Science in Society

Login

Username

Password

Your login is case sensitive

Forgotten your
password?

Subscriber? Register
now!

Subscribe
now

Institutional
Subscribers

Athens login

close

Home

News

In-Depth
Articles

Blog

Opinion

Video

Topic Guides

Last Word

E-Newsletter

Jobs

Subscribe

SPACE

TECH

ENVIRONMENT

HEALTH

LIFE

PHYSICS&MATH

SCIENCE
IN SOCIETY

Home |Science in
Society |Life | News

Religion alters visual perception

17:50 14 November 2008 by Ewen
Callaway

For similar stories, visit the The Human Brain
Topic Guide

It might be clichéd to say that religious people see the world differently,
but new research finds that Dutch Calvinists notice embedded visual patterns
quicker than their atheist compatriots.

Culture has long been known to distort visual perception, says Bernhard Hommel, a
psychologist at Leiden University in the Netherlands who led the new study.

For example, one previous experiment found that Asians
tend to dart their eyes around a photograph, while North Americans fix on
specific people.

To see if religious differences might skew perception, Hommel's team tested
40 Dutch atheist and Calvinist university students, who, religion aside, had similar
cultural backgrounds.

Looking inwards

On a computer screen, Hommel's team showed participants a large triangle or
square made of either smaller triangles or squares. The volunteers had to focus
on either the big object or its component shapes, and indicate whether they were
square or triangular.

Both groups recognised the large shapes more quickly than small, embedded
ones, but the Calvinists picked out the smaller shapes 30 milliseconds faster
than atheists, on average - a small, but significant, difference.

This could reflect a greater focus on self than external distractions for
Calvinists, says Hommel.

He suggests it may even be a cognitive
consequence of their religion and speculates that Calvinists might be more
inward looking than atheists because they have lived their whole lives with an
emphasis on minding their own business.

In the future, Hommel plans to give the same test to Catholics, as well as
Muslims and Jews, but he must first figure out how to eliminate other cultural
differences that could mask any insights. "It doesn't make any sense to compare
Iranian Muslims with Dutch atheists," he says.

"This is a thought-provoking study," says Ara Norenzayan, a
psychologist at the University of British Columbia. "Their finding is consistent
with the literature on cross-cultural cognition - that cultural traditions
involving independent view of the self, such as Calvinism, encourage a more
feature-based processing style."

Journal reference: PLoS ONE (DOI: 10.371/journal.pone.003679.t001)

If you would like to reuse any content from New
Scientist, either in print or online, please contact
the syndication department first for permission. New Scientist does not
own rights to photos, but there are a variety of licensing
options available for use of articles and graphics we own the copyright
to.

Have your say

Comment
title

Your
name

Email

Comment

read all 35
comments

Comments 1 | 2
| 3
| 4
| 5
| 6

What?

Fri Nov 14 18:47:18 GMT 2008 by
Mjc

Or maybe the atheists aren't trying to find meaning in a meaningless
triangle...

reply report this comment

What?

Fri Nov 14 19:11:44 GMT 2008 by
Adrian

Have they allowed for cause-and-effect here? Maybe religion doesn't make you
better at pattern recognition. It could be that people with enhanced pattern
recognition are more likely to be
religious

reply report this comment

What?

Fri Nov 14 19:34:18 GMT 2008 by Ewen
Callaway

That's a possibility, but the author's argue that people tend to join
religious groups well before these perceptual biases form. It would have been
interesting if they had compared people who had been Calvinists from birth with
those who converted later in life.

Thanks for reading.

reply report this comment

What?

Fri Nov 14 20:17:54 GMT 2008 by
Ebw

First of all how can you be born into a religion...don't you mean raised to
be a part of a religion. A person isn't born a Calvinist just like I am not born
a Baptist.

reply report this comment

1 more reply

What?

Sun Nov 16 18:07:17 GMT 2008 by Current
User

Maybe it's more like before the perceptual biases manifest....

reply report this comment

What?

Fri Nov 14 20:30:10 GMT 2008 by
Ebw

You know that is akin to saying that it is caused by something physiological
like a brain abnormality...which is
rediculous.

reply report this comment

What?

