I'm not religious, but I think it's important to recognize both the good and the bad in religion/spirituality, or whatever. I think the negative side gets enough coverage that writing a dissertation on it here is unnecessary on my part.

On the pro-religion side, religiosity is a strong protective factor against depression and suicide, as cited in Wasserman and Wasserman's textbook on suicidology. As we see on this site quite frequently, loss of religiosity is a strong risk factor for depression and suicide. Please note, I do not mean to say that someone *should* therefore be religious, as I said, I don't find much use for religion in my personal belief system. But it does serve a practical and beneficial purpose for the majority of people. It's neither all good or all bad. It simply happens to be a naturally occurring phenomenon throughout human history across the planet.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/middle-ground.html

I guess we should balance the good and the bad when looking at the Peoples Temple rather than just calling it suicide/murder cult.

Sorry, I do not have consider the good done by the Peoples' temple. Nothing it could have done justified the bad of that "religion".

I'm not saying we have to put religion in the middle ground because it's where it should be out of principle. I don't see any reason to search out the bright side of a suicide cult either. The numbers don't lie though. Religiosity, statistically speaking is a protective factor. That doesn't mean there's a law that says it's ALWAYS good, it just means that in terms of statistics, being religious tends more to preventing suicide than causing it.

zarahemlatowndrunk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm not saying we have to put religion in the
> middle ground because it's where it should be out
> of principle. I don't see any reason to search out
> the bright side of a suicide cult either. The
> numbers don't lie though. Religiosity,
> statistically speaking is a protective factor.
> That doesn't mean there's a law that says it's
> ALWAYS good, it just means that in terms of
> statistics, being religious tends more to
> preventing suicide than causing it.

Then you will agree, we should not have to search out the good of a religion that killed so many people as Christianity, in the name of Christianity, during the Reformation, Crusades, and Inquisition etc.?

Do tell, what "Good" has Christianity done to excusing all those deaths in the name of Christianity ?

BTW, I worked on a suicide hotline, you can find the story posted in this forum. I disagree that religion prevents more suicide than it causes.

I don't think we have to weigh religion to see if the bad outweighs the good or vice-versa. Religion has been present throughout human history, and I think it's highly unlikely that it will disappear anytime in the near future. As far as I'm concerned, if someone wants to be religious, I don't have a problem with that. Religion isn't good or bad in itself, it's practiced by people with good or bad motivations, and thus has mixed results.

So, you are now abandoning this claim: "but I think it's important to recognize both the good and the bad in religion/spirituality, or whatever"

For this: "I don't think we have to weigh religion to see if the bad outweighs the good or vice-versa"

I think we SHOULD look at religion honestly to see if it has been a benefit to society and humanity or not.

Going on about religion being here for a long time and not going away soon is yet another logical fallacy. Why do you rely on logical fallacies so much?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/26/2014 01:10PM by MJ.

I have not read the Wassermans' text.

Are they statistically comparing people who grew up outside of any organized religion with those that grew up within a religious belief system?

LOSS of religiosity is certainly quite different than not being religious. Losing something you've been told since birth is necessary for your eternal soul can be pretty traumatic.

Here's a little sample of the conclusion of van Praag's chapter

"Religious commitment - religiosity, and to a somewhat lesser extent religious affiliation - is associated with less suicidal behaviour. A variety of factors may explain this relationship. Active membership of a religious congregation may provide one with a support group ready to help, to assist, to console, to encourage if a fellow member worries or is in trouble. Social bonds are important to overcome misery and feelings of hopelessness."

- Herman van Praag, The role of religion in suicide prevention, Chapter 2 in The Oxford Textbook of Suicidology and Suicide Prevention compiled by Danuta and Camilla Wasserman, Oxford University Press, 2009

There's obviously a lot more to it than that. The first hundred or so pages of the textbook examine the role and effect of religion in cultures across the globe on suicidal behavior. Suffice it to say that it's a much more complex issue than could be hoped to be covered in an online forum thread. The long and short of it is that religion has the good, the bad and the ugly. Overall it's a protective factor when it comes to depression and suicide, but that does not by any means preclude the fact that it also has the capacity to inflict substantial psychological and social harm as well. And certainly does not justify atrocities.

I would look to something as simple as declaring suicide a sin worthy of hell to be the basic deterring factor amongst the religious.

Depends on the religion. Certainly fear is a factor in Abrahamic religions. However, religiosity is also correlated with lower suicidal behavior in eastern religions that do not condemn suicide.

Taking things out of context can be very misleading.

