Opinion of the Flying Spaghetti Monster argument

[Mopsus]

Here you are saying that in order to mitigate the potentially harmful effects of faith, one must have a sense of moral judgement that exists independently of one's faith. How? Christianity teaches that it is the one truth. How can a Christian have a set of moral criteria external to their Christian faith, which they then use to make judgements about particular elements of that faith?

While Christians obviously believe that there is no salvation apart from Jesus Christ, that's different from believing that there is no universal moral principle accessible to reason. Christianity, being the philosophical faith that it is, has long held to the example of the "virtuous pagan"; hence Justin Martyr, one of the earliest Christian apologists: "Those who lived in accordance with the Logos are Christians, even though they were called godless, such as, among the Greeks, Socrates and Heraclitus and others like them". Of course if you could write down all the virtuous pagans that we have record of, your list would exclude most people who have ever lived, which is because it requires extraordinary powers of reason and self-control to live according to the Logos of the universe. What Christianity offers that other faiths do not is a personal relationship to that Logos in the person of Jesus Christ, whose powers of transformation and intercession we are given to borrow from.

I never said any such thing. I have given a consistent and generally accepted definition of "cult" from the outset of this discussion.

The part of your definition that I seized on was "the elevation of something beyond all else". What I was trying to show by referring to classical paganism was that most pagans did not elevate their gods above all else - Zeus was a creature, not a creator, and most Greeks didn't even believe that he was particularly morally virtuous. Of course Donald Trump isn't a god in the monotheistic sense either, so the fact that you mentioned him proves that the core of your definition is, as I said, any group of people who revere a person, idea, or thing beyond what you personally think is reasonable. Which is fine, it just means that your definition isn't less subjective than mine.

I am not ready to give up on this conversation yet, mostly because I do not think you've understood what I've said. Perhaps if we cannot agree on whether faith is an inherent vice, we can at least agree that it is not an inherent virtue. Is this fair? After all, you've spent this conversation trying to painstakingly create a definition of "genuine religious faith" that will exclude "harmful cultish superstition." I am simply trying to illustrate to you that, regardless of the consequences of people's beliefs, the impetus for those beliefs is the same. This is not what you have said-- you claim that there is a fundamental differentiation in type between the faith of a Christian and the faith of a Scientologist-- but you have been unable to offer any formal definition that adequately demonstrates this.

I believe that the type of faith required to stay loyal to an organization that imprisons some of its members in a cruise ship off the coast of California is different from the type of faith required to stay loyal to an organization that doesn't. One requires you to ignore the voice of reason and one does not. That isn't to say that people haven't derived spiritual benefit from Scientology; I am more than willing to believe that they have. But I believe that those same people could derive more spiritual benefit from a religious tradition that isn't also a criminal organization.

[John Dule]

Here you are saying that in order to mitigate the potentially harmful effects of faith, one must have a sense of moral judgement that exists independently of one's faith. How? Christianity teaches that it is the one truth. How can a Christian have a set of moral criteria external to their Christian faith, which they then use to make judgements about particular elements of that faith?

While Christians obviously believe that there is no salvation apart from Jesus Christ, that's different from believing that there is no universal moral principle accessible to reason. Christianity, being the philosophical faith that it is, has long held to the example of the "virtuous pagan"; hence Justin Martyr, one of the earliest Christian apologists: "Those who lived in accordance with the Logos are Christians, even though they were called godless, such as, among the Greeks, Socrates and Heraclitus and others like them". Of course if you could write down all the virtuous pagans that we have record of, your list would exclude most people who have ever lived, which is because it requires extraordinary powers of reason and self-control to live according to the Logos of the universe. What Christianity offers that other faiths do not is a personal relationship to that Logos in the person of Jesus Christ, whose powers of transformation and intercession we are given to borrow from.

Ok, so you believe that it is possible to arrive at moral principles without the use of Christian religious texts. But how? How could a person know for sure whether the moral principles by which they judge their own religion are well-founded or flawed? It seems to me that in order for a Christian to be certain that their moral beliefs are in harmony with their religious beliefs, they would have to at some point use religious justifications for all of their beliefs-- either as an initial foundation or as a comparison with their other views. Otherwise they would hold beliefs for which there is no textual Christian evidence-- beliefs which, for all they know, are incongruous with the will of the almighty.

The part of your definition that I seized on was "the elevation of something beyond all else". What I was trying to show by referring to classical paganism was that most pagans did not elevate their gods above all else - Zeus was a creature, not a creator, and most Greeks didn't even believe that he was particularly morally virtuous. Of course Donald Trump isn't a god in the monotheistic sense either, so the fact that you mentioned him proves that the core of your definition is, as I said, any group of people who revere a person, idea, or thing beyond what you personally think is reasonable. Which is fine, it just means that your definition isn't less subjective than mine.

Yes, I understand what you're getting at-- but it's not fair to say that the Greeks didn't elevate their deities above all others. Are you asserting that ancient tribes did not believe that their gods were more real/important/powerful/relevant than the gods of other tribes? If not, then why worship those gods at all? Why would the Aztecs sacrifice innumerable members of their own families to deities that they themselves didn't fully believe in? It seems as though you are trying to ascribe a "lesser" form of faith to these ancient peoples, and I don't think there is sufficient textual evidence to make a claim that extreme.

I believe that the type of faith required to stay loyal to an organization that imprisons some of its members in a cruise ship off the coast of California is different from the type of faith required to stay loyal to an organization that doesn't. One requires you to ignore the voice of reason and one does not. That isn't to say that people haven't derived spiritual benefit from Scientology; I am more than willing to believe that they have. But I believe that those same people could derive more spiritual benefit from a religious tradition that isn't also a criminal organization.

I believe that the type of faith required to stay loyal to an organization that flies planes into the World Trade Center is different from the type of faith required to stay loyal to an organization that doesn't.

I believe that the type of faith required to stay loyal to an organization that launches bloody holy wars against distant nations for the purpose of "reclaiming the holy land" is different from the type of faith required to stay loyal to an organization that doesn't.

I believe that the type of faith required to stay loyal to an organization that systematically covers up the rape of tens of thousands of young boys by its members is different from the type of faith required to stay loyal to an organization that doesn't.

I believe that the type of faith required to stay loyal to an organization that explicitly supports the death penalty for apostasy and homosexuality, as well as the brutal subjugation of women, is different from the type of faith required to stay loyal to an organization that doesn't.

I could go on. There are more examples than I could ever hope to count, spanning thousands of years and millions of pointless deaths. In contrast to the crimes of the cults centered around Yeshua bar Yosef and Muhammad, the crimes of the cult centered around L. Ron Hubbard pale in comparison. Sure, they're playing the same sport-- but one is little league and the other two are the heavyweight champions.

That isn't to say that people haven't derived spiritual benefit from Christianity; I am more than willing to believe that they have. But I believe that those same people could derive more psychological benefit from a philosophical tradition that isn't also a criminal organization.

[Mopsus]

Ok, so you believe that it is possible to arrive at moral principles without the use of Christian religious texts. But how? How could a person know for sure whether the moral principles by which they judge their own religion are well-founded or flawed? It seems to me that in order for a Christian to be certain that their moral beliefs are in harmony with their religious beliefs, they would have to at some point use religious justifications for all of their beliefs-- either as an initial foundation or as a comparison with their other views. Otherwise they would hold beliefs for which there is no textual Christian evidence-- beliefs which, for all they know, are incongruous with the will of the almighty.

I have an answer for you, but I have to turn this question around - do you, an atheist, not believe it's possible to arrive at moral truths outside of religious revelation?

