Dang, I'm slipping

George Shollenberger is not happy with scienceblogs. He sent an email to the scienceblogs website (whatever that means) with a complaint:

I started to inform 'the people' on my website that our mathematicians are practicing atheism. Then, after I investigated the website, ScienceBlogs, I concluded that all sciences also practice atheism. So, my website is now informing 'the people' that mathematicians and scientists are practicing atheism.

However, I am dismayed to discover that the overwhelming godless influence on scienceblogs is not me, but Mark Chu-Carroll! I feel so inconsequential now, and clearly, Mark is better at driving men mad than I am.

We can't pick on George too much, though … he reveals the true source of his problem.

However, by 1993 I experienced brain damage from a carotid artery blockage.

I'm sorry to hear that. To my shame, I still find this hilarious.

With my personal mind over body experience on my brain damage and my retirement in 1994, my attention shifted permanently to the theory of God and the sayings of Jesus Christ.

Not everyone can use brain damage to explain their religiosity.

Tags

More like this

Via P.Z. Myers, I came across this post, from George Shollenberger. He is the author of a book entitled The First Scientific Proof of God, which tells you pretty much everything you need to know about him. He seems vexed by the number of atheists here at ScienceBlogs. He writes: I am a retired…
Now, it's time for the final chapter in my "visits with old friends" series, which brings us back to the Good Math/Bad Math all-time reader favorite crackpot: Mr. George Shollenberger. Last time I mentioned George, a number of readers commented on the fact that it's cruel to pick on poor George,…
The case of the various kinds of blogs hosted on ScienceBlogs has come up on Newsweek, and I get quoted trying to explain how I'm unperturbed by a couple of institutional blogs here. Not all bloggers feel this way, Myers included. "We've known about those [institutional blogs] for some time--they…
SPECIAL NOTE:This page and its subordinate pages will no longer be updated. See the new page at my new blog for the live version, and change all your subscriptions. Thank you. This is a list of the Basic Concepts posts being put up by Science Bloggers and others. It will be updated and put to the…

Not everyone can use brain damage to explain their religiosity.

Thats a very real fear for me. That Im going to get in a car wreck or something and go all Biblo from the brain damage.

Hilarious! I love the part where he concludes:

"... the founders mandated that the USA be a nation under God. In the USA, the practice of atheism is thus illegal.

Better watch out PZ. Once the FBI gets ahold of that, you're screwed.

i'd like to comment on this, but my schedule is chock full of atheist practices that i am practicing, leaving little time for anything else.

Perhaps I would be a better atheist if I practiced more. I suppose I'm lazy because I grew up in a non-believing family.

I'm not going to worry about brain damage though; for all the LSD I look in my youth I never achieved any spiritual insights (not suggesting acid leads to brain damage, just to altered states which may be similar).

I just practice atheism, i actually still follow Eris. Do you think i'll get a lesser sentence?

By Cat of Many Faces (not verified) on 23 Apr 2007 #permalink

Oh, my. Rev. BigDumbChimp has tangled extensively with this guy. (I took one hit and forgot how to do my laundry.)

A "practicing atheist"? I sleep late on Sundays, does that count?

This is the quote I like:

"The practice of atheism in the fields of mathematics and science means that God is not considered by mathematicians and sciences in their research. Yet, I use God in my research with unbelievable results as my book shows."

Unbelievable results. I couldn't have said it better.

Yeah....

I ha d a stroke last October 18, but I got ripped off. I haven't so much as had the vapors, much less my attention shifted to the sayings of Jesus (who I hear was a miraculous after-dinner speaker.)

Try the fish.

You know, I actually do have brain damage (lesions causing cerebral palsy) and I'm as atheist as they come. Then again, my cognition is not impaired, that I know of...

Someone should tell this fellow that science as practiced is (by definition) an atheistic enterprise, even if done by theists...SH

By Scott Hatfield (not verified) on 23 Apr 2007 #permalink

Re comment #6: Kristine, you make me laugh. We should do a (latish) Sunday brunch sometime. Eggs Benedict, or as some of my believers might say about me, Eggs Benedict Arnold?

