Why religion is dangerous

[GlesgaeHibby]

Praying man let's daughter die.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8180116.stm

We've had some great discussions on here lately about evolution and historical accuracy of the Bible and some great points have been put across from both sides.

This news story raises another issue - the dangers of faith.

This poor 11 year old girl has died because he believed the faith of his prayers to God would heal his daughter. Logic would have served him better, by taking her to a doctor she would still be alive.

It's crazy that any human being when faced with the choice of a simple medical cure based on reason and evidence would choose to go down the route of irrational thinking.

[J-C]

Praying man let's daughter die.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8180116.stm

We've had some great discussions on here lately about evolution and historical accuracy of the Bible and some great points have been put across from both sides.

This news story raises another issue - the dangers of faith.

This poor 11 year old girl has died because he believed the faith of his prayers to God would heal his daughter. Logic would have served him better, by taking her to a doctor she would still be alive.

It's crazy that any human being when faced with the choice of a simple medical cure based on reason and evidence would choose to go down the route of irrational thinking.


Jehovah's Witnesses don't allow blood transfusions, don't understand the reasoning for it but a friend of my wife is one and I've never really asked her incase it got into a full blown religious discussion.

[lyonhibs]

To all religious nuts out there (not that we have any - AKAIK - on .net) read the above link and accept a few, rather vital (indeed, life-saving) tips:

a) Faith is all very well and good, and more power to your elbow for having it, but there are some things which - SCIENTIFICALLY/PHYSIOLOGICALLY/MEDICALLY it cannot fix. Your body is not made of fairy cakes and the sound of childrens laughter, no matter how strong your faith in the man upstairs (or whoever). Faith is not medicine, it cannot serve the same chemical purposes, overcome the same illnesses as good old, tried and tested, scientifically proven medicine can.

Turns out there was only really 1 point to make. The above should cover it.

The above story is TRULY heartbreaking, a life needlessly thrown away because her father was too much of a stubborn, "blinded by faith" ********. Frankly, he's lucky not to be charged with 1st degree murder (although I know in this case that is a literal impossibility) as by being such an ignoramus to the simple, basic, UNDENIABLE superiority of medicine in treating illnesses, he and his wife have played an entirely complicit role in their daughters death.

One domain - IMO - in which religion/faith/hocus pocus (whatever you want to call it) MUST bow to science is in that of healthcare.

[Twa Cairpets]

There has been research done on this, and sadly the story in the OP is by no means the only example of this. Here's the link (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/101/4/625) to the abstract of a study by the American Association of Pediatrics, covering up to 1997. It highlights 140 instances of death where prayer was used instead of medical treatment where there was high statistical probability of survival had such medical treatment been used.

I cant find any studies for the last decade, but my guess - note, only a guess - is that with the rise of the religious right and belief in fundamentalist christianty in the USA over this period the likelihood is this figure would be at least the same, but probably higher.

[Future17]

It highlights 140 instances of death where prayer was used instead of medical treatment where there was high statistical probability of survival had such medical treatment been used.


Any studies on instances where prayer has been successful where medicine has failed?

:stirrer:

[Twa Cairpets]

If anyone is interested, the father of girl was a member of this church. (http://www.unleavenedbreadministries.org/). My perspective on this subject obviously leans towards a very negative view of the effect of religion, but they mount a spirited defence of the Neumanns, the family in question on this site (http://www.helptheneumanns.com/)which is linked from the ministries site. I think it's important to look at both sides of these stories. It doesnt change my view, but it does give a wider perspective than the headline. A summary from the atheist website, Pharyngula (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/), is also worth a look. (Be warned, if you are a thin-skinned Christian it is probably not the site for you. I love it though).

---------- Post added at 10:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:04 PM ----------


Any studies on instances where prayer has been successful where medicine has failed?

:stirrer:

Not that Im aware of where the research methodology has not been hugely flawed, thereby compromising a result, by not being randomised/double-blinded. (http://www.skeptics.org.uk/article.php?dir=articles&article=double_blind_trials.php)

[ArabHibee]

Wasn't there a similar story a few months ago from (funnily enough) America where the mother went on the run with her son (I think he needed chemo and they didn't want him to have it) and the police were trying to find them. I remember the father making a plea on the tv for her to hand herself in. Pretty sure it was on religious grounds also.

[Future17]

Wasn't there a similar story a few months ago from (funnily enough) America where the mother went on the run with her son (I think he needed chemo and they didn't want him to have it) and the police were trying to find them. I remember the father making a plea on the tv for her to hand herself in. Pretty sure it was on religious grounds also.

:agree:

The kid was called Daniel Hauser.

[erin-go-bragh87]

Surely if you believed in god this much, you would think the doctors and medicine had been sent by god?!

What do they expect?????

A big god hand to come out of the clouds and rub it better???

:brickwall

[Sylar]

Another example of a person who has caused death, not religion.

This man's faith may have lead to his daughter's death, but you can't surely try and pin this on religion as a collective heading?

People do strange things in the name of their faith, and yes, there are a few who refuse medical treatment on the grounds of "playing God" arguments, but these are flaws built within particular sects of people/the Church who have dangerous interpretations of the Bible.

