We live in a world where it’s possible to question the very existence of God, even the supernatural altogether. Our world also contains many religions that, more often than not, tend to break out along ethnic and cultural boundaries. Most of these religions claim to be the one true way to win the “game” of life — whether that’s through reaching enlightenment, receiving salvation, etc.
So for the sake of argument, let’s say that there really is a God, and he’s given us one of these religions that we’re supposed to follow. As most of these religions teach, picking the wrong belief system will result in horrible punishment that is likely to last an eternity. I already see lots of problems with this scenario, but let’s ignore those for the moment.
How are we supposed to know which religion is the true one?
We’re not born with the luxury of knowing about all these religions from a young age. Instead, each of us is raised to believe that one of the options (or none of them) is the truth, so it’s not until we’re adults that we really begin to learn more about the wider world. And at that point, we have a lot of preconceived notions to overcome. But luckily, these religions usually teach that God is a benevolent being that wants every single one of us to find the path to him, so we can reasonably expect that he’ll help us find a way to him.
The most direct way to communicate something to someone is to speak to them directly. So God could choose that method to let us know what he expects of us. If you’re into video games, this is similar to the tutorial dialogs that pop up in your game to let you know the rules. It’s a helpful tool. You can still press whatever buttons you like, but at least you’ll know what’s expected.
Of course, God doesn’t do that for us. Fair enough — what’s another method he could use? Ah, he could send us some kind of “cosmic email” — writing in the sky, or something like that. You know, something that would be nigh impossible for another person to fake. The message would be accompanied by the kind of sign that would give us assurance we’re dealing with the divine. The burning bush, Gideon’s fleece, Paul’s episode on the road to Damascus, etc.
But if God does this kind of thing today, he’s not ubiquitous with it. I’ve never received a sign like that, nor have most people that I’ve ever known. I guess that’s his prerogative, but it does make one question the Bible’s passages that say God is impartial. But I’m starting to digress…
So maybe God could send us some trusted messenger. It would need to be someone that I know well, so I could really trust what they’re saying. But again, I’ve never gotten such a message, and I also know that even well meaning people can sometimes be delusional. I’m not sure I want to risk my soul on such a message delivery system.
So God could send a messenger imbued with divine powers, someone that could work miracles that could only come from God. I would listen to an individual who could do the kinds of miracles that the Bible describes, but I’ve never seen anyone do them.
However, the Bible is a religious text that claims God did use this method a long time ago. Isn’t that just as good as witnessing the miracles for myself? Not for me. Thomas Paine said that once you tell a divine revelation to someone else, it ceases to be revelation and becomes mere hearsay. I have to agree. For me to accept the word of a religious text, the text would have to be incredibly amazing. The writers would have to demonstrate knowledge of things that they couldn’t possibly have known about ahead of time. When events are recounted in multiple places within the text, they must be without error or contradiction. When science is recounted, it must be without error — not simply a regurgitation of what was already known at the time. Its morals must be without reproach. If it gives prophecies, they must be without error.
If those standards seem too high, then maybe you aren’t truly considering what’s at stake. The soul of everyone who has ever lived hinges on the judgments of this God. Each and every soul should be just as precious to him as the souls of your own children are to you. Would you leave the fate of their souls up to chance, or would you do everything within your power to save them from eternal torture (or punishment, or annihilation — whatever your particular flavor teaches)? If you saw a windowless van pull up to your child and watched the driver coax them to come closer, would you stand back to see how your child reacts, or would you run to them as fast as you could, calling them back all the while? You don’t have to answer, because I know what you would do — you’d do what any decent human would do. Why doesn’t God do the same for us? If I’m currently bound for Hell, and I’m influencing my innocent children to eventually follow in my footsteps, why doesn’t God intervene to help us?
