Religion's value questioned

[TJ]

No other objections? Having to make your own is boring, but OK!

'How come people like Bush or Blair seem to need to believe? I mean, they're not exactly poor and they are two of the most powerful people on Earth! And they don't really have to worry about
Even if they screw around, they are old enough to know the rational way of protecting themselves from STDs and pregnancy, they have private teachers for their own children who can tell them about these things if they don't feel up to it themselves, they have no problems with health care or poverty (as far it concerns them personally) and it doesn't seem to bother them that other people are impoverished - unless, of course, it results in minor disasters like recently in New Orleans which is slightly embarrassing.
They do have reason to worry about homicide, however (in their case it would probably be called assassination), but they have a whole staff of people to worry on their behalf. They don't have to rely on the power of prayers as the only protection for themselves and their relatives.
So how come they got religion? It seems to contradict your ideas of people in need who therefore need to believe. The super rich and powerful people don't seem to live in 'conditions which need illusions', do they?'

Bush's overt belief in god is very much part of the political machinations that are inherent in our system. He uses god and religion just as the church uses them-for control. The only reason he got reelected is that he outstrategized Kerry by appealing to the deeply religious voters. By appeasing them, he controls the vote. He doesn't need their god, he needs their voices to keep him in power.

Two marginally related things:

I believe that it is unconstitutional for the president to say "god bless America"

If there were indeed a separation of church and state, churches would pay taxes.

 

[dann]

So in your opinion Bush isn't even a Christian, he's just a phoney who pretends to be in order to win votes? (The Anti-Christ!)

How about Tony Blair (and his wife and the Royal Family!)? Are they woowoos - or just pretending to be in order to win the votes or sympathy of the homeopathic or new-age community?

 

[Baby Nemesis]

http://www.randi.org/jr/200510/102105herbs.html#14
"As some of my friends would hasten to remind me, correlation does not mean causation. All three of the obvious constructions – that religion causes homicide, STD's, abortion, and child mortality; that people who experience homicide, STD's, abortion, etc. disproportionately turn to God; or that there is a common cause underlying both religious feeling and murderous damaging impulses – are all probably too simplistic to be true. This deserves further investigation."

If you read my sig line ("a condition which needs illusions") you won't be surprised to learn that I may be slightly biased in this question, but on the other hand: When a school in Beslan, Russia, was stormed by terrorists who held the children hostage for days, it was reported that on the first day the children despaired, on the second day they prayed to God and on the third day they prayed to Harry Potter!

James Randi has often stressed that religious people don't just want to believe, they actually need to believe! There is no reason to think that the children in Beslan were taken hostage because they believed. It's the other way round: They found themselves in a horrible situation which was out of their control and in order to cope psychologically with their fear and impotence, they created their own brand of religion on the spot.

"and in order to cope psychologically with their fear and impotence, they created their own brand of religion on the spot."

Interesting thought.

 

[bpesta22]

Fairly soon, at least two articles will appear in the literature showing that religious belief correlates with negative outcomes; not positive ones. None of it's causal, but I bet over the next few years this relationship will be strongly established.

 

[bpesta22]

Ack didn't realize this was a zombie thread.

brains....brains

 

[Baby Nemesis]

Fairly soon, at least two articles will appear in the literature showing that religious belief correlates with negative outcomes; not positive ones. None of it's causal, but I bet over the next few years this relationship will be strongly established.

Religion is so diverse as to make any generalisation about its effects impossible.

 

[bpesta22]

Religion is so diverse as to make any generalisation about its effects impossible.

I think it's possible and been done. I'll post a link once they get published if yer interested.

 

[Baby Nemesis]

I think it's possible and been done. I'll post a link once they get published if yer interested.

It might be interesting, but I might want to critique it. My horribly gruesome thread Desperation fuels belief in the supernatural is about the worst excesses of that kind of thing. But at its best, I think religion can be a good thing, because it can inspire people to better behaviour, ... a bit like the moderation system on this board.

 

[bpesta22]

It might be interesting, but I might want to critique it. My horribly gruesome thread Desperation fuels belief in the supernatural is about the worst excesses of that kind of thing. But at its best, I think religion can be a good thing, because it can inspire people to better behaviour, ... a bit like the moderation system on this board.

Critiquing is fine!

It might be a month or so, but I will post a link.

 

[dann]

Fairly soon, at least two articles will appear in the literature showing that religious belief correlates with negative outcomes; not positive ones. None of it's causal, but I bet over the next few years this relationship will be strongly established.

What do you mean with "in the literature"?

