According to this article research shows that religious faith makes people healthier and happier http://theconversation.edu.au/does-religious-faith-make-people-healthier-and-happier-1491, but the researchers wouldn't recommend it as a way of increasing healthiness.

"The findings of this study don’t suggest that religion should be adopted as a tool for promoting health (as has been the case with exercise and a nutritious diet). Rather, they highlight the importance of ensuring all Australians have the opportunity to practice their faith, without discrimination, and that people aren’t excluded from society because of their religious beliefs. The findings also suggest that religious beliefs and practices may need to be better accommodated in schools and workplaces."

The differentiation between religious belief and exercise and diet staggers me. Why do the researchers stray into this area at all? And if religious belief does these good things, why the reticence in recommending practice of religion?

Their findings do appear to be one in the eye for militant atheists like Richard Dawkins. Discrimination against people because of their religious belief would appear to be a way of lowering general well-being.

faith...in anything..
is easier..than actually 'doing it'

of course simply having faith
makes us happier..than turning the other cheek

religeos creed...thats based on the new testimeant
[love god by loving neighbour]...is a simple concept
till it comes the time to love/forgive help thy neighbour

its the conceptualuised theory..thats easy
its the practice...workd/deed...doing..
of the theory..thats hard work

if only people loved doing the usefull work
not just ignoring..the practice of the theory
but its all just too hard...

so yes
i love you unconditionally...but*

There are many studies that show that anti-psychotic drugs also appear to be beneficial to people with mental illness.

Would you recommend them to everybody?

Interesting question, Graham. But then as a kid I remember believing
in Santa and that made me very happy indeed, so should I recommend it?

My problem with religion is that as a kid, it was taught to me not
as a belief, but the claim was that it was a fact. That is how
the world was, according to adults. I was clearly duped.

im happy/happier
to post this..here..[due to post limits..here]
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=13053&page=0

its about belief/diss-belief..[relief]

paul...begin reading john..13;31
especially 13;34

jesus knew..his time was up
[judas missed..this specific sequence]
but that dont excuse..that we do to judas..till this day

but for judas..none could say
jesus died 'for us'

jesus talks about crossing-over[dying]
take the words of 13;34 to heart
[they have all done..what peter did..[38/39]]

but...""1 Let not..your heart be troubled:
ye believe..*in God,...now..believe also..*in me.""

the good/god
within each..and every-one..of us..!

""In my Father’s..house are many mansions:
if it were not so,..I would have told you..

I go to prepare..a place for you.""

but then..he had to keep building
as ever more..new rooms/sects..were needing to be built
as his sect..became church..became lots of other churche's

all made from wood..[carpentry]
plus sticks and stones..from his followers

""And if I go..and..prepare a place for you,
I will acome again,""

but heck mate
i been flat out like a lizard drinking
building on all them sect's..extra rooms

""and receive..*you..unto myself;""

not telling you
to drink my blood

you into me...

""that where I am,..
there ye..may be..also.""

just as i
and theee..go into god..[good]..

so thomas..jumps in
changing topics

""how can we..know the way?""

in you

""6..Jesus saith unto him,
I am..the away,...[cause god..is in me!

if im in you...then for you..im the way
NOT THE DESTINATION..!

i lived for you..my truth
the good..of gods/truth

""the truth,..and the life:..""
with truth revealed..in the life lived

""no man cometh..unto the Father,..but by me.""

but..by my egsample's...works
of what i did...once i revealed
the good [god]..within me to you..

""If ye..had known me,
ye should have known..my Father also:

and from henceforth
ye know him,..and have seen him."""

or rather seen his GOOD works]

as he..was reflected...in me
and me in thee

8..Philip saith unto him,..Lord,
shew us the Father,..and it sufficeth us.

9..Jesus saith unto him,..Have I been
so long time..with you,..and yet hast thou not known me,""

thus how long..[eternity]..would it take
to know..the eternal/internal/external good..[god]

""he..that hath seen....""ME
hath seen..the Father;..>>WE

and how sayest thou then,..
Shew us..the Father?

lol
continues at other link?

oops forgot the link
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=13053&page=0

anyhow it continues

10 Believest thou not..!
that I am...*in*..the Father,...
*and the Father*..*in me?"""

just as he..*is
in ALL OF YOU

emmanuel[god with IN us all]

""the words..that I speak..unto you
I speak not..of myself:""[{jesus]...emmanuel

""but the Father""..['s many messangers messages]..
that dwelleth..in me,...[and thee..

in-deed all of we
united into..the one good calling himself me...

thats what i am is
in
ME
......
WE

...""*he
doeth..the works.""!

11 Believe me..that I am..*in the Father,
and the Father*in me:..or else believe me..*for the very works’ sake.

12 Verily, verily,..I say unto you,
He that believeth..*on me,..

the works
that..I do
shall..he do..also;
and greater works..than these
shall he [ye]..do;..

that
the Father..may
be glorified...*in the Son"".

14..If ye shall ask..any-thing
in my *name,..I will do it."""

not the fathers..!

""ye see me:
because I live,
ye shall live also.""

no judgment/reserction 'day'

""20..At that day ye shall know
that I am..in my Father,..and ye in me,..and I in you.

http://lds.org/scriptures/nt/john/14?lang=eng

the comforter

Dear Graham,

In this country people are free to follow any
religion they choose, so long as its practices don't
break any Australian law. People here are also
free not to follow a religion. We have a secular
government and no official or state religion.
Our Governments are obliged to treat all citizens
as equal regardless of their beliefs. And religious
laws have no legal status in Australia.

I would question the fact that "religious
belief makes you happier and healthier."
I suspect that many people no longer
believe deeply in traditional religion (for a
variety of reasons), but some haven't found
a satisfying substitute.

Also let's not
overlook the fact that the rituals enacted in any
religion enhance the solidarity of the community as
well as its faith. For example - Baptism, Bar Mitzvah,
Weddings, Sabbath Services, Christmas Mass, and
funerals. Rituals serve to bring people together;
to remind them of their common group membership; to
reaffirm their traditional values, to maintain
prohibitions and taboos; to offer comfort in times of
crisis; and in general, to help transmit the cultural
heritage from one gneration to the next.

Of course, religion can be replaced by some belief system
that serves the same functions. It's a matter of personal
choice in today's society.

oops wrong link
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=13036&page=0

will contue with reply here

to quote david..""RELIGIOUS BIGOTRY:

“No one comes to the Father but by me” (John 14:6)""

done

""ANTI-SEMITISM:

And the people answered,
‘His blood be on us and on our children’” (Matt. 27:25)""

done

""to call the Bible “Word of God”
in any sense is to legitimize..this hatred reflected in its pages.

SEXISM:""

done

""For man was not made from woman,..[edited]""

thats clearly incorrect
sure god can impregnate...but mother is an important next step

thus..""..but woman for man.”..(1Cor. 8-9)""

depends on the man
and which mmmmm m-other

...""The message of the Christian church was once that women are evil""

rebutal at link

""She was taken out of man""

no adams dna..was edited[throwing away the 'y' chromosone
and doubling up on the 'X']..adfam lost a rib

then 9 mths later..got a woe-man
adam is father/brother...clone
keep it in context

[if it is 'normal..huh,man process
...it dont need to be mentioned]

god might have impregnated adam[woman]
only too easy[see story of mary]

what proof adam was male?

