heard some Christians say that black people are a "cursed race." The Nazi view was that white people descended from a white Adam and Eve and because oriental people weren't mentioned in the Bible they were a sub-human group.
Never heard of The Bell Curve. but if its about science* trying to find justification for racism you can be guaranteed the scientists involved put their conclusion before the study just like Intelligent Design proponents. Just like homeopaths and just like dubious studies into homosexuality.

*Though science isn't a "belief system" so I'm not sure on that.

Andrew4Handel wrote:It is quite possible that science could have proven deep racial and gender differences. Are you suggesting science only discovers positive facts about reality that are hippyish barrier breaks. Dawkins in The selfish Gene actually talked about actively going against our selfish genes. (IE rejecting our natural endowment.)

Actually science does anything but discover positive facts about reality. There are plenty of people not happy with being an ape, for instace. There's nothing "hippyish" about anything I'm saying. Only in your bizarre interpretation of what I'm saying.

Andrew4Handel wrote:

You said "Instead of being this fixed, immutable, white Irish person" In what way are you not an Irish, white male?

You know I had an argument with an Northern Irelander recently who wasn't happy about me abandoning Catholicism, being anti-IRA and having nothing against the English. He started bleating on about how he was "more Irish" than me.
So. In what way am I Irish? Why do I have to be confined to my locality? Can I not be a worldly person? Could I not be a galactic person if the means came about? In what way does being white make me different to other humans that the label is relevant to me? How much of a man am I?

Andrew4Handel wrote:

Change in evolution is posited to have taken billions of years not within the individual so that they can flit between biological identities. You seem to be advocating social constructionism but that is a far from scientific position in which the individual constructs their own identity.

I'm not advocating anything. Why do you keep insisting on putting words in my mouth? The original post was about how science may change your outlook.
A few years ago there was a program on Channel 4 which was called, I think, Who Do You Think You Are? On the program they looked at various volunteers DNA and told them their history and heritage. What was interesting is that two of the people were very English, Queen loving, patriotic and nationalistic people. One even had British bulldog tattoos and Union Jack t-shirt, the works. When asked beforehand what they thought the test would show they said, with conviction, "I'm sure the test will show I'm 100% British." Of course the tests showed that they had all types of DNA showing Persian, Mongolian and African ancestry in the last few hundred years. One of them was livid with the results. She threatened to sue Channel 4 over it. I think she was a BNP politician. The other guy, with the tattoos, was surprised and said, "Wow! That's made me think differently about who I am and where I come from." This is the type of thing I'm talking about which science can reveal and raise our consciousness.

Andrew4Handel wrote:
There is nothing hubristic in thinking we are natures most advanced intelligent sentient species with a vast array of different unique abilities to other animals. Would you let a monkey fly you in a plane or where is the Bee Einstein ZZZbzzz

And yet a chimp can tear us apart and a little bee can kill us with a sting.

Andrew4Handel wrote:

Calilasseia wrote:

So what? What matters is not who uttered the statement, but whether the statement has substance.

What a bizzare comment. I was simply indicating who said the following. Would you prefer the author to remain anonymous?

Well we're used to supernaturalists erecting the fake "Dawkins as purported atheist pope" canard, which is why I issued the statement I did.

Andrew4Handel wrote:

Let's examine this quote shall we?

In short, there isn't an invisible magic man kissing it better.

I thought you were going to examine the quote?!

At bottom, that's what it's telling us. Namely, there's no magic man around to kiss it better. And any assertions to the contrary are nothing but wishful thinking. The observational evidence tells us that if we want to alleviate suffering, it's up to us to get off our arse and do it ourselves. Your problem with this being what. precisely?

Andrew4Handel wrote:Dawkins is detailing a mass of suffering in the real world and claims reality has no justice good or evil in it. "The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation"

Exactly. Which means that supernaturalist assertions about a purported "intrinsic morality" built into the universe are refuted wholesale by the evidence. Next?

Andrew4Handel wrote:If that is an accurate scientific view I don't see how one could take comfort from it.

Well I already stated above that I don't "take comfort" from this, and neither do a lot of others, which renders the issue null and void. Of course, the whole apologetic fabrication about atheists "taking comfort" from a scientific worldview, as I;ve already stated, is precisely that - an apologetic fabrication aimed at falsely projecting the supernaturalist modus operandi upon those who simply don't subscribe thereto. A point you missed in your eagerness to post a knee-jerk apologetic reaction.

