Glider

I imagine you will. I had a couple of first years with the 'I never study for anything and still pass everything' attitude. I was an invigilator at one of their exams last Thursday. It was funny. The looks on their faces! I can't wait to read their scipts. It should be a complete hoot!

The arguments Dawkins presents in chapter 4 are probabilistic arguments used to demontrate the staggering improbability of God. Dawkins is too much of a scientist ever to attempt to prove the non-existence of a thing. Even the chapter title he uses, 'Why there is almost certainly no God', acknowledges that limitation and residual uncertainty.

Dawkins doesn't do any science in the book. He expresses his opinions, one of which is that people should always be critical of everything they are presented with, rather than just accepting things without question. It's one of the main points of the book.

Dawkins (as this thread is about his book) talks about the probability of God's existence. He says that one of the more common arguments presented to him is that 'you cannot disprove God's existence'. He says this is often presented as if it were a sort of fait accompli and the implication seems to be that if the non-existence of God cannot be proved, then the probablity of his existence must somehow balance itself out to 50:50. This, according to Dawkins is patently absurd. He makes the point that the probability of the existence of a creator God (as presented in Genesis) is reduced every time a new piece of plentological or geological of biological evidence that contradicts the premise of the creation is produced. With the current bulk of such evidence, the probaibility of God is incalculably miniscule (whilst still not impossible). Another point he makes is that in order to create something as complex as the Universe, God must be even more complex. This does not bolster the probability of his existence.

I'm beginning to fully understand the term 'flock'.

