Author Topic: Science and spirituality  (Read 46610 times)

ProfessorDavey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17605
Re: Science and spirituality
« Reply #625 on: January 18, 2023, 05:12:20 PM »
Just a thought. Would atheist neuroscientists be acting correctly if they treated atheists as the control or the normal in their investigations into religion and supernatural phenomena?
If the research participants consented appropriately and the project received the correct ethical approval - then why not. I'm struggling to see the relevance of the notion that one arm of a research study are atheist in terms of acting correctly.

And why would it make any difference if the researcher was an atheist or not - provided the study was conducted professionally and ethically I cannot see the relevance of a belief in god or otherwise on the part of the researchers.

Walt Zingmatilder

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 33225
Re: Science and spirituality
« Reply #626 on: January 20, 2023, 09:15:18 AM »
If the research participants consented appropriately and the project received the correct ethical approval - then why not. I'm struggling to see the relevance of the notion that one arm of a research study are atheist in terms of acting correctly.

And why would it make any difference if the researcher was an atheist or not - provided the study was conducted professionally and ethically I cannot see the relevance of a belief in god or otherwise on the part of the researchers.
It should make no difference in a properly constituted scientific experiment. The problem comes with cultural bias eg.
the majority of people in a country are non religious....therefore that is considered the norm.


Nearly Sane

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 64356
Re: Science and spirituality
« Reply #627 on: January 20, 2023, 09:47:45 AM »
It should make no difference in a properly constituted scientific experiment. The problem comes with cultural bias eg.
the majority of people in a country are non religious....therefore that is considered the norm.
I think you are confusing something that is the most  common thing withnit being thought of as right. This is, ironically, not uncommon and means that the use of 'abnormal' causes issues since it now has a pejorative meaning.


You also appear confused about what a control group is. It's not about what's normal it's about having a group that does not have the variable you are testing.