Shock, Horror - Iona Institute Finds Religious People are "Happier" & "Healthier"

[tmesis2008]

But you, I and everyone else bases their lives on unprovable feelings; love, instinct...... We cannot prove how these feelings are created. There is no scientific paper that tells me why I love someone. But I get married, have children and would lay my lfe down for these people I love. Should I abandon this belief because I cannot show you how it occurred and cannot independently verify its existence?

"Love" and "Hate" and "greed" and "jealousy" etc. exist; we just can't ultimately define them scientifically. I didn't say "scientific evidence" though. I would take any evidence: let's say "historical evidence". You have historical evidence for "love". You have lots of evidence that your "love" exists. Think about it: how do you know that your wife loves you? Answer that question: there's your evidence.

Religion isn't an "emotion" though. It is a straightforward claim (or set of claim). It's a claim to know the mind of God. It's a claim that you know what God wants. It's a claim that you can speak to God.

Your "love" is an emotion. Now, if you said something like "my wife and I have an ultimate love and that love has lead us to understand many things about how the universe works", then it becomes like religion. Before that it is just a personal feeling, and it exists if you say so (and, to be honest, it generally doesn't matter to me or anyone else if it doesn't exist).

So your certainty as to the non-existence of God or on the fact that others base their lives on such a belief is hypocritical.

Saying that people base their lives on not believing something is like saying that "not collecting stamps" is a hobby. I don't go around looking for scientific explanations for everything (no-one does, we don't have the time). I couldn't build a car, or a computer, or put together a mobile phone, but I do trust in all these technologies (to the extent that I don't even consider that trust mostly). If I wanted to find out about them I could, of course, as other people do know about the science behind these things.

SO, why do I drive a car, or use a phone, or expect my computer to work every time I turn it on? Because I have lots of evidence that this is what happens, and that generally cars go, phones make calls, and computers work. It isn't scientific evidence, but it is evidence nonetheless. It isn't hypocrisy to not have scientific evidence for everything, it's simple pragmatism.

I don't have the same level of evidence for religion. People say God is good, all-powerful and all-knowing. Well, I look at the world and I see that that simply doesn't seem to be true. People say God created man. But, man, though he has the most advance brain that we know, is just an animal and was created by an evolutionary process. I've read the bible and it is full of inconsistencies. I see that people generally believe according to where they grow up and I see that "belief" has more to do with location than truth. I see thousands of religions. I have witnessed how cults can form quickly. I see how people can believe irrational things, and how they love conspiracies more than the truth. Prayer doesn't work. People say that they get healed but it's always internal healing (no regrowth of limbs for example). Really sh*tty things happen to good people. I could go on and on and on, but it seems clear to me from what I know that Christianity is no more true than Islam or Judaism or for that matter Scientology or Astrology.

If they do not affect you, you shouldnt feel the need to demean them. If they do affect you, you have every right to criticise and even demean. But you choose to demean them all.

Sorry, demean who? I think the belief that the Earth is flat is a silly belief. I think the belief that Astrology is true is a silly belief. I think the belief that God sent a son to Earth to save us from...well...er...Him is a silly belief. I don't go around seeking out people who believe these things, and I don't start conversations about these things when I do. However, if someone says that they believe that "condoms are evil" or that "homosexuality is immoral" or "Jesus died for my sins" I will, of course, correct them, and in the course of that correction point out that the general belief (knowing God's mind) is silly.





We can do that tomorrow. Most people would send their kids to non-religous schools if they were available and local. Just leave a few religous schools for those who really want to educate their children in that way.[/QUOTE]

[tmesis2008]

We can do that tomorrow. Most people would send their kids to non-religous schools if they were available and local. Just leave a few religous schools for those who really want to educate their children in that way.

Religion is not "education". It is "indoctrination". The minute that there is evidence for religion then it becomes "education". There is no more reason for religious indoctrination to be a part of the school day than there is for astrology to be a part of the school day.

If the parent wants to indoctrinate their child they and their religion should be free to do so (within reason) outside of school hours. The department of education should have nothing to do with indoctrination or superstition, at all, ever. It's the DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION.

[drkpower]

"Love" and "Hate" and "greed" and "jealousy" etc. exist; we just can't ultimately define them scientifically. I didn't say "scientific evidence" though. I would take any evidence: let's say "historical evidence". You have historical evidence for "love". You have lots of evidence that your "love" exists. Think about it: how do you know that your wife loves you? Answer that question: there's your evidence.

Religion isn't an "emotion" though. It is a straightforward claim (or set of claim). It's a claim to know the mind of God. It's a claim that you know what God wants. It's a claim that you can speak to God.

Belief in God/deity/a spriit is not "a claim to know the mind of God, a claim that you know what God wants, a claim that you can speak to God". You have a problem with organised religon. Thats fine, stick to criticising organised religon.

