"Being godless might be good for your health - study shows

[mentalgymnast]

This is a gross over generalization and misconstruing of anything that I actually said.

If you say you’re happy, I believe you. Happy?

Cringe worthy? C’mon.

Regards,
MG

Yep, cringeworthy. And this isn’t the only example. It’s a theme with you.

I feel both happy and lucky this morning. I think my kidney stone has passed, and the thought of no longer being subjected to that pain makes me feel great. It’s starting to be light out when I get up, which means spring, and with it, my favorite part of the year is approaching. Lots of birdsong, too, which for me is a lovely way to start the day. My parents are vaccinated and my wife gets her first shot tomorrow. It looks like my turn will come next month. I’m looking forward to resuming my social activities. I just finished a book that made a pretty good argument for something that matches my experience — that the vast majority of people are decent and good. That’s put me in a hopeful frame of mind this morning.

So slap whatever label you want on that. Thanks for asking.

I think that there is a predilection to judge others when they view the world differently than ourselves. And more often than not, in a more or less negative fashion. You do that. I do that. I need to self correct. Maybe you do too.

You seem to think that I am saying that because you are an atheist that you are an emotional zombie. Nothing could be further from the truth. What I am saying is that religious organizations bring people together ‘emotionally’ in a positive way. That emotion then becomes a support system to the overall mental health of an individual. Emotional highs encourage movement towards an elevated view of life and its ups and downs.

Religion, even when demonstrably false in its belief system, provides a network of believers that emotionally support each other. Humans are emotional creatures. Religiosity provides a wealth of emotional support. That is a good thing.

To my other point, atheists and other non believers have to intentionally look for an emotional support system of some kind. If they don’t, then they can potentially become emotionally isolated. That’s all I’m saying.

Again, here is the link to a book that makes the point that we need religions. We shouldn’t be trying to erase them.

https://www.amazon.com/Why-Need-Religio ... =nodl_nodl

Regards,
MG

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

I wonder when the Mongols were razing cities, raping women, impaling babies, and setting fire to fields if their belief in the Sky God and other minor deities gave them comfort on a cold windswept plain ...

- Doc

[Meadowchik]

This is an important point. I don't think it really has to be a zero-sum game, where my feeling of being part of my own group comes at the expense of rejecting people who aren't, but I agree that there's a certain tendency that way in practice. At the extreme there are cults that isolate themselves completely from the rest of the world.

Worrying about that is part of some religious traditions, at least. The parable of the Good Samaritan is told as an answer to the question, "Who is it that I'm supposed to love because they count as a neighbour?" Other traditions probably have something comparable.

I think of social cohesion as taking on various degrees. There's always some amount of it in social groups. The question to me is how functional and adaptable the group and the individual is within that cohesion level.


As far as atheist stigma goes, and especially apostate stigma, I don't disagree that it closes doors, especially social opportunities.

But as far as intellectual and spiritual utility, I do think that religious dogma can close many of those opportunities, and that many fruitful intellectual and spiritual methods are available to atheists.

[Res Ipsa]

Clearly atheists can have plenty of emotions. It seems reasonable to suppose, though, that religious belief can generate feelings of consolation and courage in times of grief and fear, as well as emotional inhibitions against temptations to unethical behavior, which are not available to non-believers.

I mean, atheists can’t have their cake and eat it, too. If religious beliefs are providing imaginary comfort and conditioned inhibitions, well then religious beliefs have to still be doing those same things when we spin them more positively. You have to give God his due, same as the devil.

The atheistic side of this point seems to me to be that religion probably does have social and medical benefits, and that these are what explain the historical persistence of religion even though it’s all false. Atheists can then argue that the benefits of religion can be duplicated by other means, if not perfectly then closely enough for some other benefits of atheism to compensate for the shortfall.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to assume that theists and atheists have different stories to tell about the emotions they experience. It's MG's claim that one is "broader" than the other that I find unreasonable. Suppose he and I experience the same positive emotions, but he attributes these 100% to God, while I experience them as originating from dozens of different experiences. Who is experiencing a broader range of emotions? I don't know and he doesn't either.

