Quirky Little Things

That book's point is indeed interesting as a possible human cognitive tendency, or whatever...

I am somewhat peeved, although not in a condemning way but perhaps in a take-my-feedback-with-a-grain-of-salt-but-maybe-consider-it-when-blogging-in-the-future sort of way, with the way people, possibly like yourself, who, because they are rightfully critical of the perceived majority of religious people, or at least the majority of religious people who they encounter, lump religious people and religious thought into a sort of monolithic clump (not that you are particularly guilty of that in this particular blog post, but just generally) when, in my humble opinion, there are 2 discrete and differentially offensive types of "religious thought."

Like the story-telling kids from Nickelodeon's Are You Afraid of the Dark, this Ben-theory is humbly "submitted for the approval of the Midnight Society". Hmm I should name it. Perhaps the Religious-Thought-Bifurcation theory (that sounds sufficiently academic and snooty). :)

The type of religious thought that I generally approve of is

1) when, at a certain time in one's life, because a moral system (including, admittedly, belief in mythological phenomena that defy logical analysis) seems sufficiently socially-proven (perhaps trusted peeps like our parents and extended family believe in it), and because it rings true with us moreso than any alternative system of belief we encountered up to this point, we make a decision to faithfully adopt such a system and apply it to our own lives, at least to the extent we understand it to be consistent with our own notion of right and wrong,

versus a type which I think deserves the true blame from academics as well as anyone who is not in league with the Dark One (Voldemort, of course) for all the "stuff" that gets associated with religion (like Prop 8, suicide bombers, and GW Bush's presidency), which is

2) when, because of the cognitive tension between a religion's true purpose, which is providing people with an objectively unprovable moral system that they may voluntarily live their own lives by, with religion's perceived, yet false, purpose, which is providing an infallible account of how the world was created, thus creating a rubric which should rightly be forced onto all who cross the path of the ever-expanding empire of the faithful, people just ditch the cognitive tension and embrace fully the infallibility of what God has told them, as God's special people, even as they impose it on all others whether they like it or not.

While it is all too common and tragic for the untrained mind to hop, perhaps innocently at first, from the first type of religious thought into the second and evil type of religious thought, there are problems with lumping the two types of thought together in a monolithic fashion.

The problem, Dr. Beiring, is that by dealing with the two as one, you both potentially offend people you may not mean to, and it sort of takes the edge off of your criticism when you have legit attacks to make against religious peeps. Your last post, for example, "Religious People Aren't as Scientifically Naive as We Think", is way too tame if you apply it to Creation Scientists. Creation Scientists are so scientifically naive, words can barely describe their level of naivete. If we said that Creation Scientists' levels of scientific naivete approached infinity last week but this week had lapped infinity twice and had crossed the finish line, that would only begin to do justice to the truth.

If you actually read all this wordiness, Dr. Bering, my hope would be that maybe you would acknowledge the awesome trueness of the Religious Thought Bifurcation Theory, and that, in future blog posts, when you deal with Religious Thought type #1, you will be more forgiving of religious peeps' tendency to believe in things that defy Occam's Razor and stuff and perhaps maybe even portray religion in a positive light (if wishes were fishes) but when you were dealing with Religious Thought type #2 you will be extra scathing and put them in their place (you have my approval and encouragement in advance).

Personally, I feel extreme scientific skepticism, when applied to morality, is dangerous. A skeptic can rationally justify discarding any moral, and yes, whether or not to believe in a benevolent creator is a moral question, at least insofar as it carries with it moral implications within religious paradigms.

P.S. here is an interesting article by Reverend Mel White "What the Bible Says, and Does not Say, about Homosexuality" which to me was fascinating because of the way a smart, moral dude can find value in the Bible while still being open to the possibility that homosexuality as we understand it is not only not biblically condemned, but is in fact perfectly moral:

http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-gay-christian

i agree with you that some of these observed signs are false ones but this doesn't mean that there are some signs that are backed by science

http://www.2knowmyself.com/Is_there_really_a_God_out_there

How can you imagine the face of Jesus in anything when you did not live 2000 years ago and no one took a picture or painted his/her face?

Get real ... God is imaginary

Hello.
My expertise has been clinical and counseling psychology but over the last ten years, I became self educated in evolutionary psychology concepts. This has culminated in my new book, The Genius of Instinct: Reclaim Mother Nature's Tools For Enhancing Your Health, Happiness, Family, and Work. It is a clinical application of evol. concepts to all aspects of life.

Nueroscience is also a hot field. I am wondering if you think that current findings in neuroscience-such as mirror neurons to promote social communication-is best explained from an evolutionary perspective. In other words, does evol. science trump neuroscience?

How do you like that? You put God on a potato chip and I came up with Mary on a pizza.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/look-it-way/200904/pizzawith-peppero...

But I have to ask...since you're in the UK...shouldn't you have said "Potato Crisp?"

Steve Mason
PT Blogger