Religion = Happiness? Myth or Fact?

[zhenka11230]

But you can't prove that religion is false. There is no evidence that religion is false. And I'm not religious myself, I'm agnostic.

I cannot prove that religion is false, but i can show how improbable it is. Plus the burden of proof is on the side of religion, sorry.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[zhenka11230]

This is a tangential rant, and does not directly address the issues I brought up. Shall I relist my questions so you can understand them....

Why don't you first learn how to argue properly instead of trying to be annoying with your smiles and attempts to offend my intelligence.

 

[erg923]

I encounter this quite often when arguing with psychologist. They have this fallacy to assume they prove their point by guessing your motivation for making an argument. It goes along the lines of
Me: There is no god
Psychologist: You are just depressed.
Me: what the hell does that have to do with the argument?

For a psychologist you sure sound like an ***. Yeah go ahead live in your illusion that you "figure" people out.

You are still avoiding my questions...its ok though. You can PM if you like.

 

[zhenka11230]

errr.....i'm not a grad student yet.....but how can you say something's "false" because there's "no evidence for it"????

i have taken a bunch of philosophy....and am pretty sure that statement would be torn apart by the philosophers i learned from! you seem to be buying into a system of evidence-based decision-making by saying it is irrational for people to believe something without evidence. so where is yours....? because without it you are sounding a lot like these people you talk about, believing something is untrue without citing any evidence against it.

You are absolutely right. The lack of evidence does not mean false. It means we have to be agnostic. So you should be agnostic about cookie monster, faeries, Zeus, and all the rest of 1000 gods and ghosts and whatnot.

But there is a common fallacy to assume that not knowing automatically makes an issue 50/50. Surely flying spaghetti monster is highly improbable, you must agree. We cannot prove he doesn't exist but it is HIGHLY improbable he does, just like any other religious claim.

I didn't mean to make an inference from lack of evidence to falsity. They were two separate claims, i should have clarified.

 

[erg923]

Ok. How might one "argue properly"? And don't get me wrong, I have no doubt you are highly intelligent. This is why your avoidance of my questions is interesting; as is your persverance on a topic (religion) that I not discussing with you.

 

[zhenka11230]

You are still avoiding my questions...its ok though. You can PM if you like.

Ok please post your questions in order you want them answered.

 

[zhenka11230]

"The point is, religion is false. People should not believe something with no evidence, regardless of happiness factor."

Is this scientific thinking? If you think it is, please explain.
Then you must not be very happy living in the United States....where we believe people have the right to believe whatever the hell they want as long as they are not hurting people. Giving people this right must be torture for you...no?

Perhaps you should move to less tolerant countries. There is a good list on Amnesty Internationals website. Would you like the list? But, by the way....if you like having the right to express your views (like you are doing now), you might not like those other countries so much. See, unfortunately, telling people what to believe also means you can tell them what they can say. Since you obviously love to share your views, a quick death in countries with less freedoms would surely await. Therefore, if you cherish your right of free speech of your beliefs, maybe you should cherish the rights of others as well..no? It has to work both ways right?

We have a right of speech, does it mean i can go out and say **** you to people? We have a right to beliefs to certain extent but religion crosses it far too far.

Besides they can express their views all they want, what i am doing is arguing for its irrationality. We argue about politics don't we and no one is saying arguing makes someone intolerant? We have a right to debate. And as a society we have a duty to debate such issues.

Problem with religion they not only believe, they do actions that are highly irrational which i do not think they have a right to do(like limit scientific breakthroughs).

I think our freedom should be to extent that it doesn't hurt anyone and imo religion hurts everyone around us. From the child abuse of indoctrinated people to women in Palestine who are oppressed. I have much less issues with Buddhism but i still think it is irrational and i have my right to present my arguments. Don't i?

I am not telling people what to believe. I am just debating.

 

[erg923]

Assuming you did therapy:

1. Do you like to be told what to believe?
2. Would you be willing to go into therapy yourself? (most students do)
3. How would keep a referall base of patients? Do you think collegues would refer to you?
4 In the case that a client becomes litigious, when called to a deposition and ask by the opposing attorney what kind of the therapy you provided for his depression...what would you say? Would it fit into appropriate standards of practice?

others:
1. Articulate why people should not be allowed to believe what they want if it does not hurt anyone?
2. If people aren't allowed to even believe something seemingly irrational, are they allowed to talk about it? Are you against freedom of speech? If so, how come you can have it, but others shouldn't.

Just saw that you touched on some of these while i was writing
for starters..I'm kinda tired tonight..sorry

 

[Ollie123]

If there were no religion, I have no doubt that they would just find something else to kill each other over.

*anticipates the great PhD/PsyD war of 2020*

 

[erg923]

oh please...please no more psy.d/ph.d debates.....

 

[cara susanna]

Haha... I wouldn't discount that happening. Though I thinK MSWs would get involved as well.

 

[zhenka11230]

Assuming you did therapy:

1. Do you like to be told what to believe?
2. Would you be willing to go into therapy yourself? (most students do)
3. How would keep a referall base of patients? Do you think collegues would refer to you?
4 In the case that a client becomes litigious, when called to a deposition and ask by the opposing attorney what kind of the therapy you provided for his depression...what would you say? Would it fit into appropriate standards of practice?

others:
1. Articulate why people should not be allowed to believe what they want if it does not hurt anyone?
2. If people aren't allowed to even believe something seemingly irrational, are they allowed to talk about it? Are you against freedom of speech? If so, how come you can have it, but others shouldn't.

