Has religion and the concept of god outlived it's usefulness? (America, churches)

[bUU]

Originally Posted by mordant

All-righty, then. Paradoxes, riddles, and deepities have convinced me.

Try taking the comments in context. You'll realize that they aren't paradoxes or riddles.

Originally Posted by mordant

It is a lot like the commendations one gets for psychotherapy, but in practice, "trained and qualified" has little relationship to "talented", ultimately, and you end up going through a half dozen practitioners before you find one that has some sort of intuitive grasp of the human condition, much less your particular rendition of it.

We're not talking about therapy. If you go to church looking for therapy, you will invariably be disappointed.

Originally Posted by mordant

Anyway with regard to small groups, the place I go turns small groups into a crap shoot.

Given that nothing has unlimited resources, it is the best one can expect.

Originally Posted by mordant

I am not convinced that most people really want to vent in front of others or find some similar cathartic release

Which is why that has very little to do with what we're discussing, but it seems like it is the only manner by which you want to consider the small group process. As such, we're not going to be able to make any progress in our discussion.

[mordant]

Originally Posted by bUU

We're not talking about therapy. If you go to church looking for therapy, you will invariably be disappointed.

Church <> therapy. Agreed. However, facilitating better relationships and better adjusted living via either method requires a certain native ... for lack of a better word, "knack", and Just Okay or outstanding ability represents an order of magnitude of difference.

My late wife had hair-raising experiences with "small groups" but that was in the Shepherding movement in the 80's. The concept isn't magic, it can be used for good or ill, or can be a colossal waste of time, or the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Originally Posted by bUU

Given that nothing has unlimited resources, it is the best one can expect.

I wouldn't argue otherwise.

Originally Posted by bUU

Which is why that has very little to do with what we're discussing, but it seems like it is the only manner by which you want to consider the small group process. As such, we're not going to be able to make any progress in our discussion.

It's not really the only way I can view the "process", but it is a reasonable defensive concern. Some of the people pushing small groups here locally seem to act like it is about some sort of contrived / forced "intimacy" where you're supposed to open up and trust everyone with your private stuff, and assume that everyone is going to honor the confidentiality thereof. If I can bring myself to try the one group that is actually available to me I may potentially be regarded as a turd who doesn't contribute because I don't warm up to such notions very quickly. Maybe I will be pleasantly surprised though.

But in all honesty what has proven plenty adequate for me is a simple morning coffee appointment with some other men for purely social purposes and occasional activities together. No grand vision of an idealized community, but if I were still living in that area and attending that group, they would have my back as well or better than any "churchy" version of such things I have been exposed to. In fact when my wife died one of those guys awkwardly came up to me and said three words that were more helpful than all the flowery things anyone could have said: "Walk it off". This advice had weight because his wife had died face down in her spaghetti from a brain hemorrhage at a restaurant just a couple years earlier. And he was right: it was just what I needed. I walked like a madman for months. It kept my head out of my ... well, you know.

That is really the form actual supportiveness takes. Maybe that's what you're talking about?

[MysticPhD]

No. Religion as some exclusive and special knowledge and understanding of God may have . . . but there are so many different levels of enlightenment within humanity that it may still be needed for some. It can be hoped that the barbatiy will eventually be outgrown by all within humanity . . .but it is not yet true. God, however, will never be outgrown . . . just better understood, IMO.

[Rotagivan]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

...God, however, will never be outgrown . . . just better understood, IMO.

Perhaps She will be better understood...one day...

[Continuum]

Originally Posted by Freak80

^ I was dead before I was born, and it was no problem.

Existential dilemma solved.

Here is an interesting quote from Epicurus ['I am' changed to 'I-am']] .

Why should I fear death?
If I am, then death is not.
If Death is, then 'I-am' not.
Why should I fear that which can only exist when I do not?
Long time men lay oppressed with slavish fear.
Religious tyranny did domineer.
At length the mighty one of Greece
Began to assent the liberty of man.”

The existential dilemma manifest from an instinct embedded in one's DNA/RNA that is difficult to be rationalized or psycho-analyzed away by the majority. Perhaps you are able to do so but there is no guarantee how one's brain will progress or rather regress in time.

Across the world, people have varying levels of belief (and disbelief) in God, with some nations being more devout than others. But new research reveals one constant across parts of the globe: As people age, their belief in God seems to increase.
Older People Hold Stronger Belief in God | Atheism & Most Religious Countries

The reason is as one grow older the inhibitors that modulate the existential dilemma weakens due to natural atrophy of the brain cells. Then the existential dilemma will manifest more actively.

Note what happened to Anthony Flew, the once most notable atheist during his time.
His brain gave way and he relapse into believing in a god, albeit deism not theism but nevertheless still believe in a god.

How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind.
How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind | Strange Notions

The Eastern religions and philosophies are more effective in modulating the existential dilemma in that they make an attempt using the outside-the-box approach to strengthen the specific neural inhibitors.
The Abrahamic religions merely made the attempt to grab at straws in the middle of a deep ocean that provide pseudo relieve.

Nevertheless I am very optimistic in the near future humanity will be able to modulate the existential dilemma on a more targeted basis from inside-the-box rather than from the current outside-the-box approach.

