The sacred and psychology have a bad history
Image: iStock/Iakov Kalinin
-
The Wisdom of Psychopaths
In this engrossing journey into the lives of psychopaths and their infamously crafty behaviors, the renowned psychologist Kevin Dutton reveals that there is a...
Read More »
This year has been the worst in recent history for natural disasters in the U.S., with record-level floods, fires, and hurricanes. Such disasters naturally bring up questions about why, and religious beliefs are often part of the answers given. Fred Phelps of Westboro Baptist Church claimed that the tornado in Joplin, MO was a direct result of the town’s sins. Michele Bachmann’s aides scrambled to classify her comments about Hurricane Irene’s “message to Washington” as a joke. With each new tragedy comes a familiar chorus on the retaliatory nature of an avenging God, or the seeming vengeance of a loving God trying to save us from ourselves. Either version depicts the central attachment figure of Judeo-Christian culture as shaky and capricious, and this view can have real-life implications for believers.
A recent Gallup Poll showed that the number of Americans with no religious affiliation has jumped from 9 percent to 16 percent over the last decade, but the overwhelming majority self-identify as religious. Presumably, some of the unaffiliated group still maintain core spiritual beliefs as well. In a culture where over 80 percent of the population identifies itself as Christian (37 percent of those evangelical), people’s beliefs about the nature of the divine can have significant ramifications on mental health—particularly in times of great uncertainty.
Yet, despite its critical role in mental health, there has been a kind of “church and state” separation regarding spirituality in clinical theory and practice. For instance, Aaron Beck’s cognitive theory, and the cognitive behavioral therapy it inspired, is among the most empirically validated models in clinical psychology, aiding scientific understandings of anxiety, depression, and even schizophrenia. Core beliefs about the self, world and future are its principle province, yet little has been done to address the role of patients’ spiritual beliefs in this foundational system.
A recent study led by Harvard Medical School’s David Rosmarin was undertaken to close this gap between the sacred and the profane in clinical practice. Studying hundreds of devoutly religious Jews and Christians, the researchers explored what religious cognitions can lead to more or less worry. Specifically, they found that mistrust in God (measured by agreement with statements like “God is unkind to me for no reason”) was associated with nearly clinical levels of worry, while trust in God (measured by agreement with statements like “God is compassionate toward human suffering”) was associated with less worry. Interestingly, trust and mistrust in God were not just opposite ends of one attitudinal dimension; it’s possible for believers to have high levels of both simultaneously.
Across two studies – one of which measured changes in worry and religious cognitions over a two-week intervention period – the researchers also found that the effects of trust and mistrust in God on worry took place via the mechanism of tolerance of uncertainty. Mistrust in God led to less tolerance of uncertainty (e.g., feeling upset when stuck with ambiguous information), which in turn led to increased levels of worry. Increasing trust in God, however, led to more tolerance of uncertainty, decreasing levels of worry.
Besides the applied benefits of reducing anxiety in devoutly religious samples, the findings are notable in that they are among the first to integrate explicitly spiritual beliefs into psychological models of mental illness and anxiety. The authors urge the need for further “assessments of spiritual/religious factors in clinical work and their integration into evidence-based treatments,” and one can see why: Clinical practice often lags behind critical research-based findings on what actually works, and this can be particularly true in religious communities.
See what we're tweeting about
90 Comments
Add CommentThis seems to be advocating the perpetuation of one disease to cure another. If a child believes that a ghost in their closet is causing them harm would we really resolve the issue by assuring them that the ghost is certainly real but wants what is best for them? Put another way; does a doctor prescribe biopsy or chemotherapy for a carcinophobe? It seems we go to great lengths to accommodate these ridiculous superstitions which only serves to validate those beliefs. The problem isn't that these people believe that god hates them, but that they believe god exists in the first place. Why don't we give these people, all people, the intellectual tools to deal with the world rationally? We should teach critical thought at an early age. In the mean time, if a primitive people want to cower in fear and depression because of their imaginary vengeful god, let them. Science shouldn't pervert itself to accommodate those that have rejected science categorically.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThank you for your 'open-minded' opinion of the majority of Americans. I am not religious, but your arrogance is offensive to me. It seems to me that we can at least have a level of respect for beliefs and cultures different from our own.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs some guy put it: I don't believe in religion, but I defend to the death, your right to be ignorant of the facts...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Robert Schmidt - Or better yet, let's give them all lobotomies! Or kill them! Then they won't be able to breed or indoctrinate others with their foolishness. I know that wasn't your tone, but your assertion that people believing in God is a problem makes you a dogmatic athiest.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI, for one, found it refreshing that there is finally an article of this type on SA that does NOT seem to treat spirituality as a disease. The author still fell back to the old standby of trotting out Westboro as though they somehow represent religion or religious beliefs, when the fact is that MOST self-identified religious folks find Westboro to be deeply disgusting.
All of that aside, I have mixed feelings about the ideas discussed in the article. As a person who felt great benefit from secular relationship counselling some 15 years ago, I recall my therapist, once I had shared the role my faith plays in my life, would use an occasional scripture reference when talking to me, always with good effect.
On the other hand, psychology, along with most of the rest of science, has a long history of people who treat spirituality as anything from an amusing quirk to a dangerous pathological scourge that needs to be eradicated even if violence is required to do so. The slope from one end of that self-righteous range to the other is pretty slippery. How many kids would have to go see a shrink with robert schmidt's attitude and come home and say, "I'm better now, Mom and Dad! There is no God, and both of you are morons!", before such a tenuous peace would end?
Still, there are people of faith in all the sciences, and the kind of research discussed here could be of great benefit to those enlightened enough to see the folly of self-righteous elitism. The author is spot on, though when he suggests that extremists like those at Westboro are not enlightened enough. Perhaps he shows his own bias by failing to predict the narrow minded rejection of extremists from the other side, like robert schmidt.
Well said. Personally, I believe that it is morally disgusting how some children are raised to be a certain religion and sheltered from any other belief system, effectively you are brainwashing your child and not allowing them a fair chance to take logic into consideration when selecting their own spirituality. IMHO that kinda seems like child abuse... (I don't want to label it as such, but for instance, if a scientific experiment were conducted in which a child was raised to believe that clouds are magical aliens and when there's thunder and lightning that the aliens are upset, and this child were not allowed to be exposed to any other belief, I think that the scientific experiment would be labeled immoral)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would like to state that although I am not a proponent of anyone taking religion seriously, I also support peoples right to believe whatever the heck they want, even if it is excruciatingly annoying watching people blindly follow any belief.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't see anything irrational about this comment. Although people should be allowed to believe what they want (even in the Tooth Fairy, though that person will be called schizo by their therapist), we should do a better job giving children a CHOICE. Religion spreads through evangelism but stays ingrained in society via a FORCED belief system on children (if you don't do this, god will get mad at you, and so will your parents), who don't know any better.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDan Dennett recommended that children be exposed to all religions from a very young age and given a choice as to what philosophy they ascribe to most. There is nothing irrational about giving them a choice. They don't HAVE to be saved by what mum and dad believe.
This is dangerous to religions, because seeing things from multiple other perspectives (objectively) ruins the exclusivity of any single belief system. There is no more "our system is special and you should like it because we are infallibly full of truth!" People objectively exposed to multiple religions tend towards unification philosophies (acceptance), agnosticism (decision paralysis), or atheism (rejection).
Given the damage that religion has caused to mankind over the millennia, I can cut religion no slack. Maybe Marx was right that religion is the opiate of the masses.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI couldn't have said it better myself Robert, you beat me ot the punch. Excellent Response.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGiven the deaths and damage that Marxism has caused I can't cut you any slack either.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI completely disagree with you, Velstras.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn ordcer for humanity and goodness to advance we have to step beyond the bounds and limits of primitive religious practice. We also have to define faith and blind faith for what they really are; Intellectual weakness and intellectual bankruptcy. We also have to adress just how arrogant and narcissistic it is to believe that there is an all powerful being that is able to create a universe so vast and us so tiny and insignificant (when compared to the scale of the universe) yet is so insecure that he has to create 10 commandments, 4 of which have to do with worshipping him and only him. The arrogance that a god would be male, the arrogance that an all powerful god could give a crap about who is sleeping with whom.
This is all the evicdence needed to prove that religious people have an unrealistic sense of superiority.
@racer - Does that go for cultural traditions, too? What about social attitudes and opinions?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDo you have children? Do you (or would you, if you had them) make sure that everything you tell them you follow up with, "Of course, that's just my personal opinion. You should make your own choices about this."
Or are you exempt from that because you believe all the "right" things and people who believe differently from you are stupid?