Just saw that you touched on some of these while i was writing
for starters..I'm kinda tired tonight..sorry

1. No, but i am willing to debate.
2. Yes i would love to.
3/4 I am not trained in therapy so i really can't say. If i would to tell someone he is full of poop, i would do it gradually and only tell him that when he would be ready.

1.Because it does hurt others.(if it doesn't, then they should be allowed to all the want, but it doesn't make their beliefs healthy or rational.)
2.Yes i am all up for debate. Talk about it as much as possible.

 

[erg923]

ok..fair enough my friend.

 

[zhenka11230]

ok..fair enough my friend.

: D

 

[Psyched77]

1. Articulate why people should not be allowed to believe what they want if it does not hurt anyone?

See, this is where I kind of cringe. (Disclaimer: this is my personal opinion as it applies to my personal life & conversations & is not something that would enter the therapeutic setting.) I think there are a great deal of hurtful aspects woven in the fabric of religion. Of course, this varies by religion, but for the sake of simplicity, I'll specifically refer to fundamentalist Christians (since we're most intimately familiar with this group in the U.S.).

(Some of the "hurtful" things have already been mentioned, so I'll try not to be repetitive.) One of my big concerns is that the aforementioned have no concerns for the environment (global warming, conservation, resource depletion, population boom, etc.), because they believe (by & large) that the "Second Coming" or "Apocalypse" is upon us & negates any potential validity of environmental arguments. From a secular worldview, this is alarming, since their actions (or the lack thereof) can potentially bring about the end of our species. What could be more damaging in the eyes of the secular individual?

Also, people have said that there are mental health benefits to religiosity, but I argued earlier that a study just came out showing that this was true for women, but not for men. (Male church attendees are more likely to have mental health problems than their male non-attendee counterparts.) Furthermore, these claims about mental health fail to address why there is a positive statistical correlation between the degree of one's religiosity & the occurrence of child sexual abuse. (In other words, the more fundamental a father is, the more at risk his children become of being sexually abused.) The claims also fail to address similar findings about domestic violence, teen pregnancy rates, etc.

And then there is the sexism issue. Sure, some progressive Christian churches have begun affording equality to female parishioners, but this still tends to be the exception...not the rule. What about race issues? What about the fact that Christianity was used as a tool to subjugate black slaves? What about the fact that black kids are raised seeing pictures of white Jesus? Or the "seed of Cain" stories?

What about all of the locus of control stuff & healthy functioning? In other words, how psychologically healthy is it to pray (or chant or whatever) & then sit back & wait for some omnipotent hand to sweep in & fix things? How about the better alternative of taking proactive steps to fix your own problems?

And what about children who are being sexually &/or physically abused by one person...& taught that "God doesn't give you anything you can't handle" from another person? When they buckle under the weight, should they think, "I have failed God, because I know He won't give me anything I can't handle....& since I have already failed God, I guess He won't be much more angry if I go ahead & commit suicide"?? And perhaps their abuser (most likely their parent) is teaching them the 10 Commandments, which includes: "Thou shalt honor thy father & mother that thy days may be long upon the earth." (paraphrased)

Anyway...my list could get pretty long, so I'll stop now. I'm just saying that I think that people tend to underemphasize the potentially damaging components of various, mainstream religions.

 

[socialcog]

Yes sir. Please do for his sake.

For HIS sake? I dunno.....I remember finding out about Santa naturally and there was no emotional scarring. To the contrary, I reflect fondly on those years. With all due respect....I think your advice blows.

I have a feeling we may see you eventually in marital therapy...or perhaps your kids in court-mandated therapy through CPS after they have been stripped from your custody.

good day.

 

[psy19]

zhenka, your comments are very contradictory. In a recent post, you said:

I am not telling people what to believe. I am just debating.

But then you said before that...

A person has no right to believe something that has no evidence for.

and...

If a patient comes to me(whom is religious). I would not hesitate to say(eventually) that he needs to give up his irrational beliefs to get better.

So let me get this straight... you say you're not telling people what to believe in, but then 1) that person has no right to believe in what they want, and 2) you would tell that person to stop believing?

 

[paramour]

For HIS sake? I dunno.....I remember finding out about Santa naturally and there was no emotional scarring. To the contrary, I reflect fondly on those years. With all due respect....I think your advice blows.

I have a feeling we may see you eventually in marital therapy...or perhaps your kids in court-mandated therapy through CPS after they have been stripped from your custody.

good day.

I don't know--I actually agree with him. And, yes, I have a young child. And, no, he does not (nor has he ever) believed in Santa Claus.

Someone once tried to use a similar argument with me (i.e., If you don't believe in [G]od, then you should not allow your child to believe in Santa Claus). I suppose it's a good thing I was against letting my child believe in a fictitious character of any sort. Glad everyone seems to think that everyone else has the same beliefs as themselves. I know people who do both, of course, and they may do whatever they wish as long as they don't try to force any icon, including good ole' Saint Nick, down my (or my child's) throat.

