Death-related Rituals Comforting and Positive Part of Religion

[Rue]

I am sorry JBG I just read your post. All I can do is acknowledge your grief and you know I agree with what you said.

The grief you experience is an integral part of building your soul.

Did you notice in your words was absolutely no anger?

That is an admirable grief.

[Rue]

Bonam just to clarify Judaism does discuss the after life but in the Kabbala not in the Bible or Talmud so you are partially correct. As well keep in mind the Old Testament was said to have many different meanings for the same passage. Some argue there are over 250 levels of meaning for each sentence.

So its a complicated religion and it is supposed to forever be challenged and changed to incorporate new meanings. Its not meant to be static or have fixed or absolute meanings.

In Judaism the concept of God or the Alpha and Omega is a paradox. It is everything that ever was, is or could be and therefore must be nothing at the same time. So there is no beginning or end in a conventional sense.

Life as we know it is the act of sharing. The Kabbala discusses it as a big pitcher fluid that shares itself and pours itself into another vessel. Then that next vessel leans all but one thing, that initial decision to share and so the only way to do that, is also share and so it pours itself into the next vessel and so on.

Life or the flow of energy comes from an alpha and omega, the very combustion that comes when absolutely nothing and everything co-exist at the same time and therefore explodes outword in all directions sending tiny particles of itself outword and each of those particles and there are countless numbers of them, each do the same thing, explode and spit out there own infinite series of particles and on and on it goes as new universes, realities and lives are created infinitely.

There is no limit to the direction and development of life. It can not be measured, its infinite and it grows then shrinks then grows and shrinks just like breathing in and out.

Life in the Jewish sense is an abstract flow of energy that continually evolves and mutates but never ends or begins-trying to trace it back to its origins is as meaningless as trying to trace it to its end-the beginning and end are one and the same, they are an illusion.

So in that sense, life is defined as it is by Buddists or Taoists or Hindus or Bahaiis, or Spinoza or atheists who define fractal theory or the energy of light or physics-its not a God with a beard but a flow of energy so to speak and that energy has in it two conflicting components, negative and positive that continually clash in dialectical processes leading to new synthetic understandings.

Its interesting because I explained the above once on another site and it was dismissed as new age nonsense.

Lol the kabal and its description of energy is not that much different than the other mystical disciplines. Life energy is not seen as flesh and blood but its own entity that chooses at times to experience itself in flesh forms or other forms.

Hope that makes sense. Its not that Judaism does not discuss this, but it pretty much says it leaves it until people are much older and have tried to focus and discipline their minds first because such concepts are not conducive to good mental health for those who want solid black and white answers.

Do we have a Satan? No we say there is equal negative and positive in each of us and both components live in us.

We don't see Satan as the personification of all that is wrong.

Satan was simply an angel sent to test faith. He only becomes the Satan Christians know in the New Testament which I would argue is a Pagan concept just like the son of God story incorporated into Christianity by Constantine bastardizing the original Christian faith which I believe was gnostic, i.e., described all of us as the messiah or saviour sent to heal the world through positive actions.

In the gnostic version of Christianity, Jesus is just you and me-us, we are all sons and daughters of God in the sense we all are sent or come to live in our flesh as a choice to try learn from our actions and that if we act positively we heal the world and come closer to the thing we call God and when we do negative things, we injure the world and separate further from this thing we call God.

I believe original Christianity was simply a badly needed revolt against a corrupt religious structure and the fusing of it with pagan beliefs serperating it from Judaism is the result of Constantine turning the religion into an opportunity to control and spy on people through a centralized religious structure and the device called confessional.

I believe the original Christianity as against all organized religious structures and approached prayer as an exercise of mediation to be done individually.

Then again my version of Judaism is so similar to certain aspects of gnostic Christianity, Hinduism, Taoism, Buddism I doubt many would know the difference and its also similar to certain passages of the Koran that refer to peace evolving from letting go of anger which many consider a Christian concept but is found in many faiths.

[-1=e^ipi]

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...

Fair enough. The poor wife won't be able to compete with all those 72 virgins.

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.

