I was asking myself what exactly is a psychic detective and I came across this interesting person with all these testimonials:
http://noreenrenier.com/testimonials.htm

**Note the testimonial at the very bottom:
"Your presentation on right brain processes as they relate to psychic ability and awareness was germane to our topic of left-brain/right-brain activities, and your discussion and demonstrations contributed to the participants' overall understanding and appreciate of WHOLE-BRAIN processes."

So how do you boost right brain activities? Here's one way and it makes me wonder if a left brain dominance tendency can detract from faith:

http://ezinearticles.com/?Brain-Exer...ion&id=1347858

Now before anyone points out that the brain uses all parts. I already know that but I'm wondering if a subtle brain emphasis or network processing of the brain is a component in how we individually perceive and weigh faith type evidence. Doesn't the fact that certain personality types or people from certain disciplinary backgrounds become believers more often show that there could be a connection to the way our minds work?

Btw this is a discussion thread not a debate thread. I'm more interested in angles than someone proving something.

Another interesting article on precognition for those inclined to explore:

http://www.uberpsychic.com/articles/...-precognition/

Some spooky psychic stories:
http://noreenrenier.com/media/articl...cementmag.html

[x] meaningless term

Intentionally vague because there's a very broad spectrum of what constitutes evidence even if that spectrum doesn't meet a skeptic's requirements.

What is this crap? Faith isn't a wierd brain function or anything paranomal.
Faith isn't anything remarkable or special or hocus pocus nonsense.

Faith is simple, your best friend says I need to borrow some money... You don't need to know what it is for or any writen documentation of the transaction because you trust you friend. You have faith, that the reason for the request is justified without knowing what it is for and you believe in his/her charactor so you don't need to make sure you got the transaction locked down legally cause you have no worries about being cheated.

its not vague, its contradictory. faith is belief without evidence. so faith based evidence is basically "lacking-evidence evidence." which is meaningless.

this is kind of a bad analogy of faith, since there can be good logical reasons to trust your friend. (past experiences, things you have heard about him from other people, body language while asking for $, etc etc.)

there are no logical reasons to believe in god.

This is not really true. Faith is belief without a 100% certainty. Which could include having no evidence, but does not exclude belief with evidence.

lol. absurd

If you use this definition, "faith" is a meaningless term because nothing in this universe (with the exception of mathematical proof) is 100% certain.

I actually agree. However, "There are no logical reasons to believe in [The Christian God/Allah/Yahweh/Krishna/etc.]" (e.g. a specific god) isn't so absurd.

Negative it is exactly how it is, and i glad you brought this up to point out.


Nobody has seen god, everyone know Jesus did exisit.. Jesus claimed he who has seem me has seen the father.. Christians trust jesus claims about God's existances and his attributes. Other people don't truest Jesus and think he was a scam artist. Christain faith comes done to exactly the same way you may or may not truest a friend that you have... basid on good logical reasons.

This is a very good explanation of faith. I agree faith ='s trust.

I just think sometimes certain people have an easier time experiencing faith than others. Also some people in certain disciplines are apt to have a greater struggle in maintaining or increasing it. Francis Collins is a perfect example. He talks about it in his book. A lot of people go through extended struggles before believing.

Incidentally, there's no such thing as "left-brain dominance."

Well dominance is probably a bad choice then. How about a left brain bias.

I see a lot of science types applying logic not being able to make it all fit so they wear themselves out then give up. They probably never even go right brain function at all here.

give me one

And a lot of people go through extened struggles before deciding not to believe.

Ok, so if you're "left brained" and therefore highly rational, you are less able than "right brained" people to believe in something through faith alone.

What's your point? Just like your (well, Peck's) argument about a "spiritual gene", it does nothing to suggest the existence of a God or imply that faith is reasonable.

My point is there could be a brain processing issue. Right brain will tend more toward the gestalt and faith is a gestalt type of conclusion based on an amalgamation of evidence.

Left brain is linear and problem solving and can tend to dominate the right brain. I wonder if a tendency to overvalue left brain conclusions leads one to dismiss or not make extended faith based amalgamations.

Meaning certain people network their way to faith while others linearly dismiss faith because linear thinking narrows and dismisses outlines, edges, spaces and relationships.

The spiritual gene is Hamer's not Peck's. Peck is a psychiatrist not a geneticist.

oh theres a brain processing issue alright

lawl

Actually the whole brain contributes to a lack of faith.

Uh oh. Someone's reading and linking again.

Does one really need to read any further?

Can anyone resist?

Yes the brain can cause thoughts. Left/right are rather meaningless terms - people are not perfect equals in where their brain functions are localized.

I'll just post a theological version instead: Could lack of god contribute to atheism?