Yes, I understand what you're getting at-- but it's not fair to say that the Greeks didn't elevate their deities above all others. Are you asserting that ancient tribes did not believe that their gods were more real/important/powerful/relevant than the gods of other tribes? If not, then why worship those gods at all? Why would the Aztecs sacrifice innumerable members of their own families to deities that they themselves didn't fully believe in? It seems as though you are trying to ascribe a "lesser" form of faith to these ancient peoples, and I don't think there is sufficient textual evidence to make a claim that extreme.

They were more real/powerful/relevant because they were more familiar than foreign gods. The Aztec gods are an interesting case because they do involve an objective claim about the nature of reality (i.e., the sun will go out if we don't sacrifice these young men), but I obviously wouldn't put them in the same category as the religious moral reformers I've been talking about this entire time.

I believe that the type of faith required to stay loyal to an organization that flies planes into the World Trade Center is different from the type of faith required to stay loyal to an organization that doesn't.

I believe that the type of faith required to stay loyal to an organization that launches bloody holy wars against distant nations for the purpose of "reclaiming the holy land" is different from the type of faith required to stay loyal to an organization that doesn't.

I believe that the type of faith required to stay loyal to an organization that systematically covers up the rape of tens of thousands of young boys by its members is different from the type of faith required to stay loyal to an organization that doesn't.

I believe that the type of faith required to stay loyal to an organization that explicitly supports the death penalty for apostasy and homosexuality, as well as the brutal subjugation of women, is different from the type of faith required to stay loyal to an organization that doesn't.

I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I agree with all of these statements. I'm not a Wahhabi, or an apologist for predatory Catholic priests.

That isn't to say that people haven't derived spiritual benefit from Christianity; I am more than willing to believe that they have. But I believe that those same people could derive more psychological benefit from a philosophical tradition that isn't also a criminal organization.

Unfortunately for you, men and women who derive genuine psychological benefit from philosophy almost inevitably end up as sub- or quasi-religious. Many of these are the "virtuous pagans" I just mentioned.

[John Dule]

Ok, so you believe that it is possible to arrive at moral principles without the use of Christian religious texts. But how? How could a person know for sure whether the moral principles by which they judge their own religion are well-founded or flawed? It seems to me that in order for a Christian to be certain that their moral beliefs are in harmony with their religious beliefs, they would have to at some point use religious justifications for all of their beliefs-- either as an initial foundation or as a comparison with their other views. Otherwise they would hold beliefs for which there is no textual Christian evidence-- beliefs which, for all they know, are incongruous with the will of the almighty.

I have an answer for you, but I have to turn this question around - do you, an atheist, not believe it's possible to arrive at moral truths outside of religious revelation?

I don't believe in moral "truths." I believe it's possible to arrive at moral systems in many different ways, but the many different types of "morality" are disparate and often at odds with one another.

They were more real/powerful/relevant because they were more familiar than foreign gods. The Aztec gods are an interesting case because they do involve an objective claim about the nature of reality (i.e., the sun will go out if we don't sacrifice these young men), but I obviously wouldn't put them in the same category as the religious moral reformers I've been talking about this entire time.

But would a Grecian from 400 BC agree with this? If you asked him whether Zeus is greater than the gods of the Persians, would he say "Well no, I just consider Zeus more powerful and real because I happen to have been born in Greece, and my beliefs are no more valid than those of any other culture"? Somehow I doubt this-- just as how a Christian today wouldn't say such a thing about his own faith.

I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I agree with all of these statements. I'm not a Wahhabi, or an apologist for predatory Catholic priests.

Nevertheless, you are a member of a religious organization that has participated in far worse atrocities than keeping a few people on a boat against their will. I'm not calling you an "apologist," I'm just saying that this quote...

I believe that the type of faith required to stay loyal to an organization that imprisons some of its members in a cruise ship off the coast of California is different from the type of faith required to stay loyal to an organization that doesn't.

... is nonsensical, because you are acting as though it requires a special kind of blind obedience to be faithful to Scientology due to its many crimes, yet you ignore the blind faith necessary to overlook the many crimes of Christianity. The fact that you seem to look down on the faith of the Scientologists, even admonishing them for putting their trust in an abusive institution, is the epitome of irony.

[Mopsus]

I don't believe in moral "truths." I believe it's possible to arrive at moral systems in many different ways, but the many different types of "morality" are disparate and often at odds with one another.

Fair enough. The traditional Christian view is closest to natural law theory, which is that certain values can always be seen wherever human individuals and societies flourish, and certain other values can always be seen wherever individuals and societies degenerate and die. One doesn't need to be a Christian to distinguish the one from the other, but one does need to love wisdom and goodness.

But would a Grecian from 400 BC agree with this? If you asked him whether Zeus is greater than the gods of the Persians, would he say "Well no, I just consider Zeus more powerful and real because I happen to have been born in Greece, and my beliefs are no more valid than those of any other culture"? Somehow I doubt this-- just as how a Christian today wouldn't say such a thing about his own faith.

If you told a Greek man in 400 BC that this barbarian god was the god of the sky, he would say "Oh, so he's like our Zeus", if you told him that this other barbarian god was the god of the sun, he would say "Oh, so he's like our Apollo", and so on and so forth. The classical approach was to set gods next to one another rather than against one another.

Nevertheless, you are a member of a religious organization that has participated in far worse atrocities than keeping a few people on a boat against their will. I'm not calling you an "apologist," I'm just saying that this quote...

I believe that the type of faith required to stay loyal to an organization that imprisons some of its members in a cruise ship off the coast of California is different from the type of faith required to stay loyal to an organization that doesn't.

... is nonsensical, because you are acting as though it requires a special kind of blind obedience to be faithful to Scientology due to its many crimes, yet you ignore the blind faith necessary to overlook the many crimes of Christianity. The fact that you seem to look down on the faith of the Scientologists, even admonishing them for putting their trust in an abusive institution, is the epitome of irony.

For every Christian who has done terrible things in the name of Christianity, there have been scores of Christians who were appalled by those things, which is why they come to an end. The abusive practices of the Church of Scientology aren't carried out by isolated cells of believers, they are carried out at the behest of the highest leadership. If Scientologists wanted me to consider them a serious spirituality (not that they care what I think, obviously), this whole abusive structure would need to be uprooted and atoned for.

[John Dule]

I don't believe in moral "truths." I believe it's possible to arrive at moral systems in many different ways, but the many different types of "morality" are disparate and often at odds with one another.

Fair enough. The traditional Christian view is closest to natural law theory, which is that certain values can always be seen wherever human individuals and societies flourish, and certain other values can always be seen wherever individuals and societies degenerate and die. One doesn't need to be a Christian to distinguish the one from the other, but one does need to love wisdom and goodness.

This is an interesting proposition, and it is not too dissimilar to my personal moral views. Though I don't believe in an objective quality of "goodness" that exists without an observer to make that judgement, I do believe that it is possible for us to set certain goals ("human flourishing," as you put it) and to then objectively assess which systems and values are best suited to achieving such a goal.

However, if this is truly your standard, then I submit to you this argument: Christianity is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for a society to flourish and prosper. Nations such as South Korea, Singapore, and Japan have grown wealthy and prosperous with very little influence from Christianity, and regions like Latin America and Eastern Europe have stagnated despite boasting largely Christian populations. Indeed, in the modern world religiosity is a negative predictor of a nation's health, wealth, average lifespan, infant mortality rate, technological advancement, GDP, purchasing power... the list goes on. At the very least, I hope we can agree that if there is indeed a set of "values that are either necessary or sufficient to induce human flourishing," Christianity does not fall in that category.

