text:
- Bernard White
- London Uk
- United Kingdom
This conversation is closed.
What theological implications does the "Psychology" and "Neuroscience" (and possibly biology) of religion (or "God(s)") have?
I'm very interested in people's opinions on this matter.
I would just like to say, as I have said in the past, this debate is not to make mockery of "God". It is just honesty enquiry.
Yet as I have explored with my other debates in the past, it seems we must first define (or describe to the best of our limits) what we mean by "God(s)" and "Existence". Otherwise the debate "Does God exist?" becomes slightly meaningless.
Now that's done.
I was reading much about the psychology of religion, and found that due to articles like :
"Thinking Style and Belief In God" - Art Markman
Link : http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/ulterior-motives/201208/thinking-style-and-belief-in-god
"We are programmed to believe in a god" by Jesse Bering.
"Is God an Accident" by Paul Bloom :
that had many theological implications!
And made me think :
- There is a strong correlation with a "Theory of mind" and belief in God. Animals don't really have a "theory of mind", does this mean other animals can't experience "God(s)"?
- Psychologists can now artificially create a "God experience", Doesn't this make the "Religious experience" argument rather dubious?. Link : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y02UlkYjSi0
And there are probably many more Tedsters could think of!
However I do think it is worth mentioning that :
As Justin L. Barret said, that the psychology and neuroscience of religion (God) doesn't (dis)prove that God isn't real. For it wouldn't make much sense if a God who wanted to be in a relationship with us, didn't give us the ability to conceive such a God.
Another great quote by him :
"Having a scientific explanation for mental phenomena does not mean we should stop believing in them. "Suppose science produces a convincing account for why I think my wife loves me — should I then stop believing that sh
Keith W
May 16 2013: Religion is a byproduct of evolution and is a result of and a function for many different things. Humans are the most social of all creatures, we are a creatures whos very survival rests on cooperation and compliance. Its been suggested by anthropologists that religion in its most rudimentary sense began with ancestral worship. It makes sense if you think of the evolutionary advantage of conformity and the inherent inclination to have reverence for those who are older and wise. Long story short religion itself evolved as society and human demands changed. Humans also are the only species aware of their own mortality another role religion has to keep us from being traumatized by our inevitable fate. With that said God however you may define him, is more likely to be a psychological and cultural construct and not a reality, although a God might actually exist in some abstract way. Pretty much it seems to be even if there is a God its not a God or the God that we conceive.
- +5
May 16 2013: " God however you may define him"
Pantheism : God = Universe.
Is the universe part of our imagination?
I disagree with your views on the evolutionary reasons for religion. Yet I can see the logic to them! :-)
Religion has many other advantages except for "conformity". Like the sense of "meaning + purpose" it brings people, the sense of a loving community (/ family). Most religions encourage altruistic deeds, and God(s) act as the deterrent to "force" you to do them. There are many other clever mechanisms within religion, e.g "resisting temptation" = An increase in willpower. Religion also acts as a moral reminder (the cross) and the concept of confessions is proven to increase honesty. Some religions even encourage introversion, and a sense of humility.
"even if there is a God its not a God or the God that we conceive"
I agree. Yet what happens if it is a God we have conceived yet we just don't know about?
Keith W
May 16 2013: All good qualities of religion you pointed out all have evolutionary advantages. I wasn't
- +1
saying conformity was the only advantage.
May 16 2013: Yet I must admit the "Psychology + Neuroscience" and "Evolutionary biology" of religion / "God(s)" doesn't prove nor disprove the claim "God(s) Exist". (After of-course you do what Carlos Marquez calls "The Bernard Test", where you have to define (or describe to the best of your ability) what "God(s)" and "Existence" actually are!)
I find the Christian God hard to believe in (the omnibenevolent omnipotent omniscient God), due to there being too many logical paradoxes (e.g "the problem of evil"). Yet in an odd way I can't "disprove" it.May 17 2013: Wow . . . Mr. Wessman, I admire your thought on this matter. Your comments are complete, brief, and to the point.May 24 2013: Just to say.
I never got to say : That was a really good comment! :D
Evan Bonney
May 31 2013: Bernard,
- +3
Great topic to consider. I find your question quite ironic because this is what I am looking to study throughout my time in graduate school.
It is hard to understand the psychology and neuroscience of religion and or this, "god factor" because relatively little research has been done on the topic. There's a great documentary on the topic called, "God on the Brain" which I think you might find interesting. It mentions a study based of the University of Wisconsin (I believe) that studied buddhists in deep meditation and Catholic nuns who while immersed in meditation and prayer, activated certain areas of the brain. There are others who tackle this question as well, especially in regards to aesthetic experiences. One such person is John Richmond, who is a bit dated but worth looking at.
It is my view that it is important to look at anthropology, sociology, and politics when talking about religion. All of these factors can help explain the formation of religion in regards to its purpose in creating community. However, the quote you provided by Barrett provides some type of foundation for arguing that our brains might be hardwired for an experience that we then label as being either religious, aesthetic, or God. The truth is that religion is a complicated topic, but quite fascinating when we start to look deeper than whats on the surface.
Jun 1 2013: Sorry for my late reply!
Thank you for your insightful opinion.
Part 1 : (:P)
The only psychology (and neuroscience) I know about religion comes from these two books :
- "The Belief (or God) Instinct: The Psychology of Souls, Destiny, and the Meaning of Life" (By Jesse Bering)
- "The Believing Brain: From Ghosts and Gods to Politics and Conspiracies---How We Construct Beliefs and Reinforce Them as Truths" (By Michael Shermer)
Where both books argue that religion can be reduced to psychology.
I view they (both) explain religion with three main psychological mechanisms :
- Our theory of mind (or as Michael Shermer calls it "Agenticity"). Which enables us to extend a mind towards certain patterns.
- The other one is our ability to form patterns. (By Classical + Operant conditioning, and facial recognition, or just our general ability to find patterns).
Also both form a compelling case that there is a correlation with an external locust of control (or self-learned helplessness) and the ability to find patterns. Due to it reduces anxiety, due to it giving the illusion of "control".
This in-turn has produces a correlation with well-being of countries and religiosity.
- The last one is "telo-functional reasoning", which is simply put : people think that something exists for a preconceived purpose rather than simply came to be as a functionless outgrowth of physical otherwise natural processes.
However Michael Shermer goes into the "outer body" experience aspect. Jesse Bering tackles the evolutionary adaptation of religion (to reduce gossip).
Both agree though, that if our ability to find patterns is primed for a belief in God. We are more likely to find patterns that confirm our belief in God(s). Which results in "Confirmation Bias".
That's all I really know!Jun 1 2013: Part 2 :
While it is interesting to note that a "Theory of mind" is correlated with a belief in God. Due to studies done in children (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hLubgpY2_w).
However it is interesting to note, that Michael Shermer books seems more in-depth. Consideirng he makes refernce to the "God Helmet" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y02UlkYjSi0)
I personally view that Jesse Bering's book deserves more recognition. While the both seem to agree on a lot of things! Such as the fact it is our theory of mind, which enables us to be inherent dualists.
Kind regards,
I would love to knwo if you have any more book recommendations on the matter! :DMay 23 2013: Does anyone here know the difference between debating an issue and squabbling about it? If debate cannot persuade others to your leanings, it is just squabbling. The purpose of debate is to persuade others to your cause or understanding. Anything you say that does not assist in performing this end is useless and unnecessary. It is important in a debate to understand the views of the other parties/party.
Debating is not competition. There are no winners in a (practical) debate. It is a means to an end.
It doesn't matter how strongly you feel about your ability to flap your arms and fly. If you jump off a cliff the result will be the same, no matter your belief. ~ John Ray
May 24 2013: Great comment! It saddens me to realize that we may indeed just be "squabbling". (Probably me included).
It seems not much progress is being made with this debate.
May 24 2013: Don't be sad :)
We all do it. Most of you guys are much younger than I. I'm 62 years old and I still squabble. :) I'm starting to see a new, younger, generation of tedsters around TED. This is a good thing. Most of us older types have talked and debated just about everything there is to discuss. It's refreshing to see both new and common ideas arising in younger minds. It makes all our work appear worthwhile.
I have a dog. His name is Merlin the wizard puppy. He understands some English words and obeys my commands. It took quite awhile to get him to do this, but he does understand a lot of things. He both accepts emotional contact and expresses it also. He is an animal. We don't expect animals to express emotions and feelings, as humans do, but I can't help but think that Merlin does to a small degree. Of course he is highly domesticated. I sometimes wonder if dogs will evolve to be similar in some ways to humans with a more evolved brain. Is it possible, I wonder that dogs with no opposing thumbs, fingers, or ability to express human works like language, art, etc to evolve just because they are taken care of by humans? We do many things for our pets. As a result, they may not need to work their way up the ladder as mankind has. Children, paralyzed at a very young age, still turn out to understand all things human.
I have a pet fish, a Betta. I tap on the side of his tank and he comes a running, because he knows that means feeding time. If we can train a simple animal like a fish to come to the dinner table, does this imply that we don't know as much as we should about animals, mental abilities?
I hope your generation can answer these simple, perhaps, insignificant, questions. I recommend to all young people that they read Spinoza. He's a philosopher and a Jewish heretic from the 1600's. I think his way of thinking was pretty modern for a person in his time period. Descartes is also good to read. Also, Helen Keller.
May 24 2013: Personally I view Spinoza in a very high light.
It's ironic (to me) that you just mentioned him, because I was reading the book "Religion for Atheism", where Alain de Botton talks about Spinoza briefly how he got consolation from the view that his problems were irrelevant from the grandeur of the universe. (Is this correct?)
You can watch his TED talk even : "Atheism 2.0"
Kind regards,
I.B. One
May 24 2013: John,
- 0
I suggest grabbing a copy of Karen Pryor's "Reaching the Animal Mind"
Once you open a real line of communication, you'll be on a journey will animals that reaches and opens YOUR mind in was you cannot yet imagine.