Clearly? Evidence please? And evidence of hormonal secretions is not sufficient. Ok, but you cannot ignore the role of neuroendocrinology when discussing affective-motivational states. It’s one of the main lines of communication between the brain and the body. It’s like being asked to describe how a car works, but told not to mention the clutch or transmission. Nevertheless, I will try to limit it. Falling in (romantic) love, although positive and highly desirable, is differentiated from making a new friend by the fact that it is highly arousing and quite stressful. In the early stages of a romantic relationship, cortisol levels are elevated significantly in both males and females (compared to controls) and testosterone levels drop significantly in males, but elevate significantly in females. Levels of Follicle Stimulating Hormone (FSH) are also significantly lower in males (Marazziti & Canale, 2004). These differences are no longer apparent after a period of 12 to 18 months and Marazziti & Canale note that “This finding would suggest that the hormonal changes which we observed are reversible, state-dependent and probably related to some physical and/or psychological features typically associated with falling in love.”. They go on: “ In conclusion, our study would suggest that falling in love represents a ‘‘physiological’’ and transient condition which is characterized (or underlaid) by peculiar hormonal patterns, one of which, involving testosterone, seems to show a sex related specificity.” So falling in love appears to be associated with a particular pattern of hormonal activity. This in itself should allow for prediction and replication. Nevertheless, there is further evidence from fMRI studies which show activity in a number of cortical and subcortical areas on presentation of images of the participant’s beloved, namely the right ventral tegmental area and the right postero-dorsal body and medial caudate nucleus (Aron, Fisher, Mashek, Strong, Li and Brown, 2005). These areas are associated with reward, particularly the ventral tegmental area. Aron et al. also show a correlation between degree of activity in the insula and cingulate/retrosplenial cortex when looking at an image of a romantic partner and length of time in a relationship. They note that “One brain region showed greater activation the shorter the length of time in love: the left posterior cingulate cortex/retrosplenial cortex region.” Bartels and Zeki (2000) also conducted an fMRI study comparing the responses of participants who were deeply in love, to images of their partners and of three friends of similar age, sex and duration of relationship as their partners. Their results show a significant difference in the pattern of activity between presentation of images of friends and lovers. Bartels and Zeki note that the cortical and sub-cortical areas involved are large and they acknowledge the probability of significant overlap. Nevertheless, they state that “What seems to be certain is that, even allowing for possible overlap, the pattern of activation obtained here was nevertheless unique, both in the identity and combination of sites involved.” Ortigue, Bianchi-Demicheli, Hamilton & Grafton (2007) conducted an event related fMRI study which involved priming the participants by presenting them with a short duration (sub-threshold) stimulus (the name of their lover, a good friend or a passionate hobby). The subliminal stimuli were presented before a word, a non-word or a blank. Participant had to perform a lexical decision task in which they were required to decide whether what they had seen was a word or not. There were two measures. One was a behavioural measure (response latency) the other was the fMRI. Results show that presentation of the lover and passionate hobby primes both improved response times whereas the friend prime had no effect. Of interest are the fMRI results, which show that presentation of the beloved’s name (as opposed to the friend or passionate hobby primes) “specifically recruited brain areas involved in abstract representations of others and the self, in addition to motivation circuits shared with other sources of passion.” Ortigue et al. go to suggest that “...love, as a subliminal prime, involves a specific neural network that surpasses a dopaminergic-motivation system.” This idea of a unique and specific pattern of neurological activity denoting romantic love is echoed by Zeki (2007) who, in a review of the literature observes that “These studies showed that, when we look at the face of someone we are deeply, passionately and hopelessly in love with, a limited number of areas in the brain are especially engaged.” It is also echoed by Esch and Stefano (2005) who note that “Love activates specific regions in the reward system, ... and includes a suppression of activity in neural pathways associated with the critical social assessment of other people and with negative emotions.” Zeki (2007) also notes that the literature also shows a pattern of neural deactivation associated with the ‘madness’ of romantic love, which is concordant with the results from Bartels & Zeki, (2000) which also showed a specific pattern of deactivation. This deactivation is at least partly explained by Esch and Stefano, who observe that “Deactivations are also of interest, since emotions are likely to be the product of both increases and decreases of activities in specialized regions. An overall but slight decrease in right hemisphere activity, i.e., asymmetry, particularly in prefrontal and limbic regions (including amygdala), can be stated for love”. Again, a very specific neurological response. Further Event Related Potential (ERP) comparisons of neural responses to images of romantic lovers and friends show significant differences in Late Positive Potentials (LPPs) between people presented with an image of their beloved, a friend and a beautiful stranger. LPPs were significantly larger in response to the image of the participant’s lover than to the other emotionally significant faces (Langeslag, Jansma, Franken & Van Strien, 2007). This study also involved participants in the fairly early stages of love. The mean duration of the participant’s relationships was 12.6 months. Langeslag et al. controlled for attractiveness by presenting their participants with a beautiful, but unknown (to the participants) face. They note however that whilst: “Objectively, this face was indeed more beautiful than the faces of the beloved and friends, as indicated by the ratings of the separate sample of men and women. The infatuated participants, however, perceived their beloved as most beautiful.” This is further evidence of a perceptual/behavioural characteristic unique to the condition of love. There are studies that have involved photographing the partners of people in love. These images are digitally altered to be more or less attractive incrementally so the result is a series of 5 or 7 images ranging from unattractive to very attractive (as rated by an objective panel), with the original in the middle. If this series is presented to the person in love, with the request that he or she should select the original image, that person will almost invariably choose an image from higher up the scale, towards the more attractive end. This phenomenon does not occur when an individual is presented with similarly altered series of images of friends and is directly the result of the suppression (deactivation) of activity in neural pathways associated with the critical social assessment of other people and with negative emotions discussed by Esch and Stefano (2005). Love is literally blind and people in love do not, or cannot see flaws in their lovers. Even in later stages of the relationship, they are less likely to see flaws (either physical or behavioural) than objective others (reference missing). So, there are very specific and different patterns of neurological and hormonal activity associated with romantic love, maternal love and friendship. As stated by Esch and Stefano (2005) “... friendship and love share common CNS features, even in physiology. However, they are not the same: Friendship, in general, seems not to be coupled to love, that is, friendship shows distinct neural and neuroanatomic activity patterns – and vice versa.” Lust, on the other hand, is a more universal system of basic arousal that does not involve the same areas of the brain as romantic love and friendship. Although romantic love does include the areas associated with lust, friendship and maternal love do not. In other words, lust is a state of basic sexual arousal that, although a necessary condition for romantic love, is not sufficient, and is not present in maternal love or friendship. Evidence for this can be found in the review by Zeki (2007), which shows that activation of the hypothalamus is present with both romantic feelings and sexual arousal, but not with maternal love. Activation of the hypothalamus may therefore constitute the ‘lust’ component present in romantic love, but not in maternal attachment or friendship. I’ll end with a quote by Bartels & Zeki, from their study in 2000 as it seems to sum things up nicely. “By showing that a unique set of interconnected areas becomes active when humans view the face of someone who elicits a unique and characteristic set of emotions, we have shown that underlying one of the richest experiences of mankind is a functionally specialised system of the brain. It is perhaps surprising that so complex and overwhelming a sentiment should correlate differentially with activity in such restricted regions of the brain, and fascinating to reflect that the face that launched a thousand ships should have done so through such a limited expanse of cortex.” (bold added). I think I have fulfilled your request to describe the physical (neurological and endocrinological) manifestations of romantic love and also shown how it is distinguishable from other phenomena like friendship and lust. It took some time and effort to put together, so in return, perhaps you would do me the courtesy of presenting your evidence for the proposition that: References: Aron, A., Fisher, H., Mashek, D. J., Strong, G., Li, H. and Brown, L. L. (2005). Reward, Motivation, and Emotion Systems Associated With Early-Stage Intense Romantic Love. Journal of Neurophysiology. 94: 327-337. Bartels, A. & Zeki, S. (2000). The Neural basis of Romantic Love.Neuro Report. 11, (17): 3829-3834. Esch, T. and Stefano, G. B. (2005). The Neurobiology of Love. Neuroendocrinology Letters. 26 (3): 175-192. Langeslag, S. J., Jansma, B. M., Franken I. H. and Van Strien, J. W. (2007) Event-related potential responses to love-related facial stimuli. Biological Psychology. 76: 109–115. Marazziti, D. and Canale, D. (2004). Hormonal Changes When Falling in Love. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 29: 931-936. Ortigue, S., Bianchi-Demicheli, F., Hamilton, A. F. and Grafton, S. T. (2007). The Neural basis of Love: An Event-Related Magnetic Resonance Imaging Study. Journal of Cognitive neuroscience. 19 (7): 1218-1230. Zeki, S (2007) The neurobiology of Love. FEBS Letters. 581: 2575–2579. .