If you told a Greek man in 400 BC that this barbarian god was the god of the sky, he would say "Oh, so he's like our Zeus", if you told him that this other barbarian god was the god of the sun, he would say "Oh, so he's like our Apollo", and so on and so forth. The classical approach was to set gods next to one another rather than against one another.

I'm not sure that proves your argument. What you're describing is a person who is trying to make sense of a foreign belief system by drawing comparisons to something he is familiar with. A Christian might say that Muhammad is the "Muslim version of Jesus" without intending a literal equivalency between the two.

For every Christian who has done terrible things in the name of Christianity, there have been scores of Christians who were appalled by those things, which is why they come to an end. The abusive practices of the Church of Scientology aren't carried out by isolated cells of believers, they are carried out at the behest of the highest leadership. If Scientologists wanted me to consider them a serious spirituality (not that they care what I think, obviously), this whole abusive structure would need to be uprooted and atoned for.

Look, I'm not saying that every Christian is as bad as a Scientologist, nor am I saying that the Christian leadership is as inherently abusive as David Miscarriage and his crew of salivating lackey yes-men. I agree that the average Scientologist is more abused and isolated than the average Christian. However, your implication that Scientologists require some kind of unique "leap of faith" in order to justify the abuses of their organization is simply wrong, and it is disproven by the scores of Christians who keep their faith while ignoring the serial child abusers (and their enablers) in the ranks of the Church. Dozens of popes throughout the ages have ordered assassinations, become political pawns, or (likely) known about the child sexual abuse happening within their organization while doing nothing. Sleazebag preachers regularly become rich from donations that they acquire through misleading their parishioners using sleight-of-hand deception techniques.

I could go on, but it isn't necessary. The point is that it doesn't require a unique type of self-deception to believe in Scientology. This kind of willful blindness is found in every cult, from Christianity to Mormonism to Scientology to Trumpism. The fact that an organization abuses its power doesn't necessarily invalidate everything it does, but even if you believe that Christianity has had a net positive impact on the world, you cannot argue that the faith of a Scientologist and the faith of a Christian are different in type.

[Mopsus]

This is an interesting proposition, and it is not too dissimilar to my personal moral views. Though I don't believe in an objective quality of "goodness" that exists without an observer to make that judgement, I do believe that it is possible for us to set certain goals ("human flourishing," as you put it) and to then objectively assess which systems and values are best suited to achieving such a goal.

However, if this is truly your standard, then I submit to you this argument: Christianity is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for a society to flourish and prosper. Nations such as South Korea, Singapore, and Japan have grown wealthy and prosperous with very little influence from Christianity, and regions like Latin America and Eastern Europe have stagnated despite boasting largely Christian populations. Indeed, in the modern world religiosity is a negative predictor of a nation's health, wealth, average lifespan, infant mortality rate, technological advancement, GDP, purchasing power... the list goes on. At the very least, I hope we can agree that if there is indeed a set of "values that are either necessary or sufficient to induce human flourishing," Christianity does not fall in that category.

Economic wealth is one important criteria for human prosperity, but if you use it as the be-all and end-all, you will leave out some of the most important things in life. This is sadly illustrated when you compare self-murder rates across the world, which if anything suggest that there is an inverse correlation between a country’s wealth and the happiness of individual citizens. Religion offers the communal identity and individual self-actualization that can not be found in a purely capitalist society.

I'm not sure that proves your argument. What you're describing is a person who is trying to make sense of a foreign belief system by drawing comparisons to something he is familiar with. A Christian might say that Muhammad is the "Muslim version of Jesus" without intending a literal equivalency between the two.

That would be a very strained comparison and would fall apart on even the closest inspection, completely unlike the equivalency between, say, Zeus and Jupiter. More importantly, one can draw an equivalency between Zeus and Jupiter in a way that one cannot draw between Zeus and the Abrahamic God, the Brahma, the Dao, or (perhaps) the Great Spirit in Native American religion or the Isis at the end of Apuleius’ Golden Ass.

Look, I'm not saying that every Christian is as bad as a Scientologist, nor am I saying that the Christian leadership is as inherently abusive as David Miscarriage and his crew of salivating lackey yes-men. I agree that the average Scientologist is more abused and isolated than the average Christian. However, your implication that Scientologists require some kind of unique "leap of faith" in order to justify the abuses of their organization is simply wrong, and it is disproven by the scores of Christians who keep their faith while ignoring the serial child abusers (and their enablers) in the ranks of the Church. Dozens of popes throughout the ages have ordered assassinations, become political pawns, or (likely) known about the child sexual abuse happening within their organization while doing nothing. Sleazebag preachers regularly become rich from donations that they acquire through misleading their parishioners using sleight-of-hand deception techniques.

I could go on, but it isn't necessary. The point is that it doesn't require a unique type of self-deception to believe in Scientology. This kind of willful blindness is found in every cult, from Christianity to Mormonism to Scientology to Trumpism. The fact that an organization abuses its power doesn't necessarily invalidate everything it does, but even if you believe that Christianity has had a net positive impact on the world, you cannot argue that the faith of a Scientologist and the faith of a Christian are different in type.

The reason I’ve picked on Scientology is that it has only one Church, and the structure of that church is abusive from the top down. Nor have I at any time denied that abusive Catholic priests and their apologists act more like cultists than men of God. What you’re attempting to say is that because some self-proclaimed Christians have used their authority to manipulate others, all Christians are guilty of either being manipulated or manipulators - including those who are appalled by the men you’re talking about and would never pledge their loyalty to them. Scripture is clear that those who have been vested with earthly authority are to serve their fellow man, and the average Christian can tell the difference between a real servant and an abusive con man, even if the average atheist can’t.

[If my soul was made of stone]

It frightens me that y'all are still butting heads on this. Is there nothing better to do these days?

Religion offers the communal identity and individual self-actualization that can not be found in a purely capitalist society.

I'm a firm believer in the ability of faith to offer these principles and help to usher in a liberated socialist society, but I think that there are plenty of ways to achieve it that aren't explicitly religious, as well as plenty of ways that organized religion in its current form upholds capitalist values and power structures. Dule has outlined some of those, but naturally for him in a way that blames religion far more than capitalism.

More importantly, one can draw an equivalency between Zeus and Jupiter in a way that one cannot draw between Zeus and the Abrahamic God, the Brahma, the Dao, or (perhaps) the Great Spirit in Native American religion or the Isis at the end of Apuleius’ Golden Ass.

You say this like Isis was Apuleius' invention; it's of course very possible that the rites associated with her that he depicts were entirely fictitious and not an accurate representation of her mystery cult, but she already had plenty of real-life history by that point throughout the classical world, and it didn't end there (you can count yours truly among her latter-day devotees).

I have no interest in engaging with what Dule has to say here because it's all his typical tripe. Just to spite him, I'll make a note of my insistence on reclaiming the original anthropological meaning of "cult" for my own religious practice.

[Mopsus]

I'm a firm believer in the ability of faith to offer these principles and help to usher in a liberated socialist society, but I think that there are plenty of ways to achieve it that aren't explicitly religious, as well as plenty of ways that organized religion in its current form upholds capitalist values and power structures. Dule has outlined some of those, but naturally for him in a way that blames religion far more than capitalism.

