Think the thread's died a death, Priscilla. Shame - it's been very interesting. Thank you for starting it.

I suppose we have concluded - under the guidance of Our Leader - that religion has been of no benefit to mankind whatsoever, and has indeed been no more than a sadly regrettable hiccup in humanity's glorious evolution.

PS Re humility - did anyone see the recent Horizon programme about multiuniverses? Quantum physics reminds us all that we are basically such ignorant little worms. Implications for ideas about "free will" (theology?) are mind-boggling. My mind is definitely all of a boggle. Can't cope with it at all.

I have not concluded that. As the Chinese were brought to the fray and by the rules of Chinese Chess, which I then dragged in, where there is a stalemate then the player who brought it about claims the game. It is so much easier to be negative about most things - but I think Religion has brought many Benefits to mankind - the downside  of it, of course will be regurgitated as long as the board lives. Dictatorship is hard to live with and Humility a concept to far. I should have known better

I haven't concluded - or proposed - that either, just that those benefits derive from the nature of being human and could have arisen without the necessity of belief in any supernatural entity. When discussing the benefits of religion, it's only fair to address the downsides as well.

Quantum physics, I would contend, reminds us just how far these worms have come in the understanding of their world by the application of reason; by rejecting the maxim, "God did it". There is, however, a discussion possible for those whose maths, philosophy and theology are up to it - mine are not - about the parallels between the religious and the quantum mechanical propositions about the nature of reality.

The downsides, ferv, seem to crop up in many other threads which is why I started this one - and having no particular axe to grind.

Pity Mr S. Hawkins is not on site because he has some interesting thoughts on creation. This thread is not for such discussion, but as far as I can  tell, many religious people do not use the 'God did it,' reason for all things - and there are so many religions that we could have touched on in a debate about whether such life codes have been of benefit. Suffice to say, as Caro noted in a much early post, millions have found solace from their assorted faiths - likewise those with none find solace in other ways, I guess...... my own runner beans do better when given  poles.

Time to end it all here. The others are not interested enough to make comment and we few doing so each know where we each stands on this.

Priscilla wrote:

...and we few doing so each know where we each stands on this.

I wish I knew where I stand. The more I read the more confused I get. But perhaps that's not such a bad thing - keeping one's mind open and all that? Listening to one another with respect and courtesy?

Won't make any pole jokes - that's for MM's pun thread, but, as the great Kenneth Williams observes in the clip on that thread: "Live and let live, I say." I wish all sides in the debate - here and abroad - would adopt that thinking. Killing and cruelty are not beneficial to anyone, whether our viciousness is of religious or secular origin.

But we're a nasty species - violent, aggressive superworms, some of the religious persuasion, some not. I blame Darwin. It's in our genes. But perhaps the teaching of  the humility thing - knowing our place in the great chain of being - is worth pondering upon. I hope that's in our genes too - somewhere.

Hope "it" doesn't end here. That would be sad after all this time, with all our debates and laughter and huffs and such, not only on this this thread, but on all the others.

But we're a nasty species - violent, aggressive superworms. I blame Darwin. Perhaps the teaching of  the humility thing - knowing our place in the great chain of being - is worth pondering upon.

Oh dear, you're going to say I'm droning on about the downsides again but, wouldn't it help if we weren't always being told we are so very special because we are the apex of God's creation and made in His image?  If anything is bound to give us an inflated opinion of our own importance, it's surely that.

ferval wrote:

But we're a nasty species - violent, aggressive superworms. I blame Darwin. Perhaps the teaching of  the humility thing - knowing our place in the great chain of being - is worth pondering upon.

Oh dear, you're going to say I'm droning on about the downsides again but, wouldn't it help if we weren't always being told we are so very special because we are the apex of God's creation and made in His image?  If anything is bound to give us an inflated opinion of our own importance, it's surely that.

I don't think you are "droning on" at all, ferval: it's an interesting point. Isn't it what the great Hebrew poets (please note I say "poets", not "historians") were trying to address in the great Creation Myth recounted in Genesis? Man's potential for good is God-like, or god-like if you prefer, but somehow we manage to mess up all the time and inflict utter misery on ourselves and others. What makes us mess up so disastrously is what interests me, and I think one of the benefits of religion is to make us examine ourselves: humility (sadly rarely evident in any of us) makes us realise how we fall short of the ideal all the time, for whatever reason, be it pride, disobedience, sheer will-full-ness or something more sinister that is also perhaps implanted in us.

