Talk:Religion/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Bhagavad Gita verses

The quotes are from an old 1960's edition and need to be replaced with quotes from the latest authorised English edition accepted by all Vaisnava authorities. I added links to the verses on the official BBT web site for now. — Ruptor 22:35, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Religion and mental health

This is a problematic excerpt: " A study of adolescents found that frequent church-goers with high spiritual support had the lowest scores on the Beck depression inventory (Wright et al., 1993). [1]" If you try to research the depression rate of religious people, you can't concentrate only on the church-goers. Then you exclude most of the seriously clinically depressed. Those people that lie on the bed suffering and can't rise unless someone pulls them. It is very unlikely that they go to church. Should it be removed from the text? Or should something like this text be added after it: "However, the study couldn't reach the seriously depressed, because they are so fatigued that they can't go to church frequently."? -Hapsiainen 18:40, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

I agree that studies of religion and mental health shouldn't concentrate only on church-goers, but if we're going to change the article, it should be to add information about other studies to give a broader perspective. "Spiritual and psychological benefits" deserves more attention in general.

However, in the context of this particular study I'm not sure it's necessary to include seriously depressed patients in the study to still get a fair picture of the variation between church-goers and non-goers... It's difficult to account for house-bound patients like those you describe in any broad study of mental health. Prevalence rates of mental illness, for example, are based on who shows up in psychiatrist's offices seeking treatment; which automatically excludes those whose illness (anxiety, depression, etc.) prevents them from seeking help. The statistics are probably (perhaps seriously) underestimating the real numbers.

Speaking specifically of depression and religion--I know that there is currently a series of studies underway involving the use of mindfulness meditation in the prevention of depression relapse, although whether this qualifies as religion is another question. The technique is called "Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy," or MBCT. I'll see if I can dig up something.--Pariah 15:33, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

This is very problematic.

It's not only restricted to church-goers, but to church-goers with high spiritual support. If this is true, the study cherrypicked non-depressed church-goers.
The statement itself is cherrypicked from the source [2]. In fact the reports ends with "More longitudinal research with better multidimensional measures will help further clarify the roles of these factors and whether they are beneficial or harmful".
Comparing social active people with social inactive people is problematic. During my stay in Birmingham, Alabama I noticed how much religion still controls social life in the USA.

I used to be very religious myself. When doubt crept into my world I got depressive. But today I'm feeling better than any time before. I refer to my depressive state as my metaphysical hangover and I blame it on religion, just as I blame a regular hangover on alcohol. This is a personal account and doesn't prove anyting, but explains why I'm very skeptical toward this statement. Markus Schmaus 17:28, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I replaced the problematic quote, by a quote of the conclusion section of the external reference, which seems more appropriate. Markus Schmaus 2 July 2005 03:01 (UTC)

If frequent church-goers with strong religious support have low levels of depression, then shouldn't the depressed start going to church? It seems like a logical and reasonable conclusion that the act of going to a church with strong religious support will improve your mental health.

It is very likely that the argument reversed the cause and effect. --Roland 05:58, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence for why you believe this is likely, or is this simply an opinion? All the studies I've read about suggest that religious activity is generally beneficial. In addition to social support, religion can also provide a philosophical context or practical skills for dealing with unpleasant events. But it definitely depends on the church and on the individual. So, lots of mental health specialists do cautiously encourage religious activity as a supplement to conventional treatment; and lots don't. There's not enough research yet generate consensus.--Pariah 08:15, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Exclusivism

The article used this Quranic verse to show exclusivism in Islam: The Qur'an states: "O you who believe! Do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people." Qur'an 5:51

This Verse does not establish anything exclusivist. This Verse was revealed to Muhammad at a time when the Jews and Christians of Arabia were cooperating with the enemies of the Muslims and also speaking against Muslims. But not all Jews and Christians did this, so the ones who did were called "the unjust people", and it was these types that the Muslims were not to befriend. To misinterpret this Verse means to ignore other Verses in the Quran that welcomes Jews and Christians as fellow believers. Such as Quran 5:69: "Those who believe (in the Qur'an), those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Sabians (converts) and the Christians, any who believe in The God and the Last Day, and work righteousness,on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve."

I don't know my cliches ... but according to what's written here, these are not just idle words. Sadly, there are some Jews and Christians who don't get along with each other too. Personally, I prefer a round of laser tag to settle my personal differences. Ariele 21:56, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Quran refers to Christians and Jews as "ahl al kitab" which translates to "People of The Book". Its a term who's context classically has been interpreted to mean that Islamic peoples have no adversarial relationship with the Jewish and Christian communities.