And before you say he does just that through scripture, the Bible fails every one of the criteria I listed out. In fact, I’m not aware of any religious text that comes close to meeting those standards. If we accept that God is loving, merciful, and just, then it does not follow that he would be the author of the Bible. I’d be happy to cite specific examples of the Bible’s failings, but I’ve written way too much already. Luckily, I have links to those examples on my home page.
It’s God’s overwhelming hiddenness that sounds the death knell on religion for me. As Delos McKown has said:
The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike.
Finding Truth 
Since Victoria supposedly has all these studies that stand in direct contradiction to the studies UnklE has posted, can someone, you know, actually link to some of the particular studies (or even the page on Victoria’s site with the studies) that they have in mind?
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Consolereadar.
Your tone sounds skeptical? Especially with your word usage – ”supposedly”.
Not very charitable, now is it?
Have you considered praying for the links?
Just a thought.
However, if you don’t get an answer via the ether, here’s a link to her blog.
I’m sure you can manage the rest, yes?
https://victorianeuronotes.wordpress.com/
God bless you! ( As a bonus, you get to choose which ever one you like)
LikeLike
Yes, I’ve been to Victoria’s blog before. It sounds to me that people have particular studies in mind that directly contradict UnkleE’s study. So I’d like to know what particular studies said people have in mind. Asking for the exact study they have in mind seems like a reasonable enough request.
LikeLike
Reasonable? Of course!
It was just that your particular tone conveyed less than genuine enthusiastic inquiry.
Personally, I would have asked using words/phrases such as ”fascinating”, or ”that sounds interesting, ” especially as you have visited her blog before and must know her bona fides are genuine.
Or perhaps I am just a tad sensitive after engaging with dicks who reek of religious hypocrisy for so long?
Don’t mind me ….
LikeLike
@Consoledreader.
Here’s an interesting one to start you off with …
https://victorianeuronotes.wordpress.com/2015/07/23/how-the-brain-creates-the-experience-of-god/
LikeLike
This is why ‘dialogue’ with you is so very frustrating:
“… the benefits gleaned from prayer and meditation may have less to do with a specific theology than with the ritual techniques of breathing, staying relaxed and focusing one’s attention upon a concept that evokes comfort, compassion, or a spiritual sense of peace”
These are stress reducing practices, UnkleE. It is the stress reduction that is of benefit to the brain. Stress effects on the brain is Newberg’s area of expertise. Stress. Let me say that again: Stress. What rae these practices related to in Newberg’s many, many papers? Stress. Again, stress. It’s about stress, UnkleE.
Now, the problem here is that Newberg et al expand this this to be synonymous with the ‘positive’ practices of ‘faith’. Not the negative ones, UnkleE… the positive ones. Which ones are the positive ones? Come on, you can answer this one: those that reduce stress.
Now, let’s look at the list Newberg offers and see how its content aligns with the idea of ‘faith’ being good for the brain. smile, stay intellectually active, consciously relax, yawn, meditate, aerobic exercise, dialogue, faith
Is smiling an act of religious ‘faith’?
Is being intellectually active and act of religious faith?
Is consciously relaxing an act of religious faith?
Is yawning an act of religious faith?
Is meditating an act of religious faith?
Is aerobic exercising an act of religious faith?
Is the honest exchange of ideas – dialogue – an act of religious faith?
Is faith an act of religious faith?
You see the problem here, UnkleE? Religious faith has nothing to do with stress reduction and positive effects unless the religious practices themselves are stress reducers, in which case adding the religious faith claim component as if central to the effect has some other purpose.
Now, you conclude your appeal to being nice and putting forth a considerate tone as if promoting all religious faiths (because of their benefits to the brain, of course), and attempting to do so by covering your conclusion with a patina of supporting scientific respectability. What is that conclusion?
“I still think it would be surprising for these facts to be true and religion be so positive if we were in a naturalistic universe, and thus these ideas strengthen my belief in God.”
