Prometheus

I don't know, you've lost me with your posts to be honest. What do you conclude from these studies regarding whether a society would be better without religion? Or were you more focused on whether religion is beneficial to individuals (regardless of societal effects). Or is your conclusion 'it's complicated'?

Exactly. One of the fundamental problems of monotheistic religions seems to be that they are prescriptive rather than transformative. It's the core element of some religions, maybe not any monotheistic ones though. The school of Buddhism with the most emphasis on gods i have seen is Tibetan: they rarely require adherents to believe in gods. In that sense it is agnostic. From scriptures it is clear that the Buddha believed in devas, which are god-like beings (supernatural powers) but also clear that their existence is irrelevant to what he was teaching. By the same token s Confucianism theistic? It certainly has a plethora of what may be called gods, but none of them are anything like the monotheistic gods. We agree that its a human trait to form groups and prejudice based on those groups. Your solution is to try to minimise the amount of groups we have. My solution is to try to convince humans to grow up and stop acting like monkeys. I was about to say that yours seems more realistic before thinking about the practicalities of actually getting the entire world to stop forming religious groups. I'm not American if that's about a z. So we know the solution to this problem.

Surely it's an interesting question in anthropology. There are plenty of other religions, what about their image of god? Does the Islamic aniconism lead to different visualisations of god? Do they have any common visualisations of Allah? The Hindu pantheon has many different images of humanoids, some male, some female, some both/neither. But not so the Brahman, sometimes depicted as a drop of water in a pool. The Confucian pantheon is full of human shaped gods - but then many of them were historical figures, such as Guan Yu. See, interesting - if you like that kind of thing.

I get what you're saying now. I thought you were implying that dying secular people didn't need as much emotional support (which is all 'spiritual' support really is). I personally see no positives to nationalism, but that's another discussion again. I think one of the (many) problems advocating for the positives of religion are that many atheists aren't aware of the fundamental difference to the way one perceives their experience different mind states can bring. I have an easier time explaining it to people who have taken psychedelics because they are able to accept the idea that there are multiple ways of experiencing reality, whereas many atheists see one and only one way. Note: i'm not saying there are multiple realities, just that there are multiple ways to relate to that reality. OK. Well i'll have to reconsider absolutely everything i have said thus far if we are only considering theistic religions. I'm aware there is a 'wisdom' tradition in Christianity, but it's so obsessed with its image of god that its very obscure. It is interesting to look at some of the Christian traditions that existed up to the Byzantine Empire - almost unrecognisable as Christianity. But i digress... Just for the record, strictly speaking Buddhism is agnostic - it's tenants don't depend on the existence or non-existence of god(s). Regarding the dominance of violent religious traditions, it could be easily understood in terms of meme theory. Religions willing to employ any means to spread the gospel, including violence, would out compete religions who don't try to spread, or have limits to their proselytising. Hopefully the secular landscape can redress that problem. Restricting ourselves to theistic traditions, maybe. What would be the solution? I suggest we should try to decompose religions into constituent parts. Only some people will follow any religion because they are fundamentally convinced of its doctrine. Most follow it because they were born into it and it becomes part of their identity. By breaking religion apart we could try to keep benign elements while discarding malignant elements. This is currently happening with the Church of England. Many do not take the Bible literally, will allow secular morals to overrule biblical morals, but still like to get together for a sing-song and sermon. I've met a few CofE followers who don't even believe in god (even a couple of Catholics - not regressed Catholics, people who insist they are Catholic but don't believe in god. Weird stuff). I'll look into it, but it should be a while before i can. Maybe i'll save it for christmas day.

Still haven't got onto looking at problems with more than one particle but something just struck me about the question of what overlaps. So i've been dealing with single particle problems and the functions in the overlap integral given in my text is the wave function of the particle and one of the energy eigenfunctions of that system. Now, i understand the wave function is itself a linear combination of all possible energy eigenfunctions - so it makes sense that the magnitude to which any one energy eigenfunction and the wave function overlap is proportional to the probability of measuring the system with the corresponding eigenvalue. So there's nothing physically 'overlapping', just the energy eigenfunctions and the wave function. I wonder if my text is using none-standard terminology?

The application of sociology and psychology are all we need to solve the middle-east crisis? Forgiveness is something you can learn in a text book or through a controlled trial? By economics i take it you mean that a certain level of material comfort is required for most people to find peace? Sure but We could achieve it with wealth redistribution. Right now we have the resources to raise the global populations material being. What's stopping economics? Could it be that some people never learned to share or not to exploit? I'm not saying religions generally address these issues well, but they could if they'd just grow up. There's a space at the table of rational discourse for religion: if only they could put away childish things.

On the contrary it should make them pleased. No longer do they need concern themselves about the workings of the world or whether or not sky daddy exists, scientists have it covered. That leaves them free to focus on the important things like building bridges across severed communities, finding peace in a harsh world ans such.

