Interesting piece on religion...

[Glocksman]

by a right wing blogger who is also an atheist:

Linka, to quote Shep

Some choice quotes:

The problem for the Church (particularly any long-established Church) is the same one which affects all consumer products: keeping interest going, making the product more attractive to prospective consumers while trying not to alienate existing ones.

It’s a tightrope which every producer has to walk along—sometimes with excellent results (Diet Coke) and sometimes with disastrous ones (New Coke

Let’s be absolutely clear about this: a church’s traditions and heritage are not just “trappings” of a faith. They are part of the ties which bind followers to a belief system, because people are creatures of habit, and the thought that they are continuing the traditions of generations past is enormously comforting.

I’m not going to go into the details of my errrr discussions with our priest and headmaster—those can wait for another occasion—but let’s just say that I was coerced into attending the “New” Mass, with its “new” and, to my mind, antiseptic and non-mysterious language.

Well, the ties which had hitherto bound me to the Anglican Church were weakened. Badly weakened. And I had no choice in the matter: the change was being implemented, and I would just have to live with it. To a rebel such as myself, this was an anathema.

And the thing of it was, that as soon as I began to question the Church’s authority in my mind, I found that other, more profound doubts started to come barreling in—the liturgy, the dogma, the whole thing. Faith turned into dispassion, and then into agnosticism.

Over time, of course, relentless logic (severed from its faith) caused agnosticism to be replaced with atheism; and, well, here we are.

The packaging was changed, the content reformulated in the product, and I became a non-consumer, because the taste was no longer its rich, mysterious traditional brew, but some thin, watery and unconvincing modern gruel.

I never quite thought of religion in terms of consumer preference and branding, but this does have a ring of truth in that it would partly explain why 'conservative' (theologically speaking, not politically) religions seem to gain adherents while 'liberal' religions seem to be losing ground.

Thoughts?

[Darth Wong]

It's interesting but not necessary to describe it in the language of consumerism. The reason is Pavlovian conditioning. Your brain makes associations between sensory inputs and feelings or rewards. The church experience, drilled into you from childhood, is instinctively associated with your childhood, hence a time of safety, comfort, and nurturing (unless, of course, you were one of the kids being bumfucked by priests).

In any case, that's the lifelong pull of religion; your brain will always associate it with your childhood, and with community etc. Change the rituals, and the mindless Pavlovian association is broken. Your rational mind then has an opportunity to look at exactly what you're doing and question it.

[Glocksman]

That accounts for a lot of people, but there are those who were brought up in non-religious households that embrace it later in life.
My own thought on the matter is that these people are looking for structure and order in their lives, and the thought of joining like minded people in becoming part of a congregation following traditions that are centuries old is comforting.

[Darth Wong]

That accounts for a lot of people, but there are those who were brought up in non-religious households that embrace it later in life.

Given the small number of non-religious households in America, this is obviously a marginal demographic. And I would argue that it is virtually impossible to raise someone in this society without heavy religious influence. Religious ideas permeate virtually all of pop culture in one form or other.

My own thought on the matter is that these people are looking for structure and order in their lives, and the thought of joining like minded people in becoming part of a congregation following traditions that are centuries old is comforting.

Personally, I have found that most of the religious people I run into who claim to have been raised in non-religious households actually had far more exposure to religion as children than they are willing to let on. Often times they will make embarrassing mistakes upon cross-examination, such as the one guy who said that he was raised atheist, and then accidentally mentioned something about going to Sunday School.

[Patrick Degan]

Religion has long relied on marketing, even if the priests never perceived it as such. Ceremony is designed to impress the acolyte or even the ordinary person on the street that Religion X is far superior to Religion Y. Consider the very design of medieval Christian churches with their large open spaces, stained-glass, and vaulted arches to impose upon the worshipper a sense of the Majesty of Heaven. Or a temple to the goddess Athena designed by Heron of Alexandra which was equipped with all sorts of fascinating steam-hydraullic mechanisms which at the right moment in the ceremony would cause a pair of very large bronze doors to swing open and blow a horn which was the "voice" of the goddess within, represented by a huge bronze statue, and all to awe the worshippers. That's theatre and marketing right there. Religion has always had the element of commercial hucksterism, to impress the suckers enough to get them to hand over their gold.

