Richard Dawkins replies to Sloan Wilson

[John Hewitt]

Why should he have a "professional responsibility" to present his ideas in debate, rather than in books and articles, where a more complete picture can be given, and references can be provided and followed up? He has addressed the arguments of creationists perfectly adequately in this format.

The "debate" format places an argument without real evidence on the same footing as one that is well supported, because shortcomings in the alleged evidence referred to cannot be researched and exposed in the same way as when dealing with a published article. That is why creationists prefer it, I suppose.

Obviously I did not make myself clear; I was suggesting that a professional responsibility might exist within the context of the debate about group selection. Has Dawkins recently presented an up to date position group selection? If so, I would like to know about it. If not, why the barbed comments about Sloan Wilson?

I do realise that a large majority of professional scientists could not support ID or creationism so that is a quite different situation, so this is quite different from the group selection issue. However, I also realise that many members of the public do support ID. Richard Dawkins is, I think by his own choice, a Professor of the public understanding of science. Both in that role, and by virtue of his writings, it seems to me that he places himself into the "ID or creationism" arena and, in those circumstances, I personally feel he should debate with that movement.

 

[newlyfound]

Don't you therefore find it quite bizarre that christians become scientists?

Especially these ones.

Your list should not have started with Einstein since he doesn't believe in a personal god, this is what Dawkins quotes him saying in TGD, in response to the constant creationist blubber claiming him one of theirs when he is not:

"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."

Since he is # 1 on the list and he is not a theist, that could suffice in itself to nock the rest of the others out as well. If the page's creator (who clearly is a believer) lied about him, chances are they have about at least others as well.
Also, religion is an outdated and and soon to be absolete useless tool. It already is for many. It got us here (if it must get credit for anything), now it should get outta the way and let timely tools take over in getting Man where he wants to go. An analogy to illustrate the need: Once, we used to use tapes and tape players to listen to music, at that time, they were the only thing there was for one to be able to enjoy music they want to listen to. Then CD's and CD players came along, there was a transitional phase where while tape players and tapes were still being used, cd's and cd players were being introduced to the masses. Now a days, tapes and their players are absolete. And it would really be dump for one to continue using them when they have much better, much sophisiticated option before them. This is just an example, another good one is computers. I heard the first computer there was, was the size of a whole room, and I image it probably cost a bundle as well as its probable performance was negligeable compared to that of the PC's that are currently out in the market. Why would one persist in wanting to use such cumbersome piece of junk when they could buy a laptop or even a handheld computer for a fraction of the cost, that processes info much rapidly and has lot/many more capabilities than the first? etc. IMHO, I think the same idea applies to religion vs. the Body of Sciences. Man is constantly evolving and developping, religion is not, and therefore it needs to be dropped off and properly disposed of gradually.

 

[The Atheist]

You can try twisting what I said but, unfortunately for you, it is all right there for anyone to read.

"Twisting what you said"?

Fortunately, having quoted your own words to you twice, verbatim, anyone with even a moderate standard of English will be able to read them and see that I twist nothing. The fact that you are unable to differentiate between "will" and "might" is entirely your own problem.

 

[The Atheist]

Your list should not have started with Einstein

Unfortunately, lists of christian scientists aren't something I have handy, so I used a convenient one. Certainly Einstein was nobody's theist, but I do recognise plenty of the others as being theists.

They do also include a disclaimer as to beliefs. The point is that there are lots of scientists at even very highly acclaimed levels, who were theists.

The statement had been made that religious upbringing suppressed scientific minds and that is clearly garbage.

 

[Herzblut]

Your list should not have started with Einstein since he doesn't believe in a personal god, this is what Dawkins quotes him saying in TGD, in response to the constant creationist blubber claiming him one of theirs when he is not:

"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."

Einstein and Faith

Around the time he turned 50, he began to articulate more clearly--in various essays, interviews and letters--his deepening appreciation of his belief in God, although a rather impersonal version of one.