""and was not his equal,
but his help meet.""

re read gen 2

chose 2..or 3

""Evil entered human history..through the weakness of the woman.""

lerts look at the so called crime
the wife went to the shop...wanted a special treat for a special man

it wasnt the fruit
as much as the wisdom...
leading them ...eventually to truth[knowing good from bad]

heck learning brother cl-one Xy
married sister[clone XX]

""She was made to bear the..blame and the guilt.
She was the source of death."""

yeah
the death of ignorance
[who dares hold their mum to such account
or your sister...or your 'significant 'other']

""He also blames the Bible for inspiring homophobia, corporal punishment and environmental degradation""

fixers fix/healers heal
dividers divide..liars lie

""Go the url cited for details.
Literal believers in the Bibl.. have caused great human suffering.
Posted by david f,"""

i disagree david
but dont have the post limits..to refute the errors

Well said Lexi :)

Graham, after reading that link, I felt the authors were really trying to say that with the many different religions/Gods worshipped in this country, we can't be seen to favour one religion over another.

If one particular religion's members feel as though they are more vilified than others (eg Muslims at the moment), then they are certainly not going to be a happy bunch of people.
Certainly one could go on to suggest that this feeling of exclusion could also affect their mental health at least.

Could it be that the findings suggest that those who are happily part of a religious group that meets regularly and maybe socialises together as well, would be happy and generally have more healthy attitudes to life?

My husband is not a religious man, but is very happy and healthy as part of a large golf club that has a very active social and physically active lifestyle.

Much the same as a happy religious group of people I would suggest...

Thanks Suse.

I totally agree with the comparison of your husband's
golf club to religion. Both function as a form of
social "cement." They unite the members by regularly
bringing them together to enact various "rituals",
and by providing them with the shared values and
beliefs that bind them into a community.

I guess a society requires some shared set of beliefs
to ensure its cohesion - and these don't have to be
religious. Some people argue that other belief systems
fulfill the functions of religion so well that they
can actually be regarded as "religions."

The essential difference between such belief systems and
religion is, of course, that though the former serve some
of the same functions as religion,
they are not oriented toward the supernatural,
a distinction that should not be disregarded.

So suppose, just suppose, that practicing religion was found not to promote health, or perhaps even to be unhealthy - would that mean that religion were to be banned?

Religion comes way before health, and for that matter way before observing the man-made law of the land (which Lexi mentioned).

If people practice religion in order to be healthy (or at least that's what they believe they do), then they do not worship God, but rather than own bodies - they would be better off eating healthy food in moderation and exercising more often. And if they practice in order to be happy, then they worship their happiness and there are probably better ways to have that in the short term.

Lexi (and Yuyutsu),

>>The essential difference between such belief systems and
religion is, of course, that though the former serve some
of the same functions as religion,
they are not oriented toward the supernatural,
a distinction that should not be disregarded.<<

Indeed, I think this is VERY essential: you can mimic some of the functions of religion (i.e. the feelings of being part of a community by a golf club, the strict adhesion to its belief system by ideologists like e.g. marx-leninists, its belief in a super-intelligence that is behind the laws of nature by deists like Einstein, etc.) provided you do not see religion REDUCED to this particular function of it, like e.g. Durkheim (who apparently himself was areligious) who seems to have reduced all religion to its ritual function.

Trying to follow Durkheim reminds me of reading somebody's account of the history - psychology, sociology etc - of mathematics, who does not understand the mathematics involved. There will be undeniable facts in what he/she is writing about, but if you are a mathematician you can somehow see that the author is an outsider to the subject.

I suspect that most followers of faith don't abuse alcohol, drugs or tobacco nearly as much as their secular counterparts. Just look at what these vices have done to aboriginal health and you might get a few clues.

Dear George,

Emile Durkheim's study, "The Elementary Forms of
Religious Life," was first published in 1912 and
has since become a classic. Many of Durkheim's
contemporaries saw religion as nothing more than a
primitive relic that would soon disappear in the more
sophisticated modern world. But Durkheim was impressed
by the fact that religion is universal in human society,
and he wondered why this should be so. His answer was
that religion has a vital function in maintaining the
social system as a whole.

Durkheim believed that the origins of religion were
social, not supernatural. Hence his pointing out that,
whatever their source, the rituals enacted in any
religion enhance the solidarity of the community as well
as its faith.

Well, there doesn’t seem to be anything new in that study. I thought we already knew all that. “Militant” atheists like Dawkins even acknowledge this link, so I’m not sure how this is “one in the eye” for them either.

<<The differentiation between religious belief and exercise and diet staggers me. Why do the researchers stray into this area at all? And if religious belief does these good things, why the reticence in recommending practice of religion?>>

Because the truth still matters; the reasons why we believe what we believe matter, and believing something because it can have some health benefits is not a good reason. Personally I think well-being, on the whole, would increase a lot more if everyone cared about the truth of their beliefs and concerned themselves with having as few false beliefs as possible rather than just being content to believe whatever feels good.

Having beliefs consistent with reality is always preferable and although there may be some religious people out there with benign religious beliefs that don’t affect them negatively in their daily life, their brain has still been conditioned to accept a belief/beliefs just because it’s comforting, and the problem with this conditioning is that it could potentially extend to other beliefs that have more dire consequences.

I know of several people whose lives were on a downward spiral and eventually hit rock bottom, and they’re much happier now that God finally decided to reveal himself (better late than never, I guess). But as far as I’m concerned, the fact that religion is apparently what they needed to get their lives back on track is not an indication that religion is a positive force (there are far too many counter-examples of that), nor does it say anything for the truth of religious claims - as some theists would like to imply. Rather, it’s a sign that people are not always properly equipped with the right tools for coping with life when things start to go wrong and having religion as a fallback here dulls our motivation to address this better.

a little humility before one's Creator is sure to release the stress coming from one's pride and self righteousness. The acceptance of the obvious (our Creator) and His Sovereignty takes ouselves off our puny thrones (which we end up being knocked off anyway) and helps us to face up to reality that God is God and we are not.

aj/quote..""people are not always properly equipped..with the right tools for coping with life..when things start to go wrong"""

a good point so far
if 'lifes' happenings get on top of ya
where can ya go[a $200 per hour shrink....drugs/booze..

