In support of religions and spirituality

[TaintedAndDelish]

I wanted to try taking the opposite side of this argument for a change. Rather than arguing against religion and views that a god exists, I wanted to explore a slightly different avenue. The point of this is not to judge whether or not gods are real and whether or not religions are believable, but whether or not religions have a positive effect on us or serve some purpose. This might mean experimenting with how we view religions and looking for reasons for how and why a religion might benefit society.

I don't want to dig up past atrocities, but would like to look at what good religious and spiritual beliefs might have done at various points in time.

Perhaps religion and unfounded beliefs serve some special function in life - much like art. Art does not have to be logical, and is often soaked in imagination. We say that art is important to us - even if its crazy or confusing. Perhaps religion and spirituality could be explored in a similar light?

So lets start with the assumption that we all disagree on whether or not gods are real, and that we have mixed feelings about religious institutions in general, and step into exploring what positive role religion spirituality might play in our lives.

Some questions that immediately come to mind are:

1. Does it matter whether or not we believe in a god and whether or not such a thing exists? When we die, its not really going to matter anyway ( unless of course, there is a god ). That great black unknown space could be left empty or painted brilliantly with gods and aliens.

2. Does religion and spirituality benefit us in the same or similar way that art benefits us?

3. Might it be possible to construct a religion that actually has some powerful, unifying effect. Something that mankind would be better off with?

[Oniya]

Focusing on the positive is a very refreshing idea!

Although I'm not Christian, I have to say that the world would be a much poorer place without the works of the great Renaissance artists that were quite often given funds and commissions from the Vatican.

Boston College, Georgetown University, and the international collection of Loyola Universities (and many other colleges) were all founded by the Jesuits.  William and Mary was founded as an Anglican institution, and educated many of the Founding Fathers.  The University of Notre Dame is still classed as a Catholic research university (and when BC plays the Irish, it is said that God sits down to watch.)  Many other colleges were also founded with a religious affiliation, while not always requiring participation in that particular faith.

[Ironwolf85]

I'd prefer to believe there is some form of divine positive influence, I've seen it personally many times.

The negative has been discussed often enough. But the positive.
Religion has caused both the best and some of the worst actions of mankind. Though in the modern age it's doing less of the bad stuff, that brand of human evil has been picked up by nationalists.  ;D

If it wasn't for religion we would not have science as we have it today, the first scientists, astrologers, and investigators of the natural world, were religious scholars and priests. Often trying to understand their god or gods, or ect. That desire for answers has always been part of mankind, and religious declines were the first to look up at the heavens and start asking questions. Trying to understand god through his creations and all that.

One of the major functions of Christian churches has always been charity and taking care of the needy, especially in a world increasingly obsessed with profit over people, it's a necessary function that non-religious groups have a hard time fulfilling. Helping people is part and parcel of Christian doctrine, even if some forget that fact in favor of more inflammatory and selfish desires.

Also This forum isn't likely to get the echo-chamber effect because it focuses on the positive, so it will avoid forum bloat. YAY

[Mathim]

Without bringing up or dwelling on the negative, I'll just be the first to say this: There need be no religion for any of these positive benefits to make themselves known to humanity. It can all be done, in many cases in a superior way, by purely secular means and with purely secular motivations. Bringing religion into things like this will not solve anything and ultimately, inevitably, only create more problems. Case in point: The world as it is today. This avenue, while superficially positive, is not the solution.

[Iniquitous]

Read this once and think it is something everyone needs to read.

"The world isn't being destroyed by democrats or republicans, red or blue, liberal or conservative, religious or atheist -- the world is being destroyed by one side believing the other side is destroying the world. The world is being hurt and damaged by one group of people believing they're truly better people than the others who think differently. The world officially ends when we let our beliefs conquer love. We must not let this happen.

When we lump people into groups, quickly label them, and assume we know everything about them and their life based on a perceived world view, how they look, where they come from, etc., we are not behaving as full human beings. When we truly believe that some people are monsters, that they fundamentally are less human than we are, and that they deserve to have less than we do, we ourselves become the monsters. When we allow our emotions to be hypnotized by the excitement of petty bickering about seemingly important topics, we drift further and further away from the fragile and crucial human bond holding everything together. When we anticipate with ferocious glee the next chance we have to prove someone "wrong" and ourselves "right," all the while disregarding the vast complexity of almost every subject -- not to mention the universe as a whole -- we are reducing the beauty and magic of life to a "side" or a "type," or worst of all, an "answer."

At its best, religion is able to organize extremely complex world views into manageable and communicable systems so they can be grappled with and studied abstractly. But even the most noble efforts to organize the world are essentially futile. The best we can usually achieve is a crude and messy map of life from one particular vantage point, featuring a few grids, bullet points, and sketches of its various aspects and landmarks. Anything as infinitely complex as life, reality, and the human experience can never be summed up or organized in a definitive system, especially one based on "left or right," "A or B," "us or them." This is the fatal flaw of binary thinking in general. However, this flaw isn't just ignored, it's also embraced, amplified, and deliberately used as a weapon on the very people who think it's benefiting their way of thinking.

Human beings crave order and simplicity. We cling to the hope that some day, if we really refine our world view and beliefs, we can actually find the fully correct way to think -- the absolute truth and final side to stand on. People and systems craving power take advantage of this desire and pit us against each other using a "this or that" mentality. The point is to create unrest, disagreement, resentment, and anger -- a population constantly at war with itself, each side deeply believing that the other is not just wrong, but also a sincere threat to their very way of life and survival. This creates constant anxiety and distraction -- the perfect conditions for oppression. The goal of this sort of politics is to keep people held down and mesmerized by a persistent parade of seemingly life-or-death debates, each one worth all of our emotional energy and primal passion.

But the truth is, the world has always been and always will be on the brink of destruction. And what keeps it from actually imploding is our love for life and our deep-seeded desire not to die. Our love for our own life is inextricably connected to our love of all life and the miracle of this phenomenon we call "the world." We must give all of ourselves credit every day for keeping things going. It's an incredible achievement to exist at all.

So we must protect and respect each other, no matter how hard it feels. No matter how wrong someone else may seem to us, they are still human. No matter how bad someone may appear, they are truly no worse than us. Our beliefs and behavior don't make us fundamentally better than others, no matter how satisfying it is to believe otherwise. We must be tireless in our efforts to see things from the point of view we most disagree with. We must make endless efforts to try and understand the people we least relate to. And we must at all times force ourselves to love the people we dislike the most. Not because it's nice or because they deserve it, but because our own sanity and survival depends on it. And if we do find ourselves pushed into a corner where we must kill others in order to survive, we must fully accept that we are killing people just as fully human as ourselves, and not some evil abstract creatures. Have the strength to doubt and question what you believe as easily as you're so quick to doubt others beliefs. Live with a truly open mind -- the kind of open mind that even questions the idea of an open mind. Don't feel the need to always pick a side. And if you do pick a side, pick the side of love. It remains our only real hope for survival and has more power to save us than any other belief we could ever cling to."

