Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Theism and Atheism => Topic started by: Sriram on November 06, 2015, 05:21:46 AM
-
Hi everyone,
It seems that religious upbringing reduces altruism!
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/11/151105121916.htm
***************
Many families believe religion plays an essential role in childhood moral development. But children of religious parents may not be as altruistic as those parents think, according to a new international study from the University of Chicago published Nov. 5 in Current Biology.
A team of developmental psychologists led by Prof. Jean Decety examined the perceptions and behavior of children in six countries. The study assessed the children's tendency to share -- a measure of their altruism -- and their inclination to judge and punish others for bad behavior.
Children from religious families were less likely to share with others than were children from non-religious families. A religious upbringing also was associated with more punitive tendencies in response to anti-social behavior.
The results were at odds with the perceptions of religious parents, who were more likely than non-religious parents to report that their children had a high degree of empathy and sensitivity to the plight of others.
Consistent with previous studies, in general the children were more likely to share as they got older. But children from households identifying as Christian and Muslim were significantly less likely than children from non-religious households to share their stickers. The negative relation between religiosity and altruism grew stronger with age; children with a longer experience of religion in the household were the least likely to share.
Children from religious households favored stronger punishments for anti-social behavior and judged such behavior more harshly than non-religious children. These results support previous studies of adults, which have found religiousness is linked with punitive attitudes toward interpersonal offenses.
"Together, these results reveal the similarity across countries in how religion negatively influences children's altruism.
****************
Yeah...deeply religious people can be pretty smug and sure of themselves.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
Hi everyone,
It seems that religious upbringing reduces altruism!
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/11/151105121916.htm
***************
Many families believe religion plays an essential role in childhood moral development. But children of religious parents may not be as altruistic as those parents think, according to a new international study from the University of Chicago published Nov. 5 in Current Biology.
A team of developmental psychologists led by Prof. Jean Decety examined the perceptions and behavior of children in six countries. The study assessed the children's tendency to share -- a measure of their altruism -- and their inclination to judge and punish others for bad behavior.
Children from religious families were less likely to share with others than were children from non-religious families. A religious upbringing also was associated with more punitive tendencies in response to anti-social behavior.
The results were at odds with the perceptions of religious parents, who were more likely than non-religious parents to report that their children had a high degree of empathy and sensitivity to the plight of others.
Consistent with previous studies, in general the children were more likely to share as they got older. But children from households identifying as Christian and Muslim were significantly less likely than children from non-religious households to share their stickers. The negative relation between religiosity and altruism grew stronger with age; children with a longer experience of religion in the household were the least likely to share.
Children from religious households favored stronger punishments for anti-social behavior and judged such behavior more harshly than non-religious children. These results support previous studies of adults, which have found religiousness is linked with punitive attitudes toward interpersonal offenses.
"Together, these results reveal the similarity across countries in how religion negatively influences children's altruism.
****************
Yeah...deeply religious people can be pretty smug and sure of themselves.
Cheers.
Sriram
I can't access the site, but I would like to know more about the researchers and their credentials: how many were "tested," and what they were asked and under what conditions. Most of these surveys are not worth the paper they're written on, and I suspect this is one of them.
-
Doesn't appear to be a survey but rather a study. Overall I agree with BA though that without some detail on the methodology, it isn't clear what, if any, conclusions can be taken. How BA knows that most of these 'surveys' are worthless though would be interestin to know. What are the other 'surveys' he is loading in with, how he works this out having not read it, and what his evidence for 'surveys' that are like something he hasn't read are worthless is?
-
It could be that children in religious households are more likely to rebel by not sharing.
It's like that old chestnut about only children not learning to share, I'm an only child and I always had to share with my friends or cousins.
Having had lots of friends with brothers and sisters, my observation is that often they had no choice as their brother for example just took things and used it for a purpose it wasn't intended for ( like using Barbie for target practice ).
One of my friends even found her brothers had taken her knickers from her drawer to stuff in a hole in a pane of glass. ( it wouldn't have surprised me if it has been her favourite clothing to use as a flag)
If it wasn't that it was younger sisters playing " grown ups " with their make up, which girls of a certain age like to have.
So I wonder if children from religious homes are reluctant to share because they are expected to share sometimes, rather than them choosing too.
🌹
Perhaps in non religious households it is put differently in some way.
There are many reasons why a child should rebel: why religious influences might be more of an influence is impossible to verify.
-
Hi everyone,
It seems that religious upbringing reduces altruism!
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/11/151105121916.htm
***************
Many families believe religion plays an essential role in childhood moral development. But children of religious parents may not be as altruistic as those parents think, according to a new international study from the University of Chicago published Nov. 5 in Current Biology.
A team of developmental psychologists led by Prof. Jean Decety examined the perceptions and behavior of children in six countries. The study assessed the children's tendency to share -- a measure of their altruism -- and their inclination to judge and punish others for bad behavior.
Children from religious families were less likely to share with others than were children from non-religious families. A religious upbringing also was associated with more punitive tendencies in response to anti-social behavior.
The results were at odds with the perceptions of religious parents, who were more likely than non-religious parents to report that their children had a high degree of empathy and sensitivity to the plight of others.
Consistent with previous studies, in general the children were more likely to share as they got older. But children from households identifying as Christian and Muslim were significantly less likely than children from non-religious households to share their stickers. The negative relation between religiosity and altruism grew stronger with age; children with a longer experience of religion in the household were the least likely to share.
Children from religious households favored stronger punishments for anti-social behavior and judged such behavior more harshly than non-religious children. These results support previous studies of adults, which have found religiousness is linked with punitive attitudes toward interpersonal offenses.
"Together, these results reveal the similarity across countries in how religion negatively influences children's altruism.
****************
Yeah...deeply religious people can be pretty smug and sure of themselves.
Cheers.
Sriram
I can't access the site, but I would like to know more about the researchers and their credentials: how many were "tested," and what they were asked and under what conditions. Most of these surveys are not worth the paper they're written on, and I suspect this is one of them.
This isn't a survey, but a high quality academic research study published in one of the most prestigious journals in the field following extensive peer review.
The approach involved fairly standard psychological research methods involving a series of 'games' and tasks.
Not sure if you can all access the paper (I can but then I get academic access to all sorts of things), but here it is:
http://www.cell.com/current-biology/pdf/S0960-9822(15)01167-7.pdf
I'll comment more once I've read the details.
-
Thanks for that, Prof D, I can access the report.
-
Hi everyone,
It seems that religious upbringing reduces altruism!
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/11/151105121916.htm
***************
Many families believe religion plays an essential role in childhood moral development. But children of religious parents may not be as altruistic as those parents think, according to a new international study from the University of Chicago published Nov. 5 in Current Biology.
A team of developmental psychologists led by Prof. Jean Decety examined the perceptions and behavior of children in six countries. The study assessed the children's tendency to share -- a measure of their altruism -- and their inclination to judge and punish others for bad behavior.
Children from religious families were less likely to share with others than were children from non-religious families. A religious upbringing also was associated with more punitive tendencies in response to anti-social behavior.
The results were at odds with the perceptions of religious parents, who were more likely than non-religious parents to report that their children had a high degree of empathy and sensitivity to the plight of others.
Consistent with previous studies, in general the children were more likely to share as they got older. But children from households identifying as Christian and Muslim were significantly less likely than children from non-religious households to share their stickers. The negative relation between religiosity and altruism grew stronger with age; children with a longer experience of religion in the household were the least likely to share.
Children from religious households favored stronger punishments for anti-social behavior and judged such behavior more harshly than non-religious children. These results support previous studies of adults, which have found religiousness is linked with punitive attitudes toward interpersonal offenses.
"Together, these results reveal the similarity across countries in how religion negatively influences children's altruism.
****************
Yeah...deeply religious people can be pretty smug and sure of themselves.
Cheers.
Sriram
I can't access the site, but I would like to know more about the researchers and their credentials: how many were "tested," and what they were asked and under what conditions. Most of these surveys are not worth the paper they're written on, and I suspect this is one of them.
This isn't a survey, but a high quality academic research study published in one of the most prestigious journals in the field following extensive peer review.
The approach involved fairly standard psychological research methods involving a series of 'games' and tasks.
Not sure if you can all access the paper (I can but then I get academic access to all sorts of things), but here it is:
http://www.cell.com/current-biology/pdf/S0960-9822(15)01167-7.pdf
I'll comment more once I've read the details.
As I understand it, these findings were based on the attitudes of children under the age of 12. I suggest such conclusions are highly dubious based on children of that age. I think most children, of any or no religious influence, are guided in their sharing tendencies purely from self-interest; and only as they mature can any other conclusions be of any acceptable veracity.
-
Hi everyone,
It seems that religious upbringing reduces altruism!
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/11/151105121916.htm
***************
Many families believe religion plays an essential role in childhood moral development. But children of religious parents may not be as altruistic as those parents think, according to a new international study from the University of Chicago published Nov. 5 in Current Biology.
A team of developmental psychologists led by Prof. Jean Decety examined the perceptions and behavior of children in six countries. The study assessed the children's tendency to share -- a measure of their altruism -- and their inclination to judge and punish others for bad behavior.
Children from religious families were less likely to share with others than were children from non-religious families. A religious upbringing also was associated with more punitive tendencies in response to anti-social behavior.
The results were at odds with the perceptions of religious parents, who were more likely than non-religious parents to report that their children had a high degree of empathy and sensitivity to the plight of others.
Consistent with previous studies, in general the children were more likely to share as they got older. But children from households identifying as Christian and Muslim were significantly less likely than children from non-religious households to share their stickers. The negative relation between religiosity and altruism grew stronger with age; children with a longer experience of religion in the household were the least likely to share.
Children from religious households favored stronger punishments for anti-social behavior and judged such behavior more harshly than non-religious children. These results support previous studies of adults, which have found religiousness is linked with punitive attitudes toward interpersonal offenses.
"Together, these results reveal the similarity across countries in how religion negatively influences children's altruism.
****************
Yeah...deeply religious people can be pretty smug and sure of themselves.
Cheers.
Sriram
I can't access the site, but I would like to know more about the researchers and their credentials: how many were "tested," and what they were asked and under what conditions. Most of these surveys are not worth the paper they're written on, and I suspect this is one of them.
This isn't a survey, but a high quality academic research study published in one of the most prestigious journals in the field following extensive peer review.
The approach involved fairly standard psychological research methods involving a series of 'games' and tasks.
Not sure if you can all access the paper (I can but then I get academic access to all sorts of things), but here it is:
http://www.cell.com/current-biology/pdf/S0960-9822(15)01167-7.pdf
I'll comment more once I've read the details.
As I understand it, these findings were based on the attitudes of children under the age of 12. I suggest such conclusions are highly dubious based on children of that age. I think most children, of any or no religious influence, are guided in their sharing tendencies purely from self-interest; and only as they mature can any other conclusions be of any acceptable veracity.
The ability to share certainly increases with age, as the research discusses. But these changes largely occur in much younger children - social, altruistic and generous behaviours tend to develop at ages 3-5, so by 12 this will be well embedded.
But nonetheless there are differences, so even were you to conclude that altruistic behaviour is not fully formed, it is developing better within the children from non religious backgrounds.