Sorry for the semi-rant... got tired of arguing with the kiddo's past teachers that no, I will not tell my child that I was wrong and that there is indeed a santa claus just to make you & everyone else in the classroom happy. Your problem; not mine.

 

[Psyched77]

I have a feeling we may see you eventually in marital therapy...or perhaps your kids in court-mandated therapy through CPS after they have been stripped from your custody.

Yikes. (And then a smiley?)

 

[zhenka11230]

zhenka, your comments are very contradictory. In a recent post, you said:



But then you said before that...


and...


So let me get this straight... you say you're not telling people what to believe in, but then 1) that person has no right to believe in what they want, and 2) you would tell that person to stop believing?

Straw man.

 

[zhenka11230]

zhenka, your comments are very contradictory. In a recent post, you said:



But then you said before that...


and...


So let me get this straight... you say you're not telling people what to believe in, but then 1) that person has no right to believe in what they want, and 2) you would tell that person to stop believing?

Would me telling you that voting for Bush is an irrational decision be considered as telling you what to believe?

And yes i made the ethical claim that one cannot believe anything without some reason behind it. This view is held by man philosophers and is easy to see why.

Let us take stereotypes for example... People hated jews... Why? No reason. They just have a belief based on no evidence that they are "bad". I rest my case.

 

[psy19]

Straw man.

Alright... if you'd rather avoid answering the question (as you seem to do so often). Those were just some of the contradictory things I've seen you post, and I'm having a hard time understanding your position.

 

[BoubtingThomas]

See, this is where I kind of cringe. (Disclaimer: this is my personal opinion as it applies to my personal life & conversations & is not something that would enter the therapeutic setting.) I think there are a great deal of hurtful aspects woven in the fabric of religion. Of course, this varies by religion, but for the sake of simplicity, I'll specifically refer to fundamentalist Christians (since we're most intimately familiar with this group in the U.S.).

(Some of the "hurtful" things have already been mentioned, so I'll try not to be repetitive.) One of my big concerns is that the aforementioned have no concerns for the environment (global warming, conservation, resource depletion, population boom, etc.), because they believe (by & large) that the "Second Coming" or "Apocalypse" is upon us & negates any potential validity of environmental arguments. From a secular worldview, this is alarming, since their actions (or the lack thereof) can potentially bring about the end of our species. What could be more damaging in the eyes of the secular individual?

Also, people have said that there are mental health benefits to religiosity, but I argued earlier that a study just came out showing that this was true for women, but not for men. (Male church attendees are more likely to have mental health problems than their male non-attendee counterparts.) Furthermore, these claims about mental health fail to address why there is a positive statistical correlation between the degree of one's religiosity & the occurrence of child sexual abuse. (In other words, the more fundamental a father is, the more at risk his children become of being sexually abused.) The claims also fail to address similar findings about domestic violence, teen pregnancy rates, etc.

And then there is the sexism issue. Sure, some progressive Christian churches have begun affording equality to female parishioners, but this still tends to be the exception...not the rule. What about race issues? What about the fact that Christianity was used as a told to subjugate black slaves? What about the fact that black kids are raised seeing pictures of white Jesus? Or the "seed of Cain" stories?

What about all of the locus of control & healthy functioning? In other words, how psychologically healthy is it to pray (or chant or whatever) & then sit back & wait for some omnipotent hand to sweep in & fix things? How about the better alternative of taking proactive steps to fix your own problems?

And what about children who are being sexually &/or physically abused by one person...& taught that "God doesn't give you anything you can't handle" from another person? When they buckle under the weight, should they think, "I have failed God, because I know He won't give me anything I can't handle....& since I have already failed God, I guess He won't be much more angry if I go ahead & commit suicide"?? And perhaps their abuser (most likely their parent) is teaching them the 10 Commandments, which includes: "Thou shalt honor thy father & mother that thy days may be long upon the earth." (paraphrased)

Anyway...my list could get pretty long, so I'll stop now. I'm just saying that I think that people tend to underemphasize the potentially damaging components of various, mainstream religions.

Well said. I absolutely agree; some aspects of religion should make any humanist cringe. I would be interested to know how clinicians handle a client who's clearly distressed because of his religious beliefs. An earlier suggestion was to help the client compromise. Would it be at all ethical to "debate" the client out of his/her distressing religious beliefs? I believe Ellis is famous for doing this. He didn't necessarily tell his clients that they're wrong and deluded, he just planted the seeds of doubt in their minds regarding their religious beliefs. This was some time ago, would this be allowed today?
Can you please tell me the name of the article you mention and the author(s)
Thank you

 

[Psyched77]

I would be interested to know how clinicians handle a client who's clearly distressed because of his religious beliefs.

Can you please tell me the name of the article you mention and the author(s)
Thank you

I would be interested to know the same thing. I couldn't see myself debating a client over religion, but I could see myself planting some gentle seeds of doubt (but backing away quickly if the client became agitated).

I haven't read the whole study (if you're referring to the men vs. women regarding mental health & church attendance). The piece I read was essentially an abstract, which was in the latest issue of Monitor on Psychology. (Do you get the Monitor?)

 

[psy19]

Would me telling you that voting for Bush is an irrational decision be considered as telling you what to believe?