Ethnic identity comes closest to providing all the benefits of religion, but 1. Capitalism is hostile to that too, and 2. There’s often so much overlap between ethnic affiliation and religious affiliation that it’s hard to disentangle the two. Unfortunately ethnic identity has the same major weakness as religion (it emphasizes service to others above service to the self, and is thus capable of being manipulated by fascists), without the built-in safeguard of a spiritual tradition that all (what I call) authentic religions have.

You say this like Isis was Apuleius' invention; it's of course very possible that the rites associated with her that he depicts were entirely fictitious and not an accurate representation of her mystery cult, but she already had plenty of real-life history by that point throughout the classical world, and it didn't end there (you can count yours truly among her latter-day devotees).

The impression I get of Apuleius is that of a thoroughgoing skeptic who was nevertheless fascinated by magical and cult practice, so it’s hard to say how much of his description was even intended to be accurate. With that said, his depiction of a regional cult elevated to the status of an overarching cosmic principle is pretty much a model example of what I consider the development of human spirituality.

[John Dule]

Economic wealth is one important criteria for human prosperity, but if you use it as the be-all and end-all, you will leave out some of the most important things in life. This is sadly illustrated when you compare self-murder rates across the world, which if anything suggest that there is an inverse correlation between a country’s wealth and the happiness of individual citizens. Religion offers the communal identity and individual self-actualization that can not be found in a purely capitalist society.

Suicide rates are high in wealthy nations because if a person's life falls apart in (for example) Sweden, they feel that have no one to blame but themselves. They live in a prosperous, healthy nation with very inexpensive high-quality education, universal health care, and many available employment opportunities. Conversely, people in the Congo don't often kill themselves, because they don't feel that they are personally to blame for their own problems. This theory was borne out in the COVID pandemic, when-- contrary to what some sociologists predicted-- suicide rates actually dropped, probably because people felt that there was an external factor that they could blame for their suffering.

In other words, general social prosperity of any kind will (counterintuitively) raise suicide rates among those who still fail to succeed in such a system. Capitalism is excellent at increasing prosperity, so it happens to also increase suicide rates proportionally.

The idea that suicide rates are high in developed nations because of a lack of religiosity is bunk. And in any case, you didn't answer my question: Is Christianity a necessary (or sufficient) condition for human flourishing, or is it not? Even the most cursory glance at the statistics will tell you that the answer is no.

That would be a very strained comparison and would fall apart on even the closest inspection, completely unlike the equivalency between, say, Zeus and Jupiter. More importantly, one can draw an equivalency between Zeus and Jupiter in a way that one cannot draw between Zeus and the Abrahamic God, the Brahma, the Dao, or (perhaps) the Great Spirit in Native American religion or the Isis at the end of Apuleius’ Golden Ass.

Were you talking about Zeus and Jupiter when you said that Greeks respected the gods of other cultures? If so, then that supports your argument even less seeing as the gods of the Romans were essentially identical to the gods of the Greeks. The philhellenism of the Romans would naturally cause the Greeks to view their gods with more respect.

The reason I’ve picked on Scientology is that it has only one Church, and the structure of that church is abusive from the top down. Nor have I at any time denied that abusive Catholic priests and their apologists act more like cultists than men of God. What you’re attempting to say is that because some self-proclaimed Christians have used their authority to manipulate others, all Christians are guilty of either being manipulated or manipulators - including those who are appalled by the men you’re talking about and would never pledge their loyalty to them. Scripture is clear that those who have been vested with earthly authority are to serve their fellow man, and the average Christian can tell the difference between a real servant and an abusive con man, even if the average atheist can’t.

How do you explain the success of prosperity gospel preachers, televangelists, and other snake-oil salesmen then? Sorry, but being a Christian doesn't provide you with some unique insight into whether or not others are acting deceptively. If anything, the opposite is true.

This particular exchange started because you said that it takes more blind faith to remain loyal to an abusive institution than it does to remain loyal to a benevolent one. But that delineation is not as simple as you make it out to be. I'm not drawing an exact moral equivalency between Scientology and Christianity-- nor am I saying that they put out the same rate of abuse proportional to the size of their organizations. But you used the fact that Scientologists held some of their members prisoner on a boat as evidence that Scientologists must be uniquely blind to their organization's abuses.

This argument cuts both ways. If someone receives abuse at the hands of Scientology, you're saying that this is grounds for them to reconsider their theological beliefs. But if someone receives abuse at the hands of Christianity, you immediately conjure up a bucketload of excuses ("This is just one denomination," "They're not real Christians," "The structure of the Church is still sound," "This isn't a fundamental part of Christianity," "The Bible explicitly condemns this"). But if abuse is reason enough for a Scientologist to question their faith, then surely that argument can be applied to Christianity as well?

The odd thing about this is that you are criticizing Scientology for its material consequences in the real world, not for its actual theology or claims. If you can judge the Scientologists by the abuses of their organization-- rather than judging them by the "truth" of their religion itself-- then others have the right to judge Christianity by the abuses of its many organizations as well.

I have no interest in engaging with what Dule has to say here

Then don't post! This has been a fascinating and multilayered discussion between two people who disagree on the fundamental nature of reality. If you'd like to participate, you're free to join in-- but your utter intellectual incuriousness contributes nothing to this conversation.

[RINO Tom]

Very stupid and insinuates the person lacks the mental capacity to even comprehend the very idea of a “God,” regardless of where he or she lands on its existence.

[Kingpoleon]

Suicide rates are high in wealthy nations because if a person's life falls apart in (for example) Sweden, they feel that have no one to blame but themselves. They live in a prosperous, healthy nation with very inexpensive high-quality education, universal health care, and many available employment opportunities. Conversely, people in the Congo don't often kill themselves, because they don't feel that they are personally to blame for their own problems. This theory was borne out in the COVID pandemic, when-- contrary to what some sociologists predicted-- suicide rates actually dropped, probably because people felt that there was an external factor that they could blame for their suffering.

In other words, general social prosperity of any kind will (counterintuitively) raise suicide rates among those who still fail to succeed in such a system. Capitalism is excellent at increasing prosperity, so it happens to also increase suicide rates proportionally.

The idea that suicide rates are high in developed nations because of a lack of religiosity is bunk. And in any case, you didn't answer my question: Is Christianity a necessary (or sufficient) condition for human flourishing, or is it not? Even the most cursory glance at the statistics will tell you that the answer is no.

This sort of baffling reasoning always impresses me, in part because you rarely make an argument for rejecting either moral or aesthetic realism and often presume scientific realism while rejecting the science about the effects of religion within a society. Suicide rates in wealthy nations are, in fact, always higher among the irreligious. This is especially noticeable when we compare a fairly atheistic and developed society, like Japan, with a moderately theistic and developed society, like America, but it holds true much more broadly within a society than when comparing them. This is something which you can learn in Introduction to Psychology - regular religious practice reduces rates of mental illness by at least 40-50%. Jonathan Haidt, David Myers, and Harold Koenig have written a great deal on the subject.

https://www.psychiatrictimes.com/view/religion-spirituality-and-mental-health

In short, utilitarianism is difficult to reconcile with theism, but it is impossible to reconcile with atheism.

To this day, a third of non religious people say they would never vote for a candidate who wasn’t religious. This makes little sense except in the context of Frans de Waals’ commentary on religion, suggesting it is an inevitable result of natural selection due to its production of altruistic individuals and altruistic groups. To put it kindly, this dooms atheism to a pseudo-religious humanism which affirms something like the Good and the Beautiful as transcendent or to extinction, as altruistic groups outcompete selfish groups*.