When you start to see Merlin as a being and not an animal, as a being within the organism., you may weep with realization. You may also see that Merlin is not inferior in any way. He can teach and train you. Merlin has natural night vision, super hearing, can see magnetic fields (auras), can sense disease in others and natural disasters. Know any humans like that?
I have been handing out Karen's book "Dont Shoot the Dog" since it was published and am excited when people like you come to the place where they ask these questions like yours. I am enthused because you are just a few steps from discovering something amazing.
I can promise you- within the first few days of working with Merlin, there will be a moment when Merlin looks you in the eye and thinks, "Wait! You can understand me!? We can communicate!?" and off you both will go on a never ending adventure. You may never see animals the same again. All you do is initiate the communication.. then throw the books away and just communicate. Karen's techniques simply open the connection.. Im not sure that even she knows the true majic of what she has uncovered.
Soon enough you will see every motion of Merlin and translate it. He licks his whiskers isnt just "a dog thing", he looks at something- it isnt just him looking- its all communication.
Thanks for the opportunity to share. I hope this inspires you to further investigate your questions and unlock the being inside Merlin : ) (The Betta can be reached and communed with also)
I apologize for the drift in conversation in advance.May 19 2013: If there is one thing religion studies and theology has proven in culture sciences, it is one key idea: humans are naturally 'religious.' (keywords: religious naturalism, [cognitive] psychology of religion, AND memetics)
WE group-orientate (most important factor), have rituals, have patterned rationalities, need others to 'feel' as though we 'know' and vice versa, develop dogmas and taboos, create belief systems from the former factors, and then the practical usage of the above (with or without conscious awareness).
Besides the question of a 'creator-God' there are other questions religions worry about, which seem to be innately metaphysical concerns of people: the beginning, the end, the purpose, the reason, and where the 'self' comes into play...
Practicing a religion, and enjoying it, is natural to human beings. With that can come fundamental or non-fundamental images of God and answers to the above questions, but truly it has never been a question of God that plagues religion... It is the question of the morality championed within the religion. What God is, is unique to every individual that describes God... But what is right and wrong can more easily recorded and made into data, than that of what everyone believes 'God' is or is not.
But, no matter to who, denying truth and morality is always a negative...
The question of evolution makes the God-question all the more interesting, beautiful and wonderful...Not resolved or in jeopardy. To reject this 'reality' is in a sense, to me, rejecting God in the most basic principle: "We are made in the image of the image-less one." This fundamentalist practice of any religion will show high levels of irrationality in optimism and band-wagon reasoning. If we are designed to grow and develop in the 'image of God' that also takes understanding God and what we use to understand God - ourselves, others and knowledge.
Whatever theology has done, it hasn't done enough to change the mind sciences for the better, yet.
Comment deleted
May 20 2013: I'll check out the terms soon, thanks DonMay 23 2013: "... If there is one thing religion studies and theology has proven in culture sciences, it is one key idea: humans are naturally 'religious.' (keywords: religious naturalism, [cognitive] psychology of religion, AND memetics).."
Doesn't this imply that non-religious people are somehow unnatural human beings? What, in the natural sense, is the difference between a non-religious person and an religious person. Without speaking to either, how could you determine their stance on, religious or non-religious belief.
In nature, we can look at two different plants and state one is different from the other. We can measure the atom and determine is is made up of electrons, protons and neutrons. This is because they have certain, natural attributes we can measure or discern. We can look at two different people and see they may have different physical characteristics but not what they think about anything.
By religious preference, if a non-believing and believing human, each do good in their life and responsibly seek the betterment of their fellow humans, what would be the natural difference between them?
May 24 2013: John,
Did you at bare minimal wikipedia the phrases I posted?
If we are naturally religious, this just ask what is being religious? Well, patternicity, group-orientation, rituals, traditions, metaphysical conquest, dogma, and more (these are qualities of what humans do, that can be seen in groups of humans). Religious behavior is a type of group-thinking which is innate in our developing psyches in order to develop and respond to our predestined conditions. In another sense, what it is to be religious is natural and therefore must be investigated as such - and when such is being investigated, one will realize the dependency an individual has on those that surround the individual - others.
We are nothing without others - we NEED others in order to have a functional and developed mind - or at least a good enough mind to work in that particular society.
Now, the question could be "is it not easier to just say we are naturally group-oriented?" Well yes, but that does not give justice to the gravity of the situation. The fact is we are OVERLY group-oriented by nature - like mirror neurons to evolve and grow or self actualization in society to feel accepted.
It's not simply a matter of rejecting the term 'religious' - and, if someone is non-religious they are still going to conform to other standards in which irreligious/non-religious can be practiced. Hence all my constant non-sense about 'neo-atheist' - it is a new age religion, not organized, no shared rituals, but dogmas, metaphysical conquest, group-orientation, tradition, and patternicity.
It is HOW you look at something that counts, yes. But we cannot say humans are not GROUP creatures, and to suggest they are non-religious naturally is innately flawed. We are designed to develop within groups, and develop in response to said groups.
This particular response is not in the mindset of morality, but after this mindset is made - morals are all the more clear. A non-anthropocentric attitude, helps a lot
May 24 2013: Well, yes. I would say we are oriented towards grouping together. In fact, from an evolutionary perspective, this is exactly what the first bio-proto-particles did. They grouped together and via, some type of symbiotic process, merged to become a living, metabolizing cell. Perhaps it is ingrained oin our very DNA.
"Hence all my constant non-sense about 'neo-atheist' - it is a new age religion..."
I can agree with that. I think atheism is consistently moving to organize and standardize their total focus on destroying the religious domain. Not all atheists, but there are some really serious Atheists out there -as serious as some Theists.
In the beginning of our Universe, it is said that a single proton, became the foundation of all the elements we know to exist. It was able to accomplish this by grouping together with other protons, increasing their total gravity, and become more dense and heavy. Ultimately, they exploded to become suns and the process of Universal creation was on it's way.
Grouping, in this view, has been the constant motivating force of the entire universe.
My question is: how does this fit in with multi-deminsional-parted-question that Bernard White posted?
I imagine that little baby is getting bigger N. L.? I don't remember you posting a comment directly to me. Did I miss something?
John.May 24 2013: " My question is: how does this fit in with multi-deminsional-parted-question that Bernard White posted?"
We need unitary alliances with academics, not privatization. We understand the universe evolves because of an interconnected system! But we do not design systems and paradigms to be interconnected so easily! It's maddening to think the goal of all scientist, researchers, theologians, theorist, writers, historians, etc are all trying to do the same thing (TO KNOW) but disconnected at the point of WHO KNEW FIRST and WHAT DO WE DO WITH THE KNOWLEDGE!
Your last sentence is confusing, the baby, my cousin, is doing just fine. I don't think you missed anything John
May 24 2013: THE NEED FOR MULTIDISCIPLINARY PRACTICE IN FIELDS OF STUDY!
I'm afraid I still don't understand what it is you are trying to say.
This is the first time I've heard from you in a long while. I remember your comments. You used to have a picture of you and a baby on the couch. That's where I'm coming from with the last sentence. I can edit that out if you like.
What we need and what we can afford or have the ability to produce is far different from what we have and are capable of producing. I would suggest you form an alliance of your own towards producing these types of productions. You could become a leader.
Saying the same thing louder or with more veracity will not help get the intended message across if your audience didn't understand it the first time you said it. Perhaps rewording it might help.May 24 2013: I am limited with options of how to alter text: TEXT, 'text', "text", (text) ... maybe even *text*
CAPS isn't yelling it's making a distinctive point.
In any research there is a want of an unified theory. This can only happen from looking at the same problem in many different ways, and we see this in cognitive science. Multiple disciplines making solutions to collective problems. This mentality should be done in every aspect of life, not just our in our research sciences.
So for the couch warmer - basically, when you hear information, look for how others also work with and deal with that information. This anticipation will let someone know the vastness of the applicability of their knowledge.
The best perspective comes from having many perspectives, not from building off of one.
I do not know how else to explain this, but maybe examples drawn from research?
Check out the paradigm of 'evolutionary cognitive neuroscience' - something I am still learning about and proves troublesome because neuroscience's terminology is very rough (to memorize ALL of the parts and their functions, sucks). But in a rough definition - the idea in which the study of the mind/individual should be practiced in light of the evolution of cognitive development - which is something dependent on sociological factors rather than only individual (psychological) factors.
May 24 2013: Nicholas, my suggestion to you is that you try to make just one point and offer some supporting evidence to back it up. Check for redundancy in your sentences. Don't use the same word twice in one sentence. Use a thesaurus.
One point, well made, is more important than a whole paragraph filed with multiple points that only add discussion to the debate. Unless, of course, it is your intention to cause confusion.
You say, "The best perspective comes from having many perspectives, not from building off of one"
I would counter that the best perspective is the one that offers the most closure on the issue being discussed or gives greater detail because of the perspective. For instance: a man on a hill ( vertical and broad sweeping perspective) might have a greater view than multiple people on the ground (horizontal, narrow perspective).May 24 2013: Indeed, in my attempt to be simple proves redundant at times, but at this point I do not know what I am breaking down for you?
What you feel causes confusion, I feel does broaden the debate. Which is more important than being right... To show where boundaries do not exist.
The best disclosure comes from discussing the greater details (having many perspectives). Closure suggest certainty but while 'certainty' exist, what certainty applies to is not certain... Yes, words are my limitation. Your example is useful, but who interprets the perspective is still many of others not on the hill... A constant battle of communication is where all of this ties together, I guess.May 30 2013: Actually there is still the question of whether a particular religious god or goddess concept is correct, whether the dogma and scriptures are from a god or goddess, whether the interpretations are correct.
Then there is still the question is there any god.
If god believers believe in different god concepts they can not all be correct.
Humans seems to have a hyperactive agency assumption. We not only believe in gods, but nature spirits, faerie, aliens, little people, demons, evil spirits, guardians, kami, hidden worlds etc. The strength of science is it relies on evidence not intuition.
