|
|
|
|
dimossi
Skeptic Friend
USA
141 Posts |
 Posted - 01/02/2002 : 16:19:57
|
I received this e-mail regarding tonights Nightline show. I am in Sweden and will be unable to view the show. If anyone has a chance to watch it I would apreciate a summary of it.
Thanks.
Here is the text of the e-mail I received:
---------------------------
TONIGHT'S SUBJECT: What happens when science tries to understand, or
explain religion? New research seems able to locate those parts of the
brain involved in religious experiences. Is this an explanation, new
evidence for faith, or a challenge to religion?
----
First off, Happy New Year to all of you, let's hope that this year
will
be very different than the last.
And under the notion of full disclosure, there are football games on
ABC
tonight and tomorrow night. Since they start about 8PM EST, hopefully
we
won't be delayed very much, but we won't know until it happens. A
number
of people emailed in about last night, and every Monday as well, we
have
no control over the games. We have to wait like everyone else to see
how
long the game goes. But next Monday is the last football game for the
season, and then we'll be back to normal.
Now on to tonight's subject. My father always said never talk to people
about politics and religion, it will always lead to raised voices and
hard
feelings. Clearly I ignored the politics part by going into this
business.
That's what I do for a living. But the religion part is much harder.
The
news business rarely talks about religion except when it intersects
with
the political. We talk about religious groups, we talk about religion
as a
motivating force, but we rarely look at religion in and of itself. And
yes, it can be dangerous to challenge things that people take on faith.
But here goes.
Tonight is a provocative broadcast. I say that not to get you to watch,
but because it's true. We all know about research on the brain that has
identified those parts of our gray matter responsible for different
things, language, sight, hearing, emotions. But there are scientists
who
are exploring those parts of the brain that their research seems to
indicate are somehow involved in what people consider to be religious
experiences, the feeling of another presence, or of being one with the
universe. And what does happen to the brain during prayer or
meditation?
And if they can understand what is happening in the brain during those
experiences, does that mean that by stimulating that part of the brain,
they can trigger these experiences?
Now this is sort of interesting in and of itself, we are learning more
about ourselves every day. But this type of research raises interesting
questions. Does this mean that what are taken as religious experiences
are
merely chemical reactions in our brain? Or is this merely the mechanism
that a higher power might use? Or is this just the way our bodies react
to
that type of experience? Does any of this prove or disprove the
existence
of a higher power? We won't be able to provide hard answers to any of
these most basic questions. Those answers are still determined by
faith,
or lack thereof. But as scientists unlock the secrets of our bodies and
the world around us, does that make the universe more understandable,
or
more mysterious? When and where do science and religion intersect? As
basic questions go, these are pretty fundamental.
Is asking these questions the right thing to do? I am sure that some
will
be angry with us for even posing them, but I believe that there is no
harm
in asking questions, and that in fact there is value in challenging our
beliefs from time to time. This research has certainly had an effect on
the beliefs of the scientists involved, and not necessarily in the ways
you might expect. But I guess we'll find out if my father was right,
whether it is risky to talk religion. We hope you'll join us after the
game.
Wednesday, January 2, 2002
Leroy Sievers
Executive Producer
Nightline Offices
Washington, D.C.
"Life is but a momentary glimpse of the wonder of this astonishing universe, and it is sad to see so many dreaming it away on spiritual fantasy." [Carl Sagan]
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 01/02/2002 : 19:00:28 [Permalink]
|
Hmm, sounds like a look at that book 'Why God Won't Go Away'. The first couple of chapters were decent, a straight forward explanation of the experiments. It was the illogical last few chapters that had me shreaking. The ones that because we can experience gawd in our minds means the external reality of gawd is really real. It was rather funny trying to follow the illogic of it all. And of course, the reliance upon Koenig's research, flawed data and all - including his mil or whatever amount from the Templeton Foundation.
Ack! I'm going to run for cover and hide - I've done too damn much research on this crap.
It is by the goodness of God that in our country we have those three unspeakably precious things: freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and the prudence never to practice either of them. -Mark Twain |
 |
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 01/02/2002 : 20:53:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
we have no control over the games. We have to wait like everyone else to see how long the game goes.
SOrry this is not exactly a responce to the topic at hand but I must comment.