""and having religion...as a fallback here
dulls our motivation..to address this better.""

yeah here is a perscription
to numb ya mind...[or here is a mantra...to numb ya mind]

cruise through life drunk..and drugged to the gills

""Because the truth still matters;""

there are many truths[and faulsities]
as well as many paths..to many truths[and illusory solutions]

""the reasons..why we believe..what we believe matter,
and believing something..because it can have..some health benefits is not a good reason.""

agreed

""Personally I think well-being,..on the whole,
would increase a lot more if everyone cared..about the truth of their beliefs..and concerned themselves with having as few false beliefs as possible..rather than just being content to believe whatever feels good."""

drink up bluey..!
want another snort..?
two strongly held beliefs

""Having beliefs..consistent with reality
is always preferable""'

never say allways
my solution wont work for you

[your solution
to me is a problem

""and although there..may be..some religious people
out there with benign religious beliefs..that don’t affect them negatively in their daily life,..their brain..has still been conditioned to accept a belief/beliefs..""

yep take an asprin
take ya vitamin...eat your vegies
dont eat meat..dont smoke....dont live in a poluted area
dont live in a flood zone....lets celibrate...[lets get boozed up]

""just because it’s comforting,
and the problem with this conditioning..is that it could potentially extend...to other beliefs..that have more dire consequences.""

warning religeon will rot ya teeth
give you gangreen...make you blind...kill ya kids

""nor does it say anything..for the truth of religious claims""'

and govt is just about..extracting
its bit of tithe..[blood]tax

over simpli-fixation

I for one would be interested to read what David Nicholls has
to say on this subject (*Atheist Foundation of
Australia). I believe that David was raised as a Catholic.
It would be interesting to learn what made him alter his
beliefs. And is he healthier and happier as a result.

Dear Lexi,

Thanks for the concise description of Durkheim’s contribution to the sociology of religion, which I do not think contradicts what I wrote. Explicitly, he defined religion as

“a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, i.e., things set apart and forbidden--beliefs and practices which unite in one single moral community called a Church, all those who adhere to them” (The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life, as quoted in Wikipedia, pointing out that in his definition, Durkheim avoids references to supernatural or God.)

On the other hand, there are sociologists who see it differently. For instance, Rodney Stark (not a theist either) writes:

“How can we distinguish between religions and other ideological systems? … (T)he answer was given by those … men whose position Durkheim attempted to burry: religions involve some conception of a supernatural being, world, or force, and the notion that the supernatural is active, that events and conditions here on earth are influenced by the supernatural.” (The Future of Religion, University of Califorrnia Press 1985, p.5)

>> Durkheim believed that the origins of religion were
social, not supernatural.<<

True, but I think whether or not he believed in the supernatural origins (which would presuppose that he believed in the supernatural as such) is here almost irrelevant. If we talked e.g about physics I would even drop the “almost” part, since in physics your world-view presuppositions are irrelevant to your scholarly work (among physicists who support superstring theory you will find those who "believe in the supernatural" as well as those who do not, the same among those who do not support the theory). With social science it is apparently more complicated, but still: if in your description of Christian beliefs you left out the part about Trinity you would be wrong irrespective of whether you yourself believed in the Trinity.

Since I am not a sociologists I cannot offer scholarly arguments in favour or against, Durkheim's or Stark's definition, hence my subjective last paragraph in the previous post. Also, I admit having read much more from Stark than from Durkheim.

...The most successful method for removing Christianity from society would be to remove alcohol from society! Alcohol is the interface between Islam and Christianity!

Or maybe...Christianity should be promoted in bottle-shops!

I very firmly believe no God ever existed.
Just as firmly that belief in one, practicing that belief, is for most of benefit.
I too think society benefits from that.
But not always, not every follower.
Did the Priests and leaders of other faiths, who molested children believe in a God?
Or did they just use a Church to fore fill evil intent.
The very true hurting, in pain , lost who find the straw/hope/God are rarely injured by the find.
Graham talks of one view, but I think we need to ask this.
Why must any God, please never forget their numbers, have any say in what others think or do.
If as I think Gods are mans inventions, then the reasons are not purely evil.
In the beginning I think brilliant minds wanted to install hope and respect for every one.
Rule that made living together with civility possible.
Look back, before the first written holly book.
See the basic control and yes power, granted to the heads of even pagan idols.
Man may well ask is our current lack of thought for others white collar crime, a product of our shrinking belief?
I think, yes truly, we will see one religion crafted to cover all the world.
One God one direction.
A fable yes impossible? look at north Korea.

I read it as complete political correctness. Afterall, you'll be advised to take up meditation or yoga to cope with high blood pressure, for example, or to take more exercise or to change your diet. I can't see why on the list of questions you wouldn't also have one suggesting that if you have a religion that getting more active in it might help.

It's an objective fact, and by recommending meditation or yoga, there is a good chance that a medical practitioner is recommending Buddhist practice, but they possibly don't understand that to be the case.

It seems to me to be a case of how you can believe in just about anything according to the intellectual class, no matter how tenuous, but you can't believe in religion.

Oh, you poor religion believers. I never knew you were sooo persecuted.

"It seems to me to be a case of how you can believe in just about anything according to the intellectual class, no matter how tenuous, but you can't believe in religion."

Except of course where the authors recommend freedom of religion to prevent undue mental stress.

It seems to me that it is more of a personal thing, rather than a public health recommendation. As an example, regular sex actually has a wider range of significant health benefits, but you don't see doctors recommending that to their patients as a public health measure. Well, at least to the unmarried eh?

Graham, you seem to be unhappy that not everyone is religious and/or believes in a God or two?
If religion is meant to make people happier and healthier, why do many of them stress out so much that the rest of society don't believe the same things they do?

No one has ever 'seen' or 'heard' from an actual God, so it isn't really a surprise that not everyone believes there is an invisible man up there is it?

Why can't we all just believe or don't believe in religion, without worrying what everyone else is doing?

I realise that many people take great comfort and joy in their religious beliefs, and in my job as a nurse I have to acknowledge this and never upset them by saying what my private views are.

Unless someone thinks less of me or derides me for not being religious, then I will respect their views and not have a go at them.

However, when any religious person believes I, or any other non-religious person, is in any way inferior to them then I will certainly become a little upset!

Dear George,

Although Durkheim believed that the origins of
religion were social, not supernatural he did
in fact also argue that shared religious beliefs
and the rituals that go with them are so important
that every society needs a religion, or at least
some belief system that serves the same functions.
He felt that the cause of much of the social disorder in
modern societies is that "the old gods are growing old
or are already dead, and others are not yet born."

In other words, people no longer believe deeply in traditional
religion, but have found no satisfying substitute. Lacking
commitment to a shared belief system, they tend to pursue their
private interests without regard for their fellows.

Modern sociiologists have elaborated on Durkheim's ideas.

As I've stated earlier - Durheim emphasized that a society
requires some shared set of beliefs to ensure its cohesion.
But do these beliefs have to be religious? Many would argue
that a functional equivalent - a social or cultural feature
that has the same effect may in that sense serve as a
substitute for it. But again, the essential difference
between such belief systems and religion as I mentioned
previously is, of course that though the former serve some of the
same functions as religion, they are not oriented toward the
supernatural.

For many years ti was widely felt that as science progressively
provided rational explanations for the mysteries of the
universe, religion would have less and less of a role to play
and would eventually disappear, unmasked as nothing more than
superstition. However there are still gaps in our understanding
that science can never fill. On the ultimately important
questions - of the meaning and purpose of life and the
nature of morality - science is utterly silent and, by its
very nature, always will be

Few people of modern societies would utterly deny the
possibility of some higher power in the universe, some
supernatural, transcendental realm that lies beyond the
boundaries of ordinary experience, and in this fundamental sense
religion is probably here to stay.