Ah, so you want IQ results? Here you go:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence

Blah blah blah, bunch of flowery nice sounding words that have no meaning behind them

Some nonsense about positive and negative energy which has no basis in physics

Some nonsense about being children of a god rather than being descendants of earlier life forms

Some nonsense about the world's 'energy' being physically 'harmed' which has not been observed by science

Bunch of new age nonsense about energy and qi

Here, pat condell can refute this for me:

[jbg]

I am sorry JBG I just read your post. All I can do is acknowledge your grief and you know I agree with what you said.

The grief you experience is an integral part of building your soul.

Did you notice in your words was absolutely no anger?

That is an admirable grief.

I will share a story that I may or may not have totally shared on MLW.

At this same season of the year, 31 years ago almost to this day, on January 5, 1973 my "natural" father passed away at age 47 of cancer. I was 15. My meeting with the Rabbi that day, to frame the eulogy, really returned me to the Reform Jewish faith. I had cleaned out my desk at Hebrew School on May 4, 1970, two days after my Bar Mitzvah. The spitballing and everall lack of discipline deprived me of any interest in continuing.

My mother met my recently deceased stepfather for their first date (they knew each other a bit from the community) on February 14, 1973. Anger would not have served me well then and would have prevented the development of one of the best relationships of my life.

My role during my parents' illnesses (my mother suffers from dementia and cancer in remission) has always been to be the decision maker, the one who gets things accomplished. Honest grief facilitates the process. Anger does not.

[cybercoma]

This would be interesting to discuss, but not in such a personal thread. I will simply offer you my condolences, jbg, and leave it at that.

[jbg]

This would be interesting to discuss, but not in such a personal thread. I will simply offer you my condolences, jbg, and leave it at that.

Cybercoma I don't at this juncture take offense. If you have a personal beef with something I posted though I do prefer to you take it to PM's or e-mais.

[Peter F]

I find death-related rituals comforting too.

[cybercoma]

Cybercoma I don't at this juncture take offense. If you have a personal beef with something I posted though I do prefer to you take it to PM's or e-mais.

I don't have a beef with you at all. It's just when you make the thread personal, it's difficult to offer a viewpoint that might conflict with yours.

[carepov]

Ah, so you want IQ results? Here you go:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence

OK, as I've said, higher IQ has a negative correlation with higher religiosity. IMO, this correlation would disappear if studies were controlled for education and income level. I did not see any of these controls in the wiki-referenced studies.

[-1=e^ipi]

OK, as I've said, higher IQ has a negative correlation with higher religiosity. IMO, this correlation would disappear if studies were controlled for education and income level. I did not see any of these controls in the wiki-referenced studies.

There are quite a few studies that account for this, but most of these require that you pay or have a description to read them. I'll see if I can find a free study that is accessible to all.

http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&q=religiosity+iq

Slightly related, I have seen studies which suggests that atheists do have a higher suicide rate and depression rate that theists.

Edit: There is also a positive correlation between religosity and emotional intelligence (EI), as well a s a positive correlation between autism and atheism.

Edited January 3, 2014 by -1=e^ipi

[jbg]

I don't have a beef with you at all. It's just when you make the thread personal, it's difficult to offer a viewpoint that might conflict with yours.

In this case I don't mind conflicting viewpoints. In regards to your viewpoint you should see nothing in the OP that makes my views of Jewish death rituals dependent on belief in the existence of G-d. In fact quite the contrary.

I actually think if we were discussing this personally we'd have a rare moment of agreement.

[carepov]

There are quite a few studies that account for this, but most of these require that you pay or have a description to read them. I'll see if I can find a free study that is accessible to all.

http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&q=religiosity+iq

Slightly related, I have seen studies which suggests that atheists do have a higher suicide rate and depression rate that theists.

Edit: There is also a positive correlation between religosity and emotional intelligence (EI), as well a s a positive correlation between autism and atheism.

There may or may not be statistically significant differences between groups of religious and non-religious people. IMO however these differences are practically insignificant. And I am certain that when dealing with one individual, the fact that they are religious or not should have no influence on wether we judge that person to be moral/immoral, smart/stupid, generous/selfish, etc...

[-1=e^ipi]

There may or may not be statistically significant differences between groups of religious and non-religious people. IMO however these differences are practically insignificant. And I am certain that when dealing with one individual, the fact that they are religious or not should have no influence on wether we judge that person to be moral/immoral, smart/stupid, generous/selfish, etc...

So now you admit that there may be statistically significant differences between groups of religious and non-religious people? But statistically significant != practically significant? What is your definition of practically significant?

