I believe in God because I see God in everything that is beautiful out there. What other explaination can there be for the Earth and all the planets, stars, galazies, etc just hanging out there in space?
For me, believing in a Creator (God) I have everlasting life to gain. Not believing in God, I have everything to Loose. I'd rather set my heart on things above than things below. If there ends up being NO true benefit, I haven't wasted my time. TO live a positive, fun loving life is better than to waste the precious time we all have being sad, negative and rejecting the 'possibilities' of Everlasting Life....
but thats the way I think.... I'm not dissappointed in my choice to 'believe in God', the World is beautiful and I know Man couldn't have created it, cause all I see from 'mankind' in Missouri is how they love to litter the earth with their waste. I know there are people who just don't see the 'value' and perhaps they have 'lost their will to love life and the universe' –- but isn't it time for those people to get out of their RUTS and Get on with living. TO be happy is better than to be consumed with grief...
Excellent question George. Briefly, I feel like "religious" endeavors are attempts by people to sort out and grasp a whole range of concerns and interests - morals, ethics, emotions, life in general, life in specifics.
In contrast, I don't know that something like "absolute belief in a creator" as opposed to evolution, say, produces an increase in the quality of life I enjoy if it means that one cancels the other. In fact, when it comes to something like that I have to admit that to me it seems kind of distant. It isn't something that actually has an effect on me and the life I have to live today, and the things I have to deal with. Someone says the earth's 6,000 years old.....that doesn't make sense to me, but for that matter the idea of it being whatever - 2 1/2 billion years old doesn't have much traction with me either. I feel like a month's a long time, sometimes. While these things are of interest to me it's in a detached sort of way.
That's just one example but for me it's the same for a lot of things that some people would classify as important tenets of their "faith". I guess I'm willing to admit I don't know about certain things and if somebody says well this is what the bible teaches and you're screwed up if you don't believe that or vice versa you're a dimwit if you do - I have to seriously consider how important that topic is to me personally. My whole world won't fall apart tomorrow if certain things change or I find I've been wrong, I still have to get up and go and get with it.
As for my own "faith" and what I get from it, I may be an odd duck so I wont' speak for anyone else. I got into religion, "Christianity", like a lot of people, but I've stayed with it for my own very personal reasons. What I would call "faith" - a belief in things that aren't supported by physical evidence or things that haven't happened yet but I believe will - includes things that are supported by personal evidence. That personal stuff is the core of my belief system, and I've added to it over many years by my own practice, experience, study and learning. I do believe that there is a God who is functioning in a way that while I don't fully understand it, interacts and impacts my life. I've chosen to try and learn and practice Christ and His teachings and examples as recorded in the bible as a place to focus my efforts and my trust.
The net result shakes out to be-my life is better going that route than it was when I was going other routes. Better in some important ways - marriage, family, my own pursuits as an adult in work and recreation. My sense of who I am and the world I live in has expanded slowly but sure, in fits and starts, in the route I've chosen. What keeps me at it is that I have a deep sense and belief that there is a God and that this life is representative of a larger world that I'm learning about.
I like Thomas Jefferson and a lot of what he wrote and thought about specifically, Christianity. Although my conclusions are different than his at this point, he embraced the moral and ethical teachings of Jesus to be what he considered of the highest order. Although he 86'd the interpretation as Jesus as a savior, messiah, the son of God and all of that he felt that Christ's teachings were worthy of practice and adherence. How he lived and what he did attempted to represent his beliefs.
I would submit that God did reach man in the person of Christ Jesus. So what is man's response?
That would be my answer to George's question.
In my opinion, if one approaches religion, particularly "Christianity" with any other premise, then it is just another exercise in ego (and let me stress that this is strictly IMO and no offense to anybody who may not agree).
Bless your little cotton picking heart. I wonder at your endurance sometimes. Why do you even bother, I ask? What I don't understand from the linked article is just why America is so religious compared to the other advanced countries in the world. I've been guilty of assuming that religion calms down the masses.. is the opiate of the people. Makes teenage girls more apt to stay away from sex and all that. But.. it doesn't, I'm afraid. It just makes 'em feel more guilty after the fact.
Americans really like their religion. Wanna' know where there are more believers than anywhere else?? American prisons. From Black Muslims to Christians. Almost no agnostics nor atheists exists among our criminal classes. Thought you might want to know that on a thread wondering "Why religion?".
Wanna' know where there are more believers than anywhere else?? American prisons. From Black Muslims to Christians. Almost no agnostics nor atheists exists among our criminal classes. Thought you might want to know that on a thread wondering "Why religion?".
sudo
Sudo,
Of course, you are correct that there are more people professing a religion in prison than anywhere else. But you want to know someplace else? Basic training in the military. I can't speak for any of the other services, but the base chapel and the area immediately surrounding the chapel were absolutely off limits for the basic training staff (drill instructors, et al). Needless to say, (almost) EVERYBODY found religion on Sunday. Why? Because it was the one time during the week that you could relax and not have to worry about somebody busting on you for your uniform or some other petty reason.
Needless to say the vast majority of these very religious people who attended basic training seemed to lose their religion the minute they graduated from basic. I wonder how high a percentage of very devout prisoners are even slightly as devout when they get released from prison?
Has anybody glanced at the study I posted (other than Sudo)?
I'd be interested in the reactions of those with a religious mindset to the basic focus
of the study. I.E. that statistically the most relgious of countries do not exhibit greater
charity, humanity, love, or kindness than those that are less apt to embrace faith in an
invisible overlord. Quite the contrary, in fact.
I mean, this was published in the L.A. Times
and what was the reaction from all the devout followers of whoever? Crickets chirping...
Huh? Isn't one of the main selling points of religion that it will clean you all up, reform your bad habits, give you a reason for living, fill you with love, etc.? If someone comes along with evidence to refute all of that, wouldn't it rile you up a bit? I dunno...
