101. Mind Over Manual

Comment #70036 by oxytocin on September 13, 2007 at 7:55 pm

phasmagigas, medicine has been very successful, but you should be aware that many so-called "medical" [as opposed to "psychological"...which will eventually be an outdated distinction] disorders are poorly conceptualized and far from clear cut. Diagnosis in medicine can be imprecise as well.

Nick6742: as a psychologist who works with psychiatrists on a daily basis, I would say that your comment about clinicians using dx criteria as "vague guidelines" does not ring true. Because the DSM-IV-TR is the best system that we have, we act "as if" it was true. We all know that there are far better systems ahead of us, but we use the criteria sincerely. To do otherwise would not be scientific or useful, since, in the latter case, communication about any commonly understood phenomenon would be effectively meaningless without strict taxonomic adherence. As we hone our skills at understanding the constitution of these disorders [schizophrenia is particularly poorly understood] we will not only diagnose more reliably, but we will develop highly effective treatments that are tailored for these newly re-conceptualized disorders. Our current tools are transitory, but as a scientist, I hope that this is the case for all of our tools.

102. A Response to Jonathan Haidt

Comment #69962 by oxytocin on September 13, 2007 at 10:47 am

sidfaiwu,
I agree that Myers brings up a good point about the surveys. In fact, the data has shown that members of groups who are "one-down" tend to evidence reduced mood as compared to the leaders of a group. It may have nothing to do with the benefits of religion, per se, but rather a dip in the mood of the minority group.

...on the other hand, maybe it is beneficial. Research in social psychology shows that people who maintain certain illusions about the world [and themselves] are often happier than those who do not. People who are slightly unhappy tend to have a more accurate take on reality. This has lead researchers to speculate that illusions are actually beneficial to humans, promoting productivity and health.

103. Mind Over Manual

Comment #69956 by oxytocin on September 13, 2007 at 10:27 am

Wow, from this article, it sounds as though there have been centuries of frustration in the field. This couldn't be further from the truth. The fact is that psychiatry and psychology are very young areas of research. They have both gone through huge revolutions within that short span, moving from applied philosophy to being rigorously scientific in their methodologies. Further, the complexity of mental illness is extremely daunting, and it necessitates serious inter-disciplinary collaboration. Given that our understanding of the neurobiological mechanisms of mental illness is so poor, it's remarkable that we have treatments that are actually efficacious [despite the impotent protestations of the scientologists]. People need to have patience with this field of research. It's only a matter of time before it catches up with the public's expectations.

104. A Response to Jonathan Haidt

Comment #69911 by oxytocin on September 13, 2007 at 6:42 am

irate_atheist,
...ok...

I don't even know how to comment on that...

105. A Response to Jonathan Haidt

Comment #69903 by oxytocin on September 13, 2007 at 6:03 am

fides_et_ratio,
You're right...assuming to know what motivates someone else is arrogant. It's an unwarranted assumption. Kinda like "knowing" the mind of a magical being, or believing that your magical being is categorically better than someone else's magical being.

Also, in relation to one of your earlier comments: if atheists exhibit anything resembling "faith" with regard to their negation of fairies, then something has gone very wrong. The atheist's "faith" that there is no xian god is just the same as you having "faith" that there is no Santa.

106. Interview with Francis Collins

Comment #69169 by oxytocin on September 9, 2007 at 9:21 pm

Ewan D, That's good to know! I suspect the confusion comes from my username [oxytocin]. It's a chemical that's often mentioned in the female context, but is common to both genders. It promotes interpersonal connection, which I think is pretty cool.

Thanks for the link to the Beyond Belief lecture. I'll check that out tomorrow.

107. Interview with Francis Collins

Comment #69166 by oxytocin on September 9, 2007 at 8:58 pm

Yorker, That's funny. No, I'm male. Sorry to say that I don't know anything about Pat Churchland. My knowledge of philosophy is somewhat limited. Only took a few course in undergraduate school.

