Nope. Keeping the Vikings out of this - tho on reflection they benefitted a great deal from religion. I assume easy pickings from unprotected religious establishments had to benefit someone in those oh such steam-cleaned, northern climes, the benefits of religious Sunday days off are up for discussion, non religious origins are not. That well known rabbi also had a go about over zealous religious observance - so having a good time is not ruled out. And having a good time on Sunday is now the mode with Saturday as a modern development tacked on. Hereabouts the pattern has changed from being a quite day after church. Church attendance  tho is quite popular - we have 14  assorted places of worship for circa 16000 at latest head-count - and all attended. Following church its a stroll to the local shops, walk the dog in the park, eat out, then jolly off in the car to a local function - usually in a muddy field. Many of course leave out the church bit and have a lie in but the day for most seems to end in a muddy field somewhere during spring. summer and autumn. No dead horse about it here. I still maintain it is a benefit derived from religion - go - convolute something else.

A very non-Monday person wrote:

go - convolute something else

Glad to hear your particular neck of the woods has sorted out a good method over the centuries of enjoying respite from work and pretending it was a religious innovation. However it still doesn't alter the history of how such respites actually arose in society. Common sense alone dictates that any integrated economy reliant on a labour force requires that force to be properly administered and nurtured to keep the whole thing going, and that always seems to include regular respite from toil (except for slaves). Different societies have therefore originated and utilised different methods which religion has happily dovetailed with (and not so happily in some cases). You should introduce the chicken and the egg to your equine friend who you (rather cold-heartedly) refuse to acknowledge.

To "convolute" comes from a Latin root meaning to combine, incidentally. When examining history or indeed sociology it is always a good idea not to focus on one possible motive for any general development. The truth will most likely always be found in a combination of factors, not just one.

All right, go and combine something else. keeping the Sabbath - for Christians it was was Sunday - and of course common  sense. Actually,  there is, I suppose quite  a lot of common sense in religious rules - a benfit to consider further perhaps. Thanks.

There can be common sense incorporated into religious rules, yes. But, being commonly sensible, then by definition they generally tend to reflect behaviour already deemed worthwhile and logical anyway, whether said behaviour is explained in theological or sociological terms.

And, if religion stopped making up rules at that point then in fact its social role might make perfect sense. However we both know it doesn't. Not by a long shot. My point all along is that benefits seemingly conferred by religion are always subject to two essential qualifications when discussing their origin and application - namely that many of these "benefits" are countered and even nullified by other things also pretendedly conferred, often even by the same religion but most definitely by religion in general, and secondly that religion by definition pretends to have originated behaviour it has actually adopted, thereby adding an element of disingenuity to its contribution to the examination of that behaviour's true origin, practise and worth.

I make no claim about adoption - pretended or otherwise. Before mass communication religions spread all manner of knowledge - good or bad - depending on your view point....and we all know yours by now.
So such common sense stuff that came through religion still makes it a benefitting agency. Stuff such as pork in hot climes not being a good idea, come to mind.Age-old Facebook/Twitter/Daily Pulp advice used to stream from religious direction - including some good stuff.... including much advice about excessive alcohol. Christians must be grateful that wine was sipped a bit - and a mainstay of weddings. Not benefits that I had thought on but I thank you for bringing such notions to mind..... you had better stay then.

Well, I have remarked already how adept you are at identifying benefits allegedly transmitted by religion (though some of them not exclusively, some of them often much better transmitted by other means, and none of them as yet having originated exclusively within any theology). So religion has undeniably played its role in the past in that respect. It is simply a pity that it has countered its own advances almost as often as it has made them, mainly by attempting to apply a theological justification to even its most common sense or basically civil applications, and then ruining everything by applying the same level of justification to quite unreasonable and nonsensical things too.

Priscilla wrote:

and we all know yours by now

I do hope that wasn't meant too disapprovingly. It is actually heartening to know I am getting my point across lucidly.

And a further benefit of religions is to have a thread on it and give opportunity to annoy you - bliss! And now I am heartening you too - well, how's that for a benefit b default. I am not sure what by default means but if de fault is mine I expect you will soon correct it.

You, annoy me? Bless you, ducky, that would take something more than superstitious nonsense to achieve. It is in my human nature to forgive, you understand. Virtue, thankfully, is a very human thing.

What is this? First you claim Tolerance is your middle name and now you are adding forgiveness to your virtues. My grandmother and a bus conductress (now extinct - both actually) called people ducky and won no friends doing so. Of course religions (assorted) hi jacked the notion of virtues - and tried to put them to better use than tribals (ancient) seemed to by making them rules, I suppose. The notion seems to have caught on, doesn't it?
For late comers who do not wish to wade through this dat's posts of collected back and forth, this all began because I said 'Vive Le Weekend' about a page back. and a counter claim suggests it began with a Scandinavian bath day.Praise the Lord and pass the soap.

Priscilla wrote:

What is this? First you claim Tolerance is your middle name and now you are adding forgiveness to your virtues. My grandmother and a bus conductress (now extinct - both actually) called people ducky and won no friends doing so.

They would have made no enemy in me.

Priscilla wrote:

Of course religions (assorted) hi jacked the notion of virtues - and tried to put them to better use than tribals (ancient) seemed to by making them rules, I suppose. The notion seems to have caught on, doesn't it?

Yes it has. Laws ensuring the application of human virtues composed through assent and administered fairly for all are a fantastic human achievement.

Priscilla wrote:

For late comers who do not wish to wade through this dat's posts of collected back and forth, this all began because I said 'Vive Le Weekend' about a page back. and a counter claim suggests it began with a Scandinavian bath day.Praise the Lord and pass the soap.