There is a third element to the research with conclusions that children from religious backgrounds have a greater sensitivity to perceived injustices. Hmm might be manifested in adulthood by trying to 'rubbish' reputable research whose conclusions (about children from religious households) you don't like rather than accept and try to understand the findings. But we'd never see that kind of behaviour amongst our religious friends here, would we ;)
-
Hi everyone,
It seems that religious upbringing reduces altruism!
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/11/151105121916.htm
***************
Many families believe religion plays an essential role in childhood moral development. But children of religious parents may not be as altruistic as those parents think, according to a new international study from the University of Chicago published Nov. 5 in Current Biology.
A team of developmental psychologists led by Prof. Jean Decety examined the perceptions and behavior of children in six countries. The study assessed the children's tendency to share -- a measure of their altruism -- and their inclination to judge and punish others for bad behavior.
Children from religious families were less likely to share with others than were children from non-religious families. A religious upbringing also was associated with more punitive tendencies in response to anti-social behavior.
The results were at odds with the perceptions of religious parents, who were more likely than non-religious parents to report that their children had a high degree of empathy and sensitivity to the plight of others.
Consistent with previous studies, in general the children were more likely to share as they got older. But children from households identifying as Christian and Muslim were significantly less likely than children from non-religious households to share their stickers. The negative relation between religiosity and altruism grew stronger with age; children with a longer experience of religion in the household were the least likely to share.
Children from religious households favored stronger punishments for anti-social behavior and judged such behavior more harshly than non-religious children. These results support previous studies of adults, which have found religiousness is linked with punitive attitudes toward interpersonal offenses.
"Together, these results reveal the similarity across countries in how religion negatively influences children's altruism.
****************
Yeah...deeply religious people can be pretty smug and sure of themselves.
Cheers.
Sriram
I can't access the site, but I would like to know more about the researchers and their credentials: how many were "tested," and what they were asked and under what conditions. Most of these surveys are not worth the paper they're written on, and I suspect this is one of them.
This isn't a survey, but a high quality academic research study published in one of the most prestigious journals in the field following extensive peer review.
The approach involved fairly standard psychological research methods involving a series of 'games' and tasks.
Not sure if you can all access the paper (I can but then I get academic access to all sorts of things), but here it is:
http://www.cell.com/current-biology/pdf/S0960-9822(15)01167-7.pdf
I'll comment more once I've read the details.
As I understand it, these findings were based on the attitudes of children under the age of 12. I suggest such conclusions are highly dubious based on children of that age. I think most children, of any or no religious influence, are guided in their sharing tendencies purely from self-interest; and only as they mature can any other conclusions be of any acceptable veracity.
The ability to share certainly increases with age, as the research discusses. But these changes largely occur in much younger children - social, altruistic and generous behaviours tend to develop at ages 3-5, so by 12 this will be well embedded.
But nonetheless there are differences, so even were you to conclude that altruistic behaviour is not fully formed, it is developing better within the children from non religious backgrounds.
There is a third element to the research with conclusions that children from religious backgrounds have a greater sensitivity to perceived injustices. Hmm might be manifested in adulthood by trying to 'rubbish' reputable research whose conclusions (about children from religious households) you don't like rather than accept and try to understand the findings. But we'd never see that kind of behaviour amongst our religious friends here, would we ;)
Perhaps it would be more meaningful if the research was conducted on adults, whose altruism, or not, may be significant in our lives.
-
I think what this research is showing is hiw religion enforces tribal thinking. We're programmed to put our own tribe first and subconsciously or otherwise religion encourages tribalism. It'd be interesting to see if the findings could be replicated with children raised with other strong 'tribal' identities.
-
Hi everyone,
It seems that religious upbringing reduces altruism!
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/11/151105121916.htm
***************
Many families believe religion plays an essential role in childhood moral development. But children of religious parents may not be as altruistic as those parents think, according to a new international study from the University of Chicago published Nov. 5 in Current Biology.
A team of developmental psychologists led by Prof. Jean Decety examined the perceptions and behavior of children in six countries. The study assessed the children's tendency to share -- a measure of their altruism -- and their inclination to judge and punish others for bad behavior.
Children from religious families were less likely to share with others than were children from non-religious families. A religious upbringing also was associated with more punitive tendencies in response to anti-social behavior.
The results were at odds with the perceptions of religious parents, who were more likely than non-religious parents to report that their children had a high degree of empathy and sensitivity to the plight of others.
Consistent with previous studies, in general the children were more likely to share as they got older. But children from households identifying as Christian and Muslim were significantly less likely than children from non-religious households to share their stickers. The negative relation between religiosity and altruism grew stronger with age; children with a longer experience of religion in the household were the least likely to share.
Children from religious households favored stronger punishments for anti-social behavior and judged such behavior more harshly than non-religious children. These results support previous studies of adults, which have found religiousness is linked with punitive attitudes toward interpersonal offenses.
"Together, these results reveal the similarity across countries in how religion negatively influences children's altruism.
****************
Yeah...deeply religious people can be pretty smug and sure of themselves.
Cheers.
Sriram
I can't access the site, but I would like to know more about the researchers and their credentials: how many were "tested," and what they were asked and under what conditions. Most of these surveys are not worth the paper they're written on, and I suspect this is one of them.
And of course this has nothing to do with the fact that you will do just about anything to deny anything negative attached to your religion!
-
Hi everyone,
It seems that religious upbringing reduces altruism!
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/11/151105121916.htm
***************
Many families believe religion plays an essential role in childhood moral development. But children of religious parents may not be as altruistic as those parents think, according to a new international study from the University of Chicago published Nov. 5 in Current Biology.
A team of developmental psychologists led by Prof. Jean Decety examined the perceptions and behavior of children in six countries. The study assessed the children's tendency to share -- a measure of their altruism -- and their inclination to judge and punish others for bad behavior.
Children from religious families were less likely to share with others than were children from non-religious families. A religious upbringing also was associated with more punitive tendencies in response to anti-social behavior.
The results were at odds with the perceptions of religious parents, who were more likely than non-religious parents to report that their children had a high degree of empathy and sensitivity to the plight of others.
Consistent with previous studies, in general the children were more likely to share as they got older. But children from households identifying as Christian and Muslim were significantly less likely than children from non-religious households to share their stickers. The negative relation between religiosity and altruism grew stronger with age; children with a longer experience of religion in the household were the least likely to share.
Children from religious households favored stronger punishments for anti-social behavior and judged such behavior more harshly than non-religious children. These results support previous studies of adults, which have found religiousness is linked with punitive attitudes toward interpersonal offenses.
"Together, these results reveal the similarity across countries in how religion negatively influences children's altruism.
****************
Yeah...deeply religious people can be pretty smug and sure of themselves.
Cheers.
Sriram
I can't access the site, but I would like to know more about the researchers and their credentials: how many were "tested," and what they were asked and under what conditions. Most of these surveys are not worth the paper they're written on, and I suspect this is one of them.
This isn't a survey, but a high quality academic research study published in one of the most prestigious journals in the field following extensive peer review.
The approach involved fairly standard psychological research methods involving a series of 'games' and tasks.
Not sure if you can all access the paper (I can but then I get academic access to all sorts of things), but here it is:
http://www.cell.com/current-biology/pdf/S0960-9822(15)01167-7.pdf
I'll comment more once I've read the details.
As I understand it, these findings were based on the attitudes of children under the age of 12. I suggest such conclusions are highly dubious based on children of that age. I think most children, of any or no religious influence, are guided in their sharing tendencies purely from self-interest; and only as they mature can any other conclusions be of any acceptable veracity.
The ability to share certainly increases with age, as the research discusses. But these changes largely occur in much younger children - social, altruistic and generous behaviours tend to develop at ages 3-5, so by 12 this will be well embedded.
But nonetheless there are differences, so even were you to conclude that altruistic behaviour is not fully formed, it is developing better within the children from non religious backgrounds.
There is a third element to the research with conclusions that children from religious backgrounds have a greater sensitivity to perceived injustices. Hmm might be manifested in adulthood by trying to 'rubbish' reputable research whose conclusions (about children from religious households) you don't like rather than accept and try to understand the findings. But we'd never see that kind of behaviour amongst our religious friends here, would we ;)
Perhaps it would be more meaningful if the research was conducted on adults, whose altruism, or not, may be significant in our lives.
But that would be a different study, and I am aware of a number of studies that have looked into these sorts of things with adults (albeit not from a fundamental psychology research perspective).
Simply because it would be interesting additionally to see research on adults doesn't make this study less interesting in itself or less relevant.
-
If you have your own kids it is obvious when you have to stop ordering them to share nicely, and it's well before twelve.
-
Apart from the Independent report on the study - quoted on a parallel thread (mods - would it be worth combining the 2?), I can't access anything. Does the detail ennumerate the number of children involved from atheist, agnostic, practising religous and nominally religious families - or are the last two treated as one?
I'm also aware that the study covered children from across the globe (or so the Independent report says), but can 1000, from a pool of perhaps 1.3 billion under-12s (not the 1.8 under 15's I mentioned in the other thread) give a truely representative picture?
-
In restricted circles Shaker's First Law has, I think, gained a very modest degree of currency - now I'm thinking of formulating Shaker's Second Law: The degree of hard critical thinking and scepticism shown by the religious toward any study critical of religious belief is inversely proportional to the degree of critical thinking and scepticism they demonstrate toward the content of their own religion.
It doesn't flow that wonderfully, I admit, so I'll keep working on it to make it a bit more snappy.
-
Apart from the Independent report on the study - quoted on a parallel thread (mods - would it be worth combining the 2?), I can't access anything. Does the detail ennumerate the number of children involved from atheist, agnostic, practising religous and nominally religious families - or are the last two treated as one?
I'm also aware that the study covered children from across the globe (or so the Independent report says), but can 1000, from a pool of perhaps 1.3 billion under-12s (not the 1.8 under 15's I mentioned in the other thread) give a truely representative picture?
I've linked to the actual paper.
http://www.cell.com/current-biology/pdf/S0960-9822(15)01167-7.pdf
I think this is open access - certainly I can access it, but then I would be able to, but also so can NS.
But frankly I'm not particularly interested in your critique of the methodology Hope, given that you aren't a professional scientific researcher and really have no idea what you are talking about in terms of scientific methodology.
However this was published in one of the leading journals in the field, one that only publishes the highest quality research and uses extensive peer review (the peers of course being experts) to determine which papers get published and which don't. And if there were methodological flaws, it wouldn't have been published.
So rather than try to rubbish the paper (which given your lack of expertise and also inherent bias is rather obvious and pathetic) why not actually try to address the findings and consider why it might be so.
I actually think there is a lot that is rather interesting here and it relates to perception vs reality issues, plus attitudes toward group vs non group and finally to the notion that altruism within a religious context often has a much greater emphasis on being seen to be done (as well as being done) than in the non religious sphere where altruism tends to be a much more private (and therefore 'invisible') activity.
So all of this points to a situation where religious people may be (in reality) no more altruistic, or even less altruistic, than non religious people, but genuinely (I'm being charitable here) perceive that they are more altruistic.
-
Apart from the Independent report on the study - quoted on a parallel thread (mods - would it be worth combining the 2?), I can't access anything. Does the detail ennumerate the number of children involved from atheist, agnostic, practising religous and nominally religious families - or are the last two treated as one?
