Dangers of Religion Reloaded

[_Jersey Girl]

On a previous thread, JAK wrote:

Reading some of the posts here, it seems that the issues “Dangers of Religion” has been departed. The irrelevant has replaced the relevant to that issue.

In a post (which I can’t take time to research), marg observed some standard understandings of what religion comprises.

Principle to most definitions is that religion sets forward claims. Claims which lack evidence yet are asserted as true are essentially truth by assertion. I addressed that early on in the discussion. It has never been challenged, let alone refuted.

The religion about which we may have most familiarity is Christianity. Of course there are others. But, the observations which I stated have essentially gone unchallenged in favor of other issues.

While I have placed them on the screen numerous times in different posts, they have not been challenged.

That was the intended focus for discussion. While Jersey Girl, marg, and I have all addressed content of your posts, Moniker, the central issues have not been addressed. I believe that several participants here are quite capable of focusing on the issues.

One of those issues is this:

“Where reason and evidence are turned aside in favor of dogma and claim absent evidence, danger prevails.”

In that, the position is that “reason and evidence” tend to ameliorate “danger.”

The other side of that is that “dogma and claim absent evidence” tend to aggravate “danger.”

More than 300 years ago, John Locke, one of the architects of the English Enlightenment wrote: “Every sect, as far as reason will help them, make use of it gladly; and where it fails them they cry out ‘It is a matter of faith and above reason.’”

His observation would surely have supported: Truth by assertion is unreliable. This was a second principle.

I had hoped that the topic would give participants the opportunity and stimulus to extend and explore the degree and kind of “dangers” that are inherent in ignorance installed in the mind by dogma and claim absent evidence.

JAK

JAK,

My reply might not be what you had in mind but it is what's on my mind. As you know, although I am no longer affiliated with my church of many years, I remain a "God believer". Not so many years ago, I would have taken offense to your remarks. I no longer do and this is why.

When a person is "raised up" in a church like I was, religious training/instruction/indoctrination begins early on. A child is taught (in a majority of Christian churches) certain underlying "truths" about the nature of God and their relationship to God. These "truths" are embedded in songs and children's Bible stories. Older children are taught more complex Bible stories without any cross referencing and encouraged to memorize verses of scripture. This is largely the reason that I can call to memory a number of Bible verses, you're reading the post of a former "Memory Verse Contest" winner! (no applause please)

In church we used to have "Sword Drills". The Pastor would call out a Bible ref and we'd race to find it. Of course this had to do with learning how to navigate the Bible.

In my experience, in adult Bible study classes there was (1) a chapter by chapter study of one book, (2) a focus on a specific Bible figure, (3) a focus on a series of writings by one author (Paul for example), (4) focus on isolated issues such as "creation".

When your path and mine first intersected, I had not long before that attended a presentation by the ICR. Infact, the first post I ever made online was in reference to the ICR. I remember sitting in church listening to the presenter thinking that it all sounded too slick, somewhat akin to the pitch of a used car salesman. He talked too fast. Made too many jokes. So I took the "material" from the presentation and tried to use it in online debate. Following that, much decimating of the material took place!

It was either prior or after that presentation in our adult Bible study on Genesis that the teacher raised similiar issues from the Creation account. People batted around speculation as if in awe of the potential wonder of what the answers might be, but the questions were never answered.

Yes, I'm going somewhere with this.

In our churches, we are not taught to think. We are taught to believe. Those first assertions presented to us as children are presented layer upon layer upon layer, each experience reinforcing the previous.

The "danger" of religion, extreme fundamentalism not withstanding, is to our intellect. We are taught to search the scriptures to seek answers via proof texting, but we are not taught to think outside of the Bible. We are taught to wonder without question. That is not to say that God believers aren't intelligent.

The danger to the intellect is in not allowing the use of our reasoning abilities to function within the framework of our religious belief and not just outside of it. You might not agree that one can apply critical thinking and still remain a believer. I think we can.

Not long ago on this board, I asked you if you thought a believer could also be a skeptic. You answered in the affirmative.

I think that after all these years, being put through the intellectual wringer by certain online personalities who shall remain nameless (you) that I have become a believing skeptic. I don't see that as wrong, conflicted or incongruent. I also don't agree that people like me who you and others might describe as "cafeteria Christians" are doing anything wrong but rather, doing everything right in terms of putting to full use our own intellect to the extent that we are each able.

I do know that as a result of the intellectual wringer, something has changed about my thinking. Not the status of my belief, but the nature of my ability to think. Were it not for that, I would still be spouting "bumper stickers" instead of trying to think my way through a situation.

Back to intellectual dangers in general. I think that when a believer fails to engage their intellect within the framework of their religious belief they are missing so much of what they assume they know and believe. I'm thinking in terms of coming to a better understanding of scripture instead of simply passively receiving it and spouting it, we should engage it.

When one is taught to believe without thinking, there is the possibility of that long term practice of intellectual disconnect bleeding over into other areas of one's life.

What do you think?

Jersey Girl

Note: This is a new topic thread, not an invitation to resurrect previous exchanges on threads that came before it.

[_JAK]

On a previous thread, JAK wrote:

Reading some of the posts here, it seems that the issues “Dangers of Religion” has been departed. The irrelevant has replaced the relevant to that issue.

In a post (which I can’t take time to research), marg observed some standard understandings of what religion comprises.

Principle to most definitions is that religion sets forward claims. Claims which lack evidence yet are asserted as true are essentially truth by assertion. I addressed that early on in the discussion. It has never been challenged, let alone refuted.

The religion about which we may have most familiarity is Christianity. Of course there are others. But, the observations which I stated have essentially gone unchallenged in favor of other issues.