There was no counter claim. There was a claim (and iterated at least once by me so you have no excuse for getting it wrong) that Scandinavians had already sussed out the value of taking it easy for a day or two every week before religion came along and told them to - uh - carry on, and long before they knew it ever had to be tied up with worshipping deities as well.

Human virtues are universally incontrovertible. That is why we all should aspire to them, even you.

Ah - aspiration to human virtue - this board is beginning to sound like a religious track - not my intent. Who is hijaking  what here?

Well, when I remind you that virtue is not a preserve of religion then you can surely answer your own question, I would sincerely hope.

What was this other alleged benefit of religion you said you were going to bring up ages ago? I'm all on tenterhooks here.


Actual tenterhooks - for those who are interested in the true origin of things.

I know of an entire long field for tentering wool - or stretching out a thread as necessary. Wait. Patience is an unlisted virtue of yours. Hone it, mm? I waiting for Temps to be up and running if truth be told. Another virtue of great value, truth - sworn on Holy Books at that. How the benefits of religion mount up.

I'm sure I've mentioned this before, many moons back, but the origin of the 7 day week almost certainly predates any religions: the moon's cycle is essentially 28 days long, which divides into four seven day periods. Whether the moon is waxing or waning has great influence on plant germination, growth, flowering, fruiting etc. (as well as the fertility cycle of human females too of course) ... so as people settled into agricultural communities the rythm of their lives inevitable became fixed on a seven day period. It is hardly surprising then that they opted to take 1 day or two days "off" each week, on the same day, as respite from the daily toil, to relax with family, or to be involved in communal affairs, religious or otherwise. But to suggest that a 7 day week with one day of rest is of a religious origin, is completely unfounded. My runner beans run to this ancient timetable, and they certainly haven't yet discovered religion.

The French Revolutionary Calender almost uniquely tried to arrange things differently, by having "logical and decimal" 30 day "months" each of 3 ten-day "weeks", but they still factored in regular general holidays: a half day on day five and a full day off on day ten of each month. This calender was deliberately designed to have nothing to do with religion, and so did break the centuries old synchronisation with the rising and falling moon ... which had always been important for an agricultural society, but was less so for an emerging industrialised and commercial society. But then the Revolutionary Calender only lasted about 20 years until the monarchy, and it's hand-maiden religion, allowed everyone to return to the old, God-ordained? or just naturally human-ordained?, way of ordering the year.

Presumably the dinosaurs, if they had evolved sufficient intelligence, would have ordered their lives around an eight-day week, as the earth span at a faster rate then, while the earth's rotation around the sun was essentially the same as now. Would they, I wonder, have declared a timetable of 6 days work and two days rest in an eight day week a unique benefit of religion? Or would they have opted for a four-day week of 3 days on then one day off? Hm.

PS : Actually in the late Cretaceous I think a month would have approximated to 29-30 days ... so some other system, maybe indeed the French Revolutionary Calender itself, would have been more appropriate (especially since theropod dinosaurs, with only threee fingers on each hand, would possibly have used a base-6 counting system ... or a more sensible base-12, since they had 3 toes on each foot too). I digress  ... but you get my drift.

Priscilla wrote:

Another virtue of great value, truth - sworn on Holy Books at that.

And that works great every time too, right. Did you know that in Brehon Law and indeed in early English assize courts the pledge to tell the truth was made against an assurety - namely a heavy financial or material forfeit if it turned out you were lying. Allegedly this system worked great, even in England, until nobility were hauled up before the courts in increasing numbers after some enlightened monarch's reforms and then insisted it be changed to swearing on the bible, at least for them. Shows how virtuous they were, doesn't it?

Meles meles wrote:

My runner beans run to this ancient timetable, and they certainly haven't yet discovered religion.

It is only a matter of time before Priscilla gets round to citing runner beans as a benefit of religion, so don't be too sure about that. It may be that religion discovered them!

People about here - and other places too - observed Sunday as a religious observance and never quoted, moon tables, Babylonians, Napoleon or runner beans - tho the latter were not planted on a Sunday but any other day nearest to the 12th of May. Tide timetables were used to move church service times for the fisher folk. No one worked on Sunday except the pub landlords who did not open up until noon. And everyone wore their Sunday best - women went to the local pub of a Sunday night wearing it. I do not claim that religions started stuff only that they made use of such matters and there  were benefits from it. Pagan origins and beliefs still abound too, despite all the knowledge on tap. I have not started a thread on that unless it counts as a religion and that opens more portals....mm. I think it is also very Christian to be annoying. I am not claiming a faith but being annoying is a mode that suits whilst I weave this thread.  Worse to come, folks... THE END IS NOT NIGH!

What is virtue? What is moral excellence?

Clearly many - although not all - humans aspire to such. Is this odd impulse unique to humans - if so, why? Is it just to do with intelligence?

What did Aristotle say about moral excellence, please? And would the great Greek teacher have agreed with the great Jewish rabbi?

Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying, Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.



But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you...



But not terribly intelligent advice, on the whole? Machiavelli thought it dangerous stuff. For him "virtu" was a Roman concept, I think - signifying courage in battle, manliness, defeating one's enemies rather than loving them? Did Machiavelli not advise that aspiring to virtue - or rather to moral excellence -  in this world which is, let's face it, full of evil men, could be an extremely foolish thing to do? Nice religious (or Greek?) idea, but simply not rational? So was Aristotle a bit irrational at times then? Surely not.

PS Crossed posts - here I am trying to be all serious and we are on runner beans now. Whatever happened to Priscilla's rebel runner bean, I wonder - the one that was leading that foolish and impressionable onion astray?

EDIT: Priscilla's posted something now. Is it an exhortation to abstain from beans?

No exhortations here about beans. Pythagorians abstained from beans. he was into celestial timetables, Apollo, ratios and triangles. And he was considered a religious deviate, excommunicated by ancient Greeks and his followers in Sicily were eventually hounded and slain.