I don't pretend to  know - I doubt if I'll ever know anything for certain now (there speaks the good postmodernist), but I believe the Nazi propaganda film, The Triumph of the Will, was aptly named. Human will, especially when folk decide theirs is definitely also "God's will", now that I'll readily admit is a very dangerous thing. Being uncertain about everything has its benefits too.

ferval wrote:

I haven't concluded - or proposed - that either, just that those benefits derive from the nature of being human and could have arisen without the necessity of belief in any supernatural entity. When discussing the benefits of religion, it's only fair to address the downsides as well.

Quantum physics, I would contend, reminds us just how far these worms have come in the understanding of their world by the application of reason; by rejecting the maxim, "God did it". There is, however, a discussion possible for those whose maths, philosophy and theology are up to it - mine are not - about the parallels between the religious and the quantum mechanical propositions about the nature of reality.

Ferval and Priscilla,

" just that those benefits derive from the nature of being human and could have arisen without the necessity of belief in any supernatural entity"

In the opening message Priscilla asked:
"Would  the several enrichments that we enjoy have evolved without?"
Ferval, as I logical reason, I suppose that the benefits could have arisen from the sheer nature of human being, but as the "gods" were accompagning the humans from the very beginning it is nearly impossible to verify.
The same with the downsides of religion, as I logical reason, I suppose the same would have happened without the "devils".

Is religion only a construction to understand the nature of our human being? I mean for instance the construction of an afterlife for our comfort? The unknown, moulding in a form that is easier to coop with? The atheist only looking to the reality that one experiences?

Kind regards to both, Paul.

PaulRyckier wrote:

Is religion only a construction to understand the nature of our human being? I mean for instance the construction of an afterlife for our comfort? The unknown, moulding in a form that is easier to coop with? The atheist only looking to the reality that one experiences?

But an afterlife is only a comfort if you are confident that you, or the ones you love, will go to the good place, it is a source of torment if you have doubts. And then there's purgatory and limbo as well, those religious types really did go in for torture in this life and the next.
I honestly think that the whole concept of an afterlife has been pernicious in that it suggests that however much misery and suffering a believer may endure in life, it will all be compensated for in the next and so alleviating that suffering becomes somehow less pressing. To be fair, Christian Aid (who  do  good work, I must admit) are clearly aware of this with their slogan: We believe in life before death.

Religion is very much an improvised solution to many very real problems experienced by people, and in that sense a religious faith is a very human thing indeed, displaying innovation, inventiveness, imagination, curiosity and not a little aptitude in its construction. It addresses (and even claims to solve) problems which arise from our struggle to cope with adversity - everything from understanding our "place" in the universe to basic day-to-day survival. Along the way it even assumes to address and indeed define the morality by which we as social beings attempt to regulate and facilitate our interpersonal interaction. This is a spurious claim, but there is also no denying the important role religion has played in formulating these codes and thus helping to develop a legally enforceable concept of justice.

It is therefore silly to suggest that it is of no benefit - and I did not say such a thing either, Priscilla. The very fact that it exists to address problems and their alleviation implies automatically that some perceived benefit must accrue, especially in terms of solace, to enough people at any given time to ensure its continuity. However there are two fundamental ways in which the religious-minded claim derived from this observation - that therefore religious belief is itself a source of nearly all those things which benefit us most - is not only flawed but in fact so erroneous as to be potentially disruptive and damaging to our development as a species which aims to survive through benign interaction as an ideal.

For a start, and just as with all improvised solutions constructed by humans purely from the elements to hand, "religion" has yet to actually manifest itself in a manner common to all humans at all times. As a gamut of ideologies it can quite easily be shown to encompass everything from the most benign, empathic and altruistic sentiments to the most vile, discriminationary and downright sadistic sentiments we as humans are capable of accommodating - often at the same time. Religion in that sense simply refelects human disposition, and indeed often distorts that reflection dangerously, over simplifying complexities that really should best have been addressed and understood more thoroughly. The failure to do so while preferring instead to adopt the simplistic religious attempt at definition has led to huge catastophes in human terms on several occasions. This is about what one expects however from such improvisation. It will serve a limited purpose for a limited time but it is unrealistic to expect it to be beneficial in the long term. Unrealistic behaviour and thought never has a good ending to it.

Secondly there is what I would term a corruptive consequence to thinking of "religion" as a font of benifice. As with nearly every single one of the examples already listed on this thread there is an equally valid (I would say more valid) claim to trace the source of that benefit back way beyond its lazy accreditation to "religion". If religion is man-made then everything credited to it is also man-made and if one wishes to truly examine the source of anything (beneficial or otherwise) in terms of why and how it was created then one has to identify the human requirement and propensities which helped form it, whether it was presented in the context of superstitious belief or not. The claim that "this good thing is down to religion" or even "this bad thing is down to religion" severs this line of enquiry fundamentally and obstructs true understanding of human nature. Many religions attempt to address this by assuring the faithful that this is alright - there is a "divine" purpose outside of human understanding that can be credited with everything such resultant ignorance deprives us of knowing. To the faithful this might be a reassuring assertion. To me it is a crime against human intellect and potential.

