Atheists on the Benefits of Non-Toxic Spiritual Beliefs or Religion

[Free Ranger]

I don't think your analogy works, Free Ranger. In the US, my generation started out the sugar pill as young children. It was a prevalent cultural norm. We were raised and taught to believe that the sugar pill made us happy. In LDS culture, if we weren't happy, it was because we were taking the pill incorrectly. Those who stopped taking the pill were immoral and wanted to do bad things. They were under the influence of an invisible malicious super being. I was raised to believe that my happiness depended on being a faithful, temple-worthy Mormon.

That's a far cry from your analogy, in which people have lived their lives without the pill and take it for the first time without any propaganda or indoctrination claiming that the pill will increase, if not be a necessary requirement for, happiness.

Thanks for your input.

I completely agree with you! But that is not what I meant by the sugar pill. To be clear, I am NOT personally advocating Brighamite Utah-based Mormonism and falling into the trap of seeking a "worthy" status within a Purity System. I don't believe in a malicious super being you mentioned either, my reconstructed views don't even include a literal satan. My views are my own, which I express here: http://emergentmormon.blogspot.com/

So my analogy is not what you seem to think. I am using it as an analogy for anyone, Mormon or not. Like Brian Greene in the video or the never-Mormon atheist whose brain was scanned while praying to God and according to the scientists it increased his well-being.

I mean by the sugar pill non-toxic ideas and practices. As I wrote in my opening post:

"To clarify, on my blog at http://emergentmormon.blogspot.com/ , I am not defending or supporting any and all forms of religion or spiritual practice, only the non-toxic versions. I started as an atheist reconstructing a spiritual worldview that would not conflict much with most atheistic thinking, which is why the nontheist John Spong was useful in reconstructing a Christian lifestance from a more humanistic perspective, and instead being more practical and psychological. Here are some videos by atheistic scientists and philosophers arguing the benefits of non-toxic forms of religion or spiritual practice, that combined with other books and articles I have read, changed my mind about the benefits of a heterodox spiritual practice."

Did you find any of the videos I linked to interesting?

Has anyone else watched any of the videos and had any comments on them?

I am curious because they seem to present a lot of solid evidence for the health benefits of non-toxic spiritual practices.

If the videos were presented by fundamentalist/dogmatic type religionists, I would understand why no one would be interested in what they have to say, but these are all atheists.

[Free Ranger]

... Another guy in the room who took the pill knowing it's just a sugar pill also does not feel better, and he is baffled like you, but he is more like Robert Sapolski in this clip https://youtu.be/oldj11NEsc0 ,
it is infuriating to him that the pill was working for most others while it did not work for him and its just a sugar pill. But he is quick to acknowledge that the pill was in fact working somehow for many or most people.

my problem with this analogy is that it is equating 'feeling better' and 'the sugar pill works' with actually 'getting better.'

i have no doubt that a person's mind can be calmed and a person may 'feel' better in many circumstances, but you have equated these feelings with a cure or an abatement of the illness:

...And you can't understand why most others like myself are having a positive reaction to the sugar pill and getting over the illness...

your statement here continues this:

..."What's the difference either way if the sugar pill works? If somehow the body and mind does stuff to make us better, who cares?" Thus I am operating from a pragmatic ethos....

"Feeling better" is equated with "make us better," and "getting over the illness," as though the "feelings" generated the cure or change for the better in the illness. in my opinion, that statement needs significantly more support in order to be taken as meaningful.

I understand your point. As I said, it's an imperfect anology. I personaly think it is meaningful based on the placebo affect and other scientific studies on the power of the mind and its effect on the body. But you are entitled to your opinion.

By the way, keeping on topic, I am curious, do you disagree with all of those atheistic scientists and philosophers?

[Gadianton]

Up to this point you were doing great, in fact, if I would have thought of it I'd have used your analogy instead:

I have a good way of summarizing our positions by an imperfect analogy. Let's say we are both sick in a hospital with some illness and here we are side by side, and the hospital staff start administering a pill and nearly everyone in the room, who has the same illness as us, who take the pill feels better. But somehow we both learn that it's a sugar pill.

Yes, this is almost what I'm saying, if we both know it's a sugar pill prior to taking it, I have no reason to believe it will make us feel better.

We also learn that some others also learned it's a sugar pill and took the pill anyway and of them most still had the same placebo effect as the others and felt better.

That begs the question. You can't just assume that some people who take placebo knowing it's placebo will feel better.

But I still think it's a good point to think about. For all I know, Jordan Peterson has an article in Psychology Today showing that indeed, some people will feel better (with controls in place) faster taking a placebo, even if they know it's placebo. And imagine, if that's true, you could sell pills with advisories, "Try me when Tylenol and Advil fail, studies have shown 30% who take placebo knowing it's placebo still feel better!"