Temp wrote:

What is virtue? What is moral excellence?

Not sure about the excellence part but it is generally taken to mean anything on the high end of the morality scale, right enough. As far as I know it is definitely not contingent on "loving" any deity but certainly the appeal to empathy in the Jesus quotation would be in the ball park by anyone's standards.

And I cannot see any correlation to intelligence, except maybe that if one intelligently thinks through some of the advice made about how to be virtuous one ends up more or less where one started, only with some fancy explanation picked up along the way for that which you instinctively knew to be probably right anyway.

Instinctive. Human.

And yes, virtue exists as a concept seen at its clearest in contrast to behaviour that contradicts it. But then that is true for all the instinctively understood things - they are grasped often only in the context of the observable effects of their absence or the dominance of their opposites. Religion tends to run the extra mile with that and on that basis "deduce" all sorts of fanciful scenarios about supernatural, supranatural and quasi-metaphysical beings defining and controlling all these contrasts but really it's just basic stuff. Morality (and an appreciation of virtuous behaviour) can be detected in children not yet subject to all that gumph, even in some other animals' behaviour, and probably even runner beans (though I await Priscilla's verdict on the latter, not being a religious person myself).

I don't like runner beans, will I be cast into the pit?

Isn't morality just a fancier word for fairness and even chimps understand that? Religion however does not have a good record in that respect, has it? After all, it's the big guy (or who/whatever) that is meant to be number one in the devotees scale of appreciation even if he/she/it appears to be doing nothing to deserve it. And that's not to even begin to think about how long it takes for the godly ones to catch up with the secular when it comes to being fair to those of a different age, gender, sexuality, race, colour etc from the high heid yins.

nordmann wrote:

..but it is generally taken to mean anything on the high end of the morality scale...

Yes, I know. But why do we have a "morality scale"? What is morality? What really does make us happy? Where does the idea come from? Is it really just "socially desirable" stuff? Just ethics? Will simply being a good citizen make us happy and unafraid? Surely it is something more? Even Plato thought piety had to be added to this list:



The cardinal virtues are a set of four virtues recognized in the writings of Classical Antiquity and, along with the theological virtues, also in Christian tradition. They consist of:
Prudence (φρόνησις, phronēsis): also described as wisdom, the ability to judge between actions with regard to appropriate actions at a given time.
Justice (δικαιοσύνη, dikaiosynē): also considered as fairness, the most extensive and most important virtue.[1]
Temperance (σωφροσύνη, sōphrosynē): also known as restraint, the practice of self-control, abstention, and moderation tempering the appetite.
Courage (ἀνδρεία, andreia): also named fortitude, forbearance, strength, endurance, and the ability to confront fear, uncertainty, and intimidation.

These were derived initially from Plato's scheme, discussed in Republic Book IV, 426-435 (and see Protagoras 330b, which also includes piety (hosiotes)); expanded on by Cicero, and adapted by Saint Ambrose, Augustine of Hippo, and Thomas Aquinas (see Summa Theologica II(I).61). The term "cardinal" comes from the Latin cardo or hinge; the cardinal virtues are so called because they are the basic virtues, required for a virtuous life.


A virtuous life. Piety's mentioned there, too. Did Plato consider it a benefit then? Useful? Necessary for the virtuous life? Generally a good idea? So how do we define piety then - is it, as you call it, just "superstitious nonsense" - or  something else? What is that Euthyphro Dilemma stuff all about?

nordmann wrote:

... but really it's just basic stuff.

Basic stuff, eh? So can we dispense with religion and philosophy then?

In a discussion about (as ferval pointed out) behaving with fairness, yes. Why not? We all know what it means and it requires no theological or philosophical qualifications to make it more true. At what point does this attitude fail to satisfy you, as it obviously must?

Is "behaving with fairness" all we are talking about here on this thread then?

I think not.

Keep posting, chaps. We are rapidly catching up with Philippa.

Priscilla has commented elsewhere that hordes seem to be viewing this discussion and she wonders whether there is a nordmann fan base out there, cheering him on.

Priscilla, perhaps they are all your fans!

Of the basic morality of children an aspect of that was explored in 'The Lord of the Flies.' i would like to think that situation unlrkly yet........ can we be sure?

Fairness in nature may be rare - doesn't the strongest in the brood grab the most?

Not on the whole thread.  Of course not. Just the virtue bit. It came up.

It's as relevant to the main theme of the thread as piety is.

And please don't make me say that wilful obfuscation is a benefit of religion (at least to the religious). 

Smiley thing. I'm on a phone. And an answer to two posts back.

Remember Simon, the martyr figure in Lord of the Flies. His comment on "the beast" aka the "Lord of the Flies" aka Beelzebub - is: "What I mean is - maybe it's only us."

(Mmm. Could work the other way too, I suppose. Nordmann's point - oh, blow.)

Before he catches up. I am an unlikely  gatherer of fans. In my job I was known as the Ultimate Deterent ....... it might well have been Willful Obfuscator had anyone the nounce to know the words. But I can multitask..... I am usually cooking when I do these posts ... and answering the phone.

nordmann wrote:

And please don't make me say that wilful obfuscation is a benefit of religion (at least to the religious). 

Well it can't be, because you are brilliant at it.

My mentioning Plato was not "wilful obfuscation". It was actually a genuine question I was trying to put to you.

Every point that Priscilla or I have made you have refuted, and this confuses me. All good things, all benefits, proceed, you say, not from God, but from man alone. Did Plato and Socrates, thinkers whom you profess to admire so much, also believe this? Is this what they taught? Surely for Socrates, a man accused, like Christ, of "impiety", the concept of the "divine" - even if not in the conventional sense (he exposed the hapless Euthyphro, a " religious professional", as a complete idiot, did he not, much as Christ exposed the limitations of the Pharisees' rigid yet incomplete understanding and interpretation of "the law") - was important? Socrates was surely no atheist - don't the following quotations suggest that; and perhaps consideration of that final quotation - which does mention "for the benefit of all" is relevant to this thread?



