The ITT List
Saturday Oct 8, 2005 8:08 am
Get thee behind me, God
Ah ha!
RELIGIOUS belief can cause damage to a society, contributing towards high murder rates, abortion, sexual promiscuity and suicide, according to research published today.
According to the study, belief in and worship of God are not only unnecessary for a healthy society but may actually contribute to social problems.
The study counters the view of believers that religion is necessary to provide the moral and ethical foundations of a healthy society.
38 comments ·
Please Login to Comment register a new account »
To participate in discussions, please register an account.
SAVE 53% OFF
Comments
Lord, hear our prayer:
Thou hast made us for Thyself, & our hearts are restless until they rest in Thee.
amen
what’s so hard about this? science is more religious than religion. religion has no place in government. what good a man gain the whole world & lose his soul?
YOU CAN"T SERVE GOD & MAMMON BOTH. Jesus pretty much sums it up in Mark 12: 30-31:
“And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, & all thy soul, & with all thy mind, & with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. And the second is like, namely this, thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself: there is none other commandment greater than these.”
the church is here for thanksgiving,peace, fellowship when we all have our cross to bear, & for trying to do some good among the most afflicted, NOT so slick preachers can get on tv, & try to BUY-up GOD DAMNED political power. the real foe for all of us, & what power blind fools can’t see, is the war-like spirit of in each of us,that says: “i’ve got to be right at any cost.”
on the other hand, who can sit by while wrong-headed people wreck things for everyone? & so i suppose the war will continue, until nihilism is crowned victorious…
Dave;
You and I and every conscious being in the whole universe, are born of flesh to suffer and bound to die. That puts us all in the same boat. None of us has the power to determine what love and comfort they will receive in this life, however with commitment, support and discipline we are all capable of cultivating a spirit of loving kindness in our selves.
Does ones particular religious affiliation or lack thereof matter more than ones personal commitment to refrain from harm and act with compassion?
Some studies have shown that prayer helps people heal faster. Some studies have shown that even when the person being prayed for was unaware of the prayers, they still got better faster.
Some studies have shown that people who have faith live longer and happier lives.
The rise of civilization itself is tied to religion.
It seems not at all surprising, to me at least, that such a powerful force as faith can lead to both good and bad. Same with love, for that matter. . .
I seriously doubt if the study took into account the simple fact that the first two weapons in the arsenal of a warmonger are religion and patriotism (sound like anybody we know?)
Also before this thread gets going to far I think it needs to be mentioned that the “Religious Right” has nothing to do with spirtuality or religion. It is a term more correctly assigned to those who use there own church attendance as a final and unchallengable proof that they are “RIGHT” about everything.
But kids, why do we fight ? This is a wretched thing to have to debate about, because no debate is possible.
We’ve got differing epistemologies. The science folks have their Theory—which is an unfortunate word, since it’s a technical term that has a totally different meaning in science than it does in regular usage. The religious folks have their Book and their Revelations.
Since justification of what is true proceeds from different and antithetical backgrounds, this debate is not winnable since it’s not possible. Dig ? It’s a drag.
Personally, I’m on the Science-y side since science doesn’t make any claims whatsoever about morality. When scientists do, they’re speaking as private citizens—even if they think they’re not.
The Religious folks make all sorts of claims about morality—but since there are all sorts of competing theses that derive from the Books and the Revelations (Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Jew, Shinto and the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster)—I’d prefer to stick with the law and leave God to private life.
God’s a big boy. He can stick up for himself.
I’m sure the Religious nutcases can drag out facts about how atheism leads to social nastiness (Stalinist Russia), patricide, eating one’s pets and bad breath, just as the Science-y nutcases can drag out facts like the above study. The point is that these studies aren’t worth discussing.
i think it is interesting to discuss the difference between religious belief and spiritual practice and personal faith. If it can be shown that the latter are not dependent on the former, it implies there might be way to understand these issues empirically. My memory of those studies of the effectiveness of prayer is that they showed no difference between those who were praying in a religious context and those who were merely focusing on thoughts of good health directed at the suffering parties.
The rise of civilization is likewise linked to murderous warfare and oppressive tyranny. The concept of egalitarian democracy in the western world view is only a few hundred years old.
What I find more interesting than those somewhat spurious ‘prayer’ studies, are studies of the physiological changes in long term meditators.
