Dangers of Religion Reloaded

[_Moniker]

JAK, can you also reply to this post of mine? http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... 617#130617

I think we have some fundamental disagreements when it comes to indoctrination.

[_Moniker]

JAK, one last statement before you get back to me. You asked how one of the links benefited my assertion. My ONLY assertion is that science is delving into understanding spiritual experiences. I think the various links I supplied (I could get more;) show that there is research to understand these experiences. I don't see how linking to various researchers and different theories goes against my assertion?

Moniker:
DMT produced by the brain: http://www.rickstrassman.com/

JAK:
How does this source benefit your assertion? It does not.

[_marg]

Moniker you are not understanding JAK and are talking past one another.

If you use the words "mystical" and "spiritual" you have an idea what that means, but how do you know other people have the same ideas as you. Those words have not been established in actuality as existing. Your idea of spiritual may be much different than other people's. by what criteria do you establish the experience as unique to the "spiritual". How does a spiritual experience differs from an experience non spiritual and how can science established that a difference exists without having any consistent evidence of what "spiritual" is?

Let' s say someone has an experience of being abducted by aliens. Would science study this as an actual alien abduction without evidence of such. Would it be appropriate to study it as an "alien experience" as opposed to simply an experience which occurred in the mind of the individual? The fact that an individual may have dreamt, experienced aliens does not help science which can not access nor verify what those aliens entail.

[Guest]

Hi, marg. I made an assertion that science is delving into mystical/spiritual experiences. Now, the scientists call them by these names, it's their terms -- JAK has apparently read a few articles I posted (which explain these experiences in varying detail), and posted some of his own. If he desires to understand it's all right there, I'm not teaching him a course on neurotheology or mystical/numinous/spiritual experiences. I made maybe 2 sentences about this topic and have NO desire to continue on this path if we are talking past each other.

JAK continually speaks of spiritual experiences and links it with religion or God claims. I don't understand why he is doing that and do fear that since he continually tries to link religion with spiritual experiences that we are talking past each other.

I've talked to plenty of atheists about spiritual experiences -- Tarski (first introduced me to neurotheology), and beastie being the most notable -- most atheists have an understanding of this research. If JAK doesn't understand the terms I'm not going to teach it to him. There are plenty of articles and he can read it himself. My only interest in bringing this up was to mention that science is attempting to understand these experiences (if you're going to ask for clarification of that term please read the numerous articles already presented).


by the way, Sam Harris at 9 minutes in this video (below) speaks of spiritual experiences outside of religion.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 3464694890

[_Ren]

Dawkins describes himself as a 'spiritual' atheist.

[_marg]

We can talk about spiritual in conversation, just as we can talk about god, both as theoretical ideas. But science can not talk about god nor spiritual in scientific terms. Science can talk about ideas and things for which we have actual data or can get actual data of which can then be evaluated and interpreted. If a person says they are having a spiritual experience...there is no way to objectively determine and differentiate their subjective interpretation of their experience from a non spiritual one or from other people's experiences who might not link it them in the context of being "spiritual". There is no clear definition of spirtual, just as there is no clear definition of God. Science deals with actualities which are measurable or potentially measurable. No actuality of spiritual or god exists which can be objectively evaluated.

[_Ren]

I agree that no 'spiritual world' or 'literal God(s)' exist.
I also agree that this is about seeing words in different ways. (What a whole load of the other thread was about as well...)

What is meant by 'spiritual experiences' are perfectly inspectable by science. It is not meant to enforce the idea that people literally 'feel' the supernatural. It is where the person feels like they are experiencing something 'beyond reality' - where the person feels that way. These kinds of experiences absolutely happen - there is no reasonable doubt about that. Therefore, they are 'inspectable' by science. And labeling them as 'spiritual experiences' is perfectly sensible - it is a good description of how those kinds of feelings and experiences come across to the people experiencing them..

If that 'kind of use' of the word 'spiritual' is good enough for Harris and Dawkins, then I would have thought it should be more than good enough for JAK.
But JAK can spend the next 10 pages quibbling over the word if he so chooses. It depends exactly how many mountains he wants to make out of so many molehills.

Would it be appropriate to study it as an "alien experience" as opposed to simply an experience which occurred in the mind of the individual?

I would call such a study a study into 'Alien abduction experiences'.
...rather than 'Alien abductions'. The distinction is adding the word 'experiences'.