I certainly think it raised general consciousness of fundamental religion and resulted in a strong polarisation (e.g. with Christians becoming more Christian, so to speak). Sam Harris' book is more or less a direct result of that event. Christopher Hitchins discusses it in chapter 2 (Religion Kills) of his book God is Not Great, but also discusses broader events, such as Bosnia, Ireland, Beirut and so-on. Some of the event related there must certainly ring bells in the minds of people 'sensitized' by the events of 9/11. However, I wouldn't underestimate the influence of the Dover trial either. That was simply the most recent (and arguably the most famous) example of a long-running issue since the Scopes trial of 1925. All the authors I mentioned have commented on and been involved in some way in the post mortem of the Dover trial (YouTube is full of this material). In one documentary, Richard Dawkins, David Attenborough and Ken Miller all comment within the first 90 seconds and express their perception of the ID movement (as the latest iteration to creationism) as a direct threat to the teaching of science. This is particularly timely as the ID movement has now crossed the Atlantic and has been set up in Britain.

Exactly. It's not just the use of grain for biofuel. That's only one factor. There have also been failed crops in Australia and elsewhere. The main problem is that any reduction in the volume available for food will result in the price going up which, although merely annoying to most of us in the developed world, is becoming disastrous to those in less developed countries. There have already been food riots and as you (Sh3rlock) point out, there isn't really a shortage of food. It's just that the food available has become more expensive than many can afford.

Perhaps that might be best. I understood his response to thedarkshades’ comment “Yes, I understand that but Dawkins must realize (which he does) that for a believer God is quite a big deal, and if he told that to muslims, he would be physically attacked. You just need to respect everyone's beliefs.” to assume the topic of respect for theist beliefs was already ‘out there’. I may be wrong. Yes, I do. I suppose so although, if I may say so, the idea of fairness in this instance does seem to be predicated on the idea that all beliefs are of equal merit. I got the impression that it was shadowacct that made the presumption that iNow was missing out: But I’m still unsure of Severian’s logic . By the way you have explained it, it would seem to imply that nobody can tell whether or not their lives are full or empty? I’m definitely missing something I think.