Shortly after his 50th birthday, Einstein also gave a remarkable interview in which he was more revealing than he had ever been about his religious sensibility. It was with George Sylvester Viereck:

To what extent are you influenced by Christianity? "As a child I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene."

You accept the historical existence of Jesus? "Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life."

Do you believe in God? "I'm not an atheist. I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws."

Is this a Jewish concept of God? "I am a determinist. I do not believe in free will. Jews believe in free will. They believe that man shapes his own life. I reject that doctrine. In that respect I am not a Jew."

Is this Spinoza's God? "I am fascinated by Spinoza's pantheism, but I admire even more his contribution to modern thought because he is the first philosopher to deal with the soul and body as one, and not two separate things."

Do you believe in immortality? "No. And one life is enough for me."

In the summer of 1930, amid his sailing and ruminations in Caputh, he composed a credo, "What I Believe," that he recorded for a human-rights group and later published. It concluded with an explanation of what he meant when he called himself religious: "The most beautiful emotion we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion that stands at the cradle of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead, a snuffed-out candle. To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is something that our minds cannot grasp, whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly: this is religiousness. In this sense, and in this sense only, I am a devoutly religious man."

Orthodox Jewish leader in New York, Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein sent (Einstein) a very direct telegram: "Do you believe in God? Stop. Answer paid. 50 words." Einstein used only about half his allotted number of words. It became the most famous version of an answer he gave often: "I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals himself in the lawful harmony of all that exists, but not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind."

But throughout his life, Einstein was consistent in rejecting the charge that he was an atheist. "There are people who say there is no God," he told a friend. "But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support of such views." And unlike Sigmund Freud or Bertrand Russell or George Bernard Shaw, Einstein never felt the urge to denigrate those who believed in God; instead, he tended to denigrate atheists. "What separates me from most so-called atheists is a feeling of utter humility toward the unattainable secrets of the harmony of the cosmos," he explained.

In fact, Einstein tended to be more critical of debunkers, who seemed to lack humility or a sense of awe, than of the faithful. "The fanatical atheists," he wrote in a letter, "are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who--in their grudge against traditional religion as the 'opium of the masses'-- cannot hear the music of the spheres."

Einstein later explained his view of the relationship between science and religion at a conference at the Union Theological Seminary in New York. The realm of science, he said, was to ascertain what was the case, but not evaluate human thoughts and actions about what should be the case. Religion had the reverse mandate. Yet the endeavors worked together at times. "Science can be created only by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding," he said. "This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion." The talk got front-page news coverage, and his pithy conclusion became famous. "The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

For some people, miracles serve as evidence of God's existence. For Einstein it was the absence of miracles that reflected divine providence. The fact that the world was comprehensible, that it followed laws, was worthy of awe.

Einstein and Faith
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1607298-1,00.html

Herzblut

 

[articulett]

You must have been thinking about my avatar too much...
An admin. picked up the vibes, and asked that I change my avatar to something less suggestive. He/she must have seen more than a mouse, I guess.

 

[articulett]

Obviously I did not make myself clear; I was suggesting that a professional responsibility might exist within the context of the debate about group selection. Has Dawkins recently presented an up to date position group selection? If so, I would like to know about it. If not, why the barbed comments about Sloan Wilson?

I do realise that a large majority of professional scientists could not support ID or creationism so that is a quite different situation, so this is quite different from the group selection issue. However, I also realise that many members of the public do support ID. Richard Dawkins is, I think by his own choice, a Professor of the public understanding of science. Both in that role, and by virtue of his writings, it seems to me that he places himself into the "ID or creationism" arena and, in those circumstances, I personally feel he should debate with that movement.