May 30 2013: Indeed, a lot of God-concepts were made into deities figures later on but stem from philosophical positions like 'change' 'destruction' 'birth' or 'divinity'
And yes, today there are different interpretations of the same type of Judea-Christian God that varies from each different Christian Tradition. But, individuals being correct about "God" isn't the concern of neuroscience (or at least shouldn't be), the concern should be what is their state of mind like when they are thinking God? Does that state of mind stack up with the other states of mind on God? How? Where? When? (These questions are being illuminated today)
All and all these issues do not need to be left solely to the philosophies and theologies, but to the mind sciences. However to dismiss religious studies and experimental philosophy is not in anyway going to resolve these issues... By suggesting "science" is the answer - which just reminds me of the South Park episode of 'Go God Go' - overstatements of "science" is just as bad as overstating words like "God" and "religion" nothing gets done in debate.May 11 2013: I suggest this type of knowledge is showing us that god beliefs could be leveraging cognitive processes such as agency detection. That the what is perceived as religious experience could be in a product of natural processes.
Many kids have imaginary friends. We have the cognitive machinery to imagine these, goblins, fairies, spirits and gods etc.
That it all comes down to interpretation. If I experience seeing Napoleon in the flesh, then culturally it might be judged a hallucination. But a similar experience seen in a cultural religious context gets classified a different way.
This does not disprove the supernatural, just that it may be all natural processes.
We see the brain is active when praying. No one can prove whether there is some supernatural connection or not. It is speculation to assume it is, imo.
May 11 2013: Your thoughts are very similar to mine on this matter.
This is one of the reasons I remain agnostic about (almost all forms) of deities.
However, to me it raises interesting theological questions, as mentioned in the description! :D
(Nice to see you again Obey No1Kinobe! :D)
Kind regards,
Comment deleted
May 12 2013: Hi Don
1. If you are talking about wireless messages via electromagnetic radiation, no. I understand many modern technologies may be considered magical to those with no understanding. But it is a phenomena in the natural world, light, energy, matter etc. Whereas connecting to some being not part of the natural world and via thought only is supernatural. I'm not sure if you consider our ability to send radio messages evidence that humans can send thoughts to beings outside time, space, matter and energy?
2. For brevity and because I am aware of reports of scientific testing that shows certain parts of the brain active during prayer. Its also relevant.
I could have mentioned many other examples e.g. similar tests on Buddhist moks show parts of their brain action during meditation.
Now they may be making some mystical connection to the universe also. We don't know. That is the bit we can not test. We just know brain activity is part of the prayer and meditation experience.
Similar for psychoactive substances. I have heard people saying LSD helps them connect to God. It could. We don't know. We only know it does physical and chemical changes on their brain that impacts their perceptions and cognition.
In ancient times the worship of Bacchus involved imbibing alcohol, that helped establish a mystical connection or perceptions. In the Americas similar with hemp and peyote.
You lock a human in a completely dark and silent room and they start hearing and seeing things
The dervish spin around to touch god.
At most evangelical churches there is music, emotion, and the release of some social inhibitions.
We enter a mild trance watching TV.
We reasonably know the brain is involved in all these. We don't know if people are connecting to supernatural spirit realms and being or they are just natural cognitive functions and brain state outcomes given the stimulation or activity.
I think it most likely all these are natural, not connecting to God, as far as we knwJun 7 2013: It fascinates me how atheists are open to hatred and ridicule and are still accused of devil worshiping and hating freedom. And then as soon as someone not even ridicules, they just question someone's god, they get worked up and sometimes leave the room without disputing anything.
The neurological processes in someone's mind to perform such horrible and inhumane hypocrisy is confusing. Their very own consciousness is what they actually believe to be the Voice of God. Psychologically speaking, they assume all of their beliefs based on first instinct. There have been studies that children and religion share a common point to decision making. When they want to prove something right, they only look for things that go right.
For example, if you pray for rain and it rains, then God seems likely. If it doesn't then it doesn't do bad, you just dismiss it. It doesn't falsify your beliefs. But why not? Coincidences are not in their equation. This illusion builds upon itself. This is why it is easier for young people to become atheists. They don't have all of these years of experiences of them disregarding truth built upon themselves. Fresh minds are the most brilliant minds.
Jun 7 2013: "are still accused of devil worshiping"
Well just tell that to Don Wesley ("It seems Bernard that you and Jimmy Strobl (and probably Colleen Steen), are in grip of the Devil.")
Jun 7 2013: well, bernard, i did not bother continuing that thread because he appears to be incapable of rationality.
Jun 7 2013: He is! It's what I've been saying all along. There are some people that hang around here that are completely incapable of rationality. Don is one if them.
We're all the devil and should suffer in eternity if we don't agree with him or his view on God.Jun 7 2013: I'm popping in to confirm your statement Bernard. Yes, I and many other folks have been called the devil, representative of the devil, evil, etc. many times by Don Wesley. It seems to be his pattern to give the label of devil to those who do not agree with him, and it is also his pattern to say that he is a representative of god, and god speaks to him, guiding him. Doesn't make for a very interesting conversation!
Jun 7 2013: Do you agree that life begins at Conception?
No, you think that life begins at birth?
You are siding with the Devil, and are the Devil's mouthpiece!
That is what Don's logic feels like to me.
I'm tempting to close this conversation down, considering it is leading to non-constructive comments!Jun 7 2013: Bernard,
I believe the life energy changes form many times. The egg is part of life energy and the sperm is part of life energy, and when they connect, it forms another part of life energy.
When a person continually contradicts him/herself, it appears that there is no logic. You know you can flag comments right?Jun 6 2013: I started out to say there's a lot of evidence that "faith" or "spirituality" is genetic, inborn, as it were. Probably because religious leaders all the way back to the first shamans have chosen who lives and dies, who eats meat and who gets nothing but potatoes, and they have given everybody else a reason and a right to cheat, exile, even slaughter non-believers like the possibly millions of women who were murdered en mass in Europe for refusing to stop worshiping goddesses and only worship male gods (the famous tripod: god, the son of god and the holy spirit)
We have been bred by the killing of the less malleable, less "faithful" among us, for thousand of years. No wonder so many of us follow the teachings of whoever is in charge of the current religion. It so much safer.
So yes, I think there is ample historical evidence that we're bred to be believers, whatever the religion.
Jimmy Strobl
Jun 6 2013: For a few that understand the paradox and need to solve it it will have implications, for religion as a whole it won't matter much. They'll just accept it and people will forget that they were ever against its. Much like the discoveries of Galileo Galilei when he made his discoveries. Only when he did it it was one of the first proofs that the bible wasn't completely correct, now we have that proof everyday, a simple mind change made religion immune to these kinds of things.
- +1
I did stumble across a Youtube channel with a former christian who was now an atheist and psychology and biology has helped him understand his emotions and thoughts towards God and the whole structure of religion.
Really good stuff actually: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=mSy1-Q_BEtQ&list=PLA0C3C1D163BE880A
Jun 6 2013: Damn! I'm out of thumbs up for you! :D
I know I have recommended these two books to a lot of people on TED, but here I go again.
Two really good books (I'v read) about the psychology of Religion :
- "The God Instinct: The Psychology of Souls, Destiny and the Meaning of Life" (By Jesse Bering):
- "The Believing Brain: From Ghosts and Gods to Politics and Conspiracies---How We Construct Beliefs and Reinforce Them as Truths" (By Michael Shermer):
You can watch his TED Talk :
"Michael Shermer: The pattern behind self-deception"
Personally science (specifically evolution) never really influenced me very much in views regarding religion and the concept of a God. I just explored some arguments for, and against and came to a conclusion (agnosticism). I wanted to see the evidence (and reason) both sides produced, and found they were both lacking. Both the sides being "Strong Atheism", and "Strong Theism".
On another note, I recommend you the book "Religion for Atheists" (http://www.alaindebotton.com/religion.asp), or you can watch his TED talk :
"Alain de Botton: Atheism 2.0"
Just to say if you have any books you could recommend me, it would be much appreciated!
Jun 6 2013: Sadly I only read a couple of books every year so I have no books for you if afraid. But I have seen both Talks and I enjoy them very much. ^^
Thanks for the positive feedback!
Jun 6 2013: I hope you find the time to read them all!!! :D
At the moment I am reading these two books :
- "God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything" (By Christopher Hitchens)
- "The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason" (By Sam Harris)
Personally I am not enjoying "The End of Faith", due to it advocating an extremly polarized view of the world. It also goes to distort the Koran (or Quran), and describes it as a books where every page is hateful. However this well-informed TED talk :
"Lesley Hazleton: On reading the Koran"
Give me a very different view. Then he goes onto argue that all religions are evil, and religious moderates are just as bad as religious fundamentalists. He then (Ironically) goes onto argue that eastern religions like "Buddhism" and "Jainism" are really good.
However it is worth mentioning that I am enjoying "God is not great".
Sorry for my little rant.
Hope you didn't mind!Jun 6 2013: You are free to rant as much as you wish, if I wanted to I could just top reading (I didn't!).
I've watched very much from Hitchens and Harris on Youtube and they're (Hitchens was) really good at making the point i think.
I don't know about the Koran, I only got 50 pages once...Jun 6 2013: Hi there. This is partly another rant.
I loved "The Book of J" (which is probably out of print and hard to find). It's a correction of a mis-translated biblical text. The correct translation: "Man shall be above woman with joy." meaning sex between men and women will be enjoyable.
This line has been mis -translated (purposely?) to mean that men must be the boss in all things and women must obey men no matter what. That mistranslated line is still included in many christian wedding vows (women must vow to obey their husbands) and is still used to justify men beating their wives.
I've been reading everything I could about religion since I was a kid, long ago. The problem: whoever is preaching has a pulpit to inflict misery on other people and to teach children that it is okay to hate, okay to hurt, okay to deny other people freedom, rights, jobs, even life itself based solely on what that preacher claims is religiously "right".
Anyone can start a religion, call themselves a prophet, claim an inside track to an all powerful being who tells only them what is right, who is good, who should live or die.