If I believe A and not B, it is human nature to believe that "Someone should do something..." about the parents who are teaching their children B, to believe that those parents are doing something "bad" to their children.
Fact is, growing up with our parents, good, bad, or indifferent, is part and parcel of human life. We all internalize some of what our parents teach us, and reject other parts. Some of those choices we make early in life, some later. Religious beliefs are no different.
Finally...come on...do you REALLY know people, I mean people you've met, not ones you've read about, who you have heard tell their children that lightening and thunder mean that God is angry? Seriously? I don't. You do yourself a discredit when you try to lump fringe behavior onto entire groups.
It is not dogmatic if there can be actual evididence to present his case.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReligion is inherently fantasy by it's very existence for there is absolutely not one single piece of verifiable fact in the existence of any god or supernatural activity yet is considered to be incontrovertibly true in the complete absence of evidence in an obvious and provable manner.
And the intellectually bankrupt argument that I nor anyone else cannot prove that god doesn't exist is beyond rediculous.
You religious folks are the ones making the extraordinary calim that there is a supernatural being that created the universe and life, yet you cannot provide a single shred of evidence. In th eabsence of evident then the negative must be true. After all "... when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."
Tolerance is generally a good thing. However most people will accept, when presented with certain situations, that there must be a limit to "respecting people's beliefs". It is a common misconception to assume such "respect" can never be wrong. Some culture's believe that women are inferior - to the detriment of 50% of their society; some uninformed and, perhaps intentionally, misguided people believe vaccination is "bad" - to the detriment of society's overall health; some people believed Hitler was right. I suggest that Mr Schmidt's ideas would get a better reception if people fully appreciated what "critical thought" really means. This is a key challenge too frequently missing on the educational agenda. I also observe in passing that religions generally discourage critical thought advocating, essentially blind, faith.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe conclusions in this study are simply common sense. Of course if you have greater belief in your chosen mythology and trust in your god, you will be more content. The anxiety associated with mistrust is simply your rational mind intruding on your faith.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm amused when posters like skepticalKen try to use a logical argument to support their faith. There is nothing rational or logical about religious belief.
Robert...your comments always entertain me (and I agree), but I seem to detect a little too much hostility. Would you mind sharing with us what etraordinary event gave you so much animosity? I live in a small town where you could meet someone in the line at the grocary store and they may ask you which church you attend every Sunday. I usually answer that my grandmother was a Native American and I worship the sun and the moon and the animals which sustain my family. I get some very interesting looks in return.
How this relates to the study in the article is that Robert seems to have too much anxiety because of his lack of belief in the diety. It is not associated with a mistrust in the god, but rather a mistrust in the believers.
Cheers
Excellent comment Robert. Perpetuating fantasy is not an appropriate solution to dealing with reality.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this- Pointing this out doesn't make you dogmatic.
809 million people have died in religious wars. That’s nearly a billion people.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOftentimes, a retort is that secular ideals and Godless Communism have killed many more. It is true that Stalin, among others, slaughtered his own people by the millions during the industrialization of Soviet Russia. By comparison, 209 million have died in the name of Communism. Some 62 million died during World War II, civilian and military, on all sides. Conclusively, more people have died in the name of religion than in the name of Communism or Hitler, or the two combined times two.
Source: Twentieth Century Atlas of Death Tolls
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstatz.htm#RelCon
@Velstras said - "I am not religious, but your arrogance is offensive to me. It seems to me that we can at least have a level of respect for beliefs and cultures different from our own."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@psmall said = "I completely disagree with you, Velstras. In ordcer for humanity and goodness to advance we have to step beyond the bounds and limits of primitive religious practice...We also have to define faith and blind faith for what they really are; Intellectual weakness and intellectual bankruptcy. We also have to adress just how arrogant and narcissistic it is to believe that there is an all powerful being ..."
So it is arrogant for a believer to say that there is a God, and not at all arrogant for you to say that all people of faith are intellectually bankrupt, or to assert that "In ordcer for humanity and goodness to advance" that "respect for beliefs and cultures different from our own" must be out of the question. So, should we all just follow you as our most wise and powerful leader, or do you have an individual or committee to recommend that will "save" us from the weakness of religion.
There is a difference between spirituality (our search for meaning in this life) and religion (orthodoxy and doctrine). As a therapist, I help clients identify the source of meaning in their lives because it is the root of motivation, fear, altruism, transcendence, and all other aspects of life. Religion may be an aspect of spirituality, but the two are not to be conflated. Why take on a topic like this without making this distinction?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@psmall - you said "Religion is inherently fantasy by it's very existence for there is absolutely not one single piece of verifiable fact..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOh, like string theory?
@psmall "809 million people have died in religious wars."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd all of those wars were PURELY religious? And other than Stalin and Hitler, there has never been a war that came from anything other than religion?
What about ethnocentrism, territorial disputes, economic disputes, power lust, and the simple old feud between royal families?
For that matter, what about violence other than war, just plain old crime?
Get a grip! The argument about who has done more damage in the name of what cause ignores the bottom line, that humankind has a long violent history, and when God is "involved" it is always in an attempt to justify something more human, like greed, jealousy or delusions of grandeur.
In String Theory at least the math works. Some day we may be able to test it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI can why see belief in a god can be a powerful coping mechanism for so many. Yet I have to wonder... If you can be going through something awful in your life, but then somehow convince yourself everything will be okay by relying on your faith, (that "God has a plan") and as a result you are able to calm yourself.... Then why can't you do that anyway instead of relying on some "invisible being" outside yourself--the all-knowing, all-present, omnipotent God-Almighty? Unfortunately, believers are continually giving up on themselves, preferring to rely on a mother or father figure to "save the day"--someone bigger and better than them. Why not instead be your own advocate and reassuring figure during times of trouble, realizing that eventually you will get through a difficult time--that you've muddled through before, you will do it again. It's realizing and accepting that this IS what living a life is all about--and it's a much more empowering way to live. This is your life and your circumstances, you can chose to freak out and seek consolation outside yourself or you can chose to find the reason and strength you need from within. --Makes a lot more sense to me than handing it all over to some great pasta-maker in the sky.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI've been a lurker on this site for a long time, but I decided to create an account when I saw this argument flying around.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet me state that I am an atheist. I am an advocate of science who praises humans' critical thinking ability. No matter what the topic is, I believe humans should question everything, in attempts to understand the material/situation they are presented with. As such, religion should be no exception.
@SkepticalKen I agree with your viewpoint that it's unfair to be pegging religion as the main cause of wars. I don't think it's religion that causes wars, but rather the people who lead them (obviously, since religion is only a system of beliefs that primarily deals with the issue of humans' origins). The people who started the wars all shared one common trait: they were attempting to justify their beliefs. Religion can be a strong influence for starting wars (people have free will, so having different beliefs in some point of time is guaranteed), but it's not the main source; believing in the idea that the majority in a society should have the right to dictate what goes around in their government (War of 1812) serves as a counter-example.
@notslic It's true that the math works for string theory, but the time where we can actually test its claims...It's going to take a while. Our measuring instruments are not powerful enough at the current moment.
@notslic, "share with us what etraordinary event gave you so much animosity?" nothing personally. I was raised Lutheran, attended bible study, was an active member of my church and associated youth group, and I might add that I continued long after I started down the road to atheism. My family is still active in the church and I love them all dearly. I wasn't molested by my pastor. I didn't lose a family member to a suicide bomber.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy issue with god and religion can be broken down into two distinct issues; 1: those that assert the existence of God have no basis for their claims and 2: religion is used as a political tool to grant absolute authority to a small group of individuals. It is anti-democratic. It has no due process. It is authoritarian. It is everything our parents and grandparents fought two world wars to prevent.
Issue #1 is simple; the onus of proof is on those that assert the affirmative or the existence of. The theists have not done that. So they expect special exemption from the rules of logic. Nothing more annoying than someone who wants to change the rules of the game to ensure they win.
Issue #2, There are thousands of years of extraordinary events of oppression, murder, torture and terrorism to cause me anxiety. All over the world progress to resolve serious social issues is being blocked by religious fascism, whether you are talking about the radical islamists throwing acid in the face of girls going to school or creationists trying to do an end-run around the constitution and force religion into the classroom via "intelligent design". Religion is a tool used by evil people to force their will on society. That is why it exists.
Many people confuse the idea of respecting the right of one to believe what they choose with respecting the content of those beliefs. I would never persecute anyone for their beliefs despite what SkepticalKen suggests (those of faith like to make mortal enemies of those who would resist their absolute authority). But accepting one's right to believe does not mean those beliefs should be given privileged consideration in society and law. Yet that is what religion demands. There is no higher authority than that of god so it should be no surprise when religious fanatics ignore the law to "punish the wicked". Those that believe without question will act without question.