Sat Nov 15 01:44:58 GMT 2008 by
Mylefthand

Its not the least bit ridiculous. Many of the smartest people are smart
because of their brain abnormality. Thinking differently from others allows one
to see the world in a new light. I cant imagine i would be half as creative
without my synesthesia.

As far as the religious argument goes it actually
makes plenty of sense that atheists have different types of brain activity.
Without trying to pick a fight (im an atheist and cant imagine how people can be
anything different), atheists are much more prone to looking at the facts and
saying something doesnt add up. Religious people are probably much more likely
to be in touch with a spiritual side or have feelings of insignificance without
a higher being or whatever makes people religious (again i have no idea how
people can over look the argument from evil, the mysterious absence of god in
times of need, or the cornucopia of other gods humans have thought up...i just
assume you guys have your reasons).

Is it unreasonable to assume that
people who rely on different parts of their brain respond differently to the
same psychological testing? the difference between men and women neurologically
speaking is only a small portion of the brain, but it dramatically affects our
thinking. Therefore it is perfectly possible that the same might be true of
other portions of the brain as well. Such conclusions should not be left out and
there is no need to assume it has anything to do with a brain abnormality

reply report this comment

3 more replies

view thread

What?

Fri Nov 14 21:10:51 GMT 2008 by
Polemos

Science is based on analysis. Religion (from Latin "religare"--"to bind
together") is based on synthesis. No wonder that religious persons have a more
vivid imagination. The brain of a religious person is an "analog quantum
computer." The brain of a scientist is a "digital classical computer"--such a
creature has a mathematical apparatus instead of imagination and is,
essentially, a walking dead.

reply report this comment

What?

Fri Nov 14 21:25:03 GMT 2008 by Hb

Uhhh.... So a good novel has never been written by an atheist?

I think
a more accurate way to put it is that religeous people have less of a grip on
where the imaginiaiton ends and reality begins...

reply report this comment

What?

Fri Nov 14 22:40:26 GMT 2008 by
Polemos

This comment has been found to be in breach of our terms of use and has been
removed.

reply report this comment

10 more replies

What?

Mon Nov 17 07:12:29 GMT 2008 by
Polemos

Technical progress is the progress in the analysis (decomposition) of Nature
(which is united into an indivisible whole by its virtual "factor of
wholeness"--God). But the "progressors" themselves are part of Nature. That is
why technical progress is paid for by their own spiritual degradation and
eventual ruin:

"The mind of this country, taught to aim at low objects,
eats upon itself." Ralph Waldo Emerson, 1837)

"These were people who no
longer felt comfortable, or even ontologically present in the world, unless
engines of some kind were ringing in their ears. Their assault on the landscape
of America completed the destruction that suburbia had left unfinished. And as
the cheap oil, which made the whole exercise possible, fades into history with
the global oil production peak upon us, America was reduced to a nation of
tattooed, overfed clowns in paramilitary drag, pretending to be powerful and
good." ("The Twilight of Mechanized Lumpenleisure" by James Howard Kunstler)

reply report this comment

What?

Mon Nov 17 15:19:47 GMT 2008 by
Polemos

The narratives of an atheist are, as a rule, absurdistic--there is no
Providence and no Divine Plan.

***

theatre of the
absurd

drama in which normal conventions and dramatic structure are
ignored or modified in order to present life as irrational or
meaningless

(Collins English Dictionary)

***

An atheistic
mind is analytical. Analysis ~ Decomposition. That is why atheists are decadents
and absurdists.

An atheist is a portion of God which does not believe in
God's existence. Atheism is spiritual cancer (like atheists defy God, cancerous
cells defy the organism's morphogenetic
field).

reply report this comment

3 more replies

What?

Sat Nov 15 16:19:04 GMT 2008 by
Anonymous

Allow me summarize Polemos' Penetrating Perspicuity in three simple
words:

bark! bark! bark!

reply report this comment

What?

Sat Nov 15 17:31:54 GMT 2008 by
Polemos

Scat, mangy pooch!

reply report this comment

1 more reply

What?

Sat Nov 15 23:33:47 GMT 2008 by
Anonymous

The arfs have it!

Someone give that pooch a biscuit.

reply report this comment

What?

Sun Nov 16 18:21:23 GMT 2008 by
Two9able

'Deerest' Polemic,

You are not.

Religare- to bind together or
to bind fast. Ever read up on slavery?