Personally I came to the point, quite some time back, where I realized that religion (and the Bible specifically) didn't make anywhere near the sense that simple agnosticism did. I got so tired of the mental
gymnastics I had to do everyday to maintain my belief, and finally threw in the towel. Vengeful God committing mass genocide (quite frequently, BTW), talking mules (Francis anyone?), arks full of animals, miraculous healings, rabbits that chew their cud (they don't BTW), and all of the supposed "faithfulness" of The Almighty, but without a trace of actual evidence that any of it actually happened. Ever wonder why Almighty God, even though he claims to be "ALWAYS faithful" and a firm rock we can depend on, yada, yada, never does anything for you like he claims? Pray for the sick, they die, give of you abundance so you can continue to prosper, you go broke, depend on HIM for peace, peace of mind, harmony in the home, hell, any of the supposed goodies that a believer is supposed to be blessed with, and, when it doesn't happen, what do you get? A logical explanation? Hell no. You get spin control. "Well, it's by God's timetable", "You aren't walking in love", "We can't question the mind of God", and other such tripe.
Gawd damn, it's so much more logical - and "fits" so much better with reality - to view life as happening outside the purview of any loving, omnipotent creator. And so much easier on one's brain, not having to make what goes on in real life conform with the musings of an ancient and ignorant people.
I submit my original post. And yes I did look at the study and to be honest it swayed me none. But then I don't agree that God is the source of some things that religion itself attributes to Him.
I can't prove to you that had it not been for His presence I'd not be here today to tell you this but it's true and that's all I have.
The reason I didn't respond to the article is that it is not worth responding to. But, since you are insistent, here goes:
This article has so many liberal, atheistic, pseudo-scientific, oversimplifications in it as to be a joke. I wonder how in the world it got published in a peer-reviewed journal, even one as liberal as "Religion and Society."
Specifically,
- Western Europe is not the United States. Two different societies. The social climate there is different than it is here. The population density is different. The cultural background of the population is less diverse (of course, they fail to mention the rabid anti-Muslim and anti-Semetic feelings that are burdgeoning in Western Europe -- I've cited enough instances throughout the past in the 'tacks forum to preclude, hopefully, any need to cite them here). But even in saying "Europe" they err. They only state "Europe" when they, in fact, mean "Western Europe." They do not consider relatively religious nations, such as Poland, in their study. Europe stops at the Elbe river, I guess in their mindset. So we have an apples to oranges comparison going on here.
- They are using a univariate study when it is perfectly obvious that the correlation should be a multivariate one. Why? Because there are multiple variables that can cause the effects (homicides, STDs, teen pregnancies, etc.) that they cite as the proof of their thesis. But a multivariate study might not produce such a clear correlation as the one they are trying to support.
- They did not perform a time-series analysis on any of these effects, in an effort to identify key events. One would assume that it is always the way it is now (except for a fleeting and anecdotal attack at the old days, an attack not supported by any statistical fact). This time series analysis, particularly if done on multiple variables, would have been particularly interesting for the United States: specifically to observe if there is any correlation among church attendence in denominations versus a rise or fall in teen pregnancies, abortions, STDs, etc.
- They comfortably ignored data when it didn't fit: in their analysis of teen pregnancies, they should have noted the fact that the indigenous populations of the study areas are experiencing a net decline. (In other words, the population is not replacing itself). That fact was not once mentioned in this study, and, at least in my humble opinion, it is very pertinent.
George, this study is an insult. Not your fault: all fault lies squarely in the lap of the Journal's editorial board for allowing this type of article to be included.
Frankly, using the same methods and the same discipline that characterizes the work of these authors, I could defend a thesis that stated "firearm control laws are the cause of increased homicide rates." How, do you ask? I could simply do a per capita comparison of homicide rates in DC, LA, and NYC to those in select districts of Wyoming, Georgia, and Kansas.
So why, do you ask, did I not comment? My answer: why bother.
I think you're missing Geo's point by pointing out the shortcomings of the study. 'Ya know.. I have to agree with you on a lot of what you said, though I'm just not up to snuff on the multi-variate studies and the like. I was a chemistry major in college with minors in biology and psychology. Back then, psychology was almost recognized as a real science because behaviorism was in vogue. But sociology was universially ridiculed as a "science-wanna-be". I have to agree.. the "study" had an agenda to prove that was obvious from the abstract.
I look at these kinds of studies and try to pick and choose from the data. But, of course, we don't have access to the raw data but I don't REALLY care because what it boils down to is the study's saying that more religious nations don't have less anti-social behavior. How about doing a factor analysis if you want to know if religion really is a factor or not? These flawed studies are the type done by liberals to prove whether or not gun control methods reduce crime. You go to Sweden and see less muders per-capita and conclude its because they have more stringent gun control laws. Yeah, but Sweden has no minority underclass (of any significance) to deal with. Now they're trying the same thing only using religion. You just can't DO that statistically with any validity or reliablity.
But about missing Geo's point. I think it IS safe to conclude that religious people aren't any "more ethical" then the non-religious in several aspects. In fact, the religious are much more muderous, IMO. They love to kill those not of their faith. They'll even purposely kill themselves just to kill those of faiths they particularly dislike. My point was that prisons are filled with people of faith. Maybe that was the gist of Geo's point... getting religion doesn't make you a better person. It maybe even makes you more violent and less tolerant. But can't speak for Geo.
The religious affiliations of CDC inmates more or less match those of the general population. A study published in 1991 showed that 75 percent of all CDC inmates identified themselves as either Protestant or Catholic; 2 to 3 percent were Muslim; and Judaism and Native American spiritual traditions each represented about half of one percent of inmates. One in five inmates practiced another religion besides those five faiths or had no religious affiliation at all. A recent count at California State Prison, Solano, for example, showed that inmates there are actively affiliated with 12 different faiths.
Prisons in California don't have more religious people than anywhere else, sudo. Apparently they reflect society as a whole.
I'm curious now where you got the stats to support that statement.
Wanna' know where there are more believers than anywhere else?? American prisons. From Black Muslims to Christians. Almost no agnostics nor atheists exists among our criminal classes. Thought you might want to know that on a thread wondering "Why religion?".
The other thing that strikes me is that, when given an answer that one's faith DOES help them to be more at peace, a better person, more honest and ethical and more inclined to live a productive life, you don't want to accept it George. You're perfectly willing to point to history, studies and stats that support the idea that religion is either a waste of time at best or destructive at worst but seem unwilling to allow for an individual's opinion that for THEM their faith does them good in tangible demonstrable ways. If you won't allow for that simple reality I think you're only asking the question so that you can state the answer you already have committed to.