Religion and Religious Practices, An Overview

The article suggests all religion or the practice of religion have a common moral ground whether followers believe or disbelieve in the existence of a god or God. Could this be a human trait? I disagree with the direction the article was taking because I do not believe all religion or religious practices endeavor to promote righteousness, morals, or ethical behavior. I do however believe there are those who do seek righteousness or perfection in ways they feel is the correct way and in some instances the only way (but not necessarily the way we ALL may think or believe). Ariele 16:45, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

how can you measure the morality of another religion, other than against the precepts of your own? Ungtss 03:52, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

From years and years of experience with many many different religions- being fairly open-minded and receptive to the ideals of many religious beliefs ranging from idol worshiping to monotheism and "no-theism" in trying to understand my friends better and to become a better friend. Ariele 19:47, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There's so much variation within religious traditions. The core values of almost any faith (at least the "major" ones) are fairly universal--friendship, peace, community, etc. But religion is a tool like anything else, and people can use it to conquer their fear, or to justify & reinforce it. It really comes down to how the religion is used--Pariah 18:45, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Intro rant

I removed the following from the intro:

However, in contemporary society it important to note the more functional application of the term ‘religion’, which is the equivalent to ‘soap box’; In a historical context religion has been used as a means to control the population, yet as it progresses into the future it is used more as a platform to justify narcissism and self-righteousness with God. Due to the variation in degrees of piousness religion can justify anything from giving to the poor to killing medical professionals who choose to perform abortions. Since the context of religion has changed so radically from its roots, many followers of the major deities use it sparingly, choosing to apply their faith only during major holidays, heated debates and preaching without the actual commitment to god. Many very spiritual people still exist in modern society, however, they usually must succumb to the verbal harassment by those who use religion like platform shoes, to make them look like bigger people in the face of people superior to them intellectually.

It is what we might call a splendid case study of POV. This barbed rant against (presumably) organized religion has no place in the intro, and probably nowhere else in the article either. Speaking of soapboxes, Wikipedia is not a soapbox; notable (negative) views on religion have their place, but surely not there, and not like that. See also the "modern reasons for rejecting religion" section. JRM · Talk 14:58, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)

Religion and science

How does the speed of light being being constant conflict with Christianity? Or any of those things listed? They might conflict with the Bible, but the Bible isn't the sole authority of Christianity.

The section religion and science currently is deeply flawed. According to scientific method science can't give any answers on unobservable phenomena or value judgement. Nor were nazis or communists very scientific. Actually nazis oposed theoretical physics and chased some of the best German scientists, for example Albert Einstein, out of Germany.

I will rewrite it as soon as I find some time. Markus Schmaus

For the time being I removed that horribly wrong and biased last paragraph. Markus Schmaus 13:49, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I rewrote the section focusing on the differences of the methods rather than on who claims to use which method. I didn't include much of the previous version, as much of it seemed very problematic. According to the old version Theravada Buddhists don't use the scientific method at all but many Buddhists don't think this is true. Nazis definitely weren't very scientific and I don't think they claimed to be. There even existed prayers like "Führer, mein Führer, von Gott mir gegeben, …". Instead of this I gave some concrete examples of famous people using one or another method.

I'm personally very secular, but I tried to give a fair view on the religious method, if someone religious improves my description of the religious method, I'd be happy. Markus Schmaus 14:14, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Human article has a section on Religion, science, and philosophy that places religion in the context of four major types of cosmology - religious, physical, metaphysical, and esoteric. Is there any interest in using some of that here? It also uses some nice graphics with links to related articles. — RDF ^talk 04:43, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

The argument that the speed of light cannot be constant, often ennunciated in the United States by fundamentalists, but probably unheard of elsewhere, goes as follows.

The Bible is the infallible word of God and literally true in all aspects. The Bible tells us that the universe is only about six thousand years old, and so any science that pretends otherwise is false science. Since scientists tell us that stars we can see are millions of light years away, the speed of light must have been much faster shortly after the creation, so their light could reach us in just six thousand years.

Please understand that I am only telling you what other people say. Rick Norwood 14:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I disagree that the bible tells us the universe is 6000 years old. The bible talks of 'creative days' that are undefined lengths of time JamieStapleton 17:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I changed the statement about Isaac Newton and angels. Every source I could find that was not verbatim copied from wikipedia showed that it was Newton who refuted the notion of angels pushing the planets around. I also added a link to a new page, Scientists of Faith to let people at least see that some of the most important scientists were devout Christians. Synedri 04:12, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I've found the actual Newton quote, which is quite different from the paraphrase that was in the article before, and added it to the article. Rick Norwood 14:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Ethnic religion and universal religion compared

I was surprised no one had written on this before on Wikipedia (except, to my knowledge, briefly in Universalism. Given that ethnic religion linked to this article it seemed to make sense to write about it here. Anyway, perhaps someone with more knowledge on the subject can fill in my holes. Also, prhaps someone can give a more concise and better sounding name to that section -Tydaj 29 June 2005 22:03 (UTC)

Hinduism shares many qualities of Universalism, in fact it's original name, Sanatana Dharma essentially means Universal path. Hinduism is also not limited to people of Indian ethnicity. I am moving it from ethnic religion category to universal religion. --Pranathi 20:36, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Einstein

Einstein didn't object to Quantum Mechanics for religous reasons. He objected to the lack of a clear physical interpretation of the wavefunction. --Son Goku 21:55, 1 July 2005 (UCT)

Einstein objected to Quantum Mechanics for its nonlocality, see EPR paradox and its probabilistic character, see the quoted sentence. He assumed there existed hidden variables re-installing local determinism in a theory "completing" Quantum Mechanics. But as the Bell's theorem (the article is barely understandible and slightly POV) showed, Quantum Mechanics is incompatible with local determinism.