How do I stand in this debate?
Truly, what is to be made of me.
Once a follower, not only of one of the mass of Gods.
But of other failed dreams of a better world.
Few will deny me my right to long ago abandon Communism/Socialism.
But condemn me for awakening to the invention of God.
Am I too condemned for my view Christianity is likely to fade away.
And that Islam may be already larger in numbers.
Is it wrong to think humanity is better served by truth.
Hewy, heard of him?
An apparent Australian invention he greets the recently dead with beer in both hands and shares a laugh.
Maybe we do need Gods, but are those of us who do not think so evil.

Because something is beyond my ability to sense (naturally or with aids) does not mean it doesn't exist, nor that it does, so it becomes a matter of faith.

To choose the path of faith is fine but I see religion as I see the influenza virus. Nothing will ever eradicate it as it evolves continuously with the times to defeat attempts to do so. It is passed from generation to generation, each child injected before an age of reason or choice. To me, these aspects are why religion survives.

If we set ground zero as today, it would be interesting to see whether religion would get the large grip on societies that it has now. I think science might be an impediment to its re-establishment.

Although scientists do not know everything, the trend is that they are making progress. See the following link as an example of the scientific effort to explain the origin of the universe from nothing. Warning. its a bit long and jokes are esoteric

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=something%20from%20nothing%20dawkins&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCAQtwIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D7ImvlS8PLIo&ei=lp3-TviVG6WQiQe_moDVAQ&usg=AFQjCNGMXDDhsTplt4TDx9KjtPtn5tc7uA&cad=rja

Getting to the point of this thread, IMO, a health benefit seems a poor reason to embark on the path of religion, but it probably serves well as a justification for religiosity once one is infected with it.

I think in this matter all views need airing.
And yes some will indeed be very much ofensive to some.
God we are told created the heaven and the earth.
In 6 days he put every living thing on it or in the oceans.
From Adam and Eve all humanity came.
First Bible did not say this was other than purely as it took place.
The evolution of religion now sometimes, says this is purely descriptive.
But as one God made us all, including all the other Gods? or is this not true?
How did we stop being one?

Dear Lexi,

I liked your post, read it a couple of times to see if there was anything I could disagree with, and found nothing. These are standard views of the social function of religion, whether or not they originated with Durkheim (most of them probably did).

Where we might differ is just our preferred definitions of the very term “religion”, although you yourself write that “the essential difference … is … that though the former serve some of the same functions as religion, they are not oriented toward the supernatural” which - as seen from my quote in the previous post - was exactly Stark’s main reason for suggesting an alternative definition.

There are many definitions of religion, emphasizing this or that of its features, functions, which their authors find determining. I like also the anthropological definition by Geertz http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7816#124645. Although it does not mention the supernatural explicitly, it does not seem to reduce everything to the ritual. By the way, neither do you (if you are Foxy, see your definition in http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3495&page=0#83447).

As I keep on saying, from our contemporary point of view - as distinct from the ancient situations investigated by anthropologists - it all depends on what you call supernatural, i.e. that which is beyond the (material, physical) reality investigated by science (whether or not you believe in the existence of this “beyond”). This, however, would brings us to the not-so-easy questions of philosophy of science, (notably physics). “Constructive empiricism” or “scientific (critical) realism”, both compatible with theist as well as atheist initial positions (safe the naive versions of both), which, of course, is only marginally related to this thread.

Dear George,

I enjoy discussions with you. My personal belief
centers on sacred principles of thought and conduct.
I believe in the tolerance of other beliefs.
And as we know - there are many theodicies. They explain
human problems in many ways. The Hindu doctrine of
reincarnation deals with suffering and evil by extending
the life span indefinitely: one's present existence becomes
merely a tiny link in an endless chain, in which death
and misery seem only temporary and insignificant.

The mysticism of Buddhism or Taoism offers the believer
salvation at a spiritual level, where earthly cares become
unimportant. Christian theodicy holds out the hope of
eternal salvation in heaven in recompense for ordeals on
earth.

The Zoroastrian theodicy sees the universe as a battleground
between the evenly balanced forces of good and evil, with the
misfortunes of humans stemming from their failure to throw their
weight on the side of good. In Shintoism, which focuses on
ancestor worship, one's sorrows and the idea of death are
made more tolerable by the knowledge that one's life will be
remembered and celebrated by one's descendants forever.

All these theodicies imply that religion has some function in
social life; and, in fact, that is precisely the point that
Durkheim was trying to make. That this functionalist perspective
offers many insights into the role of religion in society.

Dear Lexi,

You do not get many books about maths/physics that are a priori hostile to maths/physics. This is different with many, even scholarly, writings about religion, where the author has more often than not the need to advertise his remoteness from the subject of his/her investigation, even hostility (towards religion, organised or not, towards beliefs in a supernatural Being or beings), throughout his/her writing.

Rodney Stark is not one of them. Though himself not religious, he wrote another book about religions, investigating known and presumed facts about the religions you mention and many others. He is certainly more knowledgeable of Durkheim, his observations and limitations than I am. During my recent stay in hospital and rehab (hip replacement) I managed to read it cover to cover. Although called Discovering God (HarperOne, 2008) he states very clearly on page 5:

“This book can be read either as a study of the evolution of human it\images\ of God, or as the evolution of the human it\capacity to comprehend\ God. The same theoretical model suits either interpretation.” (since Graham does not allow for italics I had to indicate them the clumsy way, since they appear in the text expressing emphasis). This reminds me of good mathematics that you can understand both as an invention of the human mind, or a discovery of some facts preexisting in a (Platonic) world of mathematics on its own.

Stark’s central interest evolves around the concepts of - and evolutionary need for - God or gods in various cultures/societies, extinct or not, rather than on ritual and social cohesion which, of course, are also functions of religion that "offer many insights" into religion, as you put it.

As for Eastern religions, he makes a point in distinguishing their manifestations among Western enthusiasts (who often seek them as a replacement for their mostly Christian religion that they were disappointed with) and how these Eastern religions are and were understood for century by their Eastern practitioners. These findings serve to support his definition of religion based on supernatural beings, a different emphasis than that of the classical Durkheim’s.

Dear George,

Again, it's been a pleasure talking to you.
I'm not familiar with Stark's work - however, I
do intend to correct that and shall seek
out his works through my regional library.

Thanks for your patience and understanding.

George, can you give a quick account of how Stark sees religion as an evolutionary outcome? Evolution results from survival of the fittest, so how does being religious, according to Stark, increase the chance of survival (obviously not talking about those chosen for human sacrifice here!)?

I have envisaged what he might argue and I have tried googling this but haven't found anything that puts it in a nutshell.

Dear Lexi (and Luciferase),

You can find the Stark’s book I first quoted from on http://www.amazon.com/Future-Religion-Secularization-Revival-Formation/dp/0520057317/ref=sr_1_25?ie=UTF8&qid=1325411520&sr=8-25, the second one on http://www.amazon.com/Discovering-God-Origins-Religions-Evolution/dp/0061626015/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1325411365&sr=8-1.

