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 
@Ark
Well, if the god God doesn’t exist any positive or negative thoughts would lie with the person and how they conceptualize said being, wouldn’t it? Of course how they conceptualize it is a matter of culture, upbringing, and individual traits as well. Likewise, not every study needs to address every possible variable and potential human experience. Indeed, that would be impossible and is an unreasonable expectation. So that there are studies that find positive correlations with religion doesn’t invalidate an individuals’ negative experiences, and vice-versa negative correlations with religion don’t invalidate individuals’ positive experiences. The only point I am making is that Newberg does address such experiences in the article (albeit briefly).
LikeLike
And it raises no red flag to you, consoledreader, that ‘bad’ faith – the negative kind that is at least as prevalent as the ‘good’ kind – isn’t factored into what defines real faith… you know, the kind of faith that is so beneficial to one’s brain?
Now, where have I heard this kind of reasoning before?
Oh right, deconverted Christians could never have been real Christians because, hey, otherwise they would never have deconverted! Real faith in UnkleE’s mind (and apparently Newberg’s if he had anything to do with that title) suffers the same treatment; it is only of the beneficial kind we will cherrypick for our link between ‘faith-is-good-for-the-brain, which is why his over-reaching conclusions are, by this kind of carefully selected definition, confirmation bias in practice.
LikeLike
Perhaps. I would want to see his actual methodology and why he used those definitions first in the actual study itself.
LikeLike
@Consoledreader.
So, are you a Christian, yes or no?
Surely you are not afraid to defend your faith if you are?
LikeLike
@ cosoledreader
Yes, it might be helpful. For example, UnkleE lists the 8 components that have provided data of the positive effects – the <synergistic effects let us remember – that supports the thesis that ‘faith-is-good-for-the-brain’ for us, so the questions then become:
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?Did you know that
Remember, this the source of the data being used.
When one defines ‘faith’ to be so open to positive data and yet closed to negative, then the very least we should do is raise a red flag in our minds that the conclusion needs further support. This is why I pointed out that if the thesis were true, that religious faith was indeed good for the brain as UnkleE wants us to believe is supported by good neuroscience, then would should f- or, at least, it’s would be reasonable to – find compelling evidence for this in the aggregate, that populations with higher levels of religiosity should project this benefit and reveal a correlate. This is not the case. In fact, in many significant ways the opposite (not including smiling and yawning, for example) seems to indicate the thesis doesn’t work outside of the narrow band of cherrypicked data used to create it in the first place.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Consoledreader.
Really? Well, if you feel this is what it would take for you to make a more honest assessment then one has to wonder why you are behaving like a Dick and commenting on what you now seem to consider is insufficient data?
Tildeb is the gentleman among us. His continued willingness to offer reasoned, well-presented rebuttals in the face of such blatant, willful ignorance, that is fast becoming overt stupidity, is truly commendable.
I, on the other hand, have no such scruples, especially when it comes to calling out apparent disingenuous Sunbeams for Jesus
Newberg and by extension, unkleE come across as sanctimonious arse-hats, and you are now skating close to this line as well.
LikeLike
I don’t believe I am behaving in a negative way towards anyone. I haven’t called anyone names, insulted anyone’s intelligence. As far as I can tell all I am doing is not agreeing with you 100% because I want to view said studies and the details for myself. If that’s what constitutes being a dick in your mind then so be it. To answer your question in a straight-forward way:
I neither agree or disagree with Newberg or UncleE or Tildeb. I remain undecided, until I see more evidence one way or the other on where Newberg derives the claim about positive versus negative faith conceptions (how did they measure it). Up to this point all I have done is paraphrased what I believe Newberg is saying to clarify some of the points you’re claiming he never mentions, which he does mention. This is not the same thing as declaring that I agree or disagree with those points. I even agreed and still agree with Tildeb on his points about stress-relieving practices, although some of these do clearly have “faith” overtones (such as prayer).
LikeLike
Consoledreader;
UnkleE’s need to defend the supernatural claims accredited to Jesus tell me he is not a universalist. A universalist wouldn’t care.
LikeLike
Came accross an interesting article that argued religion must have some benefits to survival of societies or it would have died out:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/johnbeckett/2016/06/dispassionately-dissecting-religion.html
I will quote part of it here where it references Jared Diamond:
There are indeed two different questions to ask, one is whether religion is beneficial? Another whether religion is true?