By Scott Hatfield (not verified) on 23 Apr 2007 #permalink

Do practicising Christians ever have enough practice to get it right?

Atheists don't need to practice - we're already good enough ;-)

By Lee Harrison (not verified) on 23 Apr 2007 #permalink

I don't think you can call me more than an agnostic.

I guess that means I need to practice more if I want to remain part of ScienceBlogs. ;-)

It isn't enough to just practice, you have to want it :cue inspirational music/montage:

[i]That George is a hoot. Don't forget to check out his bubble bath picture on Amazon![/i]

And he hasn't even turned it on yet...

Well, creationists are full of hot air.

By Mobius loops b… (not verified) on 23 Apr 2007 #permalink

Following PZ's link, we see that George says:

After retirement, my dual research career led to my discovery of the first scientific proof of God. This proof unifies the fields of science and theology. As a result of my book, major changes can be expected throughout the world. Since my book on 'The First Scientific Proof of God' is about an eternal God and His universe, I am expanding, clarifying, and teaching the idas in this proof of God with this blog. I expect these blogs and the related blogs of other people to be detected by Jesus Christ and those higher intelligent humans who already live on other planets.

Super-intelligent humans who already live on other planets? Yeah, this guy is as nutty as they come.

By H. Humbert (not verified) on 23 Apr 2007 #permalink

RE: "Not everyone can use brain damage to explain their religiosity."

But many do.

"I believe in god because I am brain-damaged." (Doesn't have a convincing ring as to why people should believe in god, now does it...)

(Sticks knitting needle into ear.)

That blog is some fine entertainment. :) I love his "about me" section.

Instead of getting interested in neurology (which is fascinating btw) he chalks his hallucination up to god. Not just god but the specific god of his culture. What are the odds that he saw that one.

I've been an atheist ever since I could logically consider the question, and I have no idea what "practicing" atheism could possibly mean.

-jcr

By John C. Randolph (not verified) on 23 Apr 2007 #permalink

Part of this was quoted above, but I think it bears repeating in its entirety:

I make statements about 'practicing atheism' after I discovered the scientific proof of God. I make these statements because both the US Constitution and the Declaration of Independence say that the founders mandated that the USA be a nation under God. In the USA, the practice of atheism is thus illegal.

Oh dear. What can one even begin to say about this? Paging Wolfgang Pauli...

By Millimeter Wave (not verified) on 23 Apr 2007 #permalink

Ha-ha this is almost as much fun as pushing retarded kids over.

C'mon guys. Kicking the textual crap out of someone who is genuinely mentally ill is Not Classy. Do you go up to people in wheelchairs and tip them out? Point and laugh when they have trouble on rough ground?

So you can argue and reason better than a brain-damaged guy with what is almost certainly some kind of psychosis. Wow! Where are you going to get your material next week? Your local dementia ward?

Maybe if a man like this risks gaining some influence in the world, then it'd be appropriate to point out his problems. But this poor old guy, with his sad little blog and vanity-press book? This crap is beneath you, PZ.

By SmellyTerror (not verified) on 23 Apr 2007 #permalink

Why the hell is it that when Electrical Engineers go crazy they get religion? Is this what I have to look forward to? I was so hoping to become more like Nikola Tesla in my insanity.

From another part of his blog:

The theory of God was incorporated in the USA by the founders in the Declaration of Independence and in the Constitution. In the Declaration, the theory of God was incorporated "directly' with words such as God and Creator and two laws, the Laws of Nature and Nature's God. In the Constitution, the theory of God was incorporated "indirectly," in the Preamble's statement '... in Order to form a more perfect Union, ...; This statement requires a 'perfect thing' to measure the words 'more perfect Union.' God is that perfect thing.

In the founding documents, we thus find that atheism can be practiced, but not in the USA. Nor can atheism be practiced in the USA until atheism is proven to be a science. Clearly, the USA was viewed as a nation under God by the founders. This kind of nation would exist until God is proven to be false.

It's like it was written by Lovecraft. It only starts to make sense as you slip slowly into insanity.