[bUU]

Originally Posted by mordant

Church <> therapy. Agreed. However, facilitating better relationships and better adjusted living via either method requires a certain native ... for lack of a better word, "knack", and Just Okay or outstanding ability represents an order of magnitude of difference.

That's simply not true. I know of many people who make great strides in this regard simply through private meditation, though even more is offered by interacting within a group as well. Can there be bad experiences? Sure. Anything is possible. However, that's not the general case in any religious community I know about (not even within those religious communities that stand viscerally in opposition to my own - they may abide offensive values as it pertains to others, but with only minor exception religious communities of all ilks are constructively compassionate toward their own members).

Originally Posted by mordant

My late wife had hair-raising experiences with "small groups" but that was in the Shepherding movement in the 80's.

I respect the fact that, having not experienced it yourself, you find yourself unable to grant that there is substantial positive contribution stemming from being embraced within a religious community. I'll simply hope you eventually give up the assumption that your own personal anecdotal experiences in this regard are indicative of the general case.

Originally Posted by mordant

It's not really the only way I can view the "process", but it is a reasonable defensive concern. Some of the people pushing small groups here locally seem to act like it is about some sort of contrived / forced "intimacy" where you're supposed to open up and trust everyone with your private stuff, and assume that everyone is going to honor the confidentiality thereof.

Forgive me for saying it, but that seems like a very paranoid way of viewing what's we're talking about. It takes time and effort (and openness to the process, of course) to build up trust. People who are reckless with regard to their self-protection are going to be reckless regardless, and the rest are going to wait until they actually know the people they're with and actually have developed real trust with them. There is nothing "forced" about this. It is simply natural human interaction in a context within which the vast majority of people would be forthright about their intentions.

Originally Posted by mordant

In fact when my wife died one of those guys awkwardly came up to me and said three words that were more helpful than all the flowery things anyone could have said: "Walk it off".

In our community, people are more likely to ask: "How are you?" This isn't because they're being "flowery" - it is because they care. But again I respect the fact that, having not experienced it yourself, you find yourself unable to grant that there is substantial positive contribution stemming from being embraced within a religious community.

[mordant]

Originally Posted by bUU

... I respect the fact that, having not experienced it yourself, you find yourself unable to grant that there is substantial positive contribution stemming from being embraced within a religious community.

Well thank you for granting that respect. I actually WILL grant that there CAN BE a substantial positive effect from the sort of embracing that CAN go on within any community, including religious ones. But there are also people like me with a long history of negative experiences within religious communities (admittedly ones barnacled with particular axes they are obliged to grind and likely relatively more tone deaf than most) and some people are more withheld and less open both by nature and due to other life experiences.

Speaking for myself, and I think my wife feels very similarly, the idea of such things appeals way more than the approach-avoidance we feel in actually attempting it. But who knows, with a long cold winter likely ahead (the NE US appears to be one of the few areas of the world not marinating in its own juices this year) one or both of us might even give it a whirl.

[bUU]

Know that you'll be welcomed at our church.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by Continuum

H..

How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind.
How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind | Strange Notions

....

Anthony Flew was badly misguided. But it was on the basis of science, reason and evidence. not a brain collapse. All he did was allow himself to be persuaded by Behe's arguments for a god being necessary for life to evolve. It was a good argument and the best effort Creationism made for evidence for God. So far as i know he merely accepted that the evidence was so persuasive that he could no longer say that there was no plausible reason to suppose a god and that was as far as his abandonment of atheism went. He never became a Bible believer or Christian in the slightest.

I had some doubts about the way genetics was misrepresented to make it look 'mechanical' and I opted to wait and see. Perhaps Flew was too hasty. Perhaps he found out in the midst of his book on how he abandoned the atheist stance that he had been bamboozled. The debunking of irreducible complexity totally scuppered Behe. Regrettable, Flew died before he could come forward and say he'd been suckered. Because suckered he was.

I/C was examined at the Dover trial 9where Creationists teachers tried to smuggle Creationists textbooks into their school and lied about it in court. To hell with man -made law, eh? It was found to be not science, without foundation, was Creationism in disguise and moreover "Scientific" Creationism was shown in court to be religious teaching and moreover teaching that tried to debunk evolution -theory. Maybe I'll post that you tube where ID'ers are now trying to pretend that they are not Creationists at all.

In any case, Flew was fooled but all credit to him and to rationality by extension - that - presented with convincing evidence he changed his mind, and so would I and all atheists.

It is the Believers who will never change their mind -no matter what evidence is presented. So Flew cannot be used in the religion debate other than to the humiliation of Creationism, and those religious apologists who trot out 'Flew converted' as though it did anything for them but expose the skein of lies and deceit that is needed to keep this myth going.

If anything, Flew's courageous if misguided change of view does rationality and atheism a good deal more credit.

P.s I would not that Wiker's q. about morality was handled sensibly by Flew. His god was one needed to make evolution work. It was not one that got involved in good or evil, moral codes or afterlife punishment. There was nothing wrong with his head.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by bUU

Know that you'll be welcomed at our church.

I'm beginning to think that you are the kind of Christian we can do business with.