So enough gibes, slurs and ad hominen slights directed at my comments here, thanks P. As far as I can see you attempted to invite others to construct a list of those benefits which we owe to religion and then became angry when a counterpoint was made that everything the list contained was human in origin first and foremost. It is humans who construct, devise, behaviourally adapt and create everything deemed of benefit to us, which all religions to various degrees then pretend to have inspired (or even to have bestowed upon humans in the form of an invented deity looking after some humans' interests). The improvised explanation religion provides simply betrays its own status an improvisation. I prefer more factual analysis of cause and effect (religion being very much in the latter category, not the former).

By the way - "humility" is neither good nor bad and should never be presented as supposed "benefit" of having faith in any theological proposition. Presented in the wrong context at the wrong time and for the wrong reason a display of humility can be egregious in the extreme. Religious people often pretend to humility in much the same way they pretend to have theological answers to things. Not a beneficial behaviour in my book.

Not in anger, nothing here ever provoked my anger, let us be clear on that - dismay perhaps, yes. Religion in my context in this thread was not about beliefs or faiths but more to do with  humans  following in collective clumps of a particular brand which affects behaviour, response  and has assorted outcome. I might well start a similar thread - by why bother, sigh, on Trade Unionism and Benefits.

Surely we all assume  that  the benefits I thought might be listed, are  all a result of human activity; I don't think I suggested 'miraculous' events and theology of any kind. It was merely the influence that a religion may have had in many aspects of arts, environment, attitudes, even, and without mention of theology. A humanist approach says all this was possible without religion - only it didn't happen that way and so this being an historical broad, what then is the actual history? That was all I proposed we looked at.  In the last bit, I also merely wondered if the eastern religions' view of humility - where it is of some import to many - had filtered west as an adopted attitude. All very simple stuff, really what else would you expect of me?  
Being constant in your opinion about religious theology and practise here and in other threads  I tried in various ways to curb it in this one. Wit is a two way trade, your clever wit might sting some, mine at other another and shallower level, seems to offend you enough to brood  into a well constructed epistle to present when properly honed. My replies are dashed off and I probably anger you merely by making any reply - I admit to  an occasional prod to stir you to make reply. We  don't all see  the same things out of  any window - and that is merely being human and how we are.

It boils down to what can be solely attributed to religion, historically as you say, and what should not (though often is). Da Vinci's "The Last Supper" fits the bill. His "La Gioconda" is less easy to explain in those terms. His attempts at understanding and portraying anatomy and scientific invention even less so. He therefore is a very good example indeed of how human genius exists and functions parallel to and often despite religious influence. Such genius therefore represents a much more valid root to the existence of the product of human creativity than religion can, though it will often claim such a role.

So yes, if you want to limit the definition of benefit in a religious sense to very particular works of art, architecture, literature etc, then you have answered your own question and revealed it to be of very limited scope. When you presume to credit religion with a popularisation of human traits such as humility, charity and altruism then the onus is on you to define the version of causality you are using.

That is all I have been saying. Every time I suggest it however you simply counter with another example of what I'm talking about while presenting it as a contradiction to my view, thereby indicating to me that we are not looking through the same window at all and that the glass in one of them might do with a swipe of Windolene.

I'll send you one -two even from the local Pound shop.

Priscilla wrote:

I'll send you one -two even from the local Pound shop.

I imagine the response to that might well be: BOGOF  

Nah, As if he would (?) And he can't troll his own site - or can he? Mmm. That's as I see it  from my side of the window. His glass might deem things more darkly..... I borrowed that bit.

nordmann wrote:

It is humans who construct, devise, behaviourally adapt and create everything deemed of benefit to us, which all religions to various degrees then pretend to have inspired (or even to have bestowed upon humans in the form of an invented deity looking after some humans' interests). The improvised explanation religion provides simply betrays its own status an improvisation. I prefer more factual analysis of cause and effect (religion being very much in the latter category, not the former).

Well you would, wouldn't you? That's not a gibe, nor a slur, nor an ad nordminem slight: it is simply a statement of fact. And it is unfair to blame only Priscilla for slurs and slights and such on this thread -  I have been as guilty as she, if guilty she is. Priscilla is actually more forthright and honest than I. I tend to go for the passive aggressive approach; Priscilla tells it as it is. I admit that with a certain degree of shame. Probably the dreadful "religious mind" for you. I, like Priscilla, have not been angry as such, simply somewhat narked at times at the contempt you seem to have for anyone whose opinion differs from yours. You are an exceptionally intelligent man, we all know that; but I for one wish you would sometimes acknowledge that the rest of us are not all complete idiots. The "religious mind", as you call it, is not necessarily a deficient one.