While I have placed them on the screen numerous times in different posts, they have not been challenged.

That was the intended focus for discussion. While Jersey Girl, marg, and I have all addressed content of your posts, Moniker, the central issues have not been addressed. I believe that several participants here are quite capable of focusing on the issues.

One of those issues is this:

“Where reason and evidence are turned aside in favor of dogma and claim absent evidence, danger prevails.”

In that, the position is that “reason and evidence” tend to ameliorate “danger.”

The other side of that is that “dogma and claim absent evidence” tend to aggravate “danger.”

More than 300 years ago, John Locke, one of the architects of the English Enlightenment wrote: “Every sect, as far as reason will help them, make use of it gladly; and where it fails them they cry out ‘It is a matter of faith and above reason.’”

His observation would surely have supported: Truth by assertion is unreliable. This was a second principle.

I had hoped that the topic would give participants the opportunity and stimulus to extend and explore the degree and kind of “dangers” that are inherent in ignorance installed in the mind by dogma and claim absent evidence.

JAK

JAK,

My reply might not be what you had in mind but it is what's on my mind. As you know, although I am no longer affiliated with my church of many years, I remain a "God believer". Not so many years ago, I would have taken offense to your remarks. I no longer do and this is why.

When a person is "raised up" in a church like I was, religious training/instruction/indoctrination begins early on. A child is taught (in a majority of Christian churches) certain underlying "truths" about the nature of God and their relationship to God. These "truths" are embedded in songs and children's Bible stories. Older children are taught more complex Bible stories without any cross referencing and encouraged to memorize verses of scripture. This is largely the reason that I can call to memory a number of Bible verses, you're reading the post of a former "Memory Verse Contest" winner! (no applause please)

In church we used to have "Sword Drills". The Pastor would call out a Bible ref and we'd race to find it. Of course this had to do with learning how to navigate the Bible.

In my experience, in adult Bible study classes there was (1) a chapter by chapter study of one book, (2) a focus on a specific Bible figure, (3) a focus on a series of writings by one author (Paul for example), (4) focus on isolated issues such as "creation".

When your path and mine first intersected, I had not long before that attended a presentation by the ICR. Infact, the first post I ever made online was in reference to the ICR. I remember sitting in church listening to the presenter thinking that it all sounded too slick, somewhat akin to the pitch of a used car salesman. He talked too fast. Made too many jokes. So I took the "material" from the presentation and tried to use it in online debate. Following that, much decimating of the material took place!

It was either prior or after that presentation in our adult Bible study on Genesis that the teacher raised similiar issues from the Creation account. People batted around speculation as if in awe of the potential wonder of what the answers might be, but the questions were never answered.

Yes, I'm going somewhere with this.

In our churches, we are not taught to think. We are taught to believe. Those first assertions presented to us as children are presented layer upon layer upon layer, each experience reinforcing the previous.

The "danger" of religion, extreme fundamentalism not withstanding, is to our intellect. We are taught to search the scriptures to seek answers via proof texting, but we are not taught to think outside of the Bible. We are taught to wonder without question. That is not to say that God believers aren't intelligent.

The danger to the intellect is in not allowing the use of our reasoning abilities to function within the framework of our religious belief and not just outside of it. You might not agree that one can apply critical thinking and still remain a believer. I think we can.

Not long ago on this board, I asked you if you thought a believer could also be a skeptic. You answered in the affirmative.

I think that after all these years, being put through the intellectual wringer by certain online personalities who shall remain nameless (you) that I have become a believing skeptic. I don't see that as wrong, conflicted or incongruent. I also don't agree that people like me who you and others might describe as "cafeteria Christians" are doing anything wrong but rather, doing everything right in terms of putting to full use our own intellect to the extent that we are each able.

I do know that as a result of the intellectual wringer, something has changed about my thinking. Not the status of my belief, but the nature of my ability to think. Were it not for that, I would still be spouting "bumper stickers" instead of trying to think my way through a situation.

Back to intellectual dangers in general. I think that when a believer fails to engage their intellect within the framework of their religious belief they are missing so much of what they assume they know and believe. I'm thinking in terms of coming to a better understanding of scripture instead of simply passively receiving it and spouting it, we should engage it.

When one is taught to believe without thinking, there is the possibility of that long term practice of intellectual disconnect bleeding over into other areas of one's life.

What do you think?

Jersey Girl

Note: This is a new topic thread, not an invitation to resurrect previous exchanges on threads that came before it.

(This may make a long post because I want your remarks to stand close to my response. It will not if I exclude it leaving other comments in between.)

Jersey Girl asked at the close:
“What do you think?”

JAK:
Foremost, I think your comments are a comprehensive, knowledgeable, and a penetrating insight. They not only reflect your own experience, but they open the way to address issues in a larger context.

Second, no title given to longer exploration of ideas can express in depth analysis of those ideas.

Intellectuals and scientists a century ago did not expect that secularism would replace religion in mainstream thinking. They did think that the more rationally inclined forms of religion would replace not only biblically literal creeds but many strange sects and offshoots of Christianity. These might include Mormonism, Christian Science and Jehovah’s Witnesses evolving in 19th Century Christianity.

In another post, I mentioned this and the fact that only on one occasion when the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints agreed in 1896 to renounce polygamy as the cost of statehood did the government explicitly, permanently require a religious denomination to compromise a central belief in compliance with public consensus.

Throughout American history, people have been content to view themselves as predominately Christian with a secular government. It’s almost a paradox and delicate balance. When J.F. Kennedy (a Roman Catholic) ran for president, he successfully diffused the attack that the US would become a Vatican state if he were elected. He amplified the safeguards of separation of church and state and persuaded Americans that he would be president of all the people.