[Mikem]

Well....

Coming from a guy who'd much rather invest all his time into believing Aliens exist instead of some almighty force, I WILL say that Religion, as a concept, has done good on the personal level with people. Many who look to Religion have found some kind of peace within them which gives them a foothold to better their lives, thinking their hard work will pay off one day.

But when Religion is pushed upon a community. A society. A nation. A world of people, instead of leaving it as an individual choice. Well. Things get real icky.

But since this is a positive thread about Religion, I won't get into that. Again, I agree that Religion's morals and good natured ideals are indeed beneficial to individual lives.

[Aislinn]

Without bringing up or dwelling on the negative, I'll just be the first to say this: There need be no religion for any of these positive benefits to make themselves known to humanity. It can all be done, in many cases in a superior way, by purely secular means and with purely secular motivations. Bringing religion into things like this will not solve anything and ultimately, inevitably, only create more problems. Case in point: The world as it is today. This avenue, while superficially positive, is not the solution.

And yet, the OP chose to make a thread about the positive aspects of religion and spirituality and their impact on the world. Coming into a thread with comments that aren't related are disrespectful to the OP.

...

I think, in regards to the topic, that others have made wonderful points about certain advancements or avenues that were made possible, in large and small ways, by certain religions and spiritual points of view. Many of our holidays were created the same way.

[Inkidu]

I'm glad to see something religiously positive in the forum. There are many benefits to education, science, and humanitarianism from many of the worlds' religions. Sometimes that gets forgotten by the negative aspects that humanity can bring forward.

[Lux12]

You know, I dislike evangelists of any kind but I can say I know more people who have been helped by religion than hurt. Whether they become a fellow Pagan, a Buddhist, Christian, or anything else, I can safely say that religion may have actually saved people I know. I'm not just talking about spiritual salvation necessarily. I'm talking about people who have been pulled out of some pretty messed situations by the path they came to walk. I can also think of religions that support outright progressive outlooks.

[Lilias]

I'm Greek. A cursory overview of Greek history will show that what is the modern state, as well as its broader surrounding area, was under Turkish occupation for five centuries (15th to early 20th). Religion - Orthodox Christianity, in the particular case - was the reason both the nation and the state exist today. The church provided the people with community in their present, as well as historical continuity, while its liturgical texts preserved the language and promoted literacy. Without all those, the people would have been linguistically and culturally assimilated and there would have been none to rise and demand independence.

[TaintedAndDelish]

Some interesting points so far.. especially what  Iniquitous Opheliac had to say.

What Lilias pointed out was exactly the sort of historical example I was hoping to hear about. In the meantime, I came up with one that I thought was worth mentioning. The Salvation Army. While they have a religious agenda, they seem to put taking care of people's needs first, religious conversion last. Since I was a kid, I recall seeing people standing out in the cold ringing the bell only to see a quarter or dime tossed in - sometimes a dollar rolled up.

Some might argue that a non religious group could do this, and rightly so, but I think that the values taught by groups like this encourage charity and care for one another. No, you don't need a religion be charitable, but maybe it does help to influence some people who might otherwise not be all that inclined to be charitable, naturally.

Some might argue that society would be stronger if we all treated charity as a crime and just let the weak die off due to their own failures, but I don't think this is natural or necessary. People who are ill, weak or poor can certainly make strong contributions to society (ie. Steven Hawkings ) and many people do tend to react compassionately, so I think being charitable is just part of being human... for many.

But when Religion is pushed upon a community. A society. A nation. A world of people, instead of leaving it as an individual choice. Well. Things get real icky.

I agree, and think this was part of I.O.'s point. Once we start dividing the population into "us" and "them", we start going down hill. Religion without the "they are inferior" bit or the "we must do X to be worthy" bit would be a lot more palatable. We are human though. We do tend to disagree on things.

Without bringing up or dwelling on the negative, I'll just be the first to say this: There need be no religion for any of these positive benefits to make themselves known to humanity. It can all be done, in many cases in a superior way, by purely secular means and with purely secular motivations. Bringing religion into things like this will not solve anything and ultimately, inevitably, only create more problems. Case in point: The world as it is today. This avenue, while superficially positive, is not the solution.

For starters, I am an atheist and dislike a lot of things about religions. I've shared those views quite liberally. No, religion is not needed for charity or morality to exist, but to be quite honest, I'm starting to think that throwing religion out the window is like tossing the baby with the bath water. I'm not fully convinced of this yet, but I think this may be true.

This, I have to disagree with:

   "It can all be done, in many cases in a superior way, by purely secular means and with purely secular motivations."

People have mixed and changing motivations and tend to corrupt things over time. What works in theory does not always work in reality. People are anything but pure. We have corrupted our religions, businesses and governments. We corrupt our friendships and relationships with one another.  Hell, we screw up good code too.  o.O

With regard to religion and executive function ( I think that's the right phrase ), sometimes, you just need a basic sense of direction in order to start your journey. I can get from here to there without GPS coordinates or the most optimal route. Sometimes a road sign or pointed finger is sufficient for starters. Religion may have served as that pointed finger for the time being and might be replaced by something analogous to a GPS, but for the time being I don't think we are there yet. It seems like right now, religion works for some while science, philosophy, psychology or whatever works for others. Yanking the road signs down might do more damage than good for some at this point in time.

"Bringing religion into things like this will not solve anything and ultimately, inevitably, only create more problems."

You see, this is what I am questioning.  DOES religion serve such a purpose. Bringing all the "religious division" into the picture certainly makes things worse, but is it possible that the act of believing in a dream or shared dream might do some good for the time being? I remember early on in my career, I wanted to be an electrical engineer and invent all sorts of wicked stuff. That motivated me in the very beginning of my journey, but thus far it has not been my destination. It was just a misguided dream, but one that got me to the next step in my path.

[BAMF]

I wanted to add one counter-point to your post, T&D. I have gay friends, and The Salvation Army has actually refused to take donations from my LGBT friends. One guy I know tried to drop off a few bags of clothing and he and his now husband went together and they refused the donation.

