Restating My "Religion Does Good" Post More Explicitly

[Splendour]

quote: I was affected by the theistic ideas, and I became consumed with guilt and had regular panic attacks featuring the hell I was sure I would go to. In my case, I was no less moral after abandoning the idea of God, but I'm much more functional and self-confident now (which allows me to do much greater good overall). Oh yeah, did I mention I'm happier?

Why be consumed with guilt? It seems like you are somehow mistaken in your understanding of theistic ideas. I admit, most people think when they believe they will be somehow immediately transformed. They expect a miraculous transformation on the spot. I guess you didn't get this immediate transformation, concluded you were bad and panicked. People are still individually different and will manifest changes in their own ways. Sort of like plants that grow at their own rates. Its only by staying in the religion and reading the text to get a deeper understanding of the spirit that you come to realize you can take it one day at a time and one bad sin at a time. Of course, it might speed up once you get deep enough into things. This is where the grace comes in. We can never do it all on our own. But once we start to put out our feelers to God he bridges the distance and does the rest. As a natural correlation from this process if you're correcting your own behavior you will be having a positive impact on the world around you and your peacefulness will deepen.

[hitch1978]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is it because you have to be more than moderately intelligent to be an atheist? (I can think of three regular posters here who tend to disprove that).

[/ QUOTE ]

Me, Nielsio, and...?

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi!

[RJT]

Just a point of order:

I highly doubt if anyone is truly happy. I have never met any one who is.

I think it would be a tough call if I had to choose between the opportunity to meet Jesus or someone who professes to be truly happy.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm interested in why reasonably comfortable, sectarian Western society of two generations ago was able to reproduce at above replacement levels and today, secular countries like Italy and Spain have birthrates near to 1.2 per couple.

[/ QUOTE ]
Two words. I want you to listen very closely. BIRTH CONTROL.

Effective and easy birth control methods began available two generations ago. As women gained control of their sexuality, it began the feminist movement, greater female independence, and a massive increase of women in the workplace. Women spend time chasing careers instead of a husband and children these days.

The explanations are so simple and obvious that I don't what you're talking about, to be honest. Do you live in the West? Do you ever observe and think about your own culture?

As for Italy and Spain - secular? WTF? Italy has 97.2% baptized Catholics and Spain has 94.2%. They are waaaay more religious than other countries with similar birthrates.

http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_romcath.html

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I remember that your big point on birth rates has been answered thoroughly several times, including why it most likely has no connection to atheism.

But you spam it in so many threads that most people don't really bother with it anymore.

[/ QUOTE ]

The atheists have a good alibi but so far no convincing explaination.

If you prefer a one sided debate use 'ignore'.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, maybe the most important point is that you are wrong. Of the 40 bottom countries on fertility rates maybe less than 10 don't have a huge majority of religious populace, maybe 3-4 countries have anything close to half its populace as 'non-followers' of major religions, and the 'atheist' percentages were even lower than that.


Of the bottom 20 on the scales, the following countries have largely religious populaces (based on 2000 numbers, but 2007 numbers will yield quite a similar result):
Italy
Spain
Singapore
Russia
Hungary
Slovakia
Andorra
Belarus
Ukraine
Hong Kong
San Marino
Macau
Greece
Lithuania
Romania

So there, now I bloody well went out and researched your statement and short story - I don't buy it.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Religion as a social institution provides people with auxiliary benefits. Even if the philosophical needs of churchgoers can be met through other means, I still do not predict religious influence waining anytime soon.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is true. Religion can meet a constellation of needs, which is part of why it's so persistent. But I think all of these needs can be met through alternative means. That's not likely to happen soon, but if religion were to disappear overnight (as in David's scenario), I think people would cope relatively quickly.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Religion doesn't provide happiness to most people but rather lessens their unhappiness. Exercise doesn't do that to the same extent. Plus it is a lot harder to stick to.

[/ QUOTE ]

While this is possible, I haven't seen any convincing evidence to back it up. Obviously my personal bias is that this is incorrect, and without evidence to the contrary I'm sticking with that view.

[ QUOTE ]
Meanwhile if I am wrong, then why are the great majority of moderately intelligent people religious? Is it because of other psychological flaws? Is it because you have to be more than moderately intelligent to be an atheist? (I can think of three regular posters here who tend to disprove that). Or is it because theists are actually correct?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's because beliefs are largely a function of upbringing. The vast majority of people in the world are religious, so it stands to reason that the majority of intelligent people are also religious. In fact, it's a striking anomaly that so many highly intelligent people are irreligious, given the prevalence of religion. I believe that theism is under represented among the moderately intelligent, which implies that they are less likely than normal to be religious. Also, moderately intelligent people in irrelegious cultures tend to be irreligous (just like everyone in such cultures).

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
quote: I was affected by the theistic ideas, and I became consumed with guilt and had regular panic attacks featuring the hell I was sure I would go to. In my case, I was no less moral after abandoning the idea of God, but I'm much more functional and self-confident now (which allows me to do much greater good overall). Oh yeah, did I mention I'm happier?

Why be consumed with guilt? It seems like you are somehow mistaken in your understanding of theistic ideas. I admit, most people think when they believe they will be somehow immediately transformed. They expect a miraculous transformation on the spot. I guess you didn't get this immediate transformation, concluded you were bad and panicked. People are still individually different and will manifest changes in their own ways. Sort of like plants that grow at their own rates. Its only by staying in the religion and reading the text to get a deeper understanding of the spirit that you come to realize you can take it one day at a time and one bad sin at a time. Of course, it might speed up once you get deep enough into things. This is where the grace comes in. We can never do it all on our own. But once we start to put out our feelers to God he bridges the distance and does the rest. As a natural correlation from this process if you're correcting your own behavior you will be having a positive impact on the world around you and your peacefulness will deepen.

[/ QUOTE ]

A fair post and worth responding to, but too far off-topic for this thread.

[David Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Religion doesn't provide happiness to most people but rather lessens their unhappiness. Exercise doesn't do that to the same extent. Plus it is a lot harder to stick to.

[/ QUOTE ]

While this is possible, I haven't seen any convincing evidence to back it up. Obviously my personal bias is that this is incorrect, and without evidence to the contrary I'm sticking with that view.

[ QUOTE ]
Meanwhile if I am wrong, then why are the great majority of moderately intelligent people religious? Is it because of other psychological flaws? Is it because you have to be more than moderately intelligent to be an atheist? (I can think of three regular posters here who tend to disprove that). Or is it because theists are actually correct?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's because beliefs are largely a function of upbringing.

[/ QUOTE ]

That argument only makes sense if you are talking about something like political views, where there are strong arguments for either side. But religious beliefs, (especially accompanied by a high degree of certainty and an attitude that all other religions are illogical except their own) are so obviously wrong, that when a moderately intelligent person holds, them its probably because of psychological factors stonger than mere upbringing.

[madnak]

You overestimate the extent to which people use reason in forming their beliefs. People aren't very rational. In fact, I'd say even the smartest people are typically not very rational. The smartest people are able to be rational when they choose to be, but their natural inclination is still not the rational approach. This is where gamblers and scientists do have an advantage, incidentally - they are in the habit of looking at things analytically, so it's easier for them to apply an analytic approach to their beliefs.

I'll go even further and say that I think it's likely we evolved the capacity to believe before we evolved the capacity to reason. Just as we tend to perform actions by mimicking others (especially during childhood), rather than by figuring our what works best, we form beliefs by listening to the beliefs of others (especially during childhood) rather than by reasoning out what makes sense.