The rise of feminism and the importance of women along with the roles of family have often been seen as a major catalyst to the religious right. The battle over a woman’s right of choice, which cannot be disconnected from late 20th Century feminism, created a unifying cause for right-wing Protestants and right-wing Catholics. In 1973, Americans favored liberalization of state abortion laws.

Because the Christian right opposed all relaxation of strict rules, it set about to portray Roe vs. Wade as a radical break with religious absolutes. The Supreme Court then was in line with a general trend favoring greater choice and compassion for women coping with unwanted pregnancies.

Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun’s majority opinion was the unequivocal assertion that “the word ‘person’ as used in the 14th Amendment does not include the unborn.”

Although that opinion was set forward before anyone in the general public had ever heard the phrase embryonic stem cell research, the religious right’s position has been focused on defining a fetus (a few embryonic cells) as a person. That religious-right was most influential in the installation of G. W. Bush as President of the US. (2000)

The monumental changes in women’s traditional, social, and economic roles has impassioned rather than diminished the anti-rational emotions of the religious right.

While some dismiss abortion and gay marriage as symbolic, and while most voters are more concerned about the economy, Iraq, and terrorism, finding common ground is increasingly difficult in the face of stark absolutism of the religious right.

These observations are but a few examples of “Dangers of Religion” (my original title). The religious right has imposed religious dogma on the face of politics in the past two decades. No one attempted address of the multiple websites detailing the atrocities in the name of religion which I included in several posts. No one challenged the principles which I repeated in previous posts. I’ll not resurrect them here.

Finding common ground on abortion, rights of women and rights of minorities including children (children your specialty, Jersey Girl) in a secular government is impaired and polluted by the religious right. To address pragmatic compromise is heresy to the religious right.

Americans who want women to go through with an unwanted pregnancy are adhering to a supernatural imperative that abortion is murder forbidden by the laws of God (religion) and therefore must be forbidden by [i]laws of man.

Fundamental to this is the question: Why are these so much more commanding in the US than in the rest of the developed world?

Now I understand we never got to this area of discussion previously, but it’s a dimension and inclusive regarding “Dangers of Religion” even in the past two decades and in America.

Europeans have become more, rather than less skeptical about traditional religious dogma (as Ren observed on an early response to one of my posts).

Religious dogma has been viewed with more skepticism in the educated community. The teaching of evolution, homosexuality, abortion, and embryonic stem cell research have not become political issues in Europe as they have in the US.

(I should like some continuity in response and will end this post and attempt to place the next post immediately after this one. The attempt may not succeed.) There will be a Part II.

JAK

[_JAK]

(This may make a long post because I want your remarks to stand close to my response. It will not if I exclude it leaving other comments in between. )

Jersey Girl asked at the close:
“What do you think?”

JAK (continuing from previously entered post):

The British biologist Richard Dawkins has argued that moderate religions (forms of religion not based on literal interpretations) are dangerous and irrational if not to the same degree as fundamentalism.

He sees the American tendency to hold all religion in high esteem as dangerous. Dawkins said: “I think moderate religion makes the world safe for extremists because children are trained from cradle to think that faith itself is a good thing.”

His documentary The root of All Evil? was shown on television in England. It was considered too “hot to handle” by media brass in the US. The resistance to an airing of Dawkin’s brand of atheism is understandable in commercial terms in the US.

One study (I cannot cite it) showed nearly 2/3 of Americans compared with only 1/5 of Europeans say that religion plays a very important role in their lives. If that comparison is accurate, it explains why Dawkins has been attacked personally for his general criticism of religion, but also attacked for his uncompromising defense of the teaching of evolution.

Dawkins is criticized by religious conservatives as appearing “to be utterly indifferent to spiritual and emotional difficulties…”

His intellectual defense of his position unleashes a spiritual, emotional crisis among his opponents.

A question for parents is this: Do you want your children to believe or do you want your children to learn to think?

If the latter is preferred, it’s difficult to turn off honest inquiry. More and more questions surface. If the former is preferred, concealment and protection from certain questions must be maintained. Pre-made questions have pre-made answers.

You, Jersey Girl, acknowledge the difference between moderate religion and fundamentalism in your post. A moderate religion attempts to accommodate itself to secular education and secular government. The American religious right rejects that. The religious right trains its children from cradle up to believe that faith itself is superior to reason. That’s why it wants to diminish science in public schools while elevating faith-based conclusions over reason.

Any religion (dogma, doctrine), is fair game for critics. The difference between moderate religion (which you appear to express) and fundamentalism is that moderate faith attempts compromise.

The Economist survey quoted Peter Berger, head of the Institute of Religion and World Affairs to the effect that secular Europe, not religious America, is the real exception in the world.

The appeal and the marketing of Catholic fundamentalism and Protestant evangelical fundamentalism in remote parts of the world such as Africa has opposed the idea that governments become more secular as they modernize. Religion Trump's reason in the Third World today and has little in common with modernization associated with intellectual pursuits.

Faith flourishes in the Middle east and Africa as a small and greedy elite leave the bulk of the population in poverty. Among those who have little hope for a better life, right wing fundamentalists indoctrinate. It is this most retrograde form of religion and religious intolerance which promotes violence in many areas of the world. It also promotes ignorance as it favors doctrine over discovery.

Even in India, where modernization has greater reach than in Africa, fanatical Hindu nationalism flourishes. In Africa, the Roman Catholic Church has made many new converts in spite of the fact that the RCC proposes to address AIDS with abstinence only (religious dogma). In that, “Religion is Dangerous.” The RCC wants people to believe not to think. This is not to single out the RCC but rather to show example. Right wing religious Protestants also want people to believe not to think.