*Important note: the use of the term selfish/altruistic on the genetic or group level of selection is different from the usual use of the term on the individual/moral level, and some philosophers of science have suggested replacing the term Selfish Gene and Altruistic Group with Immortal Gene and Immortal Group.

I’m also very curious to hear your thoughts on the rejection of realism about beauty!

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Suicide rates are high in wealthy nations because if a person's life falls apart in (for example) Sweden, they feel that have no one to blame but themselves. They live in a prosperous, healthy nation with very inexpensive high-quality education, universal health care, and many available employment opportunities. Conversely, people in the Congo don't often kill themselves, because they don't feel that they are personally to blame for their own problems. This theory was borne out in the COVID pandemic, when-- contrary to what some sociologists predicted-- suicide rates actually dropped, probably because people felt that there was an external factor that they could blame for their suffering.

In other words, general social prosperity of any kind will (counterintuitively) raise suicide rates among those who still fail to succeed in such a system. Capitalism is excellent at increasing prosperity, so it happens to also increase suicide rates proportionally.

The idea that suicide rates are high in developed nations because of a lack of religiosity is bunk. And in any case, you didn't answer my question: Is Christianity a necessary (or sufficient) condition for human flourishing, or is it not? Even the most cursory glance at the statistics will tell you that the answer is no.

In short, utilitarianism is difficult to reconcile with theism, but it is impossible to reconcile with atheism.

The obvious rejoinder to this is that while utilitarianism is a useful method for the crude evaluation of different actions, it's utterly useless both as a source of moral truth or to organize the rules of society. Pointing out that less religious societies are empirically better off or that more religious people in less religious societies kill themselves less then less religious people in less religious society is vaguely interesting to evaluating methods and uses of economic development, but it doesn't actually answer any questions about the world.

Nonetheless, if you want to make a utilitarian calculus about whether the individual choice to be religious or not influences the strength of society, the only reasonable conclusion is that everyone should be less religious because less religious societies are better--even if suicide is a price they must bear. Because less religious societies require more people to be less religious for them to become less religious, individuals being more religious is a liability. In short, this becomes nothing but a collective action problem. Naturally, this ignores metrics of individual success beyond mental health which may not cast religiosity in such a favorable light, but you didn't bring them up so they may as well be disregarded.

Of course, this is all such an absurd line of reasoning because a) it doesn't actually answer any questions about whether religion is good or bad and b) it assumes that correlation implies causation when it does not--and indeed, I suspect lower religiosity is a indicator more than a cause of a successful society.

[Kingpoleon]

The obvious rejoinder to this is that while utilitarianism is a useful method for the crude evaluation of different actions, it's utterly useless both as a source of moral truth or to organize the rules of society. Pointing out that less religious societies are empirically better off or that more religious people in less religious societies kill themselves less then less religious people in less religious society is vaguely interesting to evaluating methods and uses of economic development, but it doesn't actually answer any questions about the world.

Nonetheless, if you want to make a utilitarian calculus about whether the individual choice to be religious or not influences the strength of society, the only reasonable conclusion is that everyone should be less religious because less religious societies are better--even if suicide is a price they must bear. Because less religious societies require more people to be less religious for them to become less religious, individuals being more religious is a liability. In short, this becomes nothing but a collective action problem. Naturally, this ignores metrics of individual success beyond mental health which may not cast religiosity in such a favorable light, but you didn't bring them up so they may as well be disregarded.

Of course, this is all such an absurd line of reasoning because a) it doesn't actually answer any questions about whether religion is good or bad and b) it assumes that correlation implies causation when it does not--and indeed, I suspect lower religiosity is a indicator more than a cause of a successful society.

The claim that less religious societies are intrinsically better is a matter of some debate, as it ignores the real point: in a developed society, it is more useful to be religious than not to be. Unless we wish to engage in the study of a society’s psychology in relationship to group beliefs as a whole, which would be a radical new form of psychology that may border on pseudo science, we can only seriously evaluate the effects of religiosity at the level which it can easily be made - that is, the individual.

The positive effects of religious attendance are not really disputed.

“I just want to make one point, however, that should give contractualists pause: surveys have long shown that religious believers in the United States are happier, healthier, longer-lived, and more generous to charity and to each other than are secular people. Most of these effects have been documented in Europe too. If you believe that morality is about happiness and suffering, then I think you are obligated to take a close look at the way religious people actually live and ask what they are doing right. …


“I have italicized the two sections that show ordinary moral thinking rather than scientific thinking. The first is Dennett's claim not just that there is no evidence, but that there is certainly no evidence, when in fact surveys have shown for decades that religious practice is a strong predictor of charitable giving. Arthur Brooks recently analyzed these data (in Who Really Cares) and concluded that the enormous generosity of religious believers is not just recycled to religious charities.

“Religious believers give more money than secular folk to secular charities, and to their neighbors. They give more of their time, too, and of their blood. Even if you excuse secular liberals from charity because they vote for government welfare programs, it is awfully hard to explain why secular liberals give so little blood. The bottom line, Brooks concludes, is that all forms of giving go together, and all are greatly increased by religious participation and slightly increased by conservative ideology (after controlling for religiosity).
           
“These data are complex and perhaps they can be spun the other way, but at the moment it appears that Dennett is wrong in his reading of the literature. Atheists may have many other virtues, but on one of the least controversial and most objective measures of moral behavior—giving time, money, and blood to help strangers in need—religious people appear to be morally superior to secular folk.” - Jonathan Haidt

https://www.edge.org/conversation/jonathan_haidt-moral-psychology-and-the-misunderstanding-of-religion

This is one of the reasons Haidt rejects utilitarianism, for the record.

There’s not yet been another proposal for what could cause this correlation. Is there something about religious people that makes them intrinsically more likely to be religious and more mentally healthy? Thus far, nobody has proposed a correlation which could account for it, such as racial, gender, or economic differences - hence why the fact is included in textbook introductions to psychology.

[Mopsus]

Suicide rates are high in wealthy nations because if a person's life falls apart in (for example) Sweden, they feel that have no one to blame but themselves. They live in a prosperous, healthy nation with very inexpensive high-quality education, universal health care, and many available employment opportunities. Conversely, people in the Congo don't often kill themselves, because they don't feel that they are personally to blame for their own problems. This theory was borne out in the COVID pandemic, when-- contrary to what some sociologists predicted-- suicide rates actually dropped, probably because people felt that there was an external factor that they could blame for their suffering.

In other words, general social prosperity of any kind will (counterintuitively) raise suicide rates among those who still fail to succeed in such a system. Capitalism is excellent at increasing prosperity, so it happens to also increase suicide rates proportionally.

That is an interesting hypothesis, but wouldn't explain why Native Americans, who can rightly blame more of their problems on others than any other ethnic group, have the highest suicide rate in the United States. I think the answer is rooted in (surely you'll like this!) evolutionary psychology: for eons every living human was part of a small, close-knit community of people working together to prosper, and I believe that is still the condition most conducive to human happiness. COVID19 may have estranged us from society at large, but it also drove us closer to those we love and gave us all a sense of common struggle, which is perfectly consistent with my theory.

The idea that suicide rates are high in developed nations because of a lack of religiosity is bunk. And in any case, you didn't answer my question: Is Christianity a necessary (or sufficient) condition for human flourishing, or is it not? Even the most cursory glance at the statistics will tell you that the answer is no.

I believe that Christianity contributes more to human flourishing than any other single factor.

Were you talking about Zeus and Jupiter when you said that Greeks respected the gods of other cultures? If so, then that supports your argument even less seeing as the gods of the Romans were essentially identical to the gods of the Greeks. The philhellenism of the Romans would naturally cause the Greeks to view their gods with more respect.