108. Interview with Francis Collins

Comment #69158 by oxytocin on September 9, 2007 at 8:14 pm

82abhilash, brilliant quote by Abba Eban. So true.

Yorker, I agree with you also. I would add only that I think people show hostility to logic and science when it counters a belief that is held in the absence of evidence. People don't like to think that they are inconsistent [cognitive dissonance], so they change one of the beliefs. Since science is less valued [likely due to poor education regarding science, and powerful emotional connections with religion], it is unceremoniously dismissed.

109. Interview with Francis Collins

Comment #69150 by oxytocin on September 9, 2007 at 7:41 pm

Ewan D, Exactly right. In fact, Damasio describes the situation in quite dire terms. Emotion is "old world" cognition that is entirely connected with what we conventionally think of as cognition. Without emotion, we would value nothing, and therefore have no motivation to do anything. Damasio [a Neurologist] presents some case studies of patients where this exact thing happens. The idea that we can remove our affect from the picture is impossible AND undesirable. Much of what we "reason" to be of worth is based on what we "value" and hence "feel". In fact, demarcating between purportedly cortical thinking and sub-cortical feeling is very challenging.

110. Interview with Francis Collins

Comment #69132 by oxytocin on September 9, 2007 at 6:53 pm

Henri,
You've exhibited some very disrespectful and insulting behavior. From what I can see, you have no interest in an exchange of information, only the desire to club others like baby seals. Enjoy.

Because you say it, it must be so. You're king of the world Henri. Congratulations.

That's it for me. Let me know when you come down from the trees.

[p.s. speak to a mathematician about probabilities in number theory]

111. Interview with Francis Collins

Comment #69123 by oxytocin on September 9, 2007 at 6:37 pm

BAEOZ, I'm Canadian.

112. Interview with Francis Collins

Comment #69118 by oxytocin on September 9, 2007 at 6:28 pm

Henri, you may have to repeat yourself "with me" for one of 2 possible reasons: 1) I can't hear what you're thinking in your head or 2) as inconceivable as it may sound, what you're saying might not make much sense.

I have no idea what point I didn't address, even going back over your post. You can be the victor of all debates in your mind if it makes you feel like a winner, champ.

As to your current points:

1-Counting physical objects in the material world confirms the math. I'll leave it to the engineers and physicists to explain how more complicated math might be shown to be [likely] correct. Quantum theory is mathematical. It makes incredibly accurate predictions that are verified in the real world.

2-The research shows that people, regardless of culture, exhibit certain feelings when presented with moral quandaries involving murder. Generally, it's a feeling of revulsion. These are not absolute feelings, however, as people will endorse "murder" under certain circumstances, such as when the murdered person was unjustly attacking someone else. Thus, our moral feelings shift under particular conditions. There is no need for an explanation of "why"...it simply is...science doesn't answer these questions...only what or how. As physicist Victor Stenger says, "why" questions are inherently meaningless.

BAEOZ: Doing ok thanks, how about you?

113. Interview with Francis Collins

Comment #69102 by oxytocin on September 9, 2007 at 5:48 pm

??? What ???

Henri Bergson, I was unaware that I was excited, although it appears that you're getting there yourself.

You have accused me of misunderstanding you, but I think this might just be a mutual problem. I don't recall advocating the value of compassion, etc. I wasn't even discussing values, I was making an argument for the feelings that promote survival. Period. Did you even read my post?

...and hold on there professor. Since when do we negate the importance of research? I hardly think that neurological and psychological data is irrelevant. I'll take well-replicated data and theories over philosophy any day, thank you very much.

What science shows us is that even if your "rational" assertions might be "true" on paper, they mean nothing if not backed up by empirical data. This is why many physicists are cross with those who study string theory, for example. At present, there's no way to gather the data, so the hypotheses languish in the realm of philosophy. Also, some things that appear to be rational are disproved with the collection of data. Show me the money.

Your idiosyncratic definition of atheism is amusing. Since I have no desire to conform to your notion, it matters not.