[Ender]

That accounts for a lot of people, but there are those who were brought up in non-religious households that embrace it later in life.

Given the small number of non-religious households in America, this is obviously a marginal demographic. And I would argue that it is virtually impossible to raise someone in this society without heavy religious influence. Religious ideas permeate virtually all of pop culture in one form or other.

My own thought on the matter is that these people are looking for structure and order in their lives, and the thought of joining like minded people in becoming part of a congregation following traditions that are centuries old is comforting.

Personally, I have found that most of the religious people I run into who claim to have been raised in non-religious households actually had far more exposure to religion as children than they are willing to let on. Often times they will make embarrassing mistakes upon cross-examination, such as the one guy who said that he was raised atheist, and then accidentally mentioned something about going to Sunday School.

While your comments about non-religious vs religious upbrinigns hold in most cases, the case made for market forces not only explains them, but also those who chose to embrace a different religion as an adult, which your theory does not.

[Darth Wong]

While your comments about non-religious vs religious upbrinigns hold in most cases, the case made for market forces not only explains them, but also those who chose to embrace a different religion as an adult, which your theory does not.

My theory is based on psychological conditioning: a mechanism for which there is a mountain of evidence and practical application. To doubt the importance of this mechanism would be ridiculous, and in fact, the overwhelming numerical superiority of the "stick with your childhood beliefs" demographic is quite consistent with the idea.

The "market forces" idea argues that it's a simple matter of packaging aesthetics, like different coffee brands, which in turn ignores the enormously important mechanism of conditioned association from childhood.

[Superman]

While your comments about non-religious vs religious upbrinigns hold in most cases, the case made for market forces not only explains them, but also those who chose to embrace a different religion as an adult, which your theory does not.

My theory is based on psychological conditioning: a mechanism for which there is a mountain of evidence and practical application. To doubt the importance of this mechanism would be ridiculous, and in fact, the overwhelming numerical superiority of the "stick with your childhood beliefs" demographic is quite consistent with the idea.

The "market forces" idea argues that it's a simple matter of packaging aesthetics, like different coffee brands, which in turn ignores the enormously important mechanism of conditioned association from childhood.

I agree with D. Wong, but I would also add that, personally, I think it's a type of father complex. It's no secret that religious people act and think like children, and they're also acting out the perpetual role of BEING a child; complete with strict rules and a father figure. I think it is based from psychological conditioning, but there have been studies that give evidence for a genetic basis for religious behavior too.

Not only do they think and act like children, but they're dysfunctional as hell. These are the families that want to beat their kids, they isolate, see the world in black and white, see all the problems as "out there" while not looking at themselves... If that's not at least a type of personality disorder, then I don't know what is.

Ultimately, I think religious thinking and behavior is sort of a control mechanism. One might compare it to Obsessive Compulsive Disorder; instead of performing rituals, the religionist goes to church and hangs out with his friends. The world isn't quite so scary when you take on a set of absolute ideals, even if they are bullshit.

[Glocksman]

While your comments about non-religious vs religious upbrinigns hold in most cases, the case made for market forces not only explains them, but also those who chose to embrace a different religion as an adult, which your theory does not.

My theory is based on psychological conditioning: a mechanism for which there is a mountain of evidence and practical application. To doubt the importance of this mechanism would be ridiculous, and in fact, the overwhelming numerical superiority of the "stick with your childhood beliefs" demographic is quite consistent with the idea.

The "market forces" idea argues that it's a simple matter of packaging aesthetics, like different coffee brands, which in turn ignores the enormously important mechanism of conditioned association from childhood.