The good thing is that in both cases you can read most of the pages of the Introductions (where he might have answered your question, Luciferase) online (the “Click to LOOK INSIDE!” feature). I purchased and read cover-to-cover only the second book, the first one I know only from what is available online.

Luciferase,
Neither I nor Stark mention seeing “religion as an evolutionary outcome”, although I admit that my terse reference to “evolutionary need for God” (WITHIN religion as such from its more “primitive” to more “sophisticated” versions) could be misunderstood.

From the Introduction to Discovery of God:

“(B)oth biological and cultural evolution seem to be greatly shaped by the principle of natural selection or survival of the fittest, which refers to the tendency for better-adapted organisms or cultural elements to prevail over the less well-adapted. Keep in mind that
I am not referring to the evolution of new species, but to natural selection within the “species” known as human cultures or, even to more greatly restrict the term, I am concerned with natural selection among variations within the “species” called religion.”

More of this on pages 9-11 from the Introduction available online.

george quote,...""I admit..reference to “evolutionary need..for God”

i find the joining of evolution
with religeon...a biased joinder

[spin]..kids are indoctrinated with evolution..[based on quasi science with pictures..sold to kids..just like santa]

ok religeon hangs off
the same claim...its not either or
ecvolution at its purest...would explain how god dun it

but its far from clear
that even the THEO-ry of evolution
got the sequances right...let alone replicte any bit of it

""(WITHIN religion..as such..from
its more “primitive”..to more “sophisticated”..versions)""

could loosly..be said to have evolved
but religeon has little to do with god..!
[its about the mess-angers and THEIR mess-ages

and only little more to do..with evolution
[yet..both not even a science][thus a theory]

the joinder of the 3
""..could be misunderstood.""

has been deliberatly confused[spun]
just like the evolution trial..has been spun

no judge judged evolution..[nor validated it]
it..[the trial]..was purely re teaching religion
in science-class..[full stop]..

to make it more
is spin

""From..Discovery of God:

“(B)oth biological..and cultural evolution..""

that deliberate..early joinder
dont mean..they are the same thing

two evolution concepts....?
""seem to be greatly shaped
by the principle..of natural selection""

lol...'nature selecting'..is gods way
selection...by what we love most in a mate

thats not science...thats god!

if *science selection..
name it science selection

if natural*...[that belongs to god]

[N/S..is A THEORY..
certainly not science method
and cetainly not religeon...its peer based fantasia][theor-ry]

""or survival of the fittest,""..

also definitivly
NOT a SCIENCE..or religious concept
[in fact the anti-thesis..inherant..in love thy neighbour]

two of gods concepts..abUSED
to turn us away..from god..to religeon or science[faulse god heads]

both not god!
[its just too clever..
if its not god..its not god...[full stop]

thus missdirects/leads us away
from gods infinite NATURAL/good
nature/nurture..into a quasi theory..[evoluny tunes..and sci lance]

two of gods methods/means[gifts]...conceptualised...lol
""which refers to the tendency..for better-adapted organisms..or cultural elements..to prevail over the less well-adapted.""

with the wolverines..devouring the sheep..
by blinding them..

with peer revieuwed spin

jesus told us we can know god[good one to one]
the personal god within us all

emmanuel[god within us all]

""Keep in mind that
I am not referring..to the evolution..of new species,"""

no just editing [re programing our minds]
with two bad concepts..so poluted,..that it may well be best to stick with basics..[natural god given ones..god gifts freely to us all]

''not refering to new species]..neither does the species..science/..behind the genus..theo-ry..[of evolvlution]

""but to natural selection
within the “species”..known as human cultures""'...lol

""or""

lol its so patheticly
designed to confuse and confound
impress those ignorant of the peers theories..enslaving their minds

""or,even to more greatly..lol..restrict the term,""'

lol

""I am concerned with natural selection
among variations within the “species”..called religion.”""

yes i can agree
with where that went
but dispute the logic..that took it there

god is one family
religeon...a species within the genus
no provable genetic joinder..[linkage]

but heck..there is no species of 'religeon'
[read evolution;..no species called religeon]

each religeon..would be a new genus
and xtianisty..have..one thousand plus species..
within its genesis

no its poppy cok
but few could understand let alone refute its con-cept
[ignores the role of the precept][cause action re-action]

even if a dead incorperate corpse
like church or state..is a legal person...
evolution evolves only the living]..and 'the church' is dead

it resists any evolving
just like the other peers holding their own science theor-ry

evolutionary stasis
then one better mutation emerges
but if its not about god..its just another
peer revieuable cancer evolution..

its new rage mess-age..
and its latest messanger

its more like gmo...
[wont kill ya till the third generation goes sterile
but we will all have mad cows disease well before that'

one under god,

If I understood you properly, you do not like Stark’s sociological writings, in particular his definition of religion. That is certainly your prerogative, and I suspect that many others - Christians, atheists or what you like - will not like Stark’s historico-sociological perspective on religion.

Nevertheless, there are also those of us - with or without sociological qualifications, theists or atheists - who will find his findings and interpretations insightful, which is also the reason I introduced him here.

Thanks for the links, George, and I learned more than I set out to by my question.

George just wanted to say thank you.
While not intending to take much part here I see your informed contribution as a breath of fresh air.
Links have been very good and it has been a pleasure to read all contributions.
As I will not intrude again I will say as I leave you and those you converse with here add to the forum.
My front row forward contributions, head down and charge is less effective.
But I do think humanity, most of us needs a God.
And that is both why we invented them and continue to do so.
And why in a different way Gods continue to evolve.

Dear Belly,

Some form of religion has exited in every society
that we know of. Religious beliefs and practices
are so ancient that they can be traced into
prehistory, perhaps as far back as 100,000 or more
years ago. Even the primitive Neanderthal people of
that time, it seems, had some concept of a
supernatural realm that lay beyond everyday reality.

Among the fossilised remains of these cave dwellers,
anthropologists have found evidence of funeral
ceremonies in the form of flowers and artifacts that
were buried with the dead, presumably to accompany
them on the journey to an afterlife.

Although religion is a universal social institution, it
takes a multitude of forms. Believers may worship gods,
ancestors, or totems; they may practice solitary
meditation, frenzied rituals, or solemn prayer.

Most definitions of religion that we're familiar with
have been based by ethnocentric Judeo-Christian ideas
about religion. But obviously religion can't just be
defined in terms of Western religious tradition alone.
Emile Durkheim, one of the first sociologists to study
religion pointed out that a single feature is common
to all religions: a sharp distinction between the
sacred and the profane.

