science vs religion

cooldad

Cat With No Tail wrote:

cooldad wrote:

Touching yours make me feel warm and fuzzy.

Jimmy? That you?

I can be anyone you want.

Gazlar

JamesB5446 wrote:

YeehaaMcgee wrote:

Who said that a god is meant to be taken literally? Even within a certain faith, each person can have a deeply personal understanding of god, or gods.
Who ever said that it's to be taken literally.

I'm pretty sure most religions insist that you literally believe in their particular deity. Unless I've missed something.
.

Yes you have, that's why there are many different sects within each religion, such as Catholicism, Methodism etc and then there are many theological divisions within those divisions.

JamesB5446 wrote:

Gazlar wrote:

Because it helps some people...

Does it though?
People keep saying this but I've not seen any evidence of it

Yes

Starting personally with my Nan whose faith kept her going when she lost her husband and daughter in quick succession. Speak to her and she will happily tell you that her faith In God's will was what kept her going

Or an aloholic colleague who found god and has been sober since.

These are small scale but then think about charities who we're formed by religious groups to carry Out God's work, charities like St. John ambulance, red cross and crescent, salvation army or Samaritans. Not only do people benefit from receiving their help but they help the people who are involved by giving them activity, friendships, satisfaction in their life.

Then the work of missionaries and active religious members in general.

Don't get me wrong I'm not religious but I'd never tell or even think someone was an idiot for having a theological belief. The time belief becomes problematic is when people are unwilling to accept people's beliefs, tell them they are wrong, etc etc. This counts for religion on religion or religion vs other such as science.

Daz555

Gazlar wrote:

The time belief becomes problematic is when people are unwilling to accept people's beliefs, tell them they are wrong, etc etc.

......or when they use those beliefs to justify a prejudice, or attempt to legislate based on those beliefs.

Also often beliefs ARE wrong (both religious and secular). This is undeniable fact - why should we be silent when presented with things which are demonstrably false.

Belief is just an opinion - nothing more, and it does not deserve any special respect.

There is this rather odd idea across much of society that opinions are equal and valid and should be respected. Sorry, but that is just plain nonsense. Some opinions and beliefs are simply stupid and people should not be afraid to stand up and say so, even if it offends.

As it happens I don't put belief in a deity on my stupid list, but there you go.

YeehaaMcgee

Good points, Daz.
The way I see it, I have no problem with anyone having a belief in any religion. But it troubles me when people blindly listen to another human being, whether that's for religious, or other reasons.
So Religion = not a bad thing.
Using people's religion to dictate what they can/should do = bad thing.

If that makes sense.

Gazlar

No understandably if something is wrong and doing harm then yes it should be pointed out but if someone holds a belief that is wrong but it being used for a good purpose then why should they be told to stop thinking it if it gives them happiness. The problem with that in science comes as it is actual rather than theoretical so if its wrong it most likely is wrong and potentially harmful. With theological belief what is wrong for one person is right for another, like the set up of a bike, its about what you feel.

The truth is the wider majority whether you agree with their views or not are normal harmless people. Even many you might think are crazy are probably harmless

JamesB5446

Gazlar wrote:

Yes you have, that's why there are many different sects within each religion, such as Catholicism, Methodism etc and then there are many theological divisions within those divisions.

So you can be Catholic without believing in the Catholic definition of god? I'm not so sure about that.

Gazlar wrote:

Yes

Starting personally with my Nan whose faith kept her going when she lost her husband and daughter in quick succession. Speak to her and she will happily tell you that her faith In God's will was what kept her going

Or an aloholic colleague who found god and has been sober since.

These are small scale but then think about charities who we're formed by religious groups to carry Out God's work, charities like St. John ambulance, red cross and crescent, salvation army or Samaritans. Not only do people benefit from receiving their help but they help the people who are involved by giving them activity, friendships, satisfaction in their life.

Then the work of missionaries and active religious members in general.

Don't get me wrong I'm not religious but I'd never tell or even think someone was an idiot for having a theological belief. The time belief becomes problematic is when people are unwilling to accept people's beliefs, tell them they are wrong, etc etc. This counts for religion on religion or religion vs other such as science.

It's interesting that when people say that religion causes war some will say "no, no, people cause war" then in the next breath say that religion inspired all these great acts.

As for your nan, how do you know she wouldn't have coped without religion?

Chunkers1980

You don't because you can't test it. It is not science. None of religion can you test in the same way.

JamesB5446

If that is the case then we can't say either way if religion helped her or didn't.

welshkev

)

JamesB5446 wrote:

If that is the case then we can't say either way if religion helped her or didn't.

i actually agree with a lot of what you are saying, but now you are just being pedantic - how can you 'prove' peoples feelings?

if it brings people comfort and solace, is that provable? (is that even a word? )

JamesB5446

Yes.

welshkev

JamesB5446 wrote:

Yes.

how?