It is worth noting that science and religion address copmletely different spheres of life. Science is into “how”, which often can actually be determined. Religion is interested in a significantly expanded realm, including such favorites as: what happens to us when we die; how should we behave; is there more than the physical universe; how can i find inner peace; why am i here; etc etc etc. Science is very quiet on these type of issues.
In almost all cases where science and religion are at odds, i side with science. Not because it is right, but rather because when it is wrong, it has a self correcting mechanism, almost completely lacking in religion.
It does seem to me, that if one is seeking a complete and whole understanding of life, the where, when, what and how questions of science need be in general agreement with who and why questions abrogated by religion and philosophy. There is no reason why ones religious views should not be self-corrective given a decent understanding of the methodologies of science. If one looks at the history of religions with a discerning eye, one can see that in spite of how conservatively based on scripture, doctrine, and dogma a given religion may be, those underlying beliefs have exhibited a evolutionary tendency of re-interpretation in the light of expanding knowledge and experience. Even the apparent reactionary doctrines of fundamentalist religious factions are passionately concerned with recreating their widely discredited and excessively denotative interpretations of belief in the context of their modern rebuttals.
There is a difference between the CAUSE of a thing and simple CORRELATIONS that can be observed. The original study made no causal assertions about the statistical observations. To do so would be nothing short of pure intellectual dishonesty. That said, interesting debate!
It seems there are as many instances where science ‘catches up’ with the assumed-antiquated notions of origins, biology and physics. Enough to constitute a 2-way street, No?
To the original
One limitation of the study is it is confined to societies where the dominant religious belief is Christianity. I’d be curious what similar studies in SE Asia or Muslim countries would show. That would be controversial!
Ran across this essay this morning. Caution against drinking coffee while reading.
http://www.counterpunch.org/tripp10092005.html
Thanks for posting that! ben tripp sounds like a very unhappy and confused guy…
I thought Ben Tripp sounded like someone who really has it together. I agree with his philosophy. It doesn’t matter if life has some kind of true meaning, and life gains the meaning we give it.
Religion should be more about how to live than how to die or about what happens when you die, or even if you are pleasing or displeasing some “higher power.”
In addition, life is a process, not an event. So is dying. So is the continuation of life after others are gone.
It has been my continual experience that my friends who have the least religion have the highest morality. It is they who believe in helping the poor, in peace and kindness, in tolerance and love, in including children in their activities rather than separating adults and children in some kind of artificial hierarchy. There are many, many good, kind, loving religious folks out there who are the same way, but everything I have read and experienced about the hardcore rightwing fundamentalists is that they believe the poor are poor by choice, that individual responsibility is the key to success at all levels, that children should be seen and not heard, that severe punishment is the answer to most of the ills of the world, and that war is synomymous with patriotism.
And just to reinforce the basic premise of the article and the study it discusses, anyone notice how the “red” religious states in the US are the ones with the highest divorce rates, highest teen pregnancy rates, highest crime, and highest spousal abuse? There is more unemployment, as well as higher school drop-out rates and illiteracy in the red states.
I don’t know. Maybe the red states “need” fundamentalist religion more due to their social and moral dysfunction. Perhaps their religion makes it possible for them to “sin” and obtain redemption, so they don’t have to behave as well. Perhaps ignorance breeds religion as well as crime, violence, and family problems.
In any case, it all seems so obvious to an agnostic like me that you can live a highly moral life without resorting to an authoritarian religion with a punitive god. For the truly moral, it’s not about reward and punishment. Pragmatism is a good moral compass too. Not hurting other people, loving and being kind to your enemies (because if people are happy they don’t hurt other people), treating and loving others as you would like to be treated and loved, sharing, tolerance, understanding, in fact all of the teachings of Jesus, all are pragmatic.
If we choose to fill our lives with positive activities and create our own meaning in a joyous, generous, and loving way, we don’t need dogma or promises of rewards or threats of eternal damnation. The choice to live in harmony rather than the blind following of religious dictums results in humans who want to do what is right because it works for all of us, not because they are afraid not to.
To reply to the interesting question posted by Lumious Beauty concerning the role of religion in other countries - just take a quick look at the way women are treated, the violence, repression, and the attitude toward anyone who does not agree with fundamentalist Muslim teachings to get an idea of whether or not fundamentalism in other religions contributes to a more moral society or not.
I suppose it depends on your idea of morality.
“Thanks for posting that! ben tripp sounds like a very unhappy and confused guy? “
You’re welcome, Bart. You sound a little testy yourself.