The Greek and Roman pantheons did have a lot in common by virtue of their Indo-European origin, but in terms of religious syncretism I was actually thinking about the Greeks and later the Romans identifying Amun with Zeus and Jupiter respectively.

How do you explain the success of prosperity gospel preachers, televangelists, and other snake-oil salesmen then? Sorry, but being a Christian doesn't provide you with some unique insight into whether or not others are acting deceptively. If anything, the opposite is true.

Let me turn the question around - if faith is inherently hostile to reason, why are there not more prosperity gospel preachers, televangelists, and other snake-oil salesmen? Why have such men only been able to capture a small minority of religious people, while the vast majority has been able to see through their act?

This particular exchange started because you said that it takes more blind faith to remain loyal to an abusive institution than it does to remain loyal to a benevolent one. But that delineation is not as simple as you make it out to be. I'm not drawing an exact moral equivalency between Scientology and Christianity-- nor am I saying that they put out the same rate of abuse proportional to the size of their organizations. But you used the fact that Scientologists held some of their members prisoner on a boat as evidence that Scientologists must be uniquely blind to their organization's abuses.

This argument cuts both ways. If someone receives abuse at the hands of Scientology, you're saying that this is grounds for them to reconsider their theological beliefs. But if someone receives abuse at the hands of Christianity, you immediately conjure up a bucketload of excuses ("This is just one denomination," "They're not real Christians," "The structure of the Church is still sound," "This isn't a fundamental part of Christianity," "The Bible explicitly condemns this"). But if abuse is reason enough for a Scientologist to question their faith, then surely that argument can be applied to Christianity as well?

The odd thing about this is that you are criticizing Scientology for its material consequences in the real world, not for its actual theology or claims. If you can judge the Scientologists by the abuses of their organization-- rather than judging them by the "truth" of their religion itself-- then others have the right to judge Christianity by the abuses of its many organizations as well.

To be clear, I have never once claimed that you can't judge Christians for their abuses - Jesus and the Apostles were both crystal clear that you are able to separate true believers from hypocrites by their righteousness. But to reiterate (I literally said this in my last post!) I've picked on Scientology because there is no Scientology apart from the Church of Scientology, just as there was no Peoples Temple apart from Jim Jones, there were no Mansonists apart from The Family, etc. What you're suggesting is that I confront my local Methodist Church over the abuse of young boys by Catholic priests, which is just bizarre.

[Kingpoleon]

To be clear, I have never once claimed that you can't judge Christians for their abuses - Jesus and the Apostles were both crystal clear that you are able to separate true believers from hypocrites by their righteousness. But to reiterate (I literally said this in my last post!) I've picked on Scientology because there is no Scientology apart from the Church of Scientology, just as there was no Peoples Temple apart from Jim Jones, there were no Mansonists apart from The Family, etc. What you're suggesting is that I confront my local Methodist Church over the abuse of young boys by Catholic priests, which is just bizarre.

I am reminded of The End of Faith and God is Not Great - Harris suggests that Nazism and communism are religious themselves, while Hitchens dismisses any moral Christian, such as MLK, as only a nominal Christian. To be polite, if an atheist wishes to define Christianity and religions as intrinsically violent and anything that seems religious but is not violent is irreligious, then I, too, am irreligious. I don’t think this is arguing against my religion as such, but violence as such and calling it religion.

(Of course, when Harris later says we sadly may have to kill tens of millions of Iranians, he does not become religious because he has a Very Good Reason.)

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

The obvious rejoinder to this is that while utilitarianism is a useful method for the crude evaluation of different actions, it's utterly useless both as a source of moral truth or to organize the rules of society. Pointing out that less religious societies are empirically better off or that more religious people in less religious societies kill themselves less then less religious people in less religious society is vaguely interesting to evaluating methods and uses of economic development, but it doesn't actually answer any questions about the world.

Nonetheless, if you want to make a utilitarian calculus about whether the individual choice to be religious or not influences the strength of society, the only reasonable conclusion is that everyone should be less religious because less religious societies are better--even if suicide is a price they must bear. Because less religious societies require more people to be less religious for them to become less religious, individuals being more religious is a liability. In short, this becomes nothing but a collective action problem. Naturally, this ignores metrics of individual success beyond mental health which may not cast religiosity in such a favorable light, but you didn't bring them up so they may as well be disregarded.

Of course, this is all such an absurd line of reasoning because a) it doesn't actually answer any questions about whether religion is good or bad and b) it assumes that correlation implies causation when it does not--and indeed, I suspect lower religiosity is a indicator more than a cause of a successful society.

The claim that less religious societies are intrinsically better is a matter of some debate, as it ignores the real point: in a developed society, it is more useful to be religious than not to be. Unless we wish to engage in the study of a society’s psychology in relationship to group beliefs as a whole, which would be a radical new form of psychology that may border on pseudo science, we can only seriously evaluate the effects of religiosity at the level which it can easily be made - that is, the individual.

The positive effects of religious attendance are not really disputed.

I am not disputing this, but I am pointing out that it is mathematically impossible to attain the benefits of individuals being more religious en masse while maintaining the clear benefits that accompany lower religiosity in society. You can't have it both ways, so even if you're right on the individual level, that isn't socially useful. As for the causation and correlation of mental health and religiosity, I might propose that people who are more satisfied with things as they are rather than fixated on how things could be are more susceptible to religious arguments. Whether such contentment is actually a good thing for individuals and society is, of course, a matter of reasonable debate.

[John Dule]

That is an interesting hypothesis, but wouldn't explain why Native Americans, who can rightly blame more of their problems on others than any other ethnic group, have the highest suicide rate in the United States.

Simply not true:



White Americans have the highest suicide rate of any ethnic group in the US, while blacks have the lowest (which supports my hypothesis).

I think the answer is rooted in (surely you'll like this!) evolutionary psychology: for eons every living human was part of a small, close-knit community of people working together to prosper, and I believe that is still the condition most conducive to human happiness. COVID19 may have estranged us from society at large, but it also drove us closer to those we love and gave us all a sense of common struggle, which is perfectly consistent with my theory.

There are perfectly valid ways to find community and a sense of belonging without resorting to cult membership.

I believe that Christianity contributes more to human flourishing than any other single factor.

As someone who claims to be data-oriented, how can you justify this claim? I gave you an entire list of statistics that correlate negatively with religiosity; your best response was to look at suicide rates, a significant data point, sure, but ultimately not among the most important indicators of a country's success. Judeo-Christian values have not lifted Latin America or Africa out of poverty.

The best predictors for a country's flourishing are its geography and legal institutions, in case you wanted to hear an alternative hypothesis. I would be happy to expand upon this if you're interested, but perhaps we should keep this on topic.

Let me turn the question around - if faith is inherently hostile to reason, why are there not more prosperity gospel preachers, televangelists, and other snake-oil salesmen? Why have such men only been able to capture a small minority of religious people, while the vast majority has been able to see through their act?

"Such men" have captured 100% of religious people.

To be clear, I have never once claimed that you can't judge Christians for their abuses - Jesus and the Apostles were both crystal clear that you are able to separate true believers from hypocrites by their righteousness. But to reiterate (I literally said this in my last post!) I've picked on Scientology because there is no Scientology apart from the Church of Scientology, just as there was no Peoples Temple apart from Jim Jones, there were no Mansonists apart from The Family, etc. What you're suggesting is that I confront my local Methodist Church over the abuse of young boys by Catholic priests, which is just bizarre.