I see religion as cultural fascism. Millions of people died to rid the world of fascism in the middle of the last century, yet here we are. Time to stop encouraging them.
I find that extremely offensive. My mother is a devout Catholic and had the horrible experience of losing her husband, someone that she dearly loved. It's true that she depended on God for strength, but she didn't depend on Him to "make all the problems go away". Only gullible followers do that. There is STILL some independent action that needs to be made from the individual.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou also have to realize that some individuals are not psychologically stable enough to reassure themselves that everything will "turn out all right" in that moment of crisis. You can't expect everyone to have the same level of independence and confidence within themselves. Everyone progresses on their own rate.
I'm not saying that that mindset is not empowering; on the contrary, I depended solely on myself during my father's death, a man that I loved with my entire being. But come on! I almost killed myself several times during that period! I only lived because I had friends and a therapist to support me during my personal crisis. There is a limit to how much you can handle personal pain before you crack. For me, social support helped; for others, religion is the main cure for their lack of strength.
Main point being, you need to acknowledge that there is a limit to how much crap people can handle. We are not machines, but rather delicate beings who depend on their experiences for feedback in developing their own identity. People who can "find the reason and strength [they] need from within" must have gone through similar situations that were less significant. Otherwise how can they reassure themselves that their own life will continue forwards?
In response to your issues:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1) You are not exempt from the rules of logic either. Your argument is based on the idea that the accumulation of experiences somehow "proves" that the reality you currently experience shall be upheld at all times. This is not true; the accumulation of experiences increases the possibility that you are right, but it certainly does not prove anything at all ==> Your experiences are based on the assumption that an objective reality exists. I don't want to play this little philosophical game where I therefore question if anything exists if the assumption is not true, since that does not allow any progress to be made. I merely wish to remind you that you have personal beliefs as well.
2) Is that really religion's fault though? Religion is not an entity that can somehow force individuals to commit certain actions. That's ludicrous. It's the individual's inability to critically evaluate the beliefs that belong to that particular belief system that is the main problem. Not religion's. These extremists--that are CERTAINLY not the majority of that religion--cannot consider the thought that perhaps their beliefs are flawed. I would argue that THAT is the source of the problem that you are currently trying to refer to.
A fact that you always need to keep in mind: Not every religion believes in intelligent design. The tone of your argument seems to suggest that you are only targeting the most popular religions (Islam, Judaism, Christianity). It's a logical fallacy to assume those three religions characterize the rest of the religions that exists. I'm PRETTY sure that Buddhism does not discourage individuals to question the belief system that the majority of them adhere to...
Towards anyone who might read this comment: Why SHOULDN'T we persecute individuals who disagree with us? I'm not questioning its moral significance; I believe people should have the right to believe in whatever the hell they wish to believe in. But I've already thought about it. I have my own personal system of ethics that I follow. Why should we--as an over-arching global society--believe that others deserve their right towards unrestricted ideas?
@SkepticalKen- First off "Does that go for cultural traditions, too? What about social attitudes and opinions?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes.
Second, "Do you have children? Do you (or would you, if you had them) make sure that everything you tell them you follow up with, "Of course, that's just my personal opinion. You should make your own choices about this.""
No, I don't have children, I'm actually only 22 and don't plan on having children for at LEAST another 5-10 years. However, I do believe that parents should emphasize the fact that not EVERYTHING they say is a fact, and that there are often many different opinions on the same subject, this would allow you to raise your children the with the morals you deem important without brainwashing them into believing that those are the only morals they should value (I include religion when I say morals due to their close relation).
Third, "Or are you exempt from that because you believe all the "right" things and people who believe differently from you are stupid?"
I never said anyone was stupid.
Fourth, "If I believe A and not B, it is human nature to believe that "Someone should do something..." about the parents who are teaching their children B, to believe that those parents are doing something "bad" to their children."
In my opinion, they are doing something bad to their children ONLY if they don't allow the child knowledge of A's existence and reasoning.
Fifth, "Fact is, growing up with our parents, good, bad, or indifferent, is part and parcel of human life. We all internalize some of what our parents teach us, and reject other parts. Some of those choices we make early in life, some later. Religious beliefs are no different."
I agree, I was simply stating that it seems a bit immoral for parents to teach their children about just one religion. I understand that their are always going to be people who do this, and I have no desire to go after those people and try to prosecute them or anything of that sort. I was simply making a point.
Finally, "Finally...come on...do you REALLY know people, I mean people you've met, not ones you've read about, who you have heard tell their children that lightening and thunder mean that God is angry? Seriously? I don't. You do yourself a discredit when you try to lump fringe behavior onto entire groups."
You're right, I don't. However, I do know many people who teach to their children that a man can walk on water, that 2 of every type of animal in existence fit on one boat made by one man, and that a talking snake is the reason we feel pain in child birth.
Many of the posts here demonstrate and affirm that atheism is simply a prejudice.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor example, Robert Schmidt refers to religion as a disease, just like homophobes do about homosexuality. And rather than use accurate terminology to indicate the experiences of those he maligns, he disparages their experiences with the word 'ghost', just as homophobes refuse to acknowledge that homosexuality is an innate trait, and refer instead to 'homosexual acts'.
His statement about people of faith "those that have rejected science categorically." is simply a degrading and malicious lie. Given how many of the greatest minds in the sciences were also people of faith, it also shows considerable contempt for science on his part.
Richieo claim "ignorant of the facts", made about people of faith, parallels the way homophobes and other bigots assert that they alone know "the truth" about the lives of GLBTQ people, or Jews, or whoever they are targeting for contempt.
Racer79's characterization of religion as "effectively you are brainwashing your child" mirrors the common claim made by homophobes - that gays recruit or brainwash others.
And dbtinc's statement "Given the damage that religion has caused to mankind over the millennia (sic), I can cut religion no slack." not only mirrors the common claim of bigots that 'those people are a threat to society' - used by racists, homophobes, anti-Semites, misogynists, etc, it is also categorically false.
Further, dbtinc demonstrates the threatening, totalitarian quality of prejudice by refusing to allow any tolerance, any room, any slack, for religion. It is common for atheists to express their desire for a world free of religion at any cost, just as homophobes, and racists, and other bigots dream of a world free of the people they hate.
Religions are based on the experiences of people of faith, and atheism is nothing more than the wholesale dismissal of those people and their experiences, without a shred of evidence to justify such a dismissal.
I realize that the atheists here will object, and complain, and summarily dismiss the conclusion that atheism is a prejudice, but that changes nothing. The only premise atheism articulates is a negative assumption about millions of people through the dismissal of their experiences. It is not based on science, or reason, or experience. It is simply an ugly construct that allows atheists to exalt their ego by denigrating everyone else.
One other point to consider, for the moment.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAtheism is not scientific, it is not based on science, it is actually very unscientific.
Science is based on experience, on what is witnessed, perceived. Atheism is not based on experience, but on the lack of experience.
Essentially, atheism claims "I have not experienced God, therefore, God does not exist". And occasionally, some atheists are even direct enough to admit that their belief in the non-existence of God(s) is based on their lack of experience.
Arguing that because you do not experience something, it does not exist, is not scientific, or rational, or reasonable. But, it is an argument that many kinds of bigots use, most notably, homophobes. They argue that because they do not experience same-sex sexual attraction, the sexual orientation homosexuality does not really exist.
The irony in all of this, particularly the strong parallel between homophobia and atheism, is that atheists declaiming about God(s) and religion are like celibates declaiming about sex - both are asserting that they have superior knowledge of something <b>because</b> they have no experience of it.
That's like a scientist saying "I haven't done any research, haven't run any experiments, haven't collected any data, so I know better than everyone who has."
Thank you. Your comment about the ghost in the closet was perfect.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Fred Phelps of Westboro Baptist Church claimed that the tornado in Joplin, MO was a direct result of the town’s sins."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this...OMG... can we keep track of these idiots? I'm not sure why yet, but I'm sure at some point it will be appreciated.
@mrcogllrdo, "...the reality you currently experience shall be upheld at all times." really? That is your argument for not rejecting an unproven hypothesis? Well you're going to be a very busy person simultaneously practicing all the religions humanity has ever created. I hope that works for you. I think I'll stick to objective reality.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Is that really religion's fault though?" yes, religion is a guy who lives above the pizza parlour downtown and this is all his fault. You are equivocating. Of course I am talking about the concept of religion which was created by humanity. So yes, people are to blame, not religion. And people are to blame, not guns. And people are to blame, not nuclear bombs. But I think you get where I am going with this; the concept of religion has inherent flaws that not only lead to its abuse but are systemic. The so called abuse is actually USE. Those flaws were intended in order to facilitate the abuse. Just as a nuclear bomb does not kill people, people kill people, but the purpose of the bomb is to facilitate people killing lots and lots of other people. It has no other use.