You can use your search engine of choice but here's one site I found right off. HERE! I didn't think it was going to be that controversial. And Socks.. I don't doubt that believers credit their faith to their being better people, more moral and stuff but Geo's point.. and I think its pretty well borne out is.. it just ain't the case.
I live in California and as you're aware I'm sure the whole prison system here as in many places is in the news, legislature, you name it, all the time. The stats from the CDC are available to the public and are reprinted on that site link from their newsletter. And there's always going to be some question about idly flung stats and numbers, especially those made on a site like that, on any side of the discussion. They're just numbers, quoted by someone, anyone, about places, people, times and events that would require more investigation. What they actually mean is another topic altogether. Is the criminal mind prone to religion? Does religion make criminals?
If we took it out of the religious realm and looked at other criteria, what points could we push?
So I guess it's "controversial" to question some of these links to pages that blow hard on this stuff but perfectly sensible to accept them if they bolster an opinion you already have? Or am I supposed to nod with furrowed brow as I deeply consider the seriousness of a page that talks about why Beer is better than Jesus and just accept it because of course all people of any faith are deluded, simple as that, of course, just listen to the good atheist and all will be better? I thought we were having a serious discussion here. My mistake. I'll leave the meaty stuff to the fart jokes, which are bound to be next.
But we're just batting flies here. Your statement that I can't be right when I say that my quality of life is improved by my faith and that no one else can be right including anyone I know, have known or will know speaks for itself and says it all, really.
I think you're missing Geo's point by pointing out the shortcomings of the study. 'Ya know.. I have to agree with you on a lot of what you said, though I'm just not up to snuff on the multi-variate studies and the like. I was a chemistry major in college with minors in biology and psychology. Back then, psychology was almost recognized as a real science because behaviorism was in vogue. But sociology was universially ridiculed as a "science-wanna-be". I have to agree.. the "study" had an agenda to prove that was obvious from the abstract.
I look at these kinds of studies and try to pick and choose from the data. But, of course, we don't have access to the raw data but I don't <B>REALLY</B> care because what it boils down to is the study's saying that more religious nations don't have less anti-social behavior. How about doing a factor analysis if you want to know if religion <I>really</I> is a factor or not? These flawed studies are the type done by liberals to prove whether or not gun control methods reduce crime. You go to Sweden and see less muders per-capita and conclude its because they have more stringent gun control laws. Yeah, but Sweden has no minority underclass (of any significance) to deal with. Now they're trying the same thing only using religion. You just can't DO that statistically with any validity or reliablity.
My point exactly. The multivariate study would also examine the political, economic systems, the degree of homogenity of the society, and would factor those incidents over time. For example, there were massive riots all over Paris today...massive destruction of property. But France is one of the societies most antagonistic toward religion in all of Europe!
But about missing Geo's point. I think it IS safe to conclude that religious people aren't any "more ethical" then the non-religious in several aspects. In fact, the religious are much more muderous, IMO. They love to kill those not of their faith. They'll even purposely kill themselves just to kill those of faiths they particularly dislike. My point was that prisons are filled with people of faith. Maybe that was the gist of Geo's point... getting religion doesn't make you a better person. It maybe even makes you more violent and less tolerant. But can't speak for Geo.
<center>sudo</center>
Maybe we're putting the cart before the horse here. Maybe religiousness is a response. And maybe there is a difference with the type of religion. For example, fundamentalists may have a higher degree of violence associated with them than non-fundamentalist religious people. I don't know and I'm not presupposing, but that would be of interest, as well.
But the point I'm driving at is that any study where religion and religion only is the measure is an irrelevant and, imo, invalid study. Religion is a component of the ethos of a society. It can be a principal component, but even then, a person is more than simply what religion they subscribe to. A valid study would be one that measures multiple demographically similar groups that reside in the same culture. Then measuring the effect of religion on individuals who are members of those study groups. Further, for a really valid measure, one would have to examine, using a neutral rubric, the stated doctrines of the religion(s) practiced by members of those groups -- to measure the official doctrine of that religious practice to determine the degree of violence, intolerance, or whatever anti-social characteristic officially endorsed by that group. And then to design an instrument to measure the degree of intellectual and practical adherence of the group member to the doctrine of the religion to which he says he subscribes.
Why? If a religion teaches intolerance as a part of its official teaching, then that's one thing. Measurement of cultural flaws that result from that teaching could be a valid factor of that teaching. However, if a religion teaches tolerance, but people who state they are a member of that religion, act intolerantly, and are not properly catechized into their religion, then the religion could be faulted for ineffective teaching, but not for the members' beliefs (who don't practice/understand the religion to which they claim membership).
Another issue: what about a religiously heterogenous society? Which belief system should be faulted with the negative characteristics of that society? (to include the agnostic component of that heterogenous society)
Sudo, I agree with you, as I said earlier, that prisons are filled with faith. So are ghettos. But is the faith the cause of the people who reside in both or is the faith an effect of people being in that situation? That's the point I'm trying to make.
Now having said all of the above, I would be intuitively inclined to agree with a thesis that is the exact inverse of the one proposed: "In a society where basic human needs are provided by the state and where the state's influence is pervasive in the bulk of that society's interactions to the end of easing life for the members of the society, the influence of religion will wane on the majority of members of that society."
THAT thesis could be supported and proven. THAT thesis would explain the differences in Western European societies versus American societies. THAT thesis would also allow provide an explanation for the increasing incidents of xenophobia that are emerging in Europe as the consequence of immigration brought on by Europe's decreasing indigenous populations.
FWIW. Of course, I'm sure that there are those who wouldn't see it that way.
Well, yeah, I made my mind up quite some time ago as regards religion.
Not to say that I'm completely closed off to the notion, but it'd take some
real PR work to get me back in the fold...
And, yes, I know that the study was seriously skewed, but just how is it that one
can quantify and categorize something as squishy as religious thought?
Anyway, the biggest issue for me is that religion is simply oversold. It's never said
that "Jesus will make your life somewhat more bearable, generally speaking!" or "You'll
find a modicum of comfort and escape by going to church!" No, it's always in the superlative:
"PEACE LIKE A RIVER!" "JOY LIKE A FOUNTAIN!" "THE PURPOSE DRIVEN LIFE!" etc.
It was never like that for me. Not ever. Not once. Just didn't happen.