His belief in local determinism wasn't based on observations, in fact it contradicts observations, so it was not scientific. He definitely didn't believe in a personal god, but I think he was some form of deist or pantheist, viewing determinism as a divine force. "God does not throw dice" is definitely of religous character, even though he does not refer to a personal god, but an impersonal, superior force. Markus Schmaus 2 July 2005 02:57 (UTC)

His main problem was that R state reduction (as opposed to U state evolution), was very open to interpretation and possibly an artifact of the mathematics. As has been mentioned above, he also objected to the non-locality of Quantum Mechanics, but non-locality was only experimentally verified after his death, so his objection wasn't un-scientific. "God does not play dice", was only a euphemism, in my opinion, for his distrust of the largely mathematical and, in his opinion, non-physical state operators.--Son Goku 08:16, 2 July 2005 (UCT)

Christian ideas surrounding salvation

The statement "Catholicism asserts that individuals are saved by declaring faith in god, but are still subject to punishment for unrepented sin at death, which is purified in purgatory;" is not technically correct, nor is the statement "Traditional Protestantism asserts that individuals are saved purely by declaring their belief in the saving power of Jesus's death and resurrection;".

Christian theology divides the process of salvation into merit and justification. Traditional Protestantism (taken by this editor to mean something like Lutheranism) has as a fundamental element Sola fide, based largely on John 3:16, "...that whoever believes in Him will have eternal life." Therefore, it would be more correct to say, "Protestant Christians generally hold that salvation is merited by the sacrifice of Christ, and that the individual soul is justified by faith in Christ." No declaration is truly necessary, because such a declaration would be a work, an evidence of faith, not faith itself.

Likewise, Catholics do not require a declaration of faith, but rather the faith itself. Catholics have historically been labeled as believing in faith-works justification, but the official position of the Catholic Church is highly nuanced, and is clarified in the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, an agreement with certain Lutheran churches which basically resolves the root conflict of the Lutheran Reformation as a misunderstanding of words. The portion of the statement regarding purgatory is on the whole correct.--Mm35173 05:26, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Capitalization of God

When referring to a deity of people of a monotheistic faith, it is not correct to present the first letter of the word God in the lower case, because in this case, God is a proper noun. It might not be improper to say something to the effect of "Christians believe in a single god who is commonly styled, among other appellations, God." However, I do not believe it is correct to say "Christianity and Islam have a Heaven and Hell, and god as judge to decide our eternal fate." See Merriam-Webster's definition of god (God), note use in no. 4 Wiktionary definition of god (God).

This could be rectified in one of two ways. The word god could be capitalized: "Christianity and Islam have a Heaven and Hell, and God as judge to decide our eternal fate." However, this introduces the debatable point of view that the god of Islam and the god of Christianity are, in fact, the same god, which is not desireable. I propose, instead, the addition of the article 'a': "Christianity and Islam have a Heaven and Hell, and a god as judge to decide our eternal fate."--Mm35173 05:26, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Religion

How does religion affect the health status of an individual or community?

organized religion

I agree with most of the edits to my additions except for the dogma part (maybe it could be toned down) - but the loose structure does help prevent dogma. For example, punishment of heresy, fatwa and such elements that are seen in organized religions are not as prevalent in decentralized religions. --Pranathi 23:50, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Do you understand what is meant by dogma? It has nothing to do with whether a religion is centralized or decentralized. It's simply an authoritative formulation of a revealed truth. It means exactly the same thing you did when you mentioned "purity of doctrine", and may be passed on either in book or by oral tradition. What you wrote therefore seemed self-contradictory as phrased. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:17, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, maybe dogma is not the word I am looking for. I mean the rejection of dogma is tolerated much more in decentralized religions. This is possibly because of the absence of a censorious overarching authority. --Pranathi 01:41, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Yet there is a "rigorous tradition of transmitting holy books": Someone must be maintaining some kind of authority, and there must be some means to ensure these books are not rejected by those who receive them or else the tradition is not rigorous at all. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:57, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

The holy books (first written down some 3500 yrs ago) are passed down by an oral tradition that preserves the texts. A recitation today from someone in the northern most part of India will match that with one from the southern tip perfectly. But the diff interpretations and even rejection of the books is tolerated. Debates,discussions with references to texts and the test of time and popularity usually gauge the strength of any deviants as opposed to being judged by an authority. Buddhism, Jainism are two religions that are originated from Hinduism, but deviate from it's core philosophy in many ways. Not only were they tolerated but India has a history of sheltering the first Syrian Christians, Jews and the Parsis when they were persecuted elsewhere. Since there is no firm authority, the religion also has been able to entertain different philosophical traditions such as Advaita, Vaishnavism, even atheism at one point etc. Maybe instead of doctrinal purity, we should use "purity of texts" and rework the wording?

