Comments on: The cognitive neuroscience of religion vs. religion in cognitive neuroscience http://www.smallgraymatters.com/2006/07/16/the-cognitive-neuroscience-of-religion-vs-religion-in-cognitive-neuroscience/ of brains and their minds Mon, 24 May 2010 19:44:33 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Dan Banici http://www.smallgraymatters.com/2006/07/16/the-cognitive-neuroscience-of-religion-vs-religion-in-cognitive-neuroscience/comment-page-1/#comment-12491 Dan Banici Sun, 08 Mar 2009 01:05:37 +0000 http://www.smallgraymatters.com/2006/07/16/the-cognitive-neuroscience-of-religion-vs-religion-in-cognitive-neuroscience/#comment-12491 very good questions posed by this post. I came to appreciate the amount of research done on the subject by three of our contemporary eminent atheists: Sam Harris (working on his PhD in Neuroscience at Stanford), Richard Dawkins who has a flair for explaining complex science from his perspective as a biologist, and Dennis Dennett, who does a superb job of amalgamating it all together. Sam is required reading. His eloquence and insight are extraordinary. Dawkins is a legend, his books are a must on any shelf. And Dennett as a true scholar, points to the errors of his colleagues, but moreover, if you take for instance "Breaking the Spell", he cites other authors so richly, you can get suggestions on building the most amazing library on the study of religion and how it fits in with neuroscience, anthropology, evolution, and about a dozen other sciences. I am personally on a "time perception" quest at the moment, and pleasantly surprised to see what others who tackled the subject came up with. Again, great post - keep it up! very good questions posed by this post. I came to appreciate the amount of research done on the subject by three of our contemporary eminent atheists: Sam Harris (working on his PhD in Neuroscience at Stanford), Richard Dawkins who has a flair for explaining complex science from his perspective as a biologist, and Dennis Dennett, who does a superb job of amalgamating it all together. Sam is required reading. His eloquence and insight are extraordinary. Dawkins is a legend, his books are a must on any shelf. And Dennett as a true scholar, points to the errors of his colleagues, but moreover, if you take for instance “Breaking the Spell”, he cites other authors so richly, you can get suggestions on building the most amazing library on the study of religion and how it fits in with neuroscience, anthropology, evolution, and about a dozen other sciences. I am personally on a “time perception” quest at the moment, and pleasantly surprised to see what others who tackled the subject came up with. Again, great post – keep it up!

]]> By: Timothy O'Brien http://www.smallgraymatters.com/2006/07/16/the-cognitive-neuroscience-of-religion-vs-religion-in-cognitive-neuroscience/comment-page-1/#comment-5650 Timothy O'Brien Sun, 16 Sep 2007 10:17:36 +0000 http://www.smallgraymatters.com/2006/07/16/the-cognitive-neuroscience-of-religion-vs-religion-in-cognitive-neuroscience/#comment-5650 I get the sense that there is interesting research about brain states in conflict going on at DARPA. Misconceptions of religion seem to be at the heart of conflict these days. I'm interested in the coincidence of research that investigates religious sense in a peaceful mode, in a conflict mode, and in the general context of distinguishing global perception from specific attention. But what is the eventual application? Is there a goal besides development of weapons and/or medication? If the study is simply an appreciation of the brain's abstract beauty, it strikes me as somewhat narcissistic. Could such study be used to develop interactive strategies that peacefully calm an individual who is about to become psychotically violent while in a religious fervor? That could be really useful. I get the sense that there is interesting research about brain states in conflict going on at DARPA. Misconceptions of religion seem to be at the heart of conflict these days. I’m interested in the coincidence of research that investigates religious sense in a peaceful mode, in a conflict mode, and in the general context of distinguishing global perception from specific attention. But what is the eventual application? Is there a goal besides development of weapons and/or medication? If the study is simply an appreciation of the brain’s abstract beauty, it strikes me as somewhat narcissistic. Could such study be used to develop interactive strategies that peacefully calm an individual who is about to become psychotically violent while in a religious fervor? That could be really useful.

]]> By: Chris http://www.smallgraymatters.com/2006/07/16/the-cognitive-neuroscience-of-religion-vs-religion-in-cognitive-neuroscience/comment-page-1/#comment-65 Chris Tue, 18 Jul 2006 19:56:35 +0000 http://www.smallgraymatters.com/2006/07/16/the-cognitive-neuroscience-of-religion-vs-religion-in-cognitive-neuroscience/#comment-65 McNamara has an edited book coming out in October on the subject, so I suppose he has a strong motivation to make it sound like this is a hot new area of research. It is a hot new area of research in cog psy and cog anthro, emphasis on new. McNamara has an edited book coming out in October on the subject, so I suppose he has a strong motivation to make it sound like this is a hot new area of research.

It is a hot new area of research in cog psy and cog anthro, emphasis on new.

]]>