"Not every religion believes in intelligent design." no but many do have their own creation myths. Again, I think the point was pretty clear, the actual belief is unimportant, what is important is that people use the authority granted to them by the nature of religion to enforce their will on others. Believing the world is sitting on the back of a turtle is kind of nuts but not very threatening, demanding that you should be given a captive audience to preach your ideology because you call it science is malevolent.
"I'm PRETTY sure that Buddhism does not discourage individuals to question the belief system that the majority of them adhere to..." ya Buddhism is pretty cool and so all religions must be cool by extension. Again the central theme here is the use of religion as a tool for authoritarian control. If it was used only as a tool to get a bunch of people to mellow out in the mountains I wouldn't be so concerned.
"Why SHOULDN'T we persecute individuals who disagree with us?" an axiom of modern human-rights philosophies is the right to self-determination. Based on your own statement to me, ideas "are not an entity that can somehow force an individual to commit certain actions", so why should a person be punished for their thoughts? I believe all people should be held accountable for their actions. That is very different. Confusing the two is the difference between a democratic and totalitarian state.
Has it ever dawned on some people that humans are the way they are because this simply is just how far we've evolved up to this point?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo you're going to go tell people, the majority of whom are impoverished and the majority of their day is consumed with surviving, that what you 'believe' is wrong. There is not a god and in the end, your life is utterly meaningless. How do you think that will work out for them?
There was nothing wrong with your comment. It was honest.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou have the same rights as everyone who responded.
You know you hit a nerve, when people read way more into a comment than you said. They must know how to read minds.
I understood, that you were commenting about people who were extreme, not faith in general. Extreme thinking in "anything" is heading for trouble. For some reason, some people are not capable of making changes to their core values.
If you have a difference of opinion with someone and they fight fair.
Make friends for life.
Most people, if they really want to make a change, even if they fail many times, will keep trying until they do. They don't need any help.
Extreme anything is useally not positive.
@Wilm Roget, the problem with your comparison between religion and homosexuality is that homosexuality is a condition. Religion is a choice. Homosexuality is an aspect of human nature. Religion exploits human weakness. Homosexuality is an honest expression of an individual's personality. Religion is a collection of myths and lies designed to manipulate simple minded people. Not the same by a long shot.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI realize that you want to declare solidarity with the down-trodden but I'm not buying it. Religion has been the number one force denouncing homosexuality. So the people with whom you claim a common brotherhood are the same people many theists claim will spend eternity in hell.
"he disparages their experiences with the word 'ghost'" you mean like "holy ghost"? Ya, religious people aren't crazy enough to believe in spirits and the undead walking among us. That's just silly. Next I'll be claiming that religious people believe that bread and wine are somehow converted by a ceremony into human tissue which the faithful then devour. I've been watching too much TV.
"Atheism is not scientific, it is not based on science, it is actually very unscientific....atheism claims "I have not experienced God, therefore, God does not exist" well for a guy who likes to call everyone else liars you are certainly pretty free with making absolutely false statements. I have never once in my atheist existence claimed that god does not exist because I haven't experienced him/her/it. And if you really think that science is defined by human experience I suggest you actually look it up because I it proves you have never set foot in a science class room. Atheism is a position taken in response to the claim, that GOD DOES EXIST. Please note; the claim is not god might exist or that god could exist or even that it would be cool if god existed, it is a claim that the existence of god is an undeniable fact. How scientific is that?! The atheist position is that there is nothing to substantiate the claim and so the claim can be dismissed until such a time that it is proven. That is science.
So thanks again Will Rogers for once again showing what is central to the theist belief system, absolute ignorance of the facts.
I like how you use me as an example of why atheists are prejudice when I am not an atheist. It goes to show that anyone who has an opinion that is contrary to religion is automatically labeled an atheist. And if you had read my comment you would realize that my argument, was not against religion and it did not use the "homophobic logic" so to speak (I made no claim that a person raised by religious parents will be religious, I simply stated that bringing a child up as religious without giving them information and a choice on other religions is effectively brainwashing (I realize that that is a bit of an extreme claim, but hopefully you get my point)). As I said in my comment, it is the sheltering from other religions that I have a problem with, because at that point you pretty much are taking any choice of religion that the child may have had out of their hands, and this I find at least slightly immoral.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou should really read and understand a person's comment if you are going to bash it.
Also, the same argument you make about atheism being a prejudice can easily be applied to nearly any religion (i.e. our god is the only god, and anyone who doesn't believe that is going to hell)
@mrcogllrdo - You are a rational and open minded atheist. I hope you aren't lonely with that...I'd rather more of you speak up from time to time.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFWIW, I have met very few believers who think God will "fix all their problems". Believing that there is something better after this life and that, in the meantime, we are somehow connected to a compassionate higher power, takes the edge off of some problems, sometimes.I actuallymet a guy once who was an atheist because he had gone to a bible college where he was told that if he followed the rules, God would stop him from ever having any problems. Really, preacher man? Go start a war, will ya?
The relationship with God has nothing to do with trust. It is one way, either believe or not.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@robert schmidt,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOnce again very well said, and taking your argument into account, I actually have to reclassify myself as an atheist. You see, I live my life as an atheist, and I truly don't believe that a god exists, however I do believe in science and science dictates that you must at least say that it is possible that god exists. Try telling a person you're an atheist but that you allow for the existence of god and they'll automatically tell you that you are agnostic and can't be an atheist if you allow for gods existence.
I feel that the way you defined atheism "The atheist position is that there is nothing to substantiate the claim and so the claim can be dismissed until such a time that it is proven. That is science." really hit home. It's not about saying that a god can't exist, it's about the fact that there is no proof that a god does exist, so until there is, I'm going to go on with my life believing that there isn't a god. I'll allow for the possibility for god to exist, but I really REALLY don't believe that god exists, at least until someone shows me some real proof.
@racer - You present yourself better in that reply, thanks.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGood luck with the kids when and if you have them. I think you are deceiving yourself if you think you won't present your kids with opinions and call them facts... fair chance you'll even throw in an occasional "Because I said so!" to boot. I hated that as a child and hated how easy it was to say as a parent...especially since I swore as a young man that *I* would never say that to *MY* kids!
I also think you missed my general point. For you it seems pretty easy to draw that one black on white line on the moral issue of teaching only one religion. What I was trying to point out is that there are countless other issues where one man's fact is another man's foolish or even dangerous lie. Then the question becomes "Where do we draw the line?"
You may not think so now, may not realize it then (although I'm sure you are bright enough to reflect back and see it years after you've done it), but what you present to your children as fact and what you present as "just an opinion" will have far less to do with facts than it does with beliefs. The more dearly held your belief, the more indisputable you will call your fact...knowing, as you say so, just about exactly how far you'd have to walk to throw a rock and bean a guy who has nothing better to do than dispute your indisputable fact.
I have a bigger problem, though, with the fact that you talk about that issue as though what the parent has taught the child is permanent, like the child NEVER gets a chance to evaluate other opinions. Yes, most people who grow up with religious teaching keep most of it. But it is also very common for believers to modify some of those beliefs. I "know" bits of what my Dad taught me were wrong.
It is also not UNcommon for people to take a radically different religious track than what their parents taught them. This is likely more common when the child perceives the parents behavior as hypocritical, but also can stem from intellectual curiosity. Regardless of the reason, some people take up, switch or abandon religion as adults, often to the chagrin of their parents.
I think Westboro teaches some immoral things, and I can only hope that when their children grow up they will have the courage to question. But, if you and I decide what Westboro can or can't teach their children, we open the door to others telling us what WE can teach our children. Do you really want to set that precedent? Maybe you should wait until your oldest is 20 something, then it's just other parents problem.
Robert
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"the problem with your comparison between religion and homosexuality is that homosexuality is a condition. Religion is a choice. Homosexuality is an aspect of human nature. Religion exploits human weakness."
No. Homosexuality is not a condition. Religion is based on human experience, as is sexual orientation. Religion is no more a choice than sexual orientation is - one can choose to act on either, but one does not chose to be either religious, or gay/straight/bi/transgendered/asexual.
Your claim that religion exploits human weakness is false, and derogatory, another example of the intrinsic biasness of atheism.