I know this is a personal anecdote, but I wanted to mention it because I've heard of it happening here. I don't know if all Salvation Army outlets are similar, but that's my own experiences (and not even my own, but I digress), YMMV.

[Inkidu]

I wanted to add one counter-point to your post, T&D. I have gay friends, and The Salvation Army has actually refused to take donations from my LGBT friends. One guy I know tried to drop off a few bags of clothing and he and his now husband went together and they refused the donation.

I know this is a personal anecdote, but I wanted to mention it because I've heard of it happening here. I don't know if all Salvation Army outlets are similar, but that's my own experiences (and not even my own, but I digress), YMMV.

Yeah, that happens, thankfully I don't think it's actually policy.

[TaintedAndDelish]

Yeah, I don't find it surprising that you would find that sort of bias in a Christian charity. I didn't mean to put the salvation army on a pedestal or anything, but just to point out a religious group that was of some tangible benefit to society - or at least to a significant portion of society. I would expect other charities to inherit similar biases and shortcomings from whatever religion their founders have rooted it in.

Thanks for pointing that out, BAMF.

[Ironwolf85]

Yeah it's hard to avoid personal bias with any organization.
Faith I believe can be a beautiful thing, faith in a greater power has driven mankind forward in every field including the sciences and arts.

I think the problem is anything+stupid=Stupid²

Leaving that aside and looking at the good things, let's look at some of the amazing feats people have accomplished in the name of their faith next. grand monuments and art. Let's not forget that many early researchers in the age of enlightenment were driven by their faith in god and a desire to understand his world. Darwin's origin of species had a prayer to Christ in the dedication page on the inside cover.


Before this comes up of it's own accord I'll address it now Galileo. Because he is held up as an icon of the church suppressing science and so forth. I did my research on the guy, dug deep into history books. Turns out he wasn't put on house arrest for his beliefs. After being denied a papal grant in favor of a man doing similar work with planets he published a book where he basically called the pope and all his scientific rivals morons and other far more unkind words.
That was why the pope got huffy, and to add tinder the Italian scientific community of the time felt insulted and various members petitioned the pope to do something about his book. Pope Leo called up the inquisition, who was his personal police force within the church. Galileo was officially tried for slandering church officials. But the inquisition was chomping at the bit for a heresy charge.
You guys know the rest. Galileo got house arrest, and they made him take back the book. (which had the now proven theory he is now remembered for.)

Leo was a patron of the arts and sciences for his reign, a bit of a politicker, he died not long after the galileo trial, and his successor borga was a complete bastard as history well shows. It's a shame his historic legacy will always be linked to Galileo's trial and not the tons of church gold he spent funding Galileo's research into planets before they had their falling out.

[Sabby]

Hmmm, what positive things are there to Religion... well, unity of the people, I guess, but I wouldn't call that a perk only Religion offers.

Is there anything positive that we can only get from Religion and no where else? I've thought on this a while and I'm not really getting anything.

[Ironwolf85]

Religion as an organization?

Or do you mean spirituality & faith?

the first is just an organization, the other two are part of humanity as a whole.

[Sabby]

Most definitions that Google shows me for Spirituality makes it seem like something that can also be achieved without a Religion.

[Ironwolf85]

Most definitions that Google shows me for Spirituality makes it seem like something that can also be achieved without a Religion.

I'm a Christian and I'm spiritual person, I also pride myself on being rational and reasonable. I believe it is our highest calling to unravel the mysteries of the cosmos around us to that end I am very into cosmic research, and while I can't wrap my head around advanced physics without a reference guide for the symbols of an equation I believe in both science and religion as ways to ennoble mankind. They are not opposing ideas, all understanding brings morality.

That said I acknowledge both have their dark shadow Inquisition, Mustard Gas, and so forth.

howabout you guys?

[Mathim]

Regarding throwing the baby out with the bathwater: My analogy reply is, when cell phones become widely available, we throw out corded home phones.

The placebo effect religion provides is, again, not exclusively available through religion and adds no truth value to the thing whatsoever. If people choose to cherry-pick nice bits out of holy books and live their lives like that, you're inevitably going to have others cherry-picking the bits that say they should torture, enslave and murder unbelievers and whatnot simply because they choose to look at it that way. If all religion was as intrinsically good as we hope, we wouldn't have these contradictory holy books and mythologies (and we wouldn't have any reason not to believe). But you can't make any clear distinction between those who believe in the good bits and those who believe in the bad bits because they're using the same type of irrational non-logic to make the personal decision about how to interpret them.

It is this problem that prevents this wishful thinking from happening, sad but true, no matter how hopeful it may look. That's why I said, it's superficially positive because on the surface, it's a great idea, hooray, up with people, fantastic, world peace and harmony...except that once you get past that and really look at it objectively, it isn't feasible. I can speak until I'm blue in the face to a Muslim looking to be a martyr about there being no need for this hate and violence and that us getting along and making the world a better place for everyone's children, but once I lose my voice, that won't stop them from pulling the cord and taking us both out because what I say means nothing to them because they simply are not going about life, philosophy, or anything in a rational, logical way. Religion is the force keeping the world from looking at things in this way hence no productive solution can be reached, so there just can't be a solution reached with that as the platform, as unhappy as that is. People never like hearing the truth so there's just no way to say that without pissing people off, unfortunately.

[Ironwolf85]

Regarding throwing the baby out with the bathwater: My analogy reply is, when cell phones become widely available, we throw out corded home phones.

The placebo effect religion provides is, again, not exclusively available through religion and adds no truth value to the thing whatsoever. If people choose to cherry-pick nice bits out of holy books and live their lives like that, you're inevitably going to have others cherry-picking the bits that say they should torture, enslave and murder unbelievers and whatnot simply because they choose to look at it that way. If all religion was as intrinsically good as we hope, we wouldn't have these contradictory holy books and mythologies (and we wouldn't have any reason not to believe). But you can't make any clear distinction between those who believe in the good bits and those who believe in the bad bits because they're using the same type of irrational non-logic to make the personal decision about how to interpret them.

It is this problem that prevents this wishful thinking from happening, sad but true, no matter how hopeful it may look. That's why I said, it's superficially positive because on the surface, it's a great idea, hooray, up with people, fantastic, world peace and harmony...except that once you get past that and really look at it objectively, it isn't feasible. I can speak until I'm blue in the face to a Muslim looking to be a martyr about there being no need for this hate and violence and that us getting along and making the world a better place for everyone's children, but once I lose my voice, that won't stop them from pulling the cord and taking us both out because what I say means nothing to them because they simply are not going about life, philosophy, or anything in a rational, logical way. Religion is the force keeping the world from looking at things in this way hence no productive solution can be reached, so there just can't be a solution reached with that as the platform, as unhappy as that is. People never like hearing the truth so there's just no way to say that without pissing people off, unfortunately.