I won't go into great detail here - but suffice to say
that religion can be summed up as a system of community
shared beliefs and rituals that are oriented toward
some sacred, supernatural realm. The phenomenon is of
such universal social importance that it has long been,
and remains, a major focus of sociological interest.

at the risk of derailing the thread
lets mention swedenberg..[who made mention..that we[unique ammoung all physical 'creation'..have the ability to grasp the meaning of words

the rest get their advice in real time
but we can read the words of the dead..[or spiritually too far advanced]

see no one can communicate from the highest levels[of spirit]
back to the lower...[thus god sends angels]..but if we can learn..[chose]..to learn..from the tree of wisdom..[direct]..

well so be it
we can thank adams...[or rather eves]..misstake
adam got angels..BUT..we got the words

thats unique
werree the only place in the universe
where the lower hells can commune direct to the lower heavens
as well as into the material realm..

huhmans have only been arround
for 80/100 thousands or so years

only used writting..but in relitivly recent times
pre this..it was all by word of mouth..[spruikers]
specialists...linking into our mind energy
offering their visions/solutions
direct into our mind

animal instinct
'natural selection'

autonimous reflex...if its by 'natural mean's..
god sustains it..allows it..its nature
we are never alone..

ho ho ho

Graham,

There is growing evidence that having some sort of religious faith and being affiliated with a religious group does improve health and wellbeing.

So you are right.

But, seriously, how can doctors and other healthcare professionals make use of this?

A doctor can prescribe medication. A doctor may advise a patient to get more exercise.

But can a doctor really tell a patient to get religion?

How could someone like me acquire religious faith? I don’t think I could believe the core tenets of any religious faith even if I tried.

I don’t believe the ten commandments were handed down on Mount Sinai.

I don’t believe Jesus died for my sins and rose from the dead on the third day.

I don’t believe an angel called Gibril transmitted the koran verbatim to someone called Muhammad. I'm not even sure Muhammad existed.

I'm not sure how I COULD believe any of these things.

I don’t know anything about Hinduism but I suspect I would find it hard to believe in any faith that taught cows were sacred.

What does that leave?

I'm afraid I shall just have to live with the fact that I'm going to be less happy and healthy than I might have been were I able to subscribe to some religion.

Perhaps it's like having a congenital disease. Some people have to live with being born blind. Maybe I and those like me have to learn to live with being born spiritually blind.

So it goes.

Actually after some reflection I have revised my position regarding my previous statements. I think that comparing religion to anti-psychotic drugs,regular sex and exercise is not valid. These other treatments and lifestyle interventions have been shown to work well above placebo controls whereas religion has not. In fact placebos and religion share a great many attributes, not the least that they require a belief in their efficacy for any effect to manifest.

Recommending placebos for treatable conditions is an ethical minefield, so I can understand their reluctance to recommend them.

The article highlights the relationship between discriminatory behaviour and wellbeing. This is not startling in itself, it is easy to understand how negative feelings towards others might manifest an adverse physiological reaction.

Militant atheists or faith based fundamentalists who do not embrace a secular approach may all fall victim to this sydnrome. Any sort of bigotry (race, gays, religion, gender) would no doubt result in a similar finding.

From my own humble experience and without debating the philosophers, being comfortable and content in one's own skin goes a long way in accepting that others may choose a different skin and find contentment or enlightenment in different ways. It may be that those who possess a strong religious faith have found their 'nirvana'.

Those who hold a faith rather than seeking 'literal' truth (in a rudimentary sense) may have an advantage in these stakes. What is truth afterall?

Philosophies or approaches that come from the perspective of looking outward and stressing generosity in the care of others (less of the 'self') is also self-fulfilling in tems of wellbeing. A win-win if you like. Better for societies all round.

There is still much to be learned about the influence of psychology on human physiology and there is no reason to dispute the finding that spirituality plays a part.

In a mixed society, secularism provides a positive environment to foster wellbeing and works toward reducing discrimination than the alternative fostered by fundamentalism of any variety.

As stevenmeyer alludes, even accepting that religious faith may foster wellbeing, for an atheist one cannot just deny their 'truth'. If one has honestly and with integrity concluded religion to be a human construct it defeats the purpose to establish a dishonest facade in the hope of achieving wellbeing (from an atheist's perspective).

In other words it would be dishonest, but it is not dishonest to acknowledge others do not share that worldview and truly and with integrity believe as strongly in a supernatural force or God.

Graham,

I am not a psychologist, even less a psychiatrist, but you might want to check Viktor Frankl, one of the “holy trinity” of Viennese psychologists (Sigmund Freud and Alfred Adler being the other two), the founder of the logotherapy school in psychiatry, with his emphasis on meaning:

"Rather than power or pleasure, logotherapy is founded upon the belief that it is the striving to find a meaning in one's life that is the primary, most powerful motivating and driving force in humans. " (Wikipedia).

Maybe religion is one of these contexts - certainly not the only one but perhaps the most important one - where such meaning can be found. Certainly Frankl thought so; see his 1946 book Man’s Search for Meaning, explaining his concept of logotherapy, and based on his personal experience in Holocaust concentration camps. The book ends with

“In the concentration camps, for example, in this living laboratory and on this testing ground, we watched and witnessed some of our comrades behave like swine while others behaved like saints. Man has both potentialities within himself; which one is actualized depends on decisions but not on conditions … After all, man is that being who has invented the gas chambers of Auschwitz; however, he is also that being who has entered those gas chambers upright, with the Lord's Prayer or the Shema Yisrael on his lips”

Maybe this is relevant also to what stevenlmeyer, and especially pelican, wrote.

Sorry folks but you seem to be missing the bleeding obvious.

I, for my sins (what one puts oneself through to chase a girl), spent a number of years in the warm embrace of a fundamentalist church.

A version of the following would happen every Sunday night.

"Please Lord we pray for our brother Jimmy who has broken his hip this week, please help him rise above the pain and to heal quickly Lord"

"And please heap your blessings Jesus on Jenny who is looking for work. Please help her support her three children with her talents as a hairdresser."

"And Jesus we pray that you support Simon and his family as we all remember the loss of Sally last year in that tragic accident. We know Lord she is at peace with you enjoying your love and protection."

"And Lord we pray that you guide Luke, Ben and Samantha as they study for their VCE exams."

With about three hundred good natured souls in attendance you can be sure that Jimmy would have received many visits, a cheap or free wheel chair would be found, warm and very nutritious meals would be sailing through the door (Christian Fundamentalist women can cook).

Jenny would have work within a week but not before receiving both money and food.

Sally would be remembered and Simon and his family would not be alone during the anniversary.

And the three students would study even harder knowing others were thinking of them.

Believe me it might sound trite but it works, quite powerfully sometimes, and certainly enough to show up in statistical analysis.

As our family sizes get smaller the benefits of being in an extended family such as offered by a Church are very real.

Indeed csteele, I can see how it works. And not a God in sight, even in a fundamentalist church. Amazing.