"Homosexuality is an honest expression of an individual's personality. Religion is a collection of myths and lies designed to manipulate simple minded people. Not the same by a long shot."
Wrong again. Religion, like sexual orientation, is an honest expression of an individual's experiences and personality. Your claim about religion, though, exactly mirrors the claims that homophobes make about homosexuality - they dismiss and denigrate homosexuality in exactly the same terms you use to dismiss religion.
In both cases, bigotry is manifested in the derogatory and abusive dismissal of other people's experiences, in order to inflate the bigot's ego.
"well for a guy who likes to call everyone else liars"
Your use of ad hominem indicates that your position is degrading and cannot be defended accurately or with integrity. Homophobes and racists and other bigots use the exact same tactic when their degrading conclusion about other people is challenged. In each paragraph, you have mirrored the behavior of recognized bigots. Science tells us that such a similarity of behavior indicates a common root: prejudice.
"And if you really think that science is defined by human experience I suggest you actually look it up because I it proves you have never set foot in a science class room."
Do you understand the root of the word "experiment"? Do you know why scientists test their hypotheses? No principle in science is accepted until it is validated by experience. And on earth, that means human experience.
"Atheism is a position taken in response to the claim, that GOD DOES EXIST."
Unfortunately, the gross bias and multiple false claims in your posts do not create any credibility for you claim.
However, your characterization doesn't change the fact: atheism is not based on fact or experience or logic or reason. It is based on ego.
Robert
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The atheist position is that there is nothing to substantiate the claim and so the claim can be dismissed until such a time that it is proven. That is science. "
This is not exactly accurate, but taken as is - the "atheist position" as you presented it, is false. There is plenty of data to substantiate the claim "God exists" - it simply is not the data atheists choose to accept.
The substantiating data for the existence of God is the testimony and experiences of most of humanity. But atheists reject this data, though they have no data of their own, and that
robert
is prejudice: "an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason."
Atheism is not scientific at all, for it is not good science to declare "I did not experience x, therefore it does not exist" when other people are saying "I experienced x".
In your scenario, every biologist, who do not study subatomic particles, would true scientists when they claim "quarks do not exist" - because, they haven't collected data, haven't experienced muons and baryons, etc.
Atheists simply choose to discard, out of hand, all of the data that comes from people of faith, like a biologist choosing to discard all of the data that comes from physicists. That is not rational, it is not good science, and it is not evidence of a superior intellect or better mental health.
Now, the claim "there is no God" cannot be substantiated. The absence of experience of some people does not negate the experiences of everyone else, and so the absence of experience of atheists does not negate the experiences of people of faith.
Since there is nothing to substantiate the atheist claim "there is no God", it can be dismissed until such a time that it is proven. That is science.
Of course, the standard argument of atheists online is that they do not need to prove their claim. That itself is evidence of bigotry/bias/prejudice. From the perspective of everyone else, their claim that God does not exist needs to be substantiated. Yet they cannot, and most refuse to even try.
The premise articulated by atheists, generally, that their claim "God does not exist" does not need to be substantiated while the claim of people of faith "God exists" does need to be substantiated, is evidence of bias, prejudice, bigotry.
"I like how you use me as an example of why atheists are prejudice when I am not an atheist. It goes to show that anyone who has an opinion that is contrary to religion is automatically labeled an atheist."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo, racer79. I used your statement as an example. Here is my exact quote:
"Racer79's characterization of religion as "effectively you are brainwashing your child" mirrors the common claim made by homophobes - that gays recruit or brainwash others."
Rather than address what I actually wrote, you invent something else entirely, in order to articulate prejudice.
"I simply stated that bringing a child up as religious without giving them information and a choice on other religions is effectively brainwashing"
And this is a false, degrading claim that has no true basis in reality, and serves only to malign most of humanity. It is not a scientific statement, it is not based on evidence, it is "an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason."
In dodging my point, which was the parallel between your characterization of religion and that used by homophobes, you've reinforced the similarity between the two prejudices.
"(I realize that that is a bit of an extreme claim, but hopefully you get my point))."
So, you knew that your assertion was not accurate, but presented it anyways. The point I get from that is that your point of view - atheism - cannot be articulated with accurate information, and relies on exaggeration and misrepresentation to appear meaningful. Other prejudices have the same problem.
"You should really read and understand a person's comment if you are going to bash it."
This is advice that is not manifested in your post.
"Also, the same argument you make about atheism being a prejudice can easily be applied to nearly any religion"
No. If that were true, then scientists who argue that nothing can exceed the speed of light would be prejudiced as well. Anyone who made any claim based on their experience that expressed any absolute, per your statement above, would then be a bigot.
That is not the case. The core difference between religion and atheism is that the first is based on experience, while the second is not only based on the lack of experience, it concludes without evidence that all people who experience something different are wrong.
Atheism is consistently expressed in the same arguments and tactics of other recognized prejudices. That extremely strong parallel leads to the scientific conclusion that atheism is also a prejudice.
Robert
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen you tried to refute my statement "atheism is prejudice" by trying to prove that homosexuality and religion are dis-similar, that was a misleading tactic.
The object of a prejudice need not be similar to any other prejudice - in other words, racism and antisemitism ares not prejudices because race and Judaism are similar, but because the belief held by racists and the belief held by anti-Semites are similar.
I've pointed out just some of the strong parallels between atheism and homophobia. To prove that atheism is not a prejudice, you would need to show that atheism and homophobia are not similar, or that any similarities are superficial, have different causes, or otherwise do not represent an accurate comparison.
For example, both homophobes and atheists use the false claim "it will destroy society" where it refers to the object of their criticism. To challenge this parallel, you need only demonstrate how it arises from some different mechanism in homophobia than it does in atheism.
Both atheism and homophobia, and every other prejudice, expresses a sense of superiority, a "we are better than those people". In atheism, it manifests in claims that religious people are brainwashed, mentally challenged, etc. To negate this parallel, you need merely prove that it is fundamentally different in the case of atheism than in recognized prejudices.
Now, some of the things that are subjects of prejudice are innate, like skin color or sexual orientation, but other things are not. The commonality, though, is that the trait itself indicates that everyone with the trait is some how defective, bad, wrong, dangerous, inferior. This is true for the prejudice that is atheism, it argues that all people of faith are wrong about their experiences. Further, it is frequently asserted that being religious is proof that someone is mentally ill, uneducated, mentally inferior, etc.
To prove that atheism is not a prejudice, you could demonstrate how this mechanism is different in the case of atheism, compared to all other prejudices.
This would be a scientific approach to demonstrating that atheism is not a prejudice.
I just can't. My mind explodes with every logical fallacy you have put forth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI almost fell for it! I was going to refute each of your points - show you where you’ve gone wrong, but I suspect that you already know…
http://atheists.org/blog/2011/10/25/arguing-with-a-theist-is-like-arguing-with-a-child
Atheism DOES NOT equate bigotry and IS scientific.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor those of you who do not understand GOD, I will spell it out for you.
In normal human development, we develop Theory of Mind where we come to understand other people's intentions and expectations. In fact, the basic underlying process that children use to acquire language is that same one that leads to Theory of Mind and also our belief in GOD.
People have a wonderful ability to see a facial expression, hear a tone of voice, or discern from another's action what even an unfamiliar word means. People use this every day to survive in the social word and it is critical to social interaction.
Some, well the majority, of people misuse this ability to attribute agency to the natural world. Why did the volcano erupt? Because god is angry about something.
As an atheist, I scientifically can not only explain your belief in GOD but think it indicates that you are a normally developed person.
I am not surprised by the findings in this article at all. The process that leads to the belief in GOD is comforting and does soothe anxieties about our ability so function in the fast past, full-of-uncertanties social world.
Simply stated, you can not use your ability to discern social behavior to explain the natural world. That you do is just a cognitive error. Research on Atheist show they often make the same error as you but then self correct.
>it is frequently asserted that being religious is proof that someone is mentally ill, uneducated, mentally inferior, etc.
No it is a strong indication they are functioning normally in terms of using available clues to understand social interaction. To say that the earthquake in Haiti was caused by the Haitian making a deal with the devil is a cognitive error. As much as someone may with to say but "that is my belief", theory of mind enables people to also understand when other's have a false belief. That would be the case here. Sorry.
Robert: On this one you have my 100% support. Yes you are right.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever us rationalists do the right thing we don't procreate like flies. Result there is always a lot more of the idiots around.
Not only is religion wrong, more importantly it is extremely evil. Birth control is denied to those who need it most, not just by religion but by the USA government on which religion has massive control. In a democracy numbers matter, not an ability to think rationally. Einstein's vote is equal to the vote of the dumbest idiot who chooses to vote. Religion dictates to its flock how to vote.