Your points made above are noted and - believe it or not - taken. We humans do indeed "construct, devise, behaviourally adapt and create everything deemed of benefit to us", but why do we bother? That is what I agonise over. "Of benefit" (good?) is not the same as "necessary for survival", is it? Music, art, harmony, beauty, altruism - or agape rather - such things make us happy; they are good for us; they uplift us. But why should that be? What is the driving force in us, this impulse to create, this appreciation of beauty and harmony, this need to try to "do good"? Whence does it come? Altruism I know can be explained in Darwinian terms, but can creativity and the concept of agape?  And why do I use the word "uplift"? Lift us towards what? What are we striving for or towards? What is this aspiration all about? Is it a search for meaning, as T.S.Eliot (religious type) suggested, a realisation that there is something beyond ourselves that we long for? A yearning in the soul? The Greeks understood that word. And the idea of the mysteries.

This is all no doubt embarrassing right-brain-dominant hooey - Lord, nothing worse - and both sides of my brain are now a little befuddled by strong wine, so I had better shut up.



The glass metaphor has fascinated me: George Herbert's The Elixir? Through a glass (I know it meant mirror) darkly?

        A man that looks on glass,

        On it may stay his eye;

Or if he pleaseth, through it pass,

        And then the heav'n espy.

Nordmann and Priscilla,

You said:
"Religion is very much an improvised solution to many very real problems experienced by people, and in that sense a religious faith is a very human thing indeed, displaying innovation, inventiveness, imagination, curiosity and not a little aptitude in its construction. It addresses (and even claims to solve) problems which arise from our struggle to cope with adversity - everything from understanding our "place" in the universe to basic day-to-day survival. Along the way it even assumes to address and indeed define the morality by which we as social beings attempt to regulate and facilitate our interpersonal interaction. This is a spurious claim, but there is also no denying the important role religion has played in formulating these codes and thus helping to develop a legally enforceable concept of justice.

It is therefore silly to suggest that it is of no benefit - and I did not say such a thing either, Priscilla. The very fact that it exists to address problems and their alleviation implies automatically that some perceived benefit must accrue, especially in terms of solace, to enough people at any given time to ensure its continuity. However there are two fundamental ways in which the religious-minded claim derived from this observation - that therefore religious belief is itself a source of nearly all those things which benefit us most - is not only flawed but in fact so erroneous as to be potentially disruptive and damaging to our development as a species which aims to survive through benign interaction as an ideal."

"that therefore religious belief is itself a source of nearly all those things which benefit us most - is not only flawed but in fact so erroneous as to be potentially disruptive and damaging to our development as a species which aims to survive through benign interaction as an ideal"

"that therefore religious belief is itself a source of nearly all those things which benefit us most "

Nordmann I think that it is there that you and Priscilla reason next to (besides?) each other.
She, in my opinion says only that during history religions had their benefits and she don't say as I understand it that religion is the only source of it?

As you said:
"Religion is very much an improvised solution to many very real problems experienced by people, and in that sense a religious faith is a very human thing indeed, displaying innovation, inventiveness, imagination, curiosity and not a little aptitude in its construction"

And as we see by history that what was happening was mostly religion, it is normal to ask for the benefits? And fill in for religion whatever you want..."improvised solution to many very real problems experienced by people"...solution to coop with the enigmas of the surrounding world...ignited by the human intellect...

Kind regards, Paul.

As a well read book which is a benefit to some says, Paul, "Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called the children of God."
Not that I understand quite what that means and it's way off track from the thread but it conveys a message better than I could ever word it.

Warm regards, P.

Double entry -  got a 10sec 'flood control' warning before I could send and then  it appears twice. First time I have ever had that warning -  Noah got a lot more and was prepared - but I'm not complaining..........

I fixed your double-entry.

And I agree, it is very hard with beatitudes to pull them off without sounding patronising. That particular one compounds the error with the fact that it is so blatantly untrue.



Proof that Jesus's adoption policy is aberrant to the extent of creepy.

Paul, if Priscilla wishes to adapt her claims to acknowledge that for every instance she cited already religion was never actually the true source then we are indeed singing from the same paean papyrus. For my part I will also readily acknowledge that religion is so indiscriminate in those things for which it itself claims credit that such misunderstandings regarding actual source are of course bound to arise, especially in the minds of people predisposed to accepting such claims. Priscilla has been kind enough to raise a series of examples of such traditional misattribution. It would be churlish of me not to extend some gratitude for that. In fact as a token of same I might drop over and clean a few windows for her.