Another misery from twisting religious texts is the hatred preached against homosexuals. There is almost nothing about homosexuality in the torah or the bIble. Homosexuality is not in the ten commandments, so it's not as bad as working on the sabbath or coveting another man's ass. And homosexuality is not a deadly sin, like sloth, gluttony, greed, etc.. It's a minor matter, an abomination like eating shrimp, that is used by preachers, priests, rabbis, imams and so on, to justify anti-homosexuality laws, beatings, even killings.
Religion really is like a powerful drug that is OFTEN used to justify injustice. It's dangerous.
Richard Dawkins' and Christopher Hitchens' books are really good.
Jun 6 2013: My only complaint regarding Hitchens books, is that he doesn't acknowledge that most religious people are just normal people, who do what he requests. In other words they both just pick on minorities, then make them seem in the majority.
However Hitchens and Sam Harris don't really acknowledge the positives of religion either...
Read "Religion for Atheists" (http://www.alaindebotton.com/religion.asp), or watch his TED talk : "Alain de Botton: Atheism 2.0" (http://www.ted.com/talks/alain_de_botton_atheism_2_0.html)Jun 7 2013: I vomit in revulsion at alain de whatever and his atheism 2.0.
Jun 7 2013: Great.
It's a great idea!Jun 8 2013: 1. Alain presents the secular world and atheists wrongly. He exaggerated many things to make his points.
2. Alain exaggerated on the merits of religions while cartooning the "alternatives."
3. I would truly detest having atheism into something even remotely similar to a religion. If someone wants the kind of nonsense that happens in religious ceremonies in their lives while they don;t believe in gods, they can have it. Only I rather not have them do so in the name of atheism, because then I will be mistaken to be like those crackpots.
4. I refuse to be definable by what I don;t believe. Should atheism 2.0 "catch" then atheism would be perceived to be much more than what it is. I would have to find another word. I tried to get rid of being called an atheist. But then it was useless. I don;t believe in gods, but that's not what defines me.
5. Sure, we should take the best of anything, including religion. I have never been against that. Therefore Alain misrepresented my views by presenting atheists as if we were all some people who opposed everything coming from any religion, which is false even about such people as Dawkins. I know I don't, and hate been misrepresented.
6. At least some of the things Alain wants to take from religion are simply ridiculous, like that repetition crap. Understanding gets you to knowledge. Mere repetition doesn't. I still know automatically many things I had to repeat from my religious days, but they were and are just memorized sounds to me. Not knowledge.
7. religions are not the only one source we could take good things from. All human culture belongs to us. Let's examine everything and take from anything. Forget about doing so "with respect." That remark is both unnecessary and dumb.
...Jun 6 2013: Hi Jimmy, Glad to Meet You!
Good points! I feel no need to defend 'the bible' (or any other resource), but I do feel that 'in power' political paradigms are often interpretations of religious sources that are helpful to them in maintaining their power positions. For example; the belief that the pope is "infallible" when it comes to maintaining allegiance to that power/belief political structure system. The actual source may often be used out of context or misinterpreted (a deliberate deception), to maintain the status quo.
Example two; Galileo (a Catholic), inviting Catholic priests to look through his telescope, but they refuse to do so for personal and political paradigm protection reasons.
Religions make me nauseous :|
Jun 6 2013: And it's nice to meet you too Jordan! ^^
Jun 7 2013: Thanks Bud!
Comment deleted
Jun 4 2013: Hey Bernard and ALL!
Comment deleted
Oh, my fingers are beginning to get a little sore now! But I wanted to make an observation that may be helpful (and a bit of naughty fun, too), :) Newer sciences often come out of amalgamations of existing ones. For example, 'socio-biology', 'astro-biology', 'astro-physics', 'social-psychology', etc. ... etc. ... etc. :P
In a lot of cases (human nature being what it is), this is a call for outrage over a new turf war to be fought! :D Scientists (being all too human), feel THEIR 'turf' is being invaded, over-taken, misused or stolen by interlopers. To be human is to be political. Period. These political fights can be fun to watch, but are not very productive for any one! The scientists who accidently (or deliberately), fuse different disciplines together to further research that the individual, separate disciplines have missed usually get lots and lots of rocks thrown at them - by both or all sides :D Having to play 'dodge rock' is probably not fun, but is inevitable.
But, it is those brave souls like David Bohm, Karl Pribram, Sir Roger Penrose, Charles Tart, Fred Allen Wolfe, Dean Radin, Russell Targ, Gary Schwartz, Rupert Sheldrake ... and the list goes on and on ... that have actually been the kinds of intrepid souls that have spawned our subject of discussion at hand!
This reminds me of an expression that I offered to a friend earlier today about gathering data to consider. To not be afraid to 'cast a broad net' - to look for a large haul of evidence to consider. The more the better ... and then to weed out the less than useful. Inductive as well as deductive reasoning are both useful tools to apply to lots of gathered potential gems of data for potential personal discovery.
Cheers To All!
Comment deleted
Jun 6 2013: Hi Don, Good Buddy!
Thanks for the interesting link! And your kind encouragement - very, very much!!
Sounds as if you have accepted my apology for me being such a dumb block head - I very much appreciate your understanding!!
In relation to my contribution above, I have long thought that there is a strong relationship between paradigm 'train wrecks' (which I am very acquainted with personally :( ), corresponding cognitive dissonance, the inevitable emotional distresses which results from this process - and the 5 stages of grief recovery described by the pioneer psychologist Elisabeth Kubler-Ross's work. She describes in her land mark book "On Death and Dying". Some folks manage to get through these stages o:k and immerge stronger and wiser. For some folks, it takes longer than others, depending I think, on how many life tools they have in their emotional coping skills tool boxes. And some poor souls get stuck in one or another of these stages - sometimes for years or forever!
I think this is noted well by Nobel Prize winning quantum physicist Max Plank's observation (from his personal experience with academic politics), about how science progresses; "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."
Anyway, food for thought.
Again, Thank you for your kindness and patience.
JordanJun 6 2013: Hi Don, Good Buddy!
Thanks again! I think our observation concerning the rough and tumble reality of academic politics (and money), - experienced first hand by Max Plank, Russell Targ, Rupert Sheldrake and many more (whether they are ultimately proven right or wrong), illustrates two common expressions very nicely; "the bleeding edge" and "OUCH!!!" :D
JordanJun 8 2013: Hi Don, Good Buddy!
Thanks for the link - will check it out soon!
Here is a very interesting talk related to our discussion about interdisciplinary turf wars.
Evan Bonney
Jun 4 2013: Hi Bernard,
- +1
Thanks for the information. Will definitely be sure to sure to check some of what you have provided out. I do know of one book that was recently written by a Harvard Neurosurgeon that said that he saw heaven upon his NDE. The book is called Proof of Heaven and has become as National Bestseller in the States. However, it's a personal account.
We shall see where the field of cognitive science takes in the future...some have coined it neurotheology but I'll be sure to post some new information as this pioneer science is taking root.
Jun 4 2013: Hi Evan!
Pleasure to meet you! I don't have a strong biology or physics background, but I have had the same concretely real experience in an OBE exploration as Dr. Alexander. I have spent many years exploring other dimensional energy systems and following the theoretical and experimental work of consciousness researchers to begin understanding how these kinds of phenomenon work.
I can only think of a few researchers who came to this area of study because of personal experiences like mine (if you wish, you can read about my experiences at my site TrueAscensionllc.com)..Most consciousness researchers come to this area because they had begun to hear about multiple data confirmation by multiple experiments from different labs. Some good example are physicist/mathematician Sir Roger Penrose, Oxford Univ.; Dr. Stuart Hameroff, Univ. of AZ; physicist Russell Targ, SRI, Dean Radin, Phd. Princeton Univ. PEAR program and Prof.Gary Schwartz,PhD. Harvard, Yale director of physiology and psychiatry and Yale Psychophysiology Center ... as just a few examples. If you are familiar with any of these folks then you realize that this is an inter-disciplinary field of study. New eyes from outside a narrow view of study has often been useful. There are several theories in this area, just as in ... say, cosmology - between 'big bang' and 'inflationary' schools of thought. time will tell which (if either), are correct. Consciousness research as a science began back in the 1940s and 50s with scientists such as one of the fathers of quantum physics, David Bohm and psychologist, Karl Pribram, again - an inter-disciplinary beginning.
Have fun and 'happy hunting' :) !
Jun 4 2013: Hi Jordan, just a short post as I'm just called to a dining-out.
Love the subject and also becuase my wife and a NDE
This is my favorite link to Swedenborg's input on the subject. Dr. Kenneth Ring agrees with me :)
Will be back tomorrow morning
Jun 6 2013: Hi Adriaan, My Friend!
Sorry to take so long to get back to you! Hope you had a fun dinner! Thanks very much for the link - I'll check it out very soon!
I envy my wife who had a chance to study with Dr. Ring at the University of Connecticut, before he retired. He began the first international center for the study of NDEs, located at UConn.
I hope that your wife is doing very well and that her NDE was an affirming and encouraging experience for her!
If you've had a chance to check out my website at TrueAscensionLLC.com. ,You will understand my work (and interest in Swedenborg), which is to teach ordinary folks to have Swedenborg-like experiences of the after-life, Divine dimensional realms for themselves. So that they can know that they know what is real, for them selves. People who work with me won't need to rely on 'blind faith' or religious belief or hopes. this easily explains why early 'believers' would volunteer to be martyred by the Romans in their arenas.
As my friend and our distance from each other I would be glad to work with you on helping you follow Swedenborg (and my humble self), into the Divine realms for yourself - gratis. We can do this privately by Email. It is work that demands desire, discipline, patience and commitment to accomplish, but I can't think of study that could be more life and faith affirming!
You could also consider the "Gateway" program by the Monroe Institute, in Virginia. I did a version of this program some years ago - it was very fruitful. They have an CD (home study), version that is well worth its price!
Without these kind of experiences, it is impossible to really grasp how completely concrete and immediately real God truly is.
JordanJun 6 2013: Thank you Jordan for your kind reply. What I've really appreciated were the TV shows done by the medium John Edward. So many times he could 'proof' to people that he was connected to their ancestors. He had information that no one could possibly know. Often they were people that drove someone else to the place or someone behind the camera.