It is difficult to conceive of equally successful proselytizing in areas of the world where people have basic understanding of how the disease is spread (education and information). “Religion is Dangerous.”

It is also difficult to imagine that radical Islam’s suppression of women could survive if women had equal educational opportunities and political rights.

The United States may be the number one developed nation which perpetrates and promotes such rituals as “speaking in tongues,” “faith healing,” and gathers new converts to proselytize around the world.

In 2002, George Gallup told a correspondent for U.S. News & World Report, “People are reaching out in all directions in their attempt to escape from the seen world to the unseen world. “Escape” is the key word in the resurgence of fundamentalism. Spiritualism, the other side, the truth science can’t see, my personal truth are escape. More moderate religiosity relies less on escape and attempts to compartmentalize or to have it both ways.

Is moderate religion less dangerous? Probably so. Does it still give cover to radical religion? Probably so.

With the inventions of the automobile and the airplane, many scientists and intellectuals reached a reasonable conclusion that the expansion of information and knowledge would produce a less credulous America. They assumed that a growing availability of scientific, historical and anthropological evidence would diminish the spread of truth by assertion.

That assumption, while reasonable, was wrong.

The “Dangers of Religion” are not limited to the legacy of the past and religious wars of the past. Those “dangers” are often more subtle today as we observe the advance of fundamentalism not merely in religious groups, but in the President of the United States who has closed hundreds of speeches with “God Bless America!” And with that the unmistakable assertion that God (with certain affirmation) is on the side of America.

And so it is ironic that the great concerns that J.F. Kennedy might bring religion into the American secular government of the people, by the people and for the people were misplaced concerns. And conversely, the religious right, the evangelical religious right has succeeded in moving the United States toward a theocracy. The faith-based conclusions of a president who claims to talk to God and further claims that God talks to him epitomizes “Dangers of Religion.”

In an interview on the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) G.W. Bush was asked directly if he ever asked his father (G.H.W. Bush) for advice. His answer was that he asked “a higher power” which clearly referred to God. And not God in general, but God of the evangelical, fundamentalist, religious right.

Bush claimed he talked to God about his planned preemptive invasion of Iraq. And, Bush told us (through Donald Rumsfeld) the “war” would last “six weeks to six months” and cost no more than $50 billion. (A faith-based conclusion)

Bush should have talked to his earthly father and mother. Barbara Bush quietly has generally opposed virtually all of G.W. Bush’s policies and positions. In an interview Barbara Bush was asked point blank if she opposed a woman’s right to choose (during the Bush 1 presidency). She responded by saying she would leave those questions to others. But there was no mistaking her view regarding the rights of women.

Jersey Girl, you asked that there not be a repeat of previous dialogues, and here, I have pointed to other “Dangers of Religion” than the many references earlier. Not all dangers of religion are equal. The more moderate or the more agnostic a religion, the less danger it poses. While agnostic religion may seem an oxymoron, I mean it in the sense that people of faith are willing and have the courage to say, I don’t know to questions as an honest, an intellectually honest reply.

JAK

[_Jersey Girl]

Hi Jersey Girl I appreciate you wrote your post or note to JAK. I think you hit the nail on the head as to what JAK has been in effect trying to teach as concepts. I believe, it's a matter of man has brains to be used, so take responsibility for one's own thinking and don't rely upon authority absent skeptism. You said the same thing in different words. And you also point out that how we think is limited to or a function of the tools we have available, our knowledge being one when you say "putting to full use our own intellect to the extent that we are each able."

Well, I think I have become the proverbial "horse of a different color" in terms of applying skepticism to my own god belief and in other areas of my life. I think that consideration should also be given to our cognitive development and exposure to a wide variety of informational sources. For example, cognitive theorists hold forth that not many humans ever reach a stage of formal operations. While it's possible to develop that type of cognition in the teen years, not many do and instead remain in concrete operations or somewhere in between concrete op's and formal op's. I wouldn't have made the connection between how people think as adults to what I see and experience on boards like this, had it not been for the work that I do.

As to exposure to a wide variety of informational sources, I consider my long term participation on another board to be the pivotal experience and exposure to information that changed the way that I think. If not for that experience, all those years in the intellectual trenches, I doubt that it would have ever happened. I wasn't aware of it until I encountered other believers on line and saw the disconnect in their posts. It was a long time before I realized I had previously shared the same level of disconnect. You don't see it until you see it!

Whether JAK continues to write on the board or not, I don't know but in my opinion the environment here is not conducive to intellectually honest discussion. No matter how much time and posts JAK put into trying to keep focus on the thesis that recently ran amuck and moving forward with it he was bombarded with posts paraphrasing his point but misconstruing it to the point that his point was no longer being argued but a different interpretation was. Combined with ad hominem in lieu of substance and one is left with a significant hill to climb to get a point across even though it is a simple one and should be unoffensive to everyone. I think it might have hit a nerve though, because like it or not and you as a theist can appreciate this, religious organizations have no motivation, no reason to promote critical thinking as opposed to faith in the particular area of that religion.

I agree that the environment here does not lend itself to focused and forthright discussion however, you know me, I have a stubborn streak in me a mile wide and I think it is possible. Never under estimate the tenacity of a Jersey Girl ;-)

Anyhow I'm sure JAK given that he was (maybe is) I don't know, a professional teacher from what he has told me, would appreciate that if he taught only one person to raise their critical thinking level, to be more open minded as opposed to closed, more objective, appreciate the limitations in their own thinking, to evaluate all claims given absent evidence then he's made a significant accomplishment. I'm sure you would feel the same if you accomplished that as a teacher as well. Teaching obviously is not about teaching facts but about teaching people how to think.