Analysis ~
Decomposition?

Perhaps analysis means to dissolve or release (from
religious fetters?)

No men are created; no dictionaries are created
equal.

*theater of the absurd n.

A form of drama that emphasizes
the absurdity of human existence by employing disjointed, repetitious, and
meaningless dialogue, purposeless and confusing situations, and plots that lack
realistic or logical development.

*The American HeritageÃÂ® Dictionary
of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Copyright ÃÂ© 2002, 2000 by Houghton
Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

reply report this comment

What?

Mon Nov 17 18:31:37 GMT 2008 by Me

Like Umberto Eco once said: when you stop believing in god it isn't that you
then beliieve in nothing, you believe in everything.

Umbert Eco is a
highly creative man. I personally love his books. He was an atheist

Isaac
Asimov: I don't have the evidence to proof that god doesnt exist but I so
strongly suspect he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time. Again a highly
creative man., One of the best SF writers ever.

These are just 2 of my
favourite writers, I can make a whole list of atheist who were highly
creative.(like Einstein for example.)

C.S lewis, outspoken christian in
his books. If you have read them then you realise something is
missing,

If I had to call any of the 3 authors above a 'walking dead' CS
lewis would have to be it, because something is not quite right with his books.
It's too narrow in imagination.

These are of course my own personal
opinions, and I do like your comparison to computers but I'd have to
disagree

I'd say the believer is the walking dead, the classical digital
computer, the atheist is the analog quantum computer. Why? because he is ready
and open for anything.

As to why the calvinists noticed some embedded
images quicker? who knows, but creativity hasn't got anything to do with it.
Definitely worth further study. And as the article mentions, definitely worth it
to study the difference between religious groups.

reply report this comment

What?

Mon Nov 17 19:41:20 GMT 2008 by Jason
D

"I can make a whole list of atheist who were highly creative.(like Einstein
for example.)"

not much of a list, Einstein was far from being an
atheist. If I knew the link I'd redirect you to a speech by him that proves
it.

reply report this comment

4 more replies

What?

Mon Nov 17 21:35:10 GMT 2008 by
Polemos

I am not interested in archaic religions.

I simply believe that real
fields propagating not faster than the speed of light are preceded by virtual
potentials which act instantly. Modern physics considers vacuum to be a
superfluid (a single instantly interconnected whole). That is enough to be
religious.

"Born of a single quantum event, the Universe is at some basic
level a single interconnected quantum system. There are no truly independent
pieces of this system and therefore no random and uncontrollable interactions to
impose a classical solidity on the quantum maelstrom. Once a quantum system,
always a quantum system."

"The rest is history" New Scientist ((long URL - click here) )

Try reading Teilhard de
Chardin and David Bohm.

reply report this comment

What?

Tue Nov 18 01:05:44 GMT 2008 by
Anonymous

PART 1:

Uh, Jason D? Allow me to assist you in your search for a
non-existent proof:

"The most beautiful experience we can have is the
mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art
and true science. Whoever does not know it and can no longer wonder, no longer
marvel, is as good as dead, and his eyes are dimmed. It was the experience of
mysteryÃ¢â¬â even if mixed with fear Ã¢â¬â that engendered religion. A
knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, our perceptions of
the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty, which only in their most
primitive forms are accessible to our minds Ã¢â¬â it is this knowledge and
this emotion that constitute true religiosity; in this sense, and in this alone,
I am a deeply religious man."

[Albert Einstein,The World as I See
It]

But this quotation so commonly and assiduously utilized by religious
adherents as Einstein's expressed advocacy of religion is ripped completely out
of context:

Mystery engendered religion: OBVIOUSLY. What ELSE is going to
do that? Already-present knowledge? Doubt?

The acquisition of knowledge
obtained by SCIENTIFIC MEANS - the re-emphasis in this one paragraph that is not
within the frame of context of the rest of his exposition - of the existence of
things which we cannot personally witness or obtain by our ordinary physical
senses, that which is obtained by the "profoundest reason and the most radiant
beauty" OF the scientific method...

"This knowledge" (from SCIENCE!!!)
and "this emotion" (that accrues from SCIENCE!!!) "constitutes true
religiosity"; "in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious
man."