For any phenomena as complex and widespread as religion, I think it would be naïve to claim that the effects are all good or all bad in terms of social or medical effects on individuals. And I'm skeptical that the existence of religion over a long period of time can be explained through some type of utilitarian calculus. It could even be that religion itself has had no survival value, but is an artifact of brain processes that do. Both patternicity and intentionality are known biases in the brain, and could easily have been significant advantages when dealing with predators on the plains of Africa. Religion could simply be an effect of these biases with no net value or even a slight negative value. At some point, trying to explain why X exists today is an exercise in creating just so stories.

To me, the effects of religion today are so situational that it makes little sense to try and treat it as a monolith. My major concern with religion today is its effect on tribalism. In group cooperation/out of group conflict may well have been an effective survival strategy for individual groups over long periods of history. Today, however, I think the tribal approach is a huge net negative for humanity. We have common problems that can be solved only by cooperation that crosses the lines of existing tribes.

When I read what MG has to say when the rubber hits the road, he believes there is a real entity called Satan (the bad guy) who is at war with God (the good guy). And because I don't believe in his God, he has labeled me as his enemy in an existential battle for human souls. I'm persuaded that that kind of tribalism is a net bad today in terms of the continued existence of humanity, regardless whatever the latest study says on the health effects of religion. (And I'm using MG a an example, but not a representative example. But he's by no means unique in that respect.)

[mentalgymnast]

Clearly atheists can have plenty of emotions. It seems reasonable to suppose, though, that religious belief can generate feelings of consolation and courage in times of grief and fear, as well as emotional inhibitions against temptations to unethical behavior, which are not available to non-believers.

I mean, atheists can’t have their cake and eat it, too. If religious beliefs are providing imaginary comfort and conditioned inhibitions, well then religious beliefs have to still be doing those same things when we spin them more positively. You have to give God his due, same as the devil.

The atheistic side of this point seems to me to be that religion probably does have social and medical benefits, and that these are what explain the historical persistence of religion even though it’s all false. Atheists can then argue that the benefits of religion can be duplicated by other means, if not perfectly then closely enough for some other benefits of atheism to compensate for the shortfall.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to assume that theists and atheists have different stories to tell about the emotions they experience. It's MG's claim that one is "broader" than the other that I find unreasonable. Suppose he and I experience the same positive emotions, but he attributes these 100% to God, while I experience them as originating from dozens of different experiences. Who is experiencing a broader range of emotions? I don't know and he doesn't either.

Religious adherents worldwide number much more than atheists. The emotional support systems that these religions provide, on the whole, is positive. We often place emphasis on logic and reason...the intellectual side of our being. Not any less important, if not more, is the nourishment/growth of our emotional being. Most of us are simply built that way. To ignore this is to ignore reality. Religion is an emotional support system which has flourished and will continue to flourish for this very reason.

That’s a good thing.

by the way, I attribute very few of my daily positive emotions directly to God. I am well aware of the physiological activity within my brain and other body systems that affect/impact my emotional state of being. Not to mention everything going on in the environment.

When I read what MG has to say when the rubber hits the road, he believes there is a real entity called Satan (the bad guy) who is at war with God (the good guy). And because I don't believe in his God, he has labeled me as his enemy in an existential battle for human souls. I'm persuaded that that kind of tribalism is a net bad today in terms of the continued existence of humanity, regardless whatever the latest study says on the health effects of religion. (And I'm using MG a an example, but not a representative example. But he's by no means unique in that respect.)

You are falling into the trap of looking at all religionists with a jaundiced eye. Recently I’ve referred to the fact that we all look at the world through viewfinders that are adjusted according to our own predilections and assumptions. I do that. You do that. Now, do I believe that there is good and evil in the world? Yes, most definitely. Most of the evil and good is a direct result of human behavior and natural events or physiological abnormalities that cause pain, misfortune, injury, and death.

It’s not as simple as pointing to a good guy and a bad guy.