I wonder why doctors don't recommend it more.

man is not meant to be alone
so the church has charity...to ensure no one needs be

but its not the docter to say..go
nor the church..[any sinnergog]..to say go away

all the things steven listed..arnt re god
but messengers..[and their mess-age quick fix]
ignore the show steven...watch the showman..[god]

see how even the most beast..yet loves their own
we are men..so we can love all that good created

post limitations..divide the mess-age

contuinued from
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=13036&page=0

""individual mourning,..when one of his skin cells dies.""

yes egsactly
god KNOWS energy cant be created,,NOR destroyed
he sustains every lifes energy[that we do to the least..we do to him

""the sloppy use of language..has always annoyed me"""

egsactly...what does survival of the fittest
have to do with the one surving all living.

no death honours the good of life[god]/

""Surely the question..should be whether or not
consciousness and sense of identity survive?""

they do...in total
not a skin cell is left from the story that is you
or i or any...[even the least most hated despised...its all needed to bring us to the atonement..[at one meant][that is most surely all good can be..and only one god is]

""Jung's 'collective unconscious'.""

together we are so great
be one with one and other

""but hardly of much use to me..as an individual.""

man is not designed..to spend eternity alone
[i know im still giving it a go]

only one..is truelly alone
[without equal[peer]
[him]..all good
god

i loved..Heinlein's 'Stranger in a Strange Land),

i grok

""Again, evidence is distinctly lacking.
No doubt, one day I'll be dying to find out.""

we all do
and the minute we know its all true
some just say lord...thankyou

i know your love grace and mercy
now how can i help..[do as you saw jesus do?]
not as the ursurping church orders..[guilts]...us to do

4 me..its about god
good..to copy the good i do see
even in those decieved and decieving

love good by trying to love neighbour..
not his wife/child/dog..nor asssssssets

Dear csteele,

It does work!

When I was diagnosed with bowel cancer - and during my stays
in hospital - I prayed like there was not tomorrow. And for
me I thought there wasn't. Now I'm not a good Catholic, I
admit that. I'm too critical of the church, and the ruthless
powerful men that run it - especially Cardinal Pell whose
the antithesis to what Christ stands for (in my opinion).
And I believe in live and let live. But I found that prayers
helped in my time of need.

Dear Lexi,

Of course it does. The power of the mind is a marvellous thing. Scientists and the medical profession spend literally billions of dollars each year combating the placebo effect when trialling the efficacy of new drugs.

“The response to placebo in these trials was exceptionally large, duplicating more than 80% of the improvement observed in the drug groups. In contrast, the effect of placebo on pain is estimated to be about 50% of the response to pain medication”
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0050045

I have read somewhere that the only condition that does not respond to the power of prayer was of the heart. They surmised there was some stress to the patient involved knowing others were praying for them.

If the placebo can mimic drug effectiveness in treating some conditions imagine how much more important it would have been before these medicines were available. Perhaps this is why there is such a strong propensity in our species for God creation.

It would be interesting to do a study of unbelievers within Christian families to see if the gains are 'environmental' i.e. caring folk, or spiritual. My guess is it is a combination of both.

Lexi and csteele

While you have both found this sense of community through your faith, I believe that wherever people group together good can come whether it is an environmental group, a hobby club or the local P&C. I am sure religious adherence does provide contentment and meaning to many of different faiths.

I have been lucky enough to witness many examples of the human spirit. It was evident, for example, at my children's secular public school when many lost their homes and possessions during the bushfires and where people rallied around when a family was dealing with cancer or other tragedy.

Whatever the 'force' or source that creates this natural human element of compassion is not as important as the existence of the very real and human capacity to care for others. Without it religion is just an empty receptacle.

As a non-believer it is difficult to explain to those who believe this good can only come from a belief in a creator, but I believe goodness is naturally present, it is only life experiences (maybe genetic leanings) that alter that basic premise. It is a waste of spirit to convince people of something of which they cannot see (both theist and non-theist). The important thing is that this natural human spirit is present however it is sourced.

My view is that religion facilitates this natural urge or human spirit mostly for the better. Like any institution it can be thwarted and evil done in it's name but that is the fault of individuals. That is true of any dogma or group religious or otherwise.

What has to be kept in perspective is that dogma does not get in the way of the goals however one defines them (compassion, tolerance, acceptance, love etc).

I would recommend religion even though I regularly change my mind about my belief in God. My husband is a constant believer and thinks I am going through the religious desert at present.
Whenever I question my belief in God, I frequently think about all He has provided for us. I then think about how there is so much pain and suffering in the World and know that if there is a caring God how can he/she allow it.I'm told that I can't possibly understand all this from God's perspective and if little children starve to death,for example,they are going to heaven anyway so don't be too distraught.I'm also writing from the perspective of one who is fairly economically comfortable and healthy.
Saying all that, religion is a comfort.I am a Catholic and despite it's bad press lately (I think that about 3% of priests and nuns have been molesters)I turn to my religion constantly and go to church regularly. There I hear words of inspiration, where love is the focus and friendship is prominent. I,personally, am a better person because of my religion I'm almost sure of that. I reflect on my life in the light of Jesus' good example. I think I am definitely more tolerant,hopefully more forgiving and my social concience is sharper-for me anyway.

i so often find the materialistic vieuw..a hinderance..
to getting how an eternal immortal thinks..

see spirits must voice
[activate]..a desire..to incarnate materially
they are shown..the roles available...and have full concent[for that lifes events to unfold as it will][see each and everything...is important to reveal the full story of gods glory]

thus in the sick/starving we see
the strong spirits..willing to endure the suffering...
so us lesser stong spirits may seek to heal the ill..to the greater good

[allowing greater honour..to those seeking to end the suffering]..

without the 'victim'...there can be no hero..
we forget that this material illusion seems so real..
to us..egsisting..in this materialistic learning oppertuinity

its not so much what we think
but what we chose to do..or resisted doing

to know god..is as simple
as trying to do good for other..[selflessly]
that we do for the least..we do for the greater good..[god]

sometimes we will
entertain angles unaware
more often than we might think

[and not just angels..fallen angels
know how to speak with that still quiet inner voice..of conscience/un con-see ance too]

often its not what we did [anything]
by why...what we expected in return

good for gods sake
and his creation

Dear pelican,

You said; "While you have both found this sense of community through your faith, I believe that wherever people group together good can come whether it is an environmental group, a hobby club or the local P&C."

Lexi and I were speaking about two entirely different things. Lexi found comfort and strength through her personal prayer regime and as stated it can be quite effective.

I was addressing the very real material benefits of belonging to a large community group. Where a church, especially a fundamentalist one, has it over the other organizations you mentioned is it's confessional nature. While we might hear about a bowls club member's struggle with alcohol or gambling or cancer through the grape vine in a church everybody hears about it and there is a coming together to help or comfort.

In my experience the mainstream churches do it a little differently for instance there might be a prayer vigil for the Haitian earthquake victims or the Japanese tsunami. In a fundi church it is far more about the daily lives of its members. Sure there is a sense of doing God's work in that setting and that is important but for this topic the rewards, both physical and mental, are very material.

There is also a sense of being protected if trouble comes. We might think of universal health cover an extension of this to the rest of the community. I am happy conceding the instigators of many of our social services legislation would have been Church going folk, wanting to take the benefits they experienced within the flock to the greater community.

Hi csteele

"There is also a sense of being protected if trouble comes. We might think of universal health cover an extension of this to the rest of the community. I am happy conceding the instigators of many of our social services legislation would have been Church going folk, wanting to take the benefits they experienced within the flock to the greater community.'