I don't. Intelligent design is not science and Dawkins presence just makes them look credible. Evolution is not a debate, it's a fact. Dawkins has been instrumental in furthering understanding in this area and sharing that info. with millions--and religion is a thorn in his side as much as they were with Galileo-- each step of the way. They have no truth and they seek to obfuscate understanding of the truth--the one that is the same for everybody--the one that only science and mortals are accumulating over time. They are dishonest, ask loaded questions, appeal to emotionalism, interrupt, and have nothing at all in support of their claims except to say "I don't understand how evolution could be true" in a million different pedantic ways. They use so many words to say nothing at all. Nothing they say clarifies understanding of anything. And the same goes for Dawkins critics. they never really "say" anything. It's all the same BS that Behe says...lots of pedantry but no real claim. It all sounds like the courtiers reply to me http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/12/the_courtiers_reply.php

In a book, Dawkins can't be interrupted and forced into silly digressions. He has as much a right to comment on God as Behe does to write his silly, anti-scientific gobbledy gook about how things must somehow be designed. Behe and his ilk do nothing to forward understanding--it's all about making sure people don't understand evolution. Because once you understand it, those who speak for some intelligent designer seem to be full of crap. I endorse his books and his educating in the manner that he chooses, and many people, apparently, want to hear what he has to say. Governments and Religions are having a harder time in spinning out the truth they want people to have because there is a world of people connected by the internet making sure that everyone has access to the FACTS. The facts are the same for everybody. Dawkins illuminates those facts and is more than eager to show people where they can find those facts themselves. His critics offer no facts.
It's just emotionalism and opinions and spin and self aggrandizement and apologetics for an invisible man and the people who spend their only life trying to curry favor with him.

I think those who critique Dawkins recognize this on some level. They want to be the person people go to for credible information. But, instead, it's Dawkins. Because Dawkins doesn't need to appeal to emotions or obfuscations--the facts are there for anybody who wants to look at them.

 

[articulett]

Newlyfound --
I agree!

Gayak--
Your views on TA are shared by many; but give him credit for using his sig line to warn others of how he comes across to other forum members.

 

[qayak]

You must have been thinking about my avatar too much...
An admin. picked up the vibes, and asked that I change my avatar to something less suggestive. He/she must have seen more than a mouse, I guess.

Well, I guess you got your answer as to whether it was appropriate or not! Damn shame though.

 

[mijopaalmc]

articulett-

If you want to be taken seriously, you need to find some evidence that actually say that religion in general is damaging to children in general, not just that conservative religious traditions are damaging to homosexual children and then generalizing that effect to religion in general and children in general.

Also, you need to stop cherry-picking the Creighton study. The author may have found a correlation between religion and social ills but he explicitly eschewed any discussion of causation, and as anyone who has taken even the most basic statistics course knows, correlation is not causation.

 

[newlyfound]

Unfortunately, lists of christian scientists aren't something I have handy, so I used a convenient one. Certainly Einstein was nobody's theist, but I do recognise plenty of the others as being theists.

They do also include a disclaimer as to beliefs. The point is that there are lots of scientists at even very highly acclaimed levels, who were theists.

The statement had been made that religious upbringing suppressed scientific minds and that is clearly garbage.

Einstein was not even christian, he was a jew. And the scientists that are on your list are only an elite. What is the % age of masses that get exposed to and washed in religion inside and out, that do turn out to be these guys? that's what needs to be considered. On the other hand, what is the percentage of the people that gets exposed to and washed in religion inside and out, that do turn out to be total sick wackos, that for example at some point in their lives, start to think one of their kids is possessed by satan (mainly due to their religious upbringing), so the only way they see fit to "get satan out of him" is beat him to death? I didn't reseach it but I'd say quite few since every once in a while the news has the toughtfulness of covering such stories for us. Also, what is the %age of the traumatised due primarely to their parents sick obssessiveness with religion and the "proper way" for it to be practiced? many. Also, there are many who continue to go to those worshipping places for reasons that have nothing to do with their religious beliefs. That entices one to ask, what do they get out of it then being forced to practice hypocrisy along the way (and who knows what else)? etc. Those are just examples that one could think of right off the top of their heads. Anyway, if one weights the total # of all those examples along whith the ones I didn't think of against that of those few scientists, they'd find that Mr. Dawkins is right.