For I do believe that there are gods and in a far higher sense than any of my accusers believe in them. And to you and to God I commit my cause, to be determined by you as is best for you and me. (The Apology)


In this present life I believe that we most nearly approach knowledge when we have the least possible bodily concerns and are not saturated with the bodily nature, but keep ourselves pure until the hour when God himself is pleased to release us.(The Phaedo)


Society’s leaders] must be able to see the one in the many, to appreciate and realize the great truth of the unity of all virtues, have a genuine knowledge of God and the ways of God, and must not be content to rest on faith in traditions, but must really understand. Only in this way can they order all things for the benefit of all. (The Republic)

Temp wrote:

Well it can't be, because you are brilliant at it.

That is actually a little hurtful as obfuscation implies deliberate confusion and that is something I would never do.

Temp wrote:

All good things, all benefits, proceed, you say, not from God, but from man alone. Did Plato and Socrates, thinkers whom you profess to admire so much, also believe this? Is this what they taught? Surely for Socrates, a man accused, like Christ, of "impiety", the concept of the "divine" - even if not in the conventional sense (he exposed the hapless Euthyphro, a " religious professional", as a complete idiot, did he not, much as Christ exposed the limitations of the Pharisees' rigid yet incomplete understanding and interpretation of "the law") - was important? Socrates was surely no atheist - don't the following quotations suggest that; and perhaps consideration of that final quotation - which does mention "for the benefit of all" is relevant to this thread?

I don't understand the "alone" bit in the first sentence and nor do I understand the presumption that I or anyone suggested "all good things" come from a single source. The perception of something as being of benefit is of course a function of the human brain, so in that sense the presumption makes some sort of sense, but unless I am wildly mistaken I thought the subject of this thread was the perception of benefits ascribed to a religious source and not all beneficial things?

So really it is impossible for me to answer the second part of your query since no philosopher, let alone Plato or Socrates (for whom my admiration, as you rightly state, is seriously tempered by objection to certain presumptions on their part too), ever professed to believe otherwise regarding that which is perceptibly beneficial.

However your reference to piety/impiety, and especially with regard to Socrates, is important to address. Piety has absolutely no meaning outside of a communal (humanly devised) code of a conduct. There must be communally established modes of behaviour that can be measured in order for one person to be deemed more or less pious than the next. When you think about it therefore its use as a religious phrase is totally a man-made construct and it can equally be adopted for meaningful use when discussing adherence in fact to any ideology, religious or secular, as long as that ideology contains the concept of model behaviour by which its adherents can be judged by their (human) peers. In the context of this discussion which (I thought) relates to perceived benefits normally ascribed to religion but which on examination reveal other much more basically human sources then the issue of piety has no direct relevance that I can fathom. Whether a previous philosopher was pious or not was basically down to that philosopher and the contemporary communal standards by which he was judged (detrimentally in the case of Socrates). But it has no bearing whatsoever that I can see on identifying the actual source of humanly perceived benefit.

A communal - humanly devised code of conduct - is the litmus test of piety? (Nordmann) And piety in Plato's is the unity of all virtues - have I got the pith of that right? The best judge of virtue is  one on the receiving end of it and is it  not religious communities that often set the bench mark on that? 
Many humanly devised codes seem to need a religious reference point from which to begin...... and I assume 'humanists' standards emerged from religious  foundations of some sort.......including the above philosophers  that Temps has drawn upon. Religions have, I think, have been - and  still are for many -  a most beneficial stepping stone in our communal  and personal evolution.

I am not sure piety can be tested with any metaphorical litmus paper as it is not (as litmus paper is used to ascertain) one of two possible constants with measurable degrees of intensity. What constitutes pious behaviour and the degree to which it is judged to be present is purely a human construct and determined differently within different societies. Plato, or anyone else, can only attempt such a generalised summary of what piety ultimately means when he is talking to people who share his judgement regarding how it is expressed. This is self evident (though conveniently ignored by many people who would prefer to pretend it is as constant as you presume). A person who you regard as very pious might appear to me as a self-righteous hypocritical or self-deluded prig, and vice versa. And even having established our different views we are quite at liberty to revise them without the subject having to alter his behaviour at all - that is how fluid the definition of piety actually is.

Priscilla wrote:

Many humanly devised codes seem to need a religious reference point from which to begin...

Whether they actually need them or not it is quite true that many humanly devised codes are couched in those terms, yes. And many are not, especially the important and most relevant ones by which we conduct ourselves socially.

Priscilla wrote:

...and I assume 'humanists' standards emerged from religious  foundations of some sort.......including the above philosophers  that Temps has drawn upon. Religions have, I think, have been - and  still are for many -  a most beneficial stepping stone in our communal  and personal evolution.

What are "humanist standards"? Are there such things in any standardised form? If you mean something along the lines of "common human decency" then I sort of think I understand your reference, and would dispute strongly that any such thing required adherence to a religion to come into being.

However I would not quibble with the "ignorance as a stepping-stone" concept in other respects. Much of what we know today has been learnt having previously been forced through ignorance to rely on faulty reasoning and guesswork in the past, but which more or less did the job until the reality behind the guesses could be ascertained. Such stepping-stones can be deemed beneficial therefore, but certainly not if they actually impede one's progress towards ascertaining the truth of anything. Then they are simply stumbling blocks. Religion tends to incorporate elements of both metaphors unfortunately, so cannot be deemed an outright benefit for that reason either.