And the "no religious test" clause is just evidence that the founders had begun to rebel against the religious idiocy they had previously required?

Looks like I haven't been doing this atheism thing right.

I posted the following comment to George's blog.

George, I do not wish to offend or mock you, as you have admitted to having a neurological condition, which I am truly sorry you experienced. But I feel you must be corrected in your contention that atheism is "illegal" in the United States. The US is not in fact a totalitarian theocracy, and our Constitution is a secular document that mandates no state religion, and in fact mentions God and Jesus not at all. Also, in the Constitution, it is mandated that there will be no religious test for public office. I believe you are a deeply confused gentleman.

Atheism is simply the disbelief in gods. I am prompted to ask you if you believe in any of the Greek or Roman or Egyptian gods of antiquity. If not, then you are an atheist as regards those gods. The only difference between my atheism and yours is a degree of one god.

I would also be interested to know to which peer-reviewed publications you have submitted your scientific proof of the existence of God (by which I assume you mean Christianity's God).

I wish you improved health.

C'mon guys. Kicking the textual crap out of someone who is genuinely mentally ill is Not Classy. Do you go up to people in wheelchairs and tip them out? Point and laugh when they have trouble on rough ground?

Yeah. I'd just ignore the guy. He's harmless, and has suffered a kind of injury that scares the crap out of me. Anyway, it isn't as though Ham or Dembski won't say something completely stupid tomorrow. Here's some Fred Hutchison until they do:

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/hutchison/070202
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/hutchison/061021

See? He's completely out of his feeble mind, but it's not because of an artery blockage. Why not make fun of him?

Did anyone else think of the Simpsons episode in which Homer gets the crayon removed from his brain, and (among many other things) writes an article disproving god, which he places many copies of under windshield wipers of parked cars?

See? He's completely out of his feeble mind, but it's not because of an artery blockage. Why not make fun of him?

But we don't know why people hold on to strange beliefs so strongly. Perhaps all religious belief really is a mental illness, and future generations will see all our anti-religious humor as shameful - akin to mocking cripples.
It's only different with George because we know he suffered an injury which frightens any of us. Maybe other religious people are like George, but we don't know.

I don't doubt that a lot of religion is founded on mental illness - people who promote tin foil hats to block mind control satellites today would have, back in the day, used gestures and ritual to fight off the effects of demons and witches.

...but our man Gearge is not someone who will be starting a religion. No-one is taking him seriously, there are no followers to protect. Nor does mocking him bring us any closer to an understanding of why people are religious. Delusional people will believe any damn thing. I am certain there are delusional athiests, too. Would an attack on them be a valid point against atheism?

Beating on people like George serves absolutely no constructive purpose. It's just mean.

By SmellyTerror (not verified) on 23 Apr 2007 #permalink

If I wasn't an Atheist ScienceBlogger, I'd ask him which part of his brain was damaged during his carotid artery blockage as a matter of curiousity.

Then I'd get a Science paper out of it when I described Gazzaniga-and-Sperry-style the region of the brain responsible for rational thinking.

Seriously though, I am curious as to what part of the brain would induce manic feelings of religion.

Delusional people will believe any damn thing. I am certain there are delusional athiests, too. Would an attack on them be a valid point against atheism?

No. Being delusional doesn't say anything about the validity of the belief. (However, vocal atheists should be prepared for such an attack anyway.) My point was that discovery of the causes of religion might change views of religious individuals in discomfiting ways that might make us feel differently about the things we've said. This isn't a reason not to mock religious beliefs, nor even an argument against mocking people for being religious (after all, we don't know) but that knowing George has a neurological issue should affect whether or not we mock him for mistaken beliefs (I don't think you disagree with this).

One other thing... 'atheist' is a neighbor-like word, in that the e precedes the i rather than follows it.

Absolutely: you're not in the club if you spell it "athiest".

Do I have it backwards, though? Aren't we especially cool because we're the athiest? Maybe I'd be more comfortable going back to being merely an athier agnostic. I can barely remember being merely athy.