Let me provide a rather silly (yet hopefully effective) comparison:

Someone publishes a book on Hibs, outlining why we are the only club who deserves to be supported, globally. I misinterpret this book to say that all other football supporters, who do not acknowledge Hibs as their sole reason for following football do not deserve to live, and set out to wipe out every non-Hibee under the face of the sun.

Did the "religious text" cause this act of sheer insanity, or will I be remembered as "some lunatic who decided to purge the globe of anyone who wouldn't pledge their allegiance to the Cabbage"?

[lapsedhibee]

Surely if you believed in god this much, you would think the doctors and medicine had been sent by god?!

What do they expect?????

A big god hand to come out of the clouds and rub it better???

:brickwall

:tsk tsk: Not been paying proper attention to the Dara O'Briain link on the homoeoeoeopathy thread. It has to be rubbed with a cat to become better.

[Twa Cairpets]

Another example of a person who has caused death, not religion.

This man's faith may have lead to his daughter's death, but you can't surely try and pin this on religion as a collective heading?

People do strange things in the name of their faith, and yes, there are a few who refuse medical treatment on the grounds of "playing God" arguments, but these are flaws built within particular sects of people/the Church who have dangerous interpretations of the Bible.

Let me provide a rather silly (yet hopefully effective) comparison:

Someone publishes a book on Hibs, outlining why we are the only club who deserves to be supported, globally. I misinterpret this book to say that all other football supporters, who do not acknowledge Hibs as their sole reason for following football do not deserve to live, and set out to wipe out every non-Hibee under the face of the sun.

Did the "religious text" cause this act of sheer insanity, or will I be remembered as "some lunatic who decided to purge the globe of anyone who wouldn't pledge their allegiance to the Cabbage"?

Change the word Hibs a few times and presto - the Qu'ran in a nutshell.

If you follow your argument to a logical conclusion, then any activity with a religious basis to it can be written of with "hey, thats humans for you" because they have acted on the basis of beliefs that re" ...flaws built within particular sects of people/the Church who have dangerous interpretations of the Bible". I would refer you to the "How True is the Bible" thread for a discussion on that claim.

I think you can pin the death on his religion, and his church. (http://www.unleavenedbreadministries.org)

[Just Jimmy]

You know, you remind me of the man that lived by the river. He heard a radio report that the river was going to rush up and flood the town. And that all the residents should evacuate their homes. But the man said, ‘I’m religious. I pray. God loves me. God will save me.’ The waters rose up. A guy in a row boat came along and he shouted, ‘Hey, hey you! You in there. The town is flooding. Let me take you to safety.’ But the man shouted back, ‘I’m religious. I pray. God loves me. God will save me.’ A helicopter was hovering overhead. And a guy with a megaphone shouted, ‘Hey you, you down there. The town is flooding. Let me drop this ladder and I’ll take you to safety.’ But the man shouted back that he was religious, that he prayed, that God loved him and that God will take him to safety. Well… the man drowned. And standing at the gates of St. Peter, he demanded an audience with God. ‘Lord,’ he said, ‘I’m a religious man, I pray. I thought you loved me. Why did this happen?’ God said, ‘I sent you a radio report, a helicopter, and a guy in a rowboat. What the hell are you doing here?’


From The West Wing - Season 1 "take this sabbath day"

[Sylar]

Change the word Hibs a few times and presto - the Qu'ran in a nutshell.

If you follow your argument to a logical conclusion, then any activity with a religious basis to it can be written of with "hey, thats humans for you" because they have acted on the basis of beliefs that re" ...flaws built within particular sects of people/the Church who have dangerous interpretations of the Bible". I would refer you to the "How True is the Bible" thread for a discussion on that claim.

I think you can pin the death on his religion, and his church. (http://www.unleavenedbreadministries.org)

Being that you've emphasised the correct part of your final sentence in italics, I agree with you wholeheartedly.

The flaw is in him not Him

[Twa Cairpets]

Being that you've emphasised the correct part of your final sentence in italics, I agree with you wholeheartedly.

The flaw is in him not Him

Whoah there neddy.

This guy is using his beliefs, his church agree with him (by the way you should click the link in the last post - scary, scary guys) and he is undeniably as committed a Christian as anyone on the planet by his standards - he did let his daughter die after all.

But because you dont agree with his interpretation of scripture, its him thats at fault. Are you sure? Why isn't he right and you wrong? Maybe it was Gods plan to let the little girl die.

Whether or not it is the examples of "death by prayer", or death by not allowing transfusion, or death by suicide bomb, they are unquestionably deaths caused by religion.

One wonders if God didn't want people to misinterpet the bible so appallingly that people regularly die needlessly why he didnt make it a damn site clearer what he was after.

[ancienthibby]

Whoah there neddy.

This guy is using his beliefs, his church agree with him (by the way you should click the link in the last post - scary, scary guys) and he is undeniably as committed a Christian as anyone on the planet by his standards - he did let his daughter die after all.

But because you dont agree with his interpretation of scripture, its him thats at fault. Are you sure? Why isn't he right and you wrong? Maybe it was Gods plan to let the little girl die.