I am taken with your notion that a philosopher speaks only to the converted of his schooland therefore cannot be taken out of context. I recall you arguing long and windy about how Christian thought all derived from such people and nothing was new. Temps will know the reference - and so will Tim.

Have you fallen into the box of denial on which you usually stand?

And you do mean that religion played its part in the humanistic approach/atheist  adopted by many because they could no handle some of the theory; placing it in other theories that are fool proof until a lesser fool moves them on. My own observation - limited  - is that all the declared atheists that I know, each had a good grounding in religious virtue before shrugging off the theory that they did not like or could not understand.  Even Christians have a fundamental grasp of human goodness - it was not invented by Christians but that rabbi had a go at reminding people to enhance and to stick by them and not get caught up in the attendant dross of petty constraints. The Greeks (above) said the same - but you say that they only spoke to people who would understand the context .Mmmmmmm.
 That famed rabbi also spent time learning about religion from scholars, as I recall - and questioning, even - the young upstart!  
Religion has benefited  many more than they would like to admit - those who  have turned aside from it, I mean. Not what I was coming to but part of the same pot. I'll see what Temps has to say on your latest post.

Priscilla wrote:

I am taken with your notion that a philosopher speaks only to the converted ...

...The Greeks (above) said the same - but you say that they only spoke to people who would understand the context .Mmmmmmm.

Philosophers speak primarily to their contemporaries and I never said otherwise. I definitely never said that "they only speak to people who understand the context". What I said was that a definition of what constitutes piety is subjective and very closely dependent on the context of where it is being said, by whom it is being said, as well of course as upon whether the frames of reference in which it is described are understood by both the listener or reader in the same terms. The inference, and my point which you have so signally failed to acknowledge, is therefore not that "philosophers" say nothing of value outside of a limited context (what a stupid notion) but that subjective themes with no practical method of definition do not lend themselves to philosophical discussion outside of the context in which the discussers have already a high level of agreement.

The rest of your post above is what I referred to when earlier acknowledging religion as a potential stepping-stone historically towards something socially worthwhile to which you had previously averred. And I shall repeat myself in saying that this otherwise beneficial feature of religion is seriously compromised by the fact that it serves just as well as a stumbling block in the same regard.

A stumbling block is where you miss-plant your own feet. Surely someone who moves from a religion - for whatever reason - chooses another path; religions actually offer up very rocky ones and for many of their followers its a painful one. The parable of the sower is very big in Sufic lore and I think Budhists have a similar notion. And that's about all I know of stoic hardships of having a faith. Self harming the body, alarms and soul searching seems even worse. Come to think of  it, opening a simple thread on Res Hist is not always without anguish. But I've survived - and enjoyed -  far worse

Now it's your turn,.

Religions offer up rocky paths, as you say. They also encourage the very easy option of a pretence to wisdom and avoiding actually having to think. In fact religions will basically cater for every peccadillo, delusional notion, fancy, misapprehension and worse, just as readily as they might facilitate an approach to comprehension, knowledge and good behaviour. This why they have traditionally been poor stepping stones in terms of development of society to a point that is equitable and beneficial for the vast majority of its members.

On a day when a 74 year old British citizen is facing 360 lashes in Saudi Arabia for the "crime" of possessing two bottles of home-made wine (and has already served a lengthy incarceration) it shouldn't take me to point out how catastrophically disastrous religion can be when utilised to that end.

The parable of the sower applies to anyone who has something worthwhile to say. It basically means that while a load of people will either not listen or listen but fail to understand, there will always be someone who gets what you're on about. I tend to agree.

I guess we could match horrible punishment like for like  in all manner of communities, religious and non religious past and present. I am unconvinced about religions catering for all kinds of peccadilos, delusional notions and fancies etc readily. Probably that is why there are so many sects and diverse religions - but all seemingly fulfilling a human need....... even humanism is a sort of religion because it unites people of the same persuasion - and in several diverse forms.

Yes, I guess we could. However if you want a justification for cruelty while pretending to high morals religion will gladly facilitate your desire better than most. Other perversions of ideology also do it, though not quite with the same pizzazz.

But you are quite correct to point to the basically human behaviour for which religion is merely the facilitator and the basically human needs religion attempts to meet. That is precisely what I have been saying all along too.

Now that we have established agreement on that score perhaps you will also see why the same must therefore equally logically apply to the concept of benefit.

I had better read    the small print - as had you.

If people join together to fulfill a need that religion supplies, you could say that they get a benefit from it. 

Well, you couldn't but they might. The others on this site are  silent - interesting,  Of course they might be bored by it - so who is looking at it, your bank of computers. nordmann?

nordmann wrote:

In fact religions will basically cater for every peccadillo, delusional notion, fancy, misapprehension and worse...

Good grief, nordmann, you make it all sound like some appalling spiritual brothel. What dreadful aberrant fantasy does the C of E cater for, I wonder? Don't answer that: I 'm sure the Trollopes - Anthony and Joanna - would have a field day with us here in our little Devon backwater.

nordmann wrote:

They also encourage the very easy option of a pretence to wisdom and avoiding actually having to think.

Ouch - I must admit that hit home (really). Serves me right for trying to discuss Plato with nordmann. I have struggled with those Greeks since I was seventeen and I am still none the wiser, no matter what I pretend. But I do keep trying - Lord knows why.