Studies have found statistically significant differences between the IQs of different groups of humans, be it by race (East Asians have a higher average IQ than white people who have a higher average IQ than black people), gender (males have a statistically significant higher average IQ than females), political affiliation (democrats in the US have a higher average IQ than republicans) and other ways of grouping people (such as sexual orientation, introversion/extroversion & autism). Other forms of intelligence testing have found differences as well. Why you would think religion is exempt from this does not make sense to me.

Anyway, you brought up this topic, not me. Just do not make false claims like there is no statistically significant difference in intelligence between religious and non-religious people if you cannot back it up. That said, obviously you should treat people as individuals, but that doesn't somehow make statistically significant differences in IQs between groups of humans as non-existent.

Edited January 5, 2014 by -1=e^ipi

[carepov]

So now you admit that there may be statistically significant differences between groups of religious and non-religious people? But statistically significant != practically significant? What is your definition of practically significant?

Studies have found statistically significant differences between the IQs of different groups of humans, be it by race (East Asians have a higher average IQ than white people who have a higher average IQ than black people), gender (males have a statistically significant higher average IQ than females), political affiliation (democrats in the US have a higher average IQ than republicans) and other ways of grouping people (such as sexual orientation, introversion/extroversion & autism). Other forms of intelligence testing have found differences as well. Why you would think religion is exempt from this does not make sense to me.

Anyway, you brought up this topic, not me. Just do not make false claims like there is no statistically significant difference in intelligence between religious and non-religious people if you cannot back it up. That said, obviously you should treat people as individuals, but that doesn't somehow make statistically significant differences in IQs between groups of humans as non-existent.

Good question, when I say "practically significant", I mean useful in real life, and of couse I am biased and mostly mean, "useful in my life".

When some people find out that another person is religious they judge that person as naive and of a weaker mind. I suspect that you are that kind of person because of some of the language that you use. These prejudices against religious people is common and IMO holds back progres in society.

Where did I make a claim that I did not back up? When I state an opinion I clearly say "IMO...".

[bleeding heart]

I think (and yes, it's already been pointed out many times) that some delineation is in order. Religion is not religious fanaticism. A belief in God or gods does not, as I see it, hold back human progress in any demonstrable way. That I don't share this belief, and frankly don't quite understand it, is not relevant.

[-1=e^ipi]

Good question, when I say "practically significant", I mean useful in real life, and of couse I am biased and mostly mean, "useful in my life".

Useful in what sense? Useful in the sense that you should discriminate and base decisions entirely around whether or not a person believes in fairy tales? Or useful in the sense that it is but one of many characteristics that you can use to judge a person?

When some people find out that another person is religious they judge that person as naive and of a weaker mind.

Weaker relative to who? And who are these people making the judgments? How are you defining 'weaker mind'?

I suspect that you are that kind of person because of some of the language that you use.

I cannot say I am or am not that 'kind of person' because I would need a clearer definition of what you mean to answer that.

These prejudices against religious people is common and IMO holds back progres in society.

Definition of prejudice (first result from google search): preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience. Religious people believe in delusional fairy tales. It is not prejudice to take into account their delusional fairy tale beliefs when making decisions in life.

Where did I make a claim that I did not back up? When I state an opinion I clearly say "IMO...".

IMO exempts people from burden of proof now?

A belief in God or gods does not, as I see it, hold back human progress in any demonstrable way.

A belief in a god similar to deism or pantheism isn't harmful to human progress. A belief in gods... well it depends on which gods and what beliefs are associated with those gods. Belief in religion on the other hand includes many more beliefs and whether it is harmful or not depends on the set of beliefs contained within the religion; the major religions are certainly harmful to human progress.

[Bonam]

Belief in religion on the other hand includes many more beliefs and whether it is harmful or not depends on the set of beliefs contained within the religion; the major religions are certainly harmful to human progress.

I'd tend to agree. In fact, there's a strong negative correlation between religiosity and the wealth (gdp) of nations, showing that less religious societies are more economically succesful/advanced:

[bleeding heart]

You know I'm in agreement with you, at least roughly, about religion generally. But as your own remarks imply, we're only talking correlation.

that is, could it not be that societies that suffer under awful policies, and or awful circumstances, in which relatively large swaths of the populations endure economic, social and political hardships....that such things could well be the cause of intense religiosity as much as the effect?