But surely this isn't true within a particular faith? That other beliefs are tolerated by the society is one thing, but I don't see how you could reject a faith's teachings and still be considered a part of that faith. Remember we're talking about a religion as such, Hinduism in this case, and not the society it's found in. I understand well that they're difficult to separate much of the time. But if, say, a Parsi can live in a largely Hindu society without persecution, he's not thereby made a Hindu is he? Of course not; it's his rejection of Hindu traditions that distinguishes him as something else. I therefore think the section is good as it stands. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:17, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

The phrase in contention is rejection of dogma is tolerated more by decentralized religions. This is demonstarted by tolerance towards any deviants within the religion also - eg, Buddha, Mahavir. The fact that their teachings were later debated by Shankaracharya, rejected by Hindus and evolved into a separate religion/sect is an after-the-fact matter. If they were accepted, Buddha/Jain's philosophy may have prevailed as the Hindu view of the world. Also there is no equivalent to concept of fatwa, punishment of heresy etc in Hinduism. Galileo, for example, would have been debated in Hindu circles if his theory was at odds with the texts. But he would have remained a Hindu. In the same way, a Hindu can condemn Temple worship and instead meditate on his Self and still be Hindu. --Pranathi 00:48, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

That may be true, but he couldn't well remain a Temple-worshipping Hindu, now could he? The thing we you're kind of comparing apples and oranges here. Hinduism is an extremely eclectic religion, and in relation to Christianity it is best compared, not to a monolithic organization like Roman Catholicism, but to the vast miscellany of Protestant denominations. If a man disagrees with Calvinist double-predestination he can leave the Presbyterians and go be a Baptist. Still a Christian, but no longer a Presbyterian; he's become a different kind of Christian instead. This is due to his rejection of a certain dogma.

Incidentally, whatever is popularly said about Galileo, the truth is that his theories wouldn't have been much bothered about had he not run afoul of the Pope politically. He nearly went out of his way to antagonize him. And ironically, his theory was seriously flawed and could not accurately predict the motion of the planets without Ptolemaic epicycles, among other objections. Johannes Kepler's theories were more precise, and potentially more controversial -- even though, tellingly, they weren't. The whole affair says more about the way a monolithic religious organization works than it does about dogma. Galileo contradicted none of the church's formal dogmata, only the prevailing theological opinion of the time, which is not the same thing. See Galileo Galilei#Church controversy TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:19, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I just read the section on heresy, and am realising that punishment is most of the time politically motivated and dogma is only the excuse. But, but.. the power to use the excuse of dogma (in politics) is not invested in decentralised religions? Also Protestantism, heresy in those days, met with much intolerance before separating from the Catholic Church. Not knowing much about Christianity, I am going to out on a limb here and argue that Protestantism is really decentralized without a central authority, and rejection of dogma is better tolerated within Protestantism.

BTW, the denominations (temple-worshipping, advaitin etc) within Hinduism don't have as clear boundaries as in Christianity. The Smarta denomination, whose viewpoint dominates western ideas of Hinduism, is mostly the eclectic one. Thanks for engaging in this discussion with me, I am finding it very productive.

I am changing the wording/links on the section - by schools, I mean schools of thought (denominations) rather than gurukuls (which are real schools) and are only one of the many structural elements.--Pranathi 01:07, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

"But, but.. the power to use the excuse of dogma (in politics) is not invested in decentralised religions?" If I turn this into a statement rather than a question then you are, I think, quite correct. However, the power to enforce dogma by inflicting punishment for heresy is a feature of centralized organization as such. I don't see that is says anything about whether or not dogma may or may not exist in a decentralized religion, only that there may be no consequences for dissenting from it. This is not to say there are no religions that have no dogma, but this may even be one that's centrally organized. (I could cite an example, but it's likely to give offence to someone if I said what I had in mind.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:51, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

So, the changed wording rejection of dogma is tolerated more by decentralized religions is okay? Also, do you think Protestantism can be added as an example of decentralised religions - with slight change of wording to take the emphasis off of Hinduism? --Pranathi 01:09, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Present day religious adherence and trends

This section makes several statements that are contentious, for example, that the number of secularists in the world is increasing. It may be, but objective evidence needs to be provided. Also, the inclusion of secularist as a religion seems odd. And there are a number of grammatical errors. Unless I hear some good reason not to, I will, in a few days, to try to make this a bit more objective. Rick Norwood 23:19, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Another problem in this section is the list. It lists the top 22; I think it should be rounded to the top 20 or 25.--HistoricalPisces 18:57, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I've made the changes I mention in my paragraph above. I do not have a problem with the list going as far as information is available. Rick Norwood 20:25, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with your rewording of the paragraph. But I think that agnostic/atheist/non-religious (or some combination of similar concepts) should be listed. Although it may not be in exactly the same category as the other items on the list, it would be useful to have it there for comparison. For example, look at how the European Union is included in the List of countries by GDP (PPP). Jonearles 23:41, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

The information is there, early in the paragraph, just not listed as a religion.