Yes, I know just exactly what a sense of accomplishment feels like to a teacher. I remember going pages with JAK and wondering when he was ever going to quit! I remember clearly him saying to me "I think you do have a brain". Lord, I wanted to reach through the computer and smack him a good one! I'm glad that he didn't quit and that I didn't either.

We don't have to be walking encyclopedias to be good thinkers, though knowledge is needed but we have to know how and where to get the information, and how to synthesize and evaluate it. And of course it isn't an all or nothing, there are degrees of ability in each individual and in different areas.

You'll get no argument from me there, marg. I've become a pathological "checker of information" and it's been of benefit to me in both my personal and professional life. I also want to add here that one of the reasons that I wrote my above post was to send a message to believer's to use their intellect to investigate their religious origins and the Bible as scripture. I have learned more about the Bible online in the years that you've known me, than I ever learned in (well I won't put a number on it!) many several years in church Bible study. I've found my personal research incredibly fascinating!

As you know we've had our disagreements. At one point I thought, sheesh, she's a teacher? Now I think you have the right attitude to be a good one.

Disagreements? Us? ;-) Yes, I've been a teacher the whole entire time that you've known me. I also teach adults now. I'd like to say in my own defense that the above post that you're responding to was written by a Jersey Girl who is able to think and post in relative peace on this board. I assume you can read between the lines on that count.

marg, I don't know if you remember my posting about losing my job about 4 years ago. I had been asked to teach violent Bible Stories and what I consider to be allegorical Bible stories to young children. I knew I was in trouble when the subject of "poor old Noah" came up and I asked if they wanted me to teach it as fact or allegory and would they rather me compromise the children or myself. Well, suffice it to say that it went downhill from there! :-D

[_Jersey Girl]

JAK,

I see that you have written a small book for me to reply to. No surprises there. I'll make my replies to you tomorrow. Don't you dare write a part 3!

Jersey Girl

[_Moniker]

In 2002, George Gallup told a correspondent for U.S. News & World Report, “People are reaching out in all directions in their attempt to escape from the seen world to the unseen world. “Escape” is the key word in the resurgence of fundamentalism. Spiritualism, the other side, the truth science can’t see, my personal truth are escape. More moderate religiosity relies less on escape and attempts to compartmentalize or to have it both ways.

The rest of Gallup's comment is, “There is a deep desire for spiritual moorings -- a hunger for God.” Statistically 2/3 of Americans say religion is a very important part of their lives. I imagine this desire to "escape" or this "hunger for God" is across political boundaries and merely may be a reflection of a deep desire that some have to live in harmony, seek community, and have relief from the frantic, troubled world we live in. I don't know why "escape" is being linked above by you to correlate to fundamentalism. In that poll, you reference, it showed the majority of Americans seek God -- how is Gallup's comments linked to fundamentalism? Or are you linking them somehow?

When you speak of spiritualism what precisely are you speaking of? Spiritualism is not necessarily correlated to God, or any religion -- it can, and does exist in atheists. Spiritualism is indeed what science can, and does see -- it is called neurotheology.

[_JAK]

In 2002, George Gallup told a correspondent for U.S. News & World Report, “People are reaching out in all directions in their attempt to escape from the seen world to the unseen world. “Escape” is the key word in the resurgence of fundamentalism. Spiritualism, the other side, the truth science can’t see, my personal truth are escape. More moderate religiosity relies less on escape and attempts to compartmentalize or to have it both ways.

The rest of Gallup's comment is, “There is a deep desire for spiritual moorings -- a hunger for God.” Statistically 2/3 of Americans say religion is a very important part of their lives. I imagine this desire to "escape" or this "hunger for God" is across political boundaries and merely may be a reflection of a deep desire that some have to live in harmony, seek community, and have relief from the frantic, troubled world we live in. I don't know why "escape" is being linked above by you to correlate to fundamentalism. In that poll, you reference, it showed the majority of Americans seek God -- how is Gallup's comments linked to fundamentalism? Or are you linking them somehow?

When you speak of spiritualism what precisely are you speaking of? Spiritualism is not necessarily correlated to God, or any religion -- it can, and does exist in atheists. Spiritualism is indeed what science can, and does see -- it is called neurotheology.

Moniker stated:
The rest of Gallup's comment is, “There is a deep desire for spiritual moorings -- a hunger for God.” Statistically 2/3 of Americans say religion is a very important part of their lives.

Would you post it?

Moniker stated:
I imagine this desire to "escape" or this "hunger for God" is across political boundaries and merely may be a reflection of a deep desire that some have to live in harmony, seek community, and have relief from the frantic, troubled world we live in. I don't know why "escape" is being linked above by you to correlate to fundamentalism. (bold emphasis added)

JAK stated in a single paragraph:
In 2002, George Gallup told a correspondent for U.S. News & World Report, “People are reaching out in all directions in their attempt to escape from the seen world to the unseen world. “Escape” is the key word in the resurgence of fundamentalism. Spiritualism, the other side, the truth science can’t see, my personal truth are escape. More moderate religiosity relies less on escape and attempts to compartmentalize or to have it both ways.

Moniker stated:
In that poll, you reference, it showed the majority of Americans seek God -- how is Gallup's comments linked to fundamentalism? Or are you linking them somehow?

Christian fundamentalism relies on God claims. That is, “escape” was a word used by Gallup. My statement was that escape “is the key word in the resurgence of fundamentalism.” Commensurate with the context of my comments, “more moderate religiosity relies less on escape…” The more moderate attempt to incorporate information and knowledge with their religious views. They also may abandon some previously held religious views.