In other words, Einstein is saying that if you are going to be
moved to speechless wonderment, nobody (who doesn't harbor the conceit that they
are divinely chosen, anyway) can possibly do better than to adopt science as a
framework for acquiring knowledge and an accurate conception of how the world
and nature actually works. Since science always defers to nature and nature
alone (imaginary creators of it notwithsatnding), that method is our only
worthwhile recourse or, as Einstein suggests, our only available avenue to "true
religiosity".

But just in case you doubt any of this, a trick I have
often found remarkable in those so thoroughly practiced in credulity, and if you
don't mind terribly, let the man further speak for himself by providing you a
highly abbreviated sampling:

---

"If this being is omnipotent,
then every occurrence, including every human action, every human thought, and
every human feeling and aspiration is also His work; how is it possible to think
of holding men responsible for their deeds and thoughts before such an almighty
Being? In giving out punishment and rewards He would to a certain extent be
passing judgment on Himself. How can this be combined with the goodness and
righteousness ascribed to Him?"

[Albert Einstein, Out of My Later Years
(New York: Philosophical Library, 1950), p. 27.]

-

"A human being
is part of a whole, called by us the "Universe," a part limited in time and
space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings, as something separated
from the restÃ¢â¬âa kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This
delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and
to affection for a few persons nearest us. Our task must be to free ourselves
from this prison by widening our circles of compassion to embrace all living
creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty."

[Albert
Einstein]

-

"The minority, the ruling class at present, has the
schools and press, usually the Church as well, under its thumb. This enables it
to organize and sway the emotions of the masses, and make its tool of
them.Ã¢â¬Â

Albert Einstein (in a letter to Sigmund Freud 7/30/1932.
1879-1955)

[End of Part 1]

reply report this comment

1 more reply

What?

Tue Nov 18 01:09:39 GMT 2008 by
Anonymous

Part 2 (Continued):

"The more a man is imbued with the ordered
regularity of all events the firmer become his conviction that there is no room
left by the side of this ordered regularity for causes of a different nature.
For him neither the rule of human nor the rule of divine will exists as an
independent cause of natural events. To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God
interfering with natural events could never be refuted, in the real sense, by
science, for this doctrine can always take refuge in those domains in which
scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot. But I am convinced that
such behavior on the part of representatives of religion would not only be
unworthy but also fatal. For a doctrine which is to maintain itself not in clear
light but only in the dark, will of necessity lose its effect on mankind, with
incalculable harm to human progress. In their struggle for the ethical good,
teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal
God, that is, give up that source of fear and hope which in the past placed such
vast power in the hands of priests. In their labors they will have to avail
themselves of those forces which are capable of cultivating the Good, the True,
and the Beautiful in humanity itself. This is, to be sure a more difficult but
an incomparably more worthy taskÃ¢â¬Â¦"

[Albert Einstein, "Science,
Philosophy, and Religion, A Symposium", published by the Conference on Science,
Philosophy and Religion in Their Relation to the Democratic Way of Life, Inc.,
New York, 1941]

-

"A man's ethical behavior should be based
effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties. No religious basis is
necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear
of punishment and hope of reward after death."

Albert
Einstein

-

"The mystical trend of our time, which shows itself
particularly in the rampant growth of the so-called Theosophy and Spiritualism,
is for me no more than a symptom of weakness and confusion. Since our inner
experiences consist of reproductions, and combinations of sensory impressions,
the concept of a soul without a body seem to me to be empty and devoid of
meaning."

[Albert Einstein]

-

"It was, of course, a lie
what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being
systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never
denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be
called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the
world so far as our science can reveal it."

[Albert Einstein, 1954, from
"Albert Einstein: The Human Side", edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman,
Princeton University Press]

---

'Nuff said. Still think Einstein
is "far from being an atheist"?

But always remember: it's not very nice
to take what people say out of context and to twist it in order to support one's
argument. It is called bearing false witness on one's neighbor. Go forth and sin
no more.

reply report this comment

What?

