TRTL writes

'It's a simple fact of life that the less education on average a country has, the more religion and the more violence.'

Just happens that the most dangerous place on earth is in the mother's womb in 'educated countries'. A result of the religion of human secularism and championed by the earth worshipers.

Interesting article.

The difference between spirituality and religion is the former is biological [limbic system] and the latter institutional. Animism and ancestor worship can to call-up on a sprit to deal with a problem being faced by the believer, often a survival situation [hence, mention of the limbic system]. With Jewish henotheism Moses' [if he existed] dilemma was to his ensure flock focused on a Yahveh [a tribal war/volcano god] and not to transition to an agriculture god [i.e., calf].

Early spiritality was perhaps the Shaman's attempt to make sense of the ecology and how to live within it. In the Middle-Eastern Western path religions appeared with the establishment of the Sumer and evolved from there for centures: e.g., Nicaea, Costantinople, Kent, Vatican II ect.

Moreover, participants in a religion indwell [Polanti] in the performance of the priesthood.

• To what degree does the belief that one is on a personal spiritual journey or quest reinforce prosocial values and attitudes?
• Does the belief that all things are connected at a spiritual level serve to strengthen one’s sense of connection with others at the everyday mundane level or instead serve to de-emphasise the overall importance of the nature of one’s daily interactions with others?
• Does an emphasis on self-transformation and personal growth help to reinforce or undermine notions like moral obligation, social responsibility and social justice?
• To what extent does the inner spiritual quest lead to improvement in wellbeing, and to what extent might it encourage an undue focus on oneself and one’s own personal problems, thereby exaggerating the importance of both?

Dear Researcher (forgive me for forgetting your name)

I think it is quite difficult to answer all these questions. Faith is such a personal thing. People arrive at spiritual beliefs in so many different ways.

For me, the reality is that I live in this world. I work, have friends, have fun, love in a metaphysical, spiritual and physical sense. My life experience has led me to a particular belief and I practise that with people I know. We harm no-one, love others, do good, think and laugh.

The belief I have now is different from the belief I had as an adolescent. I am educated to masters level and work in a research and policy role in local government.

People change all the time, too. They undergo crises in life. Some see these challenges as progressive steps in personal and spiritual growth, often in hindsight.

Faith is not amenable to the sort of research that academics often do.

And faith may be different from organised religion. Faith is simple and not always explainable. In itself it needs no defence or analysis, only sharing where this may help another.

All the best.

TRTL,

Creationists do not deny science. They only deny poor science, or philosophy dressed up as science.

I’ll define a creationist as someone who accepts the first chapters of Genesis as an historical account of earth’s history and reliable starting point for scientific investigation.

With that definition, many of the most famous and prominent scientists of the last five hundred years, the founders or most scientific disciplines, were creationists, continuing up to the present day.

Take away the contributions of Bacon, Copernicus, Newton, Kelvin, Boyle, Ramsay, Pascal, Mendel, Pasteur, and many, many more, and imagine what an unhealthy state western science would be in.