The claim isn't being made that the 'spiritual world' is being investigated. Only 'spiritual experiences' - which is not the same thing at all.

[_Moniker]

We can talk about spiritual in conversation, just as we can talk about god, both as theoretical ideas. But science can not talk about god nor spiritual in scientific terms. Science can talk about ideas and things for which we have actual data or can get actual data of which can then be evaluated and interpreted. If a person says they are having a spiritual experience...there is no way to objectively determine and differentiate their subjective interpretation of their experience from a non spiritual one or from other people's experiences who might not link it them in the context of being "spiritual". There is no clear definition of spirtual, just as there is no clear definition of God. Science deals with actualities which are measurable or potentially measurable. No actuality of spiritual or god exists which can be objectively evaluated.

That the brain can be viewed while undergoing these experiences shows that something occurs -- it doesn't matter how the person describes it.The point is that changes occur in the human body while undergoing a spiritual experience --science can attempt to understand it.

There is a clear ability to view spiritual experiences as subjects undergo them. Science is dealing with these experiences as they cut across boundaries of religion and are felt by most humankind and outside of religion.

For instance, we can talk about various emotions -- can science understand it? Yes, it can look to the limbic system in the center of our brains to understand why we have these emotions. Can we talk about "falling in love" and not have a clear understanding of what that means? It may be different for each individual, yet there are commonalities. Scientists can seek to understand the release of dopamine, serotonin (this is the one that makes me go temporarily insane -- joy!), and adrenalin. Of course they can -- 'cause this "falling in love" actually is something the body undergoes that makes people feel euphoric, the heart quickening, and cravings for their partner -- science can study it and understand it even though different people may discuss it without understanding the actual chemical releases.

People undergo certain things when they have spiritual experiences -- there are sections of the brain that deal with this and they can be viewed while subjects undergo these experiences (or not) and can be measured in an attempt to better understand them.

[_JAK]

Hi, JAK -- I went back and edited my post to be more succint and soften some of my responses as I reread them as being a bit snippy, perhaps. I just went back and reedited to fix who was saying what. All the color coding and lack of quotes gets me rather confused. It takes quite a bit of time to reply to you because of the color coding which I have to take out and show who said what. Sorry for the confusion.

Moniker states:
Well, I wasn't certain what you were speaking of with your statement that science doesn't (sorry for the paraphrase but I don't see your original quote above - please forgive), see spiritualism. No doubt that are people that believe in new age stuff and science has rebuked most (if not all) of those claims.

JAK states:
Science ignores religious mythologies. While it does not address them directly, it does address them indirectly with evidence that is unsupportive of any spiritual notions.

Moniker:
Okay, I am speaking of spiritual experiences and science does and is active in understanding why people have these experiences. I'm not talking about religious mythologies. Science also directly takes on new age claims and debunks them. Please see skeptic.com for more information on this.

When you say "spiritual notions" what are you speaking of? If you're discussing spiritual experiences as seen in neurotheology then science is not quiet on the subject.

JAK:
Perhaps we are considering meanings in different contexts. Medical science is clearly interested in brain functions. By spiritual notions, I referred to speculations which some individuals make primarily as a result of their environment and perhaps heredity, their experiences which cause them to jump to conclusions not supported by accurate information or accurate understand of available evidence.

Well, I know that people have experiences and they may attribute them to God. This of course is done often since there hasn't been much research in the past that attempted to understand these experiences. Yet, that there is research into these very experiences is in an attempt to understand why people have them.

Neurotheology “also known as biotheology or spiritual neuroscience…” was a term first used by A. Huxley (according to the above source). Also according to this source: “Neurotheology…is the study of correlations of neural phenomena with subjective experiences of spirituality and hypotheses to explain these phenomena. Proponents of neurotheology claim that there is a neurological and evolutionary basis for subjective experiences traditionally categorized as spiritual.”

The “claim” is lacking in clarity in the use of muddy terminology in the very definition itself.
What’s the evidence? Where is the genuine science? Terms like “God gene” and “God helmet” also listed under the description “see also” are pseudoscience. Books by people like Matthew Alpert: The God Part of the Brain are not science.

When I read that above link all I take away from it is there is research being conducted by neuroscientists in an attempt to understand why people have spiritual experiences. I'm not suggesting that it is science that is then making claims that God wired us with antennae to know him, or those that say this disproves God. Yet, that there is research into the VMAT2 gene, into our very brains to understand these phenomenons is scientific research.There is no doubt that this is pop science and being gobbled up by the press and everyone is eager to make claims with the findings -- yet, that doesn't discount that research is being done. Neuroimaging is being done in individuals to understand what changes occur in the brain during mystical or spiritual experiences.