You’re not a ‘bad guy’ because you don’t believe in God. I’m not a ‘good guy’ simply because I choose that path. I’m concerned that you...and other atheists??...may view believers through a very skewed lens. Almost in a fundamentalist sort of way. That’s potentially dangerous and tribalistic. I see that on this board. Someone comes in and expresses reasonable faith and is called a troll or worse. Polemically driven tribalistic behavior. It’s rather disheartening.

Your posts, even if disguised (not all that well at times), come across as condescending and with an underlying message/assumption that religionists have been duped and are unable to think beyond some kind of binary construct they’ve made for themselves. Of course, I must say, that I’ve also at times viewed non believers in a somewhat similar fashion. I suppose that’s why we tend to talk past each other and fail to come to an understanding of our underlying worth and basic humanity.

I mean, look at the poster who calls himself ‘Doc’ and what crap he’s put out there trying to take me down. Crazy talk. Unhelpful in any form or fashion. He and a few others pop in to simply stir things up and deflect from what was an ongoing discussion. For what purpose?

I’m not sure. Insecurity? That being said, anger and polemics seem to be a clear and present danger to honest discussion.

A little mini rant. Sorry.

Truth be told, you tend towards being rather civil most of the time and I enjoy interacting with you knowing I might actually gain/learn something along the way. Not so much with others.

But hey. It’s a free country.

Regards,
MG

[Res Ipsa]

I think that there is a predilection to judge others when they view the world differently than ourselves. And more often than not, in a more or less negative fashion. You do that. I do that. I need to self correct. Maybe you do too.

You seem to think that I am saying that because you are an atheist that you are an emotional zombie. Nothing could be further from the truth. What I am saying is that religious organizations bring people together ‘emotionally’ in a positive way. That emotion then becomes a support system to the overall mental health of an individual. Emotional highs encourage movement towards an elevated view of life and its ups and downs.

Religion, even when demonstrably false in its belief system, provides a network of believers that emotionally support each other. Humans are emotional creatures. Religiosity provides a wealth of emotional support. That is a good thing.

To my other point, atheists and other non believers have to intentionally look for an emotional support system of some kind. If they don’t, then they can potentially become emotionally isolated. That’s all I’m saying.

Again, here is the link to a book that makes the point that we need religions. We shouldn’t be trying to erase them.

https://www.amazon.com/Why-Need-Religio ... =nodl_nodl

Regards,
MG

I don't think you quite appreciate the effect your religious belief and environment have on the way you see others. You've already lumped me in with the enemies of God -- someone who's fighting an existential battle on the side of evil. Mormonism claims to be God's one and only true religion in the world. Although Mormons try to soft pedal this, the flip side of this is that everyone else is wrong. You think there is a predilection to judge others negatively only because that's what you do. Your religion pushes you to do that. You can't declare me as an ally of Satan and not judge me negatively.


Here's one of the things I learned in my journey from Mormonism to atheism: there are lots of very smart people out there will all sorts of different beliefs and ideas. Different from me does not equal wrong and is not a basis for negative judgment. Might I make a reflexively make a reflexively bad judgment based on difference alone? Sure. But when I stop and think, I always realize that I have no claim to absolute truth and that I'm just another human being tying to figure out how to live my life -- just like almost every other human being out there.

When you equate "religion" with emotional support, you are significantly overgeneralizing. Religion does not provide emotional support for everyone. And, in particular with Mormonism, that support can be highly conditional. And if the conditions aren't met, it can be exactly the opposite, with devastating effects on the individual. As for time invested in finding support, I've never spent a minute actively seeking out a support system, but I've always had sufficient support. And I've had believers tell me lots of stories about changing congregations or flavors of religion because their current one wasn't meeting their needs.

I suspect that what you see religion as providing in terms of emotional support is due more to how humans tend to behave than to anything special about religion. But you'd have to pay attention to how the unchurched interact with their fellow humans and form networks and groups almost organically. Not everyone, and within every group there will undoubtedly be people who are not receiving the support that they need. Even regular churchgoers. That the majority of us receive support in churches does not mean the churches are necessary.

"We need religion" is a silly statement when we know we can't run the counterfactual and compare. I'm firmly convinced that the piece of religion that we don't need right now is the tribalism that too often is part and parcel of religion.

