RE: Scientific prayer?
February 27, 2010 at 6:05 am
(This post was last modified: February 27, 2010 at 6:07 am by Puck.)
LMAO I don't know why, but I am laughing my ass off with this thread.
To all of those that think I am trying to 'redefine' the meaning of the word prayer, the only thing I can say is: a) read the orginal post and reach deep down inside yourselves and try to get exactly what I am saying and, b) My contention that the definition of prayer as all of you know it as being a communication with a deity has been wrong all along. Prayer might as well have been called neuro-linguistic programming all along. It's just that the primitive christian brain doesn't understand something that happens within themselves, so they attribute it to something outside of themselves, i.e. a god. Here is a real world example of what I am talking about here. Every now and then, at work, someone will have a family member suffering from an illnes or some other type of tragic event happening in their lives and we are often asked to 'pray' for them and their families. I'm sure you all have been in this scenario before. Well, whereas many will pray to their 'god', I pray to myself scientifically and systematically as I know the psychological process of prayer. Instead of stating my wish for good intentions to some fictional entity outside of myself, I state the expectation for a good result to my subconcious, which is exactly the thing that takes place when one 'prays'. Whether the 'prayer' be directed at a god, at one's self or even the tree outside, the faith in whatever the prayer or good intention is directed is the key as faith is a very real functional component of the human brain. I know it may be a hard concept to grasp, but I assure you that evolved brains find it easy. To summarize, 'prayer' should have never been defined as a communication with a deity and was only defined as such because of primitve minds miunderstanding what is actually taking place psychologically when one prays and, therefore, attributes it to something outside of themselves, i.e. a deity. I think, considering the original post, that there has been too much focus on the technical, archaicly established definition of the word prayer as opposed to the general concept of what I present as the psychological process of prayer attributing it to a scientifically psychological nature as opposed to a religious one.
Until you have read the book and gained an understanding of the concepts within, I believe you might be making the mistake of making an analogy to something you are not privy to. Yes, there have been advances in psychology in the past one hundred years, some of them correct and some of them largely incorrect. Most of the advances that actually can be verified without constant conjecture from mediocre minds are those that can be verified and validated through neurology and 'brain mapping', i.e. the mapping of which neuro-transmitters are firing off during a particular psychological process. Allow me to come up with an anology to counter yours. We have known since 1909 how habits form based upon the fundamental concept of pain and pleasure. We have known since then that the brain will do more to avoid pain than it will to gain pleasure. Based upon your generalisation of advances in psychology making the concepts in the apparently elusive book, The Psychology of Prayer, obsolete, I could make a comparable generalisation in saying non-specific advances in psychology have made the primitive psychological drive to avoid pain obsolete. The concpets in the book that no one seems to be able to read for some unknown reason are really very basic and, I suggest, have remained unchanged despite unrelated advances in the understanding of human psychology.
By the way, as to why no one seems to be able to read the book digitized by google as I can is honestly a mystery to me. I do have several gmail accounts with google, but I am not logged in when I view the content of the book. I also have no account with the google library or anything like that. I simply click on the link and the content is there.
Thank you for spelling my name as a phonetical derivitive of the phrase 'fuck it'. I often spell it the same myself as it belies my general attitude.
One observation I would like to make, however, froho, is that you claim to be a christian yet you clearly denote a very non-christian phrase. Good on you for remaining so consistently christian. I just hope you asked your god for forgiveness before you went to bed lest you die in your sleep and burn in hell forever for such an indescretion to your faith.
To all of those that think I am trying to 'redefine' the meaning of the word prayer, the only thing I can say is: a) read the orginal post and reach deep down inside yourselves and try to get exactly what I am saying and, b) My contention that the definition of prayer as all of you know it as being a communication with a deity has been wrong all along. Prayer might as well have been called neuro-linguistic programming all along. It's just that the primitive christian brain doesn't understand something that happens within themselves, so they attribute it to something outside of themselves, i.e. a god. Here is a real world example of what I am talking about here. Every now and then, at work, someone will have a family member suffering from an illnes or some other type of tragic event happening in their lives and we are often asked to 'pray' for them and their families. I'm sure you all have been in this scenario before. Well, whereas many will pray to their 'god', I pray to myself scientifically and systematically as I know the psychological process of prayer. Instead of stating my wish for good intentions to some fictional entity outside of myself, I state the expectation for a good result to my subconcious, which is exactly the thing that takes place when one 'prays'. Whether the 'prayer' be directed at a god, at one's self or even the tree outside, the faith in whatever the prayer or good intention is directed is the key as faith is a very real functional component of the human brain. I know it may be a hard concept to grasp, but I assure you that evolved brains find it easy. To summarize, 'prayer' should have never been defined as a communication with a deity and was only defined as such because of primitve minds miunderstanding what is actually taking place psychologically when one prays and, therefore, attributes it to something outside of themselves, i.e. a deity. I think, considering the original post, that there has been too much focus on the technical, archaicly established definition of the word prayer as opposed to the general concept of what I present as the psychological process of prayer attributing it to a scientifically psychological nature as opposed to a religious one.
Quote:If our level of understanding of psychology hasn't increased since 1909, then the date of the book is irrelevant, of course. However, I was led to believe that massive advances in psychology took place in the 1920s an 30s, and still do today. Thus I'd contend that using that book to explain a psychological position is like using Charles Darwin's "Origin of Species" to explain modern developmental evolution.
Until you have read the book and gained an understanding of the concepts within, I believe you might be making the mistake of making an analogy to something you are not privy to. Yes, there have been advances in psychology in the past one hundred years, some of them correct and some of them largely incorrect. Most of the advances that actually can be verified without constant conjecture from mediocre minds are those that can be verified and validated through neurology and 'brain mapping', i.e. the mapping of which neuro-transmitters are firing off during a particular psychological process. Allow me to come up with an anology to counter yours. We have known since 1909 how habits form based upon the fundamental concept of pain and pleasure. We have known since then that the brain will do more to avoid pain than it will to gain pleasure. Based upon your generalisation of advances in psychology making the concepts in the apparently elusive book, The Psychology of Prayer, obsolete, I could make a comparable generalisation in saying non-specific advances in psychology have made the primitive psychological drive to avoid pain obsolete. The concpets in the book that no one seems to be able to read for some unknown reason are really very basic and, I suggest, have remained unchanged despite unrelated advances in the understanding of human psychology.
By the way, as to why no one seems to be able to read the book digitized by google as I can is honestly a mystery to me. I do have several gmail accounts with google, but I am not logged in when I view the content of the book. I also have no account with the google library or anything like that. I simply click on the link and the content is there.
Quote:Setup Google Library and there's still no option to read like Phuckett shows
Thank you for spelling my name as a phonetical derivitive of the phrase 'fuck it'. I often spell it the same myself as it belies my general attitude.
One observation I would like to make, however, froho, is that you claim to be a christian yet you clearly denote a very non-christian phrase. Good on you for remaining so consistently christian. I just hope you asked your god for forgiveness before you went to bed lest you die in your sleep and burn in hell forever for such an indescretion to your faith.