"Religious commitment - religiosity, and to a somewhat lesser extent religious affiliation" is an interesting phrasing. Based on my experience on the suicide hotline, many people that commit suicide that can be attributed to religion have given up their religious commitment because of the harm done. In this case, though the harm that drove the person to suicide was religion, they would not be counted has having a religious commitment.

Many gay teens that come from religious homes commit suicide because of the religious teachings against gays that they learned from a religious home. This often happens even after they person stops having a Religious commitment.

So, the quote seems to misrepresent the number of suicides caused by religion.

I agree with that. I have been effectively an atheist since sometime not long after mormon baptism, but that in no way has prevented me from being harmed quite deeply by the religion of my parents, and I carry that with me well into my thirties.

My personal opinion is that FlattopSF was a victim of religion cased suicide where the harm was done by his religious affiliations, but not attributed as such because he was no longer associated with the LDS.

Yeah. :(

zarahemlatowndrunk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Here's a little sample of the conclusion of van
> Praag's chapter
>
> "Religious commitment - religiosity, and to a
> somewhat lesser extent religious affiliation - is
> associated with less suicidal behaviour. A variety
> of factors may explain this relationship. Active
> membership of a religious congregation may provide
> one with a support group ready to help, to assist,
> to console, to encourage if a fellow member
> worries or is in trouble. Social bonds are
> important to overcome misery and feelings of
> hopelessness."
>
> - Herman van Praag, The role of religion in
> suicide prevention, Chapter 2 in The Oxford
> Textbook of Suicidology and Suicide Prevention
> compiled by Danuta and Camilla Wasserman, Oxford
> University Press, 2009
>
> There's obviously a lot more to it than that. The
> first hundred or so pages of the textbook examine
> the role and effect of religion in cultures across
> the globe on suicidal behavior. Suffice it to say
> that it's a much more complex issue than could be
> hoped to be covered in an online forum thread. The
> long and short of it is that religion has the
> good, the bad and the ugly. Overall it's a
> protective factor when it comes to depression and
> suicide, but that does not by any means preclude
> the fact that it also has the capacity to inflict
> substantial psychological and social harm as well.
> And certainly does not justify atrocities.

I guess I was asking about the sample population used in the statistics.

Religiosity is correlated with less suicidal behavior. (For who? People who grew up within a religious household? People who grew up with no religion? Is there a difference between those two populations?)

I see they state the importance of social bonds and/or a social network as a possible/likely factor in reduced suicidal behavior. Ok. But does it have to be a religious social group to be effective, or would any tight knit social group be as effective?

In any case, the text sounds interesting. I know I can't ask you to condense the whole thing for me. The conclusion you shared above now has me wondering: Is there a statistical difference between religious social groups and other types of social groups on the incidence of suicide.

If yes, ok- that may be a positive side to religion. If no, then it seems that perhaps it isn't specifically a religious attribute at all, but rather a social one. If it boils down to religion simply offering a social network, then I propose that it isn't "religiosity" that is correlated with reduced suicide as much as having "a strong social network".

(I know I'm going off of incomplete information here, since I have not read the whole text.)

That particular chapter is a very broad overview of what is known. There is a lot more that we don't know than what we do know, and it merits a lot more study than what exists to date, that's for sure.

ISIS sawing off people's heads with a kitchen knife seems like it might be on the negative side of religion.

Certainly, in fact, I question why you would even be so hesitant to emphatically sate so :)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/26/2014 12:30PM by zarahemlatowndrunk.

Sounds like Bane's using a literary device to point out the absurdity of your post.

IMHO, amen.

But we are supposed to look at both sides of religion before judging ISIS.

Isis does have political as well as religious.motivation

Religions do bad political things all the time, it does not separate or excuse anything.

Stating that ISIS tries to push its religious view into politics via violance is another condemnation of ISIS and any other religion that does so.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/26/2014 12:38PM by MJ.

People do bad things.

But many religious claim that the bad they are doing is actually good because they are doing god's work.

Justifying, excusing, promoting, committing murder in the name of God is sick. It is justifying murder based on a personal belief.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/26/2014 02:20PM by MJ.

I agree, but regarding the depression comment:

Religion often creates the problem for which they assert they have a cure.

For example, my gay BIL was depressed and suicidal BECAUSE religion condemned him and tried to convince him he was a sinner. This is a clear example of religion causing the depression. The solution? They told him to go to church. Good grief!