But you dont, you want to demean all who believe because you think its stupid; including those who mind their own business and have no intention of imposing their views on you or others. Why? .... because you believed in that stupidity in the past and are embarrassed by your stupidity. But dont criticise good people because of your own failings.

And a belief that I love my wife is as logically tenuous as I believe in God (I dont, by the way!). There is no objective evidence for the existence of either. All I can say to the question, "prove it" is to say, "I cant, but I believe it".

[diddleydoo]

Belief in God/deity/a spriit is not "a claim to know the mind of God, a claim that you know what God wants, a claim that you can speak to God". You have a problem with organised religon. Thats fine, stick to criticising organised religon.

But you dont, you want to demean all who believe because you think its stupid; including those who mind their own business and have no intention of imposing their views on you or others. Why? .... because you believed in that stupidity in the past and are embarrassed by your stupidity. But dont criticise good people because of your own failings.

And a belief that I love my wife is as logically tenuous as I believe in God (I dont, by the way!). There is no objective evidence for the existence of either. All I can say to the question, "prove it" is to say, "I cant, but I believe it".

A big difference is that you most likely have evidence that your wife loves you. Can anybody show evidence that god loves them?

There's a difference between not being able to KNOW something and having absolutely no evidence for believing something.

Shane.

[drkpower]

A big difference is that you most likely have evidence that your wife loves you. Can anybody show evidence that god loves them?

There's a difference between not being able to KNOW something and having absolutely no evidence for believing something.

Shane.

But there is precisely the same objective evidence for the assertion that I love my wife and I love God. Nil.

That last sentence doesnt make much sense.

[stringjack]

But there is precisely the same objective evidence for the assertion that I love my wife and I love God. Nil.

What is objective evidence? It seems perfectly possible that I might have evidence both that you love your wife and that you love God (for a given understanding of 'love').

That last sentence doesnt make much sense.

It's a fairly commonplace claim.

[diddleydoo]

But there is precisely the same objective evidence for the assertion that I love my wife and I love God. Nil.

That last sentence doesnt make much sense.

The last sentence makes perfect sense.

There are things in the world which are not provable. There may be heaps of corrollary evidence, but proof is impossible. In the absence of proof, it is not logically possible to KNOW something. Yet to simply discard the evidence is also illogical. The solution is that it is perfectly logical to believe something based on the evidence despite the fact that you can never KNOW it's correct. Understand?

You can never know that "All men are mortal" yet it would be wise, based on evidence, to assume this statement is correct.

Have you ever bought your wife flowers? Ever had a romantic dinner with her? Ever been the one to comfort here when something bad happened? This is all evidence of love. Not proof, but evidence. It would therefore not be absurd to believe you loved your wife.

Shane.

[tmesis2008]

Belief in God/deity/a spriit is not "a claim to know the mind of God, a claim that you know what God wants, a claim that you can speak to God". You have a problem with organised religon. Thats fine, stick to criticising organised religon.

I have a problem with the claim that a person knows the mind of God.

But you dont, you want to demean all who believe because you think its stupid; including those who mind their own business and have no intention of imposing their views on you or others. Why? .... because you believed in that stupidity in the past and are embarrassed by your stupidity. But dont criticise good people because of your own failings.

Em, now you're claiming to know my mind?!

And a belief that I love my wife is as logically tenuous as I believe in God (I dont, by the way!). There is no objective evidence for the existence of either. All I can say to the question, "prove it" is to say, "I cant, but I believe it".

Really? Are you having trouble proving that your wife exists?

[drkpower]

What is objective evidence? It seems perfectly possible that I might have evidence both that you love your wife and that you love God (for a given understanding of 'love').

You (and tsemesis below) are missing the point.

It may be evidence that I believe I love my wife. But there is no evidence that love exists.

I am equating love to faith. Both are interpretations that different individuals give to what they see and experience in life. But both are mere interpretations. Neither can be shown to exist.

Some of you guys demean those who base their lives around their faith while you base your own lives (rightly) around your love for wife, kids, family, whatever....

[stringjack]

You (and tsemesis below) are missing the point.

It may be evidence that I believe I love my wife. But there is no evidence that love exists.

I am equating love to faith. Both are interpretations that different individuals give to what they see and experience in life. But both are mere interpretations. Neither can be shown to exist.

Some of you guys demean those who base their lives around their faith while you base your own lives (rightly) around your love for wife, kids, family, whatever....

I don't think this analogy is making the point you want it to make. Insofar as love is defined as a mental state experienced by some person, I have no inclination to deny that it exists. Equally, has anyone denied that faith exists, where faith is taken to be a mental state experienced by some person? Generally, people deny the existence of God, not of faith.