No, but you explicitly said, "A person has no right to believe something that has no evidence for." You went beyond saying, for example, "Believing in God is irrational." By saying someone has no right to/shouldn't believe in God is considered telling them what to believe.

And yes i made the ethical claim that one cannot believe anything without some reason behind it. This view is held by man philosophers and is easy to see why.

Why not? I am not familiar with the philosophy- could you explain? There may be little to no solid evidence for believing in x, but why can I not believe in it if I choose to?

Let us take stereotypes for example... People hated jews... Why? No reason. They just have a belief based on no evidence that they are "bad". I rest my case.

Well, those people that hated Jews thought that they really did have a reason (ie, Jews were to blame for Germany's failures, etc). I'm not saying this reasoning is right at all, but I don't understand how this has anything to do with your argument. Also, I know this is completely un-PC, but to go with your example... Bob hates Jews. I cannot control Bob's beliefs, and I have no right to try to. Bob can go on hating or loving whomever he wants as long as he doesn't do any harm to anyone. I don't agree with Bob at all, but that doesn't mean he doesn't have a right to believe in what he wants.

and not that it should matter, but I'm an athiest.

 

[zhenka11230]

No, but you explicitly said, "A person has no right to believe something that has no evidence for." You went beyond saying, for example, "Believing in God is irrational." By saying someone has no right to/shouldn't believe in God is considered telling them what to believe.



Why not? I am not familiar with the philosophy- could you explain? There may be little to no solid evidence for believing in x, but why can I not believe in it if I choose to?



Well, those people that hated Jews thought that they really did have a reason (ie, Jews were to blame for Germany's failures, etc). I'm not saying this reasoning is right at all, but I don't understand how this has anything to do with your argument. Also, I know this is completely un-PC, but to go with your example... Bob hates Jews. I cannot control Bob's beliefs, and I have no right to try to. Bob can go on hating or loving whomever he wants as long as he doesn't do any harm to anyone. I don't agree with Bob at all, but that doesn't mean he doesn't have a right to believe in what he wants.

and not that it should matter, but I'm an athiest.

The ethical view is called Evidentialism. By evidence i mean sufficient evidence. Why? Because beliefs lead to actions and while some are harmless (like belief is Santa). There can be very harmful once like belief that exploding yourself in the name of religion will get you 101 virgins in heaven.

If we accept the idea that people should believe whatever they want then we also accept that if i believe i should murder my child because jesus told me too, i have that right. You might say that belief does not equal action, but beliefs are direct influence on actions.

Why certain things are unethical is hard to answer. It is for the same reason we consider prejudice unethical, stereotypes unethical etc.

 

[BoubtingThomas]

Well, those people that hated Jews thought that they really did have a reason (ie, Jews were to blame for Germany's failures, etc). I'm not saying this reasoning is right at all, but I don't understand how this has anything to do with your argument. Also, I know this is completely un-PC, but to go with your example... Bob hates Jews. I cannot control Bob's beliefs, and I have no right to try to. Bob can go on hating or loving whomever he wants as long as he doesn't do any harm to anyone. I don't agree with Bob at all, but that doesn't mean he doesn't have a right to believe in what he wants. and not that it should matter, but I'm an athiest.

One has the right to believe in anything that he/she wants. This is the direct benefit of living in a free society. Let me point out the irony in the example given. Correct me if I'm wrong, but arnt the Jews hated because they are the alleged murderers of Christ? So, this is a religiously created divide.
Like i said, anyone can believe in ANYTHING they want, but the benefit of science and philosophy is that we can have a gentle discourse regarding the validity of our claims. Thus, scientific and philosophical ideas are open to criticism and revision. I see the fundamental problem with religion is that it protects itself from any dissenting views, and it is insulated and not open to revision. This is what makes it such a divisive and heated issue.

 

[zhenka11230]

One has the right to believe in anything that he/she wants. This is the direct benefit of living in a free society. Let me point out the irony in the example given. Correct me if I'm wrong, but arnt the Jews hated because they are the alleged murderers of Christ? So, this is a religiously created divide.
Like i said, anyone can believe in ANYTHING they want, but the benefit of science and philosophy is that we can have a gentle discourse regarding the validity of our claims. Thus, scientific and philosophical ideas are open to criticism and revision. I see the fundamental problem with religion is that it protects itself from any dissenting views, and it is insulated and not open to revision. This is what makes it such a divisive and heated issue.

There is no sufficient evidence that Christ existed in the first place, not to mention that Jews somehow killed him. Besides, most people are unaware of this claim and still hate jews.

 

[psy19]

The ethical view is called Evidentialism. By evidence i mean sufficient evidence. Why? Because beliefs lead to actions and while some are harmless (like belief is Santa). There can be very harmful once like belief that exploding yourself in the name of religion will get you 101 virgins in heaven.

If we accept the idea that people should believe whatever they want then we also accept that if i believe i should murder my child because jesus told me too, i have that right. You might say that belief does not equal action, but beliefs are direct influence on actions.

Why certain things are unethical is hard to answer. It is for the same reason we consider prejudice unethical, stereotypes unethical etc.