After reading the responses I'm beginning to think that it's a combination of all of the above.
While conditioning from a religious upbringing would predispose the person to religion in general, the 'packaging' of a particular religion would determine which one the person in question found attractive.
I don't have stats handy, but in almost every article I've seen on the subject, theologically (again, not politically) 'conservative' religions are growing, while the more 'liberal' ones are shrinking.
This trend seems to lend support to Superman's idea about part of it being a 'father complex'.

Anyone know of any studies done on the makeup of adult religious converts?

[Elaro]

Here we go again from hypothesis to observation: The situation of the Catholic Church before and after Vatican II (1961-1965) in Quebec.

What happened was, the then-pope John XXIII "convinced" the Catholic Church to abandon many of its traditions and ideas in order to bring it and Christianity into the modern world, with a current, modern message. The outcome? Just as D. Wong's hypothesis predicted, people left the churches in droves, at least in Quebec.

[wolveraptor]

Really? A source for that would be handy, not because I am especially suspicious of you, but rather because I'd like to use it in debates.

[Superman]

Here we go again from hypothesis to observation: The situation of the Catholic Church before and after Vatican II (1961-1965) in Quebec.

What happened was, the then-pope John XXIII "convinced" the Catholic Church to abandon many of its traditions and ideas in order to bring it and Christianity into the modern world, with a current, modern message. The outcome? Just as D. Wong's hypothesis predicted, people left the churches in droves, at least in Quebec.

No offense, but I don't believe that. Provide some evidence, please.

[Xuenay]

Not only do they think and act like children, but they're dysfunctional as hell. These are the families that want to beat their kids, they isolate, see the world in black and white, see all the problems as "out there" while not looking at themselves...

Oh, and atheists never do any of this?

It sounds like you're describing human behavior in general and not religious behavior in particular.

[sketerpot]

Not only do they think and act like children, but they're dysfunctional as hell. These are the families that want to beat their kids, they isolate, see the world in black and white, see all the problems as "out there" while not looking at themselves...

Oh, and atheists never do any of this?

Please don't respond to a generalization with a claim that individual counterexamples exist. It's fallacious as hell.

[Xuenay]

Not only do they think and act like children, but they're dysfunctional as hell. These are the families that want to beat their kids, they isolate, see the world in black and white, see all the problems as "out there" while not looking at themselves...

Oh, and atheists never do any of this?

Please don't respond to a generalization with a claim that individual counterexamples exist. It's fallacious as hell.

I'm not claiming that "individual counterexamples exist". I'm claiming that such behavior is not markedly more present in atheist than in non-atheist communities. But I'm willing to retract that claim if somebody brings up an actual study which shows that religions in general do have such effects - the burden of proof is one the one who made the claim of a correlation existing.

[Darth Wong]

Not only do they think and act like children, but they're dysfunctional as hell. These are the families that want to beat their kids, they isolate, see the world in black and white, see all the problems as "out there" while not looking at themselves...

Oh, and atheists never do any of this?

It sounds like you're describing human behavior in general and not religious behavior in particular.

Ah yes, I forgot. We're only allowed to notice stuff like that when it's Muslim religious extremists. If someone applies this to Abrahamic religions in general instead of just Islam, we get touchy all of a sudden.

To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, history furnishes us with no examples of a priest-ridden society which is also a successful society. The world's most successful nations were the ones which embraced secularism. But I guess that's just a coincidence, right?

[Anguirus]

I'm claiming that such behavior is not markedly more present in atheist than in non-atheist communities.

How many "atheist communities" are there?

Like, on the planet?

The only examples I can think of are a few Mongolian nomads and *officially* atheistic Communist countries, neither of which can be fairly compared to, say, an American suburb that's 85% Christian and 10% Jewish.

[Ender]

Here we go again from hypothesis to observation: The situation of the Catholic Church before and after Vatican II (1961-1965) in Quebec.