Temp, I am all for uplifting, astronomy and quantum physics is doing it for me at the moment (and Asterix seldom fails). Though I am not all that keen on "agape" as the "highest of the four kinds of love" found in the Christian bible. Selfless, unconditional, sacrificial love (note that last bit in the traditional definition) has led to some really tragically stupid behaviour over the years. Selfless is ok. Some conditions of course can still be made - no point volunteering to be a doormat. And as for sacrificial? Knock yourself out! Not my scene though.

I am not adapting any damn thing. And window cleaning  is like charity, it begins at home. You seem to confuse religious sources with effects of a religion in a community in history. More on that later - ugh - later - must I? yes, I guess so.

contd. as mentioned above. But first:-

Mutt and Jeff in the above pic were not peacemakers but antagonists brought to uneasy and possibly insecure  and insincere peace by peacemakers making a sincere effort.

So, to move on, religions have provided opportunity for many creations that we admire. Some of the creators were bidden to do it and some were paid well; religious patronage enhanced reputations etc and works by the very best  are outstanding. The artwork of Stalin's communist Russia likewise earning their crust  and unlikely to refuse the commission, resulted in glorious but not memorable or moving Ovaltine-like adverts. Something is missing. But when moved to it, some is strident stuff, the sculpture, for instance when the spirit of revolution over opression shines through; naughty, naughty word. lady, spirit, proceed with care.

Now I take up Temp's point, the mysteries. Inspired by the religion that engaged them, like it or not, there comes through in the works of great artists their contemplation or expression of what Temp calls, the mysteries - spiritual, even - to coin that naughty word again.
In genius the quest for understanding of all manner of mysteries as in Leonardo's life's works, shines through.......from  physiology to how to capture the flicker of a smile. Of spiritual mystery, since the first scratches of homo sapiens seeking something beyond himself and thereafter, worldwide, creative minds  have been inspired by mystery and some to produce great works. And  no one here has denied that. Even the most secular of artists when speaking of their work - and beware here because they ain't so good with words -when it is all sifted out -they touch on aspects of  spiritual mystery. Religion is perhaps a human attempt to bring order to the seeking mind that suits some but not all. And that is made clear in this place, well enough. At my advanced age - and one is always learning, I have become increasingly beware of the scoffer.
Be sure, be very, very sure of the absolute truth  before deriding anything is the advice I gave a young child only the other day. I stand by that - even if I don't always do it, of course. Know yourself. Sigh.
Perhaps we evolved merely to make inorganic robots that can function universally without the problems of over reproduction. One wonders what they will fight and argue about.

So, religion as simply an ethereal expression of something more human but hard to describe? Interesting angle and eminently feasible a definition of creativity and what drives it too. I like it, thanks.

Mutt won the Nobel Peace Prize. Just like this little child of God ...



The serious point about the beatitudes is the old philosophical bugbear of what merits expression? Long before Jewish rabbis got in on the act there were several pedagogic branches of Greek philosophy which tackled the same quandary. If a blessing has to be explained and people steered towards it then it is not an obvious one. In that case it might be because it isn't one at all and then the onus (according to cynics and stoics) falls on the beatituder to explain where he got all his info from. At that point the Jewish rabbi element cops out and blames everything on or credits everything to God. An unexplained instruction, no matter how well intentioned it might be or how much the instructor believes in its veracity, is difficult to relay without a hint of arrogance or patronisation.

Cheesemakers are exempt however.

PS: I shall check out if there are any "dismay management classes" available in your neck of the woods (for when the Windolene runs out).

'Ere, you, don' you come around 'ere in dismay for reeducashion with yer grubby winders  - matey. But the pownd shop man - 'e got plenty more. I'll send yer sum cash on delivery. I'm a bit short on trust ds mumf, init, like, I mean.

Sorry, I don't really do theology-speak.

If you mean "Sorry, I really don't know what came over me back there. Whoah! Now how silly billy do I feel!" then that's ok. I understand. Blessed are the Windoleners, as the great visual mote-caster once remarked to all the assembled beam-casters.

In modern versions he has them throwing planks - it just doesn't have the same gravitas about it, does it?

Scottish hypocrite (according to Jesus):

Speaking as a cheesemaker - well a cauliflowercheese maker today as it turns out I like being exempted but uncertain about what from. Patronising Rabbis? The only one I really knew was smashing..... we were partners on a progaming course 27yrs ago. Minds clicked and we finished the asignment in 5mins and had 2 hrs to chat while the others caught up. I don't recall any of it about beatitudes - but it was so refreshing to find someone with the same sense of humour about just everything else. Probably not a benefit of religion; I digress.