I make these statements because both the US Constitution and the Declaration of Independence say that the founders mandated that the USA be a nation under God. In the USA, the practice of atheism is thus illegal.

Sweet Baby Jesus, can we get someone on UD to say something like that? Maybe someone could sockpuppet this guy and quote him verbatim, with a link back to his site. You know, to see who would agree. Someone probably would. Like Sal "Darwin beats puppies" Cordova.

And I agree it is wrong to pick on the infirm. If bat-shit crazy rantings make him feel better, more power to him.

And I feel like more of a rebel knowing I'm committing a federal offense by thinking clearly(ish).

By Godless McHeat… (not verified) on 23 Apr 2007 #permalink

I wonder: is there any such better forum than PZ Meyers to laugh at the menatally disabled or challenged?

"However, by 1993 I experienced brain damage from a carotid artery blockage.

PZ: I'm sorry to hear that. To my shame, I still find this hilarious"

By Jack Careopack (not verified) on 23 Apr 2007 #permalink

Is this George Shollenberger any relation to George Hammond, who also claims to have discovered the first scientific proof of God? That George frequently posts to talk.origins trumpeting his "proof" - which amounts to the equation "GOD=Guv". Strange coincidence.

...but our man Gearge is not someone who will be starting a religion. No-one is taking him seriously, there are no followers to protect.

Don't bet on it.

I have heard very similar and often more insane babbling coming from Uncommon Descent, Answers in Genesis, various forums, letters to the editor in newspapers, overheard conversations in the workplace and in restaurants. Very rarely are these views countered. Very often these views are given rousing versions of 'amen brother' by the peanut gallery.

Whoever would have thought Joseph Smith would be taken seriously? How about L Ron? Jim Jones? That Latin 666 tatooed AntiChrist? No no no. Do not lightly dismiss every nutter coming down the turnpike. Some get popular.

You know, this (brain damage leading to a collapse of critical thinking skills and an adoption of uncritical, devout religion) is not unique in the world -- and believe me, it can also be pretty tragic for people close to the one affected.

In 1994, my mother suffered a series of drug-induced seizures after being very overmedicated (three different doctors all prescribing pain meds, unaware of each others' existance). Not only did she experience the seizures as "the Hand of God reaching down into me" (her words), she also seems to have lost a lot of her skepticism, ability to form critical judgement, and ability to evaluate people's motives since that time. (As a side note, funny how excessive religiosity seems to go along with painting a big ol' "CONMEN COME GET ME - FREE LUNCH HERE" sign on one's forehead.) Since the seizures, she has also become susceptible to much of the worst kind of Choprawoo and new age quackery, with God's miracle and secular magic happily co-existing in her worldview. And she is now obnoxiously sure that she has "The Truth" in her possession, too -- after all, she felt it -- and those of us who seem a bit more reserved about it are just stubbornly closing off their minds to resist enlightenment.

For those of us trying to keep her from sending her entire monthly pension to her "prayer group", it's more than a little heartbreaking.

By Luna_the_cat (not verified) on 24 Apr 2007 #permalink

"A 'practicing atheist'? I sleep late on Sundays, does that count?"

Nope. That makes you a Seventh Day Horizontalist.

Is this George Shollenberger any relation to George Hammond, who also claims to have discovered the first scientific proof of God? That George frequently posts to talk.origins trumpeting his "proof" - which amounts to the equation "GOD=Guv". Strange coincidence.

Posted by: DanielR | April 24, 2007 04:15 AM

It is an odd coincidence that you bring this up, as I was researching Hammond myself:

1. George Hammond came up with the 1st SPOG.
2. George Hammond is more brilliant than all of the psychologists combined.
3. George Hammond has, indeed, started his own religion. It's inter-faith, btw, as he proved the truth of all Gods.
4. Don't feel bad if you don't understand the SPOG. Just take George Hammond's word that it is obvious and clear to the common man.

And remember, if it has an entry on Uncyclopedia it must be true.

Atheism illegal? Quite the contrary.