I kinda got to feeling like back when I was a kid and everybody was dropping acid.
It was always "WOW! That was FAROUT!" "Man, that was the coolest trip ever!"
So I tried it - several times - and all I ever got was seriously freaked out. Never cool, never
farout, just really screwed up. Likewise with my forays into religion. Lots of (for me) empty promises
but damned little of the enlightenment I was promised. I just got really screwed up behind it all, trying
my damndest to make sense of the incomprehensible.
So, yeah, I've got a chip on my shoulder to a certain extent, and I don't much care who knows it. I don't care for religion.
But I'm still mystified at how the faithful can still be swayed. I really don't understand. I don't get it when
somebody becomes infatuated with astrology, Krishna Consciousness, Christianity, or alternative medicine.
After one has tasted the fruit, taken the test drive, and seen all the warts (is that enough analogies?) how do you keep coming back? Gawd, don't you ever just get tired of the same ol crap?
To me religion is an empty box. It holds nothing more than what one puts in it. If you're convinced you'll find fulfillment, purpose, love, joy, peace, I think maybe you will, at least to an extent. But as far as it changing your life, I've just never seen it, in my life or anyone else's. Good people remain so, as do the jerks. Maybe it's MY point of view?
I tried and can't find the answer. How many people go in non-Christian? Are there more men of faith because it's an easy out? I mean if 2 are now Christians and only 1 started that way it would make a difference I think. A difference only for this point but as to the bigger question....well Geo you know me fairly well now and I reckon you know I'm rather stuck on knowing someone bigger than myself is there for me no matter what. So I'll not chatter that subject to ya here probably anymore. But I would love to know the answer to the prison thing if anyone knew it.
Good points in the last post George. I agree that religion often promises the moon, and just doesn't deliver. Then the little follower can't admit that they didn't get the bang for their buck as advertised, so they promote the spirituality du jour as well.
While I still have my agnostic card, I do have religious beliefs and experiences, but I'm not setting my sights real high either. Nor am I so convinced about the objective truth of my experiences that I try to convince anyone else. Works just fine for me.
I've also given up on the idea that God, or goddess, or the "all" or whatever, is out there making decisions for me. earlier this year, after being passed over for a promotion, I was told "I guess the Universe didn't want you to have that job" - my reply, which has become my credo, was "Well, next time, the universe damned well better ask me!"
for what its worth…here is my quick ramble using some simple models…
According to many models of evolution, everything develops in a sequential manner, moving through stages, each structure building on a template of previous structures. Like going through preschool, kindergarten, 1st grade, 2nd grade, 3rd grade, etc... Stages cannot be skipped, though a greater cognitive reach may give better glimpses of other stages from “afar,” and any stage can be accessed as a temporary state (for any number of reasons, but typically causing as much confusion as good).
Now, as this pertains to the evolution of human understanding and behavior, these "grades" are like cultural and behavioral structures that spread more or less “memetically” and continue to evolve from there (even if this evolution happens within a stagnation or pathology…for example: where a “hitler structure” can simply get better and better at being and disseminating the improved “hitler structure”)
What we often call "religion" is usually referring to the "mythic membership" stage of evolution. This meme is typically marked by some sort of -theism, military patriarchies and sacred brotherhoods, agrarian lifestyles, ethnocentric values, textual fundamentalism...no matter what the language, skin color, historical timing, etc…
And though this is something humans already wrapped our mind around a few millenia back when we moved from egocentric to ethnocentric awareness and cultural arrangements, evolution happens in overlapping and lingering waves, it seems. And all the basic structures remain (probably because the primary elements of them are still necessary and useful)
And there is great value to the mythic stage of evolution, but also 1) all kinds of damage can be done there (perhaps manifest in a repression of that meme as one develops) 2) development can and does also simply stop there (giving us the hardened fundamentalists) 3) it can be suppressed and/or exploited by those of higher structures of consciousness 4) all kinds of other shyte, as usual
On a more microcosmic level, this 2nd stage of development is something we also individually develop in early-early childhood, when we learn about notions of “us and them.” And there are notions that we move (or not) through the stages, including them (or not) as we go, as parts of a new greater whole, while excluding our sole-identification with them. Even the body-to-soul-to-spirit sequence is valid in this regard, in a sense.
And to the rational minded "3rd grader," there are so many things that might look like more of the same ole "2nd grade religion", but which actually may be 4th grade and beyond (same texts and names used, perhaps, but way different understanding, intention and overall prime directives involved).
So, then what is the value of “religion” as mythic membership?
Compared to the more primal magic stages, i would say: better sex, better food, better clothes, better tools, better community, better survival rate, deeper friendships, a sense of safety, more children, more industrious and innovative (and all because we more or less agreed on the same mythic "other" God-father figure for this inherited exclusive family-ness). Without a few thousand years of this, “the brotherhood,” we would have never moved into our more rational era.
Also, though hopefully, the understanding of “diety” and “divine” may expand and change through rational stages and beyond, the notions of family and brotherhood and gathering into groups for some mythic far-off ideal should always remain valid and vital, even if they no longer dominate.
Of course, the 4th graders will not like my using any notion of grades at all, and the 3rd graders may like the grading, but might not like being given a grade without further proof, and the 2nd graders will refuse to believe that their family is not the highest grade, and the 1st grader could care less, they just want to know where the food is, or praise, or something entertaining, perhaps.
…so sorry if I offend or seem cruel…kinda hard to avoid with this subject…
Anyway, according to each of these basic "lower" memes, each of the other lower memes are simply wrong (and considered crazy). And the ongoing conflicts and relationships between the 4 most basic structures of consciousness are like the "four food groups" of the crucible of human development.
What I see happening now, are some sudden swells in the 1-2-3 level, even as half of the world has and is already leaning heavy heavy into the 3-4 level (this age of rational science and economics and political/cultural pluralism and leaps in communication ways and styles).
Another problem is, it seems, is most often, many of the “sacred texts” of the 2nd graders were often written by folks who were beyond even 4th grade, and their great wisdom and understanding is mostly off-limits to majority the population of the religion that clings blindly to it (often violently, as we have seen). Kinda how PFAL and VPs pseudo-science/pseudo-bible was rooted somewhere in the 2nd grade as he struggled to bring the 3rd grade down (to merge the mythical and rational worldviews). (Of course, we have also since learned that he spent a lot of time in 1st and 2nd grade…the booze and sex and vanity)).