That research is done and that it is later over turned by new findings does not in and of itself make it pseudoscience. I know there are criticisms into neurotheology that decries it as pseudoscience. Yet, that there is current research into the mind to understand mystical experiences, that are being done by reputable neuroscientists, that publish their findings, and their colleagues can look at them and attempt to replicate the findings suggests to me that it is science. Yet, that it may not be the ANSWER does not make it non-scientific. That we do not know all the answers does not suggest to me that it is non-scientific.

For instance, I mentioned mirror neurons. This is a relatively new discovery as well and SOME are hypothesizing a link between mirror neurons and possible spirituality as well. This does NOT suggest that this IS the answer to explain what occurs in people... it seems that there is a VARIETY of research and then some make claims from that research. Yet, that claims for God are made from the research does not mean the research should stop and that what has been done should be relegated to the scrap heap. That there IS current research into understanding mystical/spiritual experiences does not in and of itself make it pseudoscience.

http://www.cognitiveliberty.org/neuro/neuronewswk.htm

What all the new research shares is a passion for uncovering the neurological underpinnings of spiritual and mystical experiences-for discovering, in short, what happens in our brains when we sense that we "have encountered a reality different from-and, in some crucial sense, higher than-the reality of everyday experience," as psychologist David Wulff of Wheaton College in Massachusetts puts it.

OUTSIDE OF TIME AND SPACE

In neurotheology, psychologists and neurologists try to pinpoint which regions turn on, and
which turn off, during experiences that seem to exist outside time and space. In this way it differs from the rudimentary research of the 1950s and 1960s that found, yeah, brain waves change when you meditate. But that research was silent on why brain waves change, or which specific regions in the brain lie behind the change.

Neuroimaging of a living, working brain simply didn't exist back then. In contrast, today's studies try to identify the brain circuits that surge with activity when we think we have encountered the divine, and when we feel transported by intense prayer, an uplifting ritual or sacred music.

Although the field is brand new and the answers only tentative, one thing is clear. Spiritual experiences are so consistent across cultures, across time and across faiths, says Wulff, that it "suggest[s] a common core that is likely a reflection of structures and processes in the human brain."

Moniker states:
I thought of spirituality. You were discussing religions and most mainstream Christians don't dabble with the occult -- yet, spirituality has no boundaries -- it's seen all across the spectrum.

JAK states:
Exactly correct. But “spirituality” lacks open, transparent, skeptically reviewed analysis. Further, it hides from scrutiny and objective view.

Moniker:
I have no idea what you're saying above. There is valid science that goes into neurotheology, the God gene and understanding why people have spiritual experiences the world over. There is also valid science that delves into mirror neurons that discusses why some may be swept up into what is seen and have a feeling of "oneness" that likewise may be part of spiritual experiences. There is plenty of science that is valid that is dealing with spiritual experiences. It's valid science, and there is scrutiny. Why do you say it hides from objective view? What do you mean by that?

JAK:
It’s pseudoscience to speak of “the God gene.” No evidence has established any God claims. If you mean a search for why people believe something for which no evidence has been established, the answers may not be very complex. When people perceive (see or hear) that which they don’t understand, they have few options. One is to investigate, to search for evidence on the matter. Another option is to generate a made-up story which masquerades as explanation. There is plenty of pseudoscience in print.

NO! The research is NOT necessarily attempting to establish GOD CLAIMS! Some use the research to refute the very idea of God.

Do you dispute that people have spiritual experiences? That they occur in atheists, as well. If this is in dispute by you then I think this conversation may just be over for us, unfortunately.

I think we should stop there until you answer my above question.

Also, can you just answer me succinctly? I don't need a whole page full of type to talk to you. It's a lot of repetitions.

Mon Mar 03, 2008 10:44 am Moniker opened with this:

Hi, JAK -- I went back and edited my post to be more succint and soften some of my responses as I reread them as being a bit snippy, perhaps. I just went back and reedited to fix who was saying what. All the color coding and lack of quotes gets me rather confused. It takes quite a bit of time to reply to you because of the color coding which I have to take out and show who said what. Sorry for the confusion.