I did a speech in 9th grade about how Religion is a very bad thing. My Catholic teacher gave me an A.
The ultimate goal of god-fearing folks is to get into heaven. Each religion has their own set of rules; suicide bombers will get in and get their hundreds of virgins, evangelicals will get in if they convert non-believers, some christians will get in no matter what they do as long as they believe in Jesus/God at the end. As long as you meet the set conditions, it really doesn’t matter if you give some boy a BJ when you’re 12 to get him to like you, hate everyone who isn’t white-hetero-American, take a CEO pay-raise while you lay-off your employees, etc. As long as you’re in heaven when you die, that’s all that matters, right?
otter - your view of religion is quite limited. Sorta equivalent to deciding that metal is bad, because guns are made of it. . .
One might wonder if religion can be a source of comfort and stremgth. If it might be able to foster a sense of community. If it might be able to allow us to see more, not less, of what is really important. Sorta equivalent to deciding that metal is good, because plows can be made from it.
Of course, metal is neither good nor bad. It is what you do with it that matters. Ditto religion, or so i believe.
I came across this essay a few days ago:
http://bigdaddymalcontent.blogspot.com/2005/10/why-are-christians-so-fucking-dumb.html
Sums it up for me.
Great good can come from religion, however more often the bad that comes from it’s misuse is way uglier than the good from it is pretty. I understand the danger from generalizing, however I don’t come to conclusions quickly or easily. Honestly hoping that I will see and hear enough to change my mind soon.
Luminous Beauty - thank you for the link to the Tripp essay on Counterpunch. I really enjoyed it and thanks again for the warning to be careful with my coffee.
Bart - good call on the ” CAUSE of a thing and simple CORRELATIONS ” regarding the original Timesonline article. Non sequitur. It does not follow.
LeeAnn - you hit the nail on the head when you said “For the truly moral, it?s not about reward and punishment. Pragmatism is a good moral compass too. Not hurting other people, loving and being kind to your enemies (because if people are happy they don?t hurt other people), treating and loving others as you would like to be treated and loved, sharing, tolerance, understanding, in fact all of the teachings of Jesus, all are pragmatic.” AMEN - thanks for mentioning this or I would have had to.
Wolf - ” is neither good nor bad. It is what you do with it that matters. Ditto religion, or so i believe. ” AMEN again
The author of the study the Times reported about is a Hoover fellow- a right wing think tank. It may be irony was the motivating factor for the study?
Idle hands are the Devil’s workshop, progressives.
There’s a real nasty anti-religion, anti-God streak on the Left. I’m more leftwing than rightwing, and I can tell you that you do a lot of damage to your cause. Which makes one wonder what it really is.
You’re either a part of the solution or a part of the problem.
Everyone has something to prove. Personally, I never want to shut someone, or some group, down for expressing views ‘honestly’ had. Do folks have such a need to vent that this is what they must resort to doing?! Are progressives so beat up and disheartened that they have nothing better to do than attack, not someone in particular for doing actually doing something bad, or anything like that. Rather, It’s just… religion. As if capitalism, or socialism or many other isms aren’t also systems of belief.
I personally believe that most religion, including most Christian religions, are false. That doesn’t ingratiate me with you, I know. And that doesn’t determine whether I hold to my beliefs or not. Sorry. Is that what you want? Do you like mob rule thinking and behavior?
And do you think that everyone who calls him- or herself a Christian is regarded by Jehovah as one? Is George Bush a Christian just because he says so? Maybe it’s convenient for you venters to think so, but that doesn’t make it so. What you call yourself is not always what you are.
Interestingly (I ‘was’ a Bible student and a Jehovah’s Witness), the Bible clearly indicates that Armageddon starts once the United Nations in some manner backs an anti-religion, anti-God program of some sort. The details aren’t there, I’m afraid. Believe what you want. It’s a free universe. But you will reap what you sow.
It’s not anti-religion, Arby, it’s anti-hate, and that’s the message coming from christians these days. Attack, attack, attack. Attack homosexuals; attack liberals; attack single mothers. What is the first syllable of the word christian? Christ. Who is Christ? Christ is Jesus. Who did Jesus say should be attacked? No one. On the contrary, Jesus’ message - over and over and over again - is to help, not attack. Why is it that so many so called christians get this wrong? And why is it than when a very small minority of the population speaks out about this obvious hypocrisy, christians squeal like stuck pigs about ‘intolerance?’ Christians are the attackers, not the victims. I realize not all christians fit this mold, but it’s the overwhelming majority.