114. Interview with Francis Collins

Comment #69070 by oxytocin on September 9, 2007 at 4:31 pm

Thanks for the info Yorker. I've noted the tendency of some folks to be shit disturbers.

115. Interview with Francis Collins

Comment #69051 by oxytocin on September 9, 2007 at 3:45 pm

82abhilash,
Here here. I second that motion heartily.

116. Interview with Francis Collins

Comment #69026 by oxytocin on September 9, 2007 at 2:23 pm

And with respect to you Henri Bergson, I think you have also entirely missed my point.

What I'm talking about is something very different from what you're discussing. The writers you have mentioned have all described morality in a way that early psychologists [e.g.,. Kohlberg, Piaget] have described it: as a cognitive process, the end result of which is a conclusion based on a set of certain societal values. This is NOT what I'm talking about.

Quite beside the point of whatever any particular society values, are what psychologists/neuroscientists today are uncovering as the emotive impetus for moral behavior. I'm neither endorsing descriptive nor prescriptive morality, but innate "morality" or "moral" feelings. These are utilitarian feelings that have developed early in evolution as an affiliative drive, the result of which is natural selection of individuals who possess them. These are good only insofar as they promote survival...they are objective, and neither "good" nor "evil" since nature appears to be inherently indifferent to the survival rates of species.

In reaction to a recognition of a particular stimulus, organisms respond with particular emotions. We do not need to be taught, for example, that having sex with one's sister or brother is a counterproductive thing. Most of us respond with a feeling of disgust, followed by a post-hoc rationalization for why it might be "wrong".

My contention [backed by reams upon reams of scientific data that I can provide to you if you want] is simply this: without having a serious set of instinctual drives that we are born with [which is one of the central premises of Pinker's book] we would never come to do much of anything but act in chaos. We wouldn't have the time or motivation to learn the things you are suggesting we learn.

I would recommend that you look at the evidence from neuroscience; there is much written for popular consumption. For example, Antonio Damasio has written a spectacular treatise on the importance of emotion in decision making in "Descartes' Error". Oliver Sacks discusses similar issues in cases studies in many of his books, including "An Anthropologist on Mars".

If humans insist that we are entirely in control of our perceptions and entirely conscious about how we come to the conclusions we do, we're in trouble.

I'm quite certain, BTW, the "New Atheists" as you say, vary in the degree to which they know history, just as any religious person varies similarly. No need for smugness.

Are you a religious lurker here??

117. Interview with Francis Collins

Comment #69002 by oxytocin on September 9, 2007 at 12:56 pm

Henri Bergson,
I'm uncertain how your comments on Pinker addressed my point, but that's fine.

Culture can direct us to act and think in certain ways, but research has shown universal hard-wired tendencies that can be described collectively as morality [I recommend Marc Hauser's book on the subject]. You may call it something different though. Behind the cover-up of culture is something more universal, and something we see in other mammals.

I suspect you would then argue that "personality" is a delusion as well. I don't think we need be so concrete as to think that people who speak about "morality" or "personality" or any such thing like this, believe that there is a little box in the brain housing these constructs. What we do know from neuroscience is that the myriad states of consciousness [morality might be included here] are emergent properties of widely distributed neurological networks. Your categorical dismissal of widely researched phenomena seems somewhat...unwarranted. Your decree that morality is fictitious doesn't negate all the interesting research in the area.

118. Interview with Francis Collins

Comment #68983 by oxytocin on September 9, 2007 at 11:53 am

Henri Bergson:
Ok, that's a wee bit on the extreme side. The research does not support your comments...although we might agree that absolutes of "evil" and "good" are entirely dependent on context and POV, there is a high probability that specific behaviors are hardwired into our species. The set of behavior that facilitates cooperation and feelings of connectedness and mutual support [for example] is something that we label "morality". Let's not fall into the trap of believing that we are entirely free of innate drives and tendencies. If you want to debate this point, perhaps you could take it up with Steven Pinker [see, "The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature"].