What constitutes "Truth?"

[Mathim]

Verifiable facts vs. outdated, disproved claims, just like always.

[Sabby]

The true or actual state of a matter. That which confirms with fact or reality.

Naturally, all this does is open up the question 'how do we determine what is likely true'. That is a whole other discussion and we could probably spend all day talking about things such as rationality, the scientific method, solipsism, standards of information... but as far as what truth is, there's your answer.

[Oniya]

Excuse me - this is veering in precisely the direction that the OP didn't want it to go. 

If you can't say something positive, please refrain from posting in this particular thread.

[Mathim]

The true or actual state of a matter. That which confirms with fact or reality.

Naturally, all this does is open up the question 'how do we determine what is likely true'. That is a whole other discussion and we could probably spend all day talking about things such as rationality, the scientific method, solipsism, standards of information... but as far as what truth is, there's your answer.

Thanks for the support. Anyway, I've said my piece.

[Ironwolf85]

Excuse me - this is veering in precisely the direction that the OP didn't want it to go. 

If you can't say something positive, please refrain from posting in this particular thread.

Agreed.

[Sabby]

Excuse me - this is veering in precisely the direction that the OP didn't want it to go. 

If you can't say something positive, please refrain from posting in this particular thread.

What negativity are you referring to?

[Oniya]

That isn't what I said.  I said 'If you can't say anything positive...'

Have you said anything positive about religion in this thread?

[Sabby]

That isn't what I said.  I said 'If you can't say anything positive...'

Have you said anything positive about religion in this thread?

No, I've asked a slightly different version of the same question the OP has asked because I'd genuinely like to hear peoples take on it. Is this not allowed?

[Oniya]

You're welcome to start your own thread on the matter.

[TheGlyphstone]

Is 'unconditional hope' a good way to describe it?

Faith, for all its lack of ability to be analyzed and measured in a laboratory, is motivation to do good and be good because it says It Gets Better. The lower down on the social/economic food chain you get, the more your life sucks and the fewer opportunities you're given to escape that suck. For people like that, religion can be an amazingly powerful motivator to just keep going in their day-to-day life, because they believe someone out there/up there cares about them, and if they die after being 'good' by the standards of that particular religion, they either go to a perfect paradise or get to try again from a higher starting point. When you have so little tangible wealth, that sort of intangible hope can be the most valuable thing they have.

[vtboy]

Excuse me - this is veering in precisely the direction that the OP didn't want it to go. 

If you can't say something positive, please refrain from posting in this particular thread.

That isn't what I said.  I said 'If you can't say anything positive...'

Have you said anything positive about religion in this thread?

I think yours is an unjustifiably crabbed reading of the topic framed by the OP.

I wanted to try taking the opposite side of this argument for a change. Rather than arguing against religion and views that a god exists, I wanted to explore a slightly different avenue. The point of this is not to judge whether or not gods are real and whether or not religions are believable, but whether or not religions have a positive effect on us or serve some purpose (emphasis added). This might mean experimenting with how we view religions and looking for reasons for how and why a religion might benefit society.

I can imagine no reading of "whether or not religions have a positive effect on us or serve some purpose" which would proscribe expressions of views that religions do neither or, even, that they are pernicious on balance. Mathim's criticism of religious scripture as defying objectively verifiable interpretation, and thereby providing license for all manner of bad acts, strikes me as having been right on point, and Sabby's attempt to offer a definition of "truth" (in response to a question which directly called for it) also seems relevant to the question of whether value can be claimed for religious scripture as a source of truth.

It has been my understanding that the purpose of the Politics, Religion and Other Controversies board is to allow for debate, rather than cheerleading.

[Lux12]

Regarding throwing the baby out with the bathwater: My analogy reply is, when cell phones become widely available, we throw out corded home phones.

The placebo effect religion provides is, again, not exclusively available through religion and adds no truth value to the thing whatsoever. If people choose to cherry-pick nice bits out of holy books and live their lives like that, you're inevitably going to have others cherry-picking the bits that say they should torture, enslave and murder unbelievers and whatnot simply because they choose to look at it that way. If all religion was as intrinsically good as we hope, we wouldn't have these contradictory holy books and mythologies (and we wouldn't have any reason not to believe). But you can't make any clear distinction between those who believe in the good bits and those who believe in the bad bits because they're using the same type of irrational non-logic to make the personal decision about how to interpret them.

It is this problem that prevents this wishful thinking from happening, sad but true, no matter how hopeful it may look. That's why I said, it's superficially positive because on the surface, it's a great idea, hooray, up with people, fantastic, world peace and harmony...except that once you get past that and really look at it objectively, it isn't feasible. I can speak until I'm blue in the face to a Muslim looking to be a martyr about there being no need for this hate and violence and that us getting along and making the world a better place for everyone's children, but once I lose my voice, that won't stop them from pulling the cord and taking us both out because what I say means nothing to them because they simply are not going about life, philosophy, or anything in a rational, logical way. Religion is the force keeping the world from looking at things in this way hence no productive solution can be reached, so there just can't be a solution reached with that as the platform, as unhappy as that is. People never like hearing the truth so there's just no way to say that without pissing people off, unfortunately.

Tell that to the number of deeply religious scientists who have lived over the years and Sikhism which if I remember correctly, has one of the earliest endorsements of feminism explicitly linked to a religion in it's holy text. I can also name people who were motivated by religion to promote peace and peaceful protest of injustice. Martin Luther King anyone? I can also think of a number of ways in which occult principles seem oddly similar to mundane scientific ones. If anything, science has reaffirmed what I follow. There are Buddhist monasteries which actively work to preserve endangered species in the east. So my point is, it only blocks productivity if you don't really understand or think deeply upon the philosophy of the path you follow. Also if you want some quick reading, there are a few articles out there on the web that discuss supposed contradictions in various holy scriptures that actually aren't. All religions are true in their own ways. Two games can be played on the same field but have different rules. A stick can be used for kindling, but it can also be used to build a home or make a spear. Also, why would a Deity, a being of immense power and complex nature be restricted to one form or way of worship?  Even humans present themselves in aspects all of which require a different approach from the people around them."Cosmic reality is one, but the wise perceive it in many ways." To strike stone hard enough to fracture it is to destroy the stone, but it can also be part of the creation of a sculpture. The nature of things in this world is surprisingly fluid.

[Ironwolf85]

I think yours is an unjustifiably crabbed reading of the topic framed by the OP.