Hi Moniker,

The only color I used in Mar 02 2008 8:27 pm was where I had added in the middle of a previously completed post. Otherwise, only our names appeared prior to our comments. That is the post to which you opened your response with the statement above.

JAK:
I had written a thoughtful response, to the points of your post with every intention of posting it here. I had, until I saw your post Mon Mar 03, 2008 9:12 am

In reference to your post Mon Mar 03, 2008 10:44 am, and in review of the last part, for now and for reasons which will become clear later, I’ll address the following.

JAK previously:
It’s pseudoscience to speak of “the God gene.” No evidence has established any God claims. If you mean a search for why people believe something for which no evidence has been established, the answers may not be very complex. When people perceive (see or hear) that which they don’t understand, they have few options. One is to investigate, to search for evidence on the matter. Another option is to generate a made-up story which masquerades as explanation. There is plenty of pseudoscience in print.

Moniker responded:
NO! The research is NOT necessarily attempting to establish GOD CLAIMS! Some use the research to refute the very idea of God.

JAK response:
Please re-read that response above. Did I state the research was “attempting to establish GOD CLAIMS!”? I did not. Your response indicates you did not understand what I stated.

Continuing:
When a source uses the phrase “the God gene”, the very use of that phrase assumes. It assumes there might be “the God gene.” In my statement (previously), I stated: “No evidence has established any God claims.”

The speculation that there might be “the God gene” implicitly asserts a God claim.

Suppose we substitute “the tooth fairy” for “the God gene.” We speculate that there might be “the tooth fairy gene.” Of course we know there is no such thing as the tooth fairy as a real, separate entity. So no one would seriously make such a statement implying that there might be “a tooth fairy gene.”

People tend to be suggestible. Advertisers play on suggestibility. Consider the ad which says in very large print Save $150. It’s advertising a television. A buyer will spend far more than the $150 in large print. The advertising uses suggestibility as a ploy to sell a TV. The buyer is lead to believe that he is saving $150. He is spending if he buys the TV. The advertiser does not what the buyer to “feel” (emotion) that he is spending.

Use of the phrase “the God gene” is also playing on suggestibility. There are numerous websites which use that phrase and attempt to link science to religion. As I have stated previously, Real Science does not comment on religious doctrine directly.

Further, religion capitalizes on suggestibility. For example, doctrines about “eternal life” appeal to fear and to promise of eternal bliss. Since people don’t talk to us who are dead, the promise extends beyond any possible experience of those who hear it. It appeals to wishful thinking and to fear. Some televangelists have promised riches to those who send money to the televangelist. Other televangelists have promised healing of disease.

Oral Roberts (senior) had a television ministry in the 1950s. On his edited broadcasts, he claimed to heal people of diabetes, cancer, and other diseases. The show was always spectacular with some crippled person unable to walk suddenly standing and walking from a wheelchair into the arms of Oral Roberts. The broadcast raked in hundreds of millions of dollars. Later studies showed people Roberts claimed to have cured of cancer died of cancer.

Suggestibility! “The God gene” is suggestion. It’s not science. And no genuine scientist (a scientist outside the clutches of some religious group) is claiming “the God gene.” Those who are pseudo scientists are fakes.

Moniker states:
Do you dispute that people have spiritual experiences? That they occur in atheists, as well. If this is in dispute by you then I think this conversation may just be over for us, unfortunately.

JAK response:
I have yet to see a distinction between the terms “spiritual experiences” and “emotional experiences.” Absent a clear, transparent distinction, I see no difference. To your question, I do not dispute that people have emotional experiences. Humans (and some animals as I previously indicated) have emotional responses.

If you wish to make some clear distinction, please proceed to make it.

Moniker:
I think we should stop there until you answer my above question.

JAK response:
Good. You make a clear distinction between feelings and emotions and “spiritual.” Otherwise, I’ll regard them as synonymous. The claim for “spiritual experiences” is your claim here. Hence, the burden of proof for clear transparent distinction is yours. If it’s intellectually honest, it’s open to skeptical review and to questions.

Moniker:
Also, can you just answer me succinctly?

JAK response:
NO.

Moniker:
I don't need a whole page full of type to talk to you. It's a lot of repetitions.

JAK response:
Yes, you need “a lot of repetitions.”