What happened was, the then-pope John XXIII "convinced" the Catholic Church to abandon many of its traditions and ideas in order to bring it and Christianity into the modern world, with a current, modern message. The outcome? Just as D. Wong's hypothesis predicted, people left the churches in droves, at least in Quebec.

No offense, but I don't believe that. Provide some evidence, please.

I'll look for some sources online, but what he is saying is true. I learned it in religious history class (went to Catholic schooling all life) And it wasn't just Quebec, it was all over. I think he's overstating what happened a bit, as the Church's reforms let it gain more people then it lost, but the sect isn't small. They are called the traditionalists or some such.

[Patrick Degan]

Oh, and atheists never do any of this?

Please don't respond to a generalization with a claim that individual counterexamples exist. It's fallacious as hell.

I'm not claiming that "individual counterexamples exist". I'm claiming that such behavior is not markedly more present in atheist than in non-atheist communities. But I'm willing to retract that claim if somebody brings up an actual study which shows that religions in general do have such effects - the burden of proof is one the one who made the claim of a correlation existing.

I'm sorry, but the Fundamentalist mindset is an observable phenomenon: markedy childish in its adherents' belief in an all-powerful Father-God as well as in a powerful opposite figure (Satan) as source of all evil; the drive to either withdraw from the world or remake it in their image (the Christian Identity movement, Christian home-schooling, the political movement to impose Creationism in school curricula); many, many documentable cases of abuse being prevalant in such families. While the mere state of atheism is no ironclad insurance policy against abusive family behaviour, there is far less motivation for it given that there is no essential belief that children have to have the Devil "beaten out of them" or that the Rod is the sure method of correction for misbehaviour. Nor is there a motivation for keeping the wife in her place, subordinate to the Head of the family, given the essential lack of belief in religious sanction for it.

[Darth Wong]

Xuenay's argument is much like saying that the Ku Klux Klan does not promote racism because it is possible to be a racist without being a Klansman. In both cases, the group under indictment actively promotes the ideology it is accused of promoting. The Klan directly promotes racism, and the Church directly promotes childishness. Or have we forgotten about those "innocence of a child" passages in the Bible where you are encouraged to mindlessly accept and not ask questions or conduct rational analysis or otherwise think like an adult?

[Xuenay]

Ah yes, I forgot. We're only allowed to notice stuff like that when it's Muslim religious extremists. If someone applies this to Abrahamic religions in general instead of just Islam, we get touchy all of a sudden.

For the record, I would have also defended Islam if somebody claimed that all Muslims were fanatic nut-heads.

I'm sorry, but the Fundamentalist mindset is an observable phenomenon: markedy childish in its adherents' belief in an all-powerful Father-God as well as in a powerful opposite figure (Satan) as source of all evil; the drive to either withdraw from the world or remake it in their image (the Christian Identity movement, Christian home-schooling, the political movement to impose Creationism in school curricula); many, many documentable cases of abuse being prevalant in such families. While the mere state of atheism is no ironclad insurance policy against abusive family behaviour, there is far less motivation for it given that there is no essential belief that children have to have the Devil "beaten out of them" or that the Rod is the sure method of correction for misbehaviour. Nor is there a motivation for keeping the wife in her place, subordinate to the Head of the family, given the essential lack of belief in religious sanction for it.

("There is no motivation for keeping the wife in her place" sounds a rather odd argument - are you claiming that there are no sexist men on power trips if we remove religion? Or that a large amount of people would be conducting the abuse anyway, and now they can just use the religion as an excuse?)

I'm sorry, but isolated examples do not scientific studies make, and correlation does not equate causation. Once you claim that in religion in general fosters child abuse, you need to be able to prove that for the majority of religions, not just a couple.

