• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Proof of religions

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
Here's some hard science on the benefits of Eastern meditation techniques:


Meditation alters brain patterns in ways that are likely permanent, scientists have known. But a new study shows key parts of the brain actually get thicker through the practice.

Brain imaging of regular working folks who meditate regularly revealed increased thickness in cortical regions related to sensory, auditory and visual perception, as well as internal perception -- the automatic monitoring of heart rate or breathing, for example.

The study also indicates that regular meditation may slow age-related thinning of the frontal cortex.

"What is most fascinating to me is the suggestion that meditation practice can change anyone's gray matter," said study team member Jeremy Gray, an assistant professor of psychology at Yale. "The study participants were people with jobs and families. They just meditated on average 40 minutes each day, you don't have to be a monk."

The research was led by Sara Lazar, assistant in psychology at Massachusetts General Hospital. It is detailed in the November issue of the journal NeuroReport.

The study involved a small number of people, just 20. All had extensive training in Buddhist Insight meditation. But the researchers say the results are significant.

Most of the brain regions identified to be changed through meditation were found in the right hemisphere, which is essential for sustaining attention. And attention is the focus of the meditation.

Other forms of yoga and meditation likely have a similar impact on brain structure, the researchers speculate, but each tradition probably has a slightly different pattern of cortical thickening based on the specific mental exercises involved.


http://www.livescience.com/humanbiology/051111_medidate.html


I wonder if prayer changes the structure of the brain?
 

gnomon

Well-Known Member
Sunstone said:
Here's some hard science on the benefits of Eastern meditation techniques:


Meditation alters brain patterns in ways that are likely permanent, scientists have known. But a new study shows key parts of the brain actually get thicker through the practice.

Brain imaging of regular working folks who meditate regularly revealed increased thickness in cortical regions related to sensory, auditory and visual perception, as well as internal perception -- the automatic monitoring of heart rate or breathing, for example.

The study also indicates that regular meditation may slow age-related thinning of the frontal cortex.

"What is most fascinating to me is the suggestion that meditation practice can change anyone's gray matter," said study team member Jeremy Gray, an assistant professor of psychology at Yale. "The study participants were people with jobs and families. They just meditated on average 40 minutes each day, you don't have to be a monk."

The research was led by Sara Lazar, assistant in psychology at Massachusetts General Hospital. It is detailed in the November issue of the journal NeuroReport.

The study involved a small number of people, just 20. All had extensive training in Buddhist Insight meditation. But the researchers say the results are significant.

Most of the brain regions identified to be changed through meditation were found in the right hemisphere, which is essential for sustaining attention. And attention is the focus of the meditation.

Other forms of yoga and meditation likely have a similar impact on brain structure, the researchers speculate, but each tradition probably has a slightly different pattern of cortical thickening based on the specific mental exercises involved.


http://www.livescience.com/humanbiology/051111_medidate.html


I wonder if prayer changes the structure of the brain?
This reminds of a program on martial arts and the physiological effects on the body. Most striking was the brainwave patterns of eastern trained artists focusing on breaking an object and archers who had no experience with the eastern arts focusing on their target showed the same pattern. There was "normal" activity until the moment just before the strike or the release when the activity, I assume, "lessened" showing what is interpreted as an intense moment of concentration. Apologies for poor wording. Cannot remember the name of the program but I do believe it was a Discovery channel production. Or maybe History channel.

I've always been fascinate by meditation and yoga. My only experience of actual practice was focusing on a small birthday candle. At best I can relate to a brownout. I was conscious of the candle for a short time. Next thing I knew I became consciously aware of blinking and the candle had burned itself out. I don't know quite what to make of it. Kind of eerie actually.

I think I would have an easier time bending oak logs then getting my body into yoga positions.:)

Sorry if its off topic.
 

michel

Administrator Emeritus
Staff member
Æsahættr said:
Is that a bad thing? If science wasn't so 'hard to please' then someone could have suggested a few centuries ago that gravity is created by eating too much, therefore the way to acheive flight is to starve yourself, and their idea could have been accepted by the entire scientific community. We wouldn't have made it 10 feet off the ground, let alone put men on the moon.
Religion may well have a beneficial affect on society in many cases, but it seems rather dangerous to trust that it will, rather than try and understand why. If the positive effects of belief could be proved to be a placebo effect then we could try to understand this and manipulate it to our own benefit, perhaps finding other things than religion that work any better.
I wasn't saying it is a bad thing; I was merely making the point. But I am sure there is a negative point in the fact that science is so demanding; to 'prove' something that doesn't have physical representations is nigh on impossible.

Sunstone said:
Here's some hard science on the benefits of Eastern meditation techniques:


Meditation alters brain patterns in ways that are likely permanent, scientists have known. But a new study shows key parts of the brain actually get thicker through the practice.

Brain imaging of regular working folks who meditate regularly revealed increased thickness in cortical regions related to sensory, auditory and visual perception, as well as internal perception -- the automatic monitoring of heart rate or breathing, for example.

The study also indicates that regular meditation may slow age-related thinning of the frontal cortex.