To be serious, I have actually been seriously distressed (anguished, indeed, to borrow Priscilla's apposite word) by this discussion, and I've spent today trying to be honest with myself about the cause of my misery. I ended up  in the church where I go - ever hopeful - for Friday BCP Communion and for some Sunday services, and, as I sat there, another "benefit" of religion dawned on me: religion sometimes offers distressed souls a place of retreat. The little chapel was empty this afternoon, no Christians around, just beautiful flowers and a quiet serenity - centuries old. The place reeked of polish, mainly thanks to my conviction that shininess is next to godliness, and I was grateful for a haven of tranquillity where  I could sit, sort of pray, even cry a bit. The words of that distraught father from the New Testament kept going around in my head: "And straightway the father of the child cried out, and said with tears, 'Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief.' "

I also kept thinking about the words of the old hymn, Dear Lord and Father of Mankind, Forgive Our Foolish Ways. Simple, perhaps sentimental, but, when sung to the tune Repton, immensely powerful - and beneficial to them as are totally confused.

(If sung to Parry's tune, "Repton", the last line of each stanza is repeated):
.

Dear Lord and Father of mankind,
Forgive our foolish ways;
Reclothe us in our rightful mind,
In purer lives Thy service find,
In deeper reverence, praise.

In simple trust like theirs who heard,
Beside the Syrian sea,
The gracious calling of the Lord,
Let us, like them, without a word,
Rise up and follow Thee.

O Sabbath rest by Galilee,
O calm of hills above,
Where Jesus knelt to share with Thee
The silence of eternity,
Interpreted by love!

With that deep hush subduing all
Our words and works that drown
The tender whisper of Thy call,
As noiseless let Thy blessing fall
As fell Thy manna down.

Drop Thy still dews of quietness,
Till all our strivings cease;
Take from our souls the strain and stress,
And let our ordered lives confess
The beauty of Thy peace.

Breathe through the heats of our desire
Thy coolness and Thy balm;
Let sense be dumb, let flesh retire;
Speak through the earthquake, wind, and fire,
O still, small voice of calm.

It's Bible Study tonight, but I'm not going. I'll only end up arguing with the Fundies and I'll come away fuming, all serenity dissipated and and the still, small voice of calm silenced. I've got a bottle of champagne left over from my birthday and I'm going to drink it and watch the BBC Ted Hughes documentary. That'll definitely do for me: I may post something later about Ted on the old History's True Tragic Heroes - an Aristotelean (should be Aristotelian) Survey thread. Those bloody Greeks again - there's no escape.

EDIT: Priscilla and nordmann are at it again - have not read posts. Will send this nonsense and then shut up.

So you still agree, Priscilla, a religion is something humanly devised. Putting aside any consideration of how worthwhile and genuine a theology's attempt to function as anything other than self-justifying jargon may or may not be, it is basically addressing a human requirement, is devised by humans, and ultimately delivers whatever it does back to humans. Humans can choose to credit their theology with anything they wish (it is after all their invention too) but they are ultimately lauding human ingenuity, human imagination, human labour and human thought. Yes, a benefit is being derived from the process, and it is one that has ultimately been delivered by humans to humans.

I have no bank of computers, whatever that means.

Edit: Temp's post arrived on the thread while typing. I certainly have derived benefit in the past from the fact that religions have left us with many quiet areas of placid retreat from the hurly burly. It is a wonder no one mentioned that quite obvious one before - it is one thing that religion has managed to achieve better than anything else I can think of, at least when it does it right (though some museums and art galleries I have been in have been bloody close). Churches without people can indeed be sublime shrines to contemplation, well the pre-modern ones can be.

I agree nothing of the sort about human devising. The spiritual side is the original of a religion, sects break away with human concerns as in the Reformation - subsects there what with Zwingli, Calvin and co. The spiritual side is by far the most important to most - or perhaps ought to be - but not up for further discussion because I thought we had ploughed that field..... somewhere here ferv challenged me to define the mystical spiritual side of religion that attracts  - me anyway. It's a huge benefit in my opinion but quite honestly if you need to ask there is little hope in ever understanding it and I have neither the words nor desire to discuss it here. Now there's an opening for Scoffers United to score if ever! 

If you believe that faiths come about and grow solely through clever human enterprise, it is rather sad. Your take on it smacks of  massive organised contrivance - most communities can't even get rubbish collection sorted and in the past they didn't even see rubbish as a problem. Getting people's spiritual side harnessed to cleansing the mind through virtue seems to be a conspiracy theory too far. 

Since Temps is having a bad patch. I'll give you further open goals tomorrow.

I am pleased that you have introduced the solace of peaceful introspection and contemplation as a religious benefit. I had not got round to that one  - it seemed to be the one that I might use when drawing the thread to a bunch. We'll get there. Without it I doubt I could have rambled on  for so long - and it has been such a pleasure because of it.

Priscilla wrote:

I agree nothing of the sort about human devising. The spiritual side is the original of a religion ...

You use the term "the spiritual side" twice. Aside from the semantic difficulties inherent in use of that adjective I have assumed throughout that you, as I, infer the "spiritual side" of people. Humans, in other words, as I have maintained from the beginning of this discussion. If you do, then I am in complete agreement - it is humans who originate religion, even when the very theology they have devised contains within it a more fanciful claimed point of origin (which their imagination has also originated).

And I have never inferred that the development of theological constructs is proof of clever human enterprise. For one thing it is not always too clever and for another it often represents the exact opposite of enterprise - time and mental effort expended in inventing explanations for sometimes very faulty and easily disprovable perceptions of phenomena that lend themselves better to more rational explanation anyway. It can be no accident that the last great proliferation of such skewed perceptions occurred before more complete understanding of the physical universe, generally higher and more generally available education, and a widely held appreciation of analysis based on scientific method all became more of a global standard. So no organised contrivance, as you wrongly state I inferred, but simply proof that human imagination will more likely be utilised to "explain" things when actual data is lacking, and that this occurred all the more in the past when all the more data currently available to us simply wasn't there to be used as input in the process. This too is a very human tendency, by the way.

