From Jesus Gets Reluctant Acceptance in Science:
Once again, a psychological study reported in Science Daily presumes to portray religion as a figment of our brains. But this time, there were interesting admissions in the story, some shocking. Here’s one: “Atheists, the researchers found, are most closely aligned with psychopaths–not killers, but the vast majority of psychopaths classified as such due to their lack of empathy for others.” The point being made is that religion tends to be on the emotional/prosocial side of the brain, while science is on the analytical/logical side. The two oppose one another, psychologists from Case Western Reserve University and Babson College argue; different people suppress one or the other.
Massive bureaucracies and Above-the-Law types adore the analytical side. Helps with the mass theft and mass murder if it’s kept hidden… from secret gulags, concentration camps and mass inflation, to today’s abortion culture and zero-bound banking system.
In contrast, note the enormous fear in the 2016 election, where Our Masters loathe and despise Trump… hardly because of his cultural or moral beliefs (which is little different from any New York City media/political figure), but merely because he’s far too emotional/prosocial for today’s ruling lawyer/banker class.
Clashes between the use of faith vs. scientific evidence to explain the world around us dates back centuries and is perhaps most visible today in the arguments between evolution and creationism.
Uncharacteristically, these psychologists do not try to portray the analytical brain as better than the empathic brain, in spite of their contention that religious people suppress critical thinking and are not as smart. The best brain has a balance of both empathy and analytical thought, they feel.
Friedman said, “Having empathy doesn’t mean you necessarily have anti-scientific beliefs. Instead, our results suggest that if we only emphasize analytic reasoning and scientific beliefs, as the New Atheist movement suggests, then we are compromising our ability to cultivate a different type of thinking, namely social/moral insight.”
Indeed, they point out, many great scientists were (and are) religious. “You can be religious and be a very good scientist,” one said, pointing to the fact that 90% of Nobel laureates professed some religious viewpoint. Not only that, suppressing empathy can have yield very bad science.
“Although it is simply a distortion of history to pin all conflict on religion,” [Tony] Jack said. “Non-religious political movements, such as fascism and communism, and quasi-scientific movements, such as eugenics, have also done great harm.”
Nevertheless, the researchers accept the NOMA dichotomy of Stephen Jay Gould that science and religion inhabit separate spheres (non-overlapping magisteria).
Stephen Jones and Carolyn Leicht make the claim on The Conversation that people opposed to evolution are not necessarily ignorant about it. They also deny the NOMA view of Gould.
But another way to look at the subject is to consider why people believe what they do. When we do this, we discover that the supposed conflict between science and religion is nowhere near as clear cut as some might assume.
Historically, “the ‘conflict thesis’ arose in part from the desire to create a separate professional sphere of science, independent of the clerical elites who controlled universities and schools,” they say. That was a political and social trend, not an outcome of scientific progress. These days, poll questions seem geared to create conflict, to “create creationists” by posing science and religion as opposites.
Scientists are quick to slime Christians whenever possible… in the service of Our Only True Lawgiver, the State.
Sensible materialists, who are quick to lick the hand of their paymasters.
Jones and Leicht seek “good debate” over issues of science religion, getting rid of stereotypes.
For example, psychological research has shown that being exposed to stereotypes about Christians being “bad at science” actually causes academically able religious students to underperform. Such findings give good reason to treat this subject with greater care than we do currently.
OF COURSE this underperformance is the intended result! Exactly why have Our Masters – academic, legal, media, and political – pounded away at the ignorant, bigoted Christian stereotype for the last two centuries or so?
I’ll let others cry out, “Master, Master, please show mercy!” I see no reason why any Christian should crawl and beg for those who have always despised them, and always will.
Especially as the Internet permits unsanctioned access to all sorts of interesting information and networks…
Nevertheless, they do not question evolution. The challenge they see is how to help Christians learn to accept it.
I’m unsure what they are worried about. The solid majority of Christians still eagerly send their children to school that carefully teach their children to spit on everything the parents supposedly believe in, after all. “You see, the government schools are free… and we all can trust Our Leaders to respect our beliefs!”
Unless, having gained 95% of control over this society, Our Tolerant Masters insist on the remaining 5%. The problem is, getting that last 5% of reflective obedience is really difficult and expensive…
We’re glad these people are moderating their positions about Christians somewhat, not assuming they are dumb or anti-science, not assuming materialist scientists are faultless, not seeing science and religion as polar opposites. But there are still two glaring flaws in their thinking. One is the failure to recognize the utter dependence of science on faith. Materialistic science is inherently contradictory. What is thought? What is consciousness? What is logic? Science needs these, but materialism cannot account for them. To get by, materialists plagiarize Christian assumptions about reality.
This is no different than Islamic blather about Moses and Abraham and Jesus, while doing the diametrically opposite of what Moses (“One Law for all!”), Abraham (“Salvation comes from internal faith, not external ritual!”) and Jesus (“Before Abraham was, I AM.”) taught.
Steal the clothes to pose as the shepherd, and so fleece the sheep… when you can’t slaughter them.
It’s sad that NASA’s Jet Propulsion Lab is even more godless than Johnson Space Center. Bible study groups exist but cannot advertise in the JPL newsletter. They tend to meet secretly, sharing their meetings by word of mouth. Try to share evidence on intelligent design with co-workers, and you could be fired for “pushing religion.” But got a gay group? Oh, JPL will rush to promote your meetings! Woe unto you scientists and materialists, hypocrites.
Establishment Men know who their friends are… and who their enemies are, too.
Still, I will grant that the nature of the Establishment Lie will shift. Instead of pouring contempt on “religious belief” (in practice, only and solely Christian belief), some new gloss will be applied, opening the door to the World of Emotion and Spirit.
So long as all that blather about Love and Tolerance is either 1) put to work to support Establishment goals or 2) is never permitted to affect the real world, some form of hand-waving mysticism may well be encouraged in the Superior Intellectual Circles.
Christians understand why Kant so vigorously stressed the division between the world of the sprit from the world of matter: each has their place, and each shall always be separate. (A.K.A. Telling God to Just Shut Up… because the Voice of Wealthy, Powerful, and Properly Credentialed Men must be heard!)
While Kantian thought not the preferred position for secularist materialists – who prefer the complete non-existence of anything outside of the physical world – it is acceptable option, if pure materialism is no longer sustainable as the core philosophy of society.
Going forward, expect less cool and mechanical ideologies, and more foamy and meaningless cant from the thrones of Our Masters.