From the Journal of Palliative Medicine: there's an interesting little lit. review under the section Spirituality and patient perspectives. Well that's the hypothesis. Let's look into the data. Same goes for Nationalistic ideologies: it's a problem with humanity, not religions. And how many of these benign theists (are we now neglecting agnostic/atheistic religions?) do this? We've established that some do and some don't, but can we quantify how many and relate it to other variables? Which is why i value MonDie's contibution - it's an attempt to tease out the salient features of religiosity. I also value your contribution: it's so pleasant to talk data on a religion thread for once. Will do. I'll exchange it for your dataset? Maybe not in your life, but i'm sure there's monks in Tibet at this moment saying the converse. Well i asked for it: gonna take me a while to pick through all this. Cool beans. But why PCA? My first thought was regression with and then without religiosity as a predictor. So we don't get tempted into p-hacking maybe we should decide on some variables before more analysis? I like violent crime and suicide rates; what's your thinking on population rank? Be nice to include something on human rights and female subjugation. This could be fun.

The dying don't get surveyed very much, the dead even less so. Even if not fired i would have thought this sufficient to bring your employer to a tribunal under harassment or discrimination at work? Either way, i fear removing religion would not solve the situation. Human in-group behaviour is obviously strong in these communities and would just manifest in some other way. I guess the pertinent question is to what degree is religiosity causative or just correlated with in-group behaviour. MonDie's interesting post might help explore that a little. Then by definition they are not moderate. But there are plenty of religious people who do condemn extremists. Whenever i try to point out there are benign religious people everyone points out that there are malignant religious people. I accept this, which gives credence to my claim that religious people and religions themselves are not homogenous. And yet, 219 posts later, we are still treating them as if they are. Even a split like Abrahamic and others would be a start. I appreciate the effort, this is the sort of thing i was looking for, though, as you say, it's qualitative. To do the subject justice someone would have to spend some time collecting and analysing a dataset, checking for confounding variables etc... I'm surprised there isn't more on it. But the meta-analysis is far more rigorous than your quick attempt - why are you so quick to dismiss it? The 60 studies it includes all appear to be from the US. I can send the full-text to you if you wish. Sorry, but when you said any i thought you meant any. Less? Maybe, depends if we count the Nazi's trying to eradicate Jews. I'm not sure how secular the Nazi's could be considered: my understanding is that religion wasn't important to motivating their ideals. Then there was the great purge. I don't doubt things are as bad as you say they are in your corner of the world. But in the far east religious freedoms are curtailed by secular states. Edit: for grammar/clarity.

I'm glad you don't see the need for it, but it is a well known problem in nursing. I agree. Fortunately not a problem where i live. It's strange, i read about the American founding fathers and i think i'll jump ship. But then i hear these sort of things and it sounds like a truly awful place. And then Trump happened. Sure, just not here. Also, there are religious people who would rather not be associated with the fundamentalist religious types with which you are unfortunately so familiar. I'm trying to advocate for them. I was just wondering whether we can do better. For instance, it has been mentioned that more secular societies are more peaceful. This should be measurable. The only meta-analysis i could find on the subject suggests religiosity is a moderate deterrent to crime - but i've not seen the full-text so can't assess its rigour. There are of course other measures of 'better' than reduced crime, but we have never got to grips with what 'better' means on this thread Look harder. Sure, just not here. Also, there are religious people who would rather not be associated with the fundamentalist religious types. I'm trying to advocate for them.

Renaming a model isn't the same as adjusting it. Bob's theory of gravity isn't any different from Newton's theory of gravity if everything else is the same. But if you mean the model itself changes - well yes. Scientific models and theories change with time (really more data/better theory): you'd be doing it wrong if they didn't. Climate science isn't any more complicated than any other topic in hard sciences. Why single out climate science? Again, this is universal to all science: choices have to be made and justified regarding your variables. So again, why single out climate science? Demonstrably false. This individual has publicly stated he disagrees with the climate science consensus. Has his career ended? Just had a quick google: found loads of anti climate science cartoons - presumably drawn by cartoonists. If someone is sacked because they deny climate science they have a good case for unfair dismissal. However we live in a free market and customers can choose to withhold their custom for any reason they see fit. If they won't buy a product because of the suppliers stance on climate science, that is entirely their prerogative. Same as question 2. So why single out climate science when all hard sciences navigate such problems? Because people are not interested in the science but what they can see, here and now. A similar problem is well documented in healthcare - a significant subset of people will not seek medical attention for minor problems but wait until they become major problems. It is probably a similar mindset.

I didn't know there were secular groups providing this particular service. Could you provide contact info about some? I never said it does require religion, only that religion is a common vessel. This was to preempt a potential objection, but since you have not raised it there was no need for it. I'd quite like some kind of group activity for kids where they can explore issues surrounding ethics, mental health, develop a sense of being in nature etc. through stories and play and the like. Don't much care if it is religious or secular. The scouts is the closest thing i can think of that fits the bill, though even they require an oath to God and to Queen (that must have changed by now?). Of course secular groups can provide such services. My question is whether they do. You and many others on this thread. I am ambivalent, but religion needs a voice in this debate otherwise this would just be another bash religion thread. I've asked others to no avail - do you know of any data to support the claim? Maybe you aren't asking, but others are.