Tue Nov 18 01:20:14 GMT 2008 by
Anonymous

Part 2 (Continued):

"The more a man is imbued with the ordered
regularity of all events the firmer become his conviction that there is no room
left by the side of this ordered regularity for causes of a different nature.
For him neither the rule of human nor the rule of divine will exists as an
independent cause of natural events. To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God
interfering with natural events could never be refuted, in the real sense, by
science, for this doctrine can always take refuge in those domains in which
scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot. But I am convinced that
such behavior on the part of representatives of religion would not only be
unworthy but also fatal. For a doctrine which is to maintain itself not in clear
light but only in the dark, will of necessity lose its effect on mankind, with
incalculable harm to human progress. In their struggle for the ethical good,
teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal
God, that is, give up that source of fear and hope which in the past placed such
vast power in the hands of priests. In their labors they will have to avail
themselves of those forces which are capable of cultivating the Good, the True,
and the Beautiful in humanity itself. This is, to be sure a more difficult but
an incomparably more worthy taskÃ¢â¬Â¦"

[Albert Einstein, "Science,
Philosophy, and Religion, A Symposium", published by the Conference on Science,
Philosophy and Religion in Their Relation to the Democratic Way of Life, Inc.,
New York, 1941]

-

"A man's ethical behavior should be based
effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties. No religious basis is
necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear
of punishment and hope of reward after death."

Albert
Einstein

-

"The mystical trend of our time, which shows itself
particularly in the rampant growth of the so-called Theosophy and Spiritualism,
is for me no more than a symptom of weakness and confusion. Since our inner
experiences consist of reproductions, and combinations of sensory impressions,
the concept of a soul without a body seem to me to be empty and devoid of
meaning."

[Albert Einstein]

-

"It was, of course, a lie
what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being
systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never
denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be
called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the
world so far as our science can reveal it."

[Albert Einstein, 1954, from
"Albert Einstein: The Human Side", edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman,
Princeton University Press]

---

'Nuff said. Still think Einstein
is "far from being an atheist"?

But always remember: it's not very nice
to take what people say out of context and to twist it in order to support one's
argument. It is called bearing false witness on one's neighbor. Go forth and sin
no more.

reply report this comment

What?

Tue Nov 18 01:31:44 GMT 2008 by
Anonymous

ZOUNDS, I apologize for the double-post on the second part of what I wanted
to say. I struggled with an apparent (and evidently undisclosed) word limit, and
saw no feedback, even after refreshing several times, so I went ahead and posted
again thinking it didn't get through. Could New Scientist let us know what the
word limit might be (if there is one) or provide commenters with a word-census
so as to avoid this kind of tedious
gymnastic?

reply report this comment

1 more reply

What?

Tue Nov 18 06:58:19 GMT 2008 by
Polemos

I mean a positivistic scientist is a walking dead. I admire idealistic
scientists, such as Max Planck:

"All matter originates and exists only by
virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a
conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter." (Max
Planck)

reply report this comment

view thread

What?

Sat Nov 15 15:12:20 GMT 2008 by
Anonymous

It must be a sign, I tells ya! 8I

reply report this comment

view thread

Atheist=blind !

Fri Nov 14 19:25:02 GMT 2008 by Russell
Moran

And New Scientist continues down the path of publishing pseudoscience-
apparently the editors don't know the difference!

reply report this comment

Atheist=blind !

Sat Nov 15 15:18:50 GMT 2008 by
Anonymous

Atheist=blind?

You mean like justice, looking at all the evidence
dispassionately, objectively, and above all, honestly?

You may have a
point there. A very very small and obvious one, but a point.

reply report this comment

view thread

Well. . . . duh

Fri Nov 14 19:40:37 GMT 2008 by
Ebw

Well of course having religion can make you see more. When you take a look at
atheists they are so busy disputing anything that their mind is engineered to
refute everything before actually seing it

reply report this comment

Well. . . . Duh

Fri Nov 14 20:42:42 GMT 2008 by
Mike

Or maybe it's just the fact that atheists actually think through an action
before following blindly :)

reply report this comment

Well. . . . Duh

Fri Nov 14 20:52:01 GMT 2008 by
Ebw

No, they think and then they follow

reply report this comment

Well. . . . Duh

Fri Nov 14 20:57:24 GMT 2008 by
Mike

I'm pretty sure that is what I just said...Think first, then act. Not act
first, then realize I'm following a 2,000 year old figment of someone's
imagination.

reply report this comment

1 more reply

Well. . . . Duh

Fri Nov 14 20:57:54 GMT 2008 by
Ebw

No, they think and then they follow...no drinking of koolaid involved
;-)

By your post I take it you are refuting me?

reply report this comment

Well. . . . Duh

Fri Nov 14 21:09:34 GMT 2008 by
Mike

Just trying to stir up some arguments :) Two hours of work
left...