I have no need of more proof of God than just looking at the world around me. But yes, I'll visit your site this afternoon.
One thing Swedenborg warns against regarding connecting with the spiritual world, and that is because when a spirit connects to our spirit they use our memory and feelings. So it is then that what they 'tell' us becomes truth in our mind. The thoughts are connected to the feeling making us convinced of their truth.
More about that later, got to go
Very best wishes to you
Jun 6 2013: Hi My Friend!
I agree with your interest in the work of legitimate mediums (my sweet wife of 25 years is a very talented medium). I've seen first hand, her ability to acquire amazing information about many folks on the other side and their work to help those still on this side. A large part of her empowerment is her deep connectedness to the Divine herself! We have no natural-born children of our own, but the Divine has (largely through her deeply loving, motherly heart), blessed us with short-term care-taking of lost and wounded energy-children, to love and help until their time to move into their loving Divine care. Our home is full of children's toys, cute stuffed animals and children's books, of their choosing. As you will read on my site, energy-children especially love to be read to! This amazing Divine blessing is open to anyone the Divine has available to nurture these precious little ones, who the Divine will never, ever neglect!
2 books you will love! "The After-Life Experiments" - G. Schwartz, "Glimpses of Eternity" - R. Moody.
Your reference to Swedenborg's warning is very, very important! It echoes the warnings given by the Apostle Paul about 'testing the spirits to see that they are of God'. As you will see (as you go through my site), I make this most important part of the process a top priority, using a variety of tools and skills. I will note Paul's discussion of those (who I believe included Paul, but, he wished to not boast), who were able to ascend up into the "third heaven" (Paul used a Grk. paradigm), hear and experience things that were not possible to express in words. This is what you will experience (which ever system you choose to go with). Frankly, my system is more efficient in helping folks visit our Divine Lover AND avoid possible deceptions by low level entities, who can try to do so, with unschooled folks. So, do we really trust God to love and protect us or not? "It" just loves visitors - "It" sees visits as gifts!!!
JordanJun 2 2013: Hi Buddy!
Ugh! I can't respond at your response area any more, so I have to go to the top here :(.
Yes, I did read both of Shermer's articles. They illustrate what I've been saying, very nicely!
When I referred to a quote by Joe McMoneagle as an 'anecdote', it represents a first hand account by a credible witness who received a congressional certificate of merit for discovering a new, unknown (by all western intelligence agencies), class of Soviet submarine (the Typhoon class), through RV. If only to me, I would call him an exceptional witness with direct, inside knowledge. Even 'skeptics' will often use the term "placebo effect" as an explanation for what they can't explain with a electrochemical model of consciousness. But, they can't explain how THIS works either! This is the religion of Scientism" at work. Shermer's materialist/atheistic zeal is telling. As usual, he takes a very small number of studies (which support his paradigm), then extrapolates them into a rationalization and then into proof of his correctness. He has simply gone from an "evangelical" (Christian?), to a evangelical atheist. Which is why ALL religions give me nausea.
Again, Shermer has left you with another false impression as to how many top researchers actually do see relationships between quantum field dynamics and consciousness functioning. As years have gone by (since I first began looking at this question), I have seen a large increase in both the number of researchers publically open about their work in this area and the amount of media exposure it is receiving.
As for Shermer's assertion that Sheldrake is trying to have it both ways (or as you put it Freudian psychology), May I suggest that (when your exams are concluded, with GREAT SUCCESS !), that we look at some 'observer entanglement' studies and research together?
Nobel Laureate physicist Max Plank said; 'science progresses one death at a time'. He was right in his work and his observation of scientific progress.
Jun 3 2013: :-)
I shall try!
However I suppose the best thing to confirm it all, is ask a Quantum physicist I know!
Depending on his answer, I shall decide.
Jun 3 2013: Hi Buddy!
That sounds like a great beginning! May I suggest that you consider conversing and reading the research of multiple sources to round-out your view of the scientific landscape. I would also ask you to consider talking to any Transpersonal Psychologists who would be familiar with quantum-based theories of consciousness to get a fuller outline of this area of thought and research.
It is good for all of us to remember that theories are always 'in process'. Cracks are now seemingly appearing in Einstein's General Relativity. Evidence compounds or may change - in structure or direction. We simply need to be open and let the evidence (as a whole), guide us, over time. There is nothing for us to fear.
If ANY (including 'Yours Truly'),of us begin to feel emotions of discomfort or defensiveness to alternative views or evidence - we should (in my opinion), immediately look within, for the presence of our old friend 'cognitive dissonance' and ask ourselves "Are any part of my thinking, views or positions emotionally security-based?" Scientists are all human and also prone to all the weaknesses of all us 'talking monkeys' :D
I am concerned though that this impassioned line of inquiry could distract you from your important studies and exams. We have plenty of time to ponder and look at this set of questions and research findings!
Thanks again for your friendship!
JordanJun 3 2013: Hi Bud!
Oh, sorry to pester you again. I was just reminded of a way-cool experiment currently being done!
I'm sure you're acquainted with 'quantum tunneling' and 'quantum teleportation'. All of the past confirmations have been confined to just a distance of a few km (city to city). But now a new group is beginning to setup experiments between earth and the ISS (International Space Station), for 'quantum entanglement' of photons which will be about 500 km (and 1000 km when considering return confirmation), away! This should be very interesting!
Jun 4 2013: Well.
I got round to asking one of my best friends, who was a retired Quantum physicist.
Who said that Rupert Sheldrake research doesn't have much to do with Quantum physics, and that Quantum physics especially has no relation to the after-life, or consciousness.
He claimed it was like saying "Special relativity" proves there is an after-life, when "Special relativity" has no relation at all to the after-life, or the consciousness.
It is just a branch of physics (he said), like any other. Also he gets angry when people talk about Quantum physics, considering so few understand it. He claims that people like to think Quantum physics is something "special". When it really isn't. His favoutire quote : "If you think you understand Quantum physics, you don't understand Quantum physics".
Do Newtonian mechanics have anything to do with the after-life as well?
To him it is like saying this.
When he did research it a bit more, he claimed that it was just like Michael Shermer had said :
It wasn't really testable, considering the "skeptics dampen the morphic field's, whereas believers enhance it". He also thought the after-life wasn't really a testable thing, considering to test the after-life you need to be dead...
Also he said that there were far more reasonable explanations requiring less assumptions (Occam's Razor) for the Dog's behaviour, such as the Dog would have better hearing + Smell.
So I think I can safety conclude that Quantum physics has nothing to do with the after-life, unless of-course this retired professor (in Quantum mechanics) is wrong! (Who is a dear friend of mine!)
Kind regards,
Fritzie -
Jun 4 2013: The quantum physicists I know say the same and also get annoyed when people appropriate the terminology of quantum physics to support an agenda that quantum physics does not support. One can often trick people with such a gambit, because people tend to defer to those who seem to understand science, even if they don't actually understand the area they are invoking at all.Jun 4 2013: Hi Buddy!
- +1
So, you will not agree to look into this area with me because a very good friend, a retired quantum physicist (who happens to agree with your current outlook), says not to ? Really? Isn't that 'loading the dice' or 'wish fulfillment' in action? It's good to remember that most new sciences come from inter-disciplinary approaches.
More to the point, If you only have good friends who agree with you - that means that I am in BIG, BIG trouble !!! :D
Let's stop and think about this a bit. I KNOW you are a very intelligent fellow. I am not afraid that you can or would be deceived or mislead - should you decide to venture out into deeper waters. This is why I think Bernie Segal was right about paradigms being emotional addictions - to a comfort zone? Only you can know how you feel inside. Your quick, 'knee jerk' like action of dismissing my offer so immediately, looks a bit defensive to me. Remember, I said we have lots of time after your studies and exams to look at this together! Hey, I don't want to be deceived or mislead either! I know first-hand how it feels! I'm very cautious with data and theoretical frameworks. Theories and interpretation of data are always open to examination, reinterpretation and revision. That's science!
I'll propose a little 'thought experiment' for us - that would make Einstein proud! Suppose you and I had the pleasure of being students together. Our biology professor takes us to a pond and asks us to find all the different species of fish in this pond :(. You and I look at each other in horror! How do we do this? We could drain the pond (and kill all the cute little fishies)! Bad idea! :( We could get fishing rods (and hope for the best?). Or, as is said; we could 'cast a broad net'. This last option seems best to me. Much more efficient (safer for our little fishies, too!) :)
I Think you will agree that 'casting a broader net' would also be better for looking for good data and theoretical frames works, too!
Jun 4 2013: Hmm.
I'm not really sure what to say...
Considering I do "wish" there was some form of after-life, however I see no conclusive evidence (or reason) to assume so!Jun 5 2013: Hi Buddy!
Yes, I think understand your situation here. That is why I suggest that we consider 'casting a broader net' - WHEN you have the time (after your important studies and exams), are completed. This process will take time and energy to do. I assume most people "wish" there is an after-life. But, wishing and assuming (as we both know ), means nothing in terms of finding an understanding that is closer to what is really ... err, real :D
You simply haven't had an opportunity to cast this 'broader net', yet - should you choose to do so.
To be truthful, we are talking about a life-time pursuit of evidence and research - in order to just gain a framework to work with. And still this is still just an intellectual (second hand), acquaintance with a theoretical handle to manipulate and work with. So, we will still have to ask "what the hell does this really mean to me, personally any way?"
This brings to the other equally important area of personal exploration for evidence gathering.
I hope I'm not being indiscrete (if I am, please correct me), but you once said that you sometimes prayed and felt as if answers were given. You tended to assume that these answers were wish fulfillment or pareidolia. This conclusion may well be reasonable (or maybe not). May I suggest WHEN your studies and exams are over, another thought experiment - which would take some time and effort.
What if, over a period of time, you were to ask 'It' "That if 'It' is real, that "It' prove "It'-self to me in a series of ways that are impossible for me to mistake as illusion or wish fulfillment by me"?
If 'It' exists and cares to be known by you - because you care to know "It', then this could be an insightful personal consciousness experiment.