Whether or not it is the examples of "death by prayer", or death by not allowing transfusion, or death by suicide bomb, they are unquestionably deaths caused by religion.

One wonders if God didn't want people to misinterpet the bible so appallingly that people regularly die needlessly why he didnt make it a damn site clearer what he was after.

TC,

This comment is quite unlike your normally rational and not so emotional posts and I trust it's posted as no more than something relating to a bad day at the office!

Scripture is very clear in that God unquestionably loves all His creation (yes, even you and me!) and as Jesus says in the NT, He longs to shelter all His children as a hen shelters her chicks under her wing.

But he also gives His creation free will and people are free to make their own decisions, as in believing in Him or not. That, necessarily and sadly, means that there will always be those who go their own way, either on their own or led by others (and just how many weird sects is the world witness to even now!) and this sad, sad case is no different.

It raised a large smile, but the post from 'wee mad mental hibby' was quite apposite, I thought. Sometimes we fallen people just fail to recognise the Lord when he is at work around us. I have no doubt that the wee child should have been saved, but the cause of that rests with the father and the supporters who pushed, cajoled, contrived, or whatever.

[Jack]

Any studies on instances where prayer has been successful where medicine has failed?

:stirrer:

No studies but as I understand it the last confirmed case was a chap called Lazarus :wink:

[Sylar]

Whoah there neddy.

This guy is using his beliefs, his church agree with him (by the way you should click the link in the last post - scary, scary guys) and he is undeniably as committed a Christian as anyone on the planet by his standards - he did let his daughter die after all.

But because you dont agree with his interpretation of scripture, its him thats at fault. Are you sure? Why isn't he right and you wrong? Maybe it was Gods plan to let the little girl die.

Whether or not it is the examples of "death by prayer", or death by not allowing transfusion, or death by suicide bomb, they are unquestionably deaths caused by religion.

One wonders if God didn't want people to misinterpet the bible so appallingly that people regularly die needlessly why he didnt make it a damn site clearer what he was after.

Because he has someone's death on his hands, and I don't?

There are so many branches of the Church (and other various religions) which preach extreme doctrines.

I guess the main problem with religion as a concept is that it IS open to interpretation, and so long as people (no matter how loopy their ideals are) can justify their interpretation, they will gain a following.

It takes a certain psyche to be attracted to a collection of ideals/teachings, hence why different people/communities have different churches in their locale?

[Bishop Hibee]

Any studies on instances where prayer has been successful where medicine has failed?

:stirrer:

http://www.thebostonpilot.com/article.asp?ID=10338

:stirrer:

[GlesgaeHibby]

I guess the main problem with religion as a concept is that it IS open to interpretation, and so long as people (no matter how loopy their ideals are) can justify their interpretation, they will gain a following.



Surely that is a major flaw of the Bible then? Why are there so many particular branches of christianity? Who is right, who is wrong? Which Christian groups are correctly following the Bible?

The Bible at times does focus on killing being ok, and then at others talks about loving everybody. Some choose to kill (the guy that murdered the abortion doctor) and some choose to ignore the killing and follow the loving teachings.

Some people choose to believe in a literal 6 day creation 6000 years ago, some try and fit scientific advancements to the Bible.

Everybody interprets the book differently. That's why religion is dangerous.

[Twa Cairpets]

[/B]TC,

This comment is quite unlike your normally rational and not so emotional posts and I trust it's posted as no more than something relating to a bad day at the office!

Scripture is very clear in that God unquestionably loves all His creation (yes, even you and me!) and as Jesus says in the NT, He longs to shelter all His children as a hen shelters her chicks under her wing.

But he also gives His creation free will and people are free to make their own decisions, as in believing in Him or not. That, necessarily and sadly, means that there will always be those who go their own way, either on their own or led by others (and just how many weird sects is the world witness to even now!) and this sad, sad case is no different.

It raised a large smile, but the post from 'wee mad mental hibby' was quite apposite, I thought. Sometimes we fallen people just fail to recognise the Lord when he is at work around us. I have no doubt that the wee child should have been saved, but the cause of that rests with the father and the supporters who pushed, cajoled, contrived, or whatever.

Ancient

Not a bad day at all.

Just reacting.

Point One - the bold bit. True as long as you don't count, for example, Gay people, apostates, or anyone of another religion. or anyone who was alive at the time of Noah. Or the inhabitants of Soddom. And if you were a slave, then you were loved presumably a little bit less?

This free will argument really is a major cop-out to my way of thinking. It puts the blame for anything God created that we dont like firmly at the feet of man. One mans weird sect is another mans absolute truth, and it is massively arrogant for a believer in one version to dismiss the others because he knows his way to be true. Its not an argument that can stand up to ant type of debate. I think this guy is evil, wrong and massively misguided, but we both have to admit that if there is a God, its every bit as likely that this mans version is as correct as yours.

The underlying point though is that religion (or at the very least one mans understanding of religion) has been the reason why this child died.

[Twa Cairpets]

Because he has someone's death on his hands, and I don't?

There are so many branches of the Church (and other various religions) which preach extreme doctrines.

I guess the main problem with religion as a concept is that it IS open to interpretation, and so long as people (no matter how loopy their ideals are) can justify their interpretation, they will gain a following.

