Death-related Rituals Comforting and Positive Part of Religion

[jbg]

The impetus for this thread is the passing, on December 24, 2013 of my beloved stepfather. I have known him for over 40 years and my parents married each other just under 40 years ago. Thus, he has been part of my life for all but the first 15 or so years.

I did not want to sidetrack this existing thread so I decided to start a new one.

Religion seems to have its avid supporters and detractors. Both, in my view, miss the mark. Starting with the obvious, the stories about Jesus, Mohamed, the Garden of Eden or parting of the seas probably can't be taken literally. To ask this is to risk the ignoring of the more positive aspects of religion since many of the stories stretch credibility. No suspension of disbelief common to novel reading is really possible.

On the other hand, denigration of religion has gone too far. Religion and not its application has been blamed for wars, terror attacks and just about every misfortune known to man. This zealous support or opposition misses the mark.

Religion gives structure to life and comfort in the face of tragedy. In Judaism, the burial occurs almost immediately after the death, allowing enough time only for civil authorities to do their work and relatives to gather. In this case, we logistically couldn't arrange the funeral for Christmas Day because of the lack of workers to handle the movement of the corpse from the rehabilitation facility where he died to the cemetery, and to handle grave excavation. The mourning period, also, is attenuated, and both Numbers and Deuteronomy cap it at the 30 day limit that applied when Moses and Aaron passed on.

I learned of this comforting and logical sequence on January 5, 1973 when my father passed away. The Rabbi's education, in many respects, brought me back to the Jewish faith, after indescribably poor Hebrew School and Religious School education drove me away right after my Bar Mitzvah. While I am not particularly religious, I am practicing, and proudly so.

T

Thus, neither the devout religionists or atheists have this right. And no one will probably like this post.

Comments?

[-1=e^ipi]

Religion seems to have its avid supporters and detractors. Both, in my view, miss the mark. Starting with the obvious, the stories about Jesus, Mohamed, the Garden of Eden or parting of the seas probably can't be taken literally.

One cannot take the story of Mohammed literally???? Good luck trying to justify this to a muslim. According to Islam, Mohammed is the final prophet of Allah and was given Allah's message by the angel Gabriel. The Quran is the collection of the teachings of the prophet Mohammed that were written down by Mohammed's friends/family/closest followers shortly after Mohammed's death and must be taken as the word of god in islam.

Also, why do jews or muslims think that it is okay to mutilate the genitals of their children without the consent of the children?

[jbg]

One cannot take the story of Mohammed literally???? Good luck trying to justify this to a muslim. According to Islam, Mohammed is the final prophet of Allah and was given Allah's message by the angel Gabriel. The Quran is the collection of the teachings of the prophet Mohammed that were written down by Mohammed's friends/family/closest followers shortly after Mohammed's death and must be taken as the word of god in islam.

Though I admire Islam greatly, I am not a Muslim. Ask them.

Also, why do jews or muslims think that it is okay to mutilate the genitals of their children without the consent of the children?

Doing that, to males only and not all children, on the eighth day is not that traumatic. Trust me, I don't remember my circumcision.

[-1=e^ipi]

Though I admire Islam greatly, I am not a Muslim. Ask them.

Doing that, to males only and not all children, on the eighth day is not that traumatic. Trust me, I don't remember my circumcision.

So as long as the child doesn't remember then it is okay? If one performs female circumcision on a baby and the girl doesn't remember later in life is that okay? If one amputates a limb and the child remembers, is that okay? If one burns a religious symbol onto the child's skin such that they will have scar tissue that resembles this symbol for the rest of their lives, is it okay just because they won't remember? I have no problem with an individual over that age of 18 getting a circumcision by choice, but parents deciding that for their children is just wrong.

Anyway, perhaps I skimmed the original post too quickly when I first posted and perhaps I was a bit too insensitive. I'll respond to another part of the original post.

Your original post might not be structured as well as it could be to create a debatable topic, so am I correct in assuming that you wish to argue the validity of justifying religion on the grounds that it comforts people when loved ones die?

Each death / funeral is unique and so how one should react when a loved one dies varies greatly depending on the situation and one's relationship with the deceased. I can understand why people will want to pretend to be religious when a loved one is dying or during the funeral, especially if the loved one is religious. Ex. I might act religious if my grandmother dies (because she is somewhat religious and it would comfort her) but would not act religious if my father dies (cause to me it would be disrespectful to the deceased to lie about what has happened).

