the question "prove God exists" is a logical fallicy

Eh, to be honest, I dont' blame Wellwisher for believing that... it is one of, if not perhaps the single most, common myths about the brain:

http://psychology.about.com/od/cognitivepsychology/a/left-brain-right-brain.htm

Have you ever heard people say that they tend to be more of a right-brain or left-brain thinker? From books to television programs, you've probably heard the phrase mentioned numerous times or perhaps you've even taken an online test to determine which type best describes you. Given the popularity of the idea of "right brained" and "left brained" thinkers, it might surprise you learn learn that this idea is just one of many myths about the brain.

What Is Left Brain - Right Brain Theory?

According to the theory of left-brain or right-brain dominance, each side of the brain controls different types of thinking. Additionally, people are said to prefer one type of thinking over the other. For example, a person who is "left-brained" is often said to be more logical, analytical, and objective, while a person who is "right-brained" is said to be more intuitive, thoughtful, and subjective.

In psychology, the theory is based on what is known as the lateralization of brain function. So does one side of the brain really control specific functions? Are people either left-brained or right-brained? Like many popular psychology myths, this one grew out of observations about the human brain that were then dramatically distorted and exaggerated.

The right brain-left brain theory originated in the work of Roger W. Sperry, who was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1981. While studying the effects of epilepsy, Sperry discovered that cutting the corpus collosum (the structure that connects the two hemispheres of the brain) could reduce or eliminate seizures.

However, these patients also experienced other symptoms after the communication pathway between the two sides of the brain was cut. For example, many split-brain patients found themselves unable to name objects that were processed by the right side of the brain, but were able to name objects that were processed by the left-side of the brain. Based on this information, Sperry suggested that language was controlled by the left-side of the brain.

Later research has shown that the brain is not nearly as dichotomous as once thought. For example, recent research has shown that abilities in subjects such as math are actually strongest when both halves of the brain work together. Today, neuroscientists know that the two sides of the brain work together to perform a wide variety of tasks and that the two hemispheres communicate through the corpus collosum.

"No matter how lateralized the brain can get, though, the two sides still work together," science writer Carl Zimmer explained in an article for Discover magazine. "The pop psychology notion of a left brain and a right brain doesn’t capture their intimate working relationship. The left hemisphere specializes in picking out the sounds that form words and working out the syntax of the words, for example, but it does not have a monopoly on language processing. The right hemisphere is actually more sensitive to the emotional features of language, tuning in to the slow rhythms of speech that carry intonation and stress."

In one study by researchers at the University of Utah, more 1,000 participants had their brains analyzed in order to determine if they preferred using one side over the other. The study revealed that while activity was sometimes higher in certain important regions, both sides of the brain were essentially equal in their activity on average.

“It’s absolutely true that some brain functions occur in one or the other side of the brain. Language tends to be on the left, attention more on the right. But people don’t tend to have a stronger left- or right-sided brain network. It seems to be determined more connection by connection," explained the study's lead author Dr. Jeff Anderson.

While the idea of right brain / left brain thinkers has been debunked, its popularity persists. So what exactly did this theory suggest?

The Right Brain

According to the left-brain, right-brain dominance theory, the right side of the brain is best at expressive and creative tasks. Some of the abilities that are popularly associated with the right side of the brain include:

Recognizing faces
Expressing emotions
Music
Reading emotions
Color
Images
Intuition
Creativity
The Left Brain

The left-side of the brain is considered to be adept at tasks that involve logic, language and analytical thinking. The left-brain is often described as being better at:

Language
Logic
Critical thinking
Numbers
Reasoning
So Why Do People Still Talk About Right-Brain, Left-Brain Theory?

Researchers have demonstrated that right-brain/left-brain theory is a myth, yet its popularity persists. Why? Unfortunately many people are likely unaware that the theory is outdated. Today, students might continue to learn about the theory as a point of historical interest - to understand how our ideas about how the brain works have evolved and changed over time as researchers have learned more about how the brain operates.

While over-generalized and overstated by popular psychology and self-help texts, understanding your strengths and weaknesses in certain areas can help you develop better ways to learn and study. For example, students who have a difficult time following verbal instructions (often cited as a right-brain characteristic) might benefit from writing down directions and developing better organizational skills. The important thing to remember if you take one of the many left brain/right brain quizzes that you will likely encounter online is that they are entirely for fun and you shouldn't place much stock in your results.