Anyway, a few valuable questions I have heard along these lines are: How might we help elevate those of the mythic stage to rational without damaging or losing the textual and traditional wisdom they hold? And how might we restore the actual rational value of the texts to the rational minded?
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
9
14
31
16
Popular Days
Nov 5
28
Nov 2
14
Nov 12
10
Nov 3
9
Top Posters In This Topic
sirguessalot 9 posts
George Aar 14 posts
ChattyKathy 31 posts
Oakspear 16 posts
Popular Days
Nov 5 2005
28 posts
Nov 2 2005
14 posts
Nov 12 2005
10 posts
Nov 3 2005
9 posts
Popular Posts
George Aar
I found this study (recently published in the L.A. Times) to be rather enlightening: http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/pdf/2005-11.pdf (Don't be intimidated by the apparent length of it, the last half
jetc57
As to 'why religion' I personally agree!
I feel 'religion' is Man trying to reach God!
I feel 'Christianity' should be God reaching Man.
I believe in God because I see God in everything that is beautiful out there. What other explaination can there be for the Earth and all the planets, stars, galazies, etc just hanging out there in space?
For me, believing in a Creator (God) I have everlasting life to gain. Not believing in God, I have everything to Loose. I'd rather set my heart on things above than things below. If there ends up being NO true benefit, I haven't wasted my time. TO live a positive, fun loving life is better than to waste the precious time we all have being sad, negative and rejecting the 'possibilities' of Everlasting Life....
but thats the way I think.... I'm not dissappointed in my choice to 'believe in God', the World is beautiful and I know Man couldn't have created it, cause all I see from 'mankind' in Missouri is how they love to litter the earth with their waste. I know there are people who just don't see the 'value' and perhaps they have 'lost their will to love life and the universe' –- but isn't it time for those people to get out of their RUTS and Get on with living. TO be happy is better than to be consumed with grief...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChattyKathy
Geo,
I think God and all that houses for me (religion=same I reckon) is a place of refuge.
When men that I'd wanted to trust since a baby were the ones that hurt me the most I learned I needed something bigger than my immediate surroundings.
Something that wouldn't fail me no matter what the circumstance.
Something I didn't have to keep earning.
Acceptance without hesitance regardless of who I was.
A refuge when my world was topsie-turvie.
Sorry ya asked? ;)
Kathy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Excellent question George. Briefly, I feel like "religious" endeavors are attempts by people to sort out and grasp a whole range of concerns and interests - morals, ethics, emotions, life in general, life in specifics.
In contrast, I don't know that something like "absolute belief in a creator" as opposed to evolution, say, produces an increase in the quality of life I enjoy if it means that one cancels the other. In fact, when it comes to something like that I have to admit that to me it seems kind of distant. It isn't something that actually has an effect on me and the life I have to live today, and the things I have to deal with. Someone says the earth's 6,000 years old.....that doesn't make sense to me, but for that matter the idea of it being whatever - 2 1/2 billion years old doesn't have much traction with me either. I feel like a month's a long time, sometimes. While these things are of interest to me it's in a detached sort of way.
That's just one example but for me it's the same for a lot of things that some people would classify as important tenets of their "faith". I guess I'm willing to admit I don't know about certain things and if somebody says well this is what the bible teaches and you're screwed up if you don't believe that or vice versa you're a dimwit if you do - I have to seriously consider how important that topic is to me personally. My whole world won't fall apart tomorrow if certain things change or I find I've been wrong, I still have to get up and go and get with it.
As for my own "faith" and what I get from it, I may be an odd duck so I wont' speak for anyone else. I got into religion, "Christianity", like a lot of people, but I've stayed with it for my own very personal reasons. What I would call "faith" - a belief in things that aren't supported by physical evidence or things that haven't happened yet but I believe will - includes things that are supported by personal evidence. That personal stuff is the core of my belief system, and I've added to it over many years by my own practice, experience, study and learning. I do believe that there is a God who is functioning in a way that while I don't fully understand it, interacts and impacts my life. I've chosen to try and learn and practice Christ and His teachings and examples as recorded in the bible as a place to focus my efforts and my trust.
The net result shakes out to be-my life is better going that route than it was when I was going other routes. Better in some important ways - marriage, family, my own pursuits as an adult in work and recreation. My sense of who I am and the world I live in has expanded slowly but sure, in fits and starts, in the route I've chosen. What keeps me at it is that I have a deep sense and belief that there is a God and that this life is representative of a larger world that I'm learning about.
I like Thomas Jefferson and a lot of what he wrote and thought about specifically, Christianity. Although my conclusions are different than his at this point, he embraced the moral and ethical teachings of Jesus to be what he considered of the highest order. Although he 86'd the interpretation as Jesus as a savior, messiah, the son of God and all of that he felt that Christ's teachings were worthy of practice and adherence. How he lived and what he did attempted to represent his beliefs.
Edited by socksLink to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
That is something to make one think a bit.
I would submit that God did reach man in the person of Christ Jesus. So what is man's response?
That would be my answer to George's question.
In my opinion, if one approaches religion, particularly "Christianity" with any other premise, then it is just another exercise in ego (and let me stress that this is strictly IMO and no offense to anybody who may not agree).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sudo
Geo,
Bless your little cotton picking heart. I wonder at your endurance sometimes. Why do you even bother, I ask? What I don't understand from the linked article is just why America is so religious compared to the other advanced countries in the world. I've been guilty of assuming that religion calms down the masses.. is the opiate of the people. Makes teenage girls more apt to stay away from sex and all that. But.. it doesn't, I'm afraid. It just makes 'em feel more guilty after the fact.
Americans really like their religion. Wanna' know where there are more believers than anywhere else?? American prisons. From Black Muslims to Christians. Almost no agnostics nor atheists exists among our criminal classes. Thought you might want to know that on a thread wondering "Why religion?".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChattyKathy
Possibly because religion for religion's sake sucks!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Sudo,
Of course, you are correct that there are more people professing a religion in prison than anywhere else. But you want to know someplace else? Basic training in the military. I can't speak for any of the other services, but the base chapel and the area immediately surrounding the chapel were absolutely off limits for the basic training staff (drill instructors, et al). Needless to say, (almost) EVERYBODY found religion on Sunday. Why? Because it was the one time during the week that you could relax and not have to worry about somebody busting on you for your uniform or some other petty reason.