I can imagine no reading of "whether or not religions have a positive effect on us or serve some purpose" which would proscribe expressions of views that religions do neither or, even, that they are pernicious on balance. Mathim's criticism of religious scripture as defying objectively verifiable interpretation, and thereby providing license for all manner of bad acts, strikes me as having been right on point, and Sabby's attempt to offer a definition of "truth" (in response to a question which directly called for it) also seems relevant to the question of whether value can be claimed for religious scripture as a source of truth.

It has been my understanding that the purpose of the Politics, Religion and Other Controversies board is to allow for debate, rather than cheerleading.

Nah I just think she doesn't want a re-tred of the whole atheism thread that was recently locked.
For example when I asked "What is Truth?" before that it was going in a very flame war direction.

[Ironwolf85]

One important facet I just thought of, if anything I'd say spirituality and religion it helps frame a culture if you study it's traditions. I was looking over some old Sci-fi novels and I realized the factions or cultures in books that had no spirituality were far more grey, efficient, and boring to read about.

Let's say compare the famous Halo games. I've played one game, and read the lore.
Even though you are playing as a heroic spartian often the covenant enemies you fight appear much more culturally vibrant than the UNSC you are protecting, sure they are the bad guys. But they are far more interesting than the bland militaristic guys you are fighting alongside. It makes them a much more fun enemy to fight.

[Sabby]

Yes, but interesting isn't inherently positive. I find many old cultures to be very interesting, yet am glad they no longer exist.

[Ironwolf85]

Yes, but interesting isn't inherently positive. I find many old cultures to be very interesting, yet am glad they no longer exist.

True, but I'd rather the world be interesting with many varied cultures and beliefs than grey, uniform, and listless.

[Shjade]

Hmmm, what positive things are there to Religion... well, unity of the people, I guess, but I wouldn't call that a perk only Religion offers.

Is there anything positive that we can only get from Religion and no where else? I've thought on this a while and I'm not really getting anything.

I think you would be hard-pressed to find anything that can only be derived from one specific source. The fact that something can be found from multiple sources does not then mean that any of those sources are for any reason less valid or valuable simply because what they provide can be found elsewhere; they still provide that thing, whatever it is. Suggesting a concept must provide some unique benefit to be considered in a positive light is unhelpful.

I've worked at a church for something around 11 years or so now, during which time I have found that I, personally, have become less convinced of the veracity of the specific religion with which I work over time. However, despite that, the community gathered around that church does some pretty awesome things every year. And I don't mean once a year, I mean year-round. Mission trips that build and support entire schools for disabled children, repair neighborhoods wrecked in natural disasters, construct new houses for the homeless, raise awareness about this catastrophe or that crisis, on and on and on. It's pretty stunning when I step back to think about it on a large scale.

Do other, non-religious organizations do things like this as well? Yes, of course such groups exist. Does that in any way devalue what a religion has managed to bring about in focusing this community's efforts to help the people around them and around the world? No, it does not.

Religions are an excellent means of unifying a community toward similar goals and then acting toward achieving those goals, the latter being an issue in many large group efforts: sure everyone might want to help X with Y, but it takes a push to get them to actually move on it. Religion and religious organizations can provide that push, and that's no small feat. Is this kind of unifying force abused sometimes? Sure, but so is everything else; that's a problem with people, not inherent to religion as a concept.

[Sabby]

Oh, I don't ask because I need something to provide something unique in order to value it. I value Yoga for it's calming effect even though I can get that from many other things. Why I ask is something is a LOT more valuable if it has a monopoly on something.

[ladia2287]

Religion and spirituality are very personal matters and everyone who follows them or not has their own motives for doing so, so I think it's hard to say on the whole exactly what benefit spirituality offers, because the benefits for me are going to be different to the benefits to my next door neighbour, and his benefits are going to be different again to someone else. Yes, most of the benefits generally attributed to one's faith or lackthereof can frequently be found from other sources. But if those sources don't suit the person's reason for seeking that benefit, then it's a meaningless point to be making.

Personally, I am someone who spent many years agonising over my faith, including a significant amount of time proclaiming to be atheist, before I settled down into liberal catholicism. It offers me a sense of spiritual comfort as well as moral guidance. I am spiritually content. And that is all I am willing to divulge.

[Iniquitous]

Existential Validity

According to a standard psychology text, the feeling that you have answers to such questions as ‘why am I here?’ and ‘how am I to live’ lowers anxiety and promotes resiliency, hope and peace.

Noncontingency

A Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Pagan believer gains the comfort of an assured place in the scheme of things as a ‘child of God(dess)’, created by God(dess) intentionally for some purpose. The purpose may not be clear, but it can be sought.

As a Hindu, you know that you’re the current embodiment of a spark, an atmari, that has existed for immeasurable time. As a Buddhist you can take comfort in knowing that your nature and your birth situation were determined by kamma accumulated in past lives, and that with effort in this life, you can improve the circumstances of your future lives, eventually escaping the wheel of suffering entirely.

In philosophical terms, a believer is assured that he or she is no contingent; in other words, not an accident. If you aren’t an accident, it follows that your personality, your features, your talents and shortcomings, your birthplace and parents - your whole inheritance - are not accidental either. In other words, your ‘nature is determined’ by a supernatural plan.

Community Building

The act of meeting regularly for worship services holds each congregation together. At the assembly on Friday, Saturday or Sunday the members see each other, become familiar with each other’s faces, and keep up to date on each other’s life passages - new babies, children moved away or came home again, people ill or recovered. And they note each other’s needs.

Every church, mosque and synagogue comes equipped with a full time, trained counselor, arbiter, and personal advisor: it’s pastor, priest, rabbi, imam, roshi, or whoever. Free access to a sympathetic, confidential advisor is a benefit that the congregation gives to itself.

The Latter Day Saints have a particularly strong mutual aid organization. A Mormon in trouble anywhere in the USA can find willing help at any local Stake. But in all churches, membership is a link to a circle of people that can be called upon for help in a time of trouble, for job contacts, or just for sympathy. In many churches on Sunday morning there is a public announcement of communicants in need.

It has been well documented that people who are active church members gain health benefits. For example, active church members have a significantly lower post operative mortality rate than those who are not. The percentage of non members who die in the days following a major operation is nearly double the percentage of church goers who die.

Like Minds

There is comfort in being part of a group of people that you can trust to think the way you do on key issues. It’s relaxing to be with people whom you will not have to defend or justify your opinions. Conversely, it is stressful to be among people who, however nice they might be otherwise, are likely to challenge your convictions if you voice them. This trust is a great stress-reducer for a parent. Believers with children expect, rightly or wrongly, that other children in the church community are better playmates and potential mates for their own kids.  True or false, this expectation itself reduces stress.