Best wishes for your studies! And ...
Comment deleted
Jun 4 2013: Hi LaMar!
Good to meet you! You've made good points. Religion is a paradigm of blind faith. And often in power - figuratively and often literally! It is their deep-seated insecurities (blind faith has no personal, experiential foundation), that often causes groups to enforce observance of their beliefs on others or seek to end others all together.
Religions makes me nauseous, but I have had personal, powerful experiences that have convinced me that there is a powerful, benevolent source of conscious understanding at the center of reality. 'It' exists in an underlying level of energy information that is far below our scale of usual, 'physical' perception. But, It can and does have the ability to radiate Its energy out and 'up' into our usual visual frame of reference as It chooses to.
JordanMay 30 2013: I'll have to quote here (again) from something I said here earlier:
[This] was inspired by something Stephen Hawking said about DNA.
DNA contains information. For each species today, DNA contains a living record that is as old as three billion years. Procaryote, primitive cellular life has DNA. And DNA works like a computer program. Computer programs are updated & changed & patched. Same story for DNA. Every evolutionary change to DNA; every mutation that worked (and a good few that didn't or don't) are enshrined in the DNA record. DNA is a very real record of three billions of years (or more) of the evolution of life on Earth. And we are only now learning to read that record in some detail.
Religion is a 4000 year old paradigm. We've been at it a long time. If we look carefully at religion from the perspective of psychology, sociology, anthropology, politics, law, economics etc. we find a record of who we are as human beings. And the way we humans have used religion and religious thought to say who we are and how we view the world is instructive. Religions, all of them taken together, give a fascinating view into the fundamentals of human experience on this earth.
One of the most fascinating findings in Social Psychology, seems to validate some of the more obscure teachings of Jesus. Luke 6:29 "And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloak forbid not to take thy coat also."
I'll keep looking for a specific reference, but we are starting only now to develop tools for analysis of these issues. Religion is a repository of social theories that WORKED in the past & present. Another example? Look at the 10 Commandments: 7 day week w/weekend; respect Mom & Dad; don't murder, steal, lie as a witness, or cheat on your spouse. Also respect other people's property. These are laws we still have today. And they started w/Moses (and a few others). Why? Because it worked! And religion/belief was part of that!
May 30 2013: :-)
A very interesting (wise) insight you have!
I only wish I had the ability to carry it out!May 30 2013: Juan don't forget the bits that don't work anymore like attributing floods and disease to gods.
Like committing genocide and stealing land because your god said so.
Like murdering your new wife in front of her father if she is not a virgin.
Like animal sacrifices.
Like murdering homosexuals, adulterers, unruly children and people who work on Saturdays.
Like having slaves and beating them is okay, as long as they don't die within 2 days of the beatings.
Religion was part of that as well.
Religion is a social technology that works for good and bad.
People still kill and hate in the name of religion. The fact that some ignore the bronze and iron age religious morality is due to their societies moving forward morally despite the many old religious beliefs.
I have no issue cherry picking the good stuff, but when the bad stuff is believed to be a gods word, it can be dangerous
May 30 2013: Ok, Mr. Obey-no-one, I get your point.
But in the larger context of the conversation here, it is all about Science and scientific evidence. I have made post after post after post on this conversation where Science is all I talk about. And I talk specifically about a Scientific approach in the analysis of Belief as a phenomena of the human species.
I also talk about faith in a larger, ethical context. The article by Paul Bloom (The Atlantic) cited by Bernard White in the intro to this conversation is the best discussion I've read as to how Science evaluates human behavior and thought on the issues of Religion. There is some good science there. In 2012, Paul Bloom generated an article in which he states as follows:
" I conclude that religion has powerfully good moral effects and powerfully bad moral effects, but these are due to aspects of religion that are shared by other human practices. There is surprisingly little evidence for a moral effect of specifically religious beliefs."
Here is a link to the abstract: http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100334
Yea! yea! Hurray! Epiphany! Just had a Religious experience! More about that later. I must commune immediately with as-yet-unidentified angelic beings! Peace out!May 30 2013: I can see why Paul Bloom is a full Professor of Psychology & Linguistics at Yale. He has read much and thought much
and I deeply appreciate the scholarly content of his article. He definitely takes the view of "God" being an artifact of our childhood psychological development. Although his academic credentials are impeccable and his scholarship unquestioned, he may not go far enough. In fact, I would at least suggest, as I do below, that he doesn't give enough credit to 4000 years of written human history and God(s) figuring as a prominent player in exactly that. I guess my retort would be this: "Yes, the idea of God may start out as an accident of our cognitive development, but look at what 4000 years of written human thought have done with it." Because he's a linguist, I am sure he gets it. But I can't quite get there on the issue of "accidental" and God.
Jun 7 2013: :-)
Sorry never got round to replying!
I recommend these three books to you :
- "The Belief (or God) Instinct: The Psychology of Souls, Destiny, and the Meaning of Life" (By Jesse Bering)
- "The Believing Brain: From Ghosts and Gods to Politics and Conspiracies---How We Construct Beliefs and Reinforce Them as Truths" (By Michael Shermer)
- "Descartes' Baby: How the Science of Child Development Explains What Makes Us Human" (By Paul Bloom)
All three of these books provide insightful reasons as to why people believe in God.May 30 2013: Art Markman's Psychology Today article does a better job of approaching the cognitive side of things. He addresses thinking style and the implications of cognitive psychology as a tool to look at human belief in God.
I like the way he ends the blog article. He gives respect to several millennia of Theological debate on similar issues. I prefer that to Jesse Bering's insight as to his own Atheism. He makes a rather common "Atheistic" mistake in his fundamental "Scientific epiphany" that there is no PROOF of God Almighty!
Right! So Aristotle, Archimedes, Euclid, Homer, Vergil, Moses, Maimonidese, and an endless list of other "great thinkers" -- who accepted the existence of God(s) as fundamental. All of their insights into how the world works (even when they were wrong) became academic foundation for all that followed. These were smart people; at least as smart as Jesse Bering. They weren't up to speed on the elements of modern science. But I'd dare anyone to go to University and announce their intention to ignore all these old guys (the great thinkers of antiquity) before the entire faculty. They wouldn't get far. There is nothing new about doubt or questioning or debate over the existence of God. It happens every day over beer at the pub. I've found it all quite comforting to know that men regarded as "Great Thinkers" suffered similar anxiety/angst in contemplating death, the end of consciousness, and the dissolution of our being. Many of them wrote about it in antiquity. And their first thought on those issues should at least influence ours.
May 30 2013: I do agree with Jesse Bering (and many other psychologists like Michael Shermer, and Paul Bloom) that do study God it would be wise to act as an atheist. Considering it would be hard to study God anyway.
However I do agree with you...
Kareem Fahim
May 23 2013: Poor science. If it had a voice it would scream: "stop question my authenticity and saying whether I'm right or wrong".
- +1
(In my humble opinion)
Science, in its core, is a method by which you observe. Results are 'better' and can always become better if we keep improving the initial method. And believe me, there ALWAYS is room for improvement. You can't ever establish The Perfect Method.
God is Absolute and Perfect, so you will need a perfect method if you want to comprehend/question him. Which is impossible. Sorry to rain on your parade but you can't understand God, no one can [unless God want someone to...].
May 24 2013: What happens if God wanted these psychologists to understand him? :-)
Out of interest, how do you know "God" is perfect?
May 24 2013: If God wanted them to understand Him. Then no one/nothing can stop them from understanding Him.
I FIRMLY believe Quran is word of God and Muhammad Peace be upon him was the last prophet from God. According to Quran and Muhammad: God is perfect
May 24 2013: Interesting opinion Kareem......
If you had an infinite number of paths you could take in life, based on each decision you made, then at least one of them would be the perfect path, leading to the perfect location. It would be the perfect perfect life path.
So, even with infinity, it is possible to walk the perfect path in life. Or, perhaps because of infinity. I'm Jewish...... :) Shalom.May 24 2013: :-)
I personally, from what I have heard, admire the Koran (or Quran) and the lessons it preaches. However (as you can probably guess) I am not a Muslim.
All I (properly) know about Islam mostly comes from these two TED Talks :
- Lesley Hazleton: On reading the Koran
- Bobby Ghosh: Why global jihad is losing
So I do think what Islam preaches is admirable (if what they say is true), forgive me for saying, yet it seems today as if the Koran (or Quran) has been distorted a lot today (by people like Sam Harris, and those who dislike Islam due to various events like 9/11).
However I think it is worth mentioning that I do find it strange that (as you say) Muhammad would be the last prophet of God. Why is this? Why wouldn't God let their be other prophets? (I apologise for my ignorance.)
Out of interest, if you don't mind me asking, why choose the Koran (or Quran) over the Bible?
What makes your experience (or perception) of God more valid than a Christians experience (or perception) of God?
Kind regards,
Kareem Fahim
May 24 2013: @Bernard White: It is a sad fact that many organism (who call themselves Muslims) have distorted The Message. Muslim people, especially 'naive' youth are target of these people. These people manipulate young minds and fill them with hatred. But their goals are strictly political. Outcome of their dreadful *ter*rorist* acts only benefits themselves. These people have nothing to do with Islam or Muslims.
- +1
"Why choose Quran over Bible?" Well, we Muslims believe both books to be word from God. But Bible was modified and people altered its verses to their interests. [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_view_of_the_Christian_Bible ]
"What makes your experience (or perception) of God more valid than a Christians experience (or perception) of God?" Christians associate God with humans (they say God has a son...) but God is above human values/associations/perceptions [ http://quran.com/112]
@John Moonstroller:
Thanks for reply. You are theoretically corect. But life IS NOT infinite, neither can one undo his/her actions. You can't try ALL paths. Time is precious.
Shalom :)
May 24 2013: So (if you don't mind me saying) what is to say God can't become incarnate?
Considering your God is above human values? Surely this doesn't exclude the possibility of God coming into a 'perfect human form'? How are we defining 'human values'?
Yet if this true, that God is beyond human perception, how do we know certain things (like its attributes) about it?