"What is most fascinating to me is the suggestion that meditation practice can change anyone's gray matter," said study team member Jeremy Gray, an assistant professor of psychology at Yale. "The study participants were people with jobs and families. They just meditated on average 40 minutes each day, you don't have to be a monk."

The research was led by Sara Lazar, assistant in psychology at Massachusetts General Hospital. It is detailed in the November issue of the journal NeuroReport.

The study involved a small number of people, just 20. All had extensive training in Buddhist Insight meditation. But the researchers say the results are significant.

Most of the brain regions identified to be changed through meditation were found in the right hemisphere, which is essential for sustaining attention. And attention is the focus of the meditation.

Other forms of yoga and meditation likely have a similar impact on brain structure, the researchers speculate, but each tradition probably has a slightly different pattern of cortical thickening based on the specific mental exercises involved.


http://www.livescience.com/humanbiology/051111_medidate.html


I wonder if prayer changes the structure of the brain?
Isn't this because of repetition along neural pathways ? ie the more you think a thought, the easier it is for the chearges to do a 'rerun' in the future?
 

Æsahættr

Active Member
michel said:
I wasn't saying it is a bad thing; I was merely making the point. But I am sure there is a negative point in the fact that science is so demanding; to 'prove' something that doesn't have physical representations is nigh on impossible.
If you are concerned with the truth then you must be concerned with proof, or at the very least evidence. Science doesn't work on perfect proof, that is only found in mathematics. I can't see that there is anything negative in the scientific process whatsoever. To believe that there is something negative in it, you have to be already starting from the point of view that is it wrong, that there is more than the physical in the world.
 

Popeyesays

Well-Known Member
Æsahættr said:
If you are concerned with the truth then you must be concerned with proof, or at the very least evidence. Science doesn't work on perfect proof, that is only found in mathematics. I can't see that there is anything negative in the scientific process whatsoever. To believe that there is something negative in it, you have to be already starting from the point of view that is it wrong, that there is more than the physical in the world.
Why is the scientific method capable of determining anything other than physical reality?
How does that "prove" that things other than "physical reality" do not exist?

The scientific method is just a single sub-class of reason, why should it be the only form of proof or disproof of that which it cannot see?

Regards,
Scott
 

gnomon

Well-Known Member
Popeyesays said:
Why is the scientific method capable of determining anything other than physical reality?
How does that "prove" that things other than "physical reality" do not exist?

The scientific method is just a single sub-class of reason, why should it be the only form of proof or disproof of that which it cannot see?

Regards,
Scott
I wonder if anything that is currently considered supernatural can be empirically studied, classified and predicted would hold its supernatural status? For example, if spirits could be observed and the elements of their existence related to current laws of physics would they continue to be a supernatural phenomenon or just merely be another aspect of physical existence? And even if spirits could be observed would they be proof of the beliefs of many religious faiths?
 

Solon

Active Member
Jensa said:
Is there any scientific proof of any religion? How does saying Jesus was God and died for our sins about 2000 years ago any more valid than saying the sun is Ra or that Loki creates earthquakes as he struggles against his bonds? Do we have a right to criticize anyone else's beliefs--whether they be in God, Jesus, aliens, mythical beings, or gods and goddess--when we have no proof of our own beyond our own experiences?
The sun is the bringer of all life and the true light of the world. It is visible and real. It is more a god than any phantom wraith. Hail Ra.

S
 

michel

Administrator Emeritus
Staff member
Æsahættr said:
If you are concerned with the truth then you must be concerned with proof, or at the very least evidence. Science doesn't work on perfect proof, that is only found in mathematics. I can't see that there is anything negative in the scientific process whatsoever. To believe that there is something negative in it, you have to be already starting from the point of view that is it wrong, that there is more than the physical in the world.
I don't believe there is anything negative in science, and I am most certainly not saying that science is wrong. What I am saying is that there are things that science can't measure nor understand in nature................

I am a proponent of science, but I also am a proponent of what science cannot yet understand............;)
 

linwood

Well-Known Member
What I am saying is that there are things that science can't measure nor understand in nature................
I would disagree with that to a point.

If it`s in nature and we can`t measure it it doesn`t mean that we won`t one day be able to measure it.
Think where we`ve come from and ponder the amazingly short span of time it`s taken us to get here once we culturally accepted scientific method.

We can never measure the supernatural or it wouldn`t be supernatural.
 