As Jefferson noted in his autobiography, the language of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom make atheism legal. That's why the atheist Stephen Girard settled in Philadelphia in 1776; he's the guy who, in 1813 and 1814, when the U.S. government was broke, stepped in with his personal fortune (he was by then the richest man in the world, a shipping magnate) to finance the Second War for Independence against Britain (or War of 1812). We all owe our freedom to atheism, friends. Mr. Shollenberger should know better. He could look it up. (Where? On my blog, on the Girard College website, on the Philadelphia patriots website, in any good history book, in Jefferson's autobiography, in the First Amendment, etc., etc.)

If Shollenberger equates god with infinity, then he could call Jesus an asymptote. It's equally absurd but poetic.

"The practice of atheism in the fields of mathematics and science means that God is not considered by mathematicians and sciences in their research. Yet, I use God in my research with unbelievable results as my book shows."

Unbelievable results. I couldn't have said it better.

There should be a disclaimer at the bottom, as there is for weight-loss supplements.

*Results not typical

Well, I'm more of an agnostic, but if I practice atheism I'll get better at it?

On the other hand, applied mathematicians lose a degree of their freedom because they use mathematics to express the thoughts of people in the fields they serve.

I assume the lost degree of freedom is either rotation about "why?" or translation along Zzzzzzzz.

PZ:

You mis-spelled my name! For someone who gripes as much as you do about having your last name mis-spelled, you should be ashamed :-).

By Mark C. Chu-Carroll (not verified) on 24 Apr 2007 #permalink

Beating on people like George serves absolutely no constructive purpose. It's just mean.

In fairness to Mark Chu-Carroll, it seems he didn't knew about the stroke when he started criticizing the bad math of Shollenberger. He looks for sites with bad math on the web - this time a reader tipped him off. ( http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2006/07/restudying_math_in_light_of_th… )

Mark's latest post is fulfilling a promise he made (to Shollenberger, I think) to review Shollenberger's book if he could get a free copy.

Likewise, since Shollenberger took upon himself to erroneously point out science and scienceblogs as necessarily atheistic and email trolling the latter site, I think in all fairness that we can discuss his actions.

As an analogy, many criminals are mentally ill. But we don't stop discussing them and their actions even when it is individually confirmed. We can't remove individual responsibility totally for practical reasons.

Now, poking a finger at Shollenberger and laugh at him for being ill - that is simply mean.

By Torbjörn Larsson (not verified) on 24 Apr 2007 #permalink

Errm, it was in l33t -- didn't you notice the exclamation point for the last "l"?

The "l" was redundant, anyway. You don't pronounce it, do you? For that matter, there are quite a few other redundancies in there...have you considered excising them?

I do not complain about misspelling my name. I take a kind of cynical joy in my frequently demonstrated superiority in spelling a simple word like "Myers".

Obviously, the simplest solution here is for me to henceforth avoid linking to that difficult-to-spell Fleck Sneeze-ChristmasSong person and thereby avoid embarrassment.

I don't doubt that a lot of religion is founded on mental illness

Robert Sapolsky promotes such ideas.

So you then begin to ask, "What do modern neuroscience and psychiatry begin to tell us about how we as a species invent these systems of belief, these systems of organized, shared, ritualized, culture-bound beliefs?" What does this tell us about religion?
[...]
So what's the adaptive advantage of schizophrenia? It has to do with a classic truism--this business that sometimes you have a genetic trait which in the full-blown version is a disaster, but the partial version is good news.
[...]
What is schizotypal? It's a more subtle version of schizophrenia. This is not somebody who's completely socially crippled; they're just solitary, detached: these are the lighthouse keepers, the projectionists in the movie theaters. These are not people who are thought-disordered to the point of being completely nonfunctional; these are people who just believe in kinda strange stuff.
...
They are into their Star Trek conventions. They're into their astrology, they're into their telepathy and their paranormal beliefs, they're into--and you can see now where I'm heading [laughter]--very, very literal, concrete interpretations of religious events.
[...]
The critical thing with schizotypal shamanism is, it is not uncontrolled the way it is in the schizophrenic. This is not somebody babbling in tongues all the time in the middle of the hunt. This is someone babbling during the right ceremony.

