Church finsd wonderful, terrible news

[Kralizec]

Then enlighten me, oh enlightened one. You obviously disagree, probably swallowing the Church's propaganda that it saved (ha!) classical culture from the hairy barbarian masses.

My view of the rise of the dark age is a lot more nuanced than that, or your own for that matter. The "medievalisation" of Europe had started when the empire was still going strong, when emperors encouraged the building of churches and monasteries and closed down temples, amphitheaters and bathing houses. Classicist culture never died out abruptly, or even died at all, but it evolved into something else.
Catholicism was not some external power that purposefully sought out the destruction of Roman society. The Romans tried to hijack christianity (if you can't beat them, join them!), and turned it into a state religion. This fusion of a judaist sect and Roman institutionalism became the Roman Catholic church, wich did many horrorible things, but it is one of the channels through wich our Roman heritage has survived. To deny it is folly.

Besides, and the person you responded to referred to christianity (in general) as part of our cultural heritage (in general). Wich is true in any case.

[Blodrast]

The whole point of the article is that they managed indeed to get a sense of moral values outside of the church.

What appears to have risen according to the article, are people who are quite happy, well adjusted, focused on the family, and finding life meaningful.

I guess that's rather open to interpretation. People being happy has nothing to do with morality. Heck, I might be happy in a lawless environment, where I could do as I please without a conscience, without remorse, and most likely without consequences ("afterlife", burn in hell, etc, etc).

The church and its learnings, like most other things, are neither purely good nor purely evil.
There is a lot of good in the principles - much less in the way they've been applied through history (see in particular Inquisition, crimes in the name of some god or other, etc, etc).
That is as valid of church as of any other institution, or perhaps even more so - I'll definitely grant you that. But that doesn't change the fact that the principles, the learning, and all the things it stands for (and NOT _how_ it propagates them), are, in essence, good.

(Analogy: US starts war in the name of "freedom", "democracy". People die (it's a war, duh). People dying is a bad thing. Does that mean that the ideals of freedom and democracy suck? No, it simply means that perhaps the means by which they were implemented sucked, or were simply not the best. Let's not start a discussion about whether I'm anti-US, pro-Bush, whether the war is right or wrong, or any of that crap. I gave this particular example because it's familiar to everybody, 'cause we're beating this old horse to afterlife :) ).

On a different note, I'm not saying that the church is the only place where people can turn to for moral values and such - far from it. But it's one of the main ones, and I ask you again (in absolutely shocking (to me, anyway) agreement with Panzer), if people don't take some of their moral values and principles from the church, where will they take them from ?
If the church goes, what will fill the gap ?
If you argue that the church doesn't actually fill any need, then I guess we probably disagree on the fact that I've explained above - that is, the ideas and moral values that the church pushes forward are good, regardless of the corruption inside the institution, the hypocrisy, and whatever mistakes are made from time to time.


(Damn, I must sound like a monk, or something
I assure you I'm not, and I have my own disagreements with the church and certain parts of religion.

[Sjakihata]

What will fill the gap? In a lofty mood, one could dream of idealised greek polis-societies, working both the intellect and the muscles while having dialoguges on morality and other ideas. That would be a good kettle for the origin of morals, but knowing the world, something like or similar to scientilogy will probably fill the gap.

Just keep in mind, the church havent always been there, morality was "invented" outside the church, the church doesnt equal morality. (see my previous post on Nietzsche).

[Louis VI the Fat]

Blodrast, I take an analogy for just that. Nor would I consider you a zealous monk, but a poster capable of producing a coherent and meaningful post. There's no need for all your if's and but's about religion and the church. If you bring forth the argument that the church is the guardian of our morality I'll stick to that, and won't sidetrack the discussion with pseudo-clever irrelevant remarks about the inquisition.

Now to cut right to the chase indeed:
"If the church goes, what will fill the gap?"
As an atheist, naturally I believe that God did not create man, but the reverse. Consequently, that society gave religion and the church it's morals, not the other way round. That hence, apart as an institute to enforce those morals, there is no need for a church. And lastly, that there are more efficient ways of passing on and enforcing this morality than through organised mass delusion.
Of which the article gave proof.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Well, there have also been studies that show that religious people are more happy

Correlation does not equate causation.

Maybe they are both more religious and more happy because religious people live in more stable, traditional societies.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

(To which your natural reply will probably be: but Louis, perhaps you are overlooking the fact that religion tends to keep societies more stable and traditional, hence happy?
As that would utterly pwn me, I might as well deny you the pleasure by posting it myself)

[Reenk Roink]

Correlation does not equate causation.