Arby:
Now that you’ve vented, don’t you feel better?
I’m not sure who or what you are talking about, when you say the left has an anti-religious streak. It seems to be a general critique directed at the posters on this thread. I haven’t read any one here make anything as close as a blanket condemnation of religion as you do. (The gist of what you are saying, as I understand it, is that all religious views except yours are false. I hope I’m wrong.) I think we all are in agreement with what you say about one not being necessarily what one calls oneself. We’ve all heard the story of the wolf in sheep’s clothing. Everybody knows what happens when you let the fox into the henhouse. It would be a mistake to think every religious person (or every leftist) is a sheep or chicken. I wonder if you comprehend the difference between rational ‘belief’ and blind faith.
Perhaps you could answer the question I posed to Dave at the beginning of this thread:
“You and I and every conscious being in the whole universe, are born of flesh to suffer and bound to die.? That puts us all in the same boat.? None of us has the power to determine what love and comfort they will receive in this life, however with commitment, support and discipline we are all capable of cultivating a spirit of loving kindness in our selves.
Does one’s particular religious affiliation, or lack thereof, matter more than one’s personal commitment to refrain from harm and act with compassion?”
I’d really like to know what you think.
Now that I’ve vented? Are you sure about that? I’m done here. I don’t have time for this?
Done to a crisp, Arby. Sorry to waste your precious time?
I’ve often found it useful to look at the advice of Jesus and the Buddha about how to treat people.
One has a vividly theistic stance, the other pretty much atheistic. But they both make clear that care, tolerance of imperfections, compassion for the suffering, and looking to oneself as the true place to focus the efforts against evil are the marks of the wise and enlightened.
I like that convergence. They validate each other, especially since they each grew up in very different cultural climates.
Gautama (Buddha, that is) being a former prince and Jesus being an artisan also converges sweetly.
dear luminous beauty,
please excuse the lateness of my reply. actually, i’ve been having an awesome time in some mountains, which, when you come from florida, is only slightly less of a marvel than how this thread of posts has
exploded… many people have made many good points, i think, but to respond to your particular question, my answer is no, of course not… on the other hand, does ones personal commitment to refrain from harm & act w/ compassion matter more than following ones own conscience in any insane circumstance imaginable? of course, wouldn’t a “good” persons conscience dictate that they refrain from harm & act w/ compassion anyway? i consider myself a pacifist, because it’s not really in me to go seeking sorrow, but i live in the world, & the world is predatory…if this sounds too negative, i’m sorry, but i can only see things how they appear to me… actually, i’m a pretty happy person, just glad to be alive & share the good life w/ whoever’s around me, religious affiliation or lack thereof bedamned ;) (don’t think too hard of poor old Arby, i know where he’s coming from…you can never vent enough, really, but what else is the internet for, in my opinion…)
First of all, shouldn’t we actually read the study that is cited by Ms. Clark as proof that religion is not only not good, but bad?
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
I read the study, and although it’s certainly possible that I missed something, it seems to simply rely on ascertaining general levels of religious belief in various countries, and comparing their corresponding rates of crime and other misfortune. This methodology might be a valid component of an overall study, but surely can’t stand on its own.
To their credit, the author(s) feel the need to qualify their conclusions:
“2] This study is a first, brief look at an important subject that has been almost entirely neglected by social scientists. The primary intent is to present basic correlations of the elemental data. Some conclusions that can be gleaned from the plots are outlined. This is NOT an attempt to present a DEFINITIVE STUDY that establishes cause versus effect between RELIGIOSITY, SECULARISM AND SOCIETAL HEALTH. It is hoped that these original correlations and results will spark future research and debate on the issue.” (caps added)
And their reference to Tom Delay makes clear the potential for error due to partisan bias.
Pardon me, (and btw I’m not a particularly religious person) but somehow I have a hard time believing that a true sample of actual bible-believing people, who voluntarily attend church weekly and are subject to regular appeals for numerous reasons not to go down the “wrong road” are going to be found committing more crimes and offenses than people who do not attend and believe. It just doesn’t make any sense. If people are not responsive to repetitive messages, why are we wasting billions on advertising every year?
I would suggest doing a survey of prison inmates. If the results of that survey reveal that more of these people attended church regularly than not, I would be willing to consider the possibility that religion might not only be not good, but bad.