Sorry - that's an intresting word that you rarely find on this site. Must do a search. ferv had better explain what the knicker show jump is all about. A humanist issue, I suggest and not relevant here.

Priscilla wrote:

contd. as mentioned above. But first:-

Mutt and Jeff in the above pic were not peacemakers but antagonists brought to uneasy and possibly insecure  and insincere peace by peacemakers making a sincere effort.

So, to move on, religions have provided opportunity for many creations that we admire. Some of the creators were bidden to do it and some were paid well; religious patronage enhanced reputations etc and works by the very best  are outstanding. The artwork of Stalin's communist Russia likewise earning their crust  and unlikely to refuse the commission, resulted in glorious but not memorable or moving Ovaltine-like adverts. Something is missing. But when moved to it, some is strident stuff, the sculpture, for instance when the spirit of revolution over opression shines through; naughty, naughty word. lady, spirit, proceed with care.

Now I take up Temp's point, the mysteries. Inspired by the religion that engaged them, like it or not, there comes through in the works of great artists their contemplation or expression of what Temp calls, the mysteries - spiritual, even - to coin that naughty word again.
In genius the quest for understanding of all manner of mysteries as in Leonardo's life's works, shines through.......from  physiology to how to capture the flicker of a smile. Of spiritual mystery, since the first scratches of homo sapiens seeking something beyond himself and thereafter, worldwide, creative minds  have been inspired by mystery and some to produce great works. And  no one here has denied that. Even the most secular of artists when speaking of their work - and beware here because they ain't so good with words -when it is all sifted out -they touch on aspects of  spiritual mystery. Religion is perhaps a human attempt to bring order to the seeking mind that suits some but not all. And that is made clear in this place, well enough. At my advanced age - and one is always learning, I have become increasingly beware of the scoffer.
Be sure, be very, very sure of the absolute truth  before deriding anything is the advice I gave a young child only the other day. I stand by that - even if I don't always do it, of course. Know yourself. Sigh.
Perhaps we evolved merely to make inorganic robots that can function universally without the problems of over reproduction. One wonders what they will fight and argue about.

 
Priscilla,

"I have become increasingly beware of the scoffer"
"scoffer": Did research in my Collins paperback dictionary and found only "scoff" : jeer. And further in my Oxford advanced and there I found "scoffer": person who ridicules. It seems also to be a person who greedely eats. Hmm, those English people, who can make of the same word such a different meaning...

I learn everyday a new English word, as when Nordmann used the word "solace" which is in Dutch "soelaas"...

Kind regards to a lady in her advanced age...Paul.

Another and very dubious benefit of religions is in world politics - even more current today than  ever,  is using it and  sectarian variants for political machination and fostering schisms. Religion is such a useful cloak for assorted mayhem.

There seems to be a prob sorting out who is what in the refugee clearing tents. For starters, two queues should form for those who will eat pork and those who won't. The benefits of religion are endless.

Being religious can keep you slim and healthy! I have just received this in an E-mail from Blue Heron Health News, a site which I originally (possibly unwisely) visited seeking advice about curing high blood pressure. They have been bombarding me with E-mails ever since, thus contributing to my problem.


Fasting from dawn until dusk is required of all adult Muslims during Ramadan. Doing so for an entire month seems like it might be taxing on the body, but it’s not.
In an effort to better understand the health effects of a month of partial fasting, researchers with the SK Institute of Medical Sciences (SKIMS) studied the glucose (or blood sugar) levels of diabetic adults before and after this sacred tradition.

The study, conducted by a group of SKIMS endocrinologists at the Department of Endocrinology, featured men and women with diagnosed type 2 diabetes. Their blood sugar was tested a month before Ramadan and again after a month of partial fasting.

The results were unmistakable. The blood sugar levels of almost all of the participants were close to a healthy level after just one month of this partial fasting during Ramadan.

You don’t have to convert to Islam to enjoy the amazing benefits that fasting and partial fasting have to offer. If you suffer type 2 diabetes, try fasting during the day for a week or so and see how it affects your blood sugar.

You could also try 5/2 or 6/1 diets and fast for a day or two each week. This will allow you to enjoy the benefits of fasting without shocking your system.


Fasting has always been a religious thing, hasn't it?

Fasting and drugs, yes. Religion has used both in the past of course as both can cause euphoric highs and there isn't a religion anywhere that doesn't like to falsely ascribe this physiological occurrence to an asserted divine source.