But that said, consider this: Why do people cry at funerals? Because they are sad. Why are they sad? Because a loved one has died and they have doubt about their religion (if they have any religious beliefs at all). If someone were a true believer and believed that the loved one has gone to the magical afterlife for eternal bliss then they would be happy for their loved one, but they are not.

Given that death is sad and human suffering is sad, it would be best to avoid/reduce it, would it not? People today live longer, healthier and more interesting lives than they did say 1000 years ago, do they not? And if technology continues to progress perhaps one day human life expectancy will be basically infinite and human suffering will cease. This is where the faults of religion come in.

Religion acts as a distraction towards human progress and slows our technological progress. It makes people focus on some magical afterlife rather than focus on their current life and try to improve their situation. It makes people focus on spirituality instead of the material. It slows scientific progress such as with Galileo or with banning stem cell research. It poisons the minds of young people by discouraging them from thinking critically/skeptically/scientifically. Sure religion may gives you comfort in the short run, but if it slows down the rate of technological progress then in the long run won't it increase suffering and sadness?

If religion never existed then human society could easily be 1000 years more advanced today, which would mean that human life would be greatly extended, poverty would be greatly reduced, and there would be less human suffering & sadness. And this is why I view religion as ultimately immoral; because it ultimately results in in greater human suffering by reducing technological progress and human advance (which in the long run is far greater than comforting people when loved ones die).

It is true that someone could make similar arguments about baseball or about movies (that they act as a distraction and slow the rate of progress), but there is a difference. Baseball, movies or religion can be considered as forms of entertainment that brighten people's lives (and therefore the reduction in human suffering in the short run can make up for the increase in human suffering in the long run due to the slowing of human progress). But the big difference between religion & baseball/movies is that religion fundamentally lies about the reality we live in and makes people think less critically about the universe. As a result, it has much larger implications on scientific thinking and on seeking the truth about the universe.

Anyway, I hope that helps you understand the position of some atheists (though not all atheists agree with this).

Sorry for your loss.

[carepov]

Religion acts as a distraction towards human progress and slows our technological progress. It makes people focus on some magical afterlife rather than focus on their current life and try to improve their situation. It makes people focus on spirituality instead of the material. It slows scientific progress such as with Galileo or with banning stem cell research. It poisons the minds of young people by discouraging them from thinking critically/skeptically/scientifically. Sure religion may gives you comfort in the short run, but if it slows down the rate of technological progress then in the long run won't it increase suffering and sadness?

While there are some examples of this being true, overall I disagree that religion slows technological progress. For many people, religious beliefs and practices allow them to recharge, help set their values and priorities and they are better able to focus on their current life. This can help inspire and spark creativity in the arts and sciences and therefore enable faster technological progress.

If religion never existed then human society could easily be 1000 years more advanced today, which would mean that human life would be greatly extended, poverty would be greatly reduced, and there would be less human suffering & sadness. And this is why I view religion as ultimately immoral; because it ultimately results in in greater human suffering by reducing technological progress and human advance (which in the long run is far greater than comforting people when loved ones die).

If religion never existed, human society as we know it would not exist either. Throughout the development of humanity and civilization, you cannot extract and separate religion. It is intertwined with philosophy, art, science, technology, compassion and charity and also war, greed and oppression.

It is true that someone could make similar arguments about baseball or about movies (that they act as a distraction and slow the rate of progress), but there is a difference. Baseball, movies or religion can be considered as forms of entertainment that brighten people's lives (and therefore the reduction in human suffering in the short run can make up for the increase in human suffering in the long run due to the slowing of human progress). But the big difference between religion & baseball/movies is that religion fundamentally lies about the reality we live in and makes people think less critically about the universe. As a result, it has much larger implications on scientific thinking and on seeking the truth about the universe.

Again, I do not think that religion necessarily hinders critical thinking and reason. All a religious person needs to do is to separate the physical world from the meta-physical world. This person's view of reality (physical world) is guided by science just like yours is. Their understanding of the meta-physical world is guided by their religion. Easy.

Along the same lines, if you think that religion is immoral because it "lies about the reality we live in and makes people think less critically", then in your view, are recreational drugs including alcohol also immoral?