It might be a month or so, but I will post a link.

Thank you! I look forward to it.

 

[bpesta22]

What do you mean with "in the literature"?



Thank you! I look forward to it.

One I reviewed for a leading journal; the other is mine. I hope to send it to a leading journal, get it rejected then find somewhere else that'll take it.

 

[Sandra Price]

Religion's Value?

I believe there is a dangerous safety net imposed on children by their Christian parents. The children are often raised to believe that God will forgive their bad actions. In today’s society there is no definite right and wrong. Religion is a danger to self-awareness.

As parents, and in my case grandparents, we are obligated to train our children to instinctively make choices for which they will be responsible. We are mountain-nature lovers who will never intentionally hurt any living thing. When my family does something for humans, animals or plants we often talk about the joy we have in doing this. Joy is the key word and needs to be cultivated.

 

[Baby Nemesis]

I believe there is a dangerous safety net imposed on children by their Christian parents. The children are often raised to believe that God will forgive their bad actions. In today’s society there is no definite right and wrong. Religion is a danger to self-awareness.

Is the promise of God's forgiveness really a problem though, given that they will very soon learn their actions have earthly consequences, and there will be people on earth who might not be that willing to forgive them, so they'll learn they have to take responsibility for their actions whether God forgives them or not?

Religion teaches a moral code that can protect people from harm. For instance, the Bible teaches that people shouldn't get drunk. Any teenager who obeys that will be sparing themselves the unfortunate consequences some of their friends might have to suffer as a result of their drunken nights out. Since judgment tends to be impaired when drunk, someone who's fairly responsible when sober might do something they'll be paying for for a long time to come. Ideally, such a person would be responsible enough not to get drunk. But consequences can often be unforeseen, and risks only realised after the event. That would be especially so when drinking alcohol, since it might take a while for any one person to discover the level at which their judgment begins to be seriously impaired.

Surely you wouldn't argue that religion's a danger because it might stop them finding out by trial and error, even though in the process it might be stopping them doing something they have to live with for the rest of their lives, like sleeping with a stranger, getting pregnant, and looking after a child for the next 20 years?

This isn't a religious issue though. I expect even some of the most secular of secularists would think trying to reduce the dangers, with education and by other measures such as increasing the price of alcohol, would be a good idea. Religion merely shortcuts the process, by giving people a simple instruction to obey. At least, that's the idea.

That's just one example. It's the same with other things.

 

[Sandra Price]

Reply to Baby Nemisis

Apparently you are a person who looks to the state for your instructions. It's hard to know if you live in America or some other nation where the people are not protected by the Constitution.

In America we did try Prohibition which is what you suggest in taxing those actions that offend you. We had more developing alcoholism after the 18th Amendment was brought into law and bootlegging made millions for a criminal cartel not seen in America before. It is now dealing in drugs since the war on drugs has become a major federal program.

Do you really believe that humans cannot set their own standards of behavior and will need big daddy in politics or big daddy in the sky? George W. Bush was elected because he promised a ban on abortions, gay marriages, death with dignity and stem cell research. Being a born again Christian he had no problem backing away from his campaign promises because he knew he would be forgiven. This is the stuff of Orwell and it dangerous as hell to young people.

My family raised and trained horses and dog and we did it without the bible. At no time did we threaten hell and damnation when our animals failed to obey. I did not use hell and damnation but a simple set of rules of right over wrong.

My dear, you may need the 10 Commandments to save your sorry ass out of jail but most thinking humans whether agnostic or secular certainly do not. You sound very young and you might indeed need help when you start breaking small laws and find it is hard to break that habit.

I hope I don't sound too harsh but I had this figured out at the age of 9. No God in my life and I took the reins of self control with a simple law of right over wrong. If you were raised in front of a television, it might be that you missed this learning event.

 

[Baby Nemesis]

Um, may I suggest you read what I wrote again, more carefully? Then perhaps you can answer it more appropriately.

For instance, who said anything about the state forbidding anything? How could the fact that prohibition led to organised crime possibly have any application to religion? If you choose not to get drunk because of your religion, you do it as a choice. Unless you do it out of fear, and in that case, you certainly won't be conspiring with a bunch of gangsters to get hold of God-forbidden liquor and try to drink it somewhere where his omnipresence might not reach.

Why have you utterly, totally ignored the points I made about the welfare of teenagers?

It seems the religious climate may be very different here to America. Still, what you say doesn't actually address the points I made, but instead misrepresents them, ignores them, and sounds like an angry ill-considered rant about completely different things. Some of it doesn't even make sense. George Bush backed away from his promises because he's a born-again Christian? I don't think even the most sceptical sceptic could assent to that one.