As a result, moderate religiosity relies less on “escape” and more on objective information confirmed by neutral or disinterested observers. That is not to suggest that even moderates abandon “escape” at points where they accept truth by assertion. However, “moderates” religiously are more open to investigation and discovery than are fundamentalists.

Moniker stated:
When you speak of spiritualism what precisely are you speaking of? Spiritualism is not necessarily correlated to God, or any religion -- it can, and does exist in atheists. Spiritualism is indeed what science can, and does see -- it is called neurotheology.

What’s your basis for the last sentence? See “Scientific criticism” in the source below. Also see Scientific Method (source below).

Spiritualism is not confined to the definition linked here. It may mean different things to different people. I used it as my statement indicated.

Restating:
“Spiritualism, the other side, the truth science can’t see, my personal truth are escape.” Since the 1840 to 1920s, the term has taken on additional implications and interpretations.

Neurotheology in this source has a section called “Criticism.” Under that is both “Philosophical criticism” and “Scientific criticism.”

Claimed “spiritual experience” is inherently subjective. It evades and attempts to escape critical, skeptical review. Fundamentalism also attempts to evade and escape rational, intellectual inquiry.

Spiritualism is here described as “Spiritism or spiritualism is the belief that the human personality survives death and can communicate with the living through a sensitive medium.”

“The spiritualist movement began in 1848 in upstate New York with the Fox sisters who claimed that spirits communicated with them by rapping on tables. (The "raps" were actually made by cracking their toe joints.) By the time the sisters admitted their fraud some thirty years later, there were tens of thousands of mediums holding séances where spirits entertained with numerous magical tricks such as making sounds, materializing objects, making lights glow, levitating tables and moving objects across the room.”

Moniker stated:
When you speak of spiritualism what precisely are you speaking of? Spiritualism is not necessarily correlated to God, or any religion -- it can, and does exist in atheists. Spiritualism is indeed what science can, and does see -- it is called neurotheology.

Now that you have seen the “Scientific criticism,” modern science does not endorse or support “spiritualism” but rather relies on information skeptically reviewed and openly tested. Fundamentalism rejects such exposure.

See scientific method

"Among other facets shared by the various fields of inquiry is the conviction that the process must be objective to reduce a biased interpretation of the results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so it is available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, thereby allowing other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established."

In the link the following terms in the paragraph just above have further clarification for: objective, biased, archive, share, reproduce, and reliability.

They are highlighted for you here, and in the "Scientific Method" link, you can read the specifics of meaning for the terms in bold type here.

JAK

[Guest]

Hi, JAK, I look forward to conversing with you. I'd like to ask you to forgive me for being personal with you in our last conversation. I hope this one will be more pleasant, for both of us. Before I start my reply to you I'd ask for you to understand that my comments do deal with dangers of religion. My personal belief is that it is the zealots that are dangerous. With that being said, I see much tolerance, and good in many persons of religious faith -- as well as many of the institutions. My comments will be linked to the innate quality of the search for God (that has been seen throughout history by most of humanity), and also that I don't necessarily correlate this to a danger. I hope that helps before others may think I'm off-topic.

Moniker stated:
The rest of Gallup's comment is, “There is a deep desire for spiritual moorings -- a hunger for God.” Statistically 2/3 of Americans say religion is a very important part of their lives.

JAK asked:
Would you post it?

I actually had the US News & World Report you referenced (I am a news hound, and junkie of all sorts of political rags and merely digged it out to re-read the article) so, I had to search on the web and found it referenced there, as well.

If you scroll down the page, the quotes are found at the end of the second to last paragraph.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m ... 43340/pg_2

Then, I found this website which also contains a portion of the quote. I'd like to post some relevant findings from the study as it pertains to religious views in Americans.
http://www.fairfield.edu/x3714.html

Main Findings of the Study

1. Most Christians feel they are tolerant of other religions.
2. Americans see religious diversity as a strength and not as a threat.
3. Many of these very religious and very tolerant Americans know neither people of other religions nor much about religions other than their own.
4. Many Americans turned to their religion to deal with the aftermath of the events of September 11, 2001.
5. While Americans are evenly split on their overall view of Islam as a religion, most Americans expect a bigger armed conflict soon between Christian and Islamic countries.
6. About 1/2 of Americans say they attend religious services at least once a week, and large numbers say they attend prayer group meetings and Bible study.
7. By nearly three to one, Catholics believe that Catholic priests should be allowed to marry.

Nearly 2/3 of Americans say religion is very important in their lives. Nearly 50% say they attend worship services at least once a week (highest % since the 1960s). Belief in God and devotion to prayer are at historic highs. Voluntary giving to religious institutions is estimated to be more than $55 billion per year.

If you want to comment on those findings that would be great. The entire study is fairly fascinating. I am always pleased to see my personal intuition that most Americans are tolerant, and live and let live, reflected by statistics.

Moniker stated:
I imagine this desire to "escape" or this "hunger for God" is across political boundaries and merely may be a reflection of a deep desire that some have to live in harmony, seek community, and have relief from the frantic, troubled world we live in. I don't know why "escape" is being linked above by you to correlate to fundamentalism. [/color] (bold emphasis added)

JAK stated in a single paragraph:
In 2002, George Gallup told a correspondent for U.S. News & World Report, “People are reaching out in all directions in their attempt to escape from the seen world to the unseen world. “Escape” is the key word in the resurgence of fundamentalism. Spiritualism, the other side, the truth science can’t see, my personal truth are escape. More moderate religiosity relies less on escape and attempts to compartmentalize or to have it both ways.