[Bonam]

While there are some examples of this being true, overall I disagree that religion slows technological progress. For many people, religious beliefs and practices allow them to recharge, help set their values and priorities and they are better able to focus on their current life. This can help inspire and spark creativity in the arts and sciences and therefore enable faster technological progress.

Any evidence for this claim?

If religion never existed, human society as we know it would not exist either. Throughout the development of humanity and civilization, you cannot extract and separate religion. It is intertwined with philosophy, art, science, technology, compassion and charity and also war, greed and oppression.

This is true. It is impossible to know what an alternate history would look like.

Along the same lines, if you think that religion is immoral because it "lies about the reality we live in and makes people think less critically", then in your view, are recreational drugs including alcohol also immoral?

Alcohol and other recreational drugs are something that an adult willfully chooses to consume, and has a temporary measurable effect. Religion is something that is usually inflicted on people as children and affects most for their entire lifetime.

[TimG]

---

Edited January 4, 2014 by TimG

[carepov]

Any evidence for this claim?

Here are some points that support my claim that religion has been a net benefit to human progress:

From: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/religion-science/#EpiSciRel

"...theistic belief supports modern science by licensing or endorsing the whole project of empirical investigation..."

"The early pioneers and heroes of modern Western science—Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Boyle, and so on—were all serious Christians"

"One of the chief features of the divine image in human beings, then, is the ability to form beliefs and to acquire knowledge. As Thomas Aquinas puts it, “Since human beings are said to be in the image of God in virtue of their having a nature that includes an intellect, such a nature is most in the image of God in virtue of being most able to imitate God” (ST Ia q. 93 a. 4)." God has therefore created both us and the world, and arranged for the former to know the latter. Thinking of science at the most basic level as the project of acquiring knowledge of ourselves and our world, it is clear, from this perspective, that the doctrine of imago dei underwrites this project. Indeed, the pursuit of science is a clear example of the development and enhancement of the image of God in human beings, both individually and collectively."

For these and other reasons, religion was a driving force in the advancement of science and public education through various institutions (monasteries, universities, public schools).

Also, religion has also a driving force in the advancement of art and architecture, there is no shortage of evidence spread throughout the world.

Many religious practices are akin to meditation - good for the mind - good for human progress.

Alcohol and other recreational drugs are something that an adult willfully chooses to consume, and has a temporary measurable effect. Religion is something that is usually inflicted on people as children and affects most for their entire lifetime.

The poster formally known as Prince claimed that religion is immoral. Sometimes drugs and alcohol have a temporary effect on critical thinking and sometimes permanent. Sometimes religion has a permanent negative effect, a temporary effect, none at all, or as I've argued even a positive effect.

Religion can be taught to children with "inflicting" them.

People that claim that "Religion is bad" (immoral) remind me of those that say "chemicals are bad", or "drugs are bad" or "corporations are bad", or "radiation is bad". Yes, some aspects and applications of religion/chemicals/drugs/corporations/radiation are bad but none of these things are "bad".

[-1=e^ipi]

While there are some examples of this being true, overall I disagree that religion slows technological progress.

Of course you disagree. Though I'm doubtful that you disagree because the evidence suggests you should disagree (but rather disagree because you want to believe in the converse). That's what religion does, it makes people think dogmatically and believe in what they want to believe rather than what the evidence suggests; contrary to scientific thinking. Anyway, if you want to provide evidence to prove/support the idea that religion does not slow technological progress then good luck with that.

Here are some points that support my claim that religion has been a net benefit to human progress:

From: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/religion-science/#EpiSciRel

"...theistic belief supports modern science by licensing or endorsing the whole project of empirical investigation..."

"The early pioneers and heroes of modern Western science—Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Boyle, and so on—were all serious Christians"

"One of the chief features of the divine image in human beings, then, is the ability to form beliefs and to acquire knowledge. As Thomas Aquinas puts it, “Since human beings are said to be in the image of God in virtue of their having a nature that includes an intellect, such a nature is most in the image of God in virtue of being most able to imitate God” (ST Ia q. 93 a. 4)." God has therefore created both us and the world, and arranged for the former to know the latter. Thinking of science at the most basic level as the project of acquiring knowledge of ourselves and our world, it is clear, from this perspective, that the doctrine of imago dei underwrites this project. Indeed, the pursuit of science is a clear example of the development and enhancement of the image of God in human beings, both individually and collectively."