I'm not suggesting that you do this. You started this exchange by saying (to paraphrase) "It takes a unique type of self-deception to follow Scientology, which has abused its members." This critique is of the institution of Scientology, not its actual tenets. I am applying that logic to Christianity: By making that argument, you have accepted criticism of an organization as a valid critique of the religion it represents. At this point, we're no longer even debating theology-- you take the institutional rot of Scientology as sufficient evidence to discredit all of its teachings, and I will happily accept that logic and do the same with Christianity. Whether or not the institutions are divided or united is unimportant.

[John Dule]

This sort of baffling reasoning always impresses me, in part because you rarely make an argument for rejecting either moral or aesthetic realism and often presume scientific realism while rejecting the science about the effects of religion within a society. Suicide rates in wealthy nations are, in fact, always higher among the irreligious. This is especially noticeable when we compare a fairly atheistic and developed society, like Japan, with a moderately theistic and developed society, like America, but it holds true much more broadly within a society than when comparing them. This is something which you can learn in Introduction to Psychology - regular religious practice reduces rates of mental illness by at least 40-50%. Jonathan Haidt, David Myers, and Harold Koenig have written a great deal on the subject.

https://www.psychiatrictimes.com/view/religion-spirituality-and-mental-health

In short, utilitarianism is difficult to reconcile with theism, but it is impossible to reconcile with atheism.

I will respond to this against my better judgement, but if you lapse into the lazy personal attacks, name-dropping, and pearl-clutching that have become your calling cards in these discussions, I will happily walk away.

Citing literally one study is not proof of anything. There is ample evidence to support the claim that religiosity helps to improve mental health; at the same time, there is also ample evidence that religious membership is a positive predictor of depression. We can go back and forth looking at individual studies until the cows come home, but let's examine the overall view.

Research on the relationship between religious commitment and psychopamology has produced mixed findings. In a recent meta-analysis, Bergin (1983) found mat 23% of the studies reported a negative relationship, 47% reported a positive relationship, and 30% reported no relationship at all between religion and mental health. Based on our review of more than 200 studies, we have discovered four additional trends: (a) Most studies linking religious commitment to psychopathology have employed mental health measures that we have called “soft variables,” that is, paper-and-pencil personality tests which attempt to measure theoretical constructs. In contrast, most of the research linking religion to positive mental health is on “hard variables,” that is, “real life” behavioral events which can be reliably ob-served and measured and which are unambiguous in their significance. (b) Low levels of religiosity are most often associated with disorders related to undercontrol of impulses, whereas high levels of religiosity are most often associated with disorders of overcontrol. (c) Behavioral measures of religious participation are more powerfully associated with mental health than are attitudinal measures. (d) Distinctions such as that between intrinsic and extrinsic religiosity explain some inconsistent findings.

This is not a conclusion that supports your hypothesis. No, it's not hard to imagine that religiosity could potentially improve mental health in a number of ways, and I'm not ruling this hypothesis out entirely. However, to say that the science is settled on this matter is simply untrue.

The truth about the relationship between religion and mental health would probably have to incorporate a number of mitigating factors before any kind of meaningful conclusion could be reached. Some of these are alluded to in the above quote; others I think deserve more attention. To name a few:

1) How do we define a "mental disorder?" Disorders are only definable based on the context of the person's environment; what might impede someone's function in one environment might not in another. An atheist who grew up in a deeply religious household might be diagnosed with "depression" due to their detachment from their family, lack of friends, and subsequent lower motivation and mental health. At the same time, a person who literally believes in ghosts could be diagnosed as "mentally healthy," which I would object to.

2) Are some kinds of disorders more common among theists/atheists? The article alluded to this; I would expect that atheists probably suffer from disorders that are more common in urban areas and among young people, whereas religious people suffer from other kinds of disorders. This will vary based on country and region.

3) What incentives do people face to talk about their disorders or seek diagnosis? Are religious people/atheists more likely to seek diagnoses or the help of mental health professionals? I'd expect that a disproportionate number of atheists are diagnosed with disorders every year, given that religious people are more likely to seek that kind of help from their fellow community members and congregation.

4) What kind of impact does mental health have on religious conversion and deconversion? People often join cults religious groups due to their need for belonging, their feelings of personal inadequacy, and the sense that they are "searching for something." Are these mental health problems? Should we classify these people as atheists or theists for the purposes of this analysis?

In short, your assertion that I am somehow rejecting a widely held scientific position that "Religion = mental well-being" is just plain wrong. There is no scientific consensus on this, and any emerging consensus would have to factor in everything I just listed and more before it could claim to be supported by data.

[Mopsus]

Simply not true:



White Americans have the highest suicide rate of any ethnic group in the US, while blacks have the lowest (which supports my hypothesis).

If you Google "US suicide rate by ethnicity", every result except that one says Native Americans have the highest rate in the US, so I'm not sure what the source of the disparity is. You'll also note that blacks and Hispanics have a higher rate of religious affiliation than whites do, which supports my hypothesis. Asians don't, but I suspect that their ethnic identity fills the role that religion would fill for other groups.

There are perfectly valid ways to find community and a sense of belonging without resorting to cult membership.

Sure - a religion, for example. Unless we're using your old definition of a cult as any group of people who believe in something, in which case no, I'm not sure that's true.

As someone who claims to be data-oriented, how can you justify this claim? I gave you an entire list of statistics that correlate negatively with religiosity; your best response was to look at suicide rates, a significant data point, sure, but ultimately not among the most important indicators of a country's success. Judeo-Christian values have not lifted Latin America or Africa out of poverty.

The best predictors for a country's flourishing are its geography and legal institutions, in case you wanted to hear an alternative hypothesis. I would be happy to expand upon this if you're interested, but perhaps we should keep this on topic.

If we want to be really specific about it, the best predictor of a country's prosperity is how hard it was colonized by a European power. Though then there's the question of why it was the Christian continent that conquered the world.

I'm not suggesting that you do this. You started this exchange by saying (to paraphrase) "It takes a unique type of self-deception to follow Scientology, which has abused its members." This critique is of the institution of Scientology, not its actual tenets. I am applying that logic to Christianity: By making that argument, you have accepted criticism of an organization as a valid critique of the religion it represents. At this point, we're no longer even debating theology-- you take the institutional rot of Scientology as sufficient evidence to discredit all of its teachings, and I will happily accept that logic and do the same with Christianity. Whether or not the institutions are divided or united is unimportant.

I think that you've kind of lost the thread there. This whole time we've been trying to distinguish cults from religions, and I've suggested that men who use religious organizations to enrich themselves and abuse others, as well as the people who apologize for them, probably don't belong to the healthiest type of organization, nor are they likely to have a close personal relationship with God. And yes, this does apply to self-styled Christians who fit the description.

[Kingpoleon]

I will respond to this against my better judgement, but if you lapse into the lazy personal attacks, name-dropping, and pearl-clutching that have become your calling cards in these discussions, I will happily walk away.

Citing literally one study is not proof of anything. There is ample evidence to support the claim that religiosity helps to improve mental health; at the same time, there is also ample evidence that religious membership is a positive predictor of depression. We can go back and forth looking at individual studies until the cows come home, but let's examine the overall view.