Contemplation and Tranquility

Most religions encourage some form of contemplation. This meditation offers physiological benefits and have been well documented. The believer comes to prayer with a list of worries - family problems, financial problems, concerns for the world at large - and, in the quiet of the prayer, organizes these worries, considering each one and putting it into a context of the eternal. The believer who prays properly can’t avoid getting up with a clearer, more settled mind and a more positive attitude.

Rituals and Pageantry

Rituals are immensely comforting. They bring stability to life. They help us process shock, trauma, and uncertainty. We can use rituals to motivate and program our minds in positive or negative ways. A religion provides its followers with a variety of satisfying rites and celebrations for major life transitions. In addition, church rituals provide esthetic experience. From the grandeur of  a Papal mass to the gripping psychodrama of a revival meeting, churches “make show” to the satisfaction of the congregation. Isaiah Berlin has said,

“I am not religious, but I place high value on the religious experience of believers. I am moved by religious services -- those of the synagogue, but also of churches and mosques. I think that those who do not understand what it is to be religious, do not understand what human beings live by. That is why dry atheists seem to me blind and deaf to some forms of profound human experiences, perhaps the inner life: it is like being aesthetically blind.”

Mystical ecstasy

A few people have the fortune to be visited by a mystical experience of life changing force. A central feature of such experiences is a blissful sense of losing the self in a greater All.

Self - Transcendence

Every religion constantly urges its members to be better people - to transcend their mundane lives, to achieve more, give more, challenge themselves to be more. A cynic might snap that most people manage to ignore the challenge, but nevertheless, some do take it up and transcend themselves in the religious context. Whether it’s the young woman later known as Mother Theresa, first seeing Christ in the faces of the poor, or the alcoholic who stays sober through AA’s semi-religious program, or the Buddhist who diligently practices compassion for all sentient beings, some challenges to self-transcendence do work, do inspire people to become heroically better.

Ethical structure

Every religion has an asset that is the labor of many lifetimes: the careful work of its theologians in crafting an ethical system. Not just the Torah, but the labor of uncounted rabbinical scholars; not just the Bible but the work of untold theologians’ not merely the Quran, or Science and Helath, or the Pali canon, or the Bhagavad Gita, but all the countless volumes of interpretation based on them.

These generations of commentators were not stupid. From an unbeliever’s standpoint, some began their work from bizarre basic assumptions, and as a result the ethical systems they derive may seem bizarre. But within the context of each doctrine, these thinkers have created a self-consistent code that is available to every member without further effort.

In The Brothers Karamazov, Dostoevsky has Ivan Karamazov say “If God does not exist, everything is permitted”. Ivan expresses an attitude that is still common today. Four percent of believers choose ‘Without God there is no morality; as their top reason for believing. Pop philosopher Dennis Prager has said ‘if there is no God, there is no good and evil -- there are only opinions about good and evil.’

Statements like these are initially gripping because they set up a frightening choice: you either accept a religious moral code or face the awful prospect of having the whole burden of designing and justifying a moral code dumped on you. And how are you going to select between differing ‘opinions about good and evil’?

Comfort facing death and loss

When someone you know dies, it tears a hole in the fabric of your life. There’s a deep need to think that the missing person is somewhere still; the concept of ‘just gone’ is really difficult to form, as well as unpalatable. If it is hard to accept that a loved one is gone, it is just about impossible to imagine that of your own sweet self! Religions offer help to justify death, to integrate it into life. The congregation offers emotional and practical support. There is the promise of an afterlife that may or may  not make death easier to face.


(( Interestingly, studies have shown that religious attendance once or more per week leads to an extra seven years of life expectancy. Other studies have shown other health benefits such as a stronger immune system and lower blood pressure. Further, religious involvement has been linked to less depression and less drug use.))

[TheGlyphstone]

Is that a prepackaged essay/quote you had on file somewhere, or did you compose it on the spot? Good points to think about, either way - the 'Noncontingency' is a much better worded and explained version of what I brought up earlier.

[Iniquitous]

Left over essay from a philosophy paper I wrote for a friend on whether religion helped or harmed.

[TaintedAndDelish]

Regarding throwing the baby out with the bathwater: My analogy reply is, when cell phones become widely available, we throw out corded home phones.

Perhaps, but I don't think ALL of us at there, Mathim. I think for some, there is still some use and benefit to religion and spirituality.  Likewise, I think this analogy misses the creative and artistic value that religion has. Yes, scientific thought is better for discerning facts, but there's more than facts and theories at stake here as Iniquitous Opheliac pointed out.

The placebo effect religion provides is, again, not exclusively available through religion and adds no truth value to the thing whatsoever. If people choose to cherry-pick nice bits out of holy books and live their lives like that, you're inevitably going to have others cherry-picking the bits that say they should torture, enslave and murder unbelievers and whatnot simply because they choose to look at it that way. If all religion was as intrinsically good as we hope, we wouldn't have these contradictory holy books and mythologies (and we wouldn't have any reason not to believe). But you can't make any clear distinction between those who believe in the good bits and those who believe in the bad bits because they're using the same type of irrational non-logic to make the personal decision about how to interpret them.

As I originally posted, I agree, many religions have had their share of atrocities, and many are still corrupt today. The thing is, such corruption is not unique to religion. We eventually corrupt everything we touch.

The true or actual state of a matter. That which confirms with fact or reality.

Naturally, all this does is open up the question 'how do we determine what is likely true'. That is a whole other discussion and we could probably spend all day talking about things such as rationality, the scientific method, solipsism, standards of information... but as far as what truth is, there's your answer.

Sabby, I'm thinking that maybe there is more to religion than being correct about whether or not god x or demon y exists. Personally, I think religions get this part all wrong. I think this kind of logical thinking is their Achilles tendon.

***

I recently revisited an interesting wikipedia article on cognitive dissonance. The link and the summary from the article are below.

In psychology, cognitive dissonance is the mental stress or discomfort experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time, or is confronted by new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas, or values.[1][2]

Leon Festinger's theory of cognitive dissonance focuses on how humans strive for internal consistency. When inconsistency (dissonance) is experienced, individuals largely become psychologically distressed. His basic hypotheses are listed below:

    "The existence of dissonance, being psychologically uncomfortable, will motivate the person to try to reduce the dissonance and achieve consonance"
    "When dissonance is present, in addition to trying to reduce it, the person will actively avoid situations and information which would likely increase the dissonance"[1]

I was thinking that perhaps the use of myth or fiction in both religion and in published fictional works might help to reduce such stress or to address our troubles and concerns in a very abstract way. For example, watching scary, suspenseful movies might be a way for me to address some of my fears. Likewise, entertaining the thought of a devil or personal demon might serve a similar purpose. We write fictional erotic material here on E, perhaps for some, this is a convenient way to work out sexual thoughts or troubles in ways that real life count not *easily* afford us.