Andrew4Handel wrote:Is this suffering and lack of good or evil real or not.

The observed suffering is real. Which makes a mockery of supernaturalist assertions about the purported existence of an "intrinsic morality" built into the fabric of the universe by an imaginary magic man. Next?

Andrew4Handel wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
I'm sure transexual people will greatly appreciate you comparing them to hermaphrodites.
.

How was I comparing them.

By putting them in the same sentence and combining them with the word and, like they're similar somehow.

Andrew4Handel wrote:I was merely pointing out that I have a fixed (homosexual) identity.

Homosexuality isn't the same kind of identity as transsexuality. They're on two different spectra.

Andrew4Handel wrote:Fortunately Mr the process of Evolution allows hasn't eliminated homosexuality to exist so I must be serving some purpose lol.

This has been explained to you in the past. Evolution isn't a concious entity and it doesn't do purpose.

Andrew4Handel wrote:I am not sure what the scientific consensus is on the usefulness and nature of homosexuality so I shall wait around until they tell me how I should identify myself then i can adopt the suitable stance.

Science doesn't base it's conclusions on what is useful, but on what is veri- and falsifiable.

Andrew4Handel wrote:Homosexuality has been like infertility for me but that has not turned out to be a bad thing as I am an antinatalist and misanthrope.

Homosexuality isn't a form infertility.

Andrew4Handel wrote:

Calilasseia wrote:

Andrew4Handel wrote: Religion may be a purveyor of false optimism

What exactly is "optimistic" about being told that you're going to spend an eternity in a lava jacuzzi, just because you wore the wrong fibres or ate the wrong invertebrates?.

I was unaware that you would be sent to hell for wearing mixed fibres lol.

Read Leviticus. Which explicitly states that the above are purportedly an "abomination" to your magic man.

Andrew4Handel wrote:Another bizzare response from you.

Only "bizarre" when viewed through the distorting prisms of supernaturalist apologetics. See above,

Andrew4Handel wrote:I assumed that most religious people partly through religious observance believed they themselves are not going to hell.

Well as I observed in a past post, quite a few supernaturalists have a habit of cherry picking the bits that tickle their own ideological erogenous zones with respect to this. Quite a few of the homophobic fundie bigots who want to see you burned at the stake, for example, quite probably wear mixed fibres and eat assorted crustaceans, in violation of the Leviticus strictures against this. None of them stage pompous, ego-preening protests against mixed fibres in clothing or eating certain marine organisms, yet the moment TEH GAYZ are mentioned, they work themselves up into a frenzy. Which leads me to contemplate once more the words of Susan B. Anthony: "I distrust those who claim to know what God wants for me, for this is always in accord with their own desires".

Andrew4Handel wrote:There are religious systems with no hell.

Which, of course, are deemed to be somehow "wrong" by the Abrahamic brigade. Despite there never having existed any genuine rigorous test to sort out the "right" mythologies from the "wrong" ones.

Andrew4Handel wrote:There are many varities of comforting false beliefs.

And of course, the simple fact that they ARE false means that the comfort they purportedly provide is equally illusory.

Andrew4Handel wrote:I used to be a Christian and had an abusive childhood with bullying throughout school I can say for a fact I took comfort from the idea of life having an overall purpose, the prospect of heaven and afterlife justice.

And you find the notion of such ideas being persuasive to the wronged and the powerless, to be so remarkable? Of course, dangling such ideas before them is an excellent way of ensuring that they don't get together and rise up against the powerful. An observation that I gather is frequently, though apocryphally, attributed to Seneca the Younger.

Andrew4Handel wrote:I am an agnostic antinatalist now. I don't think (like notorious youtube antinatilist inmendeham) that we should lie about the state of reality to comfort ourselves.

But you're happy to accept fantasies about the operation of the universe and its contents, because these are "comforting" to you. You've admitted as much in numerous past posts. Indeed, there is an entire thread devoted to your tiresome peddling of this very notion.

Andrew4Handel wrote:Suffering is rife among humans and apparently among other species (depending on the hypothetical extent of their consciousness.) Millions of children starve each year.