Moniker stated:
In that poll, you reference, it showed the majority of Americans seek God -- how is Gallup's comments linked to fundamentalism? Or are you linking them somehow?

JAK replies:
Christian fundamentalism relies on God claims. That is, “escape” was a word used by Gallup. My statement was that escape “is the key word in the resurgence of fundamentalism.” Commensurate with the context of my comments, “more moderate religiosity relies less on escape…” The more moderate attempt to incorporate information and knowledge with their religious views. They also may abandon some previously held religious views.

I saw that "escape" was used by Gallup. I didn't understand if you thought he was making a correlation with fundamentalism with that word, or if you just used it in that manner. I think, now, that you used that quote to make a point, or to precede your statements -- I understand.

As a result, moderate religiosity relies less on “escape” and more on objective information confirmed by neutral or disinterested observers. That is not to suggest that even moderates abandon “escape” at points where they accept truth by assertion. However, “moderates” religiously are more open to investigation and discovery than are fundamentalists.

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. 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.

Moniker stated:
When you speak of spiritualism what precisely are you speaking of? Spiritualism is not necessarily correlated to God, or any religion -- it can, and does exist in atheists. Spiritualism is indeed what science can, and does see -- it is called neurotheology.

JAK asked:
What’s your basis for the last sentence? See “Scientific criticism” in the source below. Also see Scientific Method (source below).

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. 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. Science is exploring spirituality in neurotheology (I see you posted some links below), and in the God gene. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... wstop.html

I'll look at "scientific criticism below".

Spiritualism is not confined to the definition linked here. It may mean different things to different people. I used it as my statement indicated.

Restating:
“Spiritualism, the other side, the truth science can’t see, my personal truth are escape.” Since the 1840 to 1920s, the term has taken on additional implications and interpretations.

Well, that's why I asked for you to clarify what you were speaking of when you spoke of spiritualism. When I think of spiritualism, I think of spirituality and the numinous experience an individual may have -- this is not necessary for God belief. It's just a human condition.

Neurotheology in this source has a section called “Criticism.” Under that is both “Philosophical criticism” and “Scientific criticism.”

Claimed “spiritual experience” is inherently subjective. It evades and attempts to escape critical, skeptical review. Fundamentalism also attempts to evade and escape rational, intellectual inquiry.

JAK -- I read the criticisms. I don't quite understand where you're going. Or, I'm not certain what you're attempting to say to me. Are you linking science delving into spiritual experiences with fundamentalist religion?

Spiritualism is here described as “Spiritism or spiritualism is the belief that the human personality survives death and can communicate with the living through a sensitive medium.”

“The spiritualist movement began in 1848 in upstate New York with the Fox sisters who claimed that spirits communicated with them by rapping on tables. (The "raps" were actually made by cracking their toe joints.) By the time the sisters admitted their fraud some thirty years later, there were tens of thousands of mediums holding séances where spirits entertained with numerous magical tricks such as making sounds, materializing objects, making lights glow, levitating tables and moving objects across the room.”

Okay, well I wasn't talking about a movement. I was talking about the spiritual experiences that is seen the world over. Indeed it may be different from person to person. Yet, there is scientific scrutiny into the God part of our brain that can be stimulated to recreate these experiences. I'm not talking about the occult.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/20 ... inqa.shtml

This is sort of moving away from anything to do with dangers....... :) I too think spiritualism (talking with dead people, mediums, etc..) is definitely an "escape" -- yet, I think most Christians reject the occult. I understand spirituality to be a human condition that is being delved into by science. I don't view spirituality as dangerous, and even if it was -- we're stuck with it until our brains ever evolve enough so that it's no longer present. I hope that never happens -- I like that part of my brain. :)

Moniker stated:
When you speak of spiritualism what precisely are you speaking of? Spiritualism is not necessarily correlated to God, or any religion -- it can, and does exist in atheists. Spiritualism is indeed what science can, and does see -- it is called neurotheology.

JAK stated:
Now that you have seen the “Scientific criticism,” modern science does not endorse or support “spiritualism” but rather relies on information skeptically reviewed and openly tested. Fundamentalism rejects such exposure.

See scientific method

Right, I wasn't linking spiritualism with fundamentalism. I was attempting to understand what you meant when you used the word "spiritualism" and why you mentioned that science wasn't delving into it.I was thinking of spirituality.

"Among other facets shared by the various fields of inquiry is the conviction that the process must be objective to reduce a biased interpretation of the results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so it is available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, thereby allowing other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established."

In the link the following terms in the paragraph just above have further clarification for: objective, biased, archive, share, reproduce, and reliability.

They are highlighted for you here, and in the "Scientific Method" link, you can read the specifics of meaning for the terms in bold type here.

JAK

I'm not certain why you posted the scientific method aspects, and links above. I understand that as research is done that the scientific method will be used for it to be valid science. Valid science is occurring right now in an attempt to understand these "God feelings".

[_Moniker]

I posted a bit from this poll earlier, yet, don't know if anyone followed the links. From my experience almost no one ever follows links (I do), so I'm going to post more portions.

http://www.fairfield.edu/x3714.html

Distribution of religious affiliation in the USA, 2000.

Christians: 159 million
Non-Christian: 13.4 million
Jews: 5.6 million (about 2% of total US population - half of what it was 50 years. ago)
Muslims: 4.1 million (less than 1%)
Buddhists: 2.5 million (less than 1%)
Hindus: 1.0 million (less than 1%)
Sikhs: 0.2 million

Born again Christians 46%
Catholics 21%
Protestants 52%
Other Christians 63%

Evangelical Christians 24%
Catholics 10%
Protestants 39%
Other Christians 26%

Five out of six Americans say they are Christians. In equal number Catholics (25%) and Protestants (26%) comprise half the adult population. 32% call themselves Christian but are not RC or Protestant. Almost half say they are 'born again' and one fourth describe themselves as "evangelical Christians."