Maybe they are both more religious and more happy because religious people live in more stable, traditional societies.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

(To which your natural reply will probably be: but Louis, perhaps you are overlooking the fact that religion tends to keep societies more stable and traditional, hence happy?
As that would utterly pwn me, I might as well deny you the pleasure by posting it myself)

Actually Louis VI the Fat, my response would be, very nice, you are well versed in a basic yet fundamental principle of statistics, that many either are unaware of or ignore when they use observational studies which promote their point. Then I would go and reiterate the second and most important clause in my statement of: "so everyone can get a warm, fuzzy feeling choosing whichever study..."

[Louis VI the Fat]

Then I would go and reiterate the second and most important clause in my statement of: "so everyone can get a warm, fuzzy feeling choosing whichever study..."

I willingly overlooked it as it would leave us no ground for petty disagreement, getting us banned from the Backroom.

[Soulforged]

Anyway, what bothers me (a little) is that the cultural, traditional value of religion is being ignored. Christianity is part of the European culture and heritage, yet even so called intellectuals have fun bashing it. The same people who look down on the 'unwashed masses' because they lack an historical understanding.

Evolution is in part the result of the new making fun of the old and, why not, decadent, rotting.

I still doubt that religion is a drug (you have more of a point with the clergy being pushers) and I really do not see how it relates to the article...

As any other drug you need something external in wich your life starts to depend upon. As any drug, the idea of the supraempirical "being" starts to take dominance over the real life. And as any drug, abuse can lead to "fanatism".

Well, there have also been studies that show that religious people are more happy, so everyone can get a warm, fuzzy feeling choosing whichever study...

The study was only conducted on the USA, it has as much relevance world wide, as this study.

[Reenk Roink]

As any other drug you need something external in wich your life starts to depend upon. As any drug, the idea of the supraempirical "being" starts to take dominance over the real life. And as any drug, abuse can lead to "fanatism".

Interesting way of looking at it. Sorry I don't agree...

The study was only conducted on the USA, it has as much relevance world wide, as this study.

Was the point of my statement really that vague, as to be so prone to misinterpretation? Very well, my apologies. Also, the types of observational studies concerning religion and happyness or religion and long life, etc...do have the benefit of replication. Thus, although we must remember that the correlation between religion and another variable cannot be interpreted as causation, we do concur that there is certainly a relationship between religion and the other factor, in some cases a very strong relationship. Whether there may be any confounding due to the study being carried out in a specific nation is up to debate.

*Yes, I do spell "happyness" with a 'y'. Don't ask why...*

[Soulforged]

Interesting way of looking at it. Sorry I don't agree...

I was only discribing facts. The drug-addict and the religion-addict suffer of well...addiction to something. That's when both become comparable and measurable with the same scale.

Whether there may be any confounding due to the study being carried out in a specific nation is up to debate.

That's my point. However given that I see religion just as I see drugs (and I know you're refering to the article that Seamus presented a while ago) replacing the one with the other is not a big deal to me. But interesting articles anyway.

*Yes, I do spell "happyness" with a 'y'. Don't ask why...*

I know this one....because you're in Bartixland.

[Reenk Roink]

I was only discribing facts. The drug-addict and the religion-addict suffer of well...addiction to something. That's when both become comparable and measurable with the same scale.

Well, I certainly would not call it 'fact', however, it is certainly a logical approach. I still insist, however, that drugs and religion are intrinsically different and thus cannot be compared in such a manner. But let us agree to disagree.

That's my point. However given that I see religion just as I see drugs (and I know you're refering to the article that Seamus presented a while ago) replacing the one with the other is not a big deal to me. But interesting articles anyway.

Seamus Fermanagh's article is only one of them. I have also read studies about a correlation between religion and long life as well as 'spirituality' and mental health, etc...

Still, there are many ways to interpret them.

I know this one....because you're in Bartixland.

It's very nice here. I will give you candies. They are so tasty.

[GoreBag]

The Church did its best to eradicate most of our classical heritage, which was the the real underpinning of European culture, but kept some bits of it that it liked. The same should now be done to our Christian culture and heritage, for what they are worth in comparison.

Huzz-friggin'-ah.

[Avicenna]

Not seeing this from where I am though, seeing the last time we had a show of hands in my class.. 22/24 people were Christian. You can guess that I was part of the remaining 2.

[doc_bean]

Well if you want to go down the charity beat, I would like to see every version of Christian churches auditied and see how much money actually does go to the needy. For a set of charity organisations some of them have a lot of valuables that have nothing to do with serving either God or their fellow man.