I agree that beliefs influence actions, but as I stated in my previous post, people can believe whatever they want unless it causes harm to others. There is a clear difference between "people should believe whatever they want" and "people should believe and do whatever they want." Just because beliefs have the potential to influence action doesn't mean that any of us have a right to tell people what to believe in.

it's late... sorry if I am not being clear. i should go to sleep- i have an interview tomorrow, haha.

 

[BoubtingThomas]

There is no sufficient evidence that Christ existed in the first place, not to mention that Jews somehow killed him. Besides, most people are unaware of this claim and still hate jews.

His existence in reality is not the issue. All christians (by definition) BELIEVE for a fact that Jesus was a historical figure who was tried and killed. Most of those believing christians also believe that his murderers were jews.

 

[psy19]

One has the right to believe in anything that he/she wants. This is the direct benefit of living in a free society. Let me point out the irony in the example given. Correct me if I'm wrong, but arnt the Jews hated because they are the alleged murderers of Christ? So, this is a religiously created divide.
Like i said, anyone can believe in ANYTHING they want, but the benefit of science and philosophy is that we can have a gentle discourse regarding the validity of our claims. Thus, scientific and philosophical ideas are open to criticism and revision. I see the fundamental problem with religion is that it protects itself from any dissenting views, and it is insulated and not open to revision. This is what makes it such a divisive and heated issue.

last post before I go to sleep, I swear!

Thomas, I'd say yes and no. I'm not an expert on world religions or anything, but I guess I know the most about Christianity, so I'll go with that. I don't think Christianity is necessarily as static as you say. While the core ideas have generally remained the same, I think it's interesting to note that there are so many different branches of Christianity that interpret and implement these ideas in varying ways. Also, I think that there are many aspects that have changed with time (women and even gay/lesbian ministers, increasing acceptance of gay marriage, etc).

 

[MaddieMay]

p1. It is illogical to believe something with no evidence.
p2. Religious claims have no evidence.
c. It is illogical to believe in religion.

p1. It is illogical to believe something with no evidence.
p2. The absence of a higher power has no evidence.
c. It is illogical to disbelieve in a higher power.

Logically speaking, you must believe in the possibility of a higher power.

 

[zhenka11230]

p1. It is illogical to believe something with no evidence.
p2. The absence of a higher power has no evidence.
c. It is illogical to disbelieve in a higher power.

Logically speaking, you must believe in the possibility of a higher power.

Ummm yes there is... The problem of evil, evolution, countless contradicting theologies, science in general, Occam's razor. And i do believe in possibility, just that it's highly unlikely.

 

[cara susanna]

No, voting for Bush is not irrational if you feel that you have good reasons for it.

Anyway...

I don't know why you're so offended by people believing in a higher power. As long as they don't attack you for your beliefs and lead good lives, what harm does it do to you?

Yes, religions have committed atrocities in the past, but so have a number of political ideologies and philosophies. Should we throw them out and say that they are worthless just for that reason?

As for anti-Semitism, that was more political than religious. The Soviet Union persecuted Jews; Stalin even had a plot against religious doctors. And Hitler was an atheist.

You have to understand that Judaism in the 19th century transformed in that in no longer became about religion. If it had been about religion, converts, non-practicing Jews, etc., would not have been persecuted. But it became about race. The term "anti-Semite" (actually coined by a Jewish person defending his people) determined Judaism to be a race, not a religion. Religion can be "fixed"; race cannot.

I will also add that numerous religions have apologized for numerous occassions and are taking great pains to correct those mistakes.

Another great example of religious persecution at the hands of atheists is the French Revolution. Religion was deemed irrational. So churches were pillaged and clergy executed.

EVERY group in the world has some blood on their hands in some part of history. Throwing out religion entirely hurts the innocent as well, such as people who need to believe in a higher power to get through rough times. What is wrong with that? Why do you feel you have the right to tell people what they should believe?

 

[GiantSteps]

1. Don't mistake religion for religions. The term religion is too vague (remember, you people can't even settle on a decision as to what actually distinguishes a Ph.D. from a Psy.D ). Zhenka's lumping all individual religions into one term "religion" for the topic of this thread has created an entire thread of essentially meaningless generalities with no applications based in reality. Individual religions are can be and are radically different from each other. I am not even sure if the term Religion necessitates a belief in a divine being.

2. If any of you do want to be involved in a linguistically and pragamatically meaningless discussion on the term "religion" I suggest the following:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080220/lf_nm_life/religion_god_dc_1

This is a new British study on why people are religious which has funding of almost 2 million pounds (about $4,000,000). Zhenka's thread offers $0. I say Zhenka should put up an equivalent amount or we are all out of here. In fact, based on the fact that I just found $4 million for all of you to do what you are currently doing here for no compensation, I would say that you have all just experienced the closest thing to a miracle that any of you have or will ever see! (remember the burning bush?) Has anyone ever presented $4 million, ex nihili, to a bunch of SDN Psychology posters before in the entire history of the Universe? No! And you are all witness to it! And since I was the one who brought you all this revelation, I think you should all start praying to me. Your new spiritual belief (a much better phrasing that "religion" will be call GiantStepism (SDNer's from any religion or lack of religion are welcome - Zhenka too). I still have to formulate your rules but since I am omniscient and omnipotent (remember the miracle), this should not be at all difficult. Have faith!