So your biggest counter argument is that some/most famous scientists during the renaissance were Christian? Lol

The reason that the majority of the scientists during this time period were Christian is because they had no freakin choice. You might as well be arguing that Kim Jong Un is good for science because the majority of scientists in North Korea support Kim Jong Un. If people are born in a society where they are brainwashed by religion from a young age, are born in a society that has basically no discussion of atheism/heresy/other religions, can only become scientists through religious institutions, will not get funding unless they identify with a religion, etc., then what do you expect?

After a millennium of Christian dominance of Europe and the persecution of infidels, scientific thinking finally started to occur. I don't see how that supports your conclusion. Not to mention that many of these so called Christians were essentially deists that denied the divinity of Christ. I doubt they would have been Christian if they had access at that time period to the theory of evolution. Speaking of Darwin, he got funding for his voyages and research through the Anglican church, because even in Darwin's time religion controlled essentially all aspects of life and people could not do science without the support of religion.

Maybe a better way to look at things would be to look at the scientific contributions PER CAPITA of non-believers to Christians/Muslims/religious people, because the non-believers far out perform the believers.

For these and other reasons, religion was a driving force in the advancement of science and public education through various institutions (monasteries, universities, public schools).

Religion wasn't a driving force, it controlled EVERYTHING. Public education, schools, universities, etc. could only be done if religious institutions allowed it.

Many religious practices are akin to meditation - good for the mind - good for human progress.

Meditation can be done without religion.

Also, religion has also a driving force in the advancement of art and architecture, there is no shortage of evidence spread throughout the world.

Art and architecture can be done without religion. This isn't a good argument for religion. If I showed art that was inspired by murder or rape, does that make murder or rape good?

If religion never existed, human society as we know it would not exist either.

Yeah, that is the point. It would be 1000 years more advanced.

Again, I do not think that religion necessarily hinders critical thinking and reason. All a religious person needs to do is to separate the physical world from the meta-physical world. This person's view of reality (physical world) is guided by science just like yours is. Their understanding of the meta-physical world is guided by their religion. Easy.

It does hinder critical thinking because the way religion determines truth is dogmatic and in opposition to scientific methodology. If you are arguing that a religious person needs to separate the physical world from the meta-physical then you have already excluded the vast majority of religions. If you want to argue that a very small subset of religions (such as Unitarian Universalism) aren't so bad and have little negative impact on critical thinking and reason then fine but I would like you to define this subset.

Along the same lines, if you think that religion is immoral because it "lies about the reality we live in and makes people think less critically", then in your view, are recreational drugs including alcohol also immoral?

Personally, I do not do recreational drugs and rarely do alcohol (certainly never do enough to get drunk). I do not like drugs but in comparison to religion, they are merely a temporary escape from reality rather than a permanent lie about reality. That said, I support the legalization of some drugs because I support individual choice and freedom.

People that claim that "Religion is bad" (immoral) remind me of those that say "chemicals are bad", or "drugs are bad" or "corporations are bad", or "radiation is bad".

This comparison is silly.

Edited December 28, 2013 by -1=e^ipi

[-1=e^ipi]

double post

Edited December 28, 2013 by -1=e^ipi

[carepov]

Yeah, that is the point. It [a non-religious society] would be 1000 years more advanced.

OK, if you are right... In the entire evolution of mankind, or even the last 8,000 years of civilization, which societies were non-religious? And why have they not dominated their primitive religious foes and taken over the world?

[carepov]

It does hinder critical thinking because the way religion determines truth is dogmatic and in opposition to scientific methodology. If you are arguing that a religious person needs to separate the physical world from the meta-physical then you have already excluded the vast majority of religions. If you want to argue that a very small subset of religions (such as Unitarian Universalism) aren't so bad and have little negative impact on critical thinking and reason then fine but I would like you to define this subset.

Religious people can and do determine truth using scientific methodology. The vast majority of religious people do not even know the "official dogmatic positions" of their faith, let alone beleive in them.

The vast majority of people (religious or not) are ignorant about most things like science and the workings of the physical world around them. IMO, all else being equal, a religious person is about as likely to be a critical thinker as a non-religious person.