I'm not really sure where these latter posts have come from. I have re-read the entire thread and as far as I can see, iNow has participated with reason and reasonably in tune with the mood of the thread, until the extremely patronising post by shadowacct who dragged up iNow's post (#9) from the first page of the thread, just to attack it. Now I think he's being misrepresented and patronised again and I can't really see why, although I don't think it has much to do with the content of his posts. As far as I can see, his strongest assertion in this thread is that you do not have to respect a person's beliefs. I agree with that position and said so in post #18. To reiterate: "It is unreasonable to ask a reasonable person to respect an unreasonable belief. You can only respect the right of another to hold it. Should they choose to present it, it is absolutely reasonable to question it.". So I don't understand why he is now being attacked; misrepresented... (Not being obliged to respect a belief is not the same as 'running around disresepecting each other's beliefs'). ...and patronised ... Maybe I missed something? By that measure, how do you know your own life is not completely empty?

By whose definition? What is the point of asking a question if you are going to insert your own answer? If you were in fact interested, my answer would be because the responses, both physiological and psychological can be differentiated. Friendship evokes some similar responses, but not all those a/w love and not to the same degree. Lust evokes a whole different set of responses that are not a/w the presentation of a particular individual. The effects of love are entirely observable and reproducable and thus the premise of love is reasonable. Your assertion of the atheist position as; 'if it cannot be seen an atheist cannot accept its existence' is not. By that argument we would also have to reject the idea of air, even though we can observe its effects.

No. Whilst lover per se is not observable, it has directly observable and measureable effects, on chemistry, physiological activity, perception and behaviour. To reject the existence of 'love' because you can't see it would be like rejecting the existence of a planet because you can't see it, even though you can directly measure the effects of its presence on the bodies around it.

I think it may have something to do with the change in the zietgeist since 9/11 2001. This, and other events since, for example the legal push by creationists for 'equal time', has disturbed what was until 9/11 a comparatively relaxed status quo. Or, if not relaxed, at least outside of the awareness of most people. I think 9/11 kicked the hornets nest both politically and in terms of raising people's awareness of religion and religious - atheist controversy. It appears to have resulted in an increase in religious polarisation and a surge from the neoconservative right. There has also been the legal push from the creationist science movement. Perhaps the most famous example is the Kitzmiller Vs Dover Area School District case which started in September 26th 2005. This resulted from the school board introducing a statement that they required teachers to read to students in the 9th grade biology class 'warning' of the 'weakness' of evolution as 'only' a theory and encouraging students to reference the creationist book 'Of Pandas and people' for an 'alternative'. Kenneth Miller (Professor of Biology and Royce Family Professor for Teaching Excellence at Brown University, Rhode Island) played a major role in this trial as an expert witness for the plaintifs, as did Robert T. Pennock (Philosopher and associate professor at Mitchigan State University). Both are renowned authors, critical of ID. Other authors have also commented. Both Daniel Dennett and Richard Dawkins have written articles on the Dover trial. Both of these people are members of what has come to be termed 'The Four Horsemen', a group comprised of Richard Dawkins, Dan Denntett, Sam harris and Christopher Hitchens. A number of the best known 'atheist' books of recent years have been published by these authors. The End of Faith (religion, terror and the future of reason) by Sam Harris in 2006, The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins in 2006 and God is Not Great, Christopher Hitchens in 2007. Sam Harris' book comments directly on the events of 9/11 in which he makes the point (among many others) that it is entirely possible for a person to be sufficiently highly educated to build a nuclear device, and still believe he's going to get the 70 virgins afterwards. All these authors comment on the uneasy relationship between religion and politics (particularly Hitchens). A cynic might suppose that these individuals, like literary surfers, simply recognised a good wave when they saw one, and are taking best advantage of it. However, the wave is not of their making and it cannot be said of any of them (if you check their histories), that they do not believe what they are saying. They have been saying it for years and I think it is just the change in the public mood over the last six years that has resuted in so many more people paying attention. I think these books would have been written anyway (in light of the events of this decade), but to make them best sellers, people have to want to read them. I doubt also that it's just a case of 'following the money' (or 'Oooh, look! That sells, I must write something similarly controversial'), as these particular books were all published at more or less the same time.

I agree with this. I think the term 'atheist' is a pretty meaningless one insofar as is it meaningless to label someone for what they are not, or for what they do not have, because if you once choose to do so, the list of terms is potentially endless and therefore meaningless. More important, such negative labels carry connotations and to attempt define a person by what they are not or do not have is simply a way of defining an outgroup, i.e. somebody who 'is not one of us' and that's always a bad road to go down. As Sam Harris says, what do you call a person who does not belive in astrology, or somebody who is not a physicist? Nobody wakes up each morning reminding themselves of what they are not in order to define who they are. It's backwards and foolish.