I remember when a recent study on philanthropy concluded that the “red states” were generally more generous, and the “blue states” were less. There was much disagreement with the methodology and results by the left, and possibly rightly so. Other factors were not taken into account that might have mitigated the superficial conclusion that people from red states are unselfish angels and those from blue states are just a bunch of scrooges.
am i extremely drunk, or did Natalie word that uncommon well?
OK..as a sociology student, I have some problems with this study. The idea—that maybe belief in God can **cause** problems—is a cool one, although not necessarily a new one (Bertrand Russell—Why I am Not A Christian—ring a bell?)..the problem is the analysis. So…more affluent, less violent and generally screwed up countries have less belief in God. We here in the US believe in God and are amazingly screwed up, given our overall wealth. But..what came first: the problems, or the God-lovin’? Its kind of like the data that shows women tend to be more more religious/spiritual than men; women are still less-than-equal in most societies (more so in some than others), so it makes sense that, thrust into a position of (relative) powerless-ness, they’d grab onto a source of power,respect, and prestige (God) that was available. You see a similar kind of pattern in the differences in religious expressions among the social classes. Here in the US, the more profession, more educated, more affluent groups tend to go towards more abstract, less emotional, less intense denominations—like Presbyterianism, Episcopalians, etc.—while those lower down go more for the intense, more dogmatic, “old-school religion” (some forms of Methodism, the Baptists..definitely Pentecostals). Religion serves as a source of support and meaning; the more people need it, the more they cling to it and the more intense the forms of religion they cling to…as they get more support in mainstream society, they tend to cling to religiosity less, and they follow less intense forms of it. SO, if your society is screwed up, there’s lots of violence, etc…doesn’t it make sense that you’d run to church? I mean, cultural factors will play a *definite* role—I imagine that if these kinds of problems struck modern europe, the people there might *DO* something, like change laws, change the social structure, etc.—but still, the point remains: this study failed to recognize the complex give-and-take between stressors like poverty and violence (both on the personal and social level) and the resulting level of religiosity. That said..they have a point. I mean, I for one don’t think belief in God is necessary for human advancement, and I can definitely see that is sometimes functions against human happiness (ex: Pat Robertson & Company.)
RE: somehow I have a hard time believing that a true sample of actual bible-believing people, who voluntarily attend church weekly and are subject to regular appeals for numerous reasons not to go down the ?wrong road? are going to be found committing more crimes and offenses than people who do not attend and believe. It just doesn?t make any sense.
It makes a lot of sense, actually. And it corresponds well with my experiences living in a small, polarized community - many highly religious and many extremely countercultural types. The countercultural types are generally spiritual, but not religious. And they are very conscious of their actions. The religious types often use the occasional church attendance to make the rest of the crappy, redneck, bigotted actions they take “ok”. They have been “forgiven”, they don’t need to take ultimate responsibility for their actions.
So, its ok to beat the crap out of someone at the bar saturday night. A quick stop at the church in the morning and your good-to-go. then its back to subjugation of the family, drinking beer, and watching football.
If its hard for you to believe, Natalie, try -out some rural living sometime.
Dave; yes, commitment to conscious good is necessarily prior to a good conscience, I think.
“i consider myself a pacifist, because it?s not really in me to go seeking sorrow, but i live in the world, & the world is predatory… “
You can’t be a pacifist and be a sheep. You have to be the most fierce predator of all to conquer your self. I think if you make the commitment to compassionate action and find a good method for yourself to make it a regular practice, when things get crazy, you will find yourself at the eye of a cyclone of sanity. When you have no harmful intent you can do what you have to, calmly and clearly. But please, don’t take my word for it.
If people are not responsive to repetitive messages, why are we wasting billions on advertising every year?
You really got me here, Nat. I sure can’t think of a good reason, except maybe it keeps a lot of people employed. I’d prefer to see them doing something actually productive, though.
hey hey hey, (hey, I dig it)
But..what came first: the problems, or the God-lovin??
I suppose the short answer is the sinnin’ precedes the seekin’ fergi’ness. It can be a vicious cycle. I mean, look at George Jones, fer crissakes.
I am just thankful ...
that despite the “high murder rates, abortion, sexual promiscuity and suicide” and all the other “sinnin’”,...
that God’s amazing gift is their for us to freely receive.
“that God?s amazing gift is their for us to freely receive.”
Me too. Life is a great gift. May we all appreciate each moment.
——-