I mean, ultimately it's perhaps a fool's game to delineate cause and effect with any accuracy, but I believe such might be the case.

I rather look at it this way, though hopefully not delving into religious apologetics which try to make a similar point for self-indulgent reasons: I don't think religion has "caused" a single bad human quality. that is, any human quality, good or bad, is innate to human nature (since crude behaviorism has been, in most realms of science, mostly discredited). Therefore, religion doesn't invent any horrors.

It does, I will certainly grant you, often appear to exacerbate things, and sanctify behavior that we might otherwise deem repugnant. Therein lies the primary issue with religious faith.

But I think religion touches upon points of faith that are not discretely "religious" in nature. that is, ugly, dangerous articles of "faith" are a very real component of human thought itself, as we know when we shake our heads in wonder during morally or logically insane political opinions...which each one of has done on numerous occasions.

So ok, obviously none of this is terribly insightful, much less groundbreaking. But my point is that religious faith isn't, for me, the problem. The problem is morally and logically insane propositions and notions that religion contains....but does not alone signify or play out. They remain without religion as well as within it.

As for the truth and reality as we best understand it....there, I do think there is value in harshly interrogating religious belief whenever it clashes with what we've come to understand about reality through more rigorous means. (Science.) But many people of faith are not, or not obviously, holding beliefs akin to superstition, or even the supernatural.

My conservative Christian father, for example, who rarely misses church, and is active in that community, doesn't even believe in the Divinity of Christ. No miracles, no virgin birth, no rising from the dead. "God" is an idea to him, not a palpable being (or an actual, six-foot-tall manlike dude living on a planet, as the Mormons believe. Yes....they really do!)

Rather, it's an idea, something to do with a human desire to see human beings entire as some sort of moral community...in a potential sense, not an objectively-existing one, perhaps.

And Jesus Christ....is simply a symbol, an embodiment of the reaching for moral perfection.

I see nothing to which to object in this type of faith....and I don't think it's an uncommon one among believers. It's practically an enemy of religious literalism, and is inherently humble. It's certainly no more arguable or problematic than liberalism, conservatism, libertarianism...all of which contain articles of faith, and all of which are contradictory and, potentially, lethal belief systems..and .based only partially on observable reality.

Edited January 10, 2014 by bleeding heart

[cybercoma]

I'd tend to agree. In fact, there's a strong negative correlation between religiosity and the wealth (gdp) of nations, showing that less religious societies are more economically succesful/advanced:

It likely works the other way, early in their history nations are more religious to hold them together. Society revolves around religious institutions, practices, and rituals. As nations develop and generate more wealth, religion is unnecessary for social solidarity, democratic laws and political institutions replace religion as the glue holding society together instead. Countries then shed religion, as it becomes redundant and unnecessary to keep the society together. That's an oversimplified version of the theory behind this, but you get the gist. Edited January 10, 2014 by cybercoma

[overthere]

God was an essential human invention, intended to provide some convenient answers for hard questions, but more inportantly to provide hope in lives that were often harsh, brutal and short- and hopeless.

Organized religion also provides another tribal connection, which is something we all instinctively seek while pretending to be above it all.

I have no problem with organized religion as applied to the grieving, it provides comfort and solace to wounded hearts when they most need it. Whatever works.....as long as it is optional.

[carepov]

Useful in what sense? Useful in the sense that you should discriminate and base decisions entirely around whether or not a person believes in fairy tales? Or useful in the sense that it is but one of many characteristics that you can use to judge a person?

IMO moderate religiousity is not a useful characteristic in judging a person.

Weaker relative to who? And who are these people making the judgments? How are you defining 'weaker mind'?

I cannot say I am or am not that 'kind of person' because I would need a clearer definition of what you mean to answer that.

Definition of prejudice (first result from google search): preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience. Religious people believe in delusional fairy tales. It is not prejudice to take into account their delusional fairy tale beliefs when making decisions in life.

If I am understanding you correctly, you seem to think that religious people are intellectually beneath you. Am I right?

[carepov]

A belief in a god similar to deism or pantheism isn't harmful to human progress. A belief in gods... well it depends on which gods and what beliefs are associated with those gods. Belief in religion on the other hand includes many more beliefs and whether it is harmful or not depends on the set of beliefs contained within the religion; the major religions are certainly harmful to human progress.