[Toma Kert]

We

Religious people can and do determine truth using scientific methodology. The vast majority of religious people do not even know the "official dogmatic positions" of their faith, let alone beleive in them.

The vast majority of people (religious or not) are ignorant about most things like science and the workings of the physical world around them. IMO, all else being equal, a religious person is about as likely to be a critical thinker as a non-religious person.

Well said, however everyone knows right and wrong, be they religious or not. And everybody is responsible to keep their conscience clean and in aligment with the truth. If interested in further research on psychology, human soul from a Christian/Catholic perpective, about perversion of conscience, perfect and hidden possessions, the Great Apostasy you might want to check this blog out: http://catholicguidance.blogspot.ca/

[jbg]

Anyway, perhaps I skimmed the original post too quickly when I first posted and perhaps I was a bit too insensitive. I'll respond to another part of the original post.

No problem.

Your original post might not be structured as well as it could be to create a debatable topic, so am I correct in assuming that you wish to argue the validity of justifying religion on the grounds that it comforts people when loved ones die?

The "debatable topic" is my proposition that religion serves a structuring and mediating function. Literal belief in G-d is not essential to make a person religious.

Each death / funeral is unique and so how one should react when a loved one dies varies greatly depending on the situation and one's relationship with the deceased. I can understand why people will want to pretend to be religious when a loved one is dying or during the funeral, especially if the loved one is religious. Ex. I might act religious if my grandmother dies (because she is somewhat religious and it would comfort her) but would not act religious if my father dies (cause to me it would be disrespectful to the deceased to lie about what has happened).

In this case, the deceased was entirely not religious but he was a "good man" in the sense of ethics and values. The function of religion here is not to adhere to belief in G-d but to give structure to an otherwise impossibly huge loss.

But that said, consider this: Why do people cry at funerals? Because they are sad. Why are they sad? Because a loved one has died and they have doubt about their religion (if they have any religious beliefs at all). If someone were a true believer and believed that the loved one has gone to the magical afterlife for eternal bliss then they would be happy for their loved one, but they are not.

The tears are because of the fact that there will be no more good times or treasured moments with the deceased. I had hoped to have all of my childrens' six grandparents at my older son's high school graduation this June. Now one won't be there through death and the other not likely there through dementia.

Given that death is sad and human suffering is sad, it would be best to avoid/reduce it, would it not? People today live longer, healthier and more interesting lives than they did say 1000 years ago, do they not? And if technology continues to progress perhaps one day human life expectancy will be basically infinite and human suffering will cease. This is where the faults of religion come in.

The extended life expectancy already falls into the category of "we treat our animals better than we treat our peopel.

Religion acts as a distraction towards human progress and slows our technological progress. ***********If religion never existed then human society could easily be 1000 years more advanced today, which would mean that human life would be greatly extended, poverty would be greatly reduced, and there would be less human suffering & sadness.

Take a trip to the world capital of high technology, Tel Aviv and see if you can say that with a straight face.

Sorry for your loss.

Thanks for your kind words and that is not sarcastic.

While there are some examples of this being true, overall I disagree that religion slows technological progress. For many people, religious beliefs and practices allow them to recharge, help set their values and priorities and they are better able to focus on their current life. This can help inspire and spark creativity in the arts and sciences and therefore enable faster technological progress.

I think religion is neutral as far as scientific progress. The advancement of a people depends less on what their religious text says than on how real people apply it. Contrast Israel and the Arab world. Similar texts, hugely different results.

We

Well said, however everyone knows right and wrong, be they religious or not. And everybody is responsible to keep their conscience clean and in aligment with the truth. If interested in further research on psychology, human soul from a Christian/Catholic perpective, about perversion of conscience, perfect and hidden possessions, the Great Apostasy you might want to check this blog out: http://catholicguidance.blogspot.ca/

I think that religion reinforces the distinction between right and wrong, and creates a structure.

[-1=e^ipi]

OK, if you are right... In the entire evolution of mankind, or even the last 8,000 years of civilization, which societies were non-religious?

No societies were completely religious and no societies were completely non-religious. Furthermore, without census data for most of this period it is difficult to determine how religious some of these societies were. It is also different to distinguish between religious people and non-religious people that self identify as religious.

And why have they not dominated their primitive religious foes and taken over the world?