Needless to say the vast majority of these very religious people who attended basic training seemed to lose their religion the minute they graduated from basic. I wonder how high a percentage of very devout prisoners are even slightly as devout when they get released from prison?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChattyKathy
Religion of convenience.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
I wonder,
Has anybody glanced at the study I posted (other than Sudo)?
I'd be interested in the reactions of those with a religious mindset to the basic focus
of the study. I.E. that statistically the most relgious of countries do not exhibit greater
charity, humanity, love, or kindness than those that are less apt to embrace faith in an
invisible overlord. Quite the contrary, in fact.
I mean, this was published in the L.A. Times
and what was the reaction from all the devout followers of whoever? Crickets chirping...
Huh? Isn't one of the main selling points of religion that it will clean you all up, reform your bad habits, give you a reason for living, fill you with love, etc.? If someone comes along with evidence to refute all of that, wouldn't it rile you up a bit? I dunno...
Personally I came to the point, quite some time back, where I realized that religion (and the Bible specifically) didn't make anywhere near the sense that simple agnosticism did. I got so tired of the mental
gymnastics I had to do everyday to maintain my belief, and finally threw in the towel. Vengeful God committing mass genocide (quite frequently, BTW), talking mules (Francis anyone?), arks full of animals, miraculous healings, rabbits that chew their cud (they don't BTW), and all of the supposed "faithfulness" of The Almighty, but without a trace of actual evidence that any of it actually happened. Ever wonder why Almighty God, even though he claims to be "ALWAYS faithful" and a firm rock we can depend on, yada, yada, never does anything for you like he claims? Pray for the sick, they die, give of you abundance so you can continue to prosper, you go broke, depend on HIM for peace, peace of mind, harmony in the home, hell, any of the supposed goodies that a believer is supposed to be blessed with, and, when it doesn't happen, what do you get? A logical explanation? Hell no. You get spin control. "Well, it's by God's timetable", "You aren't walking in love", "We can't question the mind of God", and other such tripe.
Gawd damn, it's so much more logical - and "fits" so much better with reality - to view life as happening outside the purview of any loving, omnipotent creator. And so much easier on one's brain, not having to make what goes on in real life conform with the musings of an ancient and ignorant people.
But, as they say, your mileage may vary...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChattyKathy
Geo,
I submit my original post. And yes I did look at the study and to be honest it swayed me none. But then I don't agree that God is the source of some things that religion itself attributes to Him.
I can't prove to you that had it not been for His presence I'd not be here today to tell you this but it's true and that's all I have.
Guess I'll leave now.
Kathy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
George,
The reason I didn't respond to the article is that it is not worth responding to. But, since you are insistent, here goes:
This article has so many liberal, atheistic, pseudo-scientific, oversimplifications in it as to be a joke. I wonder how in the world it got published in a peer-reviewed journal, even one as liberal as "Religion and Society."
Specifically,
- Western Europe is not the United States. Two different societies. The social climate there is different than it is here. The population density is different. The cultural background of the population is less diverse (of course, they fail to mention the rabid anti-Muslim and anti-Semetic feelings that are burdgeoning in Western Europe -- I've cited enough instances throughout the past in the 'tacks forum to preclude, hopefully, any need to cite them here). But even in saying "Europe" they err. They only state "Europe" when they, in fact, mean "Western Europe." They do not consider relatively religious nations, such as Poland, in their study. Europe stops at the Elbe river, I guess in their mindset. So we have an apples to oranges comparison going on here.
- They are using a univariate study when it is perfectly obvious that the correlation should be a multivariate one. Why? Because there are multiple variables that can cause the effects (homicides, STDs, teen pregnancies, etc.) that they cite as the proof of their thesis. But a multivariate study might not produce such a clear correlation as the one they are trying to support.
- They did not perform a time-series analysis on any of these effects, in an effort to identify key events. One would assume that it is always the way it is now (except for a fleeting and anecdotal attack at the old days, an attack not supported by any statistical fact). This time series analysis, particularly if done on multiple variables, would have been particularly interesting for the United States: specifically to observe if there is any correlation among church attendence in denominations versus a rise or fall in teen pregnancies, abortions, STDs, etc.
- They comfortably ignored data when it didn't fit: in their analysis of teen pregnancies, they should have noted the fact that the indigenous populations of the study areas are experiencing a net decline. (In other words, the population is not replacing itself). That fact was not once mentioned in this study, and, at least in my humble opinion, it is very pertinent.
George, this study is an insult. Not your fault: all fault lies squarely in the lap of the Journal's editorial board for allowing this type of article to be included.
Frankly, using the same methods and the same discipline that characterizes the work of these authors, I could defend a thesis that stated "firearm control laws are the cause of increased homicide rates." How, do you ask? I could simply do a per capita comparison of homicide rates in DC, LA, and NYC to those in select districts of Wyoming, Georgia, and Kansas.
So why, do you ask, did I not comment? My answer: why bother.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sudo
Mark,
I think you're missing Geo's point by pointing out the shortcomings of the study. 'Ya know.. I have to agree with you on a lot of what you said, though I'm just not up to snuff on the multi-variate studies and the like. I was a chemistry major in college with minors in biology and psychology. Back then, psychology was almost recognized as a real science because behaviorism was in vogue. But sociology was universially ridiculed as a "science-wanna-be". I have to agree.. the "study" had an agenda to prove that was obvious from the abstract.
I look at these kinds of studies and try to pick and choose from the data. But, of course, we don't have access to the raw data but I don't REALLY care because what it boils down to is the study's saying that more religious nations don't have less anti-social behavior. How about doing a factor analysis if you want to know if religion really is a factor or not? These flawed studies are the type done by liberals to prove whether or not gun control methods reduce crime. You go to Sweden and see less muders per-capita and conclude its because they have more stringent gun control laws. Yeah, but Sweden has no minority underclass (of any significance) to deal with. Now they're trying the same thing only using religion. You just can't DO that statistically with any validity or reliablity.