Humans cannot comprehend reality, as an earthworm cannot comprehend algebra. Science and Religion are two examples of complete failures to comprehend reality. Of the two, Religion brings us closer to the comprehension of reality because it engages the whole person, not just the tiny confines of the intellect. Therefore, Religious people--as has been shown in many surveys--are generally happier. Humans will never be able to comprehend reality. Science is the biggest joke of all, being entirely based on "self-evident" assumptions. Science is the process of continually "discovering" everything we used to "know" is incorrect, and replacing each generation's belief system with a new, improved version. It's gotten to the point where the current "scientific truth"--i.e. Quantum Mechanic, is impossible to convey with a straight face. Science is a complete fraud, a waste of time, has brought us endless suffering and the entire planet to the edge of extinction. Religion, at least, seems to allow a certain level of "not knowing", which is certainly closer to the truth than anything science could produce. The human intellect is not the pinnacle of the universe, just as earth is not the center of the solar system, etc, etc.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGive me religion any day. It doesn't much matter what flavor. The path to happiness is to "let go and let God ("God" being that which can never be known by the intellect)."
If modern psychiatry is allowed to accept the horrifically bigoted and biased propaganda of the feminist movements in their actions and programs, then there is nothing wrong with sprinkling in some religion if it helps people. They even use the politically correct numbers on domestic violence, instead of the number from the hundreds of hundreds of studies done by researchers at every major university in western civilization. ( http://csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm) Psychiatry has become a giant misandrist lie at every relevant junction, as bigoted ad destructive as any religion. (http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2003-06-22-abuse-usat_x.htm) They even use those lies as excuses to kidnap children from innocent people, and maintain the overt lies that men are the real problem in domestic violence. They even test against mathematically fictional reality with the MMPI, and have the power to revoke every single one of a persons constitutional rights without ever once charging them with a crime if they refuse to lie and say that they were to blame when women assault them, even if they have never hit a woman in their entire lives. If women hit you, you can be forced to say it is your fault, to conform to the fictional mythology of feminism that psychiatry worships as a religion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf modern psychiatry is allowed to accept the horrifically bigoted and biased propaganda of the feminist movements in their actions and programs, then there is nothing wrong with sprinkling in some religion if it helps people. They even use the politically correct numbers on domestic violence, instead of the number from the hundreds of hundreds of studies done by researchers at every major university in western civilization. ( http://csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm) Psychiatry has become a giant misandrist lie at every relevant junction, as bigoted ad destructive as any religion. (http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2003-06-22-abuse-usat_x.htm) They even use those lies as excuses to kidnap children from innocent people, and maintain the overt lies that men are the real problem in domestic violence. They even test against mathematically fictional reality with the MMPI, and have the power to revoke every single one of a persons constitutional rights without ever once charging them with a crime if they refuse to lie and say that they were to blame when women assault them, even if they have never hit a woman in their entire lives. If women hit you, you can be forced to say it is your fault, to conform to the fictional mythology of feminism that psychiatry worships as a religion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd, I am probably an atheist by most people's definition, but I love doing yoga and meditating, and can see real theraputic value in religion. Would be just ugly to remove it utterly from the process of possible methods.
Your arguments are at best confused. You have to define your concepts clearly. The opposite of atheism is not religion but theism. One holds there is no god, the other holds there is. But what is god? You said:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"God is the testimony and experiences of most of humanity"
If that is your definition of god, even the atheists will believe in god. Testimonies and human experiences exist, therefore god exists. But is this the universal definition of god in christianity and other religions? So god is not a supernatural being? It is just experience and testimony?
In that case, we should dismiss the theology of most religions and just deal with psychology. Human experience and our interpretations of it is the science of psychology. No need to postulate supernatural beings and metaphysical forces. And we are all theists.
i love reductionist pychology! It gets us treatments like brain disabling ECT for people we can't tolerate
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMost of the horrors of history have been done in the name of someone's invisible friend. There is absolutely no reason to encourage belief in any "god" unless you're seeking power over other people.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is true that there is a human sin in natural disasters and even, they are three.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe first is to trust a tyrannical God that punishes (like Ghaddafi), and not to use the brain to reason right.
The second is to partially ignore the laws of Nature: Science has not yet found for instance when an earthquake will come.
The third is to ignore the Global Warming and not to care about it.
There is also a fourth anyway, perhaps the biggest and above all it is just the sin of religions: To do nothing against the growing of the World population thinking that it is a God's will, and not noticing that in the far past this problem was inconsistent because in our epoch are men which broke the laws of Nature (or for religions, the God' laws!) making life becoming longer. So now the Nature's laws must also be broken on the other side, using condoms and contraceptives.
Robert is in need of the very therapy that he rebukes. Like it or not we are in some mysterious way a Spirit Being in possesion of a physical-material body. When you are told that, "From Dust We Came & Unto Dust We Return," - this is Six Millenium of thoughtful Wisdom.. Robert apparently "Knows" all there is to Know so how can the Mystery of an Unknown Spirt Energy in possesion of Earthly Dust ever enter an already cemented up tight cranial noggin.. All His own Questions have already been self-satisfied by His own Answers..
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThanks for your thoughtful reply, Robert. The only real difference in our outlooks is that I have become less willing to do battle. I did have a little skirmish recently, though.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe soccer coach had a little "prayer circle" before the first game and made it clear that participation was not necessary. My daughter stood aside and retied her shoes.
After the game I told the coach that if he ever tried to single out and embarrass my daughter again, his god wouldn't be able to protect him from me. I may be getting old, but I still throw around 80 pound bales of hay on a daily basis. The coach wasn't faithful enough to have another "prayer circle".
True strength and conviction come from knowledge. Blind faith is extremely weak.
Again, I think that the article (anyone remember it?) simply states the obvious. No research was necessary.
Cheers!
Reading the comments it seems that a few are making confusion between Psychology and Psychoanalysis. Psychology is the science of behavior and mental processes, really a science. The brain is an organ like any other, and it should be very bad if there were no psychological medicines for it. Instead Psychoanalysis is a psychological theory, just a theory, and one should not do confusion between them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe level of tolerance demonstrated for nonsensical beliefs is truly astonishing! Separate religious beliefs from the protection of the "that is his/her religion!" and such nonsensical beliefs become, for the most part, quite socially unacceptable. As a example, should the religious belief that one of the seven tribes of Israel is inferior to others be tolerated "because it is a person's religion" even though the implementation of that belief only increases human suffering? Should there be increased tolerance for criminal action "because the perpetrator acted out of religious belief?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSadly enough, the founding fathers made a mistake in elevating nonsensical belief systems. It is entirely appropriate to judge a person on the entirety of his/her beliefs and to discriminate against individuals who insist on acting in accord with nonsense. (the Easter bunny told me I can discriminate against them.)
By the way, there are no "atheists". There are only "theists" and those who are not theists. Unless we want to add "a" as a descriptor for to everything anyone is not. That could become a pretty long list. I think that the term atheist developed initially because theists, from zoroastrian's to Mayan priests to Catholic bishops, at their heart, are reluctant to recognize that they are the ones with the concept that needs justifying. Not believing, not incorporating, not joining does not require any explanation.
For me the problem is not trusting or not a God, even trusting a God is a big psychological help. The problem is with religions: they are never updated and sometime are teaching unconsciously laws against Nature (and so against God). For example the Islam says that women must cover themselves all, ignoring that vitamin D is coming from the light on our body; or in the Bible there is Onan which does something that God doesn't like, and religions say then to use no contraceptives. The Evil is not what a God could like or dislike, the Evil is to make damage directly or indirectly to other people.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's too bad that so much of this discussion has been dominated by those whose faith is that "religion is inherently fantasy." (That is just as much a faith-statement as the reverse view.) The topic of scientific considerations of religious factors in clinical practice deserves a more serious consideration. What we call "spiritual" is a set of behaviors and concepts that are empirically validated from a number of sources. They are just as real as "the conscious" or "post-traumatic stress syndrome." ("Dark night of the soul" has a rich history in literature and practice.) Clinical practioners sharing their experience can help to move beyond insider language (dogma and doctrine) to empirical generalizations that will be helpful to therapists who are open to using that kind of language. Jim Davis
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMarx wasn't convicted of homicide until he was quite dead. You are probably thinking of Einstein.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisan organ which should not be tampered with harmful man-made drugs which we don't fully understand. I trust my blood brain barrier over pychiatrists and psuedoscience
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou can think what you like, just one opinion, but my wife which has a light schizophrenia had a big recovery from psychological medicines. Perhaps you are confusing Psychology with Psychoanalysis. Or perhaps you are following Homeopathy, that is just another kind of psychological help, if an hillness is light. Or perhaps you are thinking that the voices of Jeanne d'Arc were from God and not a kind of schizophrenia. Should I tell my wife that her voices were from God and not schizophrenia?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow many people who condemn religion and the bible have actually read the bible? The best opinion is an INFORMED opinion. Once upon a time I believed much the way that you do for all the reasons you give.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne day I decided to read the bible for my self to see what it had to say. To my surprise it explained everything even the difficult times we are living in now better than anything or anyone else did.