Whilst old men in funny dresses live in palaces, just because they make noises about imaginary magic entities.

Andrew4Handel wrote:Is been optimistic at all rational. If you are going to castigate unproven or false beliefs you'd better take on all forms of sentimental attatchment, the social sciences and the humanities which have alot of unproven theories and stances.

Well at the moment, no one is insisting that I treat these as fact. On the other hand, I find myself encountering people who want me to treat invisible magic men as fact daily on these forums.

Andrew4Handel wrote: A belief in morality or justice for example (moral law and natural justice) isn't justified.

But then, serious systems of jurisprudence acknowledge that diligent effort on the part of humans is required in order to bring these about.

Andrew4Handel wrote:It is no better a fiction than any religious myth.

Well, the idea of an "intrinsic morality" built into the fabric of the universe IS a myth. On the other hand, we have observational evidence telling us that notions of fairness arise from our biological and evolutionary basis. There exist empirical demonstrations of the existence of such notions amongst other primates, who modify their behaviour accordingly. But that's the whole point - it comes from within, as opposed to being dispensed from without.

Andrew4Handel wrote:

Rumraket wrote:

Andrew4Handel wrote:I don't know who can decide what is the appropriate attitudes or beliefs to have about reality.

We can do it together. Decide what kind of world we want to live our lives in, and try to make it as such. .

So you are hoping for a universal consensus then?

One some subjects, there already exist a near-universal consensus. There's no country on earth that doesn't outlaw murder and stealing, for example. And in general, these things are in decline historically.

I don't expect perfection though, nor would the absense of universality or perfection invalidate the community and consesus approach. Nor does it imply it can't also be improved upon, once in place. It demonstrably works.

Have you seen this?

Andrew4Handel wrote:I prefer fact to consensus I think people conflate consensus with fact sometimes.

Yes, everything would be easier to work out in a world of absolutes, where there were clear black and white and right and wrong answers. We don't live in that world, we live in a world of change and nuance, so instead of submitting to nihilistic defeatism we make the best of it, and this life can be enjoyed, and human beings can reach agreements, instill the rule of law and live in relative peace.

Andrew4Handel wrote:The original cited article says in the abstract "Growing evidence indicates that religious belief helps individuals to cope with stress and anxiety"

This seems then to be evidence in favour of religious beliefs having a positive effect in some areas. This would explains its rationale, appeal and persistence.

Yes, everyone here fully acknowledge this elementary fact. You know the saying "religion is a crutch"? The statement implicitly assumes that religion has the role of a tool or object used to "hold one up and walking". Delusions can be pleasant delusions, an undeniable fact testified by the worlds drunks and drug addicts.

Andrew4Handel wrote:I don't think science could replicate something that is likely derived from false beliefs.

In which case you'd simply be wrong.

Andrew4Handel wrote:
The original cited article says in the abstract Growing evidence indicates
that religious belief helps individuals to cope with stress and anxiety

This seems then to be evidence in favour of religious beliefs having a positive effect in some areas . This would explain its rationale appeal and persistence . I do not think science could replicate something that is likely derived from false beliefs

Science is by definition concerned with falsifiability and so if something has been demonstrated to be objectively false it
is not scientific and so is disregarded : So in that respect you are right : But that is far better than the false optimism of religion which only exists because of the human fear of death : Overcome that and it has no raison d etre : Furthermore what prevails against anxiety is a positive mental attitude - regardless of belief or non belief - so it is psychology that is more important here not religion : As a mentally strong atheist is going to fare better than a mentally weak theist : This incidentally is what determines morality also : Having a belief system does not automatically make one more moral than
one who does not : Religion is an irrelevance here as psychology is the key factor once again

Andrew4Handel wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
I'm sure transexual people will greatly appreciate you comparing them to hermaphrodites.
.

How was I comparing them. I was merely pointing out that I have a fixed (homosexual) identity. Fortunately Mr Evolution allows homosexuality to exist so I must be serving some purpose lol.

You have a flawed view of evolution. Not everything in existence has a direct selective benefit, many organismal features (both behavioral and anatomical) are byproducts of something else. For example, the gray colour of your brainmatter was never selected for. The fats and proteins that make up your brain tissues might all have had their reasons for being shaped by natural selection the way they have, the fact that they appear gray to us when light shines upon them was never part of this process. Generally, if somone could see your brains, you'd be dead.