This is actually a very interesting question that is worthy of its own thread. I'll give you a number of possibilities:

- For most of the past, there was a lack of a scientific or non-religious explanation for various observable phenomena, and religious explanations filled this void. For example, before the theory of evolution, one could argue that deism & intelligent design was the best explanation of the origin of the species.

- Religions generally advocate high birth rates, which allow them to out-populate the non-religious population after a few generations (even if it is to the detriment of society as a whole are results in over-population). Admittedly, there are/have been some religions that advocate low birth rates, but in the long run they cannot compete with religions that advocate high birth rates. Currently, despite the rapid growth of Atheism in developed countries recently, atheism is declining globally because the highly religious poor countries are breeding like rabbits.

- Many religions advocate violence/hostility/persecution towards people of other beliefs or towards non-religious people, which makes society favorable towards religious people. For example, if you are born into a Muslim family and are living in a Muslim state that practices Sharia law (say any time in the past 1400 years) and you decide to convert to something else, then you will be given the death penalty. Even in less extreme cases, often people that decide to leave their religion are shunned by family, making them less likely to reproduce as they do not have family support.

Edit: Also, often in the past the externalities associated with technological progress were not internalized and property rights/patents over discoveries did not exist. So religious people in a society benefited as much as non religious people in a society from new technologies that were developed more frequently by non-religious people on a per capita basis.

IMO, all else being equal, a religious person is about as likely to be a critical thinker as a non-religious person.

Your claim that a religious person is about as likely to be a critical thinker as a non-religion has no supporting evidence, so please provide it. I could provide contrary evidence such as the fact that religious people are less likely to agree with the theory of evolution than non-religious people. If you want to argue that a very very small subset of religion does little or no harm towards critical thinking (such as unitarian universalism) then fine.

If interested in further research on human soul

Lol, research on the human soul. How does one 'research' something which does not exist?

Edited December 29, 2013 by -1=e^ipi

[-1=e^ipi]

The function of religion here is not to adhere to belief in G-d but to give structure to an otherwise impossibly huge loss.

True. Though there are non-religious ways to deal with loss.

The tears are because of the fact that there will be no more good times or treasured moments with the deceased.

Huh? But I thought that you will be able to see those loved ones again when you go to the magical afterlife. Be realistic here, the level of sadness felt by people when loved ones die is hardly comparable to the level of sadness felt when a loved one doesn't die (but you might not see them for a while). Loved ones might move to another city, go to university, have to go off to war, have to go somewhere else as part of their job, etc. but it does not have the same emotional effect. In many cases you might feel overall happy if a loved one has to go away for a while (for example, a loved one gets into a really good university such as harvard and has to go away for a few years. But overall, you feel happy cause the pride/happiness you feel for the individual exceeds the fact that you will miss them). In the case of a person dying and going to the magical afterlife to have eternal bliss, surely this would be better for the individual than going to harvard or something, yet overall you would feel sad, not happy. The 'but I will miss them' argument doesn't seem sufficient in explaining the level of sadness people have when loved ones die, so I have to go with the 'religious people have doubt' argument.

If you want to see how true religious people feel about loved ones dying then you should watch this video (it's a comedy skit about autism so it should cheer you up): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vb5rHthCXoA

The extended life expectancy already falls into the category of "we treat our animals better than we treat our peopel.

I do not understand the connection. Could you elaborate?

Take a trip to the world capital of high technology, Tel Aviv and see if you can say that with a straight face.

I was unaware that Tel Aviv was considered the world capital of high technology. But I have no problem stating my arguments anywhere (unless the place I am located in does not allow free speech and I would be imprisoned or killed) as the merits of one's argument do not depend on where I am located.

The advancement of a people depends less on what their religious text says than on how real people apply it. Contrast Israel and the Arab world. Similar texts, hugely different results.

I disagree with the premise that jeudaism and islam have similar texts. The fact that Isreal and the rest of the Arab world have such different results suggests that religion does play a significant role in the technological progress of a society and counters your claim that religion has a neutral effect. Edit: I do admit that different religions have different effects on scientific progress and the advancement of society however.

I think that religion reinforces the distinction between right and wrong, and creates a structure.

It creates structure sure, but in many cases it strongly muddles the distinction between right and wrong. I could point to countless religious texts that say that something is right (despite being completely morally wrong). One example is the penalty of death for apostasy in islam.