119. Interview with Francis Collins

Comment #68946 by oxytocin on September 9, 2007 at 8:07 am

This argument about religion providing morality is sheer lunacy. I think Hitchens says it best: are we to believe that until Moses presented the 10 Commandments that everyone thought that murder, rape, and theft were ok? Further to the point, if we are to concede evolution, as Collins obviously does, how is he to explain the hundreds of thousands of years that humans existed before the Christian fairy ever allegedly demonstrated its existence? How did humans get on before that?

No, it seems inconceivable that any complex creature could evolve/exist successfully without being hardwired for behavior that makes co-existence possible. I truly wish that psychologists and/or ethologists who study morality would come forward and debunk these insane claims...only the solipsism of the religious would purport that our cooperative motives have ethereal origins. I think the work of Marc Hauser [e.g., Moral Minds] and Paul Bloom [http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/bloom07/bloom07_index.html]
needs to be more widely read.

People are so ambivalent about crediting our species with our accomplishments. On the one hand, humans couldn't possibly have built the pyramids or completed brilliant works of art without supernatural guidance, and on the other hand, the universe was created with us in mind.

Animal studies show that other species [and babies] exhibit "proto" morality. Research has also shown that religious and non-religious people think about moral situations in the same way. How Collins can negate all this research [if he even knows about it] is beyond my ability to understand. For anyone out there who truly believes that religion and science are NOMA, this is a great example of how that is profoundly wrong. Religions make claims about the material world; many of these claims have proved false, and yet people retain these beliefs in the face of contradictory evidence.

120. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #68723 by oxytocin on September 8, 2007 at 9:52 am

fides_et_ratio:
Interesting arguments are only persuasive if they are backed up by evidence. As aitchkay has correctly pointed out, humans can be easily swayed by arguments that make "sense" to us, but only due to our poor capacity to detect reality. His identification of quantum theory, along with evolution, is a great example of well tested theories that have almost nothing to do with common sense logic of our experience. If McGrath wants to create some testable hypotheses that he is willing to put forth for empirical examination, then my ears will perk up. Until then, it's neither here nor there.

ChrisMcL: I can't find anything on Harris' completion of his degree. What is your source?

121. We need a more intelligent religion debate

Comment #68457 by oxytocin on September 7, 2007 at 7:56 am

Courtier's Reply!! [http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/12/the_courtiers_reply.php]

122. Bible Belter

Comment #68143 by oxytocin on September 6, 2007 at 8:43 am

Excellent review of a truly smashing book.

The one complaint I have is about the concerns that are raised by RD. First, Hitchens' phrase "no child's behind left" is likely meant as dark humor prompting us to feel the appropriate disgust, coupled with the question: "why do we put up with this?".

Second, when Hitchens calls his opponents "mammals", I think the purpose is to emphasize that his opponent is a fallible animal just like the rest of us. The goal is likely taking his opponent down from his/her high horse as a transcendant being who should exercise their "dominion over the earth".

Hitchens' arguments are often complex and literary [many of his allusions go over my head, I'm embarrassed to admit]. His commentary brings a sophistication, elegance, and flair that is very welcome.

123. Psychiatrists are the least religious of all physicians

Comment #67789 by oxytocin on September 4, 2007 at 8:04 pm

Dr Benway, are you a psychiatrist?

124. Psychiatrists are the least religious of all physicians

Comment #67777 by oxytocin on September 4, 2007 at 6:26 pm

BAEOZ, well, if I can help you out in any way, please let me know. Good luck!

125. Psychiatrists are the least religious of all physicians

Comment #67774 by oxytocin on September 4, 2007 at 6:17 pm

BAEOZ, I'm happy to hear you had a good experience. And you're quite right: what therapy looks like in reality is entirely different from what it looks like on TV [I'm often enraged by what I see portrayed in the media]. As with most fields, I would imagine, Hollywood takes the worst stereotypes from about 100 years ago, amplifies them, and then dumbs them down for good measure.