...Beside, if religion could produce "3" scientists, it is still time for it to move to the side because Science clearly can produce many more and of much higher Caliber. So the Point still remains. We are having this nice talk via satellite thanks only to science. Religion didn't do anything good for me personally, I don't know about you but anything I have and enjoy today, I do only thanks to science, it took skeptic.com and Dawkins to wake me up to this fact. Science now a days got to a point where it supports as well as permeates virtually every aspect of our lives, yet when time comes to award some credits, theists shamelessly recognize only their paganic garbage. That's quite dishonest.

 

[qayak]

Leading Scientists Still Reject God

Here is probably a more accurate study than the list mentioned earlier.

Memebers of NAS: 72% atheist, 21% agnostic, 7% believers.

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/sci_relig.htm

Larson and Witham close their report with the following remarks:

As we compiled our findings, the NAS issued a booklet encouraging the teaching of evolution in public schools.... The booklet assures readers, 'Whether God exists or not is a question about which science is neutral'. NAS president Bruce Alberts said: 'There are many very outstanding members of this academy who are very religious people, people who believe in evolution, many of them biologists.' Our survey suggests otherwise."

Godless Science

http://kspark.kaist.ac.kr/Jesus/Intelligence & religion.htm

 

[articulett]

articulett-

If you want to be taken seriously, you need to find some evidence that actually say that religion in general is damaging to children in general, not just that conservative religious traditions are damaging to homosexual children and then generalizing that effect to religion in general and children in general.

Also, you need to stop cherry-picking the Creighton study. The author may have found a correlation between religion and social ills but he explicitly eschewed any discussion of causation, and as anyone who has taken even the most basic statistics course knows, correlation is not causation.

Yes... as did your studies. Correlation. And I had multiple studies of how faith based abstinence education is also causing harm--it's very expensive, it costs tax payers money, it spreads misinformation and it doesn't work. Your study showed a mild correlation that was indirect...it included "spirituality" and the studies showed that having a good family life was the intermediate factor and more direct. I also posted a study showing religion as damaging to homosexual youth. Moreover, none of it is true. Even if it has some mild positive correlation--is it worth lying to kids over. I think not. Religions spread a very snotty and manipulative lie--that faith is good and believers are special and non-believers are damned. It idolizes the imaginary and keeps kids ignorance of facts. In fact, I blame your religion for your inability to understand the very basics of evolution and the "discontinuity in the fossil record". It's made you ignorant, but you just don't know what you don't know--and worse, it made you think you do know something that you can't.

And YOU are the KING of cherry picking. I do not worry about you taking me seriously, because I am well respected amongst colleagues. Those who matter (the ones I respect), respect me--and those that don't (creationists and religious apologists) seem to have some vested interest in paying certain facts no heed at all while trumpeting nebulous data in support of some semantic game they are playing with themselves. I consider it a badge of honor that I piss you off.

Goal post mover.

This thread was about Dawkins and Sloan. The last thread was about creationist tours. You've used both as a platform to apologize for faith... even though neither thread was about the glories of religion.

I rest my case, religious apologist. Every word that comes out of your mouth sounds all too much like Behe--obfuscating, tangential, pedantic, insincere, misleading, and ultimately useless. I think it's you who are having trouble garnering any respect from what I see. I take your assessment on par with rttjc's assessment of me and Behe's assessment of Dawkins. Laughable.

 

[newlyfound]

Einstein and Faith

Around the time he turned 50, he began to articulate more clearly--in various essays, interviews and letters--his deepening appreciation of his belief in God, although a rather impersonal version of one.

Shortly after his 50th birthday, Einstein also gave a remarkable interview in which he was more revealing than he had ever been about his religious sensibility. It was with George Sylvester Viereck:

To what extent are you influenced by Christianity? "As a child I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene."

You accept the historical existence of Jesus? "Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life."

