What did they expect, it seems hardly plausible that a believer would believe something different to what they believe God believes: ie. I believe God hates abortion, but I dissagree- you just can't dissagree with God, thus if something forces you change your belief in something, you must either reasess what God must believe about it, based on what you find out, or reasess your belief in God. However it also works the other way, as you find out more of Gods will you have to change your beliefs to fit or face inconsistency- "What God believes is true"+"God believes A"+"A is false" - is a self contradictory set of statements, which boils down to "A is true + A is false".
This comment breached our terms of use and has been removed.
This comment breached our terms of use and has been removed.
Ben, you have it the wrong way round.
The article is saying that our view of God is modified by our own belief.
We like children.....so God likes children.
We like chocolate ...... God likes chocolate. etc
It is our understand of God and his position on things that changes to fit our perspective, not our belief changing to match God's - although this obviously happens through indoctrination of the young.
I'd suggest that you can see this in the drifting form of God in the Bible. The old testament God is not the God of the new testament - perhaps because cultural standards and focus changed in the intervening years.
If God was a quantum god, then A can be both true and false at the same time. Spooky.
That the beliefs attributed to god similarly match the believer's personal ones, compared with those attributed to other people makes sense: people offer feedback as to what they believe, but a non-existent entity cannot. So I think its another win for atheism.
I just want everyone to be happy....and I'm an atheist! Who would have believed!
But that's the funny part, what makes one man happy makes another unhappy.
Our inability to collectively agree with "what happiness should be", as to one man, conquering the world, to another, spreading his seed on the continent, and another, declaring that such a thing as necessary evil is acceptable to a collective group.
Man and his desire to be his own God
Isn't this the way scientists tend to follow their theories - sometimes out to ridiculous extremes?
The research is easily backed up by everyday observation of believers in God. However, I have seen plenty of people modify their "image" of God based on events and experiences in their lives - just like a scientist would adjust his theory in the light of experimental evidence.
Just to be clear, I have never had any difficulty holding the twin notions of science and God simultaneously. Of course, as the research shows, that's probably because I've modified my view of God to fit my "Self". :-)
I give up. I'm going to start reading the Catholic Digest soon in the vain hope that they will have more genuine scientific articles than the constant drip of atheism of the NS.
Only a month or so ago there was a brilliant article postulating life's origins in fumeroles billions of years ago - that's what I want to read NS for.
Not some tedious repetition of of undergraduate atheism. Far better minds believe in God and far better minds do not but please could NS limit articles on Him and actually concentrate on science as opposed to printing stuff that the average (a)theist could tell you without blinking?
No problem, just give them your phone number, they will be sure to run every article by you, you should maybe do the same for the actual scientists, to make sure they don't waste time on anything you consider to be unworthy.
Christian scientists say no to scientific examination of christians!
The drip of rationalism that is atheism will become a mighty river of reason.
All paths can be dogmatic. " This research suggests that, unlike an actual compass, inferences about Gods beliefs may instead point people further in whatever direction they are already facing."
Considering the total extent of directions, energy travels to all corners of space.
Fluidity of the mind has its benefits in all circumstances. In total, we may physically behave in ways characteristic of the elements.
From the stars, energies descend upon the earth. Similar to how the mind travels, energy is symbolized in all physical things (animals,plant kingdoms as well) here on earth through the elements.
Energy is polarised by the earth upon descending (Magnetically producing gender?). In Ascension, energy assumes a unity. Through all investigations of the celestial truth, mechanics and reason, without bias, will we begin a new era. Religion+Science > Religion-Science.
Like the balancing of Femenine and Masculine principles in societies, in ourselves, in the earth. Life is achieved through their unity. Religions and Science speak of these things, please appreciate them both in their totality without bias for one.
As a non-theist, I disagree with the premise of this article. If God and religious beliefs were substituted with science and "theories", and efforts were made to put those "theories" into doubt, the resulting scientific data would have been the same.
Whether we are theists, deists or science-tists (sic), we believe something to be true. When that belief is stressed, we still cling to it. Just consider the foofaraw with the aquatic ape "theory". Those who could not accept it for lack of concrete, tangible, material proof can only use a different part of the brain to infer the mental states of this "theory".
In other words, god and beliefs are external to the actual science that was researched.
Oo
Wed Dec 02 06:59:42 GMT 2009 by Hugh Young
http://www.cafepress.com.au/wero/1440313
It is certainly true that scientists may hope that an experiment will have a result that confirms their prejudices, and that any "mistakes" they make will tend in that direction. Scientists are, or should be, aware of this, and attempt to build in checks and balances, such as peer review and double-blind testing.
But there is no evidence that god/dess/es is/are external to anything (or anyone), and this study is just further evidence that S/He/They is/are not.
This certainly not new: I think it was Pliny the Elder who said that if the (other) animals had gods they would have the form (and nature) of those animals. This just puts that on a scientific footing.
This comment breached our terms of use and has been removed.
All comments should respect the New Scientist House Rules. If you think a particular comment breaks these rules then please use the "Report" link in that comment to report it to us.
If you are having a technical problem posting a comment, please contact technical support.