Psychiatrists are trained as general physicians, then they do their residency in psychiatry, which is [almost always] entirely practical. Clinical Psychologists generally do an undergraduate degree in general psychology [i.e.., abnormal, social, industrial/organizational, developmental, research methods/stats, physiological/neuro, etc.], followed by Masters and Doctoral work in the same field, but this time specialized. Graduate studies are composed of both practical [clinical] and research work. My university valued its research component very highly and so we did a lot of it. All this to say, yes, Psychiatrists can prescribe meds since they're physicians, while Psychologists cannot. There are some States in the US where psychologists are acquiring the right to prescribe, but this is a highly controversial and contentious idea.

126. Psychiatrists are the least religious of all physicians

Comment #67736 by oxytocin on September 4, 2007 at 3:02 pm

Ewan D, My pleasure, Sir.

127. Psychiatrists are the least religious of all physicians

Comment #67720 by oxytocin on September 4, 2007 at 1:56 pm

Hi Ewan D,
I can see that your friend isn't a Psychologist; his methods are also very non-science based. Although we can certainly admit the holes in our methods [e.g., CBT], those amongst us who are scientifically driven believe in the value of knowing whether what we do actually works or not. The fact is that CBT [along with select other modes of treatment that have integrity] and psychotropic meds are evidence-based. I stopped paying attention to existential stuff in undergrad when I saw that they appeared to have no interest in double blind trials or any other type of empirical verification.

Bonzai, don't be so quick to dismiss Freud unless you've read his work. He was an extremely brilliant human who suggested many interesting ideas and prompted us to think about the human condition in new ways. Also, many psychiatrists do indeed do therapy.

128. Psychiatrists are the least religious of all physicians

Comment #67696 by oxytocin on September 4, 2007 at 11:59 am

Ewan D,
First "madness" and "sanity" have no meaning in mental health. "Sanity" is a legal word.

Second, this is a very old [but classic] study. The amount of work that has been done in the intervening years is immense. Not only have the diagnostic systems been dramatically overhauled, but the ethical guidelines have been revolutionized [for all professions working with patients, medical and non-medical], and the standards of care are qualitatively different. I work on an inpatient unit...I can say that our system works to get people back into their lives, not keep them incapacitated in bed in a hospital. The shorter the stay on our unit, the better.

This isn't to say that this scenario is impossible now, but the very nature of clinical methodology in modern times is to seek multiple measurements from different professionals [as a psychologist, I receive referrals from psychiatry to get a different take on tough cases], and, as a matter of course, collateral information from family and friends is routinely collected. This, coupled with systemic mandates to gets patients back into their lives, dramatically reduces the chances that people will be kept in hospital in a manner that is unwarranted.

129. Psychiatrists are the least religious of all physicians

Comment #67692 by oxytocin on September 4, 2007 at 11:42 am

Hello to you as well Yorker.

Well, I'm happy to surprise you. I'm like gentle Jesus, meek and mild.

With regard to psychiatry, yes, please don't take my word for it. Research the issue yourself...nothing should be taken on faith, even from professionals. From my experience working on a daily basis with psychiatrists, I have found them to be just like any other physician. As I have suggested above, by and large, they are users of science, not generally producers of science. However, for an example of how scientific psychiatry has progressed, I would refer you to browse through an issue of the "American Journal of Psychiatry" [http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/current.dtl]. Although you likely won't have access to its contents online, you can examine the titles of articles; if you like, you can read the journal in its entirety by visiting any university in your area. There are hundreds of other journals just like this, in both psychiatry and psychology.

I think you may have misunderstood me: although I have no doubt that you've experienced some very serious events in your life, it is your REACTION to them that is key. For example, although the majority of people have experienced what would be considered a "traumatic" event in their lives [approximately 86%], only a very small proportion of those people go on to develop "post-traumatic stress disorder" [prevalence depends on what type of event was experienced]. This is an abnormal response to an event that results in a diagnosable disorder; it is distinct from the way most of us would react. In other words, Yorker, you have demonstrated resilience through your life events.

I'll leave the Jewish issue alone.