Further, some degree of standing variation within a population exists due to drift and the chance recombinations of alleles during sexual reproduction. Homosexual behavior could be one such result. In that case, homosexuality was never directly selected for, but simply emerges occasionally (with a frequency that fluctuates around some average) due to the random recombination of certain alleles which are otherwise involved in determining stuff like what the carrier finds sexually attractive.

In this way, the reason homosexuality still exists in sexually reproducing populations (despite it's clear and obvious lack of immediate selective benefits) could simply be because the individual genes that, which when recombined in a specific way produces homsexual behavior, are all individually maintained by natural selection because they have pleiotropic effects.

Stop obsessing about some ultimate purpose with your nature. Decide one for yourself that gives you happiness and something to look foward to. If you can't, then seek help from a mental health professional.

Andrew4Handel wrote:I am not sure what the scientific consensus is on the usefulness and nature of homosexuality so I shall wait around until they tell me how I should identify myself then i can adopt the suitable stance.

Why would you do that? You can't derive an ought from an is. It doesn't matter what the ultimate explanation for the origin and persistance of homosexuality is, it still wouldn't tell you what you should do.

Andrew4Handel wrote:Homosexuality has been like infertility for me but that has not turned out to be a bad thing as I am an antinatalist and misanthrope.

Congratulations!

Andrew4Handel wrote:

chairman bill wrote:

For the umpteenth time of saying it, gnosticism/agnosticism is to do with issues of knowledge, not belief. My atheism isn't dogmatic, because it's based on me not believing in god(s), and not on any truth claim concerning the existence or otherwise of proposed supernatural entities.

I am talking about issues of knowledge. We are talking about whether the scientific world view can comfort. I am arguing for agnosticism here on the grounds we don't no enough about reality nor probably ever will to make valid judgements on certain issues.

Of course 'science' is by its very nature an 'agnostic' endeavor. It is often said that science doesn't 'do' proof. It is about improving understanding, continuously working to build a better 'model' or reality, a better approximation or knowledge. Claiming to have that knowledge (in practically any context) is not science but dogma.

Strict/hard/whatever-you-want-to-call-it agnosticism, when one sits firmly on the fence, unwilling to voice even an opinion on the other hand is really no more than a cop-out, a means of avoiding the hard problems. Which does no one any good.

Andrew4Handel wrote:People are making judgements on the value of their life or life in general by throwing together disparate ideas in science that suit their current ideology. Does science deal with values..no ?

Not directly perhaps, but it can inform them. And as the best known means of reaching reasonable conclusions, as close to "truth" as we can so far manage, it is therefore the most useful foundation for the use of forming ones values.

Andrew4Handel wrote:As I have said before i don't think we can empirically or intellectually justify a lot of societal structures and human behaviours.

You wold have to be more specific for me to comment. But we can "empirically and intellectually" test and examine them. And through such means hopefully fashion improvements to those structures and behaviors.

Andrew4Handel wrote:We have an existential dillemma as human beings about how to make sense of our existence. These arguments between theists and atheists et al etc are just more discursive power struggles of the type posed in critical social psychology in my opinion. The truth is somewhat of a side show.

Andrew4Handel wrote:The original cited article says in the abstract "Growing evidence indicates that religious belief helps individuals to cope with stress and anxiety"

This seems then to be evidence in favour of religious beliefs having a positive effect in some areas. This would explains its rationale, appeal and persistence.

Sure. Although I would say "explain" rather than "in favor."

Andrew4Handel wrote:I don't think science could replicate something that is likely derived from false beliefs.

Not exactly of course. One could reasonably expect it to possibly do a better job, what with being based on far-more-likely-to-be-true beliefs. Sounds like a better foundation to me, no?
On the subject matter of the OP; the comfort that can be derived from the understanding and appreciation of science has a good chance of being superior to the comfort one can derive from religious belief, due to the far greater reliability in the data science provides. Real comfort over false comfort.

Calilasseia wrote:

Read Leviticus. Which explicitly states that the above are purportedly an "abomination" to your magic man.

It doesn't say you will go to hell for it as you claimed though.