Request for your aid dealing with actions from a user against Religious, Spiritual and Esoteric articles

User:Baphomet. is damaging Wikipedia: he his trying to label Religious articles as Superstition (from a POV view of positivism, that he calls Science). At the article Reincarnation he just went on to add to category "Superstition" and later on without discussion put a POV msg in the article. Please see the discussion page between both of us Talk:Reincarnation#Superstition.

Through the use of a Culture created by extremism in Science, he is clearly trying to do the job that the Inquisition did in the Middle Ages in a Culture created by extremism in Religion. He is damaging Wikipedia in a subtle invious way!

Please see also the Alert message I have created at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#September_4, Thank you! --GalaazV 20:25, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Articles on religion should have NPOV. If Baphomet violates NPOV, I'll be glad to help you stop him. But I do not know what kind of help you are asking for. And I find your comment about extremism in science very off-puting. Rick Norwood 20:09, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

- Thank you for your answer. I have nothing against science, just against actions based on radicalism (be it in science or in religion). I have already explained my point of view on this subject; if might be of interest please see: "REQUEST to the Administrators of Wikipedia: Religion as a main category at the Main Page & the also related discussion at Talk:Main_Page/Archive_42#Religion_as_a_main_category_at_the_Main_Page, Best Regards. --GalaazV 14:21, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

logical irrelevancy

I am going to remove the following paragraph from the article on the following grounds -- it is grammatically incorrect: "regardless of believe" and logically incorrect (I am a professional logician) because it confuses perfection and the absence of failure. Example: a perfect clown may fail to pick up a handkerchief. I would like to see the author of the paragraph improve it and then restore it to the article.

"Logical Irrelevancy": Many people use logic to render religion as pointless regardless of believe in the existence of God. For example, God by defintion, cannot fail, therefore God is successful, therefore we can say and do anything we want without ever being a failure—because, we are a reflection of a perfect universe by definiton because, it (the universe) was created by God.

The author was refering to "not failing" in a possitive view (An event that accomplishes its intended purpose). Everything God has done by defintion, was the right thing to. Since God, by defintion created the Universe we live in, this would make everything that anyone has ever said or done the product of God. Since we are the product of God, worshipping God (especially in a religious sense) is pointless, because God has already succeed. And "regardless of believe" should probably read "regardless of their believe"

But, if you believe in God, you may "not fail" because you accomplish God's intended purpose, and still fail in the eyes of men because you do not accomplish your intended purpose. In fact, according to Calvinism, you may go to Hell, because God intends you to go to Hell, even though that was the farthest thing from your intent.

The important point is this. Thinkers from Pythagoras to Lewis Thomas have tried to be logical on the subject of religion, and failed miserably. It is possible to propound logical statements about religion, but exceedingly difficult, and requiring the greatest care.

But, if God was extant, failure (at large) would be limited to dishonoring God. Since God created the universe, and we are all products of God and/or the universe, we are a reflection of God and therefore perfect. We are perfect because dishonring God is impossible because free will is an illusion of a perfect universe, and therefore anything we say or do cannot dishonor God because we cannot help it.

This isn't really the place for this debate, but I suppose it won't do any harm. You are making unjustified assumptions. You assume God wants to be "honored". An infinite God may be utterly indifferent to whether we "dishonor" Him. If God is all powerful, then, yes, the universe is exactly as he wants it to be. But we have no idea what criteria he used in creating the universe. Maybe He liked the pretty patterns of stars and galaxies, and life is as irrelevent to his plan as pond scum. I do agree that there is no logic to the notion of "free will". I have an article on the subject, "The Evolution of the Will", in Philosophy in Science you can look up if you are interested. Rick Norwood 12:51, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

The idea of a perfect God would seem to require that this is the best of possible worlds, as lampooned by Voltaire in Candide. If this is the best of possible worlds, and must remain so, it is difficult to see how our actions could make it any better or worse, and that would seem to make morality nonsensical. — Perhaps this is what the author was getting at? Is it appropriate to add here? --ExtraBold 18:12, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good to me -- keeping in mind that I have no authority whatsoever. It also sounds like the Calvinist position on salvation by faith alone. Since this is the best of all possible worlds, nothing we can do can possibly make it any better, and so God chose, before he created the world, who would be saved and who damned. No explanations. No apologies.

I think the "Logical Irrelevancy" paragraph was working toward a slightly different argument. But I'm not sure what that argument was. Rick Norwood 21:26, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

The author of the "Locical Irrelevancy" paragraph seems determined to keep it in. I'm going to at least fix the grammar.

The author of that paragraph has one more bit of grammar to fix. It should be "..., ergo God..." (comma, not dashes). Rick Norwood 19:34, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Agnostic/Atheist/Secular

Why is Agnostic/Atheist/Secular not on the statistics at the bottom of the page? It used to be.