See what you’ve done? You confirmed your bias. Your bias is that religion in your mind equals good-for-the-brain. The truth is that stress reduction activities is good for the brain. You are not clarifying in your repeated conclusion that only stress reducing activities – some of which are promoted in some innocuous religious practices – are related to the benefits Newberg has found; instead, you continue – and frustratingly continue – to expand Newberg’s work and what ever other studies you can find to confirm to your a priori belief about religion-as-a-positive rather than what’s actually the case – activities-that-reduce-stress-are-a-benefit conclusion that Newberg’s work actually supports.
And no matter how often this problem of collecting studies that appear to support your conclusions is pointed out to you by many other commentators than just me, you maintain your conclusion as is and falsely associate religious belief itself to be a net benefit, to be a positive source of health and welfare, to be an indication of a ‘theistic’ universe.
You abuse Newberg’s and many other’s actual research – in this case about stress reduction and its benefits to be synonymous with a natural byproduct of religious belief – and no amount of clarification and correction sways you from continuing to promote this belief of yours. When challenged on this continued assertion that religion is good for one’s health and welfare, for example, you put up barriers like Newberg’s work and force any criticism of your over-reaching conclusions to first wind its way through only these filters that you yourself are misunderstanding, misappropriating, and misusing… studies, to be clear, that are all in service to promote your religious assumptions and not relate what they actually show with scientific rigor.
The goal for you is to maintain these assumptions you start with and your method is to use whatever research appears to help you to do this. What isn’t important – obviously – is for you to mitigate your religious beliefs and the claims you make on its behalf in order to align with both contrary and compatible research, That is something I have never seen you demonstrate.
So your claims about wishing to have a meaningful and respectful ‘dialogue’ is entirely unidirectional with you in the driver’s seat, using a repeated method that has no objective other than to maintain and promote your a priori religious conclusions… regardless of what any and all research may indicate. That’s why you earn from others a tone of disrespect; not because others fail to provide you with compelling contrary links that all of us know perfectly well from experience has exactly zero effect on you but because you show over and over again that you don’t really care about what is or even may be the case. It never has been.
That dedication you demonstrate to claim research says what you want it to say and your intransigence to altering what you believe by one iota is not my problem. That is not my failure. It’s not my lack of trying. It’s not my tone. This problem belongs entirely to you and this is why your commentary is so often held in contempt by those who are concerned with respecting what’s true, who are curious and want to find out more, who can alter opinions based on better reasons when offered.
The Good News! is that you can join our ranks. The Bad News is that you’re going to have to give up the certainty you currently hold that your religious beliefs are true. I don’t think you are willing but I would love to be proven wrong.
LikeLiked by 1 person
In this case, it’s not Newberg’s actual data that is in need of refutation by another; it’s the conclusion that UnkleE draws that is contradiction with the actual data used by Newberg.
What I pointed out – and should be obvious to any thinking person – that if faith itself is of such benefit to the brain – then aggregate studies should reveal this effect. Higher rates of religiosity should correlate with all kinds of brain-related goodness and benefit. Do they?
LikeLiked by 1 person
A loving god? Oh dear, oh dear! Well that just kicked the Christian god, Yahweh in the metaphysical nuts then didn’t it?
Everyone knows he s rather a nasty piece of work.
Any other deity you suggest?
How about Himeros?
LikeLike
NATE! If you’re reading this, PLEASE start a new page. It’s taking forever to load on my tablet — which is all I have since I’m out of town. Thanks!
LikeLike
I believe that hyper-religiosity is a form of mental illness. Whether it is the Roman Catholic who spends a good part of every day chanting and re-chanting the Rosary or the evangelical Protestant who spends hours every day talking to an invisible Jesus asking him to make every life decision for him. These habits may bring the hyper-religious peace and comfort but at a great price: avoidance of reality.
And there is an even greater danger to society at large: People who obey an inner voice of an invisible friend sometimes do really scary things like drown their children or fly an airplane into a skyscraper.
I say, dump the invisible friend and deal with reality…no matter how uncomfortable and scary that may be at times.