While I think even with great advertising it's unlikely to work very well, my example is guarded against this possibility, which is why I said your example is almost what I'm saying. Instead of you and I being in the hospital taking placebo, to replicate my explanation of psychiatrist / patient, it needs to be doctors of internal medicine taking the placebo, and some of them saying that knowing it was placebo, they felt better anyway.

That would be entering the realm of insanity, and if someone has proven something like this on Psychology Today, I'll admit my point is defeated.

[Free Ranger]

...But I still think it's a good point to think about. ...

I think we have all been somewhat derailing the thread from the actual topic. So let me once again re-focus on the topic by narrowing it down to:

What did you think of what Douglas Murray had to say? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0l5KwuXRsQg

What did you think of what Robert Sapolski had to say? https://youtu.be/oldj11NEsc0

What about Dr. Andy Thomson here: https://youtu.be/8BwGxji6Agw

[bill4long]

What do you mean by non-toxic? Beliefs that don't offend your emotions?

[Marcus]

my problem with this analogy is that it is equating 'feeling better' and 'the sugar pill works' with actually 'getting better.'

i have no doubt that a person's mind can be calmed and a person may 'feel' better in many circumstances, but you have equated these feelings with a cure or an abatement of the illness:

your statement here continues this:


"Feeling better" is equated with "make us better," and "getting over the illness," as though the "feelings" generated the cure or change for the better in the illness. in my opinion, that statement needs significantly more support in order to be taken as meaningful.

I understand your point. As I said, it's an imperfect anology. I personaly think it is meaningful based on the placebo affect and other scientific studies on the power of the mind and its effect on the body. But you are entitled to your opinion.

By the way, keeping on topic, I am curious, do you disagree with all of those atheistic scientists and philosophers?

I assume you mean from the videos listed in the op? I so, i wouldn't know, i don't watch a lot of videos like that. If you mean atheists in general, i doubt they all agree. I was expressing my opinion as an athest, and also as a scientist.

[Free Ranger]

What do you mean by non-toxic? Beliefs that don't offend your emotions?

Non-toxic to the individual practicing those beliefs and practices. As Gadianton implied at the start of this thread, "any non-toxic belief is beneficial by definition." For example, let's say a baseball player has a ritual before every game that to outsiders appears religious, that reduces his stress and increases mindfulness and well-being. Someone else might call what he is doing superstitious and think its stupid and a waste of time. But if it's not harming him or anyone else, and benefiting him and the team by potentially improving his performance, then I would say it's non-toxic. However, I am aware of a study by a religious group that told people undergoing heart surgery, I believe it was, that they were praying for their success; and afterward the scientists believe that the pressure of being prayed over and the expectations put on them, caused them stress; and thus them being prayed over led to less successful surgeries compared to the group not told they were being prayed for. I'm going off of memory here so allow me some leeway in recalling what I remember. So that could be considered an example of a toxic practice. While the atheist I mentioned in this thread, who individually prayed to a benevolent conception of God and the scientific instruments showed it benefited him, would be an example of a non-toxic practice.

Do you agree or disagree with the atheists in the videos I linked to at the start of this topic? They are convincing to me, so I'm curious what you all think?

[Free Ranger]

I understand your point. As I said, it's an imperfect anology. I personaly think it is meaningful based on the placebo affect and other scientific studies on the power of the mind and its effect on the body. But you are entitled to your opinion.

By the way, keeping on topic, I am curious, do you disagree with all of those atheistic scientists and philosophers?

I assume you mean from the videos listed in the op? I so, i wouldn't know, i don't watch a lot of videos like that. If you mean atheists in general, i doubt they all agree. I was expressing my opinion as an athest, and also as a scientist.

If you don't mind me asking, what kind of scientist are you?

Yes I am referring to the videos listed in the OP I started. This is what I am fascinated about and curious about, because these are scientists below as well who argue the practical health benefits of non-toxic "spiritual" or religious beliefs and practices. These three videos below, taken from the OP, are extremely short like around 5 minutes, except the video with Dr. Andy Thomson, but the last 30 minutes of Thomson's presentation will give you a good idea of his scientific perspective:

Robert Morris Sapolsky is an American neuroendocrinology researcher and author. Certainly no dummy. What did you think of what Robert Sapolski had to say? https://youtu.be/oldj11NEsc0

What about Physicist Brian Greene's comment in this video?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpfIrg2r_p8

Here is Green's bio: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Greene

What about Dr. Andy Thomson? here: https://youtu.be/8BwGxji6Agw

[Res Ipsa]

I don't think your analogy works, Free Ranger. In the US, my generation started out the sugar pill as young children. It was a prevalent cultural norm. We were raised and taught to believe that the sugar pill made us happy. In LDS culture, if we weren't happy, it was because we were taking the pill incorrectly. Those who stopped taking the pill were immoral and wanted to do bad things. They were under the influence of an invisible malicious super being. I was raised to believe that my happiness depended on being a faithful, temple-worthy Mormon.