It takes a certain psyche to be attracted to a collection of ideals/teachings, hence why different people/communities have different churches in their locale?

I agree with Glesgaes comments on this post totally.

I agree with you that from our moral standpoint, he did wrong. But from his - and his was based in his belief in God and the depth of his faith he was doing an absolute right.

Christopher Hitchens in particular views the belief in mild versions of God as giving credibilty to the extreme versions. Im not sure I agree with him 100% on this, but it is unarguable that of this man was not "a man of god", his child would not have died in this manner.

[Sylar]

Surely that is a major flaw of the Bible then? Why are there so many particular branches of christianity? Who is right, who is wrong? Which Christian groups are correctly following the Bible?

The Bible at times does focus on killing being ok, and then at others talks about loving everybody. Some choose to kill (the guy that murdered the abortion doctor) and some choose to ignore the killing and follow the loving teachings.

Some people choose to believe in a literal 6 day creation 6000 years ago, some try and fit scientific advancements to the Bible.

Everybody interprets the book differently. That's why religion is dangerous.

You can't stand religion alone in this sense though.

Absolutely every document, written, recorded or stored can be assessed, read and interpreted differently. It's the very reason people site violent films, musical lyrics and works of literary fiction as the reasoning for mass killings, thefts, rapes etc etc.

Anything which can potentially influence us has the power to be interpreted differently by every single person who interacts with whatever the object (etc) is.

Surely it is up to the person to assess how their interpretation of something has a potential influence on a larger scale, and not the author.

It's a bit like reading a crime novel, acting out in a copycat manner, then suing the author under grounds of diminished responsibility because the storyline put suggestion in your mind.

[Twa Cairpets]

http://www.thebostonpilot.com/article.asp?ID=10338

:stirrer:

Interesting article.

If Im reading it right, in summary, a bloke has a bad back that has suddenly come on, and then it got better around the same time as he said a prayer. Miraculous in itself surely? But no! Eight months later, his back goes again, and worse this time. Another wee prayer, and bingo, all is cured.

Now, call me a cynic, but a few things spring to mind.

1) If this is proof that prayer works, devotees should be aware that the repair is a time-limited offer, apparently eight months in the case of backs.
2) The to-be-beatified dead cleric has offered two miracles, on the same blokes dodgy back, in the whole hundred years of being dead. Hardly a resounding score-card, or do certain would-be saints specialise in lower-lumbar issues and sciatica?
3) The church decide if it is a miracle. The church! Im guessing they are not wholly disinterested. How do they prove it was prayer. Have they never heard of Regression to the Mean? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_fallacy) Have they come across the concept of Occams Razor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor)? I would love to see how they go about proving the miracle. Honestly, i really would.

"How is your back?"
"Better than it was"
"Good to hear"
"Yes, it really is much much better"
"Taken anything for it?"
"Nope, just a few specific words to a dead cleric I heard about on telly"
"Well thats it then, case proved"

[Sir David Gray]

Whilst I don't believe in not seeking medical advice when you have a potentially fatal, but treatable, condition, I do believe in the power of prayer and I think that it can and does work alongside the medicines/operations etc in order to restore good health.

A lot of people may laugh and scoff at this but I know of someone who went to the hospital a few years ago and, after a few tests, they were told that they had a torn hamstring. It was to take a couple of months before they had a full recovery. However, one of their friends placed their hands on the affected area and prayed for them. The hamstring had fully recovered within days.

Whilst I accept that the above example is different from someone having a potentially fatal disease or illness, I do believe that prayer is a very powerful thing.

[Twa Cairpets]

You can't stand religion alone in this sense though.

Absolutely every document, written, recorded or stored can be assessed, read and interpreted differently. It's the very reason people site violent films, musical lyrics and works of literary fiction as the reasoning for mass killings, thefts, rapes etc etc.

Anything which can potentially influence us has the power to be interpreted differently by every single person who interacts with whatever the object (etc) is.

Surely it is up to the person to assess how their interpretation of something has a potential influence on a larger scale, and not the author.

It's a bit like reading a crime novel, acting out in a copycat manner, then suing the author under grounds of diminished responsibility because the storyline put suggestion in your mind.

I completely disagree with this. Your analogy is not valid.

A crime novel does not claim to have moral authority given by the divine word of a creator.
A song lyric does not require you to behave in a certain way or face eternal damnation
A violent film does not require you to place faith over science in matters of medicine.

The behaviour of the individual when they act in a certain way as a result of the above is an absolutely human one.

However, take Jehovahs Witnesses injunction against blood products as a case rather than the prayer death (as that is an extreme case) as a completely religious decision. A person denies the treatment of a family member with blood products who is, say, unconscious after a car crash because it is "against their religion". It might raise a few eyebrows, but it is accepted, and the family member ultimately dies. If the same person says "you cant treat him with blood products because I heard it in a song lyric", then they are carted off to the nearest padded room and their family member gets the treatment needed and recovers.

[Twa Cairpets]

Whilst I don't believe in not seeking medical advice when you have a potentially fatal, but treatable, condition, I do believe in the power of prayer and I think that it can and does work alongside the medicines/operations etc in order to restore good health.