But, I still cannot agree with your statements. I think, but I
don't follow. That's how wars are started
:)

reply report this comment

1 more reply

view thread

Well. . . . Duh

Sat Nov 15 15:49:36 GMT 2008 by
Anonymous

Ebw says, "Well of course having religion can make you see more."

So
does schizophrenia.

You know, there is virtue, integrity, and honor as
well as practical advantage in not seeing things that are, in fact, not
there.

-

"I respect faith, but doubt is what gives you an
education."

[Wilson Mizner]

-

"If 50 million people believe
a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."

[Anatole
France]

-

"Theology is never any help; it is searching in a dark
cellar at midnight for a black cat that isn't there."

[Robert A.
Heinlein]

-

"The doubter is the safe man; the man who can be
depended upon. He does not build upon a foundation of guesswork, and the
structure he erects will stand. Let us not fear doubt, but rather fear to have
falsehood passed for truth."

[Lemuel K.
Washburn]

-

"Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists
have certainty without any proof"

[Ashley
Montague]

-

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary
evidence."

[Carl Sagan]

-

reply report this comment

Well. . . . Duh

Sun Nov 16 16:43:48 GMT 2008 by
Todd

This comment has been found to be in breach of our terms of use and has been
removed.

reply report this comment

Well. . . . Duh

Mon Nov 17 13:26:30 GMT 2008 by
Ebw

With all due respect. Schizophrenia is seeing something is not there and the
study was concerning subjects seeing objects that are there and reporting in as
fast a time as possible what they see. Just because the subjects that happened
to see the sum of all the parts in a quicker time happened to be people of
religion does not make Christianity anything like schizoohrenia. My case is that
people of religion, when praying, exercise parts of the brain that are not used
by people that do not pray. If there can be differences in the that then there
can also be differences in visual accuity when studying objects and their
parts.

Also, your list of quotes was lengthy and I am sure they seem to
make you look smart, but it really has nothing to do with the study and just
shows how desperate you are.

reply report this comment

Well. . . . Duh

Mon Nov 17 23:21:09 GMT 2008 by
Anonymous

Pardon me, but your ingenuous and clumsy attempt at misdirection doesn't
alter the fact that my response was aimed at your words, not any of those in the
article. YOU said, "Well of course having religion can make you see
more."

I repeat: "So does schizophrenia."

I do concur with you
that victims afflicted with that heinous condition tend to see things that
aren't there. Based on what those afflicted with religious "faith" constantly
profess and report, they apparently do too. However, there is a subtle
difference: the vast majority of them don't actually "see" what isn't there,
they simply assign significance to whatever patterns they DO so swiftly discern
as evidence, however thin, in favor of the existence of those particular
invisible things that are featured in their preconceptions.

Whether it is
seeing things that aren't there, or thinking things that aren't there, it is
abundantly obvious faith must fashion a very powerful and resilient frame of
mind.

But at least schizophrenics have a decent, honorable and, above
all, real excuse.

It is fascinating how readily you add the claim that a
quicker response time is equivalent to more quickly being able to apprehend "the
sum of the parts". Claim-jumping must be another example of that extra-quick
pattern-recognition facility no doubt? Paradolia happens to be an aptitude of
all humans everywhere.

Your "case" that prayer "exercise[s] parts of the
brain that are not used by people that do not pray" is stunning. Pray, tell us
more about this astonishing theory! Which parts of the brain do you propose are
exercised by prayer that are not similarly exercised by everyone else who
practices deliberative thought throughout their day that goes by a host of other
names, from abstraction to zig-zagging lunacy? Show us the data, if you would be
so kind. Some people are not as effectively persuaded by mere say-so or
faith.

You hazard the additional hypothesis that visual acuity may be
enhanced by prayer. How fascinating. I HAVE heard that the adherents of any
particular religion often tend to regard everyone else (including the adherents
of other religions) as "blind", but I have to wonder if that idea stretches the
truth somewhat. Maybe it's just me. I'm quite blind as a bat, you
know.