3. In order to enhance the spiritual experience with GiantStepism for all of you, I would like to try to incorporate this newly released study by a Psychologist (I wonder where he went to school) on Moses from the Bible. Wait until all of you read what Moses was allegedly doing at Mt. Sinai. After all, Moses was able to help bring about Judaism which has been around for over 4,000 years and I would like GiantStepism to be around for at least that long.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080304/od_nm/moses_dc;_ylt=Aqdsa25rx0AUxoq6BUnbKI6s0NUE

Unbelievable! I offer all of you a $4 million miracle and a new spiritual movement with a psychotropic high (see above) if you leave this thread and I find everyone still here!

For my purposes it is perfectly fine to lump ALL religion under one. They have something in common - irrationality. YES ALL. Point to a rational one.

Why is it fine to lump all religions into one? I thought you stated that you have studied many of the religions of the world. Of course, I am sure that a few undergraduate academic courses on comparative religion made you some sort of expert on most of the world religions. Laughable! Southern Baptists alone have so many differences and nuances that one could spend a lifetime studying a 20 mile radius in the South and never have time to get to study the rest of Christianity let alone any other religions. Or one could go to Brooklyn, NY to study one particular Chassidic Jewish sect and never have time to get to the synagogue on the other side of the street! Religion is an ambiguous term and any true "religious" scholar is actually a scholar of one specific religious group or even just one particular element of that group.

You say "irrationality" is the common bond. Mathematics has irrational numbers as a part of it. All science uses mathematics. Hence, science and mathematics have an irrational element. So are math and science now bonded with religion since they all incorporate irrationality into themselves? Should everyone give up science and math too?

I do not think you mean "irrationality". You may mean "illogical" based on a classical definition of logic. However, once again, modern math and science, or even philosophy, do not adhere to classic notions of logic. For example, quantum mechanics or modern math make all types of claims which do not follow classical logic stating essential cases which are contradictory based on formal rule of classical logic.

Or you may mean "non-empirical" or "non-common sense". Of course, then you run into a larger philosophical problem. As is clearly stated by A.J. Ayer in Language, Truth, and Logic, his seminal text of the Analytical Philosophy movement (i.e. mainstream modern philosophy), philosophy can not discuss anything about religions period, one way or the other, for it or against it. Ayer admits that there is nothing philosophy can say about anything "religious" since it does not fall within the subjects it can address. Of course if you do want to discuss religion, you could give up your empirically based common sense philosophy but then you can't argue from that perspective anymore.

I suggest that you leave your academic, text book centered world, and go study a specific religious group or an element of that group so that you can better understand why people have spiritual "religious" belief. Of course, by the time you are finished you will probably be a believer yourseld but that is no surprise since people who react so vehemently toward "religion" are always the very same people who wind up embracing it. Ever hear of Paul of Chistian fame? He got his start persecuting "religious" people!

 

[MaddieMay]

Ummm yes there is... The problem of evil, evolution, countless contradicting theologies, science in general, Occam's razor. And i do believe in possibility, just that it's highly unlikely.

People used to believe that the world being round was highly unlikely, according to their "science in general."

I have proved my point.

Sorry, but I'm done feeding the troll.

 

[cara susanna]

Actually, that's a fallacy. People have known that the world was round ever since the Greeks. The belief that people in the Middle Ages thought that the world was flat was invented in the Renaissance as a way of perpetuating the "dark ages" myth.

Sorry, just a pet peeve of mine. Your point still remains valid, however.

 

[MaddieMay]

Are you saying no one ever believed the world was flat?

 

[cara susanna]

They did, just way before the Middle Ages. I believe the idea of the earth as round took hold during the Ancient Greeks.

 

[biocmp]

It seems the church has failed to teach as it should. I can only speak on the Bible, but I know for a fact, that nowhere in the teachings does it tell christians to adopt the stances that many have. Evolution, with all of the research, is not something to be argued against. Being a christian (the reasons for which I do are certainly not in line with the golden ticket model), I consistently and patiently have to explain to people how biblical literalism for many of the stories is a detriment to their understanding of the world at large.

Evolution, as much as gravity, is a fact. Now, I cringe when I type this, because everything in science is a theory, but when there are mounds of evidence in support of something, you get to the point where you realize that refutable evidence probably doesn't exist.

I am constantly pushing people in the church to recognize the pains of the world, and try to emphasize that we are as much a part of this world as everyone else. There is no us and them. I specifically point to pollution and the degradation of our planet. I emphasize people's responsibility to this earth from two standpoints. The humanistic standpoint, because it's the right thing to do, and then I'll back it up with scripture so they can't refute it (there's a passage about being a good steward with all things that have been given).

What about the fact that Christianity was used as a told to subjugate black slaves? What about the fact that black kids are raised seeing pictures of white Jesus? Or the "seed of Cain" stories?

You should read the Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass: An American Slave. He points speaks on this very point. Christianity was not flawed, the "christians" were. They would use scripture to strengthen their belief in slave-holding. He even has a quote that I can only paraphrase, "All slave owners are bad, but Christian slave-owners are the worst" and he went on to explain how they show no recognition of their contradicting beliefs.

About the white Jesus thing, I pass. I could care less, and I would openly embrace a black Jesus or a brown Jesus, he would be Jesus just the same to me.