It surprised me to find this... as the left vs right brain theory was something I learned in my high-school psychology classes... go figure!
 
Eh, to be honest, I dont' blame Wellwisher for believing that.
I certainly blame him.
And with good reason.
In the last couple of weeks I have pointed out several times that it is a myth. (Not least post #28 just after he made the same claim).
And the "complaint" isn't just about continually posting that myth - it's the accompanying pseudo-scientific/ intellectual trash that comes along with it.
Plus the fact the spouts all of this bilge in each of his posts and not once does he provide any support whatsoever for his claims.
He has a habit of posting arm-waving bullshit, conflating incompatible concepts (as if the comparison was in any way valid) and extrapolating meaninglessly,
Oh, and nor does he acknowledge corrections (once - to my memory - thus far).
 
I certainly blame him.
And with good reason.
In the last couple of weeks I have pointed out several times that it is a myth. (Not least post #28 just after he made the same claim).
And the "complaint" isn't just about continually posting that myth - it's the accompanying pseudo-scientific/ intellectual trash that comes along with it.
Plus the fact the spouts all of this bilge in each of his posts and not once does he provide any support whatsoever for his claims.
He has a habit of posting arm-waving bullshit, conflating incompatible concepts (as if the comparison was in any way valid) and extrapolating meaninglessly,
Oh, and nor does he acknowledge corrections (once - to my memory - thus far).

Fair enough I suppose. As I said, i was rather surprised to learn of that being "debunked" myself - granted, I also learned of this particular case this week, of a woman with no cerebellum...

A 24-year-old Chinese woman recently went to the hospital complaining of dizziness and nausea. She was most likely not prepared for the cause of the discomfort. The otherwise healthy grown woman does not have a cerebellum. Amazing—it's the ninth case in medical history.

That's right. The cerebellum is a fairly sizable part of the brain—the name literally means "little brain"—and is important for motor control and some cognitive functions. A brain scan of the woman with the missing cortex is on the left. A normal brain is pictured to the right.

However, the fact that she lived without this vital region just goes to show you how adaptable the human brain is as an organ. The woman reported having some problems with motor control. She also didn't speak until age 6 or walk until age 7. But you can't really blame her. She was missing a big part of her brain!

This is about as rare as rare medical conditions get. The Chinese woman is one of only nine people in history known to have survived without a cerebellum. As such, the prognosis for her is unclear, though there is some research that indicates people with this condition die young. It's already a miracle she's survived this long, though.

Our knowledge of the brain is rapidly improving... but the more we learn, the more we realize we really don't understand it at all :D
 
The Ten Commandments were intended not just for "Christs people" but for "All People"; they were given to Moses to be disseminated to all.

If that's the case, then they are awfully Hebrew-centric. The first four commandments are:

1. I am the Lord they God. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

This would seem to make any theistic religious tradition with the possible exception of Christianity and Islam (who claim to worship the same god) awfully problematic. What are we to do with those who worship Vishnu or Shiva?

2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.

Taken literally, that would seem to prohibit any kind of representational art whatsoever. (And possibly photography as well.) Even if it is restricted to religious art that attempts to represent the divine in sensible form, it remains highly problematic. (Does Jesus get a special-pass because of his supposed incarnation?)

3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.

Which once again simply assumes that the Hebrew god is and must necessarily be everyone's god.

4. Remember the sabbath day and keep it holy.

It's interesting that the more developed Hebrew law found in Deuteronomy, Leviticus and elsewhere is in some large part concerned with the interpretation and enforcement of the 'decalogue' commandments. And significantly, violation of the commandments typically carries the penalty of death:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Actions_punishable_by_death_in_the_Old_Testament

We find the worship of different gods punishable by death, the religious use of so-called 'idols' punishable by death, blasphemy punishable by death, the violation of the sabbath punishable by death, along with death penalties for things like children disrespecting their parents, adultery and so on.
 
Yeah, there is a lot of death in the old testament.

To be honest, I'm not really sure how that is supposed to be reconciled with the New Testament and the New Covenant in Christ... it's also one of the reasons why I don't take the bible "verbatim"... too much killing for my taste. It seems to me like the scribes of the day went too much into their personal thoughts on how God's will should be carried out... but that's just me.
 
Eh, to be honest, I dont' blame Wellwisher for believing that.

I don't either.