It is still there, in the introductory paragraph, but not listed as a "religion". Rick Norwood 19:34, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Template

A template for RELIGION would be nice

Etymology Issue again

I've returned a short etymology section the article. I know we need to economise space in the religion article, but this is important to avoid edit wars. I think it's okay as long as we keep it short.--Pariah 01:41, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

shorter article

This article is excellent in many ways, but it is long, and there are several passages that seem doubtful or at least unsupported. I think a good way to procede, to avoid reversion wars, is to post doubtful passages here. If a week goes by with no supporting evidence for the passage, then I think deletion is justified. For starters, I've read a lot of ancient texts in translation, and the following seems misleading at best, unless by "modern" you mean "after 500 BC". Note, for example, the reference to Cicero in the etymology section. Any support for this? Rick Norwood 15:15, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

"It should be kept in mind that the term religion is modern. For pre-modern people, what we see retrospectively as their beliefs about the supernatural or metaphysical presupposed no difference between any such thing as nature and non-nature, nor between science and what the most educated people believe. For an ancient Athenian, science, political tradition, "culture" and religion were not easily distinguishable. All were part of the same body of enquiry and wisdom available to a community."

Hi Rick--that makes sense--post long & unsupported passages posted here and see if they can be improved or else scrapped. Having said that, I have to offer some support for the above passage--proper support is needed, but the statement itself is consistent with an anthropological approach, if not a historical one.--Pariah 16:37, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I understand the point being made. Robert Graves would probably have agreed with it. On the other hand, it certainly seems to me that Plato made a clear distinction between religion and other aspects of life. Aristotle certainly drew a clear distinction between religious duties of a citizen and other civic duties. Maybe you could rewrite the paragraph from an anthropolotical viewpoint -- or even from the point of view of how the common man views religion, as distinct from the intellectual view. Sagan's A Demon Haunted World would be a good reference for that. In any case, the viewpoint expressed needs to be labeled as one of many views, and it doesn't belong in the introduction. Rick Norwood 18:29, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

The best thing to do with that passage would probably be to make it less specific in terms of geography. Also, I would agree that the was, in many pre-modern societies, no distinction between religion and politics within the given culture. The problem is "science". What we think of as science really hasn't been around long at all. Things like alchemy and metaphysics would have been hard for pre-modern folks to distinguish from what we call religion (still is in some places) but those two don't constitute a "science" in the way most modern people use the word. --Tydaj 20:10, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Pariah, Tydaj, do one of you want to tackle the rewrite, or shall I? Rick Norwood 20:31, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I fixed it some. It definately had a western bias i hadn't noticed before. The ideas in the latter part of the paragraph could still be integrated into the main text better. --Tydaj 05:17, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I think we're making progress. I'm going to tweek it some more and move it to its own section. Rick Norwood 13:18, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi Rick, Tydaj. Sorry I can't add much to it at the moment, but I'll keep my eyes open for any supporting info, etc., which I will post here on the talk page--Pariah 01:27, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Religion and closely related topics

I've done a little polishing, removed an extraneous quotation mark, etc. The article looks very good to me down to the "Closely related topics". This section seems to me way too long, and some of it is nonsense. Some of it should just be a short note with a link to the corresponding article. I'm going to plow into it and see what happens. Wish me luck. Rick Norwood 13:30, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Good luck!!! :-) The Human article has a section on Religion, science, and philosophy that places religion in the context of four major types of cosmology - religious, physical, metaphysical, and esoteric. I believe working in some of that narrative would highlight key similarities and distinctions among these four approaches and strenghten this section. — RDF ^talk 14:42, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. Are you offering to tackle that? I've just finished working through Religion and Science, and all I can say for sure is a) it's shorter and b) I'm exhausted! Rick Norwood 17:48, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

You certainly have done a lot of work on it! I can try adding something in the next day or so. — RDF ^talk 18:17, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I did a quick fold in of this text with related text from the Human article. I only modified some headings from the original text at this point. Now some additional consolidation may be in order. Have at it! :-) — RDF ^talk 22:52, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I certainly don't think we need to quote so extensively when a link would do -- also, I hate to see the Ghandi quote go. But, then, you invited me to "have at it", so I will, mainly with a goal of making the quote less extensive (and putting at least some of Ghandi back). Rick Norwood 23:23, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

You took out most of the cosmology wikilinks in the process, which was the main theme of the added text. I put those wikilinks back in. — RDF ^talk 04:07, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Ayyavazhi

As best I can tell, from a google search, Ayyavazhi does not exist outside of Wikipedia. Does anyone have any evidence otherwise? If so, is this a good thing or a bad thing or, maybe, a neutral thing? Rick Norwood 20:25, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

The main Ayyavazhi article list three external links. A Vivisimo search on Ayyavazhi produced a list 87 items for 3,542 hits. At least some of them aren't wikis or mirrors :-) — RDF ^talk 22:33, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Rewrite of section three

Have at it, you said. I did. I kept all of the Ghandi stuff, because I felt without it there was too much Western bias, but if you want to cut some of it, that might be a good idea. Let me know what you think. Rick Norwood 00:06, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Replaced

I replaced the Image Symbol of Ayyavazhi with the head quarters of the religion Ayyavazhi, Swamithoppepathi which was built in the mid Ninteenth century. Since there are builded structures for all religions, I do so. - Vaikunda & Raja

A new perspective on religion.