JamesB5446

I don't know the ins and outs of it, but clinical analysis of people following bereavement.
I'm just having a google now to see if I can find anything supporting the assumption that religion helps people cope. Quite interesting really.

JamesB5446

http://www.cruse.org.uk/BPPpapers/Belie ... vement.pdf
"Results: In total, 5715 persons
were examined: 69% women, 87% white, 83% protestant. Ninety-four percent of studies
show some positive effects of religious/spiritual beliefs on bereavement, but there was
a great heterogeneity regarding included populations and outcome measurements.
Conclusion: Available data do not allow for a definite answer on whether religious/spiritual
beliefs effectively influence bereavement as most studies suffer from weaknesses in
design and methodological flaws. Further research is needed. Recommendations for fur-
ther research are given."

That's the best I could find at the moment so it seems that it's a bit of a grey area at the moment.

welshkev

to be honest i can't be arsed to read that

but judging by that quote it doesn't say that it doesn't help either

JamesB5446

I know. I never said it didn't.

I was saying that religion is daft and people said that it helps people. If there is no evidence either way, it's still daft.

YeehaaMcgee

JamesB5446 wrote:

It's interesting that when people say that religion causes war some will say "no, no, people cause war" then in the next breath say that religion inspired all these great acts.

Only because of the way you've framed the topic in this context. You're claiming that religions are the root cause of wars, and then you also ask what the purpose of religion is.
Well, we're claiming that it's not the one and only root cause of wars.
Then we go on to say that religion can drive some people to do great things.

That doesn't mean that religion never started a war.
It also doesn;t mean that all religious people get inspired to do great things.

As for your nan, how do you know she wouldn't have coped without religion?

Why does it matter? If it helped her cope, then it did. It's what she used, or attributed it to.
If you have a headache, sure, it will pass in time, but there's nothing wrong with necking some paracetamol or something is there?

This popped up on Cracked today, and made me giggle, considering this topic
http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-5-stupi ... ook-smart/

JamesB5446

YeehaaMcgee wrote:

Only because of the way you've framed the topic in this context. You're claiming that religions are the root cause of wars, and then you also ask what the purpose of religion is.

Pretty sure I've never said that. Sorry if I have, you'll have to quote me as I can't find it.

YeehaaMcgee wrote:

Why does it matter? If it helped her cope, then it did. It's what she used, or attributed it to.

Yes. if it helped her cope. As I've said, we don't know if it did.

YeehaaMcgee wrote:

If you have a headache, sure, it will pass in time, but there's nothing wrong with necking some paracetamol or something is there?

Clinical trails have shown that paracetamol tends to work most of the time.

I quite like Gladstone, he's kinda right on that point, although it's not really relevant to this discussion. He also fails to make the point that there is a general trend that shows the more intelligent/educated your are, the less religious you are. It's just a trend though and there are obvious examples outside of the rule.

YeehaaMcgee

JamesB5446 wrote:

Clinical trails have shown that paracetamol tends to work most of the time.

Clinical trials also show that placebos are devestatingly effective painkillers.

The cracked link was just something I found amusing, since it cropped up just before I caught up on this thread.

JamesB5446

But not as effective as actual painkillers.

And the study I've linked too shows that the jury is out on the placebo of religion. I'd be interested to read more about it though. I think the way humans can trick themselves is really interesting. I can totally understand how the theory of religion helping in times of grief works.

Just reading the rest of that cracked article, not one of his best.

YeehaaMcgee

JamesB5446 wrote:

YeehaaMcgee wrote:

Why does it matter? If it helped her cope, then it did. It's what she used, or attributed it to.

Yes. if it helped her cope. As I've said, we don't know if it did.

As for this bit, well, now you're just being silly, so much so that i have to think you're just trolling at this point.
That is her coping mechanism. She used religion to help her cope. What other things should she have done? Taken antidepressants, just "moved on"?
People deal with things in different ways. Other folk won't handle situations in the same way, or with the same method that you will. What does it matter what method they use? If they're not harming anyone, and they're finding some solace, then why does it irk you so?

Not only that, but from your own post earlier...

...Ninety-four percent of studies
show some positive effects of religious/spiritual beliefs on bereavement...

What the hell else do you need?
So there's a "but...", that doesn't instantly discount the 94% of studies that showed positive effects.

Right, so far we've covered...
Religious people don't (as a whole) take the words of the bible, or similar, as fact. They learn from the stories.
Religious people can use their religion to comfort them, or help them through hard times, through purely psychological means.
The incredibly vast majority of religious people have no desire to start conflict.