If, as some religions like to claim, the encouragement to fast is related primarily to the promotion of self-denial as a worthwhile exercise in its own right then the concept was explored and understood (without having to falsely ascribe any motivation or effect in order to promote belief in deities or the like) by several schools of philosophy in which lifestyle and character played prominent roles. Asceticism and Stoicism, to name but two from before either Mohammedism or Christianity hijacked and altered the concept, justified fasting as an automatic aspect to the exercise of moderation. Both however warned against excess in this too. Just as the article above uses the phrase "partial fasting" (which to many Muslims might also be called "cheating"), the philosophical approach to the exercise also erred on the side of caution and not messing about potentially with one's good health. Religion has not always been so intelligent in its approach to the activity.

nordmann wrote:

...(which to many Muslims might also be called "cheating")...

Well, to be honest, I'm all for cheating - where fasting is concerned at least. Reminds me of a Garfield cartoon. Garfield says, with no doubt truly Christian - if not Islamic - logic:



I am on a diet.

My diet allows carrots.

This is a carrot cake. A loophole!

Is there any good or sensible or wise thing these dreadful religious types haven't "hijacked" then? I bet there isn't, not in your book at least.

No there isn't. Theology is a perversion of the logos as it always predicates its so-called philosophies on a compunction to believe something for which there is no evidence. What this demand might be will vary from religious code to religious code (and even within a code over time) but what is universally true is that the compunction to retain this blind belief interferes tremendously with deduction of what logically ensues from any hypothesis.

Without getting bogged down in definitions of true wisdom etc a handy rule of thumb is the assumption that wisdom is adduced through observation and thought, and best adduced therefore through thought and observation unfettered by unreasonably illogical demands placed upon their function. Religion therefore can absorb wisdom, and it might even promote it, but will rarely originate it.

'Theology is a perversion of the logos as it always predicates its so-called philosophies on a compunction to believe something for which there is no evidence.'

For which you BELIEVE there is no evidence.

Of course I believe there is no evidence. In fact I would go further and say that I know this, having never seen it and having never been informed of it by those who pretend it exists. That in fact is a very important component of the compunction on the religious follower to believe - that to be genuine belief it must not be based on logical adduction from physical evidence - and my own belief on the other hand that this much is true is very much based on evidential reasoning.

Or are you suggesting there is actually evidence for virgin births, talking deities, life after death, and all of the many other fantastical things religions would have us believe? If so, what is it?

Temperance,

"Being religious can keep you slim and healthy! I have just received this in an E-mail from Blue Heron Health News, a site which I originally (possibly unwisely) visited seeking advice about curing high blood pressure. They have been bombarding me with E-mails ever since, thus contributing to my problem."

  Couldn't resist...Paul.

Tim of Aclea wrote:

'Theology is a perversion of the logos as it always predicates its so-called philosophies on a compunction to believe something for which there is no evidence.'

For which you BELIEVE there is no evidence.

Tim even in this context I am glad to see you once back on this board.

Kind regards and with esteem, Paul.

How come I don't get any esteem, then?

Yes, I too am glad Tim's back - there's lots I want to quiz him about, if I am allowed to that is. I know both he and nordmann agree that weaker vessels should really keep quiet. Although "weaker vessel" was, surprisingly, Peter's comment, not Paul's. Bless the pair of them.

Temperance,

"How come I don't get any esteem, then? "

 

To my relief... :  as I am more colloquial with you?...another kind of relationship with you?

Your friend, Paul.

PS: I hope that is not seen as negative...

PPS: I hope all these "escapes" don't worsen my position...

How come I always get esteem then!?!?!?

I think I'd prefer the colloquy.

nordmann wrote:

How come I always get esteem then!?!?!?

I think I'd prefer the colloquy.

You and St. Gregory of Nyssa, then?

But where is our Priscilla? She is being suspiciously quiet today. I expect she is busy adjusting her rockery.

Gosh - all these nauseating smileys. This won't do at all.

When the cloister is clogged best stay away..... and all those smileys. Does it imply that you are grinning like a gargoyle? I'll sit quietly in the Lady Chapel being a weaker vessel, for a tad, purring, of course. Call me when you need claws. It never does to over esteemate anyone here, I suggest.... under esteemation  must be carefully thought through - like a tax return.

Claws aren't always necessary, even in the best regulated cloisters. Let's have some nice music to soothe our savage breasts:











Gosh, this waiting up for supermoons is very difficult. I think I'll watch Wolf Hall again. I bet it clouds over at 2.40am.

Is there nothing these parasites won't hijack to their own ends?

