Religion and it's Benefits

[The Hammer]

Psychologists Are Learning What Religion Has Known for Years

"... we’re unlikely to learn much about the nature of the universe or the biology of disease from religion. But when it comes to finding ways to help people deal with issues surrounding birth and death, morality and meaning, grief and loss, it would be strange if thousands of years of religious thought didn’t have something to offer."

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I don't have any major issues with the article, although in some places his selection of example could as easily be non-religious as religious. I just don't quite understand why he's seeing this as ground breaking, to be honest, but I'll kinda take him at his word that within the hard sciences there are some assumptions about the value of such things.

I was a psych major, which is technically a science, but wouldn't be seen as such by plenty of real scientists. (Heck, I basically agree with that).
Still, this sort of stuff would absolutely be considered and studied within that particular realm of science.

 

[The Hammer]

I was a psych major, which is technically a science, but wouldn't be seen as such by plenty of real scientists. (Heck, I basically agree with that).
Still, this sort of stuff would absolutely be considered and studied within that particular realm of science.

Yeah, psychology, anthropology, social science, etc. While all are sciences, they seem to be considered "soft science" as opposed to the hard sciences of STEM.

Although, I've heard religion isn't discussed much in the realm of psychology. And I've only ever had one therapist actually work with me utilizing my religious beliefs. Most psychologists seem to dismiss it out of hand, or leave practitioners to their own devices. This could help in allowing them to integrate it I to their practices.

Also, my wife minored in psych. She enjoyed it.

 

[rational experiences]

Science once never existed the human practice.

Human spiritual natural innate family membership the only true group was first.

Balanced group.

Parents first.
Parents have babies
Parents first care for babies.
Babies become adults. Learn to help self and family.

Care. Mutual bonds. Equality. Needed mutual self human purpose totally expressed. Everyone needed had a self purpose laughed and were happy.

Human ages became wise. Wise cared for babies to allow for growing population. Working young needed to assist natural populations growth.

Elder needed. Purpose of being human one hundred percent covered. Elders were healthier bodily by physical need of caring for toddlers.

Toddlers gained a wealth of human understanding spiritually. We lived healthier life.

We actually lost the origin group family spirituality.

Had to try to implement it back by group meetings teaching family unity.

Ceremony healing involved.

Once the church was built as a used resounding chamber held no pulpit or seats. Humans rubbed in healing oil with balms donned white clothing would meditate pray sing chant and in perfumed oils healed their life body.

Irradiated.

The building healing as a structure by sound was to counteract devil burning in atmosphere outside. Gases.

One hundred percent advised correctly.

 

[sun rise]

I was a psych major and liked the story. What the author described is what I've seen happen with using western scientific methods to see where various herbs, acupuncture and other items can be demonstrated to be accurate using western approaches.

 

[Heyo]

Although, I've heard religion isn't discussed much in the realm of psychology.

Studying religion from a psychological viewpoint would result in (unnecessary?) conflict. The DSM defines a delusion as "a fixed belief that is not amenable to change in light of conflicting evidence" - except when it's religious. This (unexplained) exception shows why psychologists shy away from religion and the conflict it would produce.

 

[The Hammer]

Studying religion from a psychological viewpoint would result in (unnecessary?) conflict. The DSM defines a delusion as "a fixed belief that is not amenable to change in light of conflicting evidence" - except when it's religious. This (unexplained) exception shows why psychologists shy away from religion and the conflict it would produce.

I wouldn't lump religious beliefs in with delusions, either. But I guess that's why I'm not a psych major.

Also, if ones religious views shift and change as one ages and matures (which they most often do), then it is "amenable to change", is it not?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Yeah, psychology, anthropology, social science, etc. While all are sciences, they seem to be considered "soft science" as opposed to the hard sciences of STEM.

Exactly.

Although, I've heard religion isn't discussed much in the realm of psychology. And I've only ever had one therapist actually work with me utilizing my religious beliefs. Most psychologists seem to dismiss it out of hand, or leave practitioners to their own devices. This could help in allowing them to integrate it I to their practices.

That's an interesting point. I have limited exposure, but my wife works in psych (basically in what you might think of as a justice department oversite body).
Religion is tricky to incorporate when you're talking about belief, rather than practice. And mentally ill people aren't necessarily going to be able to conduct nuanced discussions on the difference between the potential benefits of a religious practice, and the potential harm of a religious belief (or vice versa).

So where possible I suspect they steer clear of it, unless there are direct delusional beliefs and behavior then need to be addressed, and these would be negative, rather than positive interactions.

Also, my wife minored in psych. She enjoyed it.

Me too! Some people thought they'd learn how to read minds, or something, I'm convinced. But we looked at belief and the impact of shared experience and belief on populations (both religious and authoritarian). Again, this was more around negative behaviours, but not explicitly (and certainly wasn't anti-religious...it was just simple examples of how 'normal' behaviours can become 'abnormal' and how this happens. Looking at examples like Jonestown paints a simple enough picture of the role cognitive dissonance can play in human minds, for example).

 

[Heyo]

I wouldn't lump religious beliefs in with delusions, either. But I guess that's why I'm not a psych major.

Why wouldn't you call religious beliefs delusions? If it fits the definition, use it - or give a scientific reason why it is different. (And if you are looking into it, be scientifically honest and call it a delusion if you don't find a difference. Psychologists fear exactly that outcome.)