A lot of people may laugh and scoff at this but I know of someone who went to the hospital a few years ago and, after a few tests, they were told that they had a torn hamstring. It was to take a couple of months before they had a full recovery. However, one of their friends placed their hands on the affected area and prayed for them. The hamstring had fully recovered within days.

Whilst I accept that the above example is different from someone having a potentially fatal disease or illness, I do believe that prayer is a very powerful thing.

Falkirk, they will laugh and scoff because it is laughable. I took my son to hospital when he had a bad football injury. The doctors told him to rest his ankle and stay off it as much as possible for 3-4 weeks as the ligaments were torn. You know what? Two to three days later he was fine, and played football again the next weekend. And no-one had laid a hand on him, no therapeutic touch therapy, no praying. It just got better. How do you explain that?

Time after time believers in all types of thoroughly disproven and debunked nonsense such as the therapeutic power of prayer or touch therapy use anecdotal evidence as proof. Its absolutely not.

The plural of anecdote is anecdotes, not data.

[Sylar]

I completely disagree with this. Your analogy is not valid.

A crime novel does not claim to have moral authority given by the divine word of a creator.
A song lyric does not require you to behave in a certain way or face eternal damnation
A violent film does not require you to place faith over science in matters of medicine.

The behaviour of the individual when they act in a certain way as a result of the above is an absolutely human one.

However, take Jehovahs Witnesses injunction against blood products as a case rather than the prayer death (as that is an extreme case) as a completely religious decision. A person denies the treatment of a family member with blood products who is, say, unconscious after a car crash because it is "against their religion". It might raise a few eyebrows, but it is accepted, and the family member ultimately dies. If the same person says "you cant treat him with blood products because I heard it in a song lyric", then they are carted off to the nearest padded room and their family member gets the treatment needed and recovers.

My analogy is not comparative against the Bible - I was merely using it as an illustrative tool of how people can interpret things in different manners.

For what it's worth, I have the same frowning opinion of Jehovah's, as many of their "interpretations" are extremely flawed. The refusal of blood transfusions is perhaps the best example - they also believe (as I understand) that only 1000 followers are granted passage to heaven...

I appreciate, in some cases, the power of Prayer as a healer - I've listened to a few stories from close friends who visited Lourdes several years ago, and some of the stories they were told by local Priests were quite astonishing. Many physical symptoms can stem from neurological disorders, and perhaps prayer provides the faith and strength to face ones ailments? I generally don't know - as a Catholic, I'm unwilling to dismiss the possibility of miracles, but as a scientist, I tend to have a more reasonable approach - there are many things science cannot explain though.

I'm sure there's a particular sect in America who refuse any form of medical treatment on the grounds of faith-based citations. It's ludicrous to be honest. But these "teachings" stem from the original interpretations of their founding member (Charles Russell) and his students. The very church of Jehovah is built upon the studies made by Russell and his followers - they study and research the same Bible as every other branch of Christianity, yet there are only a handful of extreme Churches with these strange "doctrines".

As such, I am of the opinion that it is people who are the problem, not the written word of the Bible itself.

I don't disagree with the points your making, I'm perhaps just not debating with any real degree of clarity.

[Sir David Gray]

Falkirk, they will laugh and scoff because it is laughable. I took my son to hospital when he had a bad football injury. The doctors told him to rest his ankle and stay off it as much as possible for 3-4 weeks as the ligaments were torn. You know what? Two to three days later he was fine, and played football again the next weekend. And no-one had laid a hand on him, no therapeutic touch therapy, no praying. It just got better. How do you explain that?

Time after time believers in all types of thoroughly disproven and debunked nonsense such as the therapeutic power of prayer or touch therapy use anecdotal evidence as proof. Its absolutely not.

The plural of anecdote is anecdotes, not data.

Fair enough, I expected that kind of response. I just thought I would add my view and experiences of the thread issue.

I know what you are saying about your experience with the torn ankle ligaments. You put that particular quick recovery down to luck. I would put my experience down to the powers of prayer.

I'm not saying I am definitely 100% correct because, as I have said on several occasions, I can never be totally sure about anything related to faith because I can't prove the existence of God for a start. However, it is something that I have a pretty strong belief in.

[Twa Cairpets]

Fair enough, I expected that kind of response. I just thought I would add my view and experiences of the thread issue.

I know what you are saying about your experience with the torn ankle ligaments. You put that particular quick recovery down to luck. I would put my experience down to the powers of prayer.

I'm not saying I am definitely 100% correct because, as I have said on several occasions, I can never be totally sure about anything related to faith because I can't prove the existence of God for a start. However, it is something that I have a pretty strong belief in.

I'm glad I havent let you down!

As a religious man, I guess you pray a lot. But I would guess that every time you pray and something you prayed for doesnt happen, you either forget that it didnt happen or put it down to not praying hard enough. When something does happen, rather than it being coincidence or luck, you see it as a direct result of your prayer. If i'm right (and I bet I am), it is classic confirmation bias (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias).

I accept that you cant prove anything relating to faith - its utterly impossible to prove or disprove, (which is one of the reasons why its so interesting to discuss) but the starting to point to either re-affirm and strengthen your faith or discard it is surely to look at it critically?