LikeLike
I thought I would delve a little deeper into Newberg,and try to see if he is as impartial as he is being portrayed
While I don’t necessarily believe he is openly disingenuous from the video I watched and the little read, he doesn’t seem quite as neutral as some might want us to believe.
I watched a 9 minutes video and hopped onto Amazon briefly to checkout one of his books,
Here’s what I found:
These two paragraphs were lifted from Newberg’s book: How God Changes Your Brain.
It is important to note that, although in the spiel, Newberg states he is not particularly religious, he does say he is open to the possibility of God, thus attempting to establish some sort of neutral position for his bona fides.
However, he uses the term ‘’God’’ as a proper noun, thus already tacitly hinting at the deity found in the Bible, and Koran which becomes more apparent a little later.
Furthermore, all physical studies appear to have been conducted with Americans and in his opening salvo he starts.
‘’God. In America ….’’ Thus immediately alienating me for a kickoff as I am not American and we all know how religious Americans are in general.
A little further on he writes:
But Yahweh IS vindictive and has been cited for justification of many heinous acts even to this day. Or is he alluding to Allah perhaps and interpretation of the Koran?
And then this, which I consider the real kicker.
Not so subtle allusion of Yahweh to Jesus without a single overt ‘name-dropping’. How very clever of him.
One does not have to be a rocket scientist to see which way the reader is being nudged/lead with all these statements and careful phrasing.
Impartial studies? Maybe.
Impartial terminology? I don’t think so at all.
Personally, I wouldn’t give him five bob for his impartiality.
But that’s me. You be the judge.
LikeLike
I understand. You think the beneficial effects that Newberg talks about are mostly the product of general relaxation techniques such as meditation. There is some mention in the faith street article that having “faith” or belief in God increases the beneficial effect such practices confer, which I would be interested in knowing more and just how exactly he measured that separate from just the relaxation practice itself, but otherwise I agree with your conclusion about what Newberg’s data does and doesn’t demonstrate based on what one can glean from the article (and not having actually read the study and thus not being able to view the methodology and data directly).
Did you have particular aggregate studies about correlations between religiosity and poor brain-related function or good brain-related goodness you wanted to share?
LikeLike
@consioledreader
Yes, you’ve understood my point about Newberg’s area of expertise and how it has been used for those practices of religious belief that reduce stress.
As for your last question, not specifically for brain function but there is a strong correlation between higher education attainment for example and lower rates of belief (especially in the hard sciences) as well as higher rates of religiosity with lower income and higher rates of many kinds of social dysfunction (correlation is all I’m pointing at and not suggesting causal). My point in this thread is that these aggregate rates shouldn’t be this way if higher rates of religiosity ‘naturally’ conferred the kind of benefit UnkleE is talking about (not Newberg); the rates – if UnkleE’s conclusion had merit – should at least show a correlation the other way around.
LikeLike
Hi Tildeb,
I think this might be a good time to draw this discussion to a close.
I saw what YOU did there! You quoted the part of the Newberg reference that you liked, and ignored the part you didn’t like. And then you blamed me for being frustrating!
Of course some of the benefits of religious belief and practices are simple things that anyone can do – I think this is the tenth time I have said that on this thread – but there are other effects as well. The part of the quote you ignored said: “the more you believe in what you are meditating or praying about, the stronger the response will be.” And “when meditation is religious and strengthens your spiritual beliefs, then there is a synergistic effect that can be even better.”
I wonder why you left that part out?
It seems to me that you have employed several classic means of avoiding evidence you don’t want to face up to. In this, by selectively quoting in a way that misrepresents the person. In contrast, did you see what I have done right through? I have quoted both sides of Newberg’s comments.
