Do we still need religion?

[IndigoChild5559]

" we"?

Humanity. We are talking valid generalizations here -- a bell shaped curve with statistical deviations.

 

[rational experiences]

Religious practice was just ancients man organised healing venue.

Hospitals don't reverence life like religious ceremony once had. The healers. As human compassion changed into a consumer service far overworked.

So if underprivileged drunk or drugged humans seek compassionate solace as family membership they do.

If family heeded behaviour adaptation by ancient rituals it was successful also.

Success of humanity is important.

 

[Heyo]

It is a mistake to say that religious people are more criminal. The studies that I've read show that the most moral people are at the extremes of the spectrum -- the deeply devout and the atheist. It's the nominal people in the middle that are morally wishy washy.

I intentionally picked debatable statistics, at least as debatable as yours. But I don't want to debate the statistics, just point out that there is a flip side.

 

[Mock Turtle]

The big idea: do we still need religion?

"There are at least two reasons, however, why religions persist. One is the fact that, on average, religious people are generally happier, healthier and live longer. For better or for worse, they also have easier deaths when the time comes. The other is that religious people are more likely to feel that they belong to a community. In a survey I ran, those who reported attending religious services were depressed less frequently, felt their lives were more worthwhile, were more engaged with their local community, and felt greater trust towards others. These enormous benefits mean not only that religion has enduring appeal, but that religious practices make you “fit” in the evolutionary sense – and thus they tend to stick around."

I suspect that a more important reason as to why religions still persist is that in so many cases religions are the default belief system in some societies and any other options are rarely or never discussed, particularly as to education of children, such that the majority in such societies are simply brought up with religions as 'always there' and many might not even be bothered to inquire as to anything other, even as adults let alone as children.

The fact that many in the more liberal societies can operate equally well without religion, and often tolerating so many damaging beliefs from those accepting religious dogma (attitudes to homosexuality, for example), that tend to go against the overall lack of religious beliefs, also tends to show how well people can manage without religious beliefs. Given that many religions are a major source of division within societies where there isn't one dominating belief system. It tends to be the religious societies that lack tolerance.

Like many, I need no religion (or ideology), but I'm not opposed to such - just the damaging effects of the dogma or any beliefs rooted in way-too-old texts that have little relevance for societies of today, and that are so often present in many religious beliefs.

 

[PureX]

"Who's WE, sucka!?

Does one answer really fit all, here? I very highly doubt it.

 

[cataway]

The big idea: do we still need religion?

"There are at least two reasons, however, why religions persist. One is the fact that, on average, religious people are generally happier, healthier and live longer. For better or for worse, they also have easier deaths when the time comes. The other is that religious people are more likely to feel that they belong to a community. In a survey I ran, those who reported attending religious services were depressed less frequently, felt their lives were more worthwhile, were more engaged with their local community, and felt greater trust towards others. These enormous benefits mean not only that religion has enduring appeal, but that religious practices make you “fit” in the evolutionary sense – and thus they tend to stick around."

oh ,you dont know that religion is going away . the jw's have known for some time. likely to be a governmental action, even a earth wide action. no more religious backed holidays ,no Christmas no easter. big business will not like it

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I suppose it depends on the religion. They are not all the same.
My religion keeps me grounded, gives me hope, allows me to have a solid group of friends I can rely on and feel comfortable with and it gives me perspective on what is really important and what is only superficial in life. So yes, I need my religion. It made me a much better and happier person than I was before.

FWIW - and in all sincerity - I could say all of those things about the role of motorsports in my life.

It's rare that I ever find someone who says that their religion's benefits are anything more than what a person could get from a hobby in general.

 

[1213]

The big idea: do we still need religion?

"There are at least two reasons, however, why religions persist. ...

Is it because of the religion, or because of the beliefs? Can religion and belief in God and His teachings be a separate thing?

I think religion is a human organization that often exploits people. That is why I don’t see it necessary. I think more important is the teachings of God, because they show how to live well and gives hope for the better.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I seriously question the validity of such studies.

And I question the validity of the specific study referred to in the article @IndigoChild5559 quoted in her OP.

... because I found it and gave it a quick scan. Here it is: https://www.researchgate.net/public...as_factors_in_wellbeing_and_social_engagement

Some problems I see:

• It was based entirely on self-reported data, which has plenty of issues.
• It suffered from some pretty severe selection biases: the data was entirely from a survey of English-speaking Facebook users, mostly in the US and UK.
• Only 8% of the survey respondents (which works out to 24 people) said that they attended religious services more than once a month, yet these respondents' data was relied on significantly for the study conclusions.
• The participant demographics showed very little participation from non-Christian religious people. Less than 5% of the respondents (14 people out of 300) belonged to a religion other than Christianity.
• The survey has the same problem as that other one I cited: by using religious attendance as their measure of religiosity, they filter out religious people who would like to attend religious services but are too unwell or infirm to do it into the same category as non-religious people, potentially skewing the results.

And if the religious people are still inclined to give this study serious weight, consider what its actual conclusion is, rather than how the author represented it in the OP's article (emphasis mine):

Contrary to some previous studies (Francis, Ziebertz, & Lewis, 2003; Mookerjee & Beron, 2005), the survey found less evidence that religious people, or those who attended religious functions more often, were consistently happier, or more satisfied with their lives. This suggests that any beneficial effects of an actively religious life come not through elevated feelings of happiness and contentment, but through the communal moral, social, and perhaps financial support provided by the congregation and the sense of belonging that a close-knit congregation creates.

[...]