No, my "lengthy" list of quotations wasn't offered to make me look
smart. If anything, the remarks of these great gentlemen make me look
dull-witted and ineffective: I thought to summon their assistance. It was humbly
offered to show you and people like you what smart people's thoughts look
like.

Sure enough, it has "nothing to do with the study", but I wasn't
aiming my comments at the study now, was I? My comments WERE AIMED AT WHAT YOU
SAID. Get it?

Now, I may be a tad bit blind, but I can see well enough
that my "desperation" is not anywhere nearly as ludicrously monumental as your
insecurity.

You may wish to pray on that shortcoming a tad, but I
wouldn't hold my breath over the expectation of any results...unless perhaps
while praying you somehow hit the jackpot and summon the fortitude to challenge
the convictions you currently hold so imperviously dear.

reply report this comment

view thread

read all 35
comments

Comments 1 | 2
| 3
| 4
| 5
| 6

All comments should respect the New Scientist House Rules. If
you think a particular comment breaks these rules then please use the "Report"
link in that comment to report it to us.

If you are having a technical problem posting a comment, please contact
technical support.

PRINT

SEND

People of different religions have different perspectives on
life, but do they also have different visual perceptions? (Image: abcdz2000,
stock.xchng)

ADVERTISEMENT

More

Latest
news

Why
Europe should build its own crewed space vehicle

10:13 19 November 2008

How can the International Space Station live up to its name if a major
contributor doesn't have the means to get there, asks Piers
Bizony

Gulf
war syndrome is real, says US report

14:35 18 November 2008

A committee of scientists set up by the Department of Veterans Affairs has
concluded that the syndrome is not a psychological disorder

Six
ways to build robots that do humans no harm

14:24 18 November 2008

Can we teach robots right from wrong? In this special feature, two experts
give New Scientist their tips on how to make smart technologies
safe

Cash
prizes offered for patent-busting evidence

17:42 17 November 2008

A million dollars in prizes is offered to people that can find "prior art" to
show some of the world's most valuable patents are not original

see all related
stories

More

Latest news

Glowing
anemone yields 'light switch' protein

14:30 19 November 2008

An anemone that only glows under certain wavelengths could reveal living
cells in unprecedented detail – plus see a gallery of
images

Invention:
Diamond dialysis implant

13:43 19 November 2008

Combining physical filters with electric fields to prevent clogging makes for
an artificial kidney small enough to implant in the body, a patent application
says

Real-life
'gremlin' rediscovered in the wild

11:42 19 November 2008

The pygmy tarsier, a tiny primate that has not been seen alive since 1921 and
was thought extinct, has been found alive on a mountaintop in Indonesia

Personalised
cancer treatment on the way

10:25 19 November 2008

A genetic signature that predicts whether a variety of cancers will respond
to the most common treatments could guide doctors to the best
therapy

see all latest
news

Most read

Most
commented

Prophesy
of economic collapse 'coming true'

Tunnelling
nanotubes: Life's secret network

Invention:
Healing accelerator

Digital
images contain their maker's mark

Ancient
grave reveals 'Flintstone' nuclear family

Most
read

Most commented

Prophesy
of economic collapse 'coming true'

Religion
alters visual perception

Ancient
grave reveals 'Flintstone' nuclear family

Six
ways to build robots that do humans no harm

More
evidence points to past oceans on Mars

This week's
issue

Subscribe

For exclusive news and expert analysis every week subscribe to
New Scientist print Edition

Current issue

Archive

Full Access

15
November 2008

ADVERTISEMENT

Partners

We are partnered with Approved Index. Visit the site to get free quotes from
website designers and a range of web, IT and marketing services in
the UK.

Back
to top

Login for full access

Login

Username

Password

Your login is case sensitive

Forgotten your
password?

Subscriber? Register
now!

Subscribe
now

Institutional
Subscribers

Athens login

close

About us

New
Scientist

Advertise

Syndication

Who's who

RBI Jobs

User Help

Contact Us

FAQ / Help

Disclaimer

Ts & Cs

Cookies

Privacy
Policy

Subscriptions

Subscribe

Renew

Gift subscription

My
account

Back issues

Customer Service

Links

Site Map

Browse all articles

Magazine archive

NewScientistJobs

The LastWord

E-Newsletter

RSS Feeds

© Copyright Reed Business Information Ltd.