I don't understand why scientists don't study dragon fossils.
Neuroscientists must not be afraid to study religion
21–26 of 26 posts
Re: Neuroscientists must not be afraid to study religion
#22I don't understand why scientists don't study dragon fossils.
Presumably there are plenty who would, if any were available to study. ;)
Re: Neuroscientists must not be afraid to study religion
#23As I get older, this seems obvious to me; the idea of a scientist who's also to some extent religious makes just as much sense, maybe more, than a strongly atheist one -- especially given, that historically, religion and science weren't strongly mutually exclusive?
if it seems that obvious, you surely can explain why it would make semse?
Sure, it's the appreciation that there are unknowns and how to treat them. As you know, the best SCIENTISTS aren't 100% sure about very much. Reverence and wonder can cut across it all.
Re: Neuroscientists must not be afraid to study religion
#24Earlier quoted context omitted.
more seriously though, why isolate religion. it should be a study of "belief". I dont think anyone would honestly argue that religion isn't a belief, and if it is then it sits in the same area as flat earthers and 9/11 truthers and Andrew Tate devotees etc etc. Belief is the nurological architecture that people are building on.
There's a neurological argument that overgeneralizing cause from effect has survival benefits. There will be a high false alarm rate for tigers in moving grass, but that's a win if, sometimes, there really is a tiger. This leads to a tendency to assign causes for random events. That in turn leads to various belief systems not justified by the evidence. Wikipedia has some notes in this area.[1] [1] https://en.wikipedi…
It has always struck me as odd that when this example is recited, the animal of choice is always a tiger. The situation is supposed to play out in very early prehistory during the evolution of humanity. That evolution occurred in the savannahs of Africa, where there are no tigers.
Re: Neuroscientists must not be afraid to study religion
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
if it seems that obvious, you surely can explain why it would make semse?
Sure, it's the appreciation that there are unknowns and how to treat them. As you know, the best SCIENTISTS aren't 100% sure about very much. Reverence and wonder can cut across it all.
Religion tends to make people more sure about things that they don't really know for sure. In my mind that has always struck me as an obstacle to being a good scientist. Appreciating that there are unknowns is exactly what gets a lot of people into science, and the correct way to treat those unknowns in science is to say that you're not sure about something until you've run the experiment.
Re: Neuroscientists must not be afraid to study religion
#26I know this is unpopular but we need to stop being so afraid of studying IQ. If you look at research like the NYLS there are very clear differences, and they seem to be heavily influenced by genetics. Your IQ is incredibly important for everything from earning potential to lifespan, and we could make meaningful societal advancements from that kind of research. Also as an aside from my time doing research, I don’t thi…
> I don’t think anyone is afraid to conduct research that’s critical of religion.
Anyone? Anyone at all? Or did you mean anyone in your social circles and you forgot that people outside of it exist? Such as people in countries with Sharia law?