But about missing Geo's point. I think it IS safe to conclude that religious people aren't any "more ethical" then the non-religious in several aspects. In fact, the religious are much more muderous, IMO. They love to kill those not of their faith. They'll even purposely kill themselves just to kill those of faiths they particularly dislike. My point was that prisons are filled with people of faith. Maybe that was the gist of Geo's point... getting religion doesn't make you a better person. It maybe even makes you more violent and less tolerant. But can't speak for Geo.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
One point we can agree on - there's a lot of grease on both sides of the fence.
This link contains a report from the California Department of Corrections.
Which contains this quote-
Prisons in California don't have more religious people than anywhere else, sudo. Apparently they reflect society as a whole.I'm curious now where you got the stats to support that statement.
I'd like to check them out.
Edited by socksLink to comment
Share on other sites
socks
The other thing that strikes me is that, when given an answer that one's faith DOES help them to be more at peace, a better person, more honest and ethical and more inclined to live a productive life, you don't want to accept it George. You're perfectly willing to point to history, studies and stats that support the idea that religion is either a waste of time at best or destructive at worst but seem unwilling to allow for an individual's opinion that for THEM their faith does them good in tangible demonstrable ways. If you won't allow for that simple reality I think you're only asking the question so that you can state the answer you already have committed to.
If I'm wrong, tell me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sudo
Socks,
You can use your search engine of choice but here's one site I found right off. HERE! I didn't think it was going to be that controversial. And Socks.. I don't doubt that believers credit their faith to their being better people, more moral and stuff but Geo's point.. and I think its pretty well borne out is.. it just ain't the case.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
Search Engines at 20 paces, sudo? :D
I live in California and as you're aware I'm sure the whole prison system here as in many places is in the news, legislature, you name it, all the time. The stats from the CDC are available to the public and are reprinted on that site link from their newsletter. And there's always going to be some question about idly flung stats and numbers, especially those made on a site like that, on any side of the discussion. They're just numbers, quoted by someone, anyone, about places, people, times and events that would require more investigation. What they actually mean is another topic altogether. Is the criminal mind prone to religion? Does religion make criminals?
If we took it out of the religious realm and looked at other criteria, what points could we push?
So I guess it's "controversial" to question some of these links to pages that blow hard on this stuff but perfectly sensible to accept them if they bolster an opinion you already have? Or am I supposed to nod with furrowed brow as I deeply consider the seriousness of a page that talks about why Beer is better than Jesus and just accept it because of course all people of any faith are deluded, simple as that, of course, just listen to the good atheist and all will be better? I thought we were having a serious discussion here. My mistake. I'll leave the meaty stuff to the fart jokes, which are bound to be next.
But we're just batting flies here. Your statement that I can't be right when I say that my quality of life is improved by my faith and that no one else can be right including anyone I know, have known or will know speaks for itself and says it all, really.
Edited by socksLink to comment
Share on other sites
A la prochaine
Aha!!!
So this is where you all hide out....
I found you!
Socks...
Check your PMs.
Thanks. : )
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
But the point I'm driving at is that any study where religion and religion only is the measure is an irrelevant and, imo, invalid study. Religion is a component of the ethos of a society. It can be a principal component, but even then, a person is more than simply what religion they subscribe to. A valid study would be one that measures multiple demographically similar groups that reside in the same culture. Then measuring the effect of religion on individuals who are members of those study groups. Further, for a really valid measure, one would have to examine, using a neutral rubric, the stated doctrines of the religion(s) practiced by members of those groups -- to measure the official doctrine of that religious practice to determine the degree of violence, intolerance, or whatever anti-social characteristic officially endorsed by that group. And then to design an instrument to measure the degree of intellectual and practical adherence of the group member to the doctrine of the religion to which he says he subscribes.
Why? If a religion teaches intolerance as a part of its official teaching, then that's one thing. Measurement of cultural flaws that result from that teaching could be a valid factor of that teaching. However, if a religion teaches tolerance, but people who state they are a member of that religion, act intolerantly, and are not properly catechized into their religion, then the religion could be faulted for ineffective teaching, but not for the members' beliefs (who don't practice/understand the religion to which they claim membership).
Another issue: what about a religiously heterogenous society? Which belief system should be faulted with the negative characteristics of that society? (to include the agnostic component of that heterogenous society)
Sudo, I agree with you, as I said earlier, that prisons are filled with faith. So are ghettos. But is the faith the cause of the people who reside in both or is the faith an effect of people being in that situation? That's the point I'm trying to make.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Now having said all of the above, I would be intuitively inclined to agree with a thesis that is the exact inverse of the one proposed: "In a society where basic human needs are provided by the state and where the state's influence is pervasive in the bulk of that society's interactions to the end of easing life for the members of the society, the influence of religion will wane on the majority of members of that society."
THAT thesis could be supported and proven. THAT thesis would explain the differences in Western European societies versus American societies. THAT thesis would also allow provide an explanation for the increasing incidents of xenophobia that are emerging in Europe as the consequence of immigration brought on by Europe's decreasing indigenous populations.
FWIW. Of course, I'm sure that there are those who wouldn't see it that way.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Socks,
Well, yeah, I made my mind up quite some time ago as regards religion.
Not to say that I'm completely closed off to the notion, but it'd take some
real PR work to get me back in the fold...
And, yes, I know that the study was seriously skewed, but just how is it that one
can quantify and categorize something as squishy as religious thought?
Anyway, the biggest issue for me is that religion is simply oversold. It's never said
that "Jesus will make your life somewhat more bearable, generally speaking!" or "You'll
find a modicum of comfort and escape by going to church!" No, it's always in the superlative:
"PEACE LIKE A RIVER!" "JOY LIKE A FOUNTAIN!" "THE PURPOSE DRIVEN LIFE!" etc.
It was never like that for me. Not ever. Not once. Just didn't happen.
I kinda got to feeling like back when I was a kid and everybody was dropping acid.
It was always "WOW! That was FAROUT!" "Man, that was the coolest trip ever!"
So I tried it - several times - and all I ever got was seriously freaked out. Never cool, never
farout, just really screwed up. Likewise with my forays into religion. Lots of (for me) empty promises
but damned little of the enlightenment I was promised. I just got really screwed up behind it all, trying
my damndest to make sense of the incomprehensible.