What about all of the locus of control & healthy functioning? In other words, how psychologically healthy is it to pray (or chant or whatever) & then sit back & wait for some omnipotent hand to sweep in & fix things? How about the better alternative of taking proactive steps to fix your own problems?

I'm not sure how many christians you deal with, but this is called delusion. Prayer is not an ask and give me session. It's more of a petition, and then get back on with your life. And of course I'm not speaking for everyone, but this is the problem, Christianity is always lumped together, with the feeble minded and the fanatical. I get sick when I listen to most of the 'christian' television shows.

I'm just saying that I think that people tend to underemphasize the potentially damaging components of various, mainstream religions

I could argue that it seems to have become the reverse of what you describe above, and I live in the bible belt. I run into many more people who overemphasize the problems with what they have 'heard' from other christians. I think most of the problems lie in the teachings of many churches, not in Christianity itself. I love the principles that the Bible teaches. But that doesn't keep it from being corrupt anymore than politics/jobs/education.

If someone were to really examine the Bible for what it is, and keep common sense inside their head, it may make a world of difference. (but then again, many of you probably think common sense and the Bible are diametrically opposed.)

I think most of us are tired of seeing christians who have a dichotomous nature. They go to church and talk about the greatest commandment given "love thy neighbor as thyself", and then go out and live like an arrogant sob, who no longer needs to worry about this world, because they are just waiting to get to heaven.

For clarification, I actually tend to agree with many points in this thread. It's a good discussion.

 

[BoubtingThomas]

If someone were to really examine the Bible for what it is, and keep common sense inside their head, it may make a world of difference. (but then again, many of you probably think common sense and the Bible are diametrically opposed.) .

Although there are teachings in the bible that most of us would agree are moral, there are others that are repugnant from the contemporary viewpoint. A close reading of the old testament in particular will reveal such a fact. There are passages that dictate the murder of homosexuals, apostates, and the extermination of entire nations (e.g., the Amalekiets). Of course, a non-literal interpretation of these passages might not be as malicious, but its those literalists that i fear most. I will be happy to provide direct references to such passages if anyone wants, but I'll politely stop right here since I can sense the ingredients of a heated, divisive debate brewing.

 

[Psyched77]

And Hitler was an atheist.

You should look into that more, because there is very strong evidence that it is untrue. In fact, I think we will never find out for sure, because he said some seemingly atheistic things & some overtly Christian things. For example: "I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.." (from Mein Kampf). (Here's one source for many Christian quotes of Hitler's: http://www.nobeliefs.com/speeches.htm ) Anyway, I'm just telling you, because I get frustrated at people throwing that around.

Stalin, on the other hand, was less disputably an atheist.

 

[Psyched77]

Although there are teachings in the bible that most of us would agree are moral, there are others that are repugnant from the contemporary viewpoint. A close reading of the old testament in particular will reveal such a fact. There are passages that dictate the murder of homosexuals, apostates, and the extermination of entire nations (e.g., the Amalekiets). Of course, a non-literal interpretation of these passages might not be as malicious, but its those literalists that i fear most. I will be happy to provide direct references to such passages if anyone wants, but I'll politely stop right here since I can sense the ingredients of a heated, divisive debate brewing.

Agreed. This was the type of response I was mentally formulating...until I read your post. I've done a great deal of Bible reading since I left behind Christianity, & I am very disturbed by it...dashing babies against rocks?...sending bears to kill young boys?...putting scabs & sores on people's genitalia?...killing off entire communities of people?...rewarding warriors with virgins?...human sacrifice?...condoning slavery?...incest?... I think that if a person believes in Christianity or the Bible, s/he is more likely to gloss over/ignore/excuse these atrocities. I, for one, cannot rectify them within my set of ethics, nor can I gloss over abuse, terror, & mass murder as "analogies."

 

[Psychmeout]

Hi there,

I do not have a lot of time for an intense debate, but I will try to respond to the arguments made on this board quickly.

First, the original argument was about the correlation between religion and happiness. Studies have shown that religion and spirituality are related to an individual's happiness. It does not state that religion or spirituality causes happiness. Therefore, there are other variables that may account for the correlation between the two factors.

Whether or not you believe in religion, spirituality, or the like, it should not really matter if others believe in it. What others believe doesn't affect you. For example, some scientists do not believe in complimentary alternative medicine; however, research has found that CAM techniques such as hypnosis and meditation actually alters a patient's experience of pain. Now whether or not this is a placebo effect, it works right? Who cares as long as it has a beneficial effect. The same argument can be made for happiness and religion/spirituality. If this were to lead to happiness, what is wrong with that?

Although I respect science as much as the next person, science has not always been perfect and so called 'evidence' has been found to be flawed. Take a look at basic American history. For years, elementary schools taught children that Christopher Columbus discovered that the world was round, when in fact that was proposed by Aristotle 2000 years before. This is what everyone BELIEVED because it was founded by scholars although it was blatantly false.

In reference to the bible, the bible is a historical account of the times both BC and AD, so when some of the posters have mentioned the human sacrifices, killing off entire communities of people, this has really nothing to do with believing in God, this has to do with the fundamentals of our civilization during those times. Persecution in the name of religion has gone on for years, just as persecution for one's race and political beliefs. As a society, we tend to chastize and persecute those whose views differ from our own. What zhenka11230 has stated on the board, is an exact replication of these persecutory attitudes.