And I don't think I've ever said that we should try to destroy religion. I'm not sure why you injected that into a conversation with me.

[Themis]

And I'm skeptical that the existence of religion over a long period of time can be explained through some type of utilitarian calculus.

I think this is a poor assumption that has even influenced some poor science. The existence of religion is easily explained by human need to create beliefs about the world. In the past human's never had available good information so it was made up. I suspect it was past leaders of the group that created the foundational beliefs of a group. The more sophisticated and complex the group, the more it's beliefs and practices became an institution.

Those institutions were then typically forced on everyone. When the king created the church of England, no one in England had a choice to say no. Catholicism and Islam were force on new territories they took over. 1850's to 1900's Utah was not a place to try being any other religion then Mormon. Being atheist was even harder and could result in death in most of the world of the past. Atheism is a realization that most of these beliefs were made up, and now it's not as dangerous for people to openly be non-religious.

[Lem]

...When you equate "religion" with emotional support, you are significantly overgeneralizing. Religion does not provide emotional support for everyone. And, in particular with Mormonism, that support can be highly conditional. And if the conditions aren't met, it can be exactly the opposite, with devastating effects on the individual. As for time invested in finding support, I've never spent a minute actively seeking out a support system, but I've always had sufficient support. And I've had believers tell me lots of stories about changing congregations or flavors of religion because their current one wasn't meeting their needs.

I suspect that what you see religion as providing in terms of emotional support is due more to how humans tend to behave than to anything special about religion. But you'd have to pay attention to how the unchurched interact with their fellow humans and form networks and groups almost organically. Not everyone, and within every group there will undoubtedly be people who are not receiving the support that they need. Even regular churchgoers. That the majority of us receive support in churches does not mean the churches are necessary.

"We need religion" is a silly statement when we know we can't run the counterfactual and compare. I'm firmly convinced that the piece of religion that we don't need right now is the tribalism that too often is part and parcel of religion...

This is extremely well said, Res Ipsa, thank you. As I have been reading this conversation, I have been astonished at this idea that religion is unique in bringing emotional support and social cohesion. There are literally thousands upon thousands of groups with a 'belief' structure that has nothing to do with religion that bring people together and provide emotional support and social cohesion. Literally. Because these groups are typically voluntary, rarely does the "highly conditional" support of religion kick in and cause damage. People find what they love and what motivates them, and then they find other people who feel similarly. It may or, more often, may NOT be what they were born into. But it is what they love, think about, care about, and it provides them with a group of other people who love, think, and care similarly. Religion is one example, but it is in no way unique. Stating that atheists don't have this because a god of some type is not involved really misses the point of human interaction.

[Meadowchik]

I think this is a poor assumption that has even influenced some poor science. The existence of religion is easily explained by human need to create beliefs about the world. In the past human's never had available good information so it was made up. I suspect it was past leaders of the group that created the foundational beliefs of a group. The more sophisticated and complex the group, the more it's beliefs and practices became an institution.

Those institutions were then typically forced on everyone. When the king created the church of England, no one in England had a choice to say no. Catholicism and Islam were force on new territories they took over. 1850's to 1900's Utah was not a place to try being any other religion then Mormon. Being atheist was even harder and could result in death in most of the world of the past. Atheism is a realization that most of these beliefs were made up, and now it's not as dangerous for people to openly be non-religious.

The way I think about it is that mankind sought a way to define its relationship with the universe and anthropomorphized the universe--much like we anthropomorphize things today. And so religion was also science, art, and government. Ever since we have been disentangling them from each other. Furthermore many people have abandoned that tendency to attribute personality and consciousness to the universe. Hence atheism.

[Res Ipsa]

When I read what MG has to say when the rubber hits the road, he believes there is a real entity called Satan (the bad guy) who is at war with God (the good guy). And because I don't believe in his God, he has labeled me as his enemy in an existential battle for human souls. I'm persuaded that that kind of tribalism is a net bad today in terms of the continued existence of humanity, regardless whatever the latest study says on the health effects of religion. (And I'm using MG a an example, but not a representative example. But he's by no means unique in that respect.)