I wish depression could be treated with medicine, therapy (not religious woo-wa) and actions that can help the person find satisfying employment or goals. Religion may provide social support and comfort for them which I commend them for because this is of value. Religion is not going to help them gain critical thinking and skills for being independent, but it can help people who need mental safety nets.

I fully agree. Any psychopathology requires a science based treatment. Any therapist should know that it is not ethical to coerce a patient into or out of religious practice.

What about Utah's reputation for having the most consumers of antidepressants? Doesn't speak at all well for that particular religion's "protective factor against depression and suicide".

Go ahead and brush that off as not relevant... Mhmmm...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/26/2014 01:17PM by WinksWinks.

There's a difference between religiosity and religious affiliation. Religious affiliation is not nearly the protective factor that religiosity is.

The quote you posed above specifically states "Religious commitment - religiosity, and to a somewhat lesser extent religious affiliation - is associated with less suicidal behaviour"

So, it states that religious affiliation is associated with less suicidal behavior, so it should reduce depression as well.

You really should stop contradicting your own evidence. It may not be on the same level, but it would mean that a state that is more "religious affiliation" should still have less depression, not more.

Religious affiliation vs religiosity?

pah!

here is a definition:

1. the quality of being religious; piety; devoutness.
2. affected or excessive devotion to religion.

Utah mormonism stats show that massive amounts of members are closeted drugstore drug users. Oxycotin, zanax or whatever else they can get their hands on.
They manage to get around this words of wisdom law through lying, cover-up and the fact that the drug doesn't specifically fit into the words of wisdom description.
Utah Mormons of all walks of life are addicting to perscription drugs as their high of choice. So much for the "spirit of God like a fire is moving."

Utah lds churches hold their own modified and mormonified 12 step programs to address the addiction, but a lot of people are still closeted and don't come forward.

It's epidemic in Utah mormonism.

why?

People are in a system that expects obedience and perfection while simultaneously trying to defend their lack of perfection by claiming that nobody is perfect. They want to feel something in their spirit and head other than this mind numbing nonsense. The mormon religion has no actual spirit in the way they claim to and the present mormons are discovering this.

these people are depressed and escaping.

So much for Utah Mormon religiosity in the context you presented.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/26/2014 01:23PM by joan.

Exactly. Yet Zarahemla here wants to brush that off by quibbling word definitions.
We know a lot about these stats for Utah because that is the home state of the religion we discuss here. I would love to see similar comparative studies about both addiction and antidepressant use in the populations of other heavily religious areas.

"...wants to brush that off by quibbling word definitions."

Isn't that a tactic often used by FAIR for similar reasons?

Not trying to brush anything off at all. It's one thing to take a look at religion in its broadest context, and to examine the specific phenomena associated with Utah. In its broadest context, religion is a protective factor. If you zoom in on specific situations, you'll be able to find everything from philanthropists to murderous tyrants. I'm not denying that religion has its very ugly side, or that Mormonism often inflicts harm. The trouble is that religion in general and Mormonism have a lot in common, but they're not the same thing. So we can make generalizations, but like all generalizations, they can't be entirely accurate.

What has religion done that balances all the murders done in the murders done in the name of religion??? Just how many murders in the name of religion need to happen before we can question the value of religion in your book?

And please be specific and not brush this question off with on of your logical fallacies or quotes taken out of context.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/26/2014 01:54PM by MJ.

Religion hasn't done anything that balances out all the murder, pain and suffering it has inflicted, never will, and has no such capability. I never made any such claim, nor will I. Religion is utilitarian in nature. Sometimes it's to people's benefit, sometimes it's used to their detriment. Just as a hammer is neither good nor evil in its own right and can be used to either build a house or bash someone's brains out, religion is neither good nor evil in its own right. It has beneficial and tragic consequences, neither of which cancels out, nullifies or justifies the other.

Religion is a drug. It makes you feel good--makes you feel right, superior, justified--whether or not you are really those things. We like those feelings, so we tend to like anything that gives us those feelings.

Do I think all drugs are unequivocally bad? Of course not. They clearly have their use, and some people benefit by them (medicine, alcohol, video games...whatever). Some drugs can provide an altered state of consciousness that may lead to insights or even improved health. (There are doctors who prescibe alcohol, coffee, morphine, and even marijuana)

HOWEVER:

If someone takes any sort of drug, they had BETTER KNOW THAT IT IS A DRUG, and be willing to deal with the consequences. To me, that is the fundamental difference between drugs and religion: In religion, you are told it is true, and everything everyone else feels is wrong. In truth, what you are feeling is really just an altered state of consciousness felt only by you.