I'm also aware that the study covered children from across the globe (or so the Independent report says), but can 1000, from a pool of perhaps 1.3 billion under-12s (not the 1.8 under 15's I mentioned in the other thread) give a truely representative picture?
I've linked to the actual paper.
http://www.cell.com/current-biology/pdf/S0960-9822(15)01167-7.pdf
I think this is open access - certainly I can access it, but then I would be able to, but also so can NS.
But frankly I'm not particularly interested in your critique of the methodology Hope, given that you aren't a professional scientific researcher and really have no idea what you are talking about in terms of scientific methodology.
However this was published in one of the leading journals in the field, one that only publishes the highest quality research and uses extensive peer review (the peers of course being experts) to determine which papers get published and which don't. And if there were methodological flaws, it wouldn't have been published.
So rather than try to rubbish the paper (which given your lack of expertise and also inherent bias is rather obvious and pathetic) why not actually try to address the findings and consider why it might be so.
I actually think there is a lot that is rather interesting here and it relates to perception vs reality issues, plus attitudes toward group vs non group and finally to the notion that altruism within a religious context often has a much greater emphasis on being seen to be done (as well as being done) than in the non religious sphere where altruism tends to be a much more private (and therefore 'invisible') activity.
So all of this points to a situation where religious people may be (in reality) no more altruistic, or even less altruistic, than non religious people, but genuinely (I'm being charitable here) perceive that they are more altruistic.
Excellent post! A brilliant explanation that even a senile old fart can understand - thanks Prof!
-
Apart from the Independent report on the study - quoted on a parallel thread (mods - would it be worth combining the 2?), I can't access anything. Does the detail ennumerate the number of children involved from atheist, agnostic, practising religous and nominally religious families - or are the last two treated as one?
I'm also aware that the study covered children from across the globe (or so the Independent report says), but can 1000, from a pool of perhaps 1.3 billion under-12s (not the 1.8 under 15's I mentioned in the other thread) give a truely representative picture?
I've linked to the actual paper.
http://www.cell.com/current-biology/pdf/S0960-9822(15)01167-7.pdf
I think this is open access - certainly I can access it, but then I would be able to, but also so can NS.
But frankly I'm not particularly interested in your critique of the methodology Hope, given that you aren't a professional scientific researcher and really have no idea what you are talking about in terms of scientific methodology.
However this was published in one of the leading journals in the field, one that only publishes the highest quality research and uses extensive peer review (the peers of course being experts) to determine which papers get published and which don't. And if there were methodological flaws, it wouldn't have been published.
So rather than try to rubbish the paper (which given your lack of expertise and also inherent bias is rather obvious and pathetic) why not actually try to address the findings and consider why it might be so.
I actually think there is a lot that is rather interesting here and it relates to perception vs reality issues, plus attitudes toward group vs non group and finally to the notion that altruism within a religious context often has a much greater emphasis on being seen to be done (as well as being done) than in the non religious sphere where altruism tends to be a much more private (and therefore 'invisible') activity.
So all of this points to a situation where religious people may be (in reality) no more altruistic, or even less altruistic, than non religious people, but genuinely (I'm being charitable here) perceive that they are more altruistic.
Excellent post! A brilliant explanation that even a senile old fart can understand - thanks Prof!
You're welcome
-
Apart from the Independent report on the study - quoted on a parallel thread (mods - would it be worth combining the 2?), I can't access anything. Does the detail ennumerate the number of children involved from atheist, agnostic, practising religous and nominally religious families - or are the last two treated as one?
I'm also aware that the study covered children from across the globe (or so the Independent report says), but can 1000, from a pool of perhaps 1.3 billion under-12s (not the 1.8 under 15's I mentioned in the other thread) give a truely representative picture?
I've linked to the actual paper.
http://www.cell.com/current-biology/pdf/S0960-9822(15)01167-7.pdf
I think this is open access - certainly I can access it, but then I would be able to, but also so can NS.
But frankly I'm not particularly interested in your critique of the methodology Hope, given that you aren't a professional scientific researcher and really have no idea what you are talking about in terms of scientific methodology.
However this was published in one of the leading journals in the field, one that only publishes the highest quality research and uses extensive peer review (the peers of course being experts) to determine which papers get published and which don't. And if there were methodological flaws, it wouldn't have been published.
So rather than try to rubbish the paper (which given your lack of expertise and also inherent bias is rather obvious and pathetic) why not actually try to address the findings and consider why it might be so.
I actually think there is a lot that is rather interesting here and it relates to perception vs reality issues, plus attitudes toward group vs non group and finally to the notion that altruism within a religious context often has a much greater emphasis on being seen to be done (as well as being done) than in the non religious sphere where altruism tends to be a much more private (and therefore 'invisible') activity.
So all of this points to a situation where religious people may be (in reality) no more altruistic, or even less altruistic, than non religious people, but genuinely (I'm being charitable here) perceive that they are more altruistic.
Excellent post! A brilliant explanation that even a senile old fart can understand - thanks Prof!
You're welcome
I was reading through the previous posts on this thread thinking even if a religious believer did do some or other altruistic act at the same time as a non-religious person was doing an exactly similar altruistic act, the non-religious person will always be the most altruistic of the two, simply because they are doing this altruistic act without any mind to heavenly brownie points of any kind; game set and match.
Anyway, after reading your post I see that we are more or less singing from the same prayer sheet, very encouraging.
ippy
-
When it comes to charitable acts I think Christians are onto a but of a lose/lose. If they don't do them then they are criticised as not sufficiently Christian; if they do then the belief a to often us that they either do it for 'brownie points' or to get bums on seats.
They can't really win.
-
When it comes to charitable acts I think Christians are onto a but of a lose/lose. If they don't do them then they are criticised as not sufficiently Christian; if they do then the belief a to often us that they either do it for 'brownie points' or to get bums on seats.
They can't really win.
That may be true but I'm not sure it is key to this discussion.
Actually I don't think the damned if you do, damned if you don't line is the point. I think the problem arises when some christians (and there are rather too many of them) give the impression that christians do more good work, even sometimes that those that aren't religious are somehow incapable (or simply don't) get involved in charitable work, volunteering etc. We've all heard the arguments.
Now where not only is this not true, but also there is evidence that non religious people are just as likely as religious people to get involved in charity/volunteering etc (as is the case certainly in the UK) or even to be more altruistic (as in this study) then the attitudes of the 'look at us we do all this good work and you don't' religious brigade really does grate.
-
I was responding mostly to Ippy. But whilst the in- your-face altruism of some religious is most definitely annoying, it's not the only kind. And when you have the likes of Floo saying that Christians should demonstrate their faith through good deeds, it's difficult to judge how society thinks Christians should behave when it comes to charity and altruism. At least us non-Christians are free of all that baggage.
-
I was responding mostly to Ippy. But whilst the in- your-face altruism of some religious is most definitely annoying, it's not the only kind. And when you have the likes of Floo saying that Christians should demonstrate their faith through good deeds, it's difficult to judge how society thinks Christians should behave when it comes to charity and altruism. At least us non-Christians are free of all that baggage.
Yes I understand.
But I do think there is a much greater emphasis on altruism being seen, being visible within christianity than in the broader society. Two most obvious examples being that giving, in a very public way, is and always has been part of the mass. So it is integral to worship that people give and are seen to be giving. Another example is the apparent need for christians to badge charities as 'christian', to ensure that it is seen that christianity is involved. I must admit I've never understood this as a concept, considering charity to be much more about what you do and who you help rather than who you are as help-givers.
Now I think this need to be very visible, coupled with the small, but very coherent community associated with many religions leads to what I think may be a kind of delusion. Namely that because their charitable altruistic acts are very visible and often inherently associated with their religion that (in a process of 2+2=5) they must be doing more than non religious people.
Add to that a continual drip feed of view that christianity is about being good and christians should get involved in good deeds and it is perhaps not unsurprising that christians sometimes end up believing their own hype - that they are doing more than others.
But it is hype of course as there is no evidence, certainly in the UK that religious people are more likely to get involved in charitable work, voluntary activities etc than non religious people.
-
'The plate' is seen as very bad form in churches these days - cash collections are usually for services attended by non- regulars and are often for charity.
Quite why Christian Aid is so called I don't know but so believe they deliver good value. When I was on that side of the fence I remember the feeling that giving was a matter of love and gratitude. There was almost a drive to keep giving secret and unnoticed especially if done in a private capacity. In fact there was a rather damaging sub- context that all bad deeds, thoughts and attitudes come from within us but all the good we did was God working through us and not us at all.
-
Surely one of the issues here are those Christians, such as Alan Burns, who claim that Christians are better for being Christian
-
In which case it doesn't make any difference what anyone does.
I remember this weird belief that Christians chose to follow Jesus because we knew how shitty we were, unlike others who didn't recognise it. Bear in mind I was a part of a fairly mainstream-to-liberal church.
Not very healthy when you think about it.
-
'The plate' is seen as very bad form in churches these days - cash collections are usually for services attended by non- regulars and are often for charity.
I must admit that my experience recently tends to be RCC rather than Anglican but the visible, public giving aspect is very much alive and well and integral to the mass.
Sure it isn't a 'plate' but a bag, but this is handed round in a very visible and public way such that the giving is also very public. Sure no one actually sees what an individual givens but they do see that there is an act of giving. And actually even in cases where people given by direct debit (which my wife does) the church provides little slips so that there is still the opportunity to be seen to be 'giving' even if the actual giving was via electronic transfer at the beginning of the month.
So the point remains that the visible element of the giving (the being seen to give as well as actually giving) is alive. And this does seem to be a peculiarly religious (perhaps just christian) thing. I can't think of any other organisation I belong to, that relies on charitable donations/subscriptions, where this happens. Sure back in the old days you used to bring along your weekly 'subs' for cubs/scouts etc or for the football team or for my choir. But now that's all done by termly or annual subscription payment and there's no suggestion that anyone needs to see that you've done it (beyond the treasurer of course).
-
I think the only comparable is probably the charity auction where everyone knows exactly what you have bid for the signed football shirt or case of champagne and conspicuous and competitive giving is encouraged.
-
When I was on that side of the fence I remember the feeling that giving was a matter of love and gratitude. There was almost a drive to keep giving secret and unnoticed especially if done in a private capacity. In fact there was a rather damaging sub- context that all bad deeds, thoughts and attitudes come from within us but all the good we did was God working through us and not us at all.
But that isn't consistent with an approach which seems overtly (and unnecessarily) to publicise the giving, either through the public offering as discussed above, but also by branding charities according to a religion. That simply doesn't happen in the secular charitable world. Charities are names according to what they do, not who is doing the giving etc.
So in the secular world a 'Black women's refuge' charity would be helping Black women, not a charity run by black women (even if that were also the case. Yet in the christian world we constantly see charities branded as christian for reasons I struggle with behind being seen to be good. There are some astonishing examples, e.g. 'Catholic concern for animals' (I kid you not) - wtf - who on earth if you are running a charity helping animals in need do you need to brad it by a religion.
-
I think the only comparable is probably the charity auction where everyone knows exactly what you have bid for the signed football shirt or case of champagne and conspicuous and competitive giving is encouraged.
Sure, but that's really about making sure that as much money as possible is raised, and I guess it is part of the fun of the event.
-
I think the only comparable is probably the charity auction where everyone knows exactly what you have bid for the signed football shirt or case of champagne and conspicuous and competitive giving is encouraged.