However, we've also covered that...
Using people's religious beliefs to control people's actions is a bad thing.
Religion HAS been used to excuse war.
So have non-religious excuses.

So. I'm a bit lost now. Where are we in this discussion, what points of contention do you have now?

YeehaaMcgee

JamesB5446 wrote:

But not as effective as actual painkillers.

Is that in relation to placebos being good painkillers?
If so, you're not quite correct. Placebos can be as effective as the real thing. I've read a study some time ago in (I think) the Lancet. I'll try and find it for you, that demonstrated how tricky it is to perform clinical trials, because the placebo effect is so overwhelmingly powerful.

In the meantime, (I'm assuming from your responses that you know virtually nothing about the placebo effect) go on 4od.com and check out Derren Brown's Fear and Faith programme...
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/derr ... od#3436648

In another wonderful coincidence, they broadcast a special last Friday about the placebo effect, and how it affects people. Sure, there's the usual televisual showmanship stuff going on, but it's really quite interesting otherwise - particularly if you have any fascination with placebos.

cooldad

YeehaaMcgee wrote:

So. I'm a bit lost now. Where are we in this discussion, what points of contention do you have now?

Obviously what is needed is more

JamesB5446

YeehaaMcgee wrote:

JamesB5446 wrote:

But not as effective as actual painkillers.

Is that in relation to placebos being good painkillers?
If so, you're not quite correct. Placebos can be as effective as the real thing.

Source?

I've got that Derren Browne thing on tivo, not got round to watching it yet.

If you read the link I posted, it stated that the studies were unreliable. I'm not saying religion/faith doesn't help people cope, I'm just saying that there is no conclusive evidence either way.

Northwind

welshkev wrote:

i actually agree with a lot of what you are saying, but now you are just being pedantic - how can you 'prove' peoples feelings?

Torture them til they recant.

cat_with_no_tail

Northwind wrote:

welshkev wrote:

i actually agree with a lot of what you are saying, but now you are just being pedantic - how can you 'prove' peoples feelings?

Torture them til they recant.

HA! Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!

Daz555

A classic from The Oatmeal:

http://theoatmeal.com/comics/religion

YeehaaMcgee

JamesB5446 wrote:

Source?

Excuse me for having a job, I've told you I believed it was in the Lancet, if I can find it (and find time to find it), I'll put it up. It's not the only such study I've read by a long shot, but I distinctly remember this one being a clinical trial.

If you read the link I posted, it stated that the studies were unreliable. I'm not saying religion/faith doesn't help people cope, I'm just saying that there is no conclusive evidence either way.

I'll try to get round to reading the whole thing when I have time. But even then if the 94% number is innacurate, it's still WAAAAAAAAAY above the bounds of random, such that even after statistical cleanup it should still prove convincing.

But, you don't need any figures if someone's (I forgot who posted it now) nan said that her faith helped her. That WAS her coping mechanism, it's what she used, she got through it.
You're going round in circles.

you see...

JamesB5446 wrote:

As for your nan, how do you know she wouldn't have coped without religion?

Chunkers1980 wrote:

You don't because you can't test it. It is not science. None of religion can you test in the same way.

If that is the case then we can't say either way if religion helped her or didn't.

If she used it, and coped, then that's all we can evr know, she used it, and coped. If she didn;t have religion, then she could have used something else, but that's (as I said earlier) like taking a different route to curing a headache, the end result is still the same.

YeehaaMcgee

Actually, about the placebo effect, since it's an accepted clinical issue that is considered when trialling new drugs and therapies, then f**k you, go find out about it yourself. I have no onus to prove such a thing. Your ignorance on the matter is your problem, not mine.
You've been told it's a fact, but you have no faith in it.

JamesB5446

Stop being a moron.
If you have the evidence show it.

Either that, or admit that I'm the best cyclist in the world because you can't find anything proving I'm not.

Daz555

YeehaaMcgee wrote:

Actually, about the placebo effect, since it's an accepted clinical issue that is considered when trialling new drugs and therapies, then f**k you, go find out about it yourself. I have no onus to prove such a thing. Your ignorance on the matter is your problem, not mine.
You've been told it's a fact, but you have no faith in it.

Bang on.

The placebo effect is complicated but extremely powerful. Ben Goldacre talks a lot of sense about it and has clearly read just about every paper on the planet which studies it!

For example we know that 1 sugar pill reduces pain in some patients but that 2 sugar pills work even better. A placebo injection is even more effective at reducing pain. Placebo surgery has also been shown to be effective in reducing pain (knee pain has been studied). Of course placebo pain relief does not match the power of morphine or a knee replacement!

Placebo does of course not require any "faith" - as there is a mountain of evidence demonstrating its existence.

Most important thing about placebo is that it is as effective as homeopathy.