I am glad you agree with me about the provision of physical areas for private contemplative purposes as a beneficial by-product of religion (churches are actually designed primarily to contain assemblies of people, which of course rather ruins the effect). I assume you do not share my own slight regret however when, appreciative as I may be of the spaces having been provided, I might then reflect on the actual cost to humanity over the millennia in bringing them about.

Priscilla wrote:

The spiritual side is by far the most important to most - or perhaps ought to be - but not up for further discussion because I thought we had ploughed that field..... somewhere here ferv challenged me to define the mystical spiritual side of religion that attracts  - me anyway. It's a huge benefit in my opinion but quite honestly if you need to ask there is little hope in ever understanding it and I have neither the words nor desire to discuss it here. Now there's an opening for Scoffers United to score if ever!

I'm not really going through a bad patch, Priscilla, just trying to make sense of what is argued here and elsewhere and of what I read. Sometimes I get overwhelmed by it all - it drives me nuts, if I'm honest - and, being a weak human, I take to drink and watch the tele.  (Don't really take to drink - only had two, maybe three of my Champers last night. I've got one of those stopper things which keeps the fizz in - I hope it works. I bet it doesn't.)

I so agree with what you say above. It's more important than anything and is utterly impossible to explain to those who batter one so convincingly with facts and data and talk of human constructs. Nordmann is right in his way and we are right in ours. It's all just temperament, I suppose.

I still want to know where all this spiritual yearning comes from. That no one here has explained. Is it faulty brain chemistry in us or what? Or do those who have no comprehension of it all have a fault in their programming? Or is our wiring simply different? Why do so many of us keep on with all this religious/spiritual searching and agonising now that science has, so it would seem, made fools and liars of us all? Yet something remains. Why do so many otherwise intelligent, rational people - people who accept evolution and all the rest that science so far understands -  keep believing in something beyond the human? I accept too that the New Testament needs very careful, honest study and should not be read as history or biography, but no one can deny that something of huge significance happened 2000 years ago. The world has never been the same since - and that unique something is still of relevance - benefit - to millions today - even if they never go to church. Why should that be?

But, as I said above, at the end of the day perhaps it is just a matter of temperament. Let's leave it at that.

Can we talk about the Tudors again - or even Richard III? Ah, those were happy days.

A weak post after nordmann's brilliance and your bold defiance, but I'm a bit hungover. I'm going to scrat about in my garden now.

Crossed posts - this is a follow on to nordmann's last.
I am a human  - not up for debate whatever reservation comes to mind - so any spiritual experience  that appeals to me you say is of human origin. Human - and 'Confused of Essex!'  That's me.
Would it be better to agree to go on with this in some sort of after life situation  neither of which either of us has  palpable info - yet perhaps  lurks within the definition of the infinite timeless convolute of existence? ......... I do know about convolute, bythe by. In the world of shells, my favourite one are Volutes; mathematical, magical wonders.
Semantics - a trial  for me when attempting to mention something that is beyond expression - that is the core of my frailty in taking you on. And I think you are not always too clear, either.
Of one thing you, Temps and I are in agreement and that is the comprehensive mental and body-pain of what she calls 'Fundies.' Not a benefit in my opinion and so not up for discussion here.

Costs to humanity...... mmm. In historical terms I reckon that could be debated until the end of time.
Humanity is on a constant cycle of own-foot-shoot, as I see it. In truth tho I love the 'peace that passes all understanding,' experienced in all manner of religious sites, it can be as well found outside.

Data V Applied Imagination - have I sieved out that correctly? How can knowledge be furthered without the imagination of 'What if?'.......I realise that 'Probably is' can become 'Is' but that leap is not peculiar to religion. Food and the medical science of it being an example of profound truths being  exhorted then overturned ....... if humanity can't decide if an egg is good for you how can it challenge spiritual well being?
Probably a further benefit of Religion is in making people question all manner of issues that thinking forefathers came up with when trying to rationalise the immensity of the cosmos and the mysteries of spiritual experience.

Have a go at that and then I will move us on.

Temp, I had read somewhere before that "religion is the natural repository for nebulous thought, emotion and perception" and that is more or less how I see it too. And there is nothing wrong with nebulous thought - it is far from proof of ignorance per se (though it can be traced back to ignorance in many cases). Rather if it is proof of anything then it is of human imagination, ingenuity, curiosity and ability to grasp the abstract, none of which are adequately accommodated in what we might call our day-to-day existence but all of which we, as humans, must acknowledge as core elements in how we see ourselves, our universe and - probably most important of all - our potential. Before the advent of scientific tools through which we could analyse what we perceived we still perceived things, fundamentally important things, and needed theology to express what we felt (and sometimes pretended we knew). It was practically the only tool available for the vast majority of humanity, hence its adoption flaws and all. It was still better than nothing.

When we discuss "spirituality" these days we often fail at the first hurdle, to establish a mutually coherent explanation of just what the word represents. However this was not the case in antiquity. The very inability to pin-point any exact meaning simply enhanced its appeal, and to be completely honest I suspect vestiges of that feeling are still what provides private justification for individuals in persevering with adoption of that term as a descriptor for an important part of their emotional and cognitively abstract "side" (as Priscilla would say).

So while it may often sound like I am splitting hairs, especially in rejoinders to Priscilla here, I am in fact attempting only to side-step that most obvious of nebulous concepts - sprituality - and approach the phenomenon from what I consider a more rational perspective.