The results strongly suggest that it is active participation in the religious services that is important, rather than merely a sense of being religious. Religiosity certainly plays a role, as does engaging in private religious activities like prayer, but Figure 1 rather strongly suggests that there is a causal sequence running from private prayer to religiosity to regular attendance, which in turn creates a greater commitment to being engaged with the wider community. From this, there is a small residual effect the leads to larger sympathy and support groups. This suggests that it is the active participation in communal rituals, not the belief state or predisposition to believe, that is instrumental in creating these psycho-social effects and benefits.

 

[Audie]

Humanity. We are talking valid generalizations here -- a bell shaped curve with statistical deviations.

Saying its so dont make it so.

 

[RestlessSoul]

If a person is religious, perhaps he or she could please keep his or her beliefs personal and private, nobody needs to share his or her religious convictions.

Hold on, what? You don't want people to share their religious convictions, on a forum devoted to religious discussion?

 

[viole]

The big idea: do we still need religion?

"There are at least two reasons, however, why religions persist. One is the fact that, on average, religious people are generally happier, healthier and live longer. For better or for worse, they also have easier deaths when the time comes. The other is that religious people are more likely to feel that they belong to a community. In a survey I ran, those who reported attending religious services were depressed less frequently, felt their lives were more worthwhile, were more engaged with their local community, and felt greater trust towards others. These enormous benefits mean not only that religion has enduring appeal, but that religious practices make you “fit” in the evolutionary sense – and thus they tend to stick around."

You seem to advertise for belief. Not necessarily the object of belief.

IOW, if I believe in Apollo and you in G-d, we should expect the same benefits, even if it a truism that at least one of us is completely deluded.

So, while I think your claim that people are happiest with religion can be challenged, on account of very secular countries to usually win that contest, I wonder why we need delusion to be happy and healthier.

So, at the end of the day, it is a question of red pill vs. blue pill. The blue pill tells you the truth, with the risk of exposing the ultimate pointlessness of our existence, while the red pill gives you Apollo, or Whomever, and you will live happy and healthy until your unavoidable demise.

i decided to take the blue pill and act like Nietzsche Übermensch. That is, perfectly aware of the ultimate pointlessness of my existence, while having the power to still find meaning, happiness, drive to make it to the end of the day.

while you seem to advertise for the red pill. The good old Opium of the people, that keeps them happy and satisfied.

ciao

- viole

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Saying its so dont make it so.

Scientific research shows this is so. The correlation between being active in religious community and being heathier, happier, longer lived, and having a buffer against anxiety and depression has been shown by studies, and really is no longer news.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Is it because of the religion, or because of the beliefs? Can religion and belief in God and His teachings be a separate thing?

I think religion is a human organization that often exploits people. That is why I don’t see it necessary. I think more important is the teachings of God, because they show how to live well and gives hope for the better.

We don't know why. We only know that there is a correlation between being actively involved in a religious community and people being happier, healthier, longer lived, and having a buffer against anxiety and depression. This correlation does not exist for social groups that are not religious in nature.

 

[Audie]

Scientific research shows this is so. The correlation between being active in religious community and being heathier, happier, longer lived, and having a buffer against anxiety and depression has been shown by studies, and really is no longer news.

" studies" will show pretty much anything one wants them to.

No doubt active engagement in a social
group beats moping at home.
Activities engaged in are not religion, per se.

 

[Audie]

We don't know why. We only know that there is a correlation between being actively involved in a religious community and people being happier, healthier, longer lived, and having a buffer against anxiety and depression. This correlation does not exist for social groups that are not religious in nature.

Re your last line - i dont believe it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

We don't know why.

The guy who wrote the article in your OP thinks he knows why. This is from the conclusion of the paper he mentions in the article:

This suggests that any beneficial effects of an actively religious life come not through elevated feelings of happiness and contentment, but through the communal moral, social, and perhaps financial support provided by the congregation and the sense of belonging that a close-knit congregation creates.

We only know that there is a correlation between being actively involved in a religious community and people being happier, healthier, longer lived, and having a buffer against anxiety and depression.

It makes sense that there's a correlation between being physically and mentally well enough to get out of the house once a week and all sorts of measurements of health and well-being.

It also makes sense that forming friendships - regardless of where they're formed - would have a positive effect.

This correlation does not exist for social groups that are not religious in nature.

It doesn't? How do you know?

I know that I personally feel that involvement in my car club has made me happier and healthier. And "longer-lived" is hard to measure with a sample size of one, but I'm not dead yet.

I haven't seen any benefit of religion that isn't just the benefit of being involved in a hobby and being moderately active.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

" studies" will show pretty much anything one wants them to.

No doubt active engagement in a social
group beats moping at home.
Activities engaged in are not religion, per se.

If you reject scientific research then I have nothing to say to you.

 

[Audie]

If you reject scientific research then I have nothing to say to you.

Oh right. You misrepresent research and follow
with a statement that these benefits dont apply
to non religious organizations-then claim
" science" backs you.

Perfect example of how people use studies to
claim authority for their nonsense.

Im good with research ,not so much with
misrepresentation and falsehood.

Try looking up whether non religious
organizations are comparably helpful.

 

[Audie]

The guy who wrote the article in your OP thinks he knows why. This is from the conclusion of the paper he mentions in the article:




It makes sense that there's a correlation between being physically and mentally well enough to get out of the house once a week and all sorts of measurements of health and well-being.

It also makes sense that forming friendships - regardless of where they're formed - would have a positive effect.


It doesn't? How do you know?

I know that I personally feel that involvement in my car club has made me happier and healthier. And "longer-lived" is hard to measure with a sample size of one, but I'm not dead yet.

I haven't seen any benefit of religion that isn't just the benefit of being involved in a hobby and being moderately active.

Now now one must not reject science