I know that religion comforts many and feels good to them, but now that I know the secret, it can never do that for me. The secret is there for anyone to see unless they insist on delusion. It is that religion isn't real, gods are all imaginary and always have been and there's nothing supernatural. All that exists is the natural universe. Out of it, amazing things have emerged, including us. I felt fortunate, but not grateful to any non-human entity.

as being helpful or not helpful for depression/suicide.

There are thousands of religions and cults the world over. Some emphasize love and peace, and others dwell on perfectionism, fear and judgement. Certainly a Buddhist would be trained to have a different frame of mind than someone in the Westboro Baptist church, or a Mormon.

The question should be whether a particular religion helps build happiness and well-being, rather than if any and all religions are good for people.

One thing I will say about the influence of LDS teachings and culture on happiness: Perfectionism doesn't lead to happiness.

http://www.counselingcenter.illinois.edu/self-help-brochures/academic-difficulties/perfectionism/

...To determine if faith based religions are an actual good or bad for society.

I am talking about using faith the base moral decisions on.

Sorry if you do not like putting "faith" in trial in such a way.

Your argument is the same as saying "You can not group all Nazis together so you can't claim that the Nazi ideals are bad" Which is, of course bull shit.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/26/2014 02:36PM by MJ.

If there is no God, we can safety deduce that you are not He.

I think the project of weighing whether the "good" outweighs the "bad" in religion is preposterous -- and presumes omnipotence on the part of the human rolling not just loaded but bogus dice. To do so, one would have to have access to the intimate corners of every human heart that has ever beaten. Also, a definitive a working knowledge of good and evil, as well as an ability to know exactly how to weigh them against each other might prove useful. In short -- you need to be God to pull this off.

Amusingly, this sophomoric enterprise (and by that I mean high school sophomore, not college) is usually undertaken by people who cannot name the majority of religions on the planet -- who have no training in anthropology, ancient history, or religious history -- yet feel -- like -- totally qualified -- man! -- to assure us they know EXACTLY how much evil religions have done -- and they know EXACTLY how much good religions have done and they can tell you that 296,456,932 grams of evil DEFINITELY outweighs 653,004,978 grams of good -- because -- like -- evils weighs more -- even when it weighs less!

Let's look at a question where religion is not so involved -- namely the U.S.A. We have a pretty good country, right? We have given the world an idea of democracy - even if we don't always live up to it. We saved Europe's -- and possibly the world's ass -- in WWII. That is worth something. We have created a society where upward mobility was once possible. We have given mankind some solid scientists and very real technologic advances and many, many people with happy, fulfilling lives.

Now -- let's weigh that against the horror of the Middle Passage, the genocide of native peoples, Hiroshima, and the ongoing destruction of the land we love and the planet -- which would seem to be the only one available for us to live on -- at least at this time.

How are those scales tipping for ya? It's easy! It's fun! It's meaningful!

If you are on this thread spouting off about how you just know how much good religion has done -- and how much evil -- and how to weigh them -- here is your assignment -- write at least a five paragraph essay on the topic:

Will Science Frigging Kill Us? Your thesis: The belief frequently found in ancient cultures that everything had a soul protected the environment from degradation by mankind. Such beliefs often led people to hunt and even farm gently, aware of the impact their actions had on the larger world around them. As that sensibly has been lost to be replaced with the worldview of western science that there are no souls and everything is an object has led to ruthless and dangerous exploitation of the natural world -- and led mankind to the brink of an extraordinary species suicide. A little more old-fashioned soul in our world might save us.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/26/2014 03:05PM by janeeliot.

Wow, I do not see anyone claiming to be god. So your first comment is just a snide attack on someone. Figures.

Assuming there is no god then all god based religions would be a lie. Collecting money based on a lie is often considered fraud.

Yeah, you see no reason to judge religion as a lie.

Yes, it is valid to judge the affects of religion on society. Every aspect of society should be examined to insure it does not harm society. Religion should not be exempt.

BTW, in the USA The bulk has been trying to take away or deny the rights of USA citizens for a long time. And you are trying to say that I can't judge them as bad for freedom of the individual in the USA? Nonsense.

Yes, you can limit religious affects to a small enough sample that you can make it look good, but that is intellectually dishonest. One needs to look at the FULL of religion, including things like Christians killing Christians over what it means to be Christian during the reformation. I am still wondering what value religion adds to make up for those murders and other atrocities. IT IS A FAIR QUESTION



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 10/26/2014 03:30PM by MJ.