I did some playing around with Google Scholar - there weren't many relevant-seeming hits for "social effects religion", though there was one article indicating that religious activity inhibits crime (link), and one showing weak evidence for that rates of morbidity and mortality in certain population groups defined religiously are, on average, somewhat lower than among "all others" or nonreligious groups or among less religious people (though no definite conclusions of religion's effect on the general health could be drawn - link here). As for "child abuse religion", there were a bunch of papers studying the effects of religious abuse and saying it was bad, but a quick skimming did not catch any accessible studies that would actually have indicated higher rates of abuse within religious communities. There was one paper titled "Religion and Child Abuse: Perfect Together" (link), but I couldn't access it to verify its content and relevance. (There was, however, a study which indicated that there is an inverse relationship between religiosity and substance abuse - link).

Based on my brief skim, it would seem that at least some religions may lead into higher rates of child abuse, but it remains an open question of whether this is really a trend that can be generalized to all religion - and whether or not the other, beneficial effects of religion are enough to cancel that out.

But once again, I'm entirely willing to retract my claims, once somebody shows actual studies that indicate how religion is bad, instead of backing their words with anecdote and examples from isolated movements.

[Surlethe]

But once again, I'm entirely willing to retract my claims, once somebody shows actual studies that indicate how religion is bad, instead of backing their words with anecdote and examples from isolated movements.

Why are studies necessary when one can look at the Bible, and, in conjunction with a fundamentalist mindset, see that it promotes both behavior and mentalities which contribute to child abuse?

If you want a general argument that religion (and fundamentalistm, in particular) is bad, note that it partitions behaviors into precisely two camps -- those behaviors which are obedient to God, and those which aren't -- and creates a reward of plus/minus infinity for those behaviors. Therefore, fundamentalism is perfectly irrational and dangerous, because some of those behaviors are immoral, and no incentive presented can sway a fanatic.

[Superman]

But once again, I'm entirely willing to retract my claims, once somebody shows actual studies that indicate how religion is bad, instead of backing their words with anecdote and examples from isolated movements.

Look retard, I never said that every single person who goes to a fundie church fits this mold. I think most people realize that when statements like that are made, it's roughly 95% of them. This is really the difference between people with half a brain and the stupid. The stupid take everything personally and chime in with "nuh uh! That's not all of them!" Smart people realize that statements like what I said don’t necessarily include 100% of the population. I never said ALL religion is bad.

And by the way, how is it that everyone here can PREDICT with perfect accuracy how these fundie idiots will behave with perfect accuracy? Like Patrick said, it’s an observable, and I would add predictable, phenomenon that never fails to disappoint.

And give me a fucking break. You're telling me that fundies don't home school their kids from their own paranoia of the evil "world." They don't encourage one another to isolate and expose their kids and families to only "christian" television or music? They're not HUGE supporters of corporal punishment?

Atheist community... Why don't you just plug your ears and yell back, "nu uh, YOU ARE" instead?

Right. I forgot that the atheists were responsible for the Inquisition, the Crusades, mass genocides in Meso-America (among other places)... Yes, it's the atheists. You showed me.

[Xuenay]

Why are studies necessary when one can look at the Bible, and, in conjunction with a fundamentalist mindset, see that it promotes both behavior and mentalities which contribute to child abuse?

Oh, like those who take a fundamentalist attitude to "treat others as you'd like to be treated" or "hate the sin, not the sinner" and ignore most of the Old Testament entirely? You can't take a fundamentalist attitude to the entire Bible, it's too inconsistent. You need to be selective, in which case non-religious factors like culture take hold... and we end up with the final result that it's not religion which determines your behavior, it's the general close-mindedness and assholeness of the community. I know several very devout Christians who wouldn't hurt a fly, and of several religious communities with a very healthy attitude. If you want to generalize across all of Christianity, you need real studies.

(Not to mention that Christianity != all religion, anyway.)

Look retard, I never said that every single person who goes to a fundie church fits this mold. I think most people realize that when statements like that are made, it's roughly 95% of them. This is really the difference between people with half a brain and the stupid. The stupid take everything personally and chime in with "nuh uh! That's not all of them!" Smart people realize that statements like what I said don’t necessarily include 100% of the population. I never said ALL religion is bad.