It's something that's widely believed and repeated out there, even in university classrooms. It even has a grain of truth to it.

Nevertheless, I'm personally inclined to think that it's over-stated and to largely agree with the thing that Kittamaru posted.

The stronger interpretations of brain lateralization look to me like an attempt to provide a scientific physiological basis for the preexisting 'two-cultures' cultural dichotomy between the 'STEM' subjects (science, math and applied subjects like engineering) and the supposedly more intuitive 'humanities' subjects like art, poetry, literature, music and so on.

That's a very tempting idea, but I suspect that it might be a bit simplistic.

I have no objection to Wellwisher posting about it. I might not entirely agree with him, but I rarely agree entirely with anyone.

The bottom line is that Wellwisher enjoys posting his ideas and isn't that what Sciforums is all about? Those who disagree with Wellwisher are free to either ignore him or make posts expressing their disagreements.
 
The stronger interpretations of brain lateralization look to me like an attempt to provide a scientific physiological basis for the preexisting 'two-cultures' cultural dichotomy between the 'STEM' subjects (science, math and applied subjects like engineering) and the supposedly more intuitive 'humanities' subjects like art, poetry, literature, music and so on.
hmm.. so belief would be the latter, and knowledge the former? this would explain a lot about why the 'God' debate is so unresolvable..
religionist vs scientist... left brain vs right brain..



The bottom line is that Wellwisher enjoys posting his ideas and isn't that what Sciforums is all about? Those who disagree with Wellwisher are free to either ignore him or make posts expressing their disagreements.

YES! don't spend the next 20 pages arguing about who's right and who's wrong..
 
hmm.. so belief would be the latter, and knowledge the former? this would explain a lot about why the 'God' debate is so unresolvable..
religionist vs scientist... left brain vs right brain...
Surely the subject has nothing to do with one's perspective. We are try to come to a universal conclusion based on evidence. Feelings aren't evidence.
 
Digression: left brain / right brain differentiation was all the rage a few decades ago. wellwisher's notions are outdated.

There is some specialization, there is some merit to it, but modern brain scanning techniques have largely debunked the notion that they are so clearly defined as we once liked to think.
 
The question of , " prove god exists " can be done

Just look into prehistory , the Sumerians to start , the so called " mythology " of our ancient past , god is there

The thing is though , the Sumerians NEVER called them " gods " in the beginning
 
The question of , " prove god exists " can be done
Just look into prehistory , the Sumerians to start , the so called " mythology " of our ancient past , god is there
The thing is though , the Sumerians NEVER called them " gods " in the beginning
Nonsense.
Regardless of what the Sumerians were writing about [sup]1[/sup], written documents of largely unknown provenance that can't be confirmed independently aren't proof.
(Otherwise we wouldn't be having this argument at all: the Bible would be "proof").

1 And they certainly weren't what Sitchin and his band of loons claims they were.
 
The question of , " prove god exists " can be done

Just look into prehistory , the Sumerians to start , the so called " mythology " of our ancient past , god is there

The thing is though , the Sumerians NEVER called them " gods " in the beginning
certainty is not proof, one can be certain that the odds of a premise is true, but it does not become 'I know'(knowledge) until it is tested enough times to conclude 1+1 always = 2, if one test showed that 1+1 did not equal 2 then it would not be knowledge, with archeology it takes a long time to test the 'always' part, with religion certainty is indoctrinated into those who follow religion, but still, without proof, it is belief.
 
certainty is not proof, one can be certain that the odds of a premise is true, but it does not become 'I know'(knowledge) until it is tested enough times to conclude 1+1 always = 2, if one test showed that 1+1 did not equal 2 then it would not be knowledge, with archeology it takes a long time to test the 'always' part, with religion certainty is indoctrinated into those who follow religion, but still, without proof, it is belief.

There is proof

Perhistory as I said shows this

But as I also said the Sumerians NEVER called them gods
 
The written documents are very well known
So what?
When you say "very well known" I should point out, again, that what Sitchin et al claim about them is sheer crap.
I.e. they ARE well known but certain people have chosen to invent their own interpretations of them. (An interpretation that has no basis in reality whatsoever).
 
So what?
When you say "very well known" I should point out, again, that what Sitchin et al claim about them is sheer crap.
I.e. they ARE well known but certain people have chosen to invent their own interpretations of them. (An interpretation that has no basis in reality whatsoever).

The written documents are very well known
 
Back
Top