Sure, but that's really about making sure that as much money as possible is raised, and I guess it is part of the fun of the event.
'Fun' aside, I'm guessing that passing the plate/bag was and is about getting as much money as possible. Nothing is considered more important by the church than keeping itself going, although from its point of view it is serving God and not itself.
-
I think the only comparable is probably the charity auction where everyone knows exactly what you have bid for the signed football shirt or case of champagne and conspicuous and competitive giving is encouraged.
Sure, but that's really about making sure that as much money as possible is raised, and I guess it is part of the fun of the event.
'Fun' aside, I'm guessing that passing the plate/bag was and is about getting as much money as possible. Nothing is considered more important by the church than keeping itself going, although from its point of view it is serving God and not itself.
I think that would have worked with a plate where you could clearly see how much money someone put in and how much in total was on the plate, but not so with the bag, which I think is specifically designed to prevent anyone seeing how much anyone else gives, although clearly that they have given. And I suspect it is largely filled with slips indicating that donation has been made by direct debit anyhow.
I think the very public offering is and always has been an integral part of the process.
-
When I was on that side of the fence I remember the feeling that giving was a matter of love and gratitude. There was almost a drive to keep giving secret and unnoticed especially if done in a private capacity. In fact there was a rather damaging sub- context that all bad deeds, thoughts and attitudes come from within us but all the good we did was God working through us and not us at all.
But that isn't consistent with an approach which seems overtly (and unnecessarily) to publicise the giving, either through the public offering as discussed above, but also by branding charities according to a religion. That simply doesn't happen in the secular charitable world. Charities are names according to what they do, not who is doing the giving etc.
So in the secular world a 'Black women's refuge' charity would be helping Black women, not a charity run by black women (even if that were also the case. Yet in the christian world we constantly see charities branded as christian for reasons I struggle with behind being seen to be good. There are some astonishing examples, e.g. 'Catholic concern for animals' (I kid you not) - wtf - who on earth if you are running a charity helping animals in need do you need to brad it by a religion.
There is an attitude among many Christians that people come first and animals don't matter so much. I'm guessing that this charity is flagging up that it's ok to be a Christian and put concern for animals high on your agenda.
Is it more irritating to give to a charity that doesn't have a Christian brand and then subsequently discover that they have a religious ethos? At least with Christians Against Poverty you know what you're getting by the name alone; not so The Children's Society or World Vision.
-
I think the only comparable is probably the charity auction where everyone knows exactly what you have bid for the signed football shirt or case of champagne and conspicuous and competitive giving is encouraged.
Sure, but that's really about making sure that as much money as possible is raised, and I guess it is part of the fun of the event.
'Fun' aside, I'm guessing that passing the plate/bag was and is about getting as much money as possible. Nothing is considered more important by the church than keeping itself going, although from its point of view it is serving God and not itself.
I think that would have worked with a plate where you could clearly see how much money someone put in and how much in total was on the plate, but not so with the bag, which I think is specifically designed to prevent anyone seeing how much anyone else gives, although clearly that they have given. And I suspect it is largely filled with slips indicating that donation has been made by direct debit anyhow.
I think the very public offering is and always has been an integral part of the process.
And no doubt the direct debuts can be gift aided.
Passing a bag is to jog the conscience. Have I given enough? Could I give more?
And certainly in Anglicanism the priest used to bless any offerings. Tricky with a spreadsheet on Windows. I think they just miss that bit out now.
-
When I was on that side of the fence I remember the feeling that giving was a matter of love and gratitude. There was almost a drive to keep giving secret and unnoticed especially if done in a private capacity. In fact there was a rather damaging sub- context that all bad deeds, thoughts and attitudes come from within us but all the good we did was God working through us and not us at all.
But that isn't consistent with an approach which seems overtly (and unnecessarily) to publicise the giving, either through the public offering as discussed above, but also by branding charities according to a religion. That simply doesn't happen in the secular charitable world. Charities are names according to what they do, not who is doing the giving etc.
So in the secular world a 'Black women's refuge' charity would be helping Black women, not a charity run by black women (even if that were also the case. Yet in the christian world we constantly see charities branded as christian for reasons I struggle with behind being seen to be good. There are some astonishing examples, e.g. 'Catholic concern for animals' (I kid you not) - wtf - who on earth if you are running a charity helping animals in need do you need to brad it by a religion.
There is an attitude among many Christians that people come first and animals don't matter so much. I'm guessing that this charity is flagging up that it's ok to be a Christian and put concern for animals high on your agenda.
Is it more irritating to give to a charity that doesn't have a Christian brand and then subsequently discover that they have a religious ethos? At least with Christians Against Poverty you know what you're getting by the name alone; not so The Children's Society or World Vision.
I agree there is am issue with religious charities than now recognise that overt branding as religious may be off-putting to potential givers. But be in no doubt that when justifying what has been done with the money donated, e.g. through their annual report to the Charity Commission these under the counter religious charities will make sure everyone knows just how christian they are.
But I just don't understand the need for a charity to be 'religious' unless what it does specifically links to religion. To my mind a charity is about who you help, not about the motivation of the help-givers. As soon as you start to focus on the help-givers rather than the help-receivers then you have lost the plot in terms of what charity should be all about.
-
Yes and no. Christian Aid is very good at harnessing the support of churches and individuals through its worship and study materials. Giving and faith become integrated. It's not a question of whether the help-givers are putting the focus on themselves or the needy, but God or the needy. That's where things can get tricky because of the tendency to think that somewhere down the line help has to mean conversion. And of course there is often - not always - a value judgement placed on what God does and does not approve of.
-
Yes and no. Christian Aid is very good at harnessing the support of churches and individuals through its worship and study materials. Giving and faith become integrated. It's not a question of whether the help-givers are putting the focus on themselves or the needy, but God or the needy. That's where things can get tricky because of the tendency to think that somewhere down the line help has to mean conversion. And of course there is often - not always - a value judgement placed on what God does and does not approve of.
But that's part of the issue - why should it only be a religious charity that is worthy of the full support that a church can mobilise - why not Oxfam rather than Christian Aid, or Medicine Sans Frontier etc. And this is often the case, particularly in RCC where often they will only officially mobilise within the church to support their own RCC charities. So it is a kind of insular giving merry go round.
And I think this helps perpetuate the myth amongst some religious people that they do more, or even that really charity is only supported by the religious. If this view is regular reinforced when they see their own religious network working with religious charities with the very public support from the religious churchgoers. Yet the vast amount going on with non religious people and secular charities is far less visible to those people.
-
The charity I'm most familiar with in this context is Christian Aid. They produce high quality, often quite challenging materials for worship and for individuals to use - for example one Christmas their advent materials for services and private reflection were on life as a Palestinian child in Bethlehem today. I think they see part of their purpose as reflecting on the whys if giving as well as what or how to give, and for them the context for that is Christian. Obviously churches could support secular charities (and IME many do, especially medical research and support ones) but it would be wrong for Oxfam to produce materials for use in Christian worship.
I never encountered an attitude that only the religious are charitable. I did find though that some felt only the religious try got why charity is important - to them it isn't just about people but about God.
-
I've come across the attitude that only charity done in Jesus's name counts.
It's in one of my old hymn books.
I think it's a c of e one.
-
Thanks for the lnk Prof
I don't doubt the validity of the study at all, or its findings, but I do wonder... Drawing statistical relationships is fine, and very interesting, but what is the controll group / data? I struggle with this whenever any claims are made for the roll of religious belief in having beneficial or limiting affect on a persons moral behaviour. If it's reduced to an individual level then how can we possibly know if a person would be 'better' with or without a religious faith? Based on anecdotal evidence we might expect a conversion too or from religion to have a similar effect, depending on the person.
The danger, I think, is in taking a statistical likelyhood and using it to form a generalised views on the value of religion. Reasons for participation in religion are far more complex than simply for moral betterment. I am excited by what this study reveals but a little uncertain about how relevant or meaningful it can be on its own. It would be good to see a compilation of all the various studies done on the impacts of religion, as I'm sure there must be loads - social, economic, psychological, educational... Sorry this was a bit rambling.
And listen, I am not a researching scientist and am happy to concede to your better informed views. These are just my thoughts.
-
Hi everyone,
People brought up in a very religious and orthodox environment (in all religions around the world) tend to be very smug and 'holier than thou'. This makes them judgmental.....(if people are having problems...they probably deserve it)!
This judgmental attitude also makes many of them indifferent to the suffering of others and perhaps less charitable. Only in instances where God specifically requires them to be altruistic do they want to do something about it.
People need religion till they grow up....after which they will automatically know how to live.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
Hi everyone,
People brought up in a very religious and orthodox environment (in all religions around the world) tend to be very smug and 'holier than thou'. This makes them judgmental.....(if people are having problems...they probably deserve it)!
This judgmental attitude also makes many of them indifferent to the suffering of others and perhaps less charitable. Only in instances where God specifically requires them to be altruistic do they want to do something about it.
People need religion till they grow up....after which they will automatically know how to live.
Cheers.
Sriram
I agree with your first two paragraphs, but the third . . . ? I'm not sure that this is true.
I think that when they grow up they THINK they know how to live and that thought will almost certainly be the result of their religious upbringing.
-
Or rebelling against it.
-
Of course, what I mean by 'grow up' is a little different from what you probably mean. I am not referring to physical age. I am referring to spiritual maturity.
-
Of course, what I mean by 'grow up' is a little different from what you probably mean. I am not referring to physical age. I am referring to spiritual maturity.
But why do they need religion.
It is perfectly possible (and happens all the time) for a children to grow up and develop into a mature and ethical adult without religion imposing whatsoever.
-
Dear Prof,
It is perfectly possible (and happens all the time) for a children to grow up and develop into a mature and ethical adult without religion imposing whatsoever.
Where?
School, buildings, football, speech, literature, where can you go to hide from religion.
Is there a place in this world where you can escape religion.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Prof,
It is perfectly possible (and happens all the time) for a children to grow up and develop into a mature and ethical adult without religion imposing whatsoever.
Where?
School, buildings, football, speech, literature, where can you go to hide from religion.
Is there a place in this world where you can escape religion.
Gonnagle.
For plenty of kids in this country (probably most) religion plays no meaningful part in their upbringing or their lives. Sure they might learn that religion exists in RE lessons at school but that is about knowledge rather than influencing their upbringing and their moral development.
They have no active involvement in any religion and nor do their families. Yet they are perfectly capable of developing into mature and moral adults. Religion is not necessary at all.
They don't need to hide but unless you choose to look it out religion is all but invisible in a meaningful sense in terms of influencing people's lives in the UK.
-
Dear Prof,
It is perfectly possible (and happens all the time) for a children to grow up and develop into a mature and ethical adult without religion imposing whatsoever.
Where?
School, buildings, football, speech, literature, where can you go to hide from religion.
Is there a place in this world where you can escape religion.
Gonnagle.
For plenty of kids in this country (probably most) religion plays no meaningful part in their upbringing or their lives. Sure they might learn that religion exists in RE lessons at school but that is about knowledge rather than influencing their upbringing and their moral development.
They have no active involvement in any religion and nor do their families. Yet they are perfectly capable of developing into mature and moral adults. Religion is not necessary at all.