Edited December 29, 2013 by -1=e^ipi

[carepov]

carepov, on 27 Dec 2013 - 10:33 PM, said:

IMO, all else being equal, a religious person is about as likely to be a critical thinker as a non-religious person.

Your claim that a religious person is about as likely to be a critical thinker as a non-religion has no supporting evidence, so please provide it. I could provide contrary evidence such as the fact that religious people are less likely to agree with the theory of evolution than non-religious people. If you want to argue that a very very small subset of religion does little or no harm towards critical thinking (such as unitarian universalism) then fine.

First, this is an opinion and not a claim. It is impossible to prove either way for reasons that you have touched on, and then some.

It is probably true that less educated people are on average more religious. Poorer countries tend to be more religious and poorer, less educated US states are more religious.

There are many reasons to be religious and when you are surrounded by suffering and hardship there are that many more reasons. Annother reason why someone may be more religious is that you have fewer options on what to do with spare time. IMO it is the fact that people are poorer and less educated that result in them being on average more religious - not the other way around.

Anyways, to clarify my opinion, if you take a population from the same geographical area and controlled for age, income, family status and of course education, where one group answers "yes I believe in God" and annother answers "no I do I not beleive in God", then IMO, there would be no significant difference in critical thinking ability between the two groups.

[carepov]

True. Though there are non-religious ways to deal with loss.

Meditation can be done without religion.

Art and architecture can be done without religion. This isn't a good argument for religion. If I showed art that was inspired by murder or rape, does that make murder or rape good?

Your question makes no sense to me.

You are right, people can effectively cope with loss, meditate, create wonderful art and architechture, be virtuous and act morally without religion.

Along the same lines, people effectively can drive a nail without a hammer, we can solve complex equations without a computer, we can communicate without speach.

And most importantly people can be stupid/cruel with or without religion.

***

Why do you think that so many non-religious people send their kids to private religious schools these days?

[carepov]

So your biggest counter argument is that some/most famous scientists during the renaissance were Christian? Lol

The reason that the majority of the scientists during this time period were Christian is because they had no freakin choice. You might as well be arguing that Kim Jong Un is good for science because the majority of scientists in North Korea support Kim Jong Un. If people are born in a society where they are brainwashed by religion from a young age, are born in a society that has basically no discussion of atheism/heresy/other religions, can only become scientists through religious institutions, will not get funding unless they identify with a religion, etc., then what do you expect?

After a millennium of Christian dominance of Europe and the persecution of infidels, scientific thinking finally started to occur. I don't see how that supports your conclusion. Not to mention that many of these so called Christians were essentially deists that denied the divinity of Christ. I doubt they would have been Christian if they had access at that time period to the theory of evolution. Speaking of Darwin, he got funding for his voyages and research through the Anglican church, because even in Darwin's time religion controlled essentially all aspects of life and people could not do science without the support of religion.

This is not my biggest counter argument - but it is a very good argument. Many of the shoulders upon modern science stands on were beleivers in God. Here is an intersting list:

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html

A similar discussion to our was had here: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/10/did_christianit078281.html

"It is not true that "everyone was a Christian then. No one was a Christian in China, no one was a Christian in most of Asia, Africa, and most the Americas. Christendom was a very small part of the world -- perhaps 20 percent of the world's population in the 17th century -- restricted mostly to Europe.

Yet modern theoretical science arose only in that Christian sliver of the world. ...

The Renaissance was a wholly Catholic project, funded by the Renaissance popes. It was the financial strain of supporting the Renaissance that was the immediate cause of the Vatican's indulgence crisis that sparked the Reformation..."

Maybe a better way to look at things would be to look at the scientific contributions PER CAPITA of non-believers to Christians/Muslims/religious people, because the non-believers far out perform the believers.

That would be a great study, of course if was controlled for key variables as I mentioned earlier.

And don't forget to count the scientific contributions of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science#Living

Religion wasn't a driving force, it controlled EVERYTHING. Public education, schools, universities, etc. could only be done if religious institutions allowed it.

So the scientific revolution occured while the Church controlled EVERYTHING. So now that religion controls ALMOST NOTHING (relative to the 17th century), you are sying that it is religion that is hindering science? This strikes me as odd.