Also, if ones religious views shift and change as one ages and matures (which they most often do), then it is "amenable to change", is it not?

You can also be healed of a delusion. The time frame psychologists use is three months (iirc). So when your belief doesn't change within that frame despite evidence presented to you, you'd be diagnosed with a delusion - except when it's a religious belief - for no scientific reason.

 

[The Hammer]

Why wouldn't you call religious beliefs delusions? If it fits the definition, use it - or give a scientific reason why it is different. (And if you are looking into it, be scientifically honest and call it a delusion if you don't find a difference. Psychologists fear exactly that outcome.)

You can also be healed of a delusion. The time frame psychologists use is three months (iirc). So when your belief doesn't change within that frame despite evidence presented to you, you'd be diagnosed with a delusion - except when it's a religious belief - for no scientific reason.

Cool story bro.

Edit: Honestly, I'm not here to debate this. I posted this in debates because I knew at some point, that is what it would become. Nature of the fora and all.

 

[The Hammer]

Exactly.



That's an interesting point. I have limited exposure, but my wife works in psych (basically in what you might think of as a justice department oversite body).
Religion is tricky to incorporate when you're talking about belief, rather than practice. And mentally ill people aren't necessarily going to be able to conduct nuanced discussions on the difference between the potential benefits of a religious practice, and the potential harm of a religious belief (or vice versa).

So where possible I suspect they steer clear of it, unless there are direct delusional beliefs and behavior then need to be addressed, and these would be negative, rather than positive interactions.

Me too! Some people thought they'd learn how to read minds, or something, I'm convinced. But we looked at belief and the impact of shared experience and belief on populations (both religious and authoritarian). Again, this was more around negative behaviours, but not explicitly (and certainly wasn't anti-religious...it was just simple examples of how 'normal' behaviours can become 'abnormal' and how this happens. Looking at examples like Jonestown paints a simple enough picture of the role cognitive dissonance can play in human minds, for example).

That is true about the difference between beliefs vs practice. I guess I should have specified she allowed me to incorporate my religious practices, not necessarily my beliefs per se. But I found it much more beneficial than anything I had done previously.

Haha, mind reading would be a useful power, but not one I think you learn in a college class .

 

[Heyo]

Haha, mind reading would be a useful power, but not one I think you learn in a college class .

It kept me from diving too deep into psychology. I observed it in psychology students and in myself that (over) analysing becomes a habit. And when you're good at it, it becomes a tool to manipulate. I don't want to have that ability.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Psychologists Are Learning What Religion Has Known for Years

"... we’re unlikely to learn much about the nature of the universe or the biology of disease from religion. But when it comes to finding ways to help people deal with issues surrounding birth and death, morality and meaning, grief and loss, it would be strange if thousands of years of religious thought didn’t have something to offer."

Spoken like a true atheist, religion is not about this world, except in the context of explaining it is not heaven. (Not you Hammer, the psychologists)

 

[Mock Turtle]

Psychologists Are Learning What Religion Has Known for Years

"... we’re unlikely to learn much about the nature of the universe or the biology of disease from religion. But when it comes to finding ways to help people deal with issues surrounding birth and death, morality and meaning, grief and loss, it would be strange if thousands of years of religious thought didn’t have something to offer."

I would be one of the first to accept that religions have and have had many benefits, and perhaps for most people, although that might require rewinding history to discover such. My issue is that religions often bring as many or even more deficits too - in often causing division and a sense of 'us and them', often gives unrealistic expectations as to the future (even as to what happens when we die), and are often so tied to the past (via their 'set-in-stone' religious texts, which have as many interpretations as allowed) so as to be a drag on progress - many examples of that. And the fact that humans have lived with religions for several thousand years might indicate why we look more towards the benefits than any deficits, when it is more normal for most to have some sort of religious belief. This doesn't necessarily mean that the future has to be like this, and the trend in many countries possibly indicates otherwise, when those in such countries do tend to show they can live as well or better without such beliefs. Just an opinion of course.

 

[stvdv]

"... we’re unlikely to learn much about the nature of the universe or the biology of disease from religion

Only spirituality will tell you about the "nature" of the universe, science will never

 

[rational experiences]

Humans are born by identified human beings. Everyone of us thinks for ourself.

Humans today indoctrinated are too frightened to challenge group behaviour. Any group in fact owns demonstrated behaviours applied only by choice human and group agreement.

The unnatural reasons inherited group structures formed all involved bullying is contentious to science cult behaviour as it's owned beginnings.

Human fact of self historic natural reasoning. Civilization in total.

Ignored by the unnatural group behaviour. Any group by status who can have and did use that group behaviour against us.

Whose statute is indoctrination only.

If we live in such a diverse nature of billions of expressed bio.variations and you cannot just accept natural then you prove you own a human problem.

Spirit phenomena states also proven real exhibit another diverse variation of presence.

To any rational thinker. Self proves in an experience natural always owned a type of nature that was defined spiritual by cause.

As variation to presence in creation is immense. As pretty basic human advice spirituality owns a basic human status as knowledge.

We see not just in our chemical brain we see with eyesight also. Which is ignored by ego human status of my group behaviour owns intellectual control of all advices.

Proven wrong many times.