Sunuvabitch it never fails, I forget about a topic for a day or two and I come back and the conversation is waaaay the hell onwards.
Alright, so, we're discussing psychotic tendencies in the devout, or the lack thereof in both categories, yes?
Also, technically the Big Bang Theory was not developed by that university but by a secular priest at that university. Keyword secular. It was actually hypothesis at that time; the hypothesis of the primeval atom, in fact. It didn't become the Big Bang theory until later via Hubble, and the equational groundwork was actually written up by one Alexander Friedmann. Still, yes, a catholic, even if a secular one, came up with the groundwork explanation, upon which further work from many different sources compiled to eventually create the Big Bang Theory as we know it today. Alas this does not exactly help your case. When a religious institution puts together a scientific project that is secular in scope, that's fine, it's working against its potential bias but when it starts working on studies that are non-secular in scope [as in they include elements of religious or non-religious groups] unfortunately this negates its credibility due to the potential for bias. Even if it has a perfect track record in the past of working on secular ideas, it still has the possibility of bias when it comes to non-secular studies, and bias has no place in the scientific method. Every scientist MUST approach a project absolutely ready to completely destroy his own ideas. If you're getting it right and it's all going according to how you thought it would, you're doing something wrong, and you need to bring in outside sources for criticism to determine what it is you're doing wrong.
Now as for psychoticism and so forth in religious individuals, I'll agree that there is potential for lower psychoticism or neuroticism, but not for the right reasons. Ignorance is bliss, as they say, and that is what the conditioning effect of religion induces. But when has ignorance ever been looked upon kindly? Even that old saying is actually spoken tongue-in-cheek. This segues into the whole "should you tell a lie to keep someone happy" debate, and that is a back-and-forth debate with no clear-cut winner due to its subjectivity. Some people want the truth, some people want happiness. Me, I'd like the truth. A happiness built on lies is a false happiness and ultimately if it ever blows up in my face it's going to hurt a lot more when I realize that it was never real. Whereas if I get the truth, it will hurt a lot at that point but not nearly so much...and I will have the satisfaction and closure of knowing the truth. The longer a lie goes on, the more agony it imbues if/when it ultimately falls apart. If it doesn't fall apart and someone dies believing a lie, then it doesn't hurt them, obviously, but more the shame to the liar for never coming clean and for continuing to abuse one's trust.
As to you becoming a sister, I hope you continue to keep posting on here when you do. Meanwhile I am going to be going to a nearby catholic church in a couple weeks to have a discussion with the bishop there; I am interested to see what he has to say regarding those passages I brought up earlier. I hope his answers will not be as unsatisfying as the ones I myself came to understand after doing a bit [twelve hours worth] of reading into the history involving those passages.
Alright, so, we're discussing psychotic tendencies in the devout, or the lack thereof in both categories, yes?
Also, technically the Big Bang Theory was not developed by that university but by a secular priest at that university. Keyword secular. It was actually hypothesis at that time; the hypothesis of the primeval atom, in fact. It didn't become the Big Bang theory until later via Hubble, and the equational groundwork was actually written up by one Alexander Friedmann. Still, yes, a catholic, even if a secular one, came up with the groundwork explanation, upon which further work from many different sources compiled to eventually create the Big Bang Theory as we know it today. Alas this does not exactly help your case. When a religious institution puts together a scientific project that is secular in scope, that's fine, it's working against its potential bias but when it starts working on studies that are non-secular in scope [as in they include elements of religious or non-religious groups] unfortunately this negates its credibility due to the potential for bias. Even if it has a perfect track record in the past of working on secular ideas, it still has the possibility of bias when it comes to non-secular studies, and bias has no place in the scientific method. Every scientist MUST approach a project absolutely ready to completely destroy his own ideas. If you're getting it right and it's all going according to how you thought it would, you're doing something wrong, and you need to bring in outside sources for criticism to determine what it is you're doing wrong.
Now as for psychoticism and so forth in religious individuals, I'll agree that there is potential for lower psychoticism or neuroticism, but not for the right reasons. Ignorance is bliss, as they say, and that is what the conditioning effect of religion induces. But when has ignorance ever been looked upon kindly? Even that old saying is actually spoken tongue-in-cheek. This segues into the whole "should you tell a lie to keep someone happy" debate, and that is a back-and-forth debate with no clear-cut winner due to its subjectivity. Some people want the truth, some people want happiness. Me, I'd like the truth. A happiness built on lies is a false happiness and ultimately if it ever blows up in my face it's going to hurt a lot more when I realize that it was never real. Whereas if I get the truth, it will hurt a lot at that point but not nearly so much...and I will have the satisfaction and closure of knowing the truth. The longer a lie goes on, the more agony it imbues if/when it ultimately falls apart. If it doesn't fall apart and someone dies believing a lie, then it doesn't hurt them, obviously, but more the shame to the liar for never coming clean and for continuing to abuse one's trust.
As to you becoming a sister, I hope you continue to keep posting on here when you do. Meanwhile I am going to be going to a nearby catholic church in a couple weeks to have a discussion with the bishop there; I am interested to see what he has to say regarding those passages I brought up earlier. I hope his answers will not be as unsatisfying as the ones I myself came to understand after doing a bit [twelve hours worth] of reading into the history involving those passages.