[Sir David Gray]

I'm glad I havent let you down!

As a religious man, I guess you pray a lot. But I would guess that every time you pray and something you prayed for doesnt happen, you either forget that it didnt happen or put it down to not praying hard enough. When something does happen, rather than it being coincidence or luck, you see it as a direct result of your prayer. If i'm right (and I bet I am), it is classic confirmation bias (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias).

I accept that you cant prove anything relating to faith - its utterly impossible to prove or disprove, (which is one of the reasons why its so interesting to discuss) but the starting to point to either re-affirm and strengthen your faith or discard it is surely to look at it critically?

Yes quite often things happen which people have prayed not to happen.

It's hard sometimes to understand why every single prayer isn't granted especially when, in our minds at least, the prayer is for a perfectly reasonable cause. All I can say to answer that is that I believe everything happens for a reason. Sometimes those reasons seem incomprehensible to us but I still believe that there is a reason behind it.

I have heard of quite a few Christians, who have a far deeper faith than I have, who often talk about getting frustrated, sometimes even angry, with God because they do not always get what they have prayed for.

A lot of people think that being a Christian is easy, that you just explain everything by using God. It is anything but easy.

[Bishop Hibee]

Interesting article.

If Im reading it right, in summary, a bloke has a bad back that has suddenly come on, and then it got better around the same time as he said a prayer. Miraculous in itself surely? But no! Eight months later, his back goes again, and worse this time. Another wee prayer, and bingo, all is cured.

Now, call me a cynic, but a few things spring to mind.

1) If this is proof that prayer works, devotees should be aware that the repair is a time-limited offer, apparently eight months in the case of backs.
2) The to-be-beatified dead cleric has offered two miracles, on the same blokes dodgy back, in the whole hundred years of being dead. Hardly a resounding score-card, or do certain would-be saints specialise in lower-lumbar issues and sciatica?
3) The church decide if it is a miracle. The church! Im guessing they are not wholly disinterested. How do they prove it was prayer. Have they never heard of Regression to the Mean? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_fallacy) Have they come across the concept of Occams Razor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor)? I would love to see how they go about proving the miracle. Honestly, i really would.

"How is your back?"
"Better than it was"
"Good to hear"
"Yes, it really is much much better"
"Taken anything for it?"
"Nope, just a few specific words to a dead cleric I heard about on telly"
"Well thats it then, case proved"

It takes slightly more than what you are suggesting above to "make" a saint.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/csaints/documents/rc_con_csaints_doc_20070517_sanctorum-mater_en.html

The whole process tends to take years and the majority of cases don't get very far.

Back to religion being dangerous, the amount of selfless good work that religious people do negates that. Look at the amount of schools in Africa for example that are run by religious groups.

Here's one in India where the teachers are funded by someone I know personally who is motivated by her religious beliefs:

http://www.pauline-westbengal.blogspot.com

Posters can proclaim their atheism as loud as they like that doesn't bother me. Ill informed generalizations that "religion is dangerous" are frankly absurd.

[Twa Cairpets]

It takes slightly more than what you are suggesting above to "make" a saint.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/csaints/documents/rc_con_csaints_doc_20070517_sanctorum-mater_en.html

The whole process tends to take years and the majority of cases don't get very far.

Back to religion being dangerous, the amount of selfless good work that religious people do negates that. Look at the amount of schools in Africa for example that are run by religious groups.

Here's one in India where the teachers are funded by someone I know personally who is motivated by her religious beliefs:

http://www.pauline-westbengal.blogspot.com

Posters can proclaim their atheism as loud as they like that doesn't bother me. Ill informed generalizations that "religion is dangerous" are frankly absurd.

As are ill informed and presumptive generalisations that religion is good.

I'm sure your friend is doing excellent work, and I salute her (as long as she not seeking to evangelise/proseytise when she's over there) for her dedication. But your take on it suggests (although Im sure its not what you mean) that religion is a vital element for anyone wanting to do this kind of work. It isnt. So it doesnt matter if religious people do it. Atheists do it, agnostics do it so it really is a by-the-by.



"Back to religion being dangerous, the amount of selfless good work that religious people do negates that. Look at the amount of schools in Africa for example that are run by religious groups."

What? So if there are bad things that happen as a result of religion then it doesnt really matter because there are good things too? I don't think thats how its meant to work!

[J-C]

Falkirk, could you pray for my hip, was told 4-6 weeks but it's bloody sore :greengrin

Two Carpets, I enjoy reading your posts, you're obviously a very well read guy and put your points over very well. I agree with almost everything you say to a point but I still enjoy hearing the other side of discussions to advance my own knowledge.

[Brizo]

It takes slightly more than what you are suggesting above to "make" a saint.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/csaints/documents/rc_con_csaints_doc_20070517_sanctorum-mater_en.html

The whole process tends to take years and the majority of cases don't get very far.

Back to religion being dangerous, the amount of selfless good work that religious people do negates that. Look at the amount of schools in Africa for example that are run by religious groups.