What is most important when choosing a place to worship?
55% - "beliefs, doctrines and creeds"
51% each - sense of community; minister, priest, rabbi

When question was framed a different way (What is most important part of religion?) a different picture emerges:
69% - an individual's spiritual experience over doctrines and beliefs (24%). Spiritual experiences were chosen over "doctrines and beliefs" by both non-Christians (73%-15%) and Christians (69%-26%).

Asked upon what bases people made decisions in their lives, 77% would rely on their own personal judgment. Of the four alternatives offered, the teachings of church or synagogue ranked last (51%). Family and friends (64%); Bible (60%).

There are more churches, synagogues, temples, and mosques per capita in the US than in any other nation on earth: one for about every 865 people. Many others seek spiritual sustenance beyond organized religion in personal experiences and meditative practices. Pollster George Gallup: "There is a deep desire for spiritual moorings - a hunger for God." America is not only the most religious of western democracies, but also the most religiously diverse - and tolerant. There are now more Buddhists than Presbyterians and nearly as many Muslims as Jews. Experts posit that extreme xenophobia is more rare and mild in comparison with other parts of the world mired in violence sparked by religion.

This survey found a high degree of acceptance toward people of different faiths. Three-fourth see this diversity as a source of strength; fewer than 1/3 think it makes it harder to keep the country united. But there is a new suspicion of Islam: 37% have unfavorable view. But 3 in 4 Americans think all religions have at least some elements of truth, even though they do not know much about other religions, or for that matter, about their own. 70% think spiritual experiences are the most important part of religion. "If one's religion is more about individual identity than doctrine or creed, it is a lot easier to be tolerant" (Egon Mayer, sociologist at Graduate Center of the City University of New York).

Aggressive proselytizing is not generally welcomed. 70% of Christians say Christians should be tolerant of other religions and leave them alone, while 22% of Christians think it is a Christian duty to convert members of other faiths.

I find it interesting to note that with more religion in our society that this lessens the actual likelihood of religious conflict. I've often made this correlation -- just as an observer of our politics, and as one that has been an observer of many different denominations -- it's pleasing to see stats to make this same correlation. It's reassuring.

Protestants

1. Just over half of all Americans are Protestant.
2. Historically black churches - 10% of population
3. 300,000 congregations. Generally high level of commitment to the local congregation to which they belong rather than to denomination or to Protestantism per se.
4. Evangelicals are largest Protestant group by far. Southern Baptists are the largest group, with 16 million members. Total number of evangelicals estimated at more than 1/3 of all Christians - twice the size of mainline membership. These groups are generally more conservative than mainline and more contemporary and enthusiastic in styles of worship. Mega-churches. Emphasis on being born again; authority of the Bible; hold that Christ is the only way to salvation. Pentecostals focus on the power of the Holy Spirit, speaking in tongues, etc. Evangelicals tend to simplify complex issues, e.g., "It's right there in the Bible." Or, "Jesus is the answer. What would he have done?" (WWJD). Mainline Protestants are more likely to acknowledge the complexity of religious issues, acknowledging a plethora of perspectives and positions.
5. There is an economic aspect - T-shirts, religious paraphernalia, conventions, religious vacation spots, etc.
6. Focus on experience, practice, personal relationship with God. Among Protestants, 25% said beliefs were the most important part of religion; 69% said spiritual experience. Some skepticism about dogma and rules.
7. People are seeking and experimenting - "shopping" for churches, a reflection of a consumer culture? People may choose a church because of the music, or the preaching or a lively sense of community/hospitality or the youth program rather than for its denominational affiliation. There is a lot of movement from denomination to denomination that includes movement from Roman Catholicism to Protestantism. In many Protestant churches at least half of the people were raised in another religious home.

Please take note that the Evangelicals are only 1/3 of the Protestants. That there are 2/3 of Protestant Christians that do not share their view... and further from that there are other faiths practiced in American that likewise will not correlate to the policy or religious views of the Evangelicals. I only mention this as it is often stated as if those with religious faith vote in unison and have identical views.

[MODERATORIAL CUT-&-PASTE OF MONIKER'S ON-TOPIC PARAGRAPH FROM A NOW-SPLIT THREAD, done by Dr. Shades:]

I don't think God belief is necessarily dangerous. I see fanatical beliefs of any stripe as being the common denominator when it comes to horrors seen in our world. I don't think that anyone can be accused of being feeble minded for their religiosity. What else? Hmm... I think that being that 2/3 of Americans say that religion is a very important aspect of their lives that religion can't be seen as being damaging our political structure -- since only a subset of Americans are actually the religious right. That there are Americans that attempt to enforce their religious views upon policy is countered by those that vote against them that are likewise Church goers. There are moderate Republicans that aren't part of the religious right agenda to place ID in schools, or insert themselves into bedrooms or reproductive decisions. Seeing that there is so much diversity within religion that there is no ONE sentiment that carries over into policy. That religious people vote across party lines does not show a correlation for political dangers. Unless of course you want to say Democrats that are religious are dangerous in regards to policy as well. Yet, I do understand that there is a portion of our citizens that do attempt to enforce policy according to their religious views -- yet, to be ABSOLUTELY realistic about it -- if all religion is to blame for this then that doesn't hold since there are people of all faiths that have different desires when it comes to policy. There is not one big block of "religious voters".

[_Jersey Girl]

Thanks, Shades. I shall go on about my business.