So, yeah, I've got a chip on my shoulder to a certain extent, and I don't much care who knows it. I don't care for religion.
But I'm still mystified at how the faithful can still be swayed. I really don't understand. I don't get it when
somebody becomes infatuated with astrology, Krishna Consciousness, Christianity, or alternative medicine.
After one has tasted the fruit, taken the test drive, and seen all the warts (is that enough analogies?) how do you keep coming back? Gawd, don't you ever just get tired of the same ol crap?
To me religion is an empty box. It holds nothing more than what one puts in it. If you're convinced you'll find fulfillment, purpose, love, joy, peace, I think maybe you will, at least to an extent. But as far as it changing your life, I've just never seen it, in my life or anyone else's. Good people remain so, as do the jerks. Maybe it's MY point of view?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChattyKathy
I tried and can't find the answer. How many people go in non-Christian? Are there more men of faith because it's an easy out? I mean if 2 are now Christians and only 1 started that way it would make a difference I think. A difference only for this point but as to the bigger question....well Geo you know me fairly well now and I reckon you know I'm rather stuck on knowing someone bigger than myself is there for me no matter what. So I'll not chatter that subject to ya here probably anymore. But I would love to know the answer to the prison thing if anyone knew it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Good points in the last post George. I agree that religion often promises the moon, and just doesn't deliver. Then the little follower can't admit that they didn't get the bang for their buck as advertised, so they promote the spirituality du jour as well.
While I still have my agnostic card, I do have religious beliefs and experiences, but I'm not setting my sights real high either. Nor am I so convinced about the objective truth of my experiences that I try to convince anyone else. Works just fine for me.
I've also given up on the idea that God, or goddess, or the "all" or whatever, is out there making decisions for me. earlier this year, after being passed over for a promotion, I was told "I guess the Universe didn't want you to have that job" - my reply, which has become my credo, was "Well, next time, the universe damned well better ask me!"
Edited by OakspearLink to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
great gutsy thread George.
many great responses, too
B)
for what its worth…here is my quick ramble using some simple models…
According to many models of evolution, everything develops in a sequential manner, moving through stages, each structure building on a template of previous structures. Like going through preschool, kindergarten, 1st grade, 2nd grade, 3rd grade, etc... Stages cannot be skipped, though a greater cognitive reach may give better glimpses of other stages from “afar,” and any stage can be accessed as a temporary state (for any number of reasons, but typically causing as much confusion as good).
Now, as this pertains to the evolution of human understanding and behavior, these "grades" are like cultural and behavioral structures that spread more or less “memetically” and continue to evolve from there (even if this evolution happens within a stagnation or pathology…for example: where a “hitler structure” can simply get better and better at being and disseminating the improved “hitler structure”)
What we often call "religion" is usually referring to the "mythic membership" stage of evolution. This meme is typically marked by some sort of -theism, military patriarchies and sacred brotherhoods, agrarian lifestyles, ethnocentric values, textual fundamentalism...no matter what the language, skin color, historical timing, etc…
And though this is something humans already wrapped our mind around a few millenia back when we moved from egocentric to ethnocentric awareness and cultural arrangements, evolution happens in overlapping and lingering waves, it seems. And all the basic structures remain (probably because the primary elements of them are still necessary and useful)
And there is great value to the mythic stage of evolution, but also 1) all kinds of damage can be done there (perhaps manifest in a repression of that meme as one develops) 2) development can and does also simply stop there (giving us the hardened fundamentalists) 3) it can be suppressed and/or exploited by those of higher structures of consciousness 4) all kinds of other shyte, as usual
On a more microcosmic level, this 2nd stage of development is something we also individually develop in early-early childhood, when we learn about notions of “us and them.” And there are notions that we move (or not) through the stages, including them (or not) as we go, as parts of a new greater whole, while excluding our sole-identification with them. Even the body-to-soul-to-spirit sequence is valid in this regard, in a sense.
And to the rational minded "3rd grader," there are so many things that might look like more of the same ole "2nd grade religion", but which actually may be 4th grade and beyond (same texts and names used, perhaps, but way different understanding, intention and overall prime directives involved).
So, then what is the value of “religion” as mythic membership?
Compared to the more primal magic stages, i would say: better sex, better food, better clothes, better tools, better community, better survival rate, deeper friendships, a sense of safety, more children, more industrious and innovative (and all because we more or less agreed on the same mythic "other" God-father figure for this inherited exclusive family-ness). Without a few thousand years of this, “the brotherhood,” we would have never moved into our more rational era.
Also, though hopefully, the understanding of “diety” and “divine” may expand and change through rational stages and beyond, the notions of family and brotherhood and gathering into groups for some mythic far-off ideal should always remain valid and vital, even if they no longer dominate.
Of course, the 4th graders will not like my using any notion of grades at all, and the 3rd graders may like the grading, but might not like being given a grade without further proof, and the 2nd graders will refuse to believe that their family is not the highest grade, and the 1st grader could care less, they just want to know where the food is, or praise, or something entertaining, perhaps.
…so sorry if I offend or seem cruel…kinda hard to avoid with this subject…
Anyway, according to each of these basic "lower" memes, each of the other lower memes are simply wrong (and considered crazy). And the ongoing conflicts and relationships between the 4 most basic structures of consciousness are like the "four food groups" of the crucible of human development.
What I see happening now, are some sudden swells in the 1-2-3 level, even as half of the world has and is already leaning heavy heavy into the 3-4 level (this age of rational science and economics and political/cultural pluralism and leaps in communication ways and styles).
Another problem is, it seems, is most often, many of the “sacred texts” of the 2nd graders were often written by folks who were beyond even 4th grade, and their great wisdom and understanding is mostly off-limits to majority the population of the religion that clings blindly to it (often violently, as we have seen). Kinda how PFAL and VPs pseudo-science/pseudo-bible was rooted somewhere in the 2nd grade as he struggled to bring the 3rd grade down (to merge the mythical and rational worldviews). (Of course, we have also since learned that he spent a lot of time in 1st and 2nd grade…the booze and sex and vanity)).
Anyway, a few valuable questions I have heard along these lines are: How might we help elevate those of the mythic stage to rational without damaging or losing the textual and traditional wisdom they hold? And how might we restore the actual rational value of the texts to the rational minded?
for what its worth
+ODD
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.