"So much bling that a Kings Cross Tranny would be ashamed to wear it"

They need money to pay the clergy,
they need money to maintain the churches and buildings,
they need money to keep/restore their 'art' objects,
they need money to fund their charity projects.

I never said they were a purely charitable organization. I said religion/church was also part of our culture and heritage, they need money to preserve cultural items too. The state often restores old buildings and gives money to museums doesn't it ?

Now, I'm not saying there are no freeloaders amongst the clergy, I personally know some (well, they're retired, might have done some good back in the day). But it isn't a money grabbing organization that provides great monetary gains for the top (anymore).

Way I read it is that the way to Salvation is through a personal relationship with Christ not through monetary donations, works, lifestyle or the particular building you turn up to to pray in.

Most religious people believe some sort of faith is needed to be saved, most young people don't believe and are even ignorant of what they 'should' believe in order to be saved, according to the study. How can they have a personal relationship with Christ if they don't know Him ? They'll burn (is what the most of the clergy will think), and I can certainly understand why the clergy would wan tot prevent that.

[Byzantine Mercenary]

Calm down, lah! Who was having a go?

Maybe you need to relax, like the nice young people in this survey

i was not angry just responding to being told my that beliefs are immature (though that is not so much having a go as being arrogant)

Once again some supposedly unbiased atheists are using misconceptions and an alomst compleate missunderstanding of christianitys core belief to make religion out as a bad guy (ala richard dawkins) so the church has done bad, often they have compleately ignored the teaching of jesus, your right the church is currupt but that does not mean christianity is wrong i think the world could do with a few more people who loved their neighbours!

im not angry but i do find the situation ridiculous!

[Ja'chyra]

In my view religion as a concept is fine for those who want it, in practice it is so far corrupted from the concept as to be almost counterproductive.

I find it totally normal that more people are moving away from religion and getting on with their lives, and good for them if that's what they want. As for saying that the morals imposed by the church will be greatly missed, I think that is totally pants, I think the morals imposed by the church have stunted the growth of generations to the point where they thought that having a ham shank would send them stright to hell

In the end though it is all down to individuals, if you want to be religious then go right ahead and I hope you have a great time, but it's not for me but at least I don't tell you that you'll burn in hell if you don't agree with me

[InsaneApache]

On the drugs thingy, didn't some German bloke, about 150 years ago, say something like religion is the opium of the masses (sic).

Onto the wider issue on morality and such, I have to agree wholeheartedly with Louis IV the Fat.

I'm no religionista but I don't not kill people because I might get caught. I don't do it because it's wrong. It has nothing at all to do with religion. Similarly I don't steal because it's wrong. Why are they intrinsically wrong as a pose to just morally wrong?

Empathy and a sense of right and wrong. Murder destroys not just the life taken but also those left behind who loved the victim. Theft destroys wealth, which affects us all.

Just a couple of examples.

EDIT:sorry Louis, I left the IV off your name. :)

[English assassin]

Louis IV the Fat and others are on the money. The assertions that we must get our morality from the church are PRECISELY why a post-religious society is better than a religious one.

Call me a hippy, but I think it is an important principle that things should develop their full potential, and also, that they should be what they are. And man is a moral animal capable of making his own moral choices. It is positively better that he does so, and develops his own moral code, rather than that he should slavishly obey what he is told are the dictates of a supernatural being (which is one of Nietzsches main points, but really only a rediscovery of a classical position). In this way he fulfils his full potential.

I find it hard to see how the religious can object to this, since religions are generally insistant that we DO have free will and that we MUST therefore make our own moral choices, furthermore, that God will not intervene in those choices (I think we can say the Holocaust is enought proof of that). The only thing religion adds to the post-religious position above is, having made your own moral choices, if they do not correspond to the supernatural beings you will be punished after you die.

And finally, to those whose view of human nature is so negative that they imagine we would all be raping and killing without the fear of god, although I ought to be able to come up with a clever riposte, your incredible pessimism is interferring with my logical faculties. I will content myself by saying, prove it. A correlation between higher participation in religion and lower crime rates (cough united states cough) would be sufficient...

[Byzantine Mercenary]

lets get a few things straight:

Firstly no christian should ever tell someone that they will burn in hell as no christian not even the pope (especially as im not catholic ) has the right to judge any other man.