They don't need to hide but unless you choose to look it out religion is all but invisible in a meaningful sense in terms of influencing people's lives in the UK.
Try telling that to the likes of Ippy.
-
Dear Prof,
It is perfectly possible (and happens all the time) for a children to grow up and develop into a mature and ethical adult without religion imposing whatsoever.
Where?
School, buildings, football, speech, literature, where can you go to hide from religion.
Is there a place in this world where you can escape religion.
Gonnagle.
For plenty of kids in this country (probably most) religion plays no meaningful part in their upbringing or their lives. Sure they might learn that religion exists in RE lessons at school but that is about knowledge rather than influencing their upbringing and their moral development.
They have no active involvement in any religion and nor do their families. Yet they are perfectly capable of developing into mature and moral adults. Religion is not necessary at all.
They don't need to hide but unless you choose to look it out religion is all but invisible in a meaningful sense in terms of influencing people's lives in the UK.
. . . religion is all but invisible in a meaningful sense in terms of influencing people's lives in the UK.
This seems to be strange statement to make considering the contents of this Forum
I would also dispute your statement that "For plenty of kids in this country (probably most) religion plays no meaningful part in their upbringing or their lives".
-
Hi everyone,
People brought up in a very religious and orthodox environment (in all religions around the world) tend to be very smug and 'holier than thou'. This makes them judgmental.....(if people are having problems...they probably deserve it)!
This judgmental attitude also makes many of them indifferent to the suffering of others and perhaps less charitable. Only in instances where God specifically requires them to be altruistic do they want to do something about it.
People need religion till they grow up....after which they will automatically know how to live.
Cheers.
Sriram
People need religion till they grow up; why?
ippy
-
Hi everyone,
People brought up in a very religious and orthodox environment (in all religions around the world) tend to be very smug and 'holier than thou'. This makes them judgmental.....(if people are having problems...they probably deserve it)!
This judgmental attitude also makes many of them indifferent to the suffering of others and perhaps less charitable. Only in instances where God specifically requires them to be altruistic do they want to do something about it.
People need religion till they grow up....after which they will automatically know how to live.
Cheers.
Sriram
People need religion till they grow up; why?
ippy
Actually, it's when people grow up and become mature adults, and realise what is what, that they need religion
-
And yet there are literally innumerable mature adults who have no religion and moreover no need for one. How come?
Unless of course you're going to define them as not mature and not adults?
-
And yet there are literally innumerable mature adults who have no religion and moreover no need for one. How come?
Unless of course you're going to define them as not mature and not adults?
It may be that those who have no religion simply haven't "discovered" it. In our short life-time all of us could benefit from all kinds of experiences, if we did but appreciate what is there to garner. And of course, there are many reasons why some distance themselves from religion; though the majority in the world express at least some affinity with it.
-
And yet there are literally innumerable mature adults who have no religion and moreover no need for one. How come?
Unless of course you're going to define them as not mature and not adults?
It may be that those who have no religion simply haven't "discovered" it.
... which is not going to apply to those who have had it (or had one) and lost or abandoned it.
And of course, there are many reasons why some distance themselves from religion; though the majority in the world express at least some affinity with it.
The issue there becomes one of differentiating between actual, sincere believers (true believers, without any disparaging overtones in that phrase) and those purely nominal cultural adherents.
-
Hi everyone,
People brought up in a very religious and orthodox environment (in all religions around the world) tend to be very smug and 'holier than thou'. This makes them judgmental.....(if people are having problems...they probably deserve it)!
This judgmental attitude also makes many of them indifferent to the suffering of others and perhaps less charitable. Only in instances where God specifically requires them to be altruistic do they want to do something about it.
People need religion till they grow up....after which they will automatically know how to live.
Cheers.
Sriram
People need religion till they grow up; why?
ippy
But you have been neotenised you great big laddy you.
-
And yet there are literally innumerable mature adults who have no religion and moreover no need for one. How come?
Unless of course you're going to define them as not mature and not adults?
It may be that those who have no religion simply haven't "discovered" it.
... which is not going to apply to those who have had it (or had one) and lost or abandoned it.
And of course, there are many reasons why some distance themselves from religion; though the majority in the world express at least some affinity with it.
The issue there becomes one of differentiating between actual, sincere believers (true believers, without any disparaging overtones in that phrase) and those purely nominal cultural adherents.
Well, there we are in the realms of the unprovable, if I can put it that way. There are, I believe, though it's unprovable, huge numbers who you might describe as nominal, cultural, adherents, who, when push comes to shove, would be sincere believers.
-
Well, there we are in the realms of the unprovable, if I can put it that way. There are, I believe, though it's unprovable, huge numbers who you might describe as nominal, cultural, adherents, who, when push comes to shove, would be sincere believers.
If it's unprovable - I don't believe it is - then it's just an empty assertion. Push does come to shove in everybody's life at some point. Almost everybody, unless they themselves die fairly young, has to face the sickness and death of those they love. Everybody has to face their own illnesses and ultimately their own deaths: yet there's no evidence at all that this turns non-believers into believers.
-
Well, there we are in the realms of the unprovable, if I can put it that way. There are, I believe, though it's unprovable, huge numbers who you might describe as nominal, cultural, adherents, who, when push comes to shove, would be sincere believers.
If it's unprovable - I don't believe it is - then it's just an empty assertion. Push does come to shove in everybody's life at some point. Almost everybody, unless they themselves die fairly young, has to face the sickness and death of those they love. Everybody has to face their own illnesses and ultimately their own deaths: yet there's no evidence at all that this turns non-believers into believers.
Maybe, but I think there are many who, in times of great distress, turn to prayer, whether it be in their own travail, or that of others.
-
But based on what? You can't just say "Maybe" and then merely repeat exactly what you said before, with as little (i.e. no) evidence.
-
But based on what? You can't just say "Maybe" and then merely repeat exactly what you said before, with as little (i.e. no) evidence.
I said, "maybe," because neither you nor I can provide evidence one way or the other. Unless you can provide some to substantiate what you said.
-
I think it's pretty much human nature to pray when we or someone else is in the shit. Whether people emerge from that with any kind of belief is debatable.
-
I think it's pretty much human nature to pray when we or someone else is in the shit.
I'm not so sure, especially as time marches on and more and more people disclaim and distance themselves from any kind of religious adherence, formal or otherwise.
-
I think it's pretty much human nature to pray when we or someone else is in the shit. Whether people emerge from that with any kind of belief is debatable.
Well, if they don't, you are in effect, calling them delusionists; and I don't think the majority pray because they can't think of any thing else to do, but because they believe it will have an effect.
-
But based on what? You can't just say "Maybe" and then merely repeat exactly what you said before, with as little (i.e. no) evidence.
I said, "maybe," because neither you nor I can provide evidence one way or the other. Unless you can provide some to substantiate what you said.
So you're asking for evidence of people not doing something?
-
I think it's pretty much human nature to pray when we or someone else is in the shit.
I'm not so sure, especially as time marches on and more and more people disclaim and distance themselves from any kind of religious adherence, formal or otherwise.
Depends how you define 'pray'. I'd include 'please let everything be ok' said in a moment of crisis in that. I don't think it has much to do with religion at all.
-
But based on what? You can't just say "Maybe" and then merely repeat exactly what you said before, with as little (i.e. no) evidence.
I said, "maybe," because neither you nor I can provide evidence one way or the other. Unless you can provide some to substantiate what you said.
So you're asking for evidence of people not doing something?
You said: "yet there's no evidence at all that this turns non-believers into believers." Can you prove that or not? If not, it is merely your opinion.
-
Again, you're asking for evidence of non-doing, inaction.
-
I think it's pretty much human nature to pray when we or someone else is in the shit.
I'm not so sure, especially as time marches on and more and more people disclaim and distance themselves from any kind of religious adherence, formal or otherwise.
All I can say here is that during the most stressful event of my life so far, the traumatic death of my younger brother in very difficult circumstances and then the fall-out from this that lasted for many months, the notion of praying never once crossed my mind.
-
I think it's pretty much human nature to pray when we or someone else is in the shit.
I'm not so sure, especially as time marches on and more and more people disclaim and distance themselves from any kind of religious adherence, formal or otherwise.
Depends how you define 'pray'. I'd include 'please let everything be ok' said in a moment of crisis in that. I don't think it has much to do with religion at all.
Or, if the situation is bad enough, "For Fuck's Sake let me get myself out of this!"
-
All I can say here is that during the most stressful event of my life so far, the traumatic death of my younger brother in very difficult circumstances and then the fall-out from this that lasted for many months, the notion of praying never once crossed my mind.
Ditto.
-
Again, you're asking for evidence of non-doing, inaction.
In that case, don't make generalisations without being able to substantiate them.. You are the first to demand that of religious beliefs.
-
All I can say here is that during the most stressful event of my life so far, the traumatic death of my younger brother in very difficult circumstances and then the fall-out from this that lasted for many months, the notion of praying never once crossed my mind.
Ditto.
Maybe it's a cultural thing? Those of us raised with it revert to what we know.
Briefly.
-
Again, you're asking for evidence of non-doing, inaction.
In that case, don't make generalisations without being able to substantiate them.
Like this?
There are, I believe, though it's unprovable, huge numbers who you might describe as nominal, cultural, adherents, who, when push comes to shove, would be sincere believers.
-
Again, you're asking for evidence of non-doing, inaction.
In that case, don't make generalisations without being able to substantiate them.
Like this?
There are, I believe, though it's unprovable, huge numbers who you might describe as nominal, cultural, adherents, who, when push comes to shove, would be sincere believers.
Over the years I have heard many examples of people praying when in dire need, as you must have if you're honest about it. 9/11 is a prime example, if you've heard any of the survivors' stories.
-
For plenty of kids in this country (probably most) religion plays no meaningful part in their upbringing or their lives. Sure they might learn that religion exists in RE lessons at school but that is about knowledge rather than influencing their upbringing and their moral development.
They have no active involvement in any religion and nor do their families. Yet they are perfectly capable of developing into mature and moral adults. Religion is not necessary at all.
They don't need to hide but unless you choose to look it out religion is all but invisible in a meaningful sense in terms of influencing people's lives in the UK.
The problem is, PD (and others) is that you don't know what unconscious influence the Christian heritage of the UK has on your children. Having lived in Nepal, where the Christian heritage simply doesn't exist, we were able to see the Hindu equivalent in action. The locals had no idea it was so obvious - especially amongst the Maoist party leaders!!
-
In America that's not exactly a knock-me-down-with-a-feather revelation.
-
Hi everyone,
People brought up in a very religious and orthodox environment (in all religions around the world) tend to be very smug and 'holier than thou'. This makes them judgmental.....(if people are having problems...they probably deserve it)!
This judgmental attitude also makes many of them indifferent to the suffering of others and perhaps less charitable. Only in instances where God specifically requires them to be altruistic do they want to do something about it.
People need religion till they grow up....after which they will automatically know how to live.
Cheers.
Sriram
People need religion till they grow up; why?
ippy
Actually, it's when people grow up and become mature adults, and realise what is what, that they need religion
I can see what it is you're saying:
But you might as well say, people need need two plates of cold custard till they grow up but actually, it's when people grow up and become mature adults, and realise what is what, that they need is a plate of a paint stripingly hot curry from time to time.