Perhaps entertaining religious myth can have this affect on us whether we believe it is true or not?

Lastly, a religion does not have to be theistic and does not need to sexually discriminate against people. With this in mind, could it be possible to design a religion that does not claim to know or care whether or not a god exists, that does not confuse fact with fiction, that is rich in artistic myth and ideas, that does not discriminate or shun people,  that unifies and psychologically and emotionally empowers people? Call it religion 2.0.

[Sabby]

Ironwolf asked what truth is, I merely answered. *shrugs*

[TaintedAndDelish]

I looked this up once and found the results very interesting:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth/

[Nachtmahr]

It seems that it's very hard to make a thread that tries to deal with religious or dubious matter without it being twisted into people trying to turn it into their own personal body of proof that there is no god and there is not point to anything. I am an existentialist through and through - I don't personally think it very likely that there is a greater purpose in the world, or that anyone is, was or ever will be meant to truly achieve something. But that doesn't mean the thought isn't appealing, and it definitely doesn't mean that I, and everyone who shares my belief, might be wrong. In fact, saying that we don't believe in anything is wrong by simply looking at the way that we believe the truth lies in there being no truth! Atheism and existentialism are almost religions in and of themselves, even though most people who support these theories might vehemently deny it as such.

It's a shame that we've evolved to the point to the point that we can put people on other planets, but not to the point where it comes natural to us to respectfully disagree with someone without immediately plotting how to convince them that your way is the right way.

I sort of imagine it like the OP is asking for directions from two people at once: One says left and one says right. Rather than trying to help or even include the one who originally asked the question, those two are now going to be at each others throats.

But that doesn't really matter - It's not the point. Now, to try and get back on topic!

I think religion ha sadly left a lot of rather grim marks on the world, but I also think it's improved a lot of things from what they were before it came along. We have to keep in mind that religions brought some of the earliest widely accepted codes of morale and the first ethical guidelines. There was a time when no one was telling you that killing and stealing was wrong - And I think it's a good thing that pretty much all religions set about changing this. Religions helped organize an shape the world, and it led to startling modernization. In the western world in particular we've achieved far more in the last 2000 years than we did in the 2000 years before them - For worse, yes, but certainly also for better. As a matter of fact, was it not for Christianity most of us would have no use of this site at all, as we would likely never have been taught to read or write by ourselves!

A lot of people turn to religion in the hardest times of their life - And some people mock them for it. I think that's rather cruel. Ten months ago I started treatment for severe depression and anxiety disorders following a nervous breakdown. I was frightened and belittled and without anything to hold on to. I didn't turn to religion myself, but I can see why people would!
When you stand on the edge and stare into the cavernous void, wondering if there's anything at the bottom, you start to realize that you have only two options. You either plummet into the dark depths yourself, and find out or you stand on the edge and you hope there's something there. And that's what religion can do for you! That's the medical value of religion: You can at least hope it will work. In a world where everything is cured by swallowing pills and being shot at with beam-cannons that leave the Death-Star blushing - What's wrong with just a nice bit of hope? For all of those who go about calling this all nothing more than a placebo - Well, is there anything wrong with that? The placebo effect has been shown to work, just like faith has. Faith, hope, love, rage - All emotions and spiritual concepts you can think of have proven, scientific values. If you were stripped of them all you'd not even pass for a shadow of what we'd call a human being. All of those people who will happily use science to disprove faith seem to forget that there's science behind faith itself. Faith and science aren't two different ideals - It's not the Reds and the Blues staring each other down. The two are undeniably connected. Most modern science would not exist was it not because people had questioned religious beliefs, so if those religions weren't there to start with.. Why would we ever have bothered putting a man on the moon? Instead of trying to prove something to the world, and to ourselves, we'd have looked up at the moon and gone 'There's the moon..' and the guy next to you would say 'Yeah, I can see it.. What about it?'. Faith and science is required to produce a result, just like a man and a woman is required to produce a child.

So yeah - Religion is possibly the most important thing to ever have happened. If we didn't have religions and laws we'd never have had any reason to question anything.. We'd be sitting in a cave by the beach, eating shrimps, defecating and killing each other with rocks because your hey; Your rock was bigger than my rock, so I wanted yours instead!

And that's exactly what this conversation isn't supposed to devolve into. People, please - Don't be the one sitting with a rock, wanting to hit someone else over the head with it just because they don't agree your rock is the best rock.

[TaintedAndDelish]

On the topic of hope, I was looking at a rather large bridge today on the way to work and ended up thinking about how before that bride was constructed, it had to have been an idea or abstraction. Someone had to imagine what it would be like to have that thing there, and share that idea with others before it could be constructed.  At such an early state, the idea did not need to be perfect and would be subject to change anyway. Engineers would likely tweak the idea into something more reasonable before the construction of it was attempted.

Maybe religion also servers as some sort of abstract intermediate step? Is what you were saying towards the end of your post, Nachtmahr?

[Nachtmahr]

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that to be quite honest. ^^'

[TaintedAndDelish]

I wasn't too sure what you meant either :p

Maybe one of the things religions are good for is providing an "invisible step" for getting from here to there.

If I conceive of the idea of making a bridge so that I can cross a deep river, discuss and enhance the idea, and sell people on it, it may lead to the physical construction of that bridge. Without first entertaining the thought, as crazy as it may have seemed at the time, the bridge would never have come to exist.  The thought or idea was necessary.

Maybe religion is kind of like an idea that precedes something greater.

One thing that seems to be common among religions is that they provide a code by which to live. We all expect certain things out of each other whether we say it or not. I expect that you will not steal from me or attack me. You might expect people to smile out of politeness, or you might expect people not to smile at you without good reason because smiling without reason means you are nuts....  Maybe one of the functions of a religion is to codify these expectations and make them known. This way, when people adhere to the religion, they also respect one another's expectations and as a result, people get along.... for the most part.

I'm not sure that made sense. I'll stop for now.. it's getting late.  >.>

[TaintedAndDelish]

It took me a few days to chew on I.O.'s very detailed and well thought out post. I would like to counter some of these points. My intention is not to shoot them down, but to bring out an additional viewpoint for each of the basic topics covered. I organized this into fewer topics for brevity.