The problem tends to be that once someone concludes it is not true then any benefit to that person will evaporate.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, I agree, there seems to be an awful lot of agreeing and to a lessor degree disagreeing from you.
However, it doesn’t change the fact that unkleE invariably comes across as a sanctimonious, and oft times conniving arse-hat in the manner of his presentation of ”… the facts, maa’m, just the facts”, and most of those who have interacted with him over the past couple of years would agree.
In fact, at time he comes across as a most disagreeable fellow indeed, and I would remind you of the fact..just the facts, that most people on Nate’s blog are deconverts who experienced considerable trauma during their days as god-botherers and often more so during and after deconversion.
So, for anyone … including you, to come here and start suggesting how farking wonderful Yahweh is, no matter hoow subtle that suggestion may be, in whichever disguise he is presented is little more than a ”Slap in the face with a wet fish”, which is rude and most disagreeable, wouldn’t you agree?
Furthermore, It really would be agreeable if you laid you cards on the table and stopped pussy-footing around the issue and stated whether you are in fact a believer or not?
This would allow those you are currently agreeing with, and disagreeing with to have a better perspective on how to approach your agreeable /disagreeable arguments. Surely this cant be too disagreeable, don’t you agree?
Thanks. The highly agreeable
Ark
Except when he is disagreeing.
LikeLike
Furthermore, irrespective of Newberg’s claims concerning positive and negative views of the god, God, it is a fact of the bible that the god, God, or Yahweh is a megalomaniacal, egotistical, genocidal son of a bitch. And we all know the punishment for not worshiping Yahweh, don’t we?
This suggests that Newberg, and by association unkleE, and pretty much every Christian is either, delusional, thick as pig muck or disingenuous.
And for you to require ”more data” suggests that you may have never actually read the bible.
In which case, you probably have no grounds to offer a Sitting On The Fence opinion in the first place.
However, if you have read the bible you would have encountered Yahweh and in that case, maybe you need your head examined?
LikeLike
@Ark
I’ve already answered your questions about whether I have read the Bible in a past conversation with you and I’ve answered my “religious” background in the comments on one of the posts on your blog. If you can’t be bothered to remember my answers or to have looked at them, then why should I answer them again?
I am also NOT trying to diminish the experiences of those who have suffered trauma from religion.
LikeLike
Well consider my memory is failing. Couple this with the fact that I regularly ”clean house” as it were, and delete lots of posts, simply refresh my memory, for my bnefit as well as other readers.
Well, that really is super to know. I am sure all the deconverts here will now relax and stop grinding their teeth.
So, are you a Christian, yes or no? ( And I will make a note for future reference, how’s that?)
LikeLike
@Consoledreader.
Okay, I went back to my comments. On one post in conversation with KIA you made mention you were Jewish.
So now I am back up to speed we can dispense with the xian angle.
But Yahweh becomes more relevant in this case and especially as he is simply a Canaanite deity adopted by the Israelites.
Furthermore, the Pentateuch is historical fiction so please explain how praying to the god, God can be anything but an act of a delusional or indoctrinated mind, and any peddler of such tripe anything other than a charlatan or equally delusional?
LikeLike
Good thing 45% of U.S. Jews seldom or never pray then! And why would God become more relevant? In fact, it seems to me this entire side conversation is irrelevant to the question about whether some scientific studies have found that religion can be beneficial or not.
LikeLike
Ah well, you see, it isn’t just religion is it? It is the religion of the god , God.
And as the Pentateuch is historical fiction, then Yahweh is not real.
So, considering the ‘downside’ of not accepting god belief we are back to whether Newberg is a charlatan?
LikeLike
Are we still bickering over the issue of whether or not belief in an invisible friend (religion) has health benefits?
Can’t we all agree that, yes, belief in an all-powerful, ever-present, always-benevolent, invisible friend does have health benefits for the individual, but, history has shown that such a belief has frequently been deadly to society as a whole, in particular, to persons who do not believe in the same invisible friend and to those who do not believe in invisible friends?
LikeLike
Can’t we all agree that, yes, belief in an all-powerful, ever-present, always-benevolent, invisible friend does have health benefits for the individual?