No doubt in my mind, the custard and the curry will do me far more good than some old defunct, past its sell by date idea, that hasn't got a shred of evidence that would or could ever support it.
ippy
-
Hi everyone,
People brought up in a very religious and orthodox environment (in all religions around the world) tend to be very smug and 'holier than thou'. This makes them judgmental.....(if people are having problems...they probably deserve it)!
This judgmental attitude also makes many of them indifferent to the suffering of others and perhaps less charitable. Only in instances where God specifically requires them to be altruistic do they want to do something about it.
People need religion till they grow up....after which they will automatically know how to live.
Cheers.
Sriram
People need religion till they grow up; why?
ippy
Actually, it's when people grow up and become mature adults, and realise what is what, that they need religion
I can see what it is you're saying:
But you might as well say, people need need two plates of cold custard till they grow up but actually, it's when people grow up and become mature adults, and realise what is what, that they need is a plate of a paint stripingly hot curry from time to time.
No doubt in my mind, the custard and the curry will do me far more good than some old defunct, past its sell by date idea, that hasn't got a shred of evidence that would or could ever support it.
ippy
So past its sell-by-date that it is going strong 2,000 years after it began, with billions of adherents - some defunct idea!
-
Hi everyone,
People brought up in a very religious and orthodox environment (in all religions around the world) tend to be very smug and 'holier than thou'. This makes them judgmental.....(if people are having problems...they probably deserve it)!
This judgmental attitude also makes many of them indifferent to the suffering of others and perhaps less charitable. Only in instances where God specifically requires them to be altruistic do they want to do something about it.
People need religion till they grow up....after which they will automatically know how to live.
Cheers.
Sriram
People need religion till they grow up; why?
ippy
Actually, it's when people grow up and become mature adults, and realise what is what, that they need religion
I can see what it is you're saying:
But you might as well say, people need need two plates of cold custard till they grow up but actually, it's when people grow up and become mature adults, and realise what is what, that they need is a plate of a paint stripingly hot curry from time to time.
No doubt in my mind, the custard and the curry will do me far more good than some old defunct, past its sell by date idea, that hasn't got a shred of evidence that would or could ever support it.
ippy
So past its sell by date that it is going strong 2,000 years after it began, with billions of adherents - some defunct idea!
Well I suppose there will always be gullible people, when you add them all together, what a ginormous waste of time.
ippy
-
Hi everyone,
People brought up in a very religious and orthodox environment (in all religions around the world) tend to be very smug and 'holier than thou'. This makes them judgmental.....(if people are having problems...they probably deserve it)!
This judgmental attitude also makes many of them indifferent to the suffering of others and perhaps less charitable. Only in instances where God specifically requires them to be altruistic do they want to do something about it.
People need religion till they grow up....after which they will automatically know how to live.
Cheers.
Sriram
People need religion till they grow up; why?
ippy
Actually, it's when people grow up and become mature adults, and realise what is what, that they need religion
I can see what it is you're saying:
But you might as well say, people need need two plates of cold custard till they grow up but actually, it's when people grow up and become mature adults, and realise what is what, that they need is a plate of a paint stripingly hot curry from time to time.
No doubt in my mind, the custard and the curry will do me far more good than some old defunct, past its sell by date idea, that hasn't got a shred of evidence that would or could ever support it.
ippy
So past its sell by date that it is going strong 2,000 years after it began, with billions of adherents - some defunct idea!
Well I suppose there will always be gullible people, when you add them all together, what a ginormous wast of time.
ippy
Paganism pre-dates it by about 23,000 years. And doesn't that piss the Christians off big-time! Not that they will admit it, of course!
-
The problem is, PD (and others) is that you don't know what unconscious influence the Christian heritage of the UK has on your children. Having lived in Nepal, where the Christian heritage simply doesn't exist, we were able to see the Hindu equivalent in action. The locals had no idea it was so obvious - especially amongst the Maoist party leaders!!
I don't know about that.
I'd say the in the case of my own children (all adults now), in our family chats about behaviour and morality over the years, that Aristotle was the main philosophical influence and Christianity not at all, and especially since we were able to ensure they were protected from proselytising during their primary school years. It is perfectly possible to live meaningfully without the direct influence of religion: which in the case of my family was, and still is, something that afflicts others.
It is also quite possible to be interested in the social, political and historical influence of religion (such as by being a member of this Forum) without thinking that any of the core beliefs involving divine agency are actually true or that, in the case of Christianity, what it is alleged to 'teach' is more profound than other approaches.
-
Dear Prof,
They don't need to hide but unless you choose to look it out religion is all but invisible in a meaningful sense in terms of influencing people's lives in the UK.
Influencing people! does it?
I think that is a good question and I suppose you have to ask what we mean by influence.
In this country almost every main st has a Church, if you are a non believer do you just walk past it, don't give it a seconds thought.
I wonder how many non believers ( the word atheist is to restricting ) have used the expletive, for God's sake or Jesus Christ.
How many parents have been asked the question, has your child been baptised.
That's birth what about death, what kind of funeral, religion is still mentioned.
School, school assembly or history lessons, history lessons without mentioning religion!
Does your council building fly a flag, here in Glasgow it is usually three flags, Saltire or St Andrews cross, Union flag and sometimes our cities emblem, all three flags are religiously inspired.
Our national sport, well here in Glasgow, sadly you can't escape religion, but at most sporting events we ask God to save the Queen, the monarchy, religion again.
Our two biggest holidays, religion.
Law, architecture, historical literature, hell! ( hell :o ) even modern day literature, you will be hard pressed not to find some kind of reference to religion.
I think Prof that the above is just the tip of the iceberg.
Does religion influence us? a very good question.
Gonnagle.
-
Hi everyone,
People brought up in a very religious and orthodox environment (in all religions around the world) tend to be very smug and 'holier than thou'. This makes them judgmental.....(if people are having problems...they probably deserve it)!
This judgmental attitude also makes many of them indifferent to the suffering of others and perhaps less charitable. Only in instances where God specifically requires them to be altruistic do they want to do something about it.
People need religion till they grow up....after which they will automatically know how to live.
Cheers.
Sriram
People need religion till they grow up; why?
ippy
Actually, it's when people grow up and become mature adults, and realise what is what, that they need religion
I can see what it is you're saying:
But you might as well say, people need need two plates of cold custard till they grow up but actually, it's when people grow up and become mature adults, and realise what is what, that they need is a plate of a paint stripingly hot curry from time to time.
No doubt in my mind, the custard and the curry will do me far more good than some old defunct, past its sell by date idea, that hasn't got a shred of evidence that would or could ever support it.
ippy
So past its sell by date that it is going strong 2,000 years after it began, with billions of adherents - some defunct idea!
Well I suppose there will always be gullible people, when you add them all together, what a ginormous wast of time.
ippy
That comment demonstrates nicely the weakness of your position. The majority of the world's population have some religious belief: and you class them as gullible - typical atheist blindness and arrogance.
-
I've said it before, the thing you cannot get away from with regard to the Anglican Church is that in the shittiest areas where the post no longer delivers and buses won't go, there will always be some poor sod in a dog collar trying to deal with vandalism and junkies, offering soup kitchens and toddler groups and burying old ladies from his or her ever dwindling congregation.
And in a rural area like this there is very little in the way of organised state support. I know first hand that when a family arrives here with nothing they are told to knock on the door of the vicarage. And I don't know if this is the case now but in the recent past each church was allocated a sum of money to meet local crisis need, distributed at the priest's discretion. Among the thingsmy old pp stepped in to sort was keeping a local preschool afloat, and meeting a non-church family's mortgage repayments for a couple of months so that the bank didn't repossess their home.
-
Well I suppose there will always be gullible people, when you add them all together, what a ginormous wast of time.
ippy
That comment demonstrates nicely the weakness of your position. The majority of the world's population, billions of them, have some religious belief: and you class them as gullible - typical atheist blindness and arrogance.
-
Dear Prof,
They don't need to hide but unless you choose to look it out religion is all but invisible in a meaningful sense in terms of influencing people's lives in the UK.
Influencing people! does it?
I think that is a good question and I suppose you have to ask what we mean by influence.
In this country almost every main st has a Church, if you are a non believer do you just walk past it, don't give it a seconds thought.
I wonder how many non believers ( the word atheist is to restricting ) have used the expletive, for God's sake or Jesus Christ.
How many parents have been asked the question, has your child been baptised.
That's birth what about death, what kind of funeral, religion is still mentioned.
School, school assembly or history lessons, history lessons without mentioning religion!
Does your council building fly a flag, here in Glasgow it is usually three flags, Saltire or St Andrews cross, Union flag and sometimes our cities emblem, all three flags are religiously inspired.
Our national sport, well here in Glasgow, sadly you can't escape religion, but at most sporting events we ask God to save the Queen, the monarchy, religion again.
Our two biggest holidays, religion.
Law, architecture, historical literature, hell! ( hell :o ) even modern day literature, you will be hard pressed not to find some kind of reference to religion.
I think Prof that the above is just the tip of the iceberg.
Does religion influence us? a very good question.
Gonnagle.
Morning, Gonners, hope you are well this Remembrance Sunday.
You make the point well, and as you say, it is the tip of the ice-berg. The atheists blithely ignore all that, yet, whether they like it or not, their lives are influenced and shaped by religion and what it is in our lives. Note that in all you posted, and in much more, there is no malign influence, just the betterment of each of us.
-
Dear Bashers,
Morning, Gonners, hope you are well this Remembrance Sunday.
Remembrance Sunday! I was on my way to the pub yesterday ( the atheists made me do it, no they did honestly :P ) as I was walking down the high st the sound of a Orange flute band could be heard, as I walked on, there they were, the shoelaces tied together brigade ( watch them marching and you will understand ) holding up the traffic and playing "the cry was no surrender".
Now I said to myself "what the F*** ( yes I actually swore ) are they doing out at this time of year, as they got closer I noticed the emblem on their shirts, three poppies :o :o
It did not register to me at first when the band stopped and the lead drummer ( guy with a big drum strapped to his belly ) went into a frenzy, banging his drum for all he was worth, then the penny dropped, they had stopped outside the local Roman Catholic Church. :( :(
I walked away thinking, yes that is a great way to remember our fallen >:( >:(
Religion Bashers can have its very ugly side.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Bashers,
Morning, Gonners, hope you are well this Remembrance Sunday.
Remembrance Sunday! I was on my way to the pub yesterday ( the atheists made me do it, no they did honestly :P ) as I was walking down the high st the sound of a Orange flute band could be heard, as I walked on, there they were, the shoelaces tied together brigade ( watch them marching and you will understand ) holding up the traffic and playing "the cry was no surrender".
Now I said to myself "what the F*** ( yes I actually swore ) are they doing out at this time of year, as they got closer I noticed the emblem on their shirts, three poppies :o :o
It did not register to me at first when the band stopped and the lead drummer ( guy with a big drum strapped to his belly ) went into a frenzy, banging his drum for all he was worth, then the penny dropped, they had stopped outside the local Roman Catholic Church. :( :(
I walked away thinking, yes that is a great way to remember our fallen >:( >:(
Religion Bashers can have its very ugly side.
Gonnagle.
There is no accounting for how some perceive things. But we have to keep chipping away with the words of Our Lord:
"My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends. You are my friends if you do what I command. I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master’s business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you. You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you so that you might go and bear fruit—fruit that will last—and so that whatever you ask in my name the Father will give you. This is my command: Love each other."