That's good because a few years later I came down with CFS (Chronic Fatigue Syndrome). Treatment is iffy at best and so far nothing has worked. It is only my belief in God and his promises that I found in the bible that has kept me going these past 30 odd years that I have been sick.
To paraphrase what they used to say about drugs, "don't knock it till you've tried it." Don't knock the bible until you have read it for your self.
I suppose that Marx is right. The belief in an after life that rewards goodness and punishes evil would make the oppressed more tolerant of abuse. Eliminating that "opiate" gave rise to the violent Anarchists that started the first world war. (There are no atheists in fox holes) Still, it seems more atrocities are committed in the name of God, than for any other reason. Communism did prove one thing, God, like drugs, and prostitution, is very hard to outlaw. As more states turn to gambling for revenue (A voluntary tax on those who flunked mathematics) We find more capitalists willing to invest in this "sin". We are finding more proof to the old adage "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely." Unfortunately, that also holds true for a Church or a Government. The wealthy have always found it more economical to bribe bureaucrats than to pay taxes. The workers perception of most capitalists is they would rather pay a small portion of their wealth to a "Cause" than to pay their workers a "living" wage. On the other hand, a whole industry is devoted to making people believe they should have "more". It's called advertising, brought to a fine art with computers. Planned obsolescence is driving everyone to live beyond there means.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe banks have extracted a kings ransom (with government help) from the housing market. Now they are milking another cash cow, the credit card. No wonder people are traumatized. Government seems now only intent on making maters worse. Would anarchy be better, or is that what we have now?
Well, I feel better now. I'll put in a bill with my HMO for an hour of group counseling.
If you define god as a supernatural being as major religions do, the evidence for it is no better than that for horoscope, feng shui, ESP, magic and the like.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat many believe in god and swear it has changed their lives is just that: belief and testimony. It only proves their personal experience. Many people also believe and have personal experience in horoscope, feng shui, ESP, magic and the like.
Do believers really experience god? Sure. And there's a scientific explanation for it: placebo effect. The effect is real but the medicine is not.
I have read the bible.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt condones slavery.
I put it down and vomited.
Please... just google "bible slavery quotes" and see what comes up.
If you think slavery is OK and that is your belief, please do not ask me to respect your belief because not only will I mock you with derision but I will encourage other's to do so too. Now if you say you are a Christian and those parts of the bible are surly wrong, well then all is cool as far as I am concerned.
This sort of article always brings out the religious and anti-religious militancy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm firmly atheist, content for the moment to believe that there is no God. I say 'for the moment' because there is a chance that something might occur that will change my view at some point in the future; I think it unlikely but feel it's important for me to be open to new information and not be stubborn. While I believe there isn't a God, I know that there are people who believe there is a/many God(s) and that belief can take many forms on a spectrum from a metaphor for abstract spirituality to some chap sitting on a cloud and a plethora of things around and in between.
Who am I to pick someone who believes one thing and say 'you're wrong, you should believe this'. It'd make me look like a bigot, a particularly rude one.
Plus, if I take this approach and rant, what effect will I have? Make the recipient defensive is what... as I would be should some self-appointed religious bigot (n.b. I'm not lumping all theists in together here) decide that I should believe the doctrine he/she believes in and decides to try and ram it down my throat. I'm going to instantly dislike the person and therefore not really want to listen to anything they then decide they have to say to me.
For all these religion-based arguments, have any of you ever succeeded in changing the mind of the other, regardless of your view? Probably not. You end up with a frustrating stalemate for both sides with each trying to out-shout the other by the end.
Anyway, on the point of the article... personally, I don't like it... but given the belief split of the USA is it not surprising that this service has appeared. If it gets help to people who need psychological help than that's a bonus, and I'd commend that regardless of the religious element... if it works. Most monotheists in America are harmless and don't plan on building an army to blow up anything anytime soon so I don't really see what all the anti-religious fuss is about here... and, while I have my opinions on it, the argument for religion and children is not relevant to the content of this article.
To many who have posted comments with absolute assuredness, it doth seem to me that you may be a bit emulous of we who have had personal experiences serving as evidence of things not seen. It appeared to me long ago that God didn't care much for my intellectualism, only that I was sentient.I've put forth common sense reasoning for "Godism" in The Korea Times, should you be interested in another view. Respectfully yours, I AM, William Roger Jones, Jeju Island.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPreceding comments by atheists claiming that they see no evidence for God's existence reveals the extent of the intellectual bankruptcy of our time, even among scientists. I long ago discovered that there exists a minority of people for which no amount of evidence for God's existence would ever be sufficient, no matter how self-evident and compelling. Even when it surrounds them on every side, and at every level, as the vast majority of people instinctively know.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn fact all of science is founded on realities for which there is absolutely no naturalistic answer. This includes the origin and existence of our superbly integrated universe, the mystery regarding the ultimate nature of matter and energy, the difficulty of integrating general relativity with quantum theory, the reality of subatomic and cosmic fine tuning, the existence of natural laws and mathematical regularity, the origin of life and conscious, and a vast multitude of other realities too numerous to mention.
We note that hypothetical "mind experiments" relating to M-Theory or String Theory turn out to be more imagined than real. As acknowledged by Nobel Prize winning American Theorist, David Moss, one of the founders of String Theory, "We don't know what we are talking about. String and M-Theory are based on little more than fancy maths, and a grab bag of ideas."(BBC Focus). All attempts to discover a "Theory of Everything" have likewise failed miserably. As admitted by French Physicist D'Espagnat, "We can glimpse some basic structures beneath the veil, but much of it remains an infinite, eternal mystery."
Indeed, all hypothetical theories regarding "unobserved" and unrepeatable past events, are based on a multitude of "assumptions" that can never be substantiated by the Empirical & Scientific Method, and thus can never be empirically verified by "methodological" naturalism, on which the scientific method is based. Meaning, that such hypothetical theories are ultimately ideologically grounded in "Metaphysical" and "philosophical" naturalism, the quest to explain ALL REALITY solely by natural events and material processes alone. We see this as an impossible task by any measure, bordering on a delusion. We see scientists appealing to one series of hypothetical "assumptions" regarding past events, to justify other set of hypothetical "assumptions" regarding past events. Little wonder that Americans and others increasingly believe science is slowly going mad.
Most people instinctively equate the wonders of the universe and its complexity with a creator.
"Most people instinctively equate the wonders of the universe and its complexity with a creator"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTrue but so what? Animals have instincts that they follow too.
"Preceding comments by atheists claiming that they see no evidence for God's existence reveals the extent of the intellectual bankruptcy of our time"
That statement is such a joke, isn't it? I mean really!
Intellectual bankruptcy is thinking you can explain everything that you don't have a complete explanation for by saying it is God.
Much will never be explained and I can live with that. For people to make up a GOD to explain things, and then make up all sorts of rules that GOD insists on, and then try to force everyone else to follow GOD's rules because GOD may become angry and punish us all… I assert those who believe in GOD wouldn't know intellectual bankruptcy even if GOD whispered it in their ear!
People 100 years ago didn't have the same level of understanding that we do today and we don't have the level that people will have in 100 more (assuming humanity makes it that long). You can play up to people's insecurities about not knowing the future by painting a heaven for them, but I will choose to simply live with the uncertainty that is inherent in life.
Call me courageous if you will, but I call it reality.
We can see the universe but we cannot see god. How can you explain the universe by postulating something more inexplicable such as god? If you need a creator for the universe, then who created god? If god is uncreated, then why can't the universe be uncreated?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDoes it require a greater suspension of disbelief to say the universe is uncreated? The uncreated god is more incredible because we cannot see him. We can all see the universe. God may be a figment of imagination.
As Voltaire said, if god did not exist, man would be obliged to invent him.
The previous post refers to your idea that science supports the concept of god. Not really though science does not rule out its possibility.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe bible condones genocide, slavery, arson, plunder, rape, etc. There's a lot of bad stuff there. If it was inspired by god, then he must be psychopatic. But the more plausible explanation is men just wrote down their psychopatic thoughts and claimed it was god's words. If we cannot trust the sanity of these men, their supernatural claims that contradict science are even less credible.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo be fair, the bible has a lot of good ethical advices. But that doesn't mean it was god's words and by implication that god exists. Humans are perfectly capable of writing books on ethics.
