Talk:Neurotheology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject on Psychology
Portal		 This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, which collaborates on Psychology and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it needs.
A mortarboard This article is part of WikiProject Psychedelics, Dissociatives and Deliriants, an attempt to improve Wikipedia's coverage of hallucinogens. Feel free to participate by editing this article or by visiting the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
This article is being improved by WikiProject Rational Skepticism. Wikiproject Rational Skepticism seeks to improve the quality of articles dealing with science, pseudosciences, pseudohistory and skepticism. Please feel free to help us improve this page.

See Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Contents

[edit] biotheology?

I propose we rename this page from biotheology to neurotheology. A quick google test yeilds 10,700 for neurotheology and 1,210 for biotheology.--Nectarflowed 09:27, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Done. Loremaster 14:46, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I further propose that the page be completely separated from biotheology - biotheology is to do with things like emergence, and mechanisms of creation and the concept of order. Whilst neurotheology is one aspect of biotheology, it is only one of many. Biotheology is quite a new field, and the term is itself only recently emerging. I propose to create a stub article for biotheology, and put a few references to begin with, and the article can be updated as the field develops. Oliver Low 16:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Franco Rol's neurotheology

I removed the section on Franco Rol & the European Society of NeuroTheology (SENT): a google search for the phrase in quotes yielded less than ten results. It is not widespread enough to be included in an encyclopedia article.--Nectarflowed (talk) 06:59, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pseudoscience?

"Some of these uses, according to the mainstream scientific community, qualify as pseudoscience"

Similarly, since atrologers use astronomy in ways that qualify as pseudoscience, we should include astronomy in the pseudoscience category. --Memenen 06:07, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I have recategorized neurotheology as a protoscience rather than a pseudoscience. Loremaster 19:30, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
I agree. This article focuses on the scientific uses for which it is most widely known (e.g. the Newsweek article). --Nectar T 23:01, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
I hope I missed irony or context here. When astrologers use astronomy they do Scientific misconduct to make the protoscience astrology look like the science that astonomy is but it is not so they downgrade astology to Junk science. Astronomy is science that originated in astrology. Its problem is the general assumption that the laws of nature are universal and that its objects of study are so far and big that reproduction and verification are more difficult. The physical influence of all planets on the Earth is statistically insignificant. The spiritual influence of planets on Earth is pseudoscience. --Ollj 20:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC) Category_talk:Paranormal --Ollj 20:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

If it walks like a duck, quaks like a duck and if it has "-theology", "religion", "spirituality" and"placebo" written on it it is religion or Spirituality! If it wants to be a science but fails in verification it is also pseudoscience! (definitions and categorisations) --Ollj 20:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV?

"altered states of consciousness which are the basis for many religious beliefs and behaviors"

Is this a neutral point of view? I'm sure many religions would not see altered states of consciousness as the basis for beliefs and behavious - this could be changed to "seen as the basis"

or "seen as contributing to many religious beliefs and behaviors" --Memenen 23:28, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nonsense

>>If it walks like a duck, quaks like a duck and if it has "-theology", "religion", "spirituality" and"placebo" written on it it is religion or Spirituality! If it wants to be a science but fails in verification it is also pseudoscience! (definitions and categorisations) --Ollj 20:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

This is nonsense. You should take a look at the MRI scan of brains that are doing praying and meditation. Also, placebo effect can be regulated by injections of chemicals. This is science in progress. Please read the science news more regularly. (By your definition, the history of religion will be pseudo-history and the philosophy of theology will be pseudo-philosophy)


[edit] NPOV

I've toned down the POV of the introduction, and in particular I've modified language that appears to endorse the theories this article describes. --Shirahadasha 10:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The article in its current state doesn't explain how the research involved addresses the issue of causality as distinct from correlation. If this research addresses causality in an evidence-based way this should be discussed in the article. Quick explanation as to why the difference between correlation and causation is particularly important here: It's quite possible that analogous research of the neurological basis of scientific experince could identify specific neurological phenomena that correlate with subjectively perceived scientific activity. However, any such correlations, even if extensive, would be unlikely to convince most scientists that scientific thought is neurologically based and the source of what scientists subjectively experience as scientific thought lies in neural plumbing rather than the external universe. The reason is simply that correlation is not cause: observing correlations between two phenomena doesn't establish which one causes which, so there's no more basis for believing the neural phenomena causes scientific experience as there is to believe that scientific experience cause the neural phenomena. The article doesn't explain why the researchers involved believe, or show, that their research about religious experience overcomes this hurdle. Best, --Shirahadasha 10:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Books, journals

(2000-12-20) in Jensine Andresen and Robert K C Forman: Cognitive models and spiritual maps: interdisciplinary explorations of religious experience (Journal of consciousness studies) [illustrated]. Imprint Academic. ISBN 978-0907845133. 

Tremlin, Todd (2006-03-02). Minds and Gods: the cognitive foundations of religion, E. Thomas Lawson (foreword), USA: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0195305340. 

[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.78.116.187 (talk • contribs) 2006-11-21t18:54:33z

Borg, Jacqueline; Bengt Andrée, Henrik Soderstrom, and Lars Farde (11 2003). "The serotonin system and spiritual experiences". The American journal of psychiatry 160 (11): pp. 1965-1969. PMID: 14594742.  -- Jeandré, 2007-01-21t03:57z

[edit] Important reference.

Lots of good material here: http://www.sciam.com/print_version.cfm?articleID=434D7C62-E7F2-99DF-37CC9814533B90D7 (Discovered via http://science.slashdot.org/science/07/10/08/0340229.shtml this morning) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveBaker (talk • contribs) 11:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)