Here's one in India where the teachers are funded by someone I know personally who is motivated by her religious beliefs:

http://www.pauline-westbengal.blogspot.com

Posters can proclaim their atheism as loud as they like that doesn't bother me. Ill informed generalizations that "religion is dangerous" are frankly absurd.

:agree: Im with you on this one BH.

What I find interesting is that the common perception is that its the "god botherers" who are always pushing their views at the non religious. In Hibs.net world anyway it seems that nearly all, if not all, threads regarding religion are started by atheists or people critical of religion. That is of course absolutely fine and ive read some fascinating stuff from the atheist perspective. However I might be wrong but ive rarely seen a pro religion thread started by a person of religious faith. That seems to fly in the face of the common perception and in .net world anyway it seems that the atheist community are far more concened with debunking religion than the religious are in converting atheists :devil:

Like you BH im quite happy for atheists to have their sincerely held beliefs. As long as they allow me to have mine and dont try to convert me :duck: :greengrin

[Jack]

It takes slightly more than what you are suggesting above to "make" a saint.


http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/csaints/documents/rc_con_csaints_doc_20070517_sanctorum-mater_en.html (http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/csaints/documents/rc_con_csaints_doc_20070517_sanctorum-mater_en.html)

The whole process tends to take years and the majority of cases don't get very far.

Back to religion being dangerous, the amount of selfless good work that religious people do negates that. Look at the amount of schools in Africa for example that are run by religious groups.

Here's one in India where the teachers are funded by someone I know personally who is motivated by her religious beliefs:

http://www.pauline-westbengal.blogspot.com (http://www.pauline-westbengal.blogspot.com/)

Posters can proclaim their atheism as loud as they like that doesn't bother me. Ill informed generalizations that "religion is dangerous" are frankly absurd.

A bad deed is a bad deed and no matter how many good deeds are done the bad is still bad – wan wee murrderr and all that!

The amount of “selfless good work” done by religious people is, IMO, up for debate. Selfless good work would not include ramming Christianity, or any other religion, down the throats of those they a purporting to help. Your Gods, which are part of your heritage and culture are wrong, come to my Church on a Sunday and support mine or all these goodies, food and medicines, will stay in my bag.

In the case of Catholic ‘selfless good work’. Their intransigence to even consider that they may be wrong and their dogmatic approach to the HIV/AIDS/condom discussion, flying in the face of all the scientific evidence, would make them my mind the least attractive, and most deadly, option in helping out ‘my African village’.

Throughout history wars have been caused by a difference of religious opinion, many many millions have died. Throughout history those fighting have claimed their god to be on their side and the educated clerics have driven the uneducated but indoctrinated masses to their death.

Religion is no saint, it’s a sinner and a bloody dangerous one at that.

[Twa Cairpets]

Falkirk, could you pray for my hip, was told 4-6 weeks but it's bloody sore :greengrin

Two Carpets, I enjoy reading your posts, you're obviously a very well read guy and put your points over very well. I agree with almost everything you say to a point but I still enjoy hearing the other side of discussions to advance my own knowledge.

:embarrass Thanks for the comments JC50. If people didnt have different views it would be a very dull world.

[Twa Cairpets]

:agree: Im with you on this one BH.

What I find interesting is that the common perception is that its the "god botherers" who are always pushing their views at the non religious. In Hibs.net world anyway it seems that nearly all, if not all, threads regarding religion are started by atheists or people critical of religion. That is of course absolutely fine and ive read some fascinating stuff from the atheist perspective. However I might be wrong but ive rarely seen a pro religion thread started by a person of religious faith. That seems to fly in the face of the common perception and in .net world anyway it seems that the atheist community are far more concened with debunking religion than the religious are in converting atheists :devil:

Like you BH im quite happy for atheists to have their sincerely held beliefs. As long as they allow me to have mine and dont try to convert me :duck: :greengrin

Fair point Brizo. With the exception of Ancient, who has occasionally and very politely wished me well in my search for God, no-one has posted anything on any of the recent religion threads that could be construed as a direct attempt to convert.

Any discussion, however, on this topic must involve taking a position and advancing ideas in its favour, or it would be a very insipid board indeed.

I've no interest in converting anyone - mostly because Ive nothing to convert anyone to. But I think its fair to pick up elements of religion such as the OP in this thread and explore them. I think you might struggle to find many/any stories along the lines of "Lack of belief in God inspired me to kill", or "Atheist tell non-believer that blood transfusion is wrong - patient dies"

[ancienthibby]

Ancient

Not a bad day at all.

Just reacting.

Point One - the bold bit. True as long as you don't count, for example, Gay people, apostates, or anyone of another religion. or anyone who was alive at the time of Noah. Or the inhabitants of Soddom. And if you were a slave, then you were loved presumably a little bit less?

This free will argument really is a major cop-out to my way of thinking. It puts the blame for anything God created that we dont like firmly at the feet of man. One mans weird sect is another mans absolute truth, and it is massively arrogant for a believer in one version to dismiss the others because he knows his way to be true. Its not an argument that can stand up to ant type of debate. I think this guy is evil, wrong and massively misguided, but we both have to admit that if there is a God, its every bit as likely that this mans version is as correct as yours.

The underlying point though is that religion (or at the very least one mans understanding of religion) has been the reason why this child died.