If you carry on responding to rational points with anger, insult, and totally unrelated ranting, I suspect it won't be long before you're disciplined by the moderators or even banned. You see, it's a bit like living under a religion here. There are rules on behaviour that people are meant to follow; and if they don't, they face punishment.

So please try to stick to addressing the points the person you're responding to actually made in future. And read the Membership Agreement again, to remind yourself of the things I've just told you.

 

[Sandra Price]

When you promote a tax on anything, you are giving the state the right to take your money without your consent. I understood your comments quite clearly and obviously you are not able to live over and above the bible and the state.

I honestly hoped that this forum was above the state's authority and certain above the bible's authority. I was wrong. Just because this has a name of James Randi, apparently his followers are not individualists but collectivists. I'll back out.....I'm sorry we have to start from scratch on this forum.

 

[Baby Nemesis]

More and more bizarre

Again, What on earth has the state got to do with anything I said? And if you expected to come here and not face any disagreement,you were wrong. This place is somewhere where people may need to defend their opinions.

If your refusal to address my points wasn't based on a misreading of them, then I can only conclude it was based on callousness or ignorance. For example, is your answer to my point about how religion can be protective against teenage pregnancy and motherhood really something on the lines of, "Well, perhaps stupid people need religion because they're too stupid to set their own standards for living, but at least I'm not!" How uncaring can you get!

You're also being unrealistic. The very fact that you seem to imagine that insult and totally unrelated accusation adequately substitutes for good argument here shows that, contrary to your conviction, you do in fact need some kind of set of rules to keep your behaviour up to standard. :-7

-------

Incidentally, I've dispatched an important message to the moderators here, to inform them of just such concerns. It said,

... please could you rename the Membership Agreement the Twelve Commandments, and call them commandments instead of rules? Then you can respond to breaches of them with a mod warning that says something more like,

"You have committed a grave misdemeanour. You have broken the Eleventh Commandment, Thou shalt not go off-topic."

Thank you. ...

I may be further suggesting they rename the practice of suspension "being cut off from the JREF community", and the practice of banning, "being eternally separated from the mod gods".



And now, I'm going to report this little exchange, because it has nothing to do with the topic, and it will be taken from here and flung into JREF Forum hell, AKA the Abandon All Hope forum.

 

[dann]

Just because this has a name of James Randi, apparently his followers are not individualists but collectivists.

She appears to have confused Rand, the famous 'individualist', with Randi, the infamous collectivist!

 

[Baby Nemesis]

... Religion teaches a moral code that can protect people from harm. For instance, the Bible teaches that people shouldn't get drunk. Any teenager who obeys that will be sparing themselves the unfortunate consequences some of their friends might have to suffer as a result of their drunken nights out. ...

What a truly shocking post that was! How well it deserved the outrage it was greeted with!

As a corollary to it:

I said religion can shortcut the need for the education of teenagers about things that could cause them harm if engaged in recklessly. My post wasn't a pronouncement that religion is the only way forward in child welfare, and that those who disagree will be speedily damned, possibly before they even have the chance to put together a thoughtful reply. Or anything like that. The point was that religion can be protective, which it can.

Education's obviously the ideal protective measure if you can get it to work though, because if you decide not to do something, it's helpful to have a good idea of why it's a good idea not to do it.

Research has apparently found that when effective school programs are implemented that help pupils raise their self-esteem, then the schools' drug and alcohol education programmes etc. are more effective, since people who feel good about themselves are less likely to engage in risky behaviour, and may be more assertive and so more able to stand up for themselves to prevent others drawing them into it. When they have self-belief, and actually know why they're refusing to do what they've decided not to do - which is one way education can have one up on religion, - then they can be more confident in standing out from a crowd of people engaging in risky behaviour, and value themselves enough to want better for themselves.

The research on self-esteem might have been challenged. But it seems to make sense.

From an article extolling the wonders of self-esteem: :-7 Review of Self-Esteem Research:

Relationship of self-esteem to teenage pregnancy:

• CROCKENBERG and SOBY, 1989--In a review of research studies they found that in 4 of 5 studies low self-esteem is associated with less frequent or less sustained use of contraceptives.
• HOGG, 1979--Found that the primary reason juvenile girls run away from home and go into prostitution is because of negative identity development as a result of negative experiences. It was found that the most effective way to get them to give up prostitution was to help them regain their self-esteem.