No. This is absolutely and unequivocally false.
This is the central point: belief itself is not the source of the benefit being described. This is simply not the case. It shouldn’t be sold as if the case because it’s not. It is a sales job, a sleight of mind to fool the credulous, a means to paint this faith-based belief pig in all its forms with lipstick.
The benefits described come from reducing stress and this does not require any faith-based belief which, as you say, is well known for being the source of much harm. When one is willing to believe supernatural causal agencies for real world effects on insufficient evidence and consider this kind of unnatural belief a virtue in itself – which is what faith of the religious kind is sold to be – then one is always on the brink of disastrous consequences immune from reason, from common decency, from honest compassion, from real world contrary evidence. That’s why the real product from respecting faith-based belief is a willingness to tolerate and respect ignorance and gullibility.
Religion is the Mother Ship for faith but the same idea – preferred and empowered belief without sufficient real world evidence – is what fuels all kinds of crazy, saddles what may appear to be innocuous belief or benign denialism with all kinds of real world pernicious effects accrued by acting on it, and forever being justified for at the very best very poor reasons. The core of that justification is inevitably the faith-based belief itself. This is a clue why it never has does not and probably never shall produce any new knowledge. Ever.
Faith-based belief is EXACTLY the problem underlying much suffering in the world today and pretending it somehow – dare I even say magically – contains a natural benefit IN itself IS itself a highly pernicious – even if popular – false belief.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“Can’t we all agree that, yes, belief in an all-powerful, ever-present, always-benevolent, invisible friend does have health benefits for the individual?”
Maybe, maybe not, but if an individual feels a benefit, then they’ll think, regardless of what anyone says, that there’s a benefit, so maybe arguing over whether there is or isn’t, should or shouldn’t be a benefit, the time may be better spent showing how a perceived benefit or detriment doesn’t argue “truth.”
A medic’s bag doesn’t help anyone, it’s just the vessel that all the helpful stuff is carried around and organized in, so I wont bother correcting anyone who’d say, “thank goodness for that medic’s bag…”
Whether there’s benefits or not, if the religion is false or fiction, it’s false or fiction, just as much as any other falsehood or fiction.
LikeLike
The argument was not over whether or not the belief is true, only whether it provides health benefits. Emotionally traumatized children obtain health benefits (reduced anxiety) from inventing an invisible friend, but that doesn’t mean that the invisible friend is real (true).
Let UnkleE proclaim to the world the health benefits of invisible friend belief but let’s make sure everyone is well aware of the off-setting detriment to society of his irrational belief.
LikeLiked by 1 person
What I am getting at is this: Strip away the respectability of “religion” by calling it what it really is—belief in invisible, imaginary friends—and this will negate any claims by invisible-friend believers in the positive benefits of invisible friend belief (religion).
Point out to people that no one would condone an adult who continues to believe in his childhood imaginary friend, so why should we condone adults believing in religious invisible friends? Why is there a difference? Answer: There isn’t! Both are irrational beliefs.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The problem of course is they have been indoctrinated to accept the invisible friend (IF) is real. And you are a miserable non believer and are assuredly going to Hell, dontcha know?
How does one deal with this?
LikeLike
Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give a response for the logic and reason that you have.
LikeLike
How does one deal with pushy, proselytizing Invisible Friend (IF) believers?
Ask the IF believer why you should believe in the existence of his invisible friend any more than you should believe in the existence of the invisible friend of a psychologically traumatized child. If he tries to use the “I have evidence for MY invisible friend” line, acknowledge that the existence of an invisible friend as the Creator of the universe is certainly a possible explanation (allowing for all possibilities), but science tells us that there are other possible explanations, so why assume that the Creator must be an invisible friend? The existence of the universe and the laws of nature are NOT evidence of an invisible friend, only evidence of something that we humans have not yet figured out.
I suggest that we not accept the existence of invisible friends unless we have much better proof of their existence.
LikeLike
I will allow you to tell unkleE. I expect it may come as a shock to him, although I should imagine he will try to find a consensus among scholars … Licona, Geisler, Dear Bart, etc. And if he can break through or find a medium, Maurice Casey.
😉
LikeLiked by 1 person