Secondly many people say that they are religious but do not hold to the teachings of the religion, in which case it is not the teaching that is at fault but humans, as we all sin. This does not mean that the teaching is wrong or should be gotten rid of but that it should be understood more by those that profess to follow it (including me, i am not sayign that i am any better then anyone else in this respect).

people are not intrinsicly evil, i have never said that a society without religion would be anarchy, many of the atheists i have seen hold to the moral codes of christians these rules are not designed to control people but to protect them from the guilt and addiction that can be accocieted with sin, i am free, all christians are, christianity does not restrict my daily life or my scientific learning. I try and adhere to its rules because i know what the consequences would be, not in the next world but in this world.

[InsaneApache]

I'm sorry but I don't sin. It's just impossible for me to sin.

[Sjakihata]

I'm sorry but I don't sin. It's just impossible for me to sin.

Even Jesus sinned! What are you, man? Some kind of fiery tongue dropping down from above? Come on, sin, sin, sin, sin, sin, sin, sin!

[Ja'chyra]

Even Jesus sinned! What are you, man? Some kind of fiery tongue dropping down from above? Come on, sin, sin, sin, sin, sin, sin, sin!

Is it a sin if you're not religious?

[InsaneApache]

Is it a sin if you're not religious?

*In a scouse accent*

Eggsaktly.

[Red Peasant]

*In a scouse accent*

Eggsaktly.

I hope you got the strong gutteral in the second syllable! As if you are going to cough up a wad of phlegm!

[Sjakihata]

Is it a sin if you're not religious?

Well, in Freudian terminology it is, the ultimate sin orginating from the patricide, a theme in the story about Oedipus

[Red Peasant]

The great Christian theologians/philosophers such as Aquinas were disturbed to find the core of much 'Christian' morality already present in the Greek philosophers who antedated 'Christ' by many centuries. Hence, explaining why they attempted to assimilate this philosophy (esp Aristotle) to Christianity in the medieval period. In Plato/Socrates we can find such concepts as turning the other cheek (it being morally wrong to return a bad deed for one received), and they explore the ethics of living in organised communities in great detail, more so than can be found in any Christian text. Christianity is child's play compared to these great thinkers, yet it has served a function, I will not deny that.

But, we have moved on brothers! Well, some of us have

Really, I don't care what people believe as long they respect other people and their beliefs/ways of life/attitudes to life etc.

[Byzantine Mercenary]

The great Christian theologians/philosophers such as Aquinas were disturbed to find the core of much 'Christian' morality already present in the Greek philosophers who antedated 'Christ' by many centuries. Hence, explaining why they attempted to assimilate this philosophy (esp Aristotle) to Christianity in the medieval period. In Plato/Socrates we can find such concepts as turning the other cheek (it being morally wrong to return a bad deed for one received), and they explore the ethics of living in organised communities in great detail, more so than can be found in any Christian text. Christianity is child's play compared to these great thinkers, yet it has served a function, I will not deny that.

im not surprised that the greeks had similar ideas, the morals of christianity are logical so why wouldn't others have come up with them!

But, we have moved on brothers! Well, some of us have

Really, I don't care what people believe as long they respect other people and their beliefs/ways of life/attitudes to life etc.

doesn't the first sentance cancel out the second?

[InsaneApache]

Oh dear. Someones going to argue semantics with RP.

[Byzantine Mercenary]

Oh dear. Someones going to argue semantics with RP.

meh! maybe im a glutton for punishment

[Sjakihata]

The great Christian theologians/philosophers such as Aquinas were disturbed to find the core of much 'Christian' morality already present in the Greek philosophers who antedated 'Christ' by many centuries. Hence, explaining why they attempted to assimilate this philosophy (esp Aristotle) to Christianity in the medieval period. In Plato/Socrates we can find such concepts as turning the other cheek (it being morally wrong to return a bad deed for one received), and they explore the ethics of living in organised communities in great detail, more so than can be found in any Christian text. Christianity is child's play compared to these great thinkers, yet it has served a function, I will not deny that.

But, we have moved on brothers! Well, some of us have

Really, I don't care what people believe as long they respect other people and their beliefs/ways of life/attitudes to life etc.

The fact that St Aquinas embraced aristotelian method is not surprising, but to say that he inferred from it christianity and it is founded on the thoughts of aristotle is plainly wrong. It is, to much greater extend, found on platonism and neoplatonism by such thinkers as Plotin and Augustine.
There was no christian morality in the texts of the greek thinkers, in the way that sin appears in christianity. Greek virtues are entirely different than those of christian. In greek thought much debate was founded on justice cf. chapter 5 iirc of the state.