• BEANE, 1984--Determined that 85-90% of the teenage mothers elect to keep their babies rather than give them up for adoption in the belief that a baby will provide the kind of unconditional love and acceptance that they perceive society does not.

Relationship between drug and alcohol abuse and self-esteem:

• KEEGAN, 1987--Low self-esteem either causes or contributes to neurosis, anxiety, defensiveness, and ultimately alcohol and drug abuse.
• SKAGER, 1988--Self-esteem is indeed involved in addictive substance use. The use of drugs is often used to compensate for low self-esteem and feelings of a lack of control over one's life. Those with a strong sense of self do not have to be sustained at the expense of others. They do not need to control or humiliate other people or resort to substance abuse to compensate for low ... [something].
• GOSSOP, 1976--Results of his study show considerable deficiencies in self-esteem among drug-dependent patients, and believes that teenagers with low self-esteem who are exposed to drugs must be considered to be at-risk.
• MILLER, 1988--Demonstrated that a program to increase self-esteem significantly changed the attitudes of students regarding their alcohol and drug use.

Whether self-esteem-raising programs are themselves effective will naturally depend in part on what methods are used to boost the self-esteem of students. A post I once wrote on what kinds of praise are, and are not effective in helping children long-term, might shed a bit of light on that.

It says things like,

I read a book by someone called Stan Davis, about making schools more child-friendly in order to reduce bullying.

He says research has found that one type of praise that can be unhealthy is praise that makes people think they're great or smart or special, or that kind of thing, without them having a good reason to think so, praise that might unintentionally make them think they don't have to try to behave any better because they're so good already. He says he himself has spoken to teachers who've said that when they've told some children they're talented or smart, they've stopped bothering to work hard. Other teachers have said some children describe themselves as kind, even though they hurt others. ...

He says that on the other hand, healthy praise influences people to link their opinion of themselves to what they do, regardless of what other people think of them. For instance, when children think things like, "When I work hard, I get higher grades", or, "When I control my temper, I stop myself behaving in a way that gets me into trouble", then they link positive things like their feelings of self-worth to something they can have control of like their
behaviour. So that can motivate them to behave better, because they know the benefits for them are likely to increase if they do, so they can make themselves feel better about themselves all by themselves. ...

For instance, the researcher suggested that if a child paints a beautiful picture, teachers etc. can spend time admiring it by asking them how they selected the colours and got the inspiration to paint the images the way they did, and that kind of thing. Or if a child successfully solves some complicated maths problems, a teacher can ask admiringly how they worked out how to solve them, and say things that let them know they admire the concentration that went into the effort.

And they can do similar things with behaviour changes they notice in children, like admiring their new self-control and asking them what strategies they've found to control their temper. ...

 

[tojohndillonesq]

Apparently you are a person who looks to the state for your instructions. It's hard to know if you live in America or some other nation where the people are not protected by the Constitution...

...My dear, you may need the 10 Commandments to save your sorry ass out of jail but most thinking humans whether agnostic or secular certainly do not. You sound very young and you might indeed need help when you start breaking small laws and find it is hard to break that habit.

...If you were raised in front of a television, it might be that you missed this learning event.

What a SUPERB example of the ad hominem fallacy. In addition to being logically invalid, these comments appear to lack basic understanding of successful methods of persuasion.

Insults, be they passionate, powerful, or merely clever, have been proven to persuade people... but to the opposite opinion. One of the know tactics of politics is to discredit the opponent by using a schill to "support" the opponent's arguments in a rude and insulting manner... thus discrediting the arguments. Again, it is an ad hominem fallacy - the intelligence, personality, or manners of a proponent have absolutely no logical correlation to the legitimacy of her/his position. BUT it works. Humans unfortunately tend to first judge the arguer, and only later, if at all, the argument.

For example, I might make the obvious argument: "Two plus two is four, and only an a-hole would disagree."

My readers would FIRST conclude that the real A-Hole here is me. Only secondarily would they conclude that I had somehow stumbled on the truth.

However, lets make an argument that is just slightly less obvious: "You can dye from lack of sodium in your diet, but you a fat dumb@ss liberal you might not understan that." (spelling and grammar errors intentional)

In this case, those who know sodium is a necessity conclude the writer lacks education, intelligence, and basic social skills, and that he should probably be banned from decent society. But their opinions on sodium remain unchanged. However, if the reader does not know anything about nutrional requirements, he is very likely to ALSO conclude that the statement itself is false. An untrustworthy writer supports sodium, hence sodium is probably not a necessity.

So all y'all's sorry asses need to listen up and be polite and stop bein so ignerint.