( http://ffrf.org/fttoday/2003/april/index.php?ft=sapolsky )

So schizotypals may be the typical originators of religions. Sapolsky also discuss OCD victims likewise creating a successful social space to fit in. They could be the typical inventors of organized religions rituals.

By Torbjörn Larsson (not verified) on 24 Apr 2007 #permalink

Sorry about the bad format of the last comment, I forgot to check how scienceblogs scripts handle blockquotes. (Not well. :-| )

to henceforth avoid linking to that difficult-to-spell Fleck Sneeze-ChristmasSong person

Wanna bet he will come back with avoiding discussing the Good Math of that UrineVision MicroMetalZzz person?

Someone should tell this fellow that science as practiced is (by definition) an atheistic enterprise

Depends on how you define atheism of course. For practical, moral and philosophical reasons, some like to declare persons who haven't yet met the issue (babies, for example) non-religious.

Here is a real reason to drag Dawkins into a specific discussion. Since he thinks it is immoral and harmful to automatically label children with their family's religion, would he say that a child is atheistic instead? I don't know, but I would think he could prefer a fully neutral label; and I certainly do. Perhaps someone can find out what he says here.

I find the neutral label fitting on such activities as well. (I believe the religious use the term "secular".) Especially since they too haven't considered the issue yet. ;-)

By Torbjörn Larsson (not verified) on 24 Apr 2007 #permalink

Hmm. Two afterthoughts on my latest comment:

- I'm pretty sure Dawkins claims labeling children is harmful; I'm probably the one inferring it means immorality.

- In a sense science has considered the issue (supernatural explanations doesn't work), so my flip comment isn't really appropriate. As most flip comments tend to be. :-~

By Torbjörn Larsson (not verified) on 24 Apr 2007 #permalink

I expect these blogs and the related blogs of other people to be detected by Jesus Christ and those higher intelligent humans who already live on other planets.~Shollenberger

Dang! I wish my blog were being detected by higher intelligent human beings living on other planets; I'd like to hear from them. All I get are a bunch of middle aged Eathling women writting to ask me to post more photos of my cats!

I still can't get over that phrase "practicing atheism."

I practice not playing the ukelele for hours on end! And you know what? I'm pretty good at it now!

ERV: That's one reason it is important to have a living will and that sort of stuff.

Shelley: A very good question. Alas, I suspect this guy will never contribute to that knowledge ...

#34 llewely> Don't you mean atheism is a "science" type of word? ;)

By Godless McHeat… (not verified) on 25 Apr 2007 #permalink

"Not everyone can use brain damage to explain their religiosity."

Of course, there are those who are not conscious of their brain damage. And then, there are those who will no admit to it.

By Stuart Miller (not verified) on 25 Apr 2007 #permalink

On schizophrenics and religion:

Saul, apparently, was a schizophrenic as well... I mean, what else can we draw from the following:

1 Samuel 19:24
The Spirit of God comes upon Saul and causes him to start giving prophecies. Apparently getting just a little carried away, Saul takes off all his clothes, "prophesied before Samuel in like manner, and lay down naked all that day and all that night." No record is made of Samuel's reaction.

Isiah, as well, appears to be a little... psycho:

Isaiah 20:2-3
God instructs Isaiah to take off all his clothes and wander around completely naked for three years as a "sign and a wonder."

He writes that God will "hiss for the fly... and for the bee" (7:18), will force every man to "eat the flesh of his own arm" (9:20 - great image!), and will send a perverse spirit that will cause the Egyptians to err "as a drunken man staggereth in his vomit" (19:14 - another great image!). He orders women to strip (32:11), and says that God will punish them by "discover[ing] their secret parts" (3:17). He says that God "will feed them that oppress [me] with their own flesh; and they shall be drunken with their own blood, as with sweet wine" (49:26 - yum!); either that, or they'll "eat their own dung, and drink their own piss" (36:12). So either God was having a much weirder day than usual when he dictated these visions, or else Isaiah was one of the many Biblical figures who could have benefited from modern psychological medication.