We do have control IF we, as a nation wouldn't put such an emphises on sports like that. Yes, I played football and baseball as a kid and with my son when he was in little league but for fun not for $50,000,000. If the American public would boycott going to games for the prices they charge and not act as if a stupid football player was a god then maybe they wouldn't be on TV disrupting worthwhile programs. Football players, the ones I've seen anyway, are not very intelligent, yet they are supposed to have gone to college.....where are our values?
For example: WHen that guy O.J. Simpson was on trial for killing his wife, I didn't know he was famous before that and then when someone told me he went to college, I could hardly speak, because when I saw him being interviewed he had no command of the English language, still doesn't. And not very good thinking skills. That's what people who watch football think is a fine example of our culture? That and all those guys demanding huge sums of money for WHAT, I don't know.
Rap Crap is to music what Paint by Numbers is to art. |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 01/03/2002 : 01:12:15 [Permalink]
|
I saw this Nightline and I am so pissed off. At the end I wanted to jump through my screen and slap some sense into Michelle Martin. When she said, after that quack droned on for a long time, "The Institute has its detractors but once the Earth was thought to be the center of the universe.." I was ready to scream. This has to be one of the worst Nightlines that I have seen in along, long time. I can't believe that they presented so little at the end in rebuttal. They made it seem as if this was serious science and that major breakthroughs had been made! At the end they also dragged out John Edwards just before they showed those ridiculous experiments. The claim was made that mediums were able to produce remarkable results but nothing was shown. I have to wonder, considering how prejudiced the experimenters were, constututes remarkable as a result. What I have noticed is that the vaguest similarity is called amazing.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
dimossi
Skeptic Friend
USA
141 Posts |
Posted - 01/03/2002 : 05:56:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I saw this Nightline and I am so pissed off. At the end I wanted to jump through my screen and slap some sense into Michelle Martin. When she said, after that quack droned on for a long time, "The Institute has its detractors but once the Earth was thought to be the center of the universe.." I was ready to scream. This has to be one of the worst Nightlines that I have seen in along, long time. I can't believe that they presented so little at the end in rebuttal. They made it seem as if this was serious science and that major breakthroughs had been made! At the end they also dragged out John Edwards just before they showed those ridiculous experiments. The claim was made that mediums were able to produce remarkable results but nothing was shown. I have to wonder, considering how prejudiced the experimenters were, constututes remarkable as a result. What I have noticed is that the vaguest similarity is called amazing.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
I was afraid that the show might end up like that. 
So much for "fair journalism". And what the hell was that show doing even mentioning that charlatan, John Edward? Ugh. I am getting pissed and I didn't even see the show.
Did anything positive come out of that show?
"Life is but a momentary glimpse of the wonder of this astonishing universe, and it is sad to see so many dreaming it away on spiritual fantasy." [Carl Sagan] |
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 01/04/2002 : 00:09:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Did anything positive come out of that show?
I haven't finished watching it but so far I'm upset that they dared to put Buddhism in with those morons who think they can speak to the dead.
There is no prayer in Buddhism and no gods. The meditation is not spritual either, not the 'real' Buddhism anyway.
We'll see what else to say after I watch the rest of the show. Just had to get that out.
Rap Crap is to music what Paint by Numbers is to art. |
|
|
|
Piltdown
Skeptic Friend
USA
312 Posts |
Posted - 01/05/2002 : 02:58:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I saw this Nightline and I am so pissed off. At the end I wanted to jump through my screen and slap some sense into Michelle Martin. When she said, after that quack droned on for a long time, "The Institute has its detractors but once the Earth was thought to be the center of the universe.." I was ready to scream. This has to be one of the worst Nightlines that I have seen in along, long time. I can't believe that they presented so little at the end in rebuttal. They made it seem as if this was serious science and that major breakthroughs had been made! At the end they also dragged out John Edwards just before they showed those ridiculous experiments. The claim was made that mediums were able to produce remarkable results but nothing was shown. I have to wonder, considering how prejudiced the experimenters were, constututes remarkable as a result. What I have noticed is that the vaguest similarity is called amazing.
Move over, Fox. It looks like ABC is this year's "public enemy number 1". @#$%!. Whores! quacks! workers of iniquity! hive of villainy and scum! aaarrrggghhhh!
Abducting UFOs and conspiring against conspiracy theorists since 1980. |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