I quoted the article cited itself earlier "Growing evidence indicates that religious belief helps individuals to cope with stress and anxiety".

And of course, the simple fact that they ARE false means that the comfort they purportedly provide is equally illusory

This doesn't logically follow.

Take this scenario. The police tell you your wife/partner/son etc has died in a road accident. On hearing the news would it be wrong to cry and feel overwhelmed with grief?

Then it turns out it was a case of mistaken identity or they had approached the wrong house. So it turns out you experienced real and vivid traumatic biopsychical emotions based on a false belief.

I don't see how you can judge how people should respond to the evidence they have or percieve. What concerns me is when the evidential interpretation is foisted on us by a dogmatist.

I can actually give a real-life example where recently understanding science gave me comfort.
Last year I had an operation to have my gallbladder removed. When I went for my consultation with the surgeon a month before the operation he was surprised at the amount of questions I was asking saying that most people don't want to know. I told him I read some literature and watched the operation on YouTube> I explained to him I wouldn't be happy unless understood the operational procedure to the extent that I could practically do the operation myself.
Just before the operation I was talking to the anaesthetist about a documentary I'd seen where a neurologist measuring people's brain activity under anaesthesia figured that when under your brain stops. He reckoned this is what it was like to be dead, I relayed to the anaesthetist with a wicked smile to his bemusement. I talked to he and the nurses about the operation and they were surprised and even aghast I would want to know all this because most people aren't interested. They just wanted the surgeon do their thing and not think about it. I told them that having knowledge of the procedure gave me confidence that I was in safe hands and relieved my worries. The nurse strapped me to the electrocardiogram and sure enough it wasn't bluster on my part; it showed I was incredibly calm and relaxed.

Now contrast this to a person who doesn't want to know what the doctors are doing. Who lets them work their wizardry and hopes for the best. I can easily see how such a person might resort to prayer. I mean there isn't much more frightening than the unknown. And in complete ignorance of our bodies and biology the work of the medics may seem alien and giving over your bodies to them without a clue may be as daunting as letting yourself fall back in hope the person behind you catches you. Where is the comfort in not knowing?

Rumraket wrote:

Andrew4Handel wrote:I am not sure what the scientific consensus is on the usefulness and nature of homosexuality so I shall wait around until they tell me how I should identify myself then i can adopt the suitable stance.

Why would you do that? You can't derive an ought from an is. It doesn't matter what the ultimate explanation for the origin and persistance of homosexuality is, it still wouldn't tell you what you should do.

That is my point.

I can't turn to science to understand my nature as a homosexual.

It would be easier if I was straight and then could be convinced I was just around to mindlessly reproduce.

Homosexuals are a genetic dead end unless they go against there true sexual instincts and sleep with the opposite sex. I have never wanted to and have never tried. I am not on a sexual continuum.

Of course all these interpretations of science and its role in these kinds of area is controversial. The WHO used to class homosexuality as a mental illness. Behaviour can be subject to a huge range of classification, medication and therapy and other various interventions based on a lack of medical consensus.

Animavore wrote:I can actually give a real-life example where recently understanding science gave me comfort.

But that is not a scientific world view giving you comfort. That is one instance of scientific knowledge setting your mind at rest on one occasion.

I think the ramfications of some scientific ideas that shape world views are not comforting most notably evolution. Others include materialism and determinism.

Andrew4Handel wrote:

Animavore wrote:I can actually give a real-life example where recently understanding science gave me comfort.

But that is not a scientific world view giving you comfort. That is one instance of scientific knowledge setting your mind at rest on one occasion.

I can think of many other examples. If an earthquake happens I don't have to cower in fear of gods and sacrifice lambs to placate them and accuse people of all types of heresies and sins. I know it is the mere shifting of tectonic plates. I can pull up my sleeves an help out in the rescue unhindered by superstitious fear.

If the moon covers the sun I don't have to panic that the sun has been swallowed by a giant dragon and condemn a "witch" to be burned.

If a plague strikes I don't have to worry about being punished by gods for some undefined 'sin' and pray, terrified and forsaken. I would just take the usual precautions to avoiding illness.

And so forth....

Andrew4Handel wrote:I can't turn to science to understand my nature as a homosexual.