-
Dear Bashers,
Morning, Gonners, hope you are well this Remembrance Sunday.
Remembrance Sunday! I was on my way to the pub yesterday ( the atheists made me do it, no they did honestly :P ) as I was walking down the high st the sound of a Orange flute band could be heard, as I walked on, there they were, the shoelaces tied together brigade ( watch them marching and you will understand ) holding up the traffic and playing "the cry was no surrender".
Now I said to myself "what the F*** ( yes I actually swore ) are they doing out at this time of year, as they got closer I noticed the emblem on their shirts, three poppies :o :o
It did not register to me at first when the band stopped and the lead drummer ( guy with a big drum strapped to his belly ) went into a frenzy, banging his drum for all he was worth, then the penny dropped, they had stopped outside the local Roman Catholic Church. :( :(
I walked away thinking, yes that is a great way to remember our fallen >:( >:(
Religion Bashers can have its very ugly side.
Gonnagle.
??? >:( :(
-
Dear Prof,
They don't need to hide but unless you choose to look it out religion is all but invisible in a meaningful sense in terms of influencing people's lives in the UK.
Influencing people! does it?
I think that is a good question and I suppose you have to ask what we mean by influence.
In this country almost every main st has a Church, if you are a non believer do you just walk past it, don't give it a seconds thought.
I wonder how many non believers ( the word atheist is to restricting ) have used the expletive, for God's sake or Jesus Christ.
How many parents have been asked the question, has your child been baptised.
That's birth what about death, what kind of funeral, religion is still mentioned.
School, school assembly or history lessons, history lessons without mentioning religion!
Does your council building fly a flag, here in Glasgow it is usually three flags, Saltire or St Andrews cross, Union flag and sometimes our cities emblem, all three flags are religiously inspired.
Our national sport, well here in Glasgow, sadly you can't escape religion, but at most sporting events we ask God to save the Queen, the monarchy, religion again.
Our two biggest holidays, religion.
Law, architecture, historical literature, hell! ( hell :o ) even modern day literature, you will be hard pressed not to find some kind of reference to religion.
I think Prof that the above is just the tip of the iceberg.
Does religion influence us? a very good question.
Gonnagle.
Many of us attended fireworks displays over the past few days.
Does that mean we are all anti catholic, or meaningfully influenced by such anti catholic sentiment. Nope, of course not, indeed many of those attending (e.g. my wife) are catholic.
There is a difference between a historical cultural reason for an event, symbol etc and its original meaning still being pertinent to the extent that it directly influences future generations, which is what we were talking about.
-
Dear Prof,
Many of us attended fireworks displays over the past few days.
Does that mean we are all anti catholic, or meaningfully influenced by such anti catholic sentiment. Nope, of course not, indeed many of those attending (e.g. my wife) are catholic.
No, but you have just given another example of religious influence ( please note that I am not saying it is all a good influence ).
There is a difference between a historical cultural reason for an event, symbol etc and its original meaning still being pertinent to the extent that it directly influences future generations, which is what we were talking about.
I would hope that one of the great things we can teach our kids, our future generations is that they nurture a enquiring mind, why Easter, why Christmas, why bonfire night.
The influence of religion is all around us, without actually realising, how much does it effect/influence us, good or bad.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Prof,
Many of us attended fireworks displays over the past few days.
Does that mean we are all anti catholic, or meaningfully influenced by such anti catholic sentiment. Nope, of course not, indeed many of those attending (e.g. my wife) are catholic.
No, but you have just given another example of religious influence ( please note that I am not saying it is all a good influence ).
There is a difference between a historical cultural reason for an event, symbol etc and its original meaning still being pertinent to the extent that it directly influences future generations, which is what we were talking about.
I would hope that one of the great things we can teach our kids, our future generations is that they nurture a enquiring mind, why Easter, why Christmas, why bonfire night.
The influence of religion is all around us, without actually realising, how much does it effect/influence us, good or bad.
Gonnagle.
Gonners - there is a world of difference between having knowledge of the origins of cultural events etc and being meaningfully influenced (e.g. having a belief, changing behaviours etc etc) based on those origins. And given that many of our festivals, cultural events etc are multifaceted, with layer upon layer of influence, which influence are you assuming that kids might be noting.
So going back to bonfire night, to what extent does its continued existence influence current children's behaviour in a manner that actually related to its original anti catholic sentiment. Answer - it doesn't and indeed I think societally we'd be extremely uncomfortable if we felt that our children were actually being influenced to sectarian anti catholic sentiment by bonfire night.
-
I think we need to separate our Christianised cultural identity from the way in which organised religion props up the welfare state.
-
I wonder how many non believers ( the word atheist is to restricting ) have used the expletive, for God's sake or Jesus Christ.
I should say approximately the same number who use words such as Wednesday and Friday ;)
That's birth what about death, what kind of funeral, religion is still mentioned.
Less and less so by the year. Religious funerals are waning and secular funerals rising correspondingly. In terms of marriage over two thirds (68%, the last I heard, but by now may be even higher) of marriages are strictly secular, civil ones.
School, school assembly or history lessons, history lessons without mentioning religion!
Most schools flout the law on assemblies by simply not having them. My schools didn't and that was decades
Our two biggest holidays, religion.
In one case, paganism ;)
-
Dear Prof,
Belief changing!! I don't think I am asking that.
which influence are you assuming that kids might be noting.
Knowing the story behind why we do what we do, as in bonfire night, does it influence our thought processes, consciously or subconsciously.
An atheist whose child has to sit through prayers at school assemblies, does that influence his thinking, the atheist not the child, well I suppose it depends on the atheist, no harm in praying to a non existent god, or I don't like my child being brainwashed.
Just thinking out loud Prof, religious symbols and sayings are all around us, does it not affect us in some way?
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Shaker,
Less and less so by the year. Religious funerals are waning and secular funerals rising correspondingly. In terms of marriage over two thirds (68%, the last I heard, but by now may be even higher) of marriages are strictly secular, civil ones.
No argument from me, but religion is still mentioned, secular funeral as opposed to :o :o
In one case, paganism
Religion again and on the subject of paganism, how does your natural pagan soul feel about today's weather ( although it may be nicer in your neck of the woods ) it is chucking it down here and I need to go out in it and stop procrastinating on this forum :P
Gonnagle.
-
Knowing the story behind why we do what we do, as in bonfire night, does it influence our thought processes, consciously or subconsciously.
The trouble with that, Gonners, is that I strongly suspect - can't prove, and don't know of any statistical data on the subject, i.e. opinion polls, but strongly suspect - that the vast majority of the population don't know the ultimate (as opposed to proximate) reasons behind Bonfire Night. Select a sample of the population at random and ask them; I'm confident the majority will say something along the lines of "Guy Fawkes tried to blow up the Houses of Parliament" (which is the proximate reason). Probe for the ultimate reason and ask why he should have wanted to do this however and your responses will plummet much, much closer to zero. Aside from professional historians and the interested amateur (minuscule numbers both), who knows or cares about English anti-Catholic repression and persecution in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries?
-
No argument from me, but religion is still mentioned, secular funeral as opposed to :o :o
Only because until historically incredibly recently religious rites were the default, the norm, even for the completely religiously apathetic majority. (Amongst the elderly this remains the case, but cohort replacement has a way of attending to them). As they cease to be so - a process already well underway - the comparison with religion will evaporate.
Religion again and on the subject of paganism, how does your natural pagan soul feel about today's weather ( although it may be nicer in your neck of the woods ) it is chucking it down here and I need to go out in it and stop procrastinating on this forum :P
It's grey and breezy and intermittently wet here, with - according to the forecast - lots of heavy rain to come this evening.
In other words, a beautiful and bracing elemental day :)
-
Dear Shaker,
The trouble with that, Gonners, is that I strongly suspect - can't prove, and don't know of any statistical data on the subject, i.e. opinion polls, but strongly suspect - that the vast majority of the population don't know the ultimate (as opposed to proximate) reasons behind Bonfire Night. Select a sample of the population at random and ask them; I'm confident the majority will say something along the lines of "Guy Fawkes tried to blow up the Houses of Parliament" (which is the proximate reason). Probe for the ultimate reason and ask why he should have wanted to do this however and your responses will plummet much, much closer to zero. Aside from professional historians and the interested amateur (minuscule numbers both), who knows or cares about English anti-Catholic repression and persecution in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries?
No argument again, and that has me really thinking :o
No, we can't sugar coat history, kids need to know all the facts, same with religion, the good the bad and the downright ugly.
Gonnagle
-
Dear Shaker,
Less and less so by the year. Religious funerals are waning and secular funerals rising correspondingly. In terms of marriage over two thirds (68%, the last I heard, but by now may be even higher) of marriages are strictly secular, civil ones.
No argument from me, but religion is still mentioned, secular funeral as opposed to :o :o
In one case, paganism
Religion again and on the subject of paganism, how does your natural pagan soul feel about today's weather ( although it may be nicer in your neck of the woods ) it is chucking it down here and I need to go out in it and stop procrastinating on this forum :P
Gonnagle.
Just took the dog for a walk in the tale end of last night's storm - perfect for an English autumn - and on the wind we could still smell the smoke from last night's bonfires.
-
Well I suppose there will always be gullible people, when you add them all together, what a ginormous wast of time.
ippy
That comment demonstrates nicely the weakness of your position. The majority of the world's population, billions of them, have some religious belief: and you class them as gullible - typical atheist blindness and arrogance.
If some idea, if any idea has absolutely nothing, zero credible evidence that would or could support it; it wouldn't matter how many take up this idea it's still hasn't got anything that would or could support it, it's a bit like what does a million times zero add up to the answer zero.
If something isn't true no matter how many think it is true, it remains a fiction just like your manual does, theirs no viable evidence that could support it, especially the superstition, myth and magical tricks parts of it.
No, you'll have to do better than that B A.
ippy
-
How many parents have been asked the question, has your child been baptised.
Most children these days aren't baptised.
That's birth what about death, what kind of funeral, religion is still mentioned.
Increasingly 'hatch, match and dispatch' are marked without religion. Certainly hatch and match are much more likely to be marked without religion than with - not sure about despatch, but the trend is most definitely away from religion.
School, school assembly or history lessons, history lessons without mentioning religion!
Many non faith schools focus on morality, sharing community etc in assemblies in an entirely non religious way. Sure religion is mentioned in history, but so is fascism, communism and the Battle of Hastings - so what.
Does your council building fly a flag, here in Glasgow it is usually three flags, Saltire or St Andrews cross, Union flag and sometimes our cities emblem, all three flags are religiously inspired.
But flags such as the Saltire or Union flag are primarily symbols of nationalism, not of religion. If their primary influence and importance was religious then the Saltire, for example would be just as important to English Christians as to Scottish Christians and unimportant to a Sottish nationalist who is an atheist. But it isn't - why because although its origin is religious its significance is no longer largely religious but effectively as a symbol of nationalism.
Our national sport, well here in Glasgow, sadly you can't escape religion, but at most sporting events we ask God to save the Queen, the monarchy, religion again.
But that's a rather peculiarly scottish thing isn't it. I don't think religion had any meaningful bearing in yesterday's match between my team Watford and Leicester - do you?