Edited December 31, 2013 by carepov

[-1=e^ipi]

Anyways, to clarify my opinion, if you take a population from the same geographical area and controlled for age, income, family status and of course education, where one group answers "yes I believe in God" and annother answers "no I do I not beleive in God", then IMO, there would be no significant difference in critical thinking ability between the two groups.

So you are saying that if I did a survey of say 18-25 year old males living in say Tennessee that have a bachelor's degree and come from middle income parents, that there would be no statistically significant difference in the belief in evolution between atheists and religious people? Maybe I can find a study on google scholar to disprove this.

Your question makes no sense to me.

It's a conditional question.

Why do you think that so many non-religious people send their kids to private religious schools these days?

Because often public education or other secular options are no good and the teachers there will try to brainwash kids with socialist or eco-radicalist propaganda.

"It is not true that "everyone was a Christian then. No one was a Christian in China, no one was a Christian in most of Asia, Africa, and most the Americas. Christendom was a very small part of the world -- perhaps 20 percent of the world's population in the 17th century -- restricted mostly to Europe.

Yet modern theoretical science arose only in that Christian sliver of the world. ...

The Renaissance was a wholly Catholic project, funded by the Renaissance popes. It was the financial strain of supporting the Renaissance that was the immediate cause of the Vatican's indulgence crisis that sparked the Reformation..."

Yes, Europe was very Christian in the 17th century. Yes, Europe went through the industrial revolution first and was the first to modernize. What is your point? Are you trying to argue that Christianity is the cause of the industrial revolution and renaissance, cause then why didn't these non-Christian countries develop first? If you want me to answer this then you should probably make a new thread, cause it would be going too off-topic.

So the scientific revolution occured while the Church controlled EVERYTHING. So now that religion controls ALMOST NOTHING (relative to the 17th century), you are sying that it is religion that is hindering science? This strikes me as odd.

Religion is and has always been a hindrance to science and human progress. This is true both during the scientific revolution and today.

[Bonam]

There are many reasons to be religious and when you are surrounded by suffering and hardship there are that many more reasons.

Disagree. When you are surrounded by suffering and hardship, all the more reason to forsake your superstitions and turn to reason and rationality to improve your situation.

[Bonam]

Why do you think that so many non-religious people send their kids to private religious schools these days?

Because they perceive the public school system as being so broken that religious schools are better. Least of two evils type situation. Same way that people pick their politicians.

[Bonam]

Huh? But I thought that you will be able to see those loved ones again when you go to the magical afterlife. Be realistic here, the level of sadness felt by people when loved ones die is hardly comparable to the level of sadness felt when a loved one doesn't die (but you might not see them for a while).

While I generally agree with your anti-religious sentiment, the above is not a strong argument for two reasons:

1) Far from all religions believe in any kind of afterlife. The afterlife carrot for submitting to religious commands is a major feature in Christianity and Islam, but not in many other religions. For example, jbg is Jewish, and Judaism has relatively little to say about an afterlife, focusing much more on Earthy life.

2) Not seeing someone for a while is different from not seeing someone ever again. Remember that while Christians believe that everyone goes to an afterlife, not everyone goes to the same one, so even a true believer will have uncertainty about whether they'll ever see their loved one again. And even if they are sure that they'll all end up in the same afterlife, it's still the last time they'll see them in the physical world, so sadness is still warranted, as there are many types of experiences/interactions that they will never again have with their loved one. And in Islam, the departed loved one will be spending their time in the afterlife with a harem of virgins and will have no time at all for their old Earthly family. Plenty of reason for a wife to weep there...

[carepov]

Disagree. When you are surrounded by suffering and hardship, all the more reason to forsake your superstitions and turn to reason and rationality to improve your situation.

In many situations, turning to your faith community for help and support is the most reasonable and rational way to improve your situation.

[carepov]

So you are saying that if I did a survey of say 18-25 year old males living in say Tennessee that have a bachelor's degree and come from middle income parents, that there would be no statistically significant difference in the belief in evolution between atheists and religious people? Maybe I can find a study on google scholar to disprove this.

No I said that there would be no statistically significant difference in their ability think critically. You are right there would certainly be more religious people that did-beleive in evolution and this is indeed an indicator or a lack of critical thinking. However, what if the question was, "do you beleive that AGW threatens the survival of humanity?" Do you think that the results would show the atheists to be weaker? I was thinking that in an IQ or MENSA type test the results would be statistically equal.