There are other... psychotic items in the bible, just thought I'd point out these two biblical characters that are quite... cooky.

By Necronomikron (not verified) on 20 Dec 2007 #permalink

Beating on people like George serves absolutely no constructive purpose. It's just mean.

In fairness to Mark Chu-Carroll, it seems he didn't knew about the stroke when he started criticizing the bad math of Shollenberger. He looks for sites with bad math on the web - this time a reader tipped him off. ( http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2006/07/restudying_math_in_light_of_th… )

Mark's latest post is fulfilling a promise he made (to Shollenberger, I think) to review Shollenberger's book if he could get a free copy.

Likewise, since Shollenberger took upon himself to erroneously point out science and scienceblogs as necessarily atheistic and email trolling the latter site, I think in all fairness that we can discuss his actions.

As an analogy, many criminals are mentally ill. But we don't stop discussing them and their actions even when it is individually confirmed. We can't remove individual responsibility totally for practical reasons.

Now, poking a finger at Shollenberger and laugh at him for being ill - that is simply mean.

By Torbjörn Larsson (not verified) on 24 Apr 2007 #permalink

I don't doubt that a lot of religion is founded on mental illness

Robert Sapolsky promotes such ideas.

So you then begin to ask, "What do modern neuroscience and psychiatry begin to tell us about how we as a species invent these systems of belief, these systems of organized, shared, ritualized, culture-bound beliefs?" What does this tell us about religion?
[...]
So what's the adaptive advantage of schizophrenia? It has to do with a classic truism--this business that sometimes you have a genetic trait which in the full-blown version is a disaster, but the partial version is good news.
[...]
What is schizotypal? It's a more subtle version of schizophrenia. This is not somebody who's completely socially crippled; they're just solitary, detached: these are the lighthouse keepers, the projectionists in the movie theaters. These are not people who are thought-disordered to the point of being completely nonfunctional; these are people who just believe in kinda strange stuff.
...
They are into their Star Trek conventions. They're into their astrology, they're into their telepathy and their paranormal beliefs, they're into--and you can see now where I'm heading [laughter]--very, very literal, concrete interpretations of religious events.
[...]
The critical thing with schizotypal shamanism is, it is not uncontrolled the way it is in the schizophrenic. This is not somebody babbling in tongues all the time in the middle of the hunt. This is someone babbling during the right ceremony.

( http://ffrf.org/fttoday/2003/april/index.php?ft=sapolsky )

So schizotypals may be the typical originators of religions. Sapolsky also discuss OCD victims likewise creating a successful social space to fit in. They could be the typical inventors of organized religions rituals.

By Torbjörn Larsson (not verified) on 24 Apr 2007 #permalink

Sorry about the bad format of the last comment, I forgot to check how scienceblogs scripts handle blockquotes. (Not well. :-| )

to henceforth avoid linking to that difficult-to-spell Fleck Sneeze-ChristmasSong person

Wanna bet he will come back with avoiding discussing the Good Math of that UrineVision MicroMetalZzz person?

Someone should tell this fellow that science as practiced is (by definition) an atheistic enterprise

Depends on how you define atheism of course. For practical, moral and philosophical reasons, some like to declare persons who haven't yet met the issue (babies, for example) non-religious.

Here is a real reason to drag Dawkins into a specific discussion. Since he thinks it is immoral and harmful to automatically label children with their family's religion, would he say that a child is atheistic instead? I don't know, but I would think he could prefer a fully neutral label; and I certainly do. Perhaps someone can find out what he says here.

I find the neutral label fitting on such activities as well. (I believe the religious use the term "secular".) Especially since they too haven't considered the issue yet. ;-)

By Torbjörn Larsson (not verified) on 24 Apr 2007 #permalink

Hmm. Two afterthoughts on my latest comment:

- I'm pretty sure Dawkins claims labeling children is harmful; I'm probably the one inferring it means immorality.

- In a sense science has considered the issue (supernatural explanations doesn't work), so my flip comment isn't really appropriate. As most flip comments tend to be. :-~

By Torbjörn Larsson (not verified) on 24 Apr 2007 #permalink