On national anthems - again primarily nationalist not religious. If primarily religious in influence then surely French Christians would much prefer our national anthem with its mention of god to their own which isn't religious at all.
Our two biggest holidays, religion.
Both multifaceted - being just as much seasonal festivals as religious ones - indeed one (in the UK at least) is named after a pagan spring deity. And most people don't celebrate either as religious festivals - sure, of course there are many who do, but most people don't. And as with bonfire night - just because there is a cultural tradition of celebrating it doesn't mean that people are necessarily influenced by their religious origins rather than their cultural inertia, so to speak.
-
How many parents have been asked the question, has your child been baptised.
Most children these days aren't baptised.
That's birth what about death, what kind of funeral, religion is still mentioned.
Increasingly 'hatch, match and dispatch' are marked without religion. Certainly hatch and match are much more likely to be marked without religion than with - not sure about despatch, but the trend is most definitely away from religion.
Yes unfortunately toward that interminable dirge ''I did it my fucking way''.
-
How many parents have been asked the question, has your child been baptised.
Most children these days aren't baptised.
That's birth what about death, what kind of funeral, religion is still mentioned.
Increasingly 'hatch, match and dispatch' are marked without religion. Certainly hatch and match are much more likely to be marked without religion than with - not sure about despatch, but the trend is most definitely away from religion.
Yes unfortunately toward that interminable dirge ''I did it my fucking way''.
Or any number of other non religious pieces of music.
My Father's funeral had the allegro Mozart's clarinet quintet, the last post (those both his choice) and Home at Last, the final piece on Dave Brubeck's Jazz Impressions of the USA, an album that meant a huge amount to him and also my mother. My brother and I chose the last piece. It is gorgeous, peaceful and very, very moving, particular if you understand its personal significance, which is surely the whole point.
Sure there are plenty of cringe inducing non religious piece that might be used at funerals, but there are also some pretty cliched and cringey hymns too (All things bright and beautiful anyone :o).
-
How many parents have been asked the question, has your child been baptised.
Most children these days aren't baptised.
That's birth what about death, what kind of funeral, religion is still mentioned.
Increasingly 'hatch, match and dispatch' are marked without religion. Certainly hatch and match are much more likely to be marked without religion than with - not sure about despatch, but the trend is most definitely away from religion.
Yes unfortunately toward that interminable dirge ''I did it my fucking way''.
Or any number of other non religious pieces of music.
My Father's funeral had the allegro Mozart's clarinet quintet, the last post (those both his choice) and Home at Last, the final piece on Dave Brubeck's Jazz Impressions of the USA, an album that meant a huge amount to him and also my mother. My brother and I chose the last piece. It is gorgeous, peaceful and very, very moving, particular if you understand its personal significance, which is surely the whole point.
Sure there are plenty of cringe inducing non religious piece that might be used at funerals, but there are also some pretty cliched and cringey hymns too (All things bright and beautiful anyone :o).
All things bright and beautiful is the one with Hindu lyrics......The rich man in his castle the poor man at his gate etc.
Your Father's funeral had some very tasteful music if I may say so.
-
I would be having Going Underground by The Jam, just a pity I will.be getting cremated.
-
How many parents have been asked the question, has your child been baptised.
Most children these days aren't baptised.
That's birth what about death, what kind of funeral, religion is still mentioned.
Increasingly 'hatch, match and dispatch' are marked without religion. Certainly hatch and match are much more likely to be marked without religion than with - not sure about despatch, but the trend is most definitely away from religion.
Yes unfortunately toward that interminable dirge ''I did it my fucking way''.
That's the Sid Vicious version but others are available.
-
I would be having Going Underground by The Jam, just a pity I will.be getting cremated.
My list of preferred funeral music is so long (and many of the individual pieces so long in themselves) that I'll be having a memorial concert, not a funeral.
-
I would be having Going Underground by The Jam, just a pity I will.be getting cremated.
Disco inferno.........The Trammps.
-
I've thrown a spanner in the works by asking for a woodland burial. No music except birdsong and the breeze in the branches.
-
I've thrown a spanner in the works by asking for a woodland burial. No music except birdsong and the breeze in the branches.
I've gone for a green burial myself (or rather, a green burial of my ashes).
-
I've thrown a spanner in the works by asking for a woodland burial. No music except birdsong and the breeze in the branches.
You should write books.
-
Actually what I really fancy is going up on a blazing Viking ship but hey...
-
I've thrown a spanner in the works by asking for a woodland burial. No music except birdsong and the breeze in the branches.
You should write books.
I doubt you'd understand them. :)
-
Actually what I really fancy is going up on a blazing Viking ship but hey...
Considered that but the authorities tend to be rather uppity about it.
By the way - many people think of a Viking longship funeral as involving fire, but on most occasions important Vikings were simply buried in the boat, in the ground, as-is. Far easier to arrange that - if you can find somebody to build you the boat, at huge expense ...
-
Funnily enough I've just watched Boromir going out that way on LOTR - that's to say not in flames - so we were discussing boat burials.
Be more fun with flames though.
-
Beau Geste
-
For funeral music, I love Chopin's Funeral March but that would be too foreign for my send off considering my roots. I love this Cree memorial song. 2nd link
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hgw_RD_1_5I
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNcdpm9cNMs
-
Sure there are plenty of cringe inducing non religious piece that might be used at funerals, but there are also some pretty cliched and cringey hymns too (All things bright and beautiful anyone :o).
All things scabbed and ulcerous
All pox both great and small
Putrid, foul and gangrenous
The Lord God made them all, Amen
-
I think the most important thing about music chosen for a funeral is that it meant something to the deceased and also to the closest people to the deceased.
So better to have Frank Sinatra or even Robbie Williams 'Angels' if they really meant something to those involved, rather than some hymn if it meant nothing.
-
Sure there are plenty of cringe inducing non religious piece that might be used at funerals, but there are also some pretty cliched and cringey hymns too (All things bright and beautiful anyone :o).
All things scabbed and ulcerous
All pox both great and small
Putrid, foul and gangrenous
The Lord God made them all, Amen
I recommend Monty Python's version. It is a reminder of just who was the nasty who inflicted all the unpleasantnesses upon the world and all in six days!
And we are supposed to love him for it?
How anyone who has watched someone they loved die from cancer can continue to love the deity who thought that particular pestilence up is beyond me, and then have his followers tell you that some good will come from this evil, that is, I presume, that they are dead so they are no longer suffering.
-
I've thrown a spanner in the works by asking for a woodland burial. No music except birdsong and the breeze in the branches.
I've gone for a green burial myself (or rather, a green burial of my ashes).
I will also be cremated and my children and my Coven will cast my ashes to the four winds from Glastonbury Tor at midnight.
-
I think the most important thing about music chosen for a funeral is that it meant something to the deceased and also to the closest people to the deceased.
So better to have Frank Sinatra or even Robbie Williams 'Angels' if they really meant something to those involved, rather than some hymn if it meant nothing.
Years ago I had to provide my parish priest with a copy of the West Ham Utd Anthems cassette courtesy of my dad for a funeral - the guy went out to I'm Forever Blowing Bubbles.
-
Sure there are plenty of cringe inducing non religious piece that might be used at funerals, but there are also some pretty cliched and cringey hymns too (All things bright and beautiful anyone :o).
All things scabbed and ulcerous
All pox both great and small
Putrid, foul and gangrenous
The Lord God made them all, Amen
Very mature! It it's meant to be funny: it's not. If it's meant to be offensive: it's childish. In fact, it's a total waste of time and effort. No wonder you attract abusive comments!
-
It's a fair point though, BA. Why give thanks for the pretty and fluffy and not the bacteria and the viruses?
-
It's a fair point though, BA. Why give thanks for the pretty and fluffy and not the bacteria and the viruses?
There are ways of making the point in a rather more adult way, wouldn't you agree? Buy the way, have you ever read, "War of the Worlds"?
-
It's a fair point though, BA. Why give thanks for the pretty and fluffy and not the bacteria and the viruses?
There are ways of making the point in a rather more adult way, wouldn't you agree? Buy the way, have you ever read, "War of the Worlds"?
It's a Monty Python song, and it is obviously satire: nothing wrong with that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEKDYIYMgBc
-
It's a fair point though, BA. Why give thanks for the pretty and fluffy and not the bacteria and the viruses?
Agreed - the song, by the Monty Python team was intended to be taken however listener chose, but it was a genuine demostration of the fact that Christians are quick to praise the positives that they attribute to their deity but stay as far away as they possibly can from agreeing that he is responsible for all the nastiness and negatives, as he supposedly made everything, he is also responsible for.
BA is quick to accuse anyone who criticises this kind of behaviour on the part of his Christian fellows of being insulting but is quick to insult his detractors when it suits him. But then he will tell you that he doesn't deserve it because he is defending the truth! A truth that denies the existence of half the truth - see above.
(Edited 14:38 for typo's)
-
Sure there are plenty of cringe inducing non religious piece that might be used at funerals, but there are also some pretty cliched and cringey hymns too (All things bright and beautiful anyone :o).
All things scabbed and ulcerous
All pox both great and small
Putrid, foul and gangrenous
The Lord God made them all, Amen
Good one! ;D If the deity is supposed to have created everything then it created the nasty as well as the nice.
-
It's a fair point though, BA. Why give thanks for the pretty and fluffy and not the bacteria and the viruses?
There are ways of making the point in a rather more adult way, wouldn't you agree? Buy the way, have you ever read, "War of the Worlds"?
It's a Monty Python song, and it is obviously satire: nothing wrong with that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEKDYIYMgBc
There is satire, and there is satire. Just because it's by the sainted Python team doesn't mean it's not puerile - and indeed, it is.
-
It's a fair point though, BA. Why give thanks for the pretty and fluffy and not the bacteria and the viruses?
There are ways of making the point in a rather more adult way, wouldn't you agree? Buy the way, have you ever read, "War of the Worlds"?
It's a Monty Python song, and it is obviously satire: nothing wrong with that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEKDYIYMgBc
There is satire, and there is satire. Just because it's by the sainted Python team doesn't mean it's not puerile - and indeed, it is.
I think it is quite witty, and of course it does in its way pose a serious underlying question of those who see God's design in everything biological: why would a good god who loves humans create rattlesnakes, ticks etc etc etc?
-
It's a fair point though, BA. Why give thanks for the pretty and fluffy and not the bacteria and the viruses?
There are ways of making the point in a rather more adult way, wouldn't you agree? Buy the way, have you ever read, "War of the Worlds"?
It's a Monty Python song, and it is obviously satire: nothing wrong with that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEKDYIYMgBc
There is satire, and there is satire. Just because it's by the sainted Python team doesn't mean it's not puerile - and indeed, it is.
I think it is quite witty, and of course it does in its way pose a serious underlying question of those who see God's design in everything biological: why would a good god who loves humans create rattlesnakes, ticks etc etc etc?
Because he got bored?
-
hmmm .. did he take into account having to listen to humans forever moaning on about their woes ... ?
-
hmmm .. did he take into account having to listen to humans forever moaning on about their woes ... ?
Maybe that is what the flood was about and when humans turned out, after the flood, to be the same as before it he thought to himself "Sod it - that was a waste effort maybe it will be easir if I just lkeave them to destroy themselves on way or another1"
Isn't it wonderful - we are doing the god's work for hum!