JAK

[_JAK]

Response to Moniker’s post Sat Mar 01 2008 9:07 pm

Moniker stated:
It seems to me that all Christians rely on God claims, so, you think moderates are less fanatical in their devotion to God? Or are you using God claims here as a way to tie that into teachings of the Bible? I think what confuses me is I don't see a mere belief in God as necessarily dangerous. I think the teachings in the Bible, if taken to an extreme could be dangerous.

JAK stated:
Yes to your first 11 words. Since the various “claims” do not agree (a plethora of Christian options), they are unreliable. (This always seems to require detailed analysis which I’ll forego presently.) To your question, “moderates” tend to be less fanatical, yes. How is “devotion” in your question measured? To what extent is there genuine consensus here?

Moniker:
I don't know that I have a way to measure devotion. I don't know what you mean with "claims" -- are you talking about a claim to the belief in God or to doctrine? I'm sorry -- I fear we're going to talk past each other!

JAK response:
Exactly! Any perception of or commitment characterized by “devotion” is relative. It’s relative to time, to interest, to extended obligations, etc. The response was to your first 11 words. I’m speaking directly to you statement above. “Christians rely on God claims.” (your statement above). You used the word as did I. There are many claims made by Christians. They do not agree (otherwise we would not have more than 1,000 groups claiming different things). Hence “a plethora of Christian options.” How are religious claims divorced from doctrine?

JAK wrote:
Does any religious group assert “mere belief in God”? Those groups go on to add multiple claims regarding the nature, character, conduct, relevance, presence (or lack thereof), power, level of knowledge, involvement, and more. Certainly Christian groups lay out much specificity in multiple (and contradictory) God claims.

Moniker:
Sure, there is a lot of contradictory beliefs, emphasis and doctrines between denominations. I'm not suggesting that God is a reality or the claims are "real" -- I think again, I'm just saying that I don't see that certain doctrines or beliefs are necessarily harmful. Even more than that, I see that there is such WIDE variance between denominations that this is actually a good thing.

JAK response:
I provided a litany of websites earlier which clearly demonstrated the “Dangers of Religion.” You responded to none of them. Did you read them? “Contradictory beliefs” demonstrate absence of reliability. I’ll not repeat all those posts with links which clearly demonstrate “Dangers of Religion.” My references were not only to the past conduct of those who carried the Sword and the Cross, they were to present day (the past 20 years) and the references to faith healers who claimed to cure people of cancer, diabetes, and a host of crippling diseases. If you didn’t read them the first time (and you did not respond to them), I’ll not take time to repeat.

You did not address the posts when they were made.

JAK wrote:
There is significant disagreement among Christians as to “teachings in the Bible.” This is not a disagreement with you, but an addition (I think). Right-wing fundamentalists do not see themselves as “extreme.” They do not see themselves as “dangerous.” (A nine-year old playing with a gun does not see himself as dangerous.) Just when does religion become “extreme”? Moniker, that is a large question upon which there lacks agreement. “Extremists” are generally perceived as other people.

Moniker:
Right, I know that there are disagreements. I think if I was trying to say "God is real -- I know God! Jesus saved me!" and then talked about this and that and the other you could ask me about the different denominations and point out that others know a "truth" different than I. Yet, that's not where I am, and so I have no qualms with different denominations interpretations. Some of them strike me as against my own personal secular beliefs, but I'm not against them having them as there are other religious views that do line up with my secular beliefs when it comes to some "teachings in the Bible".

JAK response:
No evidence has established God, and no evidence prior to the invention of God established gods (in the plural). “Feelings” as a result of exposure to religious emotional appeal are not evidence for any claimed God here. Belief does not constitute reality. Absent evidence, claims should be challenged or rejected. (That’s a repeat from previous posts and is a standard of modern science.)
The fact that others have different perspectives (beliefs) should cause consideration that perceptions (beliefs) are unreliable. We have 1,000+ Christian groups as a result of disagreement on “teachings in the Bible.”
The fact is that each group or individuals who attempt to go it alone and make up their own beliefs are making it up. Such inventions (along with or in harmony with how individuals have been indoctrinated) are no more reliable that that of others.

Moniker:
I think right wing fundamentalists seem extreme to you, perhaps, because you disagree with their policy stances. Correct me if I'm wrong. I just don't know that (since they're only 1/3 of Protestants) that this should damn all Protestants. Varying beliefs are acceptable to me, and their ability to vote upon them is acceptable to me likewise. If I want to get rid of certain religious views then wouldn't I have to be consistent to scrap those that line up with my secular views?