130. Psychiatrists are the least religious of all physicians

Comment #67651 by oxytocin on September 4, 2007 at 6:31 am

BAEOZ: I NEVER challenge patients' religious ideology. One of our highest ethical standards in psychology is respect for the dignity of all people and their beliefs. In a professional context, I cannot [as best as possible] let my bias against religion cloud my judgment. That's not to say we're supposed to respect the belief, but the person's right to have it. This is something I think anyway, therefore it's a happy coincidence.

Richard Morgan: as embarrassed as I am to admit this, we have "Pastoral Care" in our hospital. They advertise their "ability" to treat all sorts of illnesses [despite their paucity of training], some of which I myself would steer clear of. Sadly, they're not competent to assume these duties, but do so anyway, because they're cheap labor. BTW, same thing here in Canada about coverage; Psychiatrists are covered, Psychologists are not, unless you see a Psychologist in the hospital system [where I am] and then we're covered.

Yorker: Yikes. You're coming dangerously close to reverse discrimination with your comments. "The undeniable ability of Jewish people to make money"? Huh? Second, it's your choice whether you ever seek mental health services [and I hope you never need to], but psychiatry and psychology are not [usually] there to help people with everyday problems, but with problems that most of us will never have to endure. Although we may have all experienced some transient sadness or worry, this is quite different in quality AND quantity from a diagnosable condition. Also, as a matter of professional conduct, I always explain to all of my patients how I propose to provide them with assistance. I am also quantitative in my practice, which means that I measure, pre-post, whether I was able to help someone or not. On the matter of whether psychiatry is effective: it is as effective as any other branch of medicine. Although it started in a very non-scientific way, anyone perusing a psychiatric journal today would quickly see the folly of assuming the reverse.

131. Psychiatrists are the least religious of all physicians

Comment #67574 by oxytocin on September 3, 2007 at 9:04 pm

Thanks Beth. I hope that data gets published. Your hypothesis is a sound one...although I would guess that clinical psychologists would still be lower than the general public given the higher level of education. In any case, if true, it would mark another point of departure between psychology and psychiatry...there's some interesting data out there documenting the differences in personality, paradigm, and cognitive style.

Not that group differences have been tested, but I would actually be pretty surprised if, on the whole, psychologists weren't more non-theistic than psychiatrists given that we're trained as scientists whereas the majority of physicians are not.

eric.malitz: I do cognitive-behavior therapy in my practice...I therefore have the pleasure of challenging irrational beliefs all day!

sabre_truth: my condolences on the cost issue. I sincerely hope that the States [I'm assuming that's where you are] eventually adopts universal health care.

132. Psychiatrists are the least religious of all physicians

Comment #67560 by oxytocin on September 3, 2007 at 7:44 pm

I've never seen data for Psychologists, but I must say that a surprising number of my colleagues in both academia and in hospital practice endorse a faith of some sort. Not that my experience says anything of substance, of course...I'd like to see the data if there is any.

The article also mentioned Freud...I would recommend reading his monograph "The Future of an Illusion", which is a brilliant statement about the nature of religion. Granted, it's not empirically derived, but fascinating nonetheless.

133. What do these atheists understand of religion?

Comment #67370 by oxytocin on September 3, 2007 at 6:22 am

I really despise it when ridiculous articles like this are posted on a particular site and then the reader isn't permitted to comment on them. It feels like this writer is getting away with murder.

134. Another view

Comment #66255 by oxytocin on August 29, 2007 at 1:18 pm

BAEOZ, see above comments for an article on effectiveness. I don't know about its reliability.

135. Another view

Comment #66253 by oxytocin on August 29, 2007 at 1:15 pm

robert s,
Actually, you can do a double blind trial with ECT. They use what's called sham stimulation that makes the participant in the study believe that they are being administered a therapeutic dosage. This is how we know that ECT has what's called incremental validity, or utility above and beyond the placebo.

But you're quite right, the "why" of something working is different than the "how". Many medications used today have unknown mechanisms...but they've been demonstrated clinically efficiacious.