Jaymes

The cake is a lie
Solon said:
The sun is the bringer of all life and the true light of the world. It is visible and real. It is more a god than any phantom wraith. Hail Ra.
What about life beneath the ocean? It doesn't need the sun. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think one of the ideas on how life came to be involves it starting deep in the ocean, next to magma vents?
 

linwood

Well-Known Member
Jensa said:
What about life beneath the ocean? It doesn't need the sun. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think one of the ideas on how life came to be involves it starting deep in the ocean, next to magma vents?
Yes deepwater thermal vents, heated "by the Earths core"

Thermal Vents

Cool stuff
 

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
Jensa said:
Is there any scientific proof of any religion?
Not thru the sciences no. The desire for God is written in the human heart, and their is where one must seek answers. Pixies and fairies arise only to be ignored by your objective life.
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
Jensa said:
Is there any scientific proof of any religion? How does saying Jesus was God and died for our sins about 2000 years ago any more valid than saying the sun is Ra or that Loki creates earthquakes as he struggles against his bonds? Do we have a right to criticize anyone else's beliefs--whether they be in God, Jesus, aliens, mythical beings, or gods and goddess--when we have no proof of our own beyond our own experiences?
We don't. We don't have that right at all -- for the reasons you suggested. Your thread deserves frubals!
 

Æsahættr

Active Member
Popeyesays said:
Why is the scientific method capable of determining anything other than physical reality?
Assume that physical reality means matter and energy. Then the question can be phrased 'why is the scientific method capable of determining anything other than matter and energy?' There is nothing that stops science from determining other things, as soon as any evidence is found that they exist. Seeing as scientific laws change all the time, maybe one day in the future people will look back in wonder on the time when humans only believed that matter and energy existed. The question is, if we find firm evidence of other states of existance, do we classify them as also being part of physical reality? If we enlarge the definition of physical reality to mean anything that can be observed and measured to an extent, then that means we might as well assume that there is nothing but physical reality. If there exist some things that we can never observe, not just using today's methods, but by any methods we ever come up with, it means that interaction between us and these other things is possible. If it impossible to interact with something, it is irrelevant whether it exists or not.


Popeyesays said:
How does that "prove" that things other than "physical reality" do not exist?
If we go back to the first definition of phyical reality- matter and energy, then we cannot prove that nothing else exists. The scientific method says that we should assume that things do not exist until we have evidence to the contrary. Then it becomes a matter of whether some people interpret things as evidence of more to reality than matter and energy. There is no way to prove totally that anything does not exist.


Popeyesays said:
The scientific method is just a single sub-class of reason, why should it be the only form of proof or disproof of that which it cannot see?
The scientific method does not 'see' anything. I can think of no other form of reason that is as highly organised as the scientific method, that is self-correcting to the same degree.
 

Popeyesays

Well-Known Member
Æsahættr said:
Assume that physical reality means matter and energy. Then the question can be phrased 'why is the scientific method capable of determining anything other than matter and energy?' There is nothing that stops science from determining other things, as soon as any evidence is found that they exist. Seeing as scientific laws change all the time, maybe one day in the future people will look back in wonder on the time when humans only believed that matter and energy existed. The question is, if we find firm evidence of other states of existance, do we classify them as also being part of physical reality? If we enlarge the definition of physical reality to mean anything that can be observed and measured to an extent, then that means we might as well assume that there is nothing but physical reality. If there exist some things that we can never observe, not just using today's methods, but by any methods we ever come up with, it means that interaction between us and these other things is possible. If it impossible to interact with something, it is irrelevant whether it exists or not.

If we go back to the first definition of phyical reality- matter and energy, then we cannot prove that nothing else exists. The scientific method says that we should assume that things do not exist until we have evidence to the contrary. Then it becomes a matter of whether some people interpret things as evidence of more to reality than matter and energy. There is no way to prove totally that anything does not exist.

The scientific method does not 'see' anything. I can think of no other form of reason that is as highly organised as the scientific method, that is self-correcting to the same degree.
The scientific method is a tool. When you pluck a wrench out of your tool box, it makes a very bad screwdriver.

Main Entry: scientific method
Function: noun
: principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses


I also cannot work with your definition of reality, it is incomplete.

Main Entry: re·al·i·ty javascript:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?realit01.wav=reality')
Pronunciation: rE-'a-l&-tE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ties
1 : the quality or state of being real
2 a (1) : a real event, entity, or state of affairs <his dream became a reality> (2) : the totality of real things and events <trying to escape from reality> b : something that is neither derivative nor dependent but exists necessarily
- in reality : in actual fact


Regards,
Scott
 

Ulver

Active Member
There will always be flaws with man's understanding of reality until we are perfect. Menaing until we are able to use our faculties of perception (sight, hearing, reasoning & etc.) to the highest level that we can. To do that, to be perfect is to reach a state far closer to godhood then we are at now. So there will always be flaws in our understanding, be it through science, philosophy or religion, until we are able to evolve or change into beings that are far greater then the ones we are now. And that day seems quite far from now, but hardly a day I think that will never come.
 

jazzalta

Member
gnomon said:
I wonder if anything that is currently considered supernatural can be empirically studied, classified and predicted would hold its supernatural status? For example, if spirits could be observed and the elements of their existence related to current laws of physics would they continue to be a supernatural phenomenon or just merely be another aspect of physical existence? And even if spirits could be observed would they be proof of the beliefs of many religious faiths?
Well, this guy apparently has some proof: http://www.victorzammit.com
 

Buttons*

Glass half Panda'd
Why should FAITH be PROVEN? Its faith... let it be

attempting to prove it just takes away from its core value, and people miss the message...
 
Top