Edit : Another question, is that : How did the writers of the Koran (or Quran) know that God was perfect? Doesn't perfection imply 'without mistake'? Can a perfect being make mistakes?
Are there any other qualities of this 'being', other than perfection?May 24 2013: "So (if you don't mind me saying) what is to say God can't become incarnate?"
He can do whatever He wants to. He, clearly, says in Quran he has no sons etc.
"Considering your God is above human values? Surely this doesn't exclude the possibility of God coming into a 'perfect human form'? How are we defining 'human values'?"
You can't compare or associate God to humans.
"Yet if this true, that God is beyond human perception, how do we know certain things (like its attributes) about it?"
We know His attributes because His prophets told us about Them. These attributes are also written in Quran which is His Book.
"Edit : Another question, is that : How did the writers of the Koran (or Quran) know that God was perfect? Doesn't perfection imply 'without mistake'? Can a perfect being make mistakes?"
Quran wasn't written by humans it was revealed to us.
Are there any other qualities of this 'being', other than perfection?"
May 24 2013: So the Quran is the source of all we know about this perfect being?
Why didn't he make other books?
How do you know Mohammed was a valid source of information?May 24 2013: "So the Quran is the source of all we know about this perfect being?"
Yep. The absolute book. The ultimate everlasting message it is!
"Why didn't he make other books?"
He sent more books. [read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_view_of_the_Christian_Bible ]
"How do you know Mohammed was a valid source of information?"
You gotta have FAITH in what he said in order to become Muslim.
May 24 2013: Thanks for all the links!
I'll make sure to read them all soon, once I have expect a 'reply'.
See you soon! :DMay 19 2013: "For it wouldn't make much sense if a God who wanted to be in a relationship with us, didn't give us the ability to conceive such a God."
The problem being that if this was the case we would have to ask why this ability seems to err so much assuming divinity to so many natural processes rather than properly identify and conceive the "real" gods. Why would this ability lead us to think that gods are imagination inspired by ignorance and mental states that can be prompted by almost any kind of experience that are far from divine, like taking drugs, some of them that alter the mind in dangerous ways.
The studies on inclinations to superstition might not prove that gods are false. But they sure convince that religious experiences are far from being proof that there's gods. However, the whole picture is quite convincing that gods are the result of vivid imaginations, ignorance, and poor logic. Therefore false.
May 19 2013: To be honest I agree with you to a certain extent.
I just can't see any way to (dis)prove such a concept as a "God".
I still personally debate with myself, regarding the Christian God, as to whether I should call myself an (philosophical) "atheist" (due to the many logical paradoxes the Christian God suffers from) or an "agnostic".
As Bertrand Russell once said when asked what he would say to God (if God existed) once he died : "Not enough evidence God! Not enough evidence." And it is rumoured (yet I'm unsure) that he said (to paraphrase) : "God made me with a rational mind, so why not let me use it?" (That quote may be very wrong though!).
I think to explain what I am getting out is, as Bertrand Russell summarised brilliantly, is "Russell's teapot".
As the saying always goes : "An absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".
Kind regards,
P.S : I'm a big fan of Bertrand Russell! :D
A great read, which I believe would benefit you is :
"Am I An Atheist Or An Agnostic?"
Link : http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/russell8.htm
Read it before you reply! :D
May 19 2013: I understand. And the point is the same as yours, except that it clearly identifies gods as false. Only stopping because of the lack of a philosophical background to deny the existence of the gods more explicitly. To me, the teapot example alone would allow me to say atheist, rather than agnostic. There's also the historical deformation of these terms. Today, most those who call themselves agnostic are inclined to be more theists, than atheists, and will use the word "God" with capital "G", and call everybody else an ignorant. (I said most, not all). Thus, I rather distance myself from such idiocy. Also, I would think, contrary to Russell, that the Homeric gods are more "probable" (though ridiculous to believe), than the Christian god, because the Christian god has so many versions, that they cannot correspond to any reality. Then each of them contains unsurmountable contradictions. Even if you said, well, maybe the Christian god exists, but it is not like any of the Christian gods we have imagined. Maybe it is one without any of the contradictions. Well, if so, then that would not be the Christian god to begin with. It could be a god, but not the Christian one. But even before answering the question that way, I would be in square one: you are imagining a situation in which some god would be valid, but you have nothing but your imagination to blame. therefore that god is imaginary and thus nonexistent.
I don't see any way around. Gods are evidently imaginary, therefore false.
Could there be beings so powerful that they would be gods in our view? Maybe. But they would not be any of the gods we have imagined, and therefore that's not what any human is talking about. When we talk about gods, we talk about mere mental machinations. Nothing else.
May 19 2013: I'm still unsure as to whether God's are "Completely" imaginary.
Have you heard of an argument called the "Ontological argument", which basically goes :
God is the (maximally) greatest being (or essence) we can imagine (or conceive).
It is greater to exist, than not to exist.
Therefore God exists.
Personally I view this argument is false. Yet interesting nonetheless.
However it is worth considering, as Sir David Attembrough points out, that it may not be within our cognitive abilities to "perceive" the true "essence" of "God"...
A great read I would recommend you is :
- Is God Imaginary? (By Reasonable Faith, run by "William Lane Craig")
P.S Sorry for my brief responses! I shall edit this response later to address your points in more detail when I find the time! :DMay 23 2013: We can look through a telescope and see the universe if huge. We can look through a microscope and see it is also very small. What do we look through to see that God does not exist?


text:
Although it looks simple, we've put handy pockets throughout this bag to store those items you need while wandering. The main compartment is big enough for binoculars and a small field guide and has a generously sized zippered pocket. Under the top flap on the Haversack's front is another full-length open pocket faced with flat pockets ideal for pens, a small note pad, or calculator. We even included pockets on the outside ends that would easily fit a small cell phone or iPod®. 18-ounce canvas throughout, the Haversack has leather trim and piping, and a leather flap strap with a roller buckle. An adjustable leather shoulder strap ensures carrying comfort while you wander the woods or sidewalks. Also available with cotton web components. Made in USA.
Technical Specifications
Item No. Z-1363HL-PATH Pathfinder Hatchet Haversack with Leather Components
- Dimensions: 11H x 9W x 4D
- Capacity: 352 cubic inches
- Construction: 18 oz canvas, leather trim, leather adjustable shoulder strap, internal zippered pocket, premium leather flap strap w/ buckling closure, two side pockets, assorted front pockets, back hatchet loop
- Dimensions: 11H x 9W x 4D
- Capacity: 352 cubic inches
- Construction: 18 oz canvas, cotton web trim, cotton web adjustable shoulder strap, internal zippered pocket, premium leather flap strap w/ buckling closure, two side pockets, assorted front pockets, back hatchet loop
Item No. Z-1364HL-PATH Pathfinder Hatchet Haversack with Cotton Webbing components
Additional Info
Additional Info
Customer Reviews (1)
- Bought as a holiday bagReview by Carl and Petra
We went for the bag with cotton trim and it is, as previous products have been, excellent. Size is perfect and it holds all we need.
Petra says it is absolutely brilliant.. (Posted on 4/30/2014)
Write Your Own Review
Lifetime Guarantee
All of our handmade packs and bags are built to last in Duluth, Minnesota, USA. Our factory, where we have been building our products since 1911, is home to an extremely talented group of sewers, riveters, and leather craftspeople. Each piece of Duluth Pack gear is painstakingly built by hand with the attention and detail that only a true artisan can provide. We stand behind our work and are proud to offer a lifetime warranty covering all craftsmanship and hardware we use in the construction of our products. Craftsmanship includes our sewing and riveting. Hardware includes all zippers, buckles, D-rings, snaps, and any other parts utilized in the manufacturing of our bags. If at anytime during the life of your Duluth Pack product you have problems in these areas, return the product and it will be repaired free of charge. If the product cannot be repaired due to a defect in craftsmanship or faulty hardware, we will be happy to replace the item at Duluth Pack's discretion. While your Duluth Pack item is designed to provide you with many years of use, Duluth Pack is not responsible for common wear and tear or misuse of your product and is therefore not covered by our warranty. Of course, damages not covered under warranty can usually be repaired at a minimal cost. We sincerely value your patronage and will always do our absolute best to go the extra mile to ensure that you are happy with every Duluth Pack purchase.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Martin, whose sprightly new CD is called Cookin' With Carolyn, appeared this morning (Thursday, March 25) on WSM-AM 650 at 9, chatting with show host Bill Cody.
If you missed that (or if you're just in the market for more of Martin), she'll also perform on Tuesday, March 2 at 9 p.m. at the Station Inn, with a crack band that includes Billy Contreras, Rory Hoffman, Jerry Krahn, Tommy Wells, Dave Martin and steel guitar great Doug Jernigan.
She's expecting a special guest or two as well (Who could it be? Vince Gill? Gil from The Simpsons? Little Billy Gilman?).
Tickets for the Station Inn show are $10, available at the door.


text:
I decided I wanted to do this a couple of nights ago and now I've come up with a method, it's not really complicated but can be rather time-consuming depending on how large your library is.
I have around 800 albums with attached album art and it took at least an hour, granted most of that time is spent watching your computer doing all the work for you.
The process requires you to download some free applications (links supplied) and you also need a new-ish version of Photoshop (I use CS3) although I'll show you an alternate way of getting basically the same results with Google's free digital photo organizer, Picasa2.
So, for Windows only at the moment, but I'm sure some Mac user can come up with an easier and cooler way to do this. Damn you, I'm switching soon anyway.
More advanced users can check out Step 7 right away for a quick rundown.
Step 1: Locating your iTunes album art
There's several ways to go about this; you can import the covers automatically from the iTunes Store or you can painstakingly do it by hand for every album.
- Automatically
- By hand
I imported all mine into iTunes by hand, partly because I'm kinda picky and want them all the same size but mostly because I listen to weird electronic music that's just not available in the iTunes Store, forcing me to find the cover art from Discogs.com, Google image search and elsewhere.
Anyway, I will assume you have at least some album art in iTunes (the more the better) and move on.