That's a far cry from your analogy, in which people have lived their lives without the pill and take it for the first time without any propaganda or indoctrination claiming that the pill will increase, if not be a necessary requirement for, happiness.

Thanks for your input.

I completely agree with you! But that is not what I meant by the sugar pill. To be clear, I am NOT personally advocating Brighamite Utah-based Mormonism and falling into the trap of seeking a "worthy" status within a Purity System. I don't believe in a malicious super being you mentioned either, my reconstructed views don't even include a literal satan. My views are my own, which I express here: http://emergentmormon.blogspot.com/

So my analogy is not what you seem to think. I am using it as an analogy for anyone, Mormon or not. Like Brian Greene in the video or the never-Mormon atheist whose brain was scanned while praying to God and according to the scientists it increased his well-being.

I mean by the sugar pill non-toxic ideas and practices. As I wrote in my opening post:

"To clarify, on my blog at http://emergentmormon.blogspot.com/ , I am not defending or supporting any and all forms of religion or spiritual practice, only the non-toxic versions. I started as an atheist reconstructing a spiritual worldview that would not conflict much with most atheistic thinking, which is why the nontheist John Spong was useful in reconstructing a Christian lifestance from a more humanistic perspective, and instead being more practical and psychological. Here are some videos by atheistic scientists and philosophers arguing the benefits of non-toxic forms of religion or spiritual practice, that combined with other books and articles I have read, changed my mind about the benefits of a heterodox spiritual practice."

Did you find any of the videos I linked to interesting?

Has anyone else watched any of the videos and had any comments on them?

I am curious because they seem to present a lot of solid evidence for the health benefits of non-toxic spiritual practices.

If the videos were presented by fundamentalist/dogmatic type religionists, I would understand why no one would be interested in what they have to say, but these are all atheists.

That’s not responsive to my objection to your analogy. I used Mormonism because it’s the religious tradition I was raised in and people here are familiar with it. I take it that none of the videos talk about benefits of believing in your reconstructed Mormonism. That being the case, the specifics of your detoxified Mormonism aren’t relevant. The fact is that the folks in your videos were born into and have lived their lives in a culture that is predisposed to associate religious belief with happiness. The dice are loaded in favor of a positive view of religion. There is no point at which everyone is suddenly introduced to religion for the first time with no preconceptions about whether it will increase or decrease their well-being. That’s why I don’t think your analogy works.

But before we get to the specific videos, I want to clarify what you think they show. Are you claiming that the show there is some special ingredient present in “religious belief,” however defined that is (1) unique to religious belief and (2) universally beneficial to humans?

[Gadianton]

What did you think of what Douglas Murray had to say? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0l5KwuXRsQg

He's an idiot. The video was a catalogue of his sound-bytes. The best of them were sophomoric but worthy of discussion, the worst are right-wing Christian nationalist nonsense that he'd never be able to justify in a million years.

An example of a worth-discussing yet sophomoric point regarded the possibility of there being "no meaning", while we are creatures who are wired to seek meaning. What a predicament! I suppose he means to say we should error on the side of meaning, and try to believe in meaning anyway. Well, your own guy, Nietzsche disagrees. He says we must embrace nihilism. How does that work? Consider DCP, who belabors the meaninglessness of the non-theist worldview. If there isn't God and more importantly, life after death filled with pleasures, then why try? Why live at all? Interestingly, however, he's dropped some conflicting sentiments over years. His favorite movie is Groundhog Day. He posts about it every couple of years. For some reason, he finds it incredibly insightful. Well, Groundhog day is based on Nietzsche's Eternal Return. Nietzsche reimagined eternal reoccurrence in mythology as a way to prove our mettle. Imagine if you had to live the same life (or day) over and over again forever. Do it with gratitude. If you're disabled, as he was, you make the best of it and relish everything still within your grasp. The fact that DCP was so inspired by the message of embracing nihilism is quite remarkable. It doesn't settle the score, but it shows that DCP's and Murray's thought terminating cliché's about meaninglessness aren't so cut and dry, even in their own broader thinking.

What did you think of what Robert Sapolski had to say? https://youtu.be/oldj11NEsc0

far more credible than Murray. Note he said, "if i say the right combination of words and fervently believe in it that's wonderfully protective". Note he didn't say we can "put the toothpaste back in the tube" and think the combination of words is non-sense, but reconstruct a metaphorical interpretation of it, say the words, and benefit anyway.

What about Dr. Andy Thomson here: https://youtu.be/8BwGxji6Agw

far more credible than Murray. I'll watch the rest later, it's a good video. Out of the gate he undercuts the bulk of Murray's project when he remarks at the beginning that religion reduces to "Dance, prance, and trance". Note, for the record, Nietzsche's Dionysus vs. Christian theology's Apollo. Indeed, if there is a fundamentally religious component to our psyches, then Thomson sure as hell is going to make a better case for it as "dance, prance, and trance" than Murray is insisting that we're all fundamentally Christian, which is totally ridiculous.