True, and the salesman has a responsibility to check the accuracy of his claims.

You didn't convince me. You can continue your speculative monologue here.

I see. Less a 'question' (or a debate or a discussion), and more a 'lecture' then. Tell me why this belongs in Psychiatry and Psychology. Convince me.

Incredible as in 'amazing', or 'not credible'?

Ahh, I see. You already had your Jungian answer prepared. I wish I'd known. I could have stopped at 'not really' and saved some time.

I accept it's a big deal for believers, but the bigness of the deal to the individual is no grounds for respecting a belief. Where else, in daily life, are the beliefs of others respected? Look at these forums. People's beliefs are pulled apart on a daily basis here. It happens in schools and Universities. In research it happens all the time (it's called peer review). The beliefs may be a big deal to the holders of the beliefs, but that never stopped anybody. It is unreasonable to ask a reasonable person to respect an unreasonable belief. You can only respect the right of another to hold it. Should they choose to present it, it is absolutely reasonable to question it. The threat of physical attack is no grounds for respecting a belief and I would suggest that the concept of 'respect my belief or I'll attack you' is, in itself, not a respectable position.

Not really. The behaviours you present are instinctual. The propensity for kittens to chase fast moving things (regardless of what they are; bits of string, balls of fluff, laser dots) is not a learned behaviour. As you state, even of you remove the kitten from its mother and siblings, it will still engage in these embryonic hunting behaviours. These behaviours universal to the species. All kittens show these behaviours. They are also innate, which means they exist independent of any learning. The kittens are born with them. So, in terms of your analogy, these behaviours are 'hard-wired'. They are a function of the architecture of the motherboard rather than of any subsequent software (which would relate more to later, learned responses and behaviours). My cats hang around the kitchen at 5:30-6pm every day. This is a learned behaviour; a function of 'programminng'. They have come to know that that's when I will feed them. However, their propensity for catching mice (which they still do, even though it's unnecessary), is a function of the way the 'feline motherboard' is hard-wired to respond to the environment. That being said, personality is a different thing again. That is something 'laid over' the basic template (as it were) and defines individual differences (e.g. the differences between two cats). Personality describes a combination of relatively stable, long-term traits (characteristics) that differentiates one individual from another in terms of psychology. So, you can have two cats, both will be cats and both will respond basically according to their feline 'hard'wiring', but one will like to sit on your lap and get lots of attention, the other might be a bit more 'stand off-ish'. One might enjoy having its belly rubbed, the other might draw blood if you try it. One might be very vocal and excited at dinnertime, the other may remain quiet (although just as hungry). Nevertheless, both are cats and both behave basically according to their hard-wired 'catness'.

It wasn't a direct insult. Such a statement would be incosistant with Dawkins' position anyway. He was simply quoting the response of an individual (a young Curchill) who, in the absence of any prior indoctrination, was reading the Old Testament for the first time. I think he was using that as an example to illustrate the point that without the cognitive filters of indoctrination already in place, a reasonable person could not read the Old Testament for the first time and conclude the existence of a 'paternalistic' and loving God, but is more likely to conclude that God was a petty, jealous, vengeful and genocidal being.

According to the BBC news 2 days ago, this is already happening. A move by farmers towards biofuel grain production (to collect the grants offered) has pushed up grain prices globally. This, combined with recent poor harvests mean that people in poorer countries are already beginning to suffer. "Record prices The commodity that has been generating a lot of interest lately is wheat. Falling supply coincides with a rise in demand. The price of this food staple, which is used in bread and animal feed, has been soaring. Driving it up is reduced supply, with drought affecting crops in Australia. However supply is not the only factor. The world population has grown and so has demand from the Far East. Another reason prices are going up is that wheat is being used for biofuels. The combination of these factors has resulted in the price of wheat more than doubling over the last year." (From the BBC website).

You mean, take the penguins to the polar bears instead of taking the polar bears to the penguins? Well, they are smaller, so it would be easier I suppose...

Yes. Emporer penguin males spend three months over mid winter just standing in huge huddles incubating their eggs. To a polar bear, that's just an 'all you can eat' snack bar. It would mean rapid extinction to the penguins though.