JAK response:

Just take my words for what they say. Attempting to read into a statement something that was not stated makes for incorrect understanding.

JAK previously:
Those who want their brand of Christian domination in the courts including the Supreme Court and those who want “prayer” their prayer reinstated in public, secular educational institutions do not see themselves as “extreme.” Is bombing a Family Planning Clinic (offering contraceptive information) “extreme”? The law says it is. Those who plan and have carried out such bombings saw themselves as inspired by the word of God (in the Bible) to save the lives of “the unborn.” While few undertake such action, many secretly (or not) applaud the motives and the abolition of the 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision.

Moniker:
Sure, they don't view themselves as extreme. My grammie (an old Southern woman) and I fussed relentlessly that American was going to hell in a hand basket 'cause prayer was taken out of schools. She didn't think she was extreme -- matter of fact she thought she had the answer to solve all our problems! :)

JAK response:
That was another red herring and false charge by some. “Prayer” was never taken out of schools. What was taken out was the requirement that all students be forced to stand or sit in silence while someone prayed before an entire class or an entire student body. Jewish kids, Muslims kids, Buddhist kids, atheist kids, etc. had previously been forced to hear and appear respectful as a very public prayer often by a very fundamentalist, right-wing conservative Christian prayed publically with the students as the target audience. Any student, teacher, custodian, anyone could read his Bible or Koran or any other religious book and could pray. The Supreme Court did NOT to prohibit prayer.

See U.S. Supreme Court Decisions.

Moniker:
OF COURSE bombing and killing is extreme! Yet, that there are those that are horrified by their actions and point to the Bible to say that this goes against Christianity occurs, as well. That there are moderate voices that do step out and that outnumber the fanatical actions of a few make me consider that there is GOOD in religion.

JAK response:
The same people who do the bombings and killings point to the same Bible as defense of their conduct as protecting the rights of unborn babies. I did not argue that there was no good in religion. My post was titled “Dangers of Religion.” I gave those many websites which demonstrated “Dangers of Religion.” No one refuted any of that or even addressed it.

Where were the “moderate voices” when Christian G.W. Bush talked to God and decided to invade a Muslim country on falsified “intelligence” claiming weapons of mass destruction? And those right-wing fundamentalists (along with oil interests) backed Bush with their prayers in churches. “Dangers of Religion”

Was the invasion and attack of Iraq the conduct of a more “moderate voices…”? What do you mean “killing is extreme”? How many Iraqis have been killed and countless others whose lives have been destroyed by being maimed for life? How many Americans (and allied lives) been lost and those who lived left with no arms, no legs, and mental ruin? Keep in mind it was Christian G.W. Bush who talked to God and said God talked to him who went to war and to killing tens of thousands for a lie weapons of mass destruction which could appear in the form of “a mushroom cloud” over the U.S.

To your observation, sometimes “there are moderate voices that do step out…” And sometimes, the extreme and the misinformed voices rule the day. “Dangers of Religion”

JAK previously:
In general, religious groups indoctrinate their young to believe not to think. And thinking, asking intellectually honest questions is discouraged if those questions are “the wrong questions.” I should like to explore some of these, but this post is too long as is.

Moniker:
I think, and I hate to be blunt here, but this may be an overstatement. I think most indoctrination likely occurs in homes and that a place you spend 1 hour a week (for MOST denominations) where kids scribble all over a worksheet and then eat graham crackers doesn't make as much a dent as seeing they spend more time in secular schools and in their homes. That the poll I linked to showed that there is skepticism of dogma and rules shows that there IS thinking, as well. That Jersey Girl was able to THINK and question her religious views showed how this supposed indoctrination didn't work too well on her. The ex-mos on this board that THOUGHT and rejected dogma shows how religion (and the LDS quite possibly is MORE heavily involved in members lives and heavy indoctration than other mainstream denominations) wasn't as good in this endeavor with the indoctrination.

JAK response:
It’s irrelevant where the “indoctrination” occurs. Indoctrination is truth by assertion. It occurs in religious indoctrination both in religious organizations and in homes who are manipulated by religious organizations. You introduce the irrelevant with “crackers,” and the “worksheet” is generally focused on some aspect of indoctrination in religious groups.

Why is there “skepticism of dogma”? There is because “dogma” is unreliable and “dogma” is threatened by honest intellectual inquiry. Martin Luther (1517) from within the Roman Catholic Church thought too much for the dogma makers.