I can certainly see the benefits of this wider community but only if it remains true and like any organisation is not corrupted. I cannot comment about social services legislation or it's origins, particularly as so many fundamentalist Christians in the US seem dogmatically opposed to any form of welfare or distribution of wealth via health care while the rich continue to receive tax breaks.

Certainly some Christians and some atheists, some buddhists, some Muslims, etc all aspire to this sense of community.

Human variation means we cannot label Christianity or any other group as being wholly good or wholly bad. I would see it as whatever works for the greater good and as long as power structures are not exploited in using religious authority for ill purpose.

Praying for a community after disaster may not be as helpful as on-the-ground practical support and care, but that is a natural reaction from an atheist I suppose. However, I can see that prayer is important for some and I would not seek to deny or diminish it's effect.

In light of Graham's post, wellbeing comes from within and I concede this 'englightenment' can come from many sources that inherently do no harm.

I once toyed with the idea of Christianity, more in the style of a Stephen Crabbe perhaps than say of a Peter Sellick or a Cardinal Pell but could not get past the incredulity of a supernatural 'idol' in my own appraisal. It felt dishonest, despite the wonderful richness of ideas such as 'do unto others'.

The Bible was disappointing. I was surprised at some of the passages, taken literally many were disconcerting, rather than finding love there was fear, hate, revenge particularly for the unbeliever; and women did not fare well. The emphasis was on obedience and forgiveness for sins rather than doing right. I found it to be too negative as regards the human spirit even though I acknowledge the majority of Christians do not possess this negativity.

Perhaps Buddhism is more my style, although there is also a supernatural element in reincarnation. I like the positive aspects in striving for enlightenment through a generosity to others, self improvement and overcoming worldly desires (consumerism etc).

I recently enjoyed a program about Quakers. I liked the quiet way they went about their business and their interest in protecting 'God's' environment and being true to the principles of a simple life. The Quakers also started Greenpeace initially against nuclear testing in the US which caused cancers in innocent particpants and citizens before GP branche out into other areas.

The argument that today's atheists benefit from a Christian heritage may be true to some extent, it is difficult to categorically dismiss outright other than to argue the human propensity for good is inherent. Maybe the process is an evolutionary one so to speak, religion being a human construct to facilitate this 'community process' and natural goodness - the Bible was written in more barbaric times.

I don't claim to have answers, only questions but am generally content in my 'spiritual skin' while always seeking to do better.

Excuse me for a little diversion.
My first post here admitted my view belief can be a benefit.
Some charge me,wrongly in my view, with posting in heat.
About politics and this subject.
I have no Axe to grind against belief.
But against some who twist that belief.
My dream of a better world in Christ did not leave me biter.
I even understand the slow death of our belief is a negative for our every day behavior.
I am once again full of deep gloom this morning.
Every day it seems news papers tell of pedophilia in Church or Church boarding schools.
This morning the head of a Catholic Church district, who over looked charges against his fellow Priests, was found with thousands of teen age male porn photos.
Those teens wearing Holly things in the photos.
And, while reading those papers online ABC news 24, 6 hours of repeatedly repeated news, 4 victims spoke of the hell they suffered here.
Some suffer because of belief, and its sometimes the parents belief that will not let them believe their child.
Are Church subject to infection from such? are some not even believers who join for other reasons.
And are questioners like me right or wrong to do so.
Some pain exists by my actions , but is inaction an answer?

holy texts are guide books...must be read as such
not rule books..[they have a mix of materialist heaven and materialistic hell]..to learn of god [good]..read the good bits

if your in hell..you quote the bad bits
revealing to all your in hell[especially to your kids]

bellicose quote..""Some suffer..because of belief,""

diss-belief...is the sufferance
many suffer..via the beliefs they diss..believe
[rejecting love,...hope/grace mercy/light love life
thus chosing sufferance]

""sometimes the parents belief
that will not let them believe..their child.""

often children reject their parents 'belief'..
especially when they see their DISSBELIEF..or their belief..is causing them..to suffer.

""Are Church[ies?]..subject to infection from such?""

their own kids..*judge them
as much as..the parents taught them..'to judge'

""are some not even believers..who join for other reasons.""

we all do the wrong/right things
for the wrong or right reasons

the good thing is
god dont judge..either way
[more shall be a given]

""And are questioners..like me
right or wrong to do so."''

there is no truelly right
or truelly wrong

your questioning..your honesty..
your being the real you..helps the kids to be real too

""Some pain exists..by my actions
but is inaction..an answer?""

never mate
it all depends..on what we intended to do
if good intent..its all good

if its nanny state oppressing
in ignorance or not..its oppression
but why oppression...when there are other ways?

those who mandated sulfer..to make tobacco burn..
then mandated an-other poisen..to stop it burning..

[well they]..support the chemical medical/law/govtern mental
and other oppresive colluding vile...

[by their works..will we know them]
but never judge them...

cause it joins their vile
into..our own soul..

forgive
forget

questioners question
forgivers forgive
judges judge

u be you
ok?

Dear Pelican,

You wrote; "In light of Graham's post, wellbeing comes from within and I concede this 'englightenment' can come from many sources that inherently do no harm."

I'm not sure how you arrived at that from Graham's post since I saw it as directed at the health aspects of the consequences of a religious life. I'm just describing a mechanism by which these gains are realized.

I recall an interview Phillip Adams did with an Australian longtime aid worker in Africa. Though not sympathetic to their views she conceded that the fundi lot were the most effective on the ground. They would ask her what was required and compared to other groups offering help they quickly and efficiently got on with the job. The same record stands after Hurricane Katrina where church groups shouldered and enormous part of the burden. There are still victims being housed in fundi homes.

"Human variation means we cannot label Christianity or any other group as being wholly good or wholly bad."

Of course we can't. My brother-in-law who ran a small fundi church for a while had one of his more troubled flock arrange to have his place burgled three times and that of his brother twice. All on a Sunday morning of course.

But just like collectivism gave us everything from the trade union movement which provided a mechanism to ford the fast flowing waters of the industrial revolution to kibbutzs which helped forge a new state and communism to tear down centuries of serfdom, fundi churches are just another mechanism of their time and place.

Certain degrees of personal freedom, including freedom of thought, are given up whenever we join any group. Indeed while very much not a joiner I did become a member for a while of the Australian Democrats, a party that was possibly the most accommodating of different views, but even there the temptation to buy into the whole package was strong.

Cont...

Cont...

As humans most of us have the propensity to grow into then out of these groups and I think with age, and the inevitable dose of cynicism, your chance to be a fundi may have past you by. I am happy for my brief sojourn with them in my teens.

Yet you do show the signs of the individualism that perhaps may still put you in contention for the older variety, therefore I will use your excellent example of the Quakers to illustrate the pitfalls.

'Amazing Grace' is a Christian favorite no matter what the denomination, yet the author John Newton, contrary to popular thought, did not have his conversion moment when recoiling from the evil of the trade in slaves, but because he thought his life would be lost during a storm. In fact he went on to Captain slave ships for a few more years.

The Quakers were the ones who most clearly saw the evil and enlisted Mr Wilberforce to be their spokesperson in parliament.

Any conversion isn't going to mean much to the rest of the world unless married with an empowering collective.