On the Calming effects of unverifiable beliefs

Unverifiable beliefs that offer psychological comfort, a sense of purpose, belonging and security are certainly an asset in that they improve psychological well being and perhaps aid in physical health indirectly. This asset does come with a price though, and that is the negative effects of holding beliefs that are incorrect or that by their very nature, cannot be verified or falsified. I think the net benefit here is thus questionable.

On Like-mindedness

Yes, people who are like minded may flock together and that commonality may serve as a seed for establishing a community of compatible folks. While its good to mingle with folks of dissimilar mind, I think definitely beneficial overall if you have more like minded folks in your home, or your resting place. I would see this as an overall benefit.

On Religious experience

I think the arts serve a very similar purpose. I agree that some religous rituals and ceremonies add beauty and symbology to various events and epohcs in our lives. Wedding ceremonies, birth rituals and rites of passage and funerals can all be made quite special, memorable, or solemn with the application of art, symbology, music and the lack thereof. I see this more as tradition and culture than religion though.

In The Brothers Karamazov, Dostoevsky has Ivan Karamazov say “If God does not exist, everything is permitted”. Ivan expresses an attitude that is still common today. Four percent of believers choose ‘Without God there is no morality; as their top reason for believing. Pop philosopher Dennis Prager has said ‘if there is no God, there is no good and evil -- there are only opinions about good and evil.’

Statements like these are initially gripping because they set up a frightening choice: you either accept a religious moral code or face the awful prospect of having the whole burden of designing and justifying a moral code dumped on you. And how are you going to select between differing ‘opinions about good and evil’?

Correct me if I am wrong, but with regard to the dilema of seleting between differing opinions about good and evil, I don't think religions really solve this problem. They do solve it within their organization, but not globally. When the Israelies say that god said that Israel beings to them, and then the Arabs and Palestinians make the same claim, you are left with the predicament of chosing between opinions of who is right or wrong.

Another example would be with gay rights.  Many religious groups are still againt gay marriage, some will teach that homosexuality is wrong, but their believers should not pass judgment. Today, we have to choose for ourselves if this is right or wrong. Religion does not solve this for us.

Four percent of believers choose ‘Without God there is no morality; as their top reason for believing.

The number or percentage of people that believe a claim does not make it any more right or wrong. If the statistics are correct, then this statement shows that this is a pretty common belief, but nothing else.  By the way, 96% would have been more impressive than 4% at first glance... >.>  Maybe I'm missing something here.

Death

I agree, the idea of a loving god and afterlife is extremely comforting. It takes the sting out of death and replaces it with hope.

I'm going to counter this point by saying that while this is true, it may also have a negative effect on how we live our lives. If I believe that death is lights out, I'm going to live my life differently than if I view life as mere step in a great cosmic journey. Now everybody is different, so I'm not going to speculate too much about what results such beliefs might have. YMMV. I will say this though, giving one's life or making selfless sacrifices that lessen one's quality of life are seen differently when you believe in life after death versus lights out.

(( Interestingly, studies have shown that religious attendance once or more per week leads to an extra seven years of life expectancy. Other studies have shown other health benefits such as a stronger immune system and lower blood pressure. Further, religious involvement has been linked to less depression and less drug use.))

Would you happen to have links to studies for these claims? I ask only because it sounds a little too good to be true. "Seven years of life expectancy"?   Does that mean you live seven years longer, or you expect to live seven years longer? And why seven and not six? And where did they get these numbers from? I don't mean to chop on this, but it sounds like the kind of statistics they use on toothpaste commercials. ie. Three out of four dentists recommend Crest. I'm just sceptical and curious about this, that's all.






***

Some thoughts on how religions might change for the better

What if you could make the following changes to Christianity to make it more up-to-date:

- Drop any beliefs that are proven to be false or unverifiable
- With regard to religious teaching, adopt a policy of not representing unverifiable beliefs as if they were truth
- Drop the god and say that the existence of a god is a mystery - allowing members to choose whether or not to believe in it.
- Drop all religious and sexual discrimination. People are equal regardless of gender, race, sex, identity blah blah blah...
- Promote the use of logic and critical thinking - allowing members to question and challenge the religions beliefs and doctrines.

Would Christianity still be a religion after all of these changes?
Would we have something better, or would it just vanish?

The way I see it, some of the major changes that would precipitate from these changes would be as follows:

A. There would be no need to proselytize. This could be simply replaced with friendly promotion.

B. People would be free to join and leave as they wished without the threat of being damned

C. The community would be need to become more tolerant of one another - which is good.

D. Most of the bible would be considered fiction, but fiction with embedded meaning and morals.

E. Rituals would continue, but with the understanding that they are more tradition and art than anything else.

[consortium11]

Would you happen to have links to studies for these claims? I ask only because it sounds a little too good to be true. "Seven years of life expectancy"?   Does that mean you live seven years longer, or you expect to live seven years longer? And why seven and not six? And where did they get these numbers from? I don't mean to chop on this, but it sounds like the kind of statistics they use on toothpaste commercials. ie. Three out of four dentists recommend Crest. I'm just sceptical and curious about this, that's all.

The seven year life-expectancy increase is likely referencing this, which in turn references some more serious research. The methodology seems fairly simple; note all of the announcements in the Methodist recorder relating to the death of Methodists, average out the age of death and compare it to the average life expectancy in the UK. Obviously, that methodology would be flawed for a serious study but I don't think it was ever really intended to be one, more an interesting anecdote that got some play in the media.

It's also probably not that much use in the debate at hand even if the methodlogy was robust:

1) It's not about the religious in general but Methodists alone.

2) It's about British Methodists in particular.

3) It makes no claims and presents no evidence either way about the cause of this long(er) life. As always correlations does not equal causation and as a generalisation Methodists tend to lead fairly clean, active lives with a general opposition to alcohol, drugs and excessive consumption in general. I suspect it's that rather than the fact that they believe at all which accounts for the greater life expectancy (if there is one).

[TheGlyphstone]

(( Interestingly, studies have shown that religious attendance once or more per week leads to an extra seven years of life expectancy. Other studies have shown other health benefits such as a stronger immune system and lower blood pressure. Further, religious involvement has been linked to less depression and less drug use.))[/i][/font]

Her citation there was in the text itself, so you must have missed it. The abstract of the article describes a 'nationally representative sample' of US Adults, so by definition of sample size it must be different research than the Methodist survey.

[TaintedAndDelish]

Thanks for pointing that out. I missed that.  :)