But Tim raises a serious point about the nature of belief and the role it plays in the adoption of any philosophy or - as the Germans say - Weltanschauung. At the heart of much of German philosophy is the assumption (or, as Tim might say "belief") that deep within any individual's inter-reaction with the universe lies a personally adopted framework of ideas and beliefs forming a global description through which the person observes and interprets the "world" (which in this sense means absolutely everything perceptible to the individual).

A religious mind is obliged to compile this framework with elements which in some cases have been absorbed purely on trust, while also placing these elements as strategically fundamental components in the structure upon which the rest is built, even the sensible bits based purely on evidential analysis. So fundamental are these trust components that, within this particular Weltanschauung, there is simply no provision for accepting that others might not have constructed theirs in quite the same way. And the evidence (that word again) for this is how the word "belief" itself is employed by both. One view sees it as comprised of trust and knowledge in equal parts, while the other sees it as a logical outcome from analysing the constituent parts of the observable universe available at any given time. Ironically the former therefore is the person more inclined to hold and even defend their beliefs as solid and undeniable truths, while the latter will always reserve that final judgement while fresh input is coming in. Belief for them, by its own definition, is incomplete knowledge, a stop-gap on the way to understanding which, if overly based on trust, can in fact impede such understanding.

This helps explain the basic dichotomy in how "benefit" from religion is interpreted by both Priscilla and myself, for example. In my view the simplistic micro-analysis of cause and effect (a Catholic cardinal commissioned Michelangelo to sculpt The Pieta and this is a beautiful thing we can all now enjoy - "Religion" has therefore led to a benefit) has to be simply a starting point in tracing the root cause of the commission and why we enjoy it still today, in other words all the causal components in the sequence whether they have anything to do with religion or not, including even the causes behind why we appreciate the end product.

The same complexity of analysis of course must also be applied to those things seen as detrimental and which also have been facilitated by "religion" on occasion.

Wasn't the moon lovely last night? I'll be sorry to see the Mormons gone - they were funny.

Belief - mm - I have a problem with that one. It does not have a place in the benefits heap that I was trying to assemble.Whereas I may applaud and greatly admire profound qualities of believers who put their understanding of their religious beliefs to good use and so is registered here, declared religious belief per se, is somewhat similar to being a fan of whatever else you will. I have never understood  fanatical. Even as a young child I stood apart, thinking  dedicated fan hype daft and have not changed.

Priscilla wrote:

Belief - mm - I have a problem with that one.

See what you've done there? Obviously your idea of belief is inseparable from a religious context.

No one should ever have a problem with belief. To believe something is simply to have adopted as knowledge the end product of a process of observing and thinking about something perceptible. However religion changes that definition to allow the bypassing of either observation or thought (or both) before arriving at an end result - and that is certainly problematic!

I have similar problems with religious people making completely erroneous assumptions based on an utter misunderstanding of the term "theory" as applied in science. When a discussion is corrupted by one side arbitrarily applying semantic definitions to key words and phrases at which their interlocutor cannot even begin to guess then they have effectively nullified language as the medium through which ideas could have been exchanged. Normally because no exchange was ever likely to have been considered by them anyway.

Oh yes, I see what I have done there - and stand by what I said. Being totally sure of anything is what I am not. Science is an example. Theories new great and wonderful appear and you can also bet some is soon working hard somewhere to qualify those findings with further knowledge. I am not a bothersome or bothered sceptic either, just cool about total belief in anything.......that business about there being 16 -or more,even, dimensions,  is trial enough for me. I wonder where belief sits in those? I had better  get back to the crypt and stock take  or something. I believe there's a cask there -mm? Better check. it really is of little use of a logical mind like yours to try to redirect an odd, quirky one like mine.

Another benefit that might have started through applied religions is the glory of the big bells (no 'e' nordmann, please note. Churches about here have fine changes with dedicated ringers -provided the tide is out, anyway. Foundries that long ago probably developed many skills making them - care here lady, i will stop before I get my canons and cannons in a tangle. Someone will know more  - but I  contend that the glorious - and useful - sound is a benefit derived from religion...... dong from the crypt.

Priscilla wrote:

Science is an example. Theories new great and wonderful appear ...

Like gravity

That's the problem right there. Start using language indiscriminately like that and we don't even know if we're contradicting each other. Personally I'm so glad of scientific "theory" as it represents in this universe the closest we can seemingly ever come to irrefutable knowledge.

Or does being religious include the right not to believe in gravitational theory? I know a few lads in India who seem to think so ...


An Indian faker (sic)

I found knowledge of Newton's second law of help in helming big boats - especially heavy canal boats in tunnels. But no doubt this 'law' will be modified in time - or possibly applying of the several facets of time.