Jersey Girl, offered herself as one who was able to transcend the dogma of the Southern Baptist Convention as a result of thinking outside the God box of her religious indoctrination. But, such thinking is not encouraged by the religious organizations who perpetuate Truth by assertion and prefer that their members believe rather than that they think.

Thinking, research, information, and real education are always a threat to religious dogma. If Bush had taken information available and rejected faith-based conclusion many thousands of lives might have been spared. “Dangers of Religion”

Moniker stated:
Then, again, if someone just focuses on the New Testament and the teachings of Christ I see the likelihood of dangers (physically) incredibly remote. I also see little likelihood that a strong belief in the teachings of Christ could even correlate to other dangers (looking at information critically), as his teachings mostly rely on how to treat humanity tolerantly and with love. Matter of fact, I just see Jesus as Character Education 101. [/color]

JAK stated:
How long has the whole Bible been used (along with the Apocrypha or the J. Smith’s Book of Mormon)? The New Testament ends about 125 A.D. The New Testament was a part of Christianity throughout the wars fought in the name of Christianity. The oldest roots of pacifism (a belief that rejects the use of violence) are found in Buddhism around 500 B.C. Christianity has been a relatively late comer to pacifism primarily since the 1600s when the Quakers and other religious groups evolved following the Protestant Reformation (World Book Enclyclopedia 1985 Library Edition).

There are non-religious roots for pacifism including the moral judgment that people act against their own interests in the costs of war. But that cannot be said of Christianity, historically.

Moniker:
Well, we even see with current conflicts that there are splits upon denominations when it comes to war and other policies. I'm really not comfortable reaching back in time and rehashing what HAS occurred. There are many reasons that there were conflicts in the past and if you would like to continue on that avenue, that's fine -- I just won't have much to say on the matter.

JAK response:
You should reach back in time if you intend to understand the historical evolution of Christianity. The last thing present-day people should do is burry the past and fail to recognize its influence on the present. If you had read all those websites of documentation about the atrocities of Christianity and other religions as well, you would be more knowledgeable regarding the importance of religious history. The history of all these “splits” in Christianity is relevant to present-day. A major problem in Christianity today is failure to have honest and clear understanding of just how it evolved and invented its dogmas. So while you don’t regard that as “comfortable,” it’s critical and important to understanding of religious splintering.
We disagree on the importance of understanding historical events which shape our own time. For many in religion today, it’s an escape precisely because people are uncomfortable when forced to face up to the “Dangers of Religion.”

JAK previously:
During the 1950s and 1960s, Martin Luther King Jr. used a technique similar to Gandhi to fight for equality for American blacks.

Only some Christian groups teach non-violence and “turn the other cheek” and “pray for your enemies.” They are in the minority in applied Christianity today. “God Bless America” (George W. Bush Christianity) resonates with many Christians today in the USA. Never mind that God should care in the least about other countries. And when our government sends its men and women into war, our Christians pray for the safety of our people not the people we intend to kill with our superior weapons.

Moniker:
Are you aware that George Bush's and Cheney's denomination was against the War in Iraq? I guess they weren't indoctrinated too well. ;)

JAK:
They both used God and patriotism in defense of the preemptive invasion/attack of Iraq. And they both used: “God Bless America” as political/religious gesture. No one has argued that all indoctrination works equally on all people.

At the time of planning of the war, the United Methodist Church did not make any highly public protest against the war their men were about to start. The Methodist Church kept a very low profile as I will detail later.

JAK previously:
Christians offer prayers which seek to manipulate God to favor “our people.” It’s not peaceful or tolerant in war. And Christians use God in war. I’m not being satirical nor do I suggest any credibility for any God inventions. People operate out of their environment, and that environment includes religious indoctrination. Some become cafeteria doctrine-samplers.

Moniker:
Sure, there's no dispute, from me, that God is asked for help for self and others, at certain times. Yet, that there are Christians that are against war certainly shows that there is some concerned for humanity outside the narrow niche of borders. Again, I'm not disagreeing with everything you state -- I just am not certain that your views totally reflect the diversity seen in religious denominations.

JAK response:
I agree. In many of my posts I have clarified that “diversity” and contradiction is significant in Christianity today. It is precisely that diversity and internal contradiction as well as contradiction with other Christian groups which makes religious claims and dogma unreliable.