On a savannah in central Africa a herd of five thousand springbok graze in the afternoon heat. Suddenly a small cloud of dust on one side of the herd ignites a panic, and the entire herd explodes at a gallop into a great arc, returns nearly to the place from which they started, and commences to feed again.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe cause of this explosion was the stalking and killing of one of their own by a pride of lions. Only fifty yards away from the carnage the springbok graze unconcerned.
The reason for this lack of concern, of course, stems from the fact that animals haven’t the ability to think ahead or behind. They have no knowledge of time except the eternal now. Their instincts provide for a sort of “danger-no danger” off/on switch, and that is about all. They are not burdened or graced, depending on your viewpoint, with the power of choice.
Mankind is so gifted. He is blessed with that distinctive cognitive ability to plan well into the future and look back into the past, and so is able to make choices about his life based on his experiences and his desires.
This ability to look outward, beyond self, beyond now, and to choose, is an attribute afforded no other living creature. And the highest thought one can think, beyond one's own reason, beyond any thought of all there is or ever was or ever will be, is the thought of God, The creator of all there is. Or was. Or will be.
God is.
One could say “Aha! Then it’s true that man created God in his own image”! I would say that humanity is constantly creating God in its own image, but that in no way disproves God’s existence. We are free to doubt, free to choose or not. And our capacity to doubt and to choose might well be randomly selected evolutionary advantages or disadvantages.
On the other hand, eons before the building of the first church, or the uttering of the first prayer, the idea of God has occupied the mind, in some form or fashion, of every human being on earth.
God Is.
“There are more things on heaven and earth Horatio, than have been dreamt of in your philosophy.”
Hamlet
P.S. I dedicate this next quote to Robert Schmidt, Whoknows absolutely everything, who needs no other God but himself.....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this“There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation”
Willian James
I can think of a unicorn and no way anyone can disprove its existence. All primitive people also thought of a unicorn or any unusual animal.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are more things in our imaginations and fantasies than have been here in this world. Our desire to believe them is restrained only by the will to doubt.
Strangelove why do you speak of the prosaic Unicorn when I am speaking of the creator of the universe? What I am suggesting is that:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Deep down in every man woman and child is the fundamental idea of God. It may be obscured by calamity by pomp by worship of other things but in some form or other it is there. For faith in a Power greater than ourselves and miraculous demonstrations of that power in human lives are facts as old as man himself".
The will to doubt is really all anyone has; it's certainly as far as anyone can go as an atheist. Certainty eludes us all, so that either way, one can only make progress by faith in these matters; you with your faith in a universe devoid of meaning save the meaning you give it, and believers who prefer to believe that there is a supremely creative and guiding intelligence at work which is ultimately beyond anyone's complete understanding.
But the belief systems of five to six billion people on the planet cannot be explained away as the the mere product of ignorant superstition. To cynically smear another's belief system in that way as the member of a comparatively tiny minority of mere doubters seems to me to be the height of bigotry and arrogance.
Can't the Unicorn be god in the guise of an animal? Bigotry and arrogance belong to believers who think their creator is the only true god. Many superstitious ideas are as old as man himself. The superstitious belief of 6 billion people is indeed superstitious. It is ignorant to think not.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe atheist does not doubt. He is certain there is no god. The theist does not doubt too. He proclaims god is the creator. Only the doubter seeks the truth. There is no sense seeking the truth if you already know it by faith.
Dr. S, You said "The atheist does not doubt. He is certain there is no god. The theist does not doubt too. He proclaims god is the creator. Only the doubter seeks the truth. There is no sense seeking the truth if you already know it by faith."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo athiests, by not doubting, show their faith in a lack of God, and do not seek the truth, because they believe it is confirmed by their faith. Interesting.
Faith is belief in the absence of evidence. You don't need evidence for non-existence. So the atheist doesn't need faith. But if you're doubting god's non-existence, then you're not an atheist. You're just skeptical.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI hate to nit-pick, but, well...no I don't!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'll simplify the quote: "The atheist does not doubt...Only the doubter seeks the truth."
Surely you are not saying that athiests come to the truth without seeking? That would be blind faith.
The atheist stopped searching because he thought he found the Truth. In science, truths are provisional. They may change as we discover the universe. We believe that what we know is true. But to quote Voltaire, "doubt is not a pleasant state but certainty is a ridiculous one."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe might do well to remember that we are, conform to, what we believe. A sense of strong religion-mindedness derives from both psychological/neurological predisposition and a history of social inculcation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf predisposed, a religious person's personal identity then derives from a history among like-minded people, the social group that provides his/her anchoring in the world.
Given that, how could/would, such a person simply give up his/her belief system and jeopardize his/her personal identity (however brief such jeopardy might prove to be)? The determining factor likely substantially reflects the person's degree of commitment, which is proportional to his/her duration of involvement (history, again).
"The atheist stopped searching because he thought he found the Truth."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA mistake, in my opinion, and one made by most religious people as well. Even many scientists forget that scientific truth is "provisional" and speak of scientific theories and discoveries as though they are absolute truth.
Doubt is the path to truth, absolute truth is the mark of hubris.
@mounthell - "Given that, how could/would, such a person simply give up his/her belief system and jeopardize his/her personal identity (however brief such jeopardy might prove to be)?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPerhaps I'm just a freak, but then so are most of my friends. My personal identity is pretty deeply rooted in questioning, challenging, doubting everything I am taught; doubly so regarding religion.
But, then, you sound like a determinist, so I should just suggest that you haven't considered nearly enough variables in your formula.
I don't believe that religious people have abandoned science, they simply find it incomplete. The study of human psychology really doesn't get into the whole meaning of life stuff that religion has claimed, so naturally when most people find themselves in stressful times it's only natural that they'd seek solace in an activity that can do them little harm. Sure there are nutcases that abuse religion to further their own goals, but there's ample evidence of atheists abusing science to further their own goals; the current abuse of science by governments and corporations to abuse the natural world is clear evidence of this fact. If you take a look at the facts, sure religion has been the tool used to kill and oppress many people, but science is a far more deadly weapon that is being used at the moment to wipe out most of the living creatures on this planet, an act that no religion could ever be implicated in. It's a fact that humans need meaning in our lives.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSeeing that science requires a more existentialist outlook on life perhaps psychology could support the inclusion and exploration of spirituality/philosophy to buffer an embattled mind from going over the deep end of sanity. This way it would leave the more politicized version of spirituality out, ie: religion.
It is people who commit violence and abuses, not science. Sure they can claim it in the name of science but people had also claimed it in the name of religion. So let's not blame science nor religion for man's fault. Though Islam and the Old Testament call for holy war against non-believers. We can blame man for inventing the gun but not the knowledge of making guns (technology). Science and technology can be used for good or bad.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"perhaps psychology could support the inclusion and exploration of spirituality/philosophy to buffer an embattled mind from going over the deep end of sanity"
Spirituality as well as other beliefs that affect mental health are recognized in psychology and psychiatry. It is normal to be spiritual. It depends on how you express it. In extreme cases, the expression may be characterized as a mental disorder.
When I was in high school approximately umpteen years ago, a group of friends and I elected one of us as "God" - the idea that each of us would serve as "God" for 1 month, after which someone else would be elected - the idea was that we all had to do what our "God" decreed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe compact failed in its very first month when most of us refused some order of our "God's". At this point, several of us argued - and most accepted - that there really had to be a 'Real God', or else the idea of Him/Her/It could not have endured for so many ages.
We still had to discover which was the Religion of the Real God - in our group there were several Christians (including myself, born into a Christian family); several Hindus; three Muslims; perhaps (if my memory serves me right), one Jew. Most of us argued for the 'truth-value' of his/her own religion, except myself and one of the Hindus; both of us had turned agnostic through the course of this 'experiment with religion'.
More than 45 years later, several members of that group met at a reunion - and we discovered that each of us still held to the positions he/she had held then in our early teens. I do believe that I - the agnostic - suffered from fewer 'anxieties' than most of the religious amongst us. The other agnostic (who had been born a Hindu), had passed away recently - one of the Christians, who had turned very devout in the interim, argued that this 'proved' it was better to be religious. He dies the next year.
I guess nothing was proved by our 'experiment with Religion', except that it is easier to fool ourselves (and perhaps each other) in such matters if one is religious than if one is agnostic. Or perhaps not.
-- GSC