As a person acquainted with some history I can only agree with you that events in one of the least likely global neighbourhoods 2,000 years ago led to something fundamental and with hugely far-reaching effects. So much is apparently fact (even if we disagree regarding the historicity of some of the specifics in the traditional narrative of events). However it is dangerous to assume that this was solely down to any quality of the philosophy expressed in what was really a refinement within monotheistic theology in its day, and in fact one of seemingly many such adaptations. One also has to acknowledge the world into which this radical departure from what was essentially a Jewish theological stem was made. Then one can see the fertile ground that had already been prepared for its dissemination, especially in the Hellenic portion of the then Roman hegemony that applied politically. And nor of course can one exclude the purely political circumstances that prevailed a few short centuries later and which led this dissemination to explode like a theological bomb in the minds of the millions who had membership in or contact with the Roman empire at the time. Completely divorced from analysis of theology or thought, yet vital in understanding the reason why things panned out as they did, and with such huge consequence for us even today.

Priscilla, your post arrived while writing this. But when I read it again I think it also answers your own latest points too.

Well, to move to the most difficult of all my thoughts on this subject; The Fear of God.

A benefit, you might well ask yet if not now it has been. Humankind in a childlike way, seem to need parameters of conduct. The law - alas running a bit behind tries to provide these but religious condemnation with dreadful punishment, from pulpit or in lurid art - that has often been seen on this site - did. I propose, rein in many to behave with some sort of reasonable conduct.

We can look back in wry amusement, perhaps. but in some religions it is still alive and beheading  and of no benefit to anyone whatsoever. 

Yet there has been a time when even more simplistic minds than mine were shaped by the fear of God - ( who in my case  supported my  mother.)

We know the evils of religions  throughout history and often recall them - which is why I started the thread, but what we let go unmentioned is the religion of evil. And thereby hangs a huge discussion area but not for this thread....... but where? It's become a dust lump under the carpet 

So there it is, the Wrath of God. I suggest, has been a benefit to the character formation of many.

Gulp.

Priscilla wrote:

but what we let go unmentioned is the religion of evil

"Religion" promotes both good and evil behaviour, even within the same theological code. So it has not gone unmentioned, or have you not been reading my replies to you here?

A fear of judgement is really what you are talking about. It can be split into two - the fear of being judged by one's peers and the fear of being judged by one's superiors (civil law is based on both having validity). One might say the first is adult and the other a vestige of childhood, but both are equally valid and both are invested in the deity in monotheism. Again, all very human fears but allegorically accommodated by the monotheistic creed in vogue.

In the pantheonic theologies the emphasis is quite different. There the "wrath" of gods is often directed against their fellow gods with mortals simply caught up in the crossfire sometimes (if they haven't been paying Fortuna her dues etc). But at least it approximates reality and the ultimate futility of mortal ambition to survive.

You might be right in that certain people were coerced into being civil only because of their belief in a wrathful deity, but my personal experience (and much of history I would suggest) points to the majority being immune from such stupidity.

ferval wrote:

I don't like runner beans, will I be cast into the pit?

Isn't morality just a fancier word for fairness and even chimps understand that? Religion however does not have a good record in that respect, has it? After all, it's the big guy (or who/whatever) that is meant to be number one in the devotees scale of appreciation even if he/she/it appears to be doing nothing to deserve it. And that's not to even begin to think about how long it takes for the godly ones to catch up with the secular when it comes to being fair to those of a different age, gender, sexuality, race, colour etc from the high heid yins.

Ferval,

my wife in the clinic from yesterday for a week and I to go alone to Barcelona with the grandchildren in some days and still the hiring task as MM has his bed and breakfest...hectic days these days...
I wanted to reply to this and after some days had to seek it back already some ten minutes...
And now first of all:
"Isn't morality just a fancier word for fairness and even chimps understand that?"
Yes "fairness" is a big motivator in the evolution of social groups and again I want to emphasize the Nordmann way that it all emerged the "human" way and that a lot of religions seems to have codified this as coming from an higher authority outside humankind, while most indices point to the sources within the human brain or that of the higher social mammals...
We discussed already fairness in the thread about good and evil (I remember that I had more the word "bad" in mind than the word "evil", which has for me some connotation like "devil")

Humankind seems to have an inherent "hereditary?" from the ascent of men when developing social behaviours became more and more necessary as surviving of the fittest in the competition in the environment of that earlier times?

And if you look to the codifying of the religions it are all that basic laws of fairness to each other which are implemented over there...? To take but one example as I know this best given my education during childhood: "The Ten Commandments"...?

I agree we are now far from Priscilla's "benefits"...

Kind regards, Paul.

In history, what were all those chantries about if not fear of what might happen to an errant soul? I know of many who have asked for a priest and last rites - most unexpected in one case and my mother having to find a priest for someone who we didn't even know had ever been a Catholic. In my experience, a pretty broad catchment area of people from all walks that many wee  not immune fro fear of a suffering afterlife.

As for there religion of evil, there are cults that are too awful to write about here - and surely you now that. In one place where I lived a child and visited over the years there was always a moment of silence whereev we were when the bells of a certain church rang. Tales of the evil cult tha had once used that place 200 years before were whispered again and again, even the most unlikely people crossed themselves. All superstitious nonsense as maybe, but people have lingering fears. I wonder what the humanist approach to dedicated evil is? Not that it belongs in this thread but I am curious. 
That at least one examination board now offers 'Witchcraft' as a subject for GCSE's -  doesn't surprise since many aspects of religion are studied - what does make me wonder is what one writes of it  on a job seeking CV? ,,,,,,,just wondering

So we have all this support for religions hi jacking  'fairness as a natural basic human  trait, dealing with defaulters of the code was somewhat harsh even in godless communities, I suppose - but society moving away from religious mores doesn't seem to have licked the problem. Fear of the law is somewhat less fearsome as some form of retribution that will linger longer. I still think that the basic commandments were a very good deterrent for a very long time  - and  still are whilst mankind sorts out its  rightful evolutionary progress. And that, Paul makes them very close indeed to being a benefit of religion. Excommunication for breaking them in some sects is still  a strong force with eaped damnation thrown in........I know 2 young men who this has happened to recently over neighbour's wife issues!