I actually happen to be Christian and do not suffer from any internal self-hatred or psychosis. In fact I feel the opposite. I enjoy knowing that I am loved by God, I enjoy being good to others. I have wonderful relationships with others because I respect their opinions and beliefs. I have friends who are homosexual and I do not view them any less as a human being because of their sexual preference. I actually do believe in evolution to a certain degree. I do not believe that you need evidence for everything. If that were the case, we wouldn't believe anything that happened before we were born, we wouldn't believe in ourselves and our future potential.

 

[cara susanna]

I should also add that Catholics believe in evolution. Or they can, if they like.

 

[psychwanabe]

Just a random (and completely OT) comment, but how the flip do you all have so much time to posts such long rants back and forth???!!!

I barely have time to read parts of some threads and respond to a few let alone engage in an endless debate.

 

[Psyched77]

Can you please tell me the name of the article you mention and the author(s)
Thank you

The study that the Monitor referenced was published in January in Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology (Vol. 43, No. 1). The lead researcher was Joanna Maselko, ScD of Temple University.

 

[mftPsychSoc]

Hi there,
First, the original argument was about the correlation between religion and happiness. Studies have shown that religion and spirituality are related to an individual's happiness. It does not state that religion or spirituality causes
happiness. Therefore, there are other variables that may account for the correlation between the two factors.

I have been watching this thread with great enthusiasm over the last few days. All of the posters have thrown around some very sound arguments and have generally done a great job at hitting the "philosophy" of religion and its interaction with happiness. However, psychmeout has hit what should be the central theme of this thread, I mean, this is the PsyD/PhD PSYCHOLOGY forum. We are here to discuss psychology and things related to the aforementioned subject. Shouldn't the correlation religion has with respect to happiness be the focal point, and not a semi-philosophical "table tennis" match that is stroking the ego (no offense) of the OP?

I enjoy a healthy philosophical debate...when it is conducive to scholarly inquiry, but i think this is getting a little ridiculous. OP, please understand that in the pursuit of psychology, namely psychotherapy, there are some things that one is ethically bound to not do. One of these things is not doing harm; it's fine if you challenge your clients belief system, however, to do so without doing harm is the primary objective. The therapeutic alliance is one that is very fragile, and easily broken. Let's say you decide to go on a crusade of proving your clients religious beliefs to be illogical, and irrational. Aside from affirming your own staunch beliefs, what have you done to help your client? An adversarial approach, is one that has to be utilized strategically and tactfully, less (as others have pointed out) you face some serious legal ramifications.

I see that you are firmly rooted in your beliefs, which is perfectly fine. The problem comes about when you decide that your clients beliefs (religious or not) is not worth exploring from a holistic view. Truthfully, many clients will not come in looking for a 'philosophical awakening' as much as they are trying to seek a solution for a problem that to them is secular in nature(unless you're a pastoral counselor). But, do keep in mind that religion "issues" do creep up in session, of which, they need to be addressed with regard to how they impact other aspects of a clients life. Telling them that x is irrational/illogical is not your function, rather, helping them explore how their belief impacts their psychological health is!

Regardless of what I post here, I know that there will probably be some reason you will find to keep the tangent going......please just stop. If you want to be any shred of an effective therapist, then you will eventually have to learn the subtle nuances associated with the occupation. If you want to be a philosopher/theologian, then please do not occupy the other viewers here with empty rhetoric that does not impact how they can become an effective psychologist(researcher or clinician). Also, I don't want to convey the notion that I am discounting you as an intelligent person, you definitely are! It just seems to me that there's an underlying motive to continue a discussion that you can (for lack of a better term) BLAST people on.

Best of luck in your pursuits!

 

[Liselaime]

For HIS sake? I dunno.....I remember finding out about Santa naturally and there was no emotional scarring. To the contrary, I reflect fondly on those years. With all due respect....I think your advice blows.

I have a feeling we may see you eventually in marital therapy...or perhaps your kids in court-mandated therapy through CPS after they have been stripped from your custody.

good day.

When I found out about Santa as a child, I was absolutely devastated. Not by the fact that Santa didn't exist--I was aghast that every adult I knew had lied to me and thought I'd never be able to trust any of them again. I was also baffled by the seeming illogic of the adults:

(kid) Me: So Santa isn't real?
Mom: No, honey, sorry.
Me: What about the Easter Bunny?
Mom: Nope, he's not real either.
Me: The tooth fairy? (extra hopeful, because the fairy gives money)
Mom: No, that's me putting money under your pillow.
Me: God?
Mom: Oh, GOD is real. And he's watching you all the time!

I don't have kids yet, but when I do, I'm definitely not going to lie about Santa or any other fictitious being.

 

[Liselaime]

To be more on topic, for those of you who plan on becoming practitioners, do you think it's important to have "religious" competence? I know multicultural competence is a big thing now (having the expertise to counsel ethnic minorities, GLBT people, etc.), but what about knowledge of the unique concerns of people of different religions?

I should note that I'm an atheist and I find all religions equally absurd personally, but I don't plan to foist my views upon clients, whose religious and philosophical beliefs I will endeavor to understand and respect, unless they are harming the client in some way.