The “Danger of Religion” occurs as these diverse groups come to believe that their doctrine is the true doctrine. Based upon that belief, they have historically undertaken all manner of atrocity against others. They still do it today. The bomber of a family planning clinic believes that his religious doctrines are true and that he has obligation to act as he does. Historically, religious wars have been fought over territory, resources, religious doctrine, and it has been The Battle for God (a book).

Understanding the historical significance of religious wars is key to understanding the mentality today of people like Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, Pat Robertson, and many others who dominate the cable channels which run all religion all the time. People like this have influence. (We could discuss how much, but they have influence.) Pope Pius XII, head of the Roman Catholic Church, stood by silently as Hitler killed six million Jews. “Dangers of Religion”

So while you may not be “comfortable” addressing historical facts of religious history, I submit that also presents danger. Had people paused to question the faith-based conclusions of Bush, the tragedy of Iraq might have been averted. And there is no mistaking that Bush used religion and the religious right to advance his war plans. “Dangers of Religion”

Moniker states:
Then, again, if someone just focuses on the New Testament and the teachings of Christ I see the likelihood of dangers (physically) incredibly remote. I also see little likelihood that a strong belief in the teachings of Christ could even correlate to other dangers (looking at information critically), as his teachings mostly rely on how to treat humanity tolerantly and with love. Matter of fact, I just see Jesus as Character Education 101. [/color]

JAK states:
My point in review of this is that there are indeed great “dangers” and likelihood of physical harm from current public officials who regard themselves as God believing Christians. Your view is a nice, pretty, and simplistic view. But Christians are modern myth-makers and invent Christian doctrine to benefit themselves, their institutions, and their country.

Moniker:
Well, I don't think my view is simplistic -- rather I think my view reflects the knowledge that different denominations emphasize different things, and that people are not in lock-step. I'd just like to state that I'd rather you not make comments to me about my views being simplistic and what not... to be perfectly honest it comes across to me condescendingly. Perhaps it's warranted, and perhaps not. Yet, it makes me uncomfortable. Thanks.

JAK responce:
When you are not “comfortable” seeing religion historically, that’s “simplistic.” Would you rather I characterize your views as naïve? I suspect if you considered the history of religion you would have a different view. But, my observation was not intended to be as pejorative as it may have sounded. Many today have a simplistic view. Bush had a simplistic view that the US could invade, declare mission accomplished, take over Iraq, turn it into a mini-American democracy and probably make way for Christians to Christianize Muslims. The Bush view was simplistic and it was wrong.

John F. Kennedy appropriately and Constitutionally carved the separation of church and state giving assurance that the Pope (RCC) would not influence his decisions as President. In a debate in 2000, Bush was asked to name his greatest hero. He named “Jesus Christ.” That won many millions of votes. Unlike Kennedy, Bush used religion for political gain.

JAK previously:
The “born again Christian” George W. Bush took the USA into a preemptive attack of Iraq on false “intelligence”. Keep in mind that Bush is a Christian who claims to “talk to God daily.” God claims are unreliable. Why?... because there are many and they are contradictory.

Others who also claim to “talk to God daily” get different messages from God. Those different God claims are also unreliable.

Moniker:
Right, yet Bush's denomination fought against him. Cheney and Bush both are Methodists and they went against doctrine when they decided to attack Iraq. Sure, claims about God are unreliable. Not in dispute, at least, not from me!

JAK response:
An incorrect reading of developments. Methodists are not pacifists. Methodists believe in the doctrine of “the just war” as do Roman Catholics, Lutherans, and many other denominations.

The United Methodist Church (UMC) also was silent on the Iraq war at its beginning. The UMC has in its doctrine “the just war,” and Bush persuaded not only Methodists but many others that this war which he intended was a just war against “the axis of evil.” He argued the war would last six weeks to six months. He argued it would cost no more than $50 billion. Currently the US is spending between 10 and 12 billion a month and the total cost of the war is now placed at well over a trillion dollars. These are just numbers to most people. But the loss in stature morally and the loss in stature economically as a result of Bush war policies is yet to be measured.

United Methodists prayed for the safety of our troops, not the safety of Iraqis. United Methodists prayed for Bush as he began the attack on Iraq.

If we argue that some Methodists opposed Bush war policy, that would be accurate.

Moniker:
I'm sort of exhausted JAK and see you discuss neurotheology and spiritual experiences in your post. I'll come back to them tomorrow.

JAK