Bonzai, you've identified an important problem. Although most lay people see physicians as "scientists", the fact is that most have never been trained as scientists. When they get involved in research, things can get scary fast with their woeful misunderstands of how science works.

wendelin, I'm tickled pink that you and your father have been helped by acupunture. That says nothing about its scientific efficacy.

136. Another view

Comment #66200 by oxytocin on August 29, 2007 at 8:52 am

Alison, I don't know the exact answer to your question, but the research has demonstrated that people respond better to treatment, whether placebo or not, when they pay for it than when they do not.

137. Another view

Comment #66193 by oxytocin on August 29, 2007 at 8:09 am

Northern Bright, I'm feeling a slight headache coming on...might you also send me some healing energy? I have no reason to doubt your powers.

138. Another view

Comment #66190 by oxytocin on August 29, 2007 at 7:59 am

Holy mackeral. Where does one start with this drivel?

I think this guy just proved RD's concerns correct. He is making the most asinine of statements: "everything has to be proven before he'll believe it". Huh?! Isn't that self-evident? I'm stunned.

Unfortunately, the original article doesn't permit readers to post comments. I want to tear this author a new one. Verbally, of course.

139. Fallen Pastor Seeks Aid to Pursue Studies

Comment #65936 by oxytocin on August 27, 2007 at 12:44 pm

Oh Great Scott. If Ted Haggard is EVER identified as a Psychologist, my profession is doomed. Luckily, our ethics code prevents any psychologist from introducing religion into any treatment where it is not explicitly requested. Of course, ethics does not seem to be a particular strength for this chap.

Woe.

140. Anger at Malaysia 'Jesus cartoon'

Comment #65878 by oxytocin on August 27, 2007 at 8:26 am

We have now entered the censorship Cold War.

141. Richard Dawkins at the Edinburgh Book Festival

Comment #65869 by oxytocin on August 27, 2007 at 7:21 am

I posted on the article listed by JeanB...I had to comment on the author's use of the Courtier's Reply.

142. Mother Teresa's '40-year faith crisis'

Comment #65565 by oxytocin on August 24, 2007 at 8:47 pm

Russell, totally agree. The executor of her will has some explaining to do. Apparently she chose...poorly.

143. Mother Teresa's '40-year faith crisis'

Comment #65499 by oxytocin on August 24, 2007 at 1:32 pm

I actually find that very sad. I imagine that she was so trapped in her persona as "Mother Theresa" that she might have felt unable to change this important aspect of her worldview. It takes a lot of courage to admit when you're wrong, especially about something like this [and when it's so public]. I suspect that there are probably many people like this in the world. This might be one hypothesis for why she was so surly.

...and does anyone else see a problem with publishing something that she explicitly wanted destroyed? This seems profoundly unethical to me.

144. CNN Request for 'I-Reports' on religion

Comment #65274 by oxytocin on August 23, 2007 at 12:43 pm

Big John, I am stunned everytime I read comments like yours...I can't imagine not feeling absolutely free to say things that are on my mind. In any case, perhaps you might consider posting something under an alias? I agree that CNN requires way too much information, but there's nothing preventing you from making something up.

You might also consider mentioning your retiscence, and outline the reasons why you fear retribution.

145. CNN Request for 'I-Reports' on religion

Comment #65223 by oxytocin on August 23, 2007 at 8:25 am

Here's my submission to CNN:

I am non-theist/anti-theist. As a clinical psychologist, I have seen first-hand the peril of irrational thinking and how it can govern people's lives. As a belief system without evidence, religion is chief amongst the promoters of irrational thought, threatening to undermine the values of the Enlightenment. Although humans have a natural inclination to believe in the supernatural [because it has easy explanatory power, it's solipsistic, and our brains anthropomorphize our environment], we must fight this tendency in order to perceive the universe as it really is. Science helps us to accomplish this feat through its objective and ultimately self-correcting methodology. Even as many right-wing Christians would undermine the scientific method, they sit at their computers [a product of engineering], they take their antibiotics [a product of understanding biological evolution], and they marvel at digital images of the surface of Mars [a product of inter-disciplinary science]. The benefits of science are palpable, while the impact of religion is pernicious, detracting from our reason, and permitting all sorts of cognitive Tom Foolery to flourish since people are confident in believing something in the absence of evidence. We need to stop pretending to know things that we cannot possibly know.