Another classic avoidance strategy was when you labelled Newberg an apologist – though you never said what he is an apologist for. After all, his co-author is an atheist and Newberg is an agnostic. One of the most important things in critiquing a book is to actually read it, and if you had read it, you would know that all the way through, Newberg makes it clear he is not a theist but an agnostic – and there is even an Appendix to make that totally clear. He uses “god” in a metaphorical way, and even says: “I like to think of God as a metaphor for each person’s search for ultimate meaning and truth. …. I don’t know what the ultimate reality or truth may be”.
But I think I can see what happened. Newberg’s books uses the word God in the title, so instant reaction, he must be a theist and he must be bad. It was a pity you didn’t believe me when I explained that wasn’t so, or checked out the book to see for yourself.
So the fact remains that his peer-reviewed finding show that (1) religious belief and practice have strong neurological benefits except when religion is too negative, (2) secular practices can achieve similar results, and have similar bad effects if negative, and (3) but there are synergistic effects where practices are allied with faith in God that give even better results.
Actually I see what you have done, again. You say there are studies showing the it is not religion that does good, it actually does people bad, but again, for the third time, you haven’t offered any evidence to support this statement. I was a little surprised at first, because there ARE studies which show negative effects – Newberg discusses how negative attitudes, whether by religious or non-religious people, can be harmful.
But I can understand why you didn’t mention any of these, because I think you know as well as I do that they are vastly outnumbered by the evidence of positive effects. So I will finish by offering those interested a quick summary of the evidence for this statement.
1. Newberg says (p 42): “We know that religious involvement is correlated with health and longevity, but it is difficult to figure out why.” He offers a link to Duke University website but unfortunately the page has been changed. But Duke does offer these lists:
Summary of recent research and Research publications. In addition, Newberg & Waldman’s book has 546 footnotes, many with multiple references and many of them to papers supporting the positive link between religious belief and practice. So there are scores of references supporting this conclusion right there. One example. And another, which says nothing about stress reduction, but concludes: “Higher levels of spirituality and private religious practices, but not quality of life, are associated with slower progression of Alzheimer disease.”
2. I presume two atheists writing for Skeptical Inquirer are not apologists for the pro-religion side? Yet this article reports on an investigation of many studies on the social effects of religious belief and practice, and concludes: “the data consistently point to a negative association between religiosity and criminal behavior and a positive association between religiosity and prosocial behavior. Both relations are modest in magnitude and ambiguous with respect to causation. At the same time, they cannot be ignored by partisans on either side of the discussion.”
3. Connor Wood, a PhD student studying the science of religion (a discipline which you mocked, but which involves neuroscientists, psychologists, anthropologists, sociologists, etc, and is important precisely because of the health and wellbeing benefits of religion – something every doctor should be aware of for the good of their patients) has referenced scores of academic papers on his website, and made this summary of the data (my emphasis): “the data that religion has social and individual benefits is so overwhelming that saying that religion has no benefits is active science denial.” I hope you don’t want to be an active science denier.
4. In Studies of medicine and religion I list more than 30 studies that show the beneficial effects of religious belief and practice on physical and mental health. This post lists a few more, including one that assesses the monetary value of prayer to health – even the economists are getting in on it!
Are all these academics apologists? Note that there are probably more than a hundred references in all that, so finding one or two in the opposite direction will only show what we already know – there can be exceptions. But if you want to contest those findings, you need a hundred references yourself.
I’m sure you’ll say that it wasn’t religion that did the trick but something else, and doubtless sometime that’s true – but not always. Many of the studies mention prayer, faith, going to church, etc. But the mechanism doesn’t matter, it remains true that religion seems to do the trick. If your hypothesis was true, why aren’t there scores of papers showing the benefits of atheism for health and prosociality?
I see little value in continuing this conversation. I have offered many references, you haven’t. That is clear now, and there’s no point in me continuing to ask you for evidence. Someone has to finish this up, so this will be my last comment on this thread. Thanks for the opportunity to demonstrate all this. Best wishes to you.
