Does anyone in the world see any IRONY or HYPOCRISY at all in being both a REPUBLICAN and a so-called CHRISTIAN??? The right-wing, conservative “Christian” Republicans, in all their so-called moral
superiority should practice what they so tirelessly preach and proselytize. Their “Christian” “values” and supposed reverence for the teachings of a man named Jesus Christ just don’t jibe with the loathsome nature and despicable politics of a man such as (R) Jesse Helms, a hateful, bigoted and PROUDLY RACIST man. Nor are their, um, “beliefs,” in accordance with the fundamental Republican platform of laissez-faire economics, less government, pull-yourselves-up-by-your-bootstraps bravado and all the other nonsense that Republicans so loosely throw around; I think it was their own “man,” Jesus Christ, that said, “Love thy neighbor”, “Help thy brother”, etc., etc., etc. WHAT? Unless he is BLACK? Or POOR? Or UNEDUCATED due to NEGLIGENCE?

The lot of these right-wing fundamentalists do nothing but spew hatred and venom whilst causing bitter divisiveness amongst the very “brothers” and “neighbors” whom they are supposed to love, treat as they themselves would like to be treated, etc., etc., etc.

And, on the other hand, if Republicans really believe in a hands-off approach in governing, what in God’s name are they doing telling anyone else how to live one’s own life through legislation of their beliefs, e.g. Pro-life, Bible-study in PUBLIC SCHOOLS, etc., etc., etc.

It seems to me that these, um, “Christians” could better spend their time talking and preaching A LOT LESS and actually getting their ideas and arguments straight BEFORE they open their mouths…or join the Republican party.

No kidding. And Feuerbach stood as a much more eloquent culmination of the tradition than any article titled, “Screw Jesus, What Would *I* Do?”

It might have also been helpful to ask people questions like “Is God’s will knowable or unknowable”, or “are there external standards for determining God’s will?”, or “Does God reside in your heart/speak to you/inspire your beliefs?” These sorts of questions might indicate how much one distinguishes oneself from God. Even more interesting, they could be used to lead a person’s subsequent answers, the same way that the study attempted to manipulate answers by presenting pro and con arguments before asking about beliefs.

The most interesting thing about the study seems to be the brain monitoring, rather than the actual answers to the questions. And it would have been more interesting to pursue some further prodding to see what exactly links a person’s self reflection with their reflection about God. Trying to see what cues might separate these thought processes would better get at the heart of why they are linked in certain instances, and might answer suspicions about whether the survey questions bias the results, or whether different sorts of believers contemplate God’s will differently.

Precisely my point!

I’m not sure what your suggestion would prove. Any interpretation of what a source as complicated and imbued with varying levels of meaning as the Bible is going to suffer from the same problem – you’re not able to separate what people think the Bible says from what the Bible “actually” says (and I put “actually” in quotes because I’m not even sure if this is possible). You may think it’s easy to say that the Bible says homosexuality is a sin, but there’s a lot of discussion about whether this was a contextual, cultural imperative or an eternal truth. The Bible isn’t a list of axiomatic statements, after all. You can’t just lift “truths” from it’s pages.

And even if you could, you just move the underlying epistemological problem back one more iteration. Someone wrote the Bible. God didn’t actually write it. So it’s still an opinion of God’s opinion. This study is interesting insofar as it ellucidates one causal determinant of man’s belief in God. But it inevitably runs into an epistemological wall – so long as you’re only able to comment on man’s opinion of God, you’ll never be able to rule out statements about the actuality of God.

It’s an interesting experiment, but you’re pushing it into a fruitless line of questioning. Didn’t we settle that point in the 18th century or so?