You are falling into the trap of looking at all religionists with a jaundiced eye. Recently I’ve referred to the fact that we all look at the world through viewfinders that are adjusted according to our own predilections and assumptions. I do that. You do that. Now, do I believe that there is good and evil in the world? Yes, most definitely. Most of the evil and good is a direct result of human behavior and natural events or physiological abnormalities that cause pain, misfortune, injury, and death.

I think you're falling into the trap of projection here. You are taking your jaundiced view of atheists and projecting it on to me. I made comments specifically about you based on what you've posted here. I specifically stated that I wasn't claiming that you are representative of all believers. So, how does that turn into "looking at all religionists with a jaundiced eye?" Answer: it doesn't. Moving from being a believer to an atheist has shifted my perspective in a way that's difficult to explain. When I was LDS, religion was the defining characteristic of who I was and who others were. Although I fit the label "atheist," being an atheist doesn't replace religion as my defining characteristic. Religion itself simply becomes less and less relevant from my perspective to who I am and who others are. The similarities between me and my fellow humans vastly outweigh whatever differences arise from difference in religious beliefs. And the differences from individual to individual are far larger than whatever differences are due to religion. [/quote]

It’s not as simple as pointing to a good guy and a bad guy.

You’re not a ‘bad guy’ because you don’t believe in God. I’m not a ‘good guy’ simply because I choose that path. I’m concerned that you...and other atheists??...may view believers through a very skewed lens. Almost in a fundamentalist sort of way. That’s potentially dangerous and tribalistic. I see that on this board. Someone comes in and expresses reasonable faith and is called a troll or worse. Polemically driven tribalistic behavior. It’s rather disheartening.

More projection, combined with running away from past posts. I think you've made it clear that you believe that Satan is real, that there is an existential war going on between God and Satan over souls, and that atheists are on the side of Satan. That's the essence of tribalism -- your entire worldview is based on it.

You throw around a bunch of words, but you don't explain how they apply to me. Tell me, how do you think I see "believers?' I don't think you have the faintest idea because you're so busy with your gymnastic routine that you don't pay attention to what I post here. Tell me, who on this board do you think is in my "tribe" and why.

Your posts, even if disguised (not all that well at times), come across as condescending and with an underlying message/assumption that religionists have been duped and are unable to think beyond some kind of binary construct they’ve made for themselves. Of course, I must say, that I’ve also at times viewed non believers in a somewhat similar fashion. I suppose that’s why we tend to talk past each other and fail to come to an understanding of our underlying worth and basic humanity.

I'll plead guilty to coming across as condescending. That's a failure of my online posting style that I should do something about. But I have no idea where you are coming up with the rest of that stuff from. It's simply not what I believe or have ever tried to communicate. Again, my best guess is projection.

I mean, look at the poster who calls himself ‘Doc’ and what crap he’s put out there trying to take me down. Crazy talk. Unhelpful in any form or fashion. He and a few others pop in to simply stir things up and deflect from what was an ongoing discussion. For what purpose?

I’m not sure. Insecurity? That being said, anger and polemics seem to be a clear and present danger to honest discussion.

If you want to know why Doc does something, the best thing to do is ask Doc. The worst thing to do is passive-aggressive nonsense like this.

A little mini rant. Sorry.

While we're on the subject of posting styles, this is a good example of a style that makes you sound insincere. There's nothing wrong with ranting, per se, so there's no need to apologize. If you're sorry, then why didn't you just delete what you posted instead of typing "Sorry" emoji. If you meant what you said, then why add "sorry?" It looks to me like you're not really sorry at all that you bad mouthed another poster in a conversation with me, but you know that's bad form, so you added a "sorry" to dilute your responsibility for your own words.

Truth be told, you tend towards being rather civil most of the time and I enjoy interacting with you knowing I might actually gain/learn something along the way. Not so much with others.

What were you saying upthread about condescension?

Is the passive-aggression and intentional tactic? Or do you not see it? Do you think I read that as a sincere compliment? Or as a superficially nice statement used as a vehicle to take a shot at those you don't like here?

But hey. It’s a free country.

Regards,
MG