Do you believe in God? "I'm not an atheist. I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws."

Is this a Jewish concept of God? "I am a determinist. I do not believe in free will. Jews believe in free will. They believe that man shapes his own life. I reject that doctrine. In that respect I am not a Jew."

Is this Spinoza's God? "I am fascinated by Spinoza's pantheism, but I admire even more his contribution to modern thought because he is the first philosopher to deal with the soul and body as one, and not two separate things."

Do you believe in immortality? "No. And one life is enough for me."

In the summer of 1930, amid his sailing and ruminations in Caputh, he composed a credo, "What I Believe," that he recorded for a human-rights group and later published. It concluded with an explanation of what he meant when he called himself religious: "The most beautiful emotion we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion that stands at the cradle of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead, a snuffed-out candle. To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is something that our minds cannot grasp, whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly: this is religiousness. In this sense, and in this sense only, I am a devoutly religious man."

Orthodox Jewish leader in New York, Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein sent (Einstein) a very direct telegram: "Do you believe in God? Stop. Answer paid. 50 words." Einstein used only about half his allotted number of words. It became the most famous version of an answer he gave often: "I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals himself in the lawful harmony of all that exists, but not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind."

But throughout his life, Einstein was consistent in rejecting the charge that he was an atheist. "There are people who say there is no God," he told a friend. "But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support of such views." And unlike Sigmund Freud or Bertrand Russell or George Bernard Shaw, Einstein never felt the urge to denigrate those who believed in God; instead, he tended to denigrate atheists. "What separates me from most so-called atheists is a feeling of utter humility toward the unattainable secrets of the harmony of the cosmos," he explained.

In fact, Einstein tended to be more critical of debunkers, who seemed to lack humility or a sense of awe, than of the faithful. "The fanatical atheists," he wrote in a letter, "are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who--in their grudge against traditional religion as the 'opium of the masses'-- cannot hear the music of the spheres."

Einstein later explained his view of the relationship between science and religion at a conference at the Union Theological Seminary in New York. The realm of science, he said, was to ascertain what was the case, but not evaluate human thoughts and actions about what should be the case. Religion had the reverse mandate. Yet the endeavors worked together at times. "Science can be created only by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding," he said. "This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion." The talk got front-page news coverage, and his pithy conclusion became famous. "The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

For some people, miracles serve as evidence of God's existence. For Einstein it was the absence of miracles that reflected divine providence. The fact that the world was comprehensible, that it followed laws, was worthy of awe.

Einstein and Faith
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1607298-1,00.html

Herzblut

What do you make out of the given quote then? are you saying it's a made up one? also, if he was a believer, then why so many, as printed in Dawkins book, theits sent him very nasty vicious letters attacking him for questioning the existence of god?
As Dawkins said:"The one thing all his theistic critics got right was that Einstein was not one of them." If you have the book you can look those letters up starting from page 14.

In respect to mystery, Dawkins is quoted in his Gift to Us or at least perhaps to me LOL. (I named TGD) as follows:

"Mystics exult in mystery and want it to stay mysterious. Scientists exult in mystery for a different reason: it gives them something to do." He goes on to say: "More generally, as I shall repeat in chapter 8, one of the truly bad effects of religion is that it teaches us that it is a virtue to be satisfied with not understanding." ...and that's exactly what religion does, it promotes ignorance.

Regardless of what Einstein believes, as I said to The Atheist, he is a part of very tiny elite. We need to consider the general effect of religion on the masses. That's what needs to be carfully scanned.

 

[mijopaalmc]

I have always required that you provide evidence that religion in general is harmful to children in general, articulett. I have never moved the goalposts, although that is on of your favorite ad hominems when it is revealed that you have know evidence what so ever for your thesis.

 

[articulett]

Here is probably a more accurate study than the list mentioned earlier.

Memebers of NAS: 72% atheist, 21% agnostic, 7% believers.