I'd tend to agree. In fact, there's a strong negative correlation between religiosity and the wealth (gdp) of nations, showing that less religious societies are more economically succesful/advanced:

In most economically successful/advanced societies, what came first, economic success or a decline in religiousity? I see it as the former preceding the latter, hence a decline in religion is not a cause of economic success.

I think that economic success results in a decline in religiosity for some of the reasones mentioned above, also people in wealthy countries, on average:

-have more choices, the more choices we have the less likely that we will choose to become involved in a religious group

-are more independent, especially at younger ages. You do not need to rely on our religious community for support. You do not need to listen to your parents and grand parents.

-start families later in life

...

Edited January 11, 2014 by carepov

[Bonam]

In most economically successful/advanced societies, what came first, economic success or a decline in religiousity? I see it as the former preceding the latter, hence a decline in religion is not a cause of economic success.

I'd say that economic and scientific progress and decline in monotheistic religion came hand in hand, since the times of the Renaissance. While the Church was dominant, progress, both economic and scientific, was held back for centuries. Similarly in the Islamic world, its centuries of relative prosperity and pre-eminence correlated with a relatively secular period where religion did not hold as much power, while the re-assertion of power by Islamic religious groups has often led to economic collapse. In the US, more religious states are almost universally less economically successful, the net recipients of significant federal handouts, and this situation is unlikely to change as these states undermine their future generations by teaching them nonsense instead of science in schools.

Edited January 11, 2014 by Bonam

[-1=e^ipi]

that is, could it not be that societies that suffer under awful policies, and or awful circumstances, in which relatively large swaths of the populations endure economic, social and political hardships....that such things could well be the cause of intense religiosity as much as the effect?

Or the causation goes both ways. Religion can cause poverty and poverty can cause religion.

So ok, obviously none of this is terribly insightful, much less groundbreaking. But my point is that religious faith isn't, for me, the problem. The problem is morally and logically insane propositions and notions that religion contains....but does not alone signify or play out. They remain without religion as well as within it.

So for you faith in religion isn't the problem, the problem is some of the religious beliefs in which people can have faith in? Do I understand you correctly? I don't really see the purpose in such a distinction.

Look, I don't think it is helpful to lump all religions together. Can we at least agree that some religious beliefs are harmful, some religious beliefs are harmless and some religious beliefs might be beneficial for society and that each religion should be examined on a case by case basis?

My conservative Christian father, for example, who rarely misses church, and is active in that community, doesn't even believe in the Divinity of Christ. No miracles, no virgin birth, no rising from the dead. "God" is an idea to him, not a palpable being (or an actual, six-foot-tall manlike dude living on a planet, as the Mormons believe. Yes....they really do!)

Then your dad is not a Christian, he is a deist. If you do not believe in the divinity of Christ you are not a Christian.

I see nothing to which to object in this type of faith....and I don't think it's an uncommon one among believers. It's practically an enemy of religious literalism, and is inherently humble. It's certainly no more arguable or problematic than liberalism, conservatism, libertarianism...all of which contain articles of faith, and all of which are contradictory and, potentially, lethal belief systems..and .based only partially on observable reality.

So some religious beliefs (deism or pantheism) are no more harmful to society than some political beliefs (liberalism, conservatism and libertarianism)? Fine I can agree with that. Actually you could have gone further and compared them with political beliefs like marxism, facism or eco-radicalism. But some religious beliefs are not all religious beliefs (not necessarily the majority).

[-1=e^ipi]

IMO moderate religiousity is not a useful characteristic in judging a person.

Look it depends. You need to be more specific. All I'm saying is I don't think people who have religious beliefs that go against the scientific fact that humans and chimpanzees have common ancestors should be employed in any scientific field that involves the theory of evolution.

Also, I wouldn't hire, want to work with, shake hands with or want to associate myself with anyone who has a religious belief that requires them to separate themselves from people of the opposite sex like this York student:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/york-university-student-s-request-not-to-work-with-women-stirs-controversy-1.2490514

If I am understanding you correctly, you seem to think that religious people are intellectually beneath you. Am I right?

I would prefer you more clearly define the set of religious people, but to answer your question I do not think that all religious people are intellectually below me (some religious people maybe, but that would apply to non-religious people as well).