Sure you can, as far as it is understood scientifically. It may not change who you are, let alone dictate how you should behave etc. But you still can.

Andrew4Handel wrote:It would be easier if I was straight and then could be convinced I was just around to mindlessly reproduce.

I don't see what that has to do with anything. Yes it is generally easier to be one of the majority (easier to be a Christian in the U.S. for example), but what of it?
And "mindlessly reproduce"

Andrew4Handel wrote:
Homosexuals are a genetic dead end unless they go against there true sexual instincts and sleep with the opposite sex. I have never wanted to and have never tried. I am not on a sexual continuum.

Of course you are; you are just at one end of it is all.

Andrew4Handel wrote:
Of course all these interpretations of science and its role in these kinds of area is controversial. The WHO used to class homosexuality as a mental illness. Behaviour can be subject to a huge range of classification, medication and therapy and other various interventions based on a lack of medical consensus.

More irrelevance.
Yes homosexuality was classified like that; until 'science' (i.e. people of science) learned more about it, and drove that change of classification.

Animavore wrote:
I can think of many other examples. If an earthquake happens I don't have to cower in fear of gods and sacrifice lambs to placate them and accuse people of all types of heresies and sins. I know it is the mere shifting of tectonic plates. I can pull up my sleeves an help out in the rescue unhindered by superstitious fear.

If the moon covers the sun I don't have to panic that the sun has been swallowed by a giant dragon and condemn a "witch" to be burned.

If a plague strikes I don't have to worry about being punished by gods for some undefined 'sin' and pray, terrified and forsaken. I would just take the usual precautions to avoiding illness.

And so forth....

Most religious people don't have these fears nor act this irrationally most of the time.

I don't see why you need a scientific theory of something to stop you from inventing mythical entities and bogus explanations.

Are you saying you would be afraid of eclipses if you didn't have a scientific theory of them?

People are still frightened of earthquakes and die en masse in them. I think you are still giving specific incidences and not a worldview. The bigger picture is questions like "Does my life have meaning or purpose" or "Is there a right and wrong way to live"

ADParker wrote:And "mindlessly reproduce"

I thought that was the engine of evolution?

Andrew4Handel wrote:

Animavore wrote:I can actually give a real-life example where recently understanding science gave me comfort.

But that is not a scientific world view giving you comfort. That is one instance of scientific knowledge setting your mind at rest on one occasion.

Resorting to semantics now are we?
Of course that one example isn't the world view. It is however an example of how a "scientific worldview", the world view of the appreciation and understanding of science and its value etc., led to less anxiety and stress.

Andrew4Handel wrote:I think the ramfications of some scientific ideas that shape world views are not comforting most notably evolution. Others include materialism and determinism.

Yet more irrelevance.
And on the contrary; understanding and appreciating the theory of evolution can provide real comfort. The comfort of relief from the discomfort many feel with not understanding, especially when that lack of understanding is far reaching. Some people cling to ancient stories to make them feel as if they understand, the rest of us prefer real answers, no matter how tentative they may be.
In this sense it is not about WHAT you understand, but simply THAT you understand that offers a degree of comfort.

ADParker wrote:Resorting to semantics now are we?
Of course that one example isn't the world view. It is however an example of how a "scientific worldview", the world view of the appreciation and understanding of science and its value etc., led to less anxiety and stress.

No specific case encapsulates a world view as far as I can see.

Some people prefer not to know what is going to happen to them during surgery for fear of frightening themselves. I think we are citing subjective personal responses here.

Anyhow I cited evolution populariser Dawkins claiming the world is wracked with unimaginable suffering and has no good or evil or purpose in it and am failing to see how you could be comforted by that reality?

I have suffered from depression for years now and it is a prolific condition. There are alot of issues which don't have scientific answers or that kind of framework for analysis that cause people serious anxiety such as recovering from childhood abuse, divorce/failed relationships, job loss, financial insecurity etc etc.

This whole realm seems highly subjective to me. Contemplating science doesn't automatically bring one comfort from my own experience of having studied it. I know about various cell mechanisms, the nervous system, structures and functions in the ear like the hair cells and Organ of Corti, structures of the eye and other perceptual mechanisms. I haven't noticed myself being comforted as I have imbibed this knowledge. I get instantaneously more comfort from listening to Bach