Can't let you away with that one - it is just so unscriptural! There are no exceptions, no exclusions to the love of God! That is the point point of the parable of the 99 sheep and the effort to find and secure the one that was lost.

On the other point of free will, I agree that it is a major difficulty for believing Christians, but I can't see it being any other way. God has given all people the right as individuals to follow Him or not - that is their choice (leaving aside the argument of 'the elect') and, as has been posted before, the crux of the Christian gospel is a personal relationship with God through Jesus. If that means a plethora of individual views then so be it, but even that is partly accommodated in what is now called 'the broad church'.

There is no defense for the way this little girl was mistreated.

[ancienthibby]

Yes quite often things happen which people have prayed not to happen.

It's hard sometimes to understand why every single prayer isn't granted especially when, in our minds at least, the prayer is for a perfectly reasonable cause. All I can say to answer that is that I believe everything happens for a reason. Sometimes those reasons seem incomprehensible to us but I still believe that there is a reason behind it.

I have heard of quite a few Christians, who have a far deeper faith than I have, who often talk about getting frustrated, sometimes even angry, with God because they do not always get what they have prayed for.

A lot of people think that being a Christian is easy, that you just explain everything by using God. It is anything but easy.

If that's so, Falkirk, you should then encourage them to pray instead for God's will to be done with respect to the subject matter they are praying for. Scripture is quite clear that God does answer prayers made in accordance with His will and He gives grace to those whose prayers are not answered as they might wish.

This latter aspect is a key to real Christian growth!.

[PeeJay]

Can't let you away with that one - it is just so unscriptural! There are no exceptions, no exclusions to the love of God! That is the point point of the parable of the 99 sheep and the effort to find and secure the one that was lost.


No exclusions? So when Moses came down from the mountain and saw God's chosen people dancing round the golden calf, whereupon he broke the tablets and then proceeded to kill everyone be they child, elderly, infirm or whatsoever, - God - presumably still up the top of the mountain - thought to himself "They had it coming ..." Funny kind of love that, surely?

Or what about the Passover - first born all sentenced to death by the "angel of the lord" - and so on and so on!

And while I'm in the mood: why do you say no exclusions when it's plain to anyone who can read that God's "love" is so very selective?
This selective/collective amnesia on the part of the religious is what makes them and religion so dangerous IMO.

I just don't get how you can write - "no exclusions"??:confused:
Unless of course - in the good old Christian manner - you mean, as long as you're on our side??

[ancienthibby]

No exclusions? So when Moses came down from the mountain and saw God's chosen people dancing round the golden calf, whereupon he broke the tablets and then proceeded to kill everyone be they child, elderly, infirm or whatsoever, - God - presumably still up the top of the mountain - thought to himself "They had it coming ..." Funny kind of love that, surely?

Or what about the Passover - first born all sentenced to death by the "angel of the lord" - and so on and so on!

And while I'm in the mood: why do you say no exclusions when it's plain to anyone who can read that God's "love" is so very selective?
This selective/collective amnesia on the part of the religious is what makes them and religion so dangerous IMO.

I just don't get how you can write - "no exclusions"??:confused:
Unless of course - in the good old Christian manner - you mean, as long as you're on our side??

You need to move forward and read the New Testament!

There you will find that the promise of the Old Testament to provide atonement for sin is fulfilled in Christ. Throughout all the pain of the OT, there is always a looking forward to the coming of a Messiah - even at the time of the Exodus from Egypt there was the offering of a sacrificial lamb - and that expectation is fulfilled in the Lord Jesus.

The NT repeatedly says that new life in Christ is offered to all - without exception!

[PeeJay]

You need to move forward and read the New Testament!

You sure you're not moving the goalposts here?

I've read the NT (some of it at least). Jesus doesn't even object to slavery in it: if it be God's will - so how do you relate to that? Is slavery Ok by you?

I also find 'atonement for original sin' to be (as Dawkins puts it) morally obnoxious - you do realise that A & E's supposed sin basically 'condemned every child before it was even born to bear the sins of some ancestor??
No single child is excluded here!

Maybe you need to move forward - into the 21st century:wink:???

[ancienthibby]

You sure you're not moving the goalposts here?

I've read the NT (some of it at least). Jesus doesn't even object to slavery in it: if it be God's will - so how do you relate to that? Is slavery Ok by you?

I also find 'atonement for original sin' to be (as Dawkins puts it) morally obnoxious - you do realise that A & E's supposed sin basically 'condemned every child before it was even born to bear the sins of some ancestor??
No single child is excluded here!

Maybe you need to move forward - into the 21st century:wink:???

The New Testament makes it very clear that Christ's coming brings with it the abandonment of all such categories, since there then becomes only two: those who accept the Lord's invitation to follow him and those who don't. See Galations 3 27-29.

I am no language scholar in Aramaic or Hebrew and so rely on those who say that, in any event, the better word is 'servant' and not 'slave'. This I think is especially true of those who chose to follow the Lord and have no issues with being described as 'a servant of the living Lord'.

Old Testament scripture always looked forward to a coming Messiah who would be the one and for all atonement for sin. That was accomplished in the coming of Christ.