LikeLike
None of the books and accredited papers wil ever take the place of those who have PERSONALLY experienced the negative effects of religion, i.e., Christianity and all it entails.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I believe that UnkleE has effectively demonstrated that studies confirm the many health benefits of believing in an all-powerful, invisible friend; a friend who is always at your side to comfort you; a friend who promises that everything that happens in life is ultimately for your good; a friend who promises eternal bliss and great riches in the afterlife.
So the question is not, is this belief good for the individual? The question is, is this belief good for society as a whole? If every individual is listening to and obeying their personal invisible friend, is that healthy for society?
I say, no.
Invisible friends are dangerous. Society is better off without them.
LikeLiked by 2 people
One only has to look at the levels of violence, racism, and economic disparities in very religious countries compared to non-religious countries to see the ill effects on society as a whole of invisible friend belief. Compare the United States to northern Europe. Compare Uganda with Japan and Australia. While Christians in very religious countries enjoy the personal health benefits of invisible friend belief, their societies are wracked with violence and discrimination.
And history demonstrates the same phenomenon. While white European Christians were enjoying the health benefits of invisible friend belief, Jews, Muslims, and free-thinkers paid a heavy price for their non-belief and non-conformity to the dictates of the invisible friend. And in the New World, while the descendants of white European Christians enjoyed the health benefits of invisible friend belief, Native Americans, Mexicans, and other mixed-race peoples paid a heavy price under the banner of “Manifest Destiny”, all in the name of the invisible friend.
Belief in invisible friends may have health benefits for the individuals who believe in them, but that belief has proven DEADLY time and time again for society as a whole.
LikeLiked by 3 people
@Nonsupernaturalist.
If you will excuse the dreadful pun…. I think you just nailed it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
UnkleE, you write Of course some of the benefits of religious belief and practices are simple things that anyone can do – I think this is the tenth time I have said that on this thread – but there are other effects as well. The part of the quote you ignored said:the more you believe in what you are meditating or praying about, the stronger the response will be.” And “when meditation is religious and strengthens your spiritual beliefs, then there is a synergistic effect that can be even better.”
The criticism offered is regarding the the bold part that you recognize but never incorporate into mitigating your over-reaching conclusion.
You then ask, I wonder why you left that part out?
For two related reasons: the first is that the same positive effect is achieved by dedicated habits – including religious habits. Again, belief in the religious sense plays no causal part but is included in the correlation part. Again, you never incorporate this into your over-reaching conclusion.
The second reason is the idea of ‘synergistic effect’ assumes the conclusion, that the greater benefit is related to religious belief only and not in the long term dedication to the relaxing practice. You continue to fail to include this in your over-reaching conclusion. But these reasons are more of a quibble. My counter point to your over-reaching conclusion based on the over-reaching by Newberg to connect ‘faith’ to these effect was to raise the specter that aggregate effects this thesis claims to be (somewhat) causal are not found in population studies. This is a damning problem… for both Newberg’s thesis as well as your over-reaching conclusion.
Newberg is an apologist in this sense of a lack of rigor by not making it crystal clear that stress reduction practices are the source of the benefit and not religion or faith of the religious kind. Because he associates simple things like smiling to be included in his ‘faith is good for the brain’ thesis demonstrates a willingness to include advantageous data and not the non-advantageous data… like the chopping off heads kind of data or the bigotry kind of data, or the discriminatory data, or any of the accounts of terror from children imagining a very literal Hell for their trivial misdeeds and thoughts… data that is just as much a direct link with religious practices as data he does use… like dedicated praying. My point is that perhaps the aggregate of religious belief includes far more negative than positive evidence for the effects of ‘faith’ than Newberg is willing to entertain and promote for his apologetic thesis.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Tildeb’s comprehensive reaming of the ”Newberg / positive benefits” argument and Nan’s pointed remark about experience yet again highlight the fact Newberg and unkleE seem steadfast in not engaging those deconverts who were ( and many still are) traumatized by religion. This smacks of serious bias and maybe a little disingenuous behaviour?