Wikipedia is specifically not the place for original research. I am moving most of the "new perspective" to the appropriate article, with a link here. Rick Norwood 18:00, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Arabic Etymology

Removed the following from the etymology section for discussion here:

* The Arabic meaning of Religion derived from debt which means we have to thank God, Parent and good people who help us. At the end there is day of judgment and each of us will take his rights after paying his debt.

This is a bit confusing: Does it mean the English word /religion/ originated in Arabic? Or is the author talking about the origins of an Arabic word, such as /deen/ ( دين ), which translates into English as religion?

I like the idea of including words for religion in other languages and their root meanings, but we should include the actual words.--Pariah 00:50, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

People who make major changes should explain here.

There have been more than a dozen changes in this article so far today. I don't have a problem with them, but a word of explanation on the talk page would have been nice. Rick Norwood 21:49, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

The only government that embrases atheism...

The article now says that China is the only government that embrases atheims. Any evidence for this? What about Albania, Cuba, Vietnam, and, for that matter, France. For this to stay, we need to see some evidence. Otherwise, this is just a case of someone trying to tar the atheist worldview with a communist brush.

In fact, if we are going to have this in the article at all, it should be part of something really interesting. I know Great Britain is officially Anglican, the US has no official religion, many Moslem countries have specifically Moslem governments, but Turkey has a specifically secular government. I think I read that Mexico does not allow priests to run for public office. What is the official status of religion in various nations (as distinct from just the religion of the population)? Rick Norwood 00:20, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

India is secular. Nepal Hindu, Pakistan and Bangladesh Islamic... See state religion for more.--Pranathi 01:06, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Note there is a difference between secular states and atheist states. Secular states don't officially deny God, they just say nothing on the subject officially at all except as necessary to guarantee freedom of religion. An atheist state officially denies God and may criminalize or repress religion altogether. Albania was at one time officially atheist, but I believe it is no longer since Communism fell. France is not atheist but secular as far as I know. The US is secular insofar as its Constitution forbids a state religion, although it tends toward Deism. China tolerates religion on a case-by-case basis, generally by how it submits to governmental oversight, but I don't know if its officially atheist. I don't know about Vietnam either. Clearly a good reference is needed here. A seperate article like Official status of religion worldwide that lists countries and their official religious policies might be of interest, but such a comprehensive listing would be too lengthy for the present article IMO.

As far as "tar[ring] the atheist worldview with a communist brush" one can't help but notice that the vast majority of atheist states, and those that have repressed religion most brutally, have indeed been Communist. All your "counterexamples" are (or were) Communist after all, France not excepted. Sad but true. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:30, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Western liberal democracies all have freedom of religion -- even Great Britain, which is officially Anglican, allows other religions and in fact I am told religion is in decline throughout GB. France is a liberal democracy, not a communist state, though philosophical communism is more tolerated there than in most countries. China, of course, far from being communist, is now the most agressive capitalist country on the planet -- it is communist in name only. In any case, the claim that China is the only atheist country is unsupported, and so I am going to remove it. Rick Norwood 12:02, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

This is going off-topic -- But although I know the World Factbook uses "Communist State" as a form of government, I don't know that this is a universally agreed-upon label. Most of them are at least nominally republics, China (Or Cuba rather, since I thought that was the country under discussion) not excepted. The majority party in the French National Assembly was indeed Communist not long ago, and since that party is the one that forms the government it's fair to say they had a Communist government at the time. But I agree that the claim is unsupported. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:04, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Time Almanac lists China as the only officialy atheist country. It only says Cuba was "80% nominaly Catholic before Castro came to power." North Korea has "religious activity non-existent". And Vietnam actually has a list of religion like France and the UK and US.--HistoricalPisces 19:14, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Very interesting. I learned something new today. Rick Norwood 20:40, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

political science approach to religion

is there a political science approach to studying religion, esp. organised religion? ideas of ritual, morality, the infallibility of religious leaders, dorma & heresy and approaches to other religion appear to have "explanations" in political theory. can anybody point to works on this? Doldrums 05:22, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

problems with "New voices within Christianity..."

problems with the paragraph -

New voices within Christianity point out that there is a very important distinction between directives espoused by the 'Church' in the sense of an instutionalised legal/political entity (particularly the historic papal Roman Catholic Church) and the teachings of the Bible and point to various publications and researchers who have mediated many seemingly conflicting claims. (See resources such as The Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics by Norman Geisler and http://www.answersingenesis.org ... and related)

vague - what is the "distinction" being takled about? what "conflicting claims" have been "mediated"?. how/why are these voices significant enough to occupy the space they do.
book to be cited in text or in the references section
link is to a christian group website, and not to particular material which has a bearing on the context. advertising? Doldrums 05:32, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

"Science about physical universe"???