So let's locate the images on your computer.
The problem, and the one thing that makes this instructable even worth sharing to begin with, is that the images are not readable by Photoshop as is and that they're all spread out into hundreds of strangely nested folders with strange names.
Therefore, we need to decode them and copy them all into one place.
The default folder for your artwork should be in "My Documents\My Music\iTunes\Album Artwork\Local"
If you can't find it there just do a search for the folder "album artwork" on your C: drive.
If you navigate around a bit from here you'll notice that it's very messy, so we have to find all the *.itc files (those are actually just renamed png images with some extra header data) that are thrown around in the myriad of folders and copy them into a new folder so that we can manipulate them without destroying your iTunes setup.
From the Local folder, click Search in your Explorer bar (CTRL-F) and search for any file that has "itc" in it's file name and after a while you should be presented with a list of all the cover art files.
Now, make a new folder somewhere else, maybe on your desktop, Select All the files (CTRL-A) and copy them into your newly made folder.
Make sure you copy the files, don't just move them or you will mess up your iTunes library!
You can also create the montage image with ImageMagick like this:
montage test.tes.00* +frame +shadow +label -tile 5x9 -geometry 500x500+0+0 merge.png
Adjusting the tile value and geometry (size) as appropriate
There are scripts around that help export from the MP3 (I guess)
https://firstname.lastname@example.com/msg87239.html and this thread might be worth investigating:
360 albums, 24 columns, 15 rows
that makes each album cover 80 by 80 pixels and fits perfectly!
24 x 80 being 1920 and
15 x 80 being 1200
therefore 1920 by 1200 wallpaper
Sometimes it finds folders of your photos but a lot of the time it doesn't and won't import them properly. I think I have narrowed this down to it not liking the pictures being resized to 200x200 pixels.
The pictures that it does import are bigger than that size (I'm talking about the original file sizes before re-sizing), hence it will actually show them. But as soon as you resize them to the smaller size then Picasa will not import them properly.
You cannot resize the pictures in Picasa as it doesn't allow you to do that.
Now the other annoying thing is that when you use the Photoshop method it displays the names for each individual picture in the grid. So there is a lot of messing about to do to get it to look just right. Sorry for the long post!
I think both your annoyances can be remedied. Inside Photoshop, make sure you uncheck "Use filename as caption" inside the Contact Sheet settings, as per my screenshot in the Instructable.
As for the Picasa problem, select "Small Pictures" in the "View" menu.
Let me know if this works.
Thanks very much for that. I tried the remedy in photoshop also but I prefer to use the Picasa method as you can create a nice border round the pictures and easily add spaces between each picture to the size you want. I know I could probably do this in Photoshop but as you can see, I'm not very technically minded lol.
Thanks a lot for your help.
P.S. Richard D.James rocks!
First I recursively searched for all jpgs in my folder tree that were above 10k using gnome-search-tool
Saved the results as jpgs.txt
Created a bash script to copy the jpgs to a folder with IFS stuff for dealing with white space
IFS=$(echo -en "\n\b")
for file in `cat jpgs.txt`
echo "processing $file"
cp "$file" $RANDOM.jpg
Then mogrified the jpgs to make sure they were all 300x300
mogrify -resize 300x300! *.jpg
Created many smaller montages, since 2400 jpgs will crash montage
montage -tile 7x7 *.jpg montage.jpg
Loaded all of the smaller montage pics into gimp and aligned them to grid to create a giant montage.jpg
Converted montage.jpg to pdf so I could use pdfposter
convert montage.jpg montage.pdf
pdfposter -v -s 1 montage.pdf pdfposter.pdf
pdfposter dumps out a pdf a la rasterbator, so I can print out my 7.5 square foot poster on A4... without the rasterizing of rasterbator..
and that's that.
i type in "copy /b * test.tes" but it says:
the system cannot find the file specified
0 file<s> copied.
please help!!!
when using fotosizer do the settings FIRST before adding appropriate folder.
once the folder has been selected it automatically converts to the default custom size. if you have over 1500 files it takes a while and if you try to alter the settings as it runs it crashes.


text:
Hang tight!
Recipe by ANGELA29
"An apple pie with a sweet crumb topping."
Hmm. None of these ingredients are on sale today.
Show ingredients on sale
Sort stores by
Save money at local stores when ingredients are on sale!
Watch video tips and tricks
apples - peeled, cored and sliced
3/4 cup
white sugar
1 tablespoon
ground cinnamon
1 teaspoon
ground nutmeg
3/4 cup
packed brown sugar
1/2 cup
all-purpose flour
3 teaspoons
ground cinnamon
1/4 cup
1 recipe
pastry for a 9 inch single crust pie
My family really enjoyed this Apple crumb pie! I did do 2 things different and that was after I baked the pie for 35 mins I then added the Crumb topping and baked it till it was golden and Yummy!! Also I baked it at 400 instead of the 425! This is going to be a Keeper! Thanks for the Great Recipe!
Tasted good, but didn't plate well. In my opinion, the apple mixture needed some flour to thicken up the juices. May use again but would add flour to apple mixture.
92 Ratings
A great basis. Of course I changed it around a bit. First off, the recipe calls for way too much cinnamon. I used half a tablespoon for the sugar mixture and only about a teaspoon for the crumb mixture. I used 5 granny smith apples and baked in at 400 degrees (less is more). For the crust, I made my favorite Martha Stewart pate brisee recipe. It's the only way to go and very, very easy to make. Email me if you want the recipe! Good luck!
My familly loved this recipe even my husband who is not a huge fan of apple pie loved it! I did notice that after 10 min. of baking that the crumb topping was starting to burn. I covered the entire pie with aluminum foil and cooked an additional 35 min. The crumb topping stayed intact and did not turn to goo like other reviewers reported.
Ok, fellow bakers, IF you like apple crisp (or some call it apple brown betty) and IF you like apple pie....then the two of them just married quite happily to this Crumb Apple Pie! I use a already made Phyllsbury Pie Crust (plus since it comes with two pie crusts I always make one for us and one to give away!). I peel and thinly slice the granny smith apples and mix them in a bowl with the white sugar and 1 T of cinnamon...it makes a really nice sugary, perfectly flavored apple slices to then layer into the pie crust. YUM! Definitely cover the pie near the end as suggested or it will be rock hard and over browned. This warmed on a plate with a scoop of vanilla ice cream and you are in dessert heaven baby! :) Thanks for the recipe..love it!
My changes include: 2 tablespoons of flour to apple filling. For the topping, I half the flour and add half rolled oats PLUS I add 1/4 cup of very chopped pecans. I also bake it at 350 for 60 minutes. Less burnt topping that way! ENJOY!!
I have made this at least 10 times. If you don't like things too sweet or cinnamony just reduce these ingredients a bit. I always cover the crust edges so they don't burn and reduce the heat towards the end and add a little extra time (to make sure the apples are well cooked) Everyone always fights over the last piece of this. Wonderful pie!
Oh, My God! This was absolutely fabulous. Actually sort of a sophisticated apple pie flavor that all the grownups loved. It wasn't just sweet like apple pies often are. Nice and spicy. Maybe not so great for picky little kids who just want sweet, but wonderful for us grownups.
* Percent Daily Values are based on a 2,000 calorie diet.
Crumb Apple Pie
Serving Size: 1/8 of a recipe
Servings Per Recipe: 8
Amount Per Serving
Calories: 404
Calories from Fat: 123
We have so many top-rated chicken recipes, you'll never run out of dinner ideas again.
Imagine dinner making itself in the slow cooker while you relax or do other things.
Delicious recipes, party ideas, and cooking tips! Get a year of Allrecipes magazine for $7.99!
See how to make a double-crust cream pie topped with cinnamon-glazed apples.
See how to make a simple, 5-star apple pie.
Apple pie baked in a rectangular pan with a crumble topping.


text:
Amazing Students
- Agriculture and Environmental Sciences
- Arts and Sciences
- Business
- Ecology
- Education
- Environment and Design
- Faculty of Engineering
- Family and Consumer Sciences
- Forestry and Natural Resources
- Graduate School
- Journalism and Mass Communication
- Law
- Pharmacy
- Public and International Affairs
- Public Health
- Social Work
- Veterinary Medicine
Eric Tonn
When Eric Tonn graduated from high school in Madison, Ala., he pushed the college selection process to new heights by visiting 23 different colleges looking for exactly the right environment to further his education. After what he calls "major decision…
Julie Laughter
To senior Julie Laughter, UGA is an endless resource of information, organizations and campus activities, and she has made the most of her time here. As a summer intern at Pepsi Cola in their research and development center, she worked…
Heather Savelle
Heather Savelle is committed to agriculture. A triple major in the College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, she recently completed an internship in the Oconee County Extension Office. She would like to get a master's degree and become an extension…
Cc Robinson
The twists and turns in Cc Robinson's life have taken her just where she wants to go. When she began at UGA, she was planned to work in emergency pediatric medicine, but after four years of studying a pre-med curriculum,…
Bryan Davis
Relationships mean a lot to Honors student Bryan Davis. His family tried to steer him to another school instead of UGA, but by then Mark Dawkins, an associate dean in the Terry College of Business, had already become a mentor.…
Arthur Tripp Jr.
Senior Arthur Tripp plans a future in government. He was part of UGA's inaugural class in the Washington Semester program, and he was a student representative to the University System of Georgia Board of Regents responsible for advising them on…
Angela Zachman
Senior engineering student Angela Zachman has enjoyed her time at UGA. As a freshman, she had a music scholarship and was part of the Redcoat Marching Band. As a sophomore, she accompanied the band on a tour of China. She…
Laurie Reyman
Graduate student Laurie Reyman grew up in Zimbabwe and did not know anyone when she came to UGA. She chose the university primarily because it was in a warm and sunny climate and a city smaller than New York, where…
Andrew Durso
If you want to know about slithering or slimy creatures, call senior ecology student Andrew Durso. He has helped teach classes in herpetology, population ecology and ichthyology in UGA's Eugene Odum School of Ecology, which is the first and only…