Slow-moving is a relative term. In geological age we are getting slammed.

That's your prerogative, and i'm certainly not suggesting any group of people, religious or secular, should inflict themselves upon the dying. But many hospital deaths are sad and lonely affairs - our society just seems to accept that as given. For this reason many dying people do ask for emotional help. Not everyone will need it or want it: but it should be available to those who do want it. I have never come across a secular role that satisfies this function. Anyway, i'm happy to chat about palliative care but perhaps as a separate discussion. My main point in raising the subject was to illustrate that religions still provide services currently unavailable via secular means. I will give personal example, apologies if it becomes wishy washy. I think we can agree that we experience our existence and this experience is coloured by our states of minds. It is as if all the ups and downs of life are viewed via a lens through which we can see a world darkly or luminously, or something in between. I used to see the world darkly, for whatever reason there is hatred in my being and it became consumptive. Via meditative methods i changed the lens through which i viewed the world. The strangest thing is that this method dissolves the sense of self. In science we find no ghost in the machine and i think most atheists would agree there is no soul or permanent self, yet they experience life as if they are a homunculus just behind the eyes. I find life much more pleasant when viewed via this lens, and it was only through the contemplative traditions of Buddhism and Taoism that i was able to find it. Science is a great tool for navigating the objective world, and can offer us insights into the subjective world. It can show us that there is no ghost in the machine. But it cannot make us feel it. There are other lenses through which to view life. I'm an atheist and i have no love for Christianity. But when i hear someone say that Jesus saved them from a darkness (perhaps the Johnny Cash story is one we will all know), i cannot try to dispel that illusion, because i know the choice is often this or despair. Not everyone needs such support to find life a tolerable, perhaps even a pleasant, experience and that is happy news. But some do. Do not remove too many support structures until you have something else in place. The video i linked in post 189 describes it much better. We systematically teach our children maths and science and history: quite rightly. But we do not teach how to be content; how to live within our means; to love our brothers who don't know the law. They are far more subtle skills to teach, but no less important for it. Yes, i am not blind to this ugliness. I am just trying to represent the benign religious view which exists just as much as the malignant part. Any good surgeon will preserve as much healthy tissue as possible when removing a malignancy. Certainly a pertinent question, but can we objectively answer it? I think the question sets up a false dichotomy. All or nothing just polarises people. We should seek to preserve any good and benign parts, and starve the malignant parts.

This paper might help, talks about effect size about half-way through. Otherwise... goodluck.

Using anything as an excuse to conquer the world cannot be tolerated. Trying to make anyone else conform to (nearly) anything cannot be tolerated. Religion should not be singled out in this regard. Not all religions. Many have explicit and stringent rules about proselytising. You just don't hear about them because, well, they're not proselytising. Unfortunately, they traditionally get done over by religions all too willing to proselytise.

I've not used them but i such platforms already exist.

Thanks for sharing. America sounds like an awful place to live. Is that sort of harassment not illegal? Heard this talk from Sam Harris which is perhaps the best exploration of spirituality without religion: including the idea that they are separate things. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxzAQRYYqlk&t=1s

I agree there is nothing unique about the services religions provide, but until replacements for those services are forthcoming then religion has a role. Where are the secular groups or individuals with the desire and ability to visit the dying in hospitals the breadth of any country? This is not to say secular groups/individuals couldn't do it: it is only to say where are they? They are needed.

The depressing thing is that many religions not only encroach on the scientific magisteria, it's own domain is severely impoverished. There is the general notion that our scientific acumen far exceeds our spiritual development: misguided men with guided missiles and all that. I blame religion because this is exactly what service religion is supposed to be providing to humanity and has so abjectly failed.

I am free to believe whatever i like, including that i am king of the potato people. They are a good people (a chip off the old block you might say) and have built many magnificent monuments to me. I also believe that if I hold my pen up and let it go it will fall. Are these beliefs equal? They are both beliefs...

Not understanding a statement does not necessarily mean that statement is incomprehensible. You don't read a scientific journal in the same way that you read poetry, but both reveal truths within a context.

But you failed to address the counter point that, by your very reasoning, the burden of proof for climate change should actually be lower because there is such a significant cost to not acting. These are equivalent positions and a preference for one is entirely subjective at this point. They are precisely equivalent because you would rather this a political not a scientific discussion. But we can do better. You only consider one permutation to this problem, presumably because you have a preference for this one (3rd on the following list). But there are four permutations that we need consider: that we do nothing and climate science is incorrect, that we do nothing and climate science is correct, that we do something and climate science is incorrect and that we do something and climate science is correct. These are very well understood general statistical permutations. If we can estimate the costs of acting on climate science (offset by any benefits) and estimate the costs of the consequences of climate science if true (offset by any benefits) and we have an estimate for the probability of each of these permutations then a very simple calculation can determine the most profitable course of action. Would you accept such an analysis? Sure, but what is wrong with using science to motivate and inform a political debate where pertinent? Surely a species interested in acquiring the actual truth will have a better chance of survival. I know politics does not generally concern itself with what is true, but if we want to improve as a people maybe this would be a good place to start.