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/sci_relig.htm



Godless Science

http://kspark.kaist.ac.kr/Jesus/Intelligence & religion.htm

Well, there's Francis Collins...

Yes, understanding evolution does make god unnecessary--but we have to pretend that it doesn't or we can't teach it. Religion will manage to enslave minds as long as it can...just as they managed to adjust after Galileo...though they didn't absolve him for his facts until Eons after his death. Pathetic. I suspect Dawkins will be similarly appreciated in retrospect while all the views of apologests etc. will fade into history way they belong.

Facts trump faith. And I am all for anyone spreading the idea that FAITH is a bad way to know anything true. It's the number one tool religions use to manipulate other people.

 

[mijopaalmc]

For those of you that are interested here are the studies that I cited and that articulett says show only a weak correlation between religiosity/spirituality and mental health:


A systematic review of recent research on adolescent religiosity/spirituality and mental health.

There is accumulating evidence that religiosity/spirituality (R/S) are important correlates of mental health in adult populations. However, the associations between R/S and mental heath in adolescent populations have not been systematically studied. The purpose of this article is to report on a systematic review of recent research on the relationships between adolescent R/S and mental health. Twenty articles between 1998 and 2004 were reviewed. Most studies (90%) showed that higher levels of R/S were associated with better mental health in adolescents. Institutional and existential dimensions of R/S had the most robust relationships with mental health. The relationships between R/S and mental health were generally stronger or more unique for males and older adolescents than for females and younger adolescents. Recommendations for future research and implications for mental health nursing are discussed.

A systematic review of associations among religiosity/spirituality and adolescent health attitudes and behaviors.

PURPOSE: To systematically review and synthesize literature concerning the relationships among religiosity, spirituality, health attitudes, and health behaviors in adolescents. METHODS: Forty-three studies between 1998 and 2003 were systematically reviewed to (a) determine if the studies were based on conceptual or theoretical frameworks, (b) identify the types of religiosity and spirituality measures used as well as their effects on health attitudes and behaviors, (c) evaluate the quality of these measures, (d) determine categories and frequency of measures of health attitudes and behaviors, (e) evaluate the quality of the research designs, and (f) determine the effects of religiosity or spirituality on adolescent health attitudes and behaviors. RESULTS: Over half (n = 26) the studies were atheoretical or had an unclear framework and the other half were based on a wide variety of conceptual and theoretical models. A total of 37 distinct religiosity/spirituality variables were identified and varied in specificity. Less than half (n = 21) reported reliability of the measures and only seven contained information about validity of the measures. All 43 studies included measures of health-risk behaviors and/or attitudes but only seven addressed health-promoting behaviors. Most studies (84%) showed that measures of religiosity/spirituality had positive effects on health attitudes and behaviors. CONCLUSIONS: The variety of studies and measures indicate that religiosity and spirituality may be important correlates of adolescent health attitudes and behaviors. Although the majority of the studies reviewed were well designed, there was no consistency in the theoretical bases and operational definitions of religiosity/spirituality phenomena.

Religiousness and mental health: a review.

OBJECTIVE: The relationship between religiosity and mental health has been a perennial source of controversy. This paper reviews the scientific evidence available for the relationship between religion and mental health. METHOD: The authors present the main studies and conclusions of a larger systematic review of 850 studies on the religion-mental health relationship published during the 20th Century identified through several databases. The present paper also includes an update on the papers published since 2000, including researches performed in Brazil and a brief historical and methodological background. DISCUSSION: The majority of well-conducted studies found that higher levels of religious involvement are positively associated with indicators of psychological well-being (life satisfaction, happiness, positive affect, and higher morale) and with less depression, suicidal thoughts and behavior, drug/alcohol use/abuse. Usually the positive impact of religious involvement on mental health is more robust among people under stressful circumstances (the elderly, and those with disability and medical illness). Theoretical pathways of the religiousness-mental health connection and clinical implications of these findings are also discussed. CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence that religious involvement is usually associated with better mental health. We need to improve our understanding of the mediating factors of this association and its use in clinical practice.