No, you only said that "roughly 95% of religious people", which still sounds like a huge exaggaration.

And by the way, how is it that everyone here can PREDICT with perfect accuracy how these fundie idiots will behave with perfect accuracy? Like Patrick said, it’s an observable, and I would add predictable, phenomenon that never fails to disappoint.

I never said their behavior couldn't be predicted, I was asking whether the ones whose behavior is stupid and can be predicted as such are the majority.

And give me a fucking break. You're telling me that fundies don't home school their kids from their own paranoia of the evil "world." They don't encourage one another to isolate and expose their kids and families to only "christian" television or music? They're not HUGE supporters of corporal punishment?

Which fundies? If I recall correctly, Utah, with a considerable Mormon majority, also had one of the highest rates of academic performance compared to the rest of the US (though I don't have a link to back that up right now, but I can dig it up if that's suspect). Or the Jews who tended to get wealthy and ended up prosecuted partially for that reason. Or the Protestant work ethic that some studies credit as the reason for the prosperity of some nations. Or...

Again, there seems to be enough evidence for "religion is bad" not necessarily being the general trend that it warrants some actual studies to verify.

Right. I forgot that the atheists were responsible for the Inquisition, the Crusades, mass genocides in Meso-America (among other places)... Yes, it's the atheists. You showed me.

Stalin's purges are the first atheist equivalent for the Inquisition that comes to mind, the removal of unreliable elements and threats to your own power. The Crusades were helped by religious propaganda, but so has the War on Iraq been helped by atheist propaganda. (Wikipedia actually even mentions on the background of the Crusades: The breakdown of the Carolingian Empire in the later 9th century, combined with the relative stabilisation of local European borders after the Christianisation of the Vikings, Slavs, and Magyars, meant that there was an entire class of warriors who now had very little to do but fight amongst themselves and terrorise the peasant population. The Church tried to stem this violence with the Peace and Truce of God movements, which was somewhat successful, but trained warriors always sought an outlet for their violence.) And genocide is hardly very exclusive to religious people.

Again, we're talking about people who just happened to be religious engaging in behavior that people in general tend to engage in. The Inquisitions are a particularly good example - they were created to purge heresies and other differing faiths because the different faiths weakened the Church's power. In Communist China and Russia, people who had ideologies that differed from the state's accepted could end up purged for the very same reason - yet nobody says "hey look, atheists killed all those who resisted their power and it was defended with atheistic reasons, I guess that means atheism is bad", while having no problem in saying exactly the same about religious people.

[Darth Wong]

I'm sorry, but isolated examples do not scientific studies make, and correlation does not equate causation.

So you totally ignore the fact that these religions openly advocate this shit? It's written right into their "holy scriptures", for fuck's sake.

But once again, I'm entirely willing to retract my claims, once somebody shows actual studies that indicate how religion is bad, instead of backing their words with anecdote and examples from isolated movements.

It is almost impossible to do a controlled study on the effect of religion within a given country because it tends to permeate entire social frameworks. However, if you compare the most religious countries to the least religious countries, you can easily verify for yourself that the most religious countries are far more misogynistic, to give just one example of a serious problem associated with religion.

No doubt you will simply ignore that or chalk it up to coincidence despite the existence of a known mechanism for this connection: the fact that the Abrahamic religions openly advocate misogynism.

Stalin's purges are the first atheist equivalent for the Inquisition that comes to mind, the removal of unreliable elements and threats to your own power.

Don't be a fucking idiot. Stalinism was no more motivated by atheism than it was by mathematics. The fact that communism was officially atheist means nothing more than the fact that it recognized the principle of addition and subtraction. Atheism does not and cannot advocate any particular actions other than not being religious, because it is defined only by what it does not believe, not by what it does believe. Religion, on the other hand, actually advocates things.