It says in the section "Religion and science" that science can only answer questions about the physical universe. But what about sciences like economics, linguistics and much of psychology, whchi clearly don't just talk of the physical. One can argue that their statements are ultimately reduceable to physical facts, but that is at least a dubitable philosophical position (though I might agree with it). At any rate, the statement is at least misleading, since such sciences aren't discribing things physically. I therefore changed that paragraph, and hope it's not POV like this. Marcoscramer 14:47, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

The focal distinction of that paragraph was between religious cosmology and physical cosmology, not dualism between body and mind. I just added the removed links back in. — RDF ^talk 15:20, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Isn't This True about Religion vs. Science

I added the following paragraph to the section Religion and Science:

"Essentially, religion promotes trust in the absence of evidence and often in combination with the use of intimidation, while science practices skepticism, even in the presence of evidence. Religion indoctrinates belief and discourages analytical and independent thinking, while science encourages reason and rationality and critical thinking. Religious teaching exerts contraints on one's mind and attempts to make one an obedient follower, while science teaching dispells predilections and preconceptions and strives to make one an adventurous leader."

But it was removed soon, along with a short segment that was originally there:

"Generally speaking, the methods of religion and science are different, and sometimes at odds."

Isn't what I added largely true? --Roland 21:41, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

No, Roland, it is only sometimes true. Also, it was making a value judgement; so it would be considered opinion/POV and not fact. The truth is much more complicated. Most religious leaders encouraged people to think and seek the truth for themselves, just like any good scientist. Later on, the churches they inspired sometimes caused wars and inquisitions; but they also preserved and expanded knowledge. The renaissance and the scientific revolution never would have happened if not for so many monks carefully copying & studying ancient books.

At the same time, scientists can expose people to a wider world, but they can also twist the truth for selfish goals--such as with scientific racism or eugenics. So, science and religion are definitely different things, but it's very hard to compare them and make value judgements. Each is a tool which can be used for good, or misused for evil.--Pariah 23:28, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

No, not in the least. It's an absurd caricature of both science and religion. There are both speculative theologians and dogmatic scientists. The Scholastic thinkers of the Middle Ages would be very surprised to hear they were being constrained from thinking analytically or rationally, while plenty of researchers would tell you how difficult it can be to challenge accepted wisdom in the scientific community even given a mountain of evidence. (Just ask Barry Marshall.) The value judgement here is utterly unjustified, and unjustifiable. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:59, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

When discussing religion, especially religion in a theocracy, I suppose we should distinguish between those at the upper end of the clerical hierarchy and those average church-goers, the former being the ruling class and the minority, and the latter the ruled class, the majority.

I do agree with you that there have been speculative theologians, and in fact, I think there must have been quite a few popes, bishops, pastors, priests and theologians that doubted the existence of god, or were simply atheists, but they would never tell the rank-and-filers in their congregations about their doubt and disbelief. If a theologian announced his atheist idea to the public, he would be burnt as Giordano Bruno had been. --Roland 05:31, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with you Roland. Many faiths encourage critical thinking. For example, one of the main principles of the Bahá'í Faith is Independent Investigation of the Truth. Also, as I understand it science and religion can give us different information about the world we live in; science gives us information about the physical world which religion cannot, and religion gives us information about the spiritual worlds which science cannot. It's when religion or science are used to give information about the opposite sphere which they reside that troubles come into play. Of course you have to have critical thought, because if science says something is impossible, and religion says it is possible (like floating) then of course you have to go with the science because science is what teaches us about the physical world. At the same time, science cannot tell us anything about the soul, and through religious study and practice, many people come to trust in religion because its teachings improve their life. Religion and science have to be in harmony; religion without science is superstition, and science without religion is materialism. So I disagree that religious teachings exert constraints on one's mind, in fact I believe they open the mind to truths that science can not discover or explain. You would have to research religious teachings in your own independent manner and apply them (i.e. do not follow the clergy blindly), to see if they improve your own life. -- Jeff3000 04:43, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Myth

I think the myth section could use a bit of work. How about Eliade's "definition" of myth: myth is a true story that may or may not have happened. Alternatively, what about treating myth as a genre of literature?

I also don't understand the paragraph about polytheistic religions BEING myth. What are we trying to say there? The next sentence goes on to also indentify religion in pre-industrial socieites with myth. What is going on here? Do all religions have myths? Do myths extend beyond religion (for example, the myth of the american frontier)?

I think a lot of these are questions for the myth article, but they are interesting. Speaking for myself, I would argue that the words "mythology," "religion," and "worldview," are kind of the same thing--stories that help us make sense of the world. But this means everybody has a religion, even if they don't call it that. Durkheim had a lot to say about this--how nationalism or even a military ethic was pretty much the same thing as religion, complete with venerated symbols and complicated rituals. That would make everything from the American dream to a graduation ceremony in some ways religious, even if people don't normally think of these things as "religion."

Just for fun, consider how much effort went into the construction of mideval cathedrals, and compare that to the size, expense, and architecture of a modern shopping mall or office tower. What do we venerate, in our secular age?

But I think the article is more or less okay. That first definition of myth in the article is pretty much the same as Eliade's--though not quite as poetic. But the article doesn't say that polytheistic or pre-industrial religions ARE myth, it just says they are categorized/treated as mythology (in the sense of "useful stories") by social scientists.--Pariah 16:40, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

removal of external links

Aaron Brenneman removed a large number of external links, citing wiki policy on external links, but that policy does not forbid external links. Did these really need removal? All of them? Rick Norwood 21:39, 27 October 2005 (UTC)