Finally, nonsupenaturalist’s absolutely delightful slap-down of the, ”Let’s-All-Get-On The-Jesus-is-Good-For-Your-health-Bus” demonstrate that, when the approach to investigating religious claims is completely open and all evidence is viewed it is glaringly apparent that, once again, at the root of god-belief is a somewhat Machiavellian and odious foundation.
And, as per usual, when confronted with such evidence, unkleE runs away like a scolded cur.
Though why he felt the need to ramble on for several hundred words after announcing: I think this might be a good time to draw this discussion to a close.
is quite beyond me.
LikeLike
@Ark
I imagine UnkleE feels there is no more point engaging in the discussion because everyone made the points they wanted to make and are now in repeat mode and no one seems to be changing their minds.
As to your point that Newberg doesn’t address the experience of deconverts with negative experiences. I’m not so sure that is true. Newberg writes:
“By contrast, negative thoughts, feelings, and speech — which includes angry rhetoric and fearful proclamations — cause the primitive parts of your brain to release a cascade of stress-evoking neurochemicals that damage your heart and brain, especially those circuits responsible for suppressing destructive emotions and thoughts. This is what we all have to watch out for. Our research reveals that many people have negative views on religion. We can track this when people relate a limited openness to other belief systems.
This corresponds with an authoritarian view of God.” (emphasis mine).
It’s pretty clear in the article he does address that negative fear-oriented thoughts, especially related to an authoritarian view of God, and dogmatism/fundamentalism (he doesn’t use these terms, but he implies them in the part that states, “when people relate a limited openness to other belief systems”).
This suggests in Newberg’s view as expressed in that particular article the two aren’t mutually exclusive. Religious “faith” can be beneficial for health in its stress-relieving practices and if the larger worldview and view of God is positive (the deity is rainbows and butterflies and love sort of thing) and bad for your health when its authoritarian, dogmatic, and fear-oriented.
LikeLike
“the deity is rainbows and butterflies and love sort of thing”
The only deity who meets that definition is a universalist. Therefore belief in things like Virgin Births and Resurrections are unnecessary. In the above belief system, one simply loves “God”, whoever he, she, it, or they are, and loves everyone around you regardless of what they believe. I seriously doubt that UnkleE would be willing to go that far. Therefore, UnkleE’s deity and belief system, no matter how rosy he tries to describe it, is still based on fear and discrimination.
LikeLike
To finish my comment above: UnkleE’s belief system may provide health benefits for him personally, but for society as a whole, it is very unhealthy. I suggest that UnkleE consider placing the health benefits of others before those of himself. For his own health, I would suggest meditation, long walks, and secular humanism.
LikeLike
The problem is quite simply this:
Newberg ( and to an extent unkleE) is being subtly disingenuous or a least quite slippery because he is suggesting that the god, God is not like that and the problem seems to lie with the person who has such negative thoughts about the god, God, when in reality the god God is nothing more than a fucking monster.
And not once do we hear from a deconvert about how traumatic their experience of being indoctrinated with Hell was and how this carried through to adulthood and how awful it was to deconvert and how they were ostracized, vilified and how they lost family friends and often driven out of the community.
Neither do we hear about the abject fear of apostates in the Muslim community.
Or the emotional trauma and potential major financal problems for deconverting members of the clergy.
Neither are there any testimonies from professional therapists who have had to deal with those people who have’still are suffering because of religious indoctrination.
None of this you brought t the table I notice and I am beginning to wonder if your own subtle attempts at rainbow and butterflies suggest a sympathetic belief about the god God?
I am a flat out unapologetic atheist. At least let me know if you are a Christian. Thanks.
LikeLike
@nonsupernaturalist
I can’t comment on UnkleE’s personal beliefs because I’ve never asked him what he personally believes and I’m not inclined to go slogging through his blog. Do you feel UnkleE as a Christian is being discriminatory against someone?
LikeLike