I am increasingly concerned about the impact that religion is having on this world: the viciousness of the Islamic extremists, the tribalism encouraged by absolutist ideology, the promotion of Christian pseudoscience in classrooms and the denial of scientific fact, and the use of religion to justify power-hungry personal agendas in government. To paraphrase Christopher Hitchens: "Mr. Jefferson, build up that wall!".

146. Believing the Unbelievable: The Clash Between Faith and Reason in the Modern World

Comment #56178 by oxytocin on July 14, 2007 at 9:38 am

Oh yes, completely agree. If we can interact with the person, then it takes on a whole new importance. Holograms/VR would certainly be the next best thing.

147. Believing the Unbelievable: The Clash Between Faith and Reason in the Modern World

Comment #56176 by oxytocin on July 14, 2007 at 9:21 am

Rtambree, I don't think I was insisting on any such "essentialism", nor do I think denying the existence of magic makes anyone less immune to the non-conscious cognitive processes that take place within us. Yes, I think there is something more psychologically "real" or "convincing" in person...this is one reason why people have inclinations to touch things when in their presence. If you've ever been to any important historical site, you'll have seen this in action. Often the response by officials is to partition the site off to prevent this from happening [above and beyond the potential for vandalism].

Yes, while you can get some non-verbals from monitors, there's more to it than the face that conveys information about the message.

I don't really think we're disagreeing on much of anything. All I'm trying to say is that the emotional impact, for many people, is likely maximized when in-person. Perhaps it isn't for you.

148. Believing the Unbelievable: The Clash Between Faith and Reason in the Modern World

Comment #56173 by oxytocin on July 14, 2007 at 8:17 am

Rtambree, are you meaning to suggest that people would be ok with never meeting people in the flesh, as you say? No one's denying the importance of technology, the efficiency that it permits, and the prominent role it will increasingly play. Yes, texting is very handy, but I don't think many people are satisfied with a social life consisting of TMs. There's an emotional impact, due to all sorts of psychological reasons, of seeing someone in person. I would imagine, but do not know if it is true, that this emotional impact may have some bearing on the degree to which an individual is influenced by the speaker. The further we remove ourselves from the speaker, the less information we glean from the interaction. A lot of this has to do with non-verbals.

149. Believing the Unbelievable: The Clash Between Faith and Reason in the Modern World

Comment #56170 by oxytocin on July 14, 2007 at 7:52 am

Rtambree, while I agree with you that webcasts are the way of the future, I think you might be under-estimating the impact of seeing someone in person. Also, I think you can still reach more people with personal appearances since there are folks without internet access [particularly senior citizens]. The good thing about these appearances is that the speaker can adapt the talk to the location, the subject matter can evolve with feedback, and one can interact with the local audience in a more personal way.

150. Believing the Unbelievable: The Clash Between Faith and Reason in the Modern World

Comment #56158 by oxytocin on July 14, 2007 at 6:33 am

Hmmm. There seems to be some egocentric thinking on this message board. I doubt that Sam Harris is creating new talks all the time just for each one of us. Harris is trying to disseminate his ideas, and in order to do that, he has to communicate ideas consistently. While some of you may find this "boring" or "repetitive", this is what academics do. When I have given talks in my own field, for example, I haven't changed the talks because I was concerned with repetition out of fear that someone in the audience might have seen it before. No, I have a central message I want to communicate, which I refine over time. Academics are not here for your amusement. Harris is likely making the assumption that the majority of his audience is going to be acquainted with his ideas for the first time. We have seen refinements in Harris' talks over time; this is just like any academic who is open to improvement, but who is still trying to make the evidence generally known. Why would Harris change his talks for non-theists who follow him like groupies? This makes no sense.