 

[articulett]

I have always required that you provide evidence that religion in general is harmful to children in general, articulett. I have never moved the goalposts, although that is on of your favorite ad hominems when it is revealed that you have know evidence what so ever for your thesis.

What thesis is that? That you're a religious apologist. I'd say every single post of yours is about either obfuscating evolution or flogging others for supporting facts over faith. I don't need to provided evidence that religion is harmful (although I provided lots), because it's an opinion. I can also say that locking kids in cages is child abuse as is indoctrinating them with bigotry. And I don't need to provide evidence to say so. Moreover, I'd say anyone that wants me to provide evidence on a skeptics forum regarding my opinion ought to be able to provide support that his opinion is valid and worth considering. You don't.

Yes... you are a goal post mover. That is not an ad hom. That is a fact. You change what posts are about when someone is about to nail you down on your attempts to obfuscate or change direction of the stated issue in the OP.

The threads you start are all started with insincere mealy questions that you've already decided the answer on. You show no interest in having the questions you ask, answered--and no interest in current information about evolution while making snide commentary about Dawkins and others who might share that information and help others understand the FACTS. You have an immediate kneejerk hostile reaction against anything related to Dawkins and his lack of belief... though you haven't read anything he has to say and you are too mired in your own delusions to absorb it anyhow.

 

[mijopaalmc]

You know, articulett, it is ironic how you accuse me and the tother who argue against you here as having "an immediate kneejerk hostile reaction against anything related to Dawkins and his lack of belief", when that is exactly the type of response you have had to every single piece of evidence that contradicts your "religion is evil" monomania.

I do agree with you that the only benefit that religion provides to its practitioners is that it acts as a mediator for mental health, a benefit that need not include a belief in the metaphysical and the supernatural; but I think that you are deliberately ignoring the fact that such mediation is observably beneficial, and that is what annoys me the most.

 

[articulett]

You know, articulett, it is ironic how you accuse me and the tother who argue against you here as having "an immediate kneejerk hostile reaction against anything related to Dawkins and his lack of belief", when that is exactly the type of response you have had to every single piece of evidence that contradicts your "religion is evil" monomania.

I do agree with you that the only benefit that religion provides to its practitioners is that it acts as a mediator for mental health, a benefit that need not include a belief in the metaphysical and the supernatural; but I think that you are deliberately ignoring the fact that such mediation is observably beneficial, and that is what annoys me the most.

Bring it.

Look up the word Irony. You're not really using it correctly. And I don't consider you to be arguing against me. Usually I am having what I think is a discussion--and then you butt in with some tangential accusation of another person in defense of religion or in an angry diatribe against anything Dawkins might say...

I don't think religion is evil. It just isn't true. I don't think it's a good idea to lie to people. I especially don't think it's a good idea to obfuscate understanding of facts--the facts we humans are the first to be able to know thanks to eons of people and accumulated data--people like Dawkins, Darwin, Sagan, Randi, etc. I want people to know these things and all the damn apologetics and obfuscations on behalf of religious apologists along with their continual demonizing of such people turns my stomach. I live with it every day. On my skeptic forums I fight against it.

I don't doubt that some people derive some benefit from religion. That does not make religion true nor does it excuse it from the terrible wrongs committed on behalf of the religion (including the creationist tour guide). I think faith is a very bad way for knowing anything, and I think religions are the main profferers of this nutty notion.

I think the fact that lack of understanding about evolution shows a strong correlation with societal dysfunction is telling. It shows a stronger correlation than any other factor!. Religiosity of an area is the best predictor of societal dysfunction in every part of the developed world--and probably the undeveloped world as well. I know that some of this is because religion provides "community support" for the poor. But it also encourages ignorance and the notion that they (and god) will take care of you in return for your faith and allegiance. It encourages denial and a lying to oneself and others while blinding oneself to fact that they are doing so.