Research on the relationship between religious commitment and psychopamology has produced mixed findings. In a recent meta-analysis, Bergin (1983) found mat 23% of the studies reported a negative relationship, 47% reported a positive relationship, and 30% reported no relationship at all between religion and mental health. Based on our review of more than 200 studies, we have discovered four additional trends: (a) Most studies linking religious commitment to psychopathology have employed mental health measures that we have called “soft variables,” that is, paper-and-pencil personality tests which attempt to measure theoretical constructs. In contrast, most of the research linking religion to positive mental health is on “hard variables,” that is, “real life” behavioral events which can be reliably ob-served and measured and which are unambiguous in their significance. (b) Low levels of religiosity are most often associated with disorders related to undercontrol of impulses, whereas high levels of religiosity are most often associated with disorders of overcontrol. (c) Behavioral measures of religious participation are more powerfully associated with mental health than are attitudinal measures. (d) Distinctions such as that between intrinsic and extrinsic religiosity explain some inconsistent findings.

This is not a conclusion that supports your hypothesis. No, it's not hard to imagine that religiosity could potentially improve mental health in a number of ways, and I'm not ruling this hypothesis out entirely. However, to say that the science is settled on this matter is simply untrue.

The truth about the relationship between religion and mental health would probably have to incorporate a number of mitigating factors before any kind of meaningful conclusion could be reached. Some of these are alluded to in the above quote; others I think deserve more attention. To name a few:

1) How do we define a "mental disorder?" Disorders are only definable based on the context of the person's environment; what might impede someone's function in one environment might not in another. An atheist who grew up in a deeply religious household might be diagnosed with "depression" due to their detachment from their family, lack of friends, and subsequent lower motivation and mental health. At the same time, a person who literally believes in ghosts could be diagnosed as "mentally healthy," which I would object to.

2) Are some kinds of disorders more common among theists/atheists? The article alluded to this; I would expect that atheists probably suffer from disorders that are more common in urban areas and among young people, whereas religious people suffer from other kinds of disorders. This will vary based on country and region.

3) What incentives do people face to talk about their disorders or seek diagnosis? Are religious people/atheists more likely to seek diagnoses or the help of mental health professionals? I'd expect that a disproportionate number of atheists are diagnosed with disorders every year, given that religious people are more likely to seek that kind of help from their fellow community members and congregation.

4) What kind of impact does mental health have on religious conversion and deconversion? People often join cults religious groups due to their need for belonging, their feelings of personal inadequacy, and the sense that they are "searching for something." Are these mental health problems? Should we classify these people as atheists or theists for the purposes of this analysis?

In short, your assertion that I am somehow rejecting a widely held scientific position that "Religion = mental well-being" is just plain wrong. There is no scientific consensus on this, and any emerging consensus would have to factor in everything I just listed and more before it could claim to be supported by data.

https://www.nami.org/Blogs/NAMI-Blog/December-2016/The-Mental-Health-Benefits-of-Religion-Spiritual

“During much of the 20th century, mental health professionals tended to deny the religious aspects of human life and often considered this dimension as either old-fashioned or pathological, predicting that it would disappear as mankind matured and developed. However, hundreds of epidemiological studies performed during the last decades have shown a different picture. Religiousness remains an important aspect of human life and it usually has a positive association with good mental health.”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3705681/

“On balance, it appears that being religious enhances mental health. Future work in this area needs to explore the clinical implications of these findings, and how working with patients’ theological constructs such as guilt, sin and forgiveness helps to promote recovery. Most importantly, both clinical work and research need to be more sensitive to cultural and theological issues.”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6048728/

“The overall effects of religious practice on mental health are beneficial, reducing rates of mental illness between thirty and fifty percent. This is more notable the more common the religious practice, and is much more effective than other communal activities, such as club sports. It is important to note that these studies apply across religious denominations.” - Introduction to Psychology, Lumen Learning

This is particularly noticeable because psychology has a long history of antipathy to religion, largely stemming from its Freudian foundation. It is only in the last 20-30 years that psychologists have begun rejecting the idea that religions are fundamentally pathological in nature. If you want to continue to claim to know more about psychology than an introductory textbook, feel free to; if you want to continue to insist that believing in God or a soul is pathological and follow outdated pseudo psychology driven by anti-religious biases, feel free to. But you can’t be upset that every major psychological organization rejects your claims, or that the vast majority of the research shows mental health benefits to religious practice and belief. This is a point widely conceded even by an atheist like Jonathan Haidt, perhaps the country’s most prominent psychologist.

[John Dule]

If you Google "US suicide rate by ethnicity", every result except that one says Native Americans have the highest rate in the US, so I'm not sure what the source of the disparity is. You'll also note that blacks and Hispanics have a higher rate of religious affiliation than whites do, which supports my hypothesis. Asians don't, but I suspect that their ethnic identity fills the role that religion would fill for other groups.

Why did you say that ethnic identity would fill the role of religion for Asians when immediately after this, you said that nothing can fill the role of religion? Anyway, I don't know what to tell you; my graph is from the CDC. This is hardly the most important point here anyway, but in any case, suicide rates correlate with many things aside from religion and you'd be a terrible statistician if you drew a conclusion about this relationship based solely on shallow interpretation of the numbers.

There are perfectly valid ways to find community and a sense of belonging without resorting to cult membership.

Sure - a religion, for example. Unless we're using your old definition of a cult as any group of people who believe in something, in which case no, I'm not sure that's true.

I have given a consistent definition of "cult" that engages with existing definitions. I can repeat it if you've forgotten it.

If we want to be really specific about it, the best predictor of a country's prosperity is how hard it was colonized by a European power. Though then there's the question of why it was the Christian continent that conquered the world.

Many reasons.

1) A seafaring culture that made Europeans experienced shipbuilders and navigators.
2) Natural geographic divisions that pitted various regions of the continent against one another, incentivizing them to expand wherever possible.
3) Better access to resources (specifically types of livestock) than were available on many other continents.
4) A favorable climate for agriculture.
5) More pluralistic economic institutions, which created a merchant class that developed trade more than the state could.

I hope you're not seriously saying that Christians conquered the world because God willed it, because that would be just as stupid as an Egyptian peasant in 2000 BC saying "If the Pharaoh isn't the divine embodiment of Ra, then why does he rule over the entire River Nile?"

I think that you've kind of lost the thread there. This whole time we've been trying to distinguish cults from religions, and I've suggested that men who use religious organizations to enrich themselves and abuse others, as well as the people who apologize for them, probably don't belong to the healthiest type of organization, nor are they likely to have a close personal relationship with God. And yes, this does apply to self-styled Christians who fit the description.

A meaningless statement if there ever was one. How could you possibly know this?

[Mopsus]

Why did you say that ethnic identity would fill the role of religion for Asians when immediately after this, you said that nothing can fill the role of religion?

The most important thing for human happiness is that we think about ourselves as little as possible. Ethnic identity is pretty good at getting people to think about things other than themselves, but it isn't as good as religion.

I have given a consistent definition of "cult" that engages with existing definitions. I can repeat it if you've forgotten it.

I don't know why that would be necessary. As shown, I'm much more efficient at summarizing your position than you are.

I hope you're not seriously saying that Christians conquered the world because God willed it, because that would be just as stupid as an Egyptian peasant in 2000 BC saying "If the Pharaoh isn't the divine embodiment of Ra, then why does he rule over the entire River Nile?"

That's not an apt comparison. Pharaoh's people were native to the Nile; the Queen's weren't.

A meaningless statement if there ever was one. How could you possibly know this?

Because I've seen firsthand what happens when a person is close to God and what happens when the same person isn't.

[John Dule]

I debated whether I should bother responding to this comment, because it seems to me as though your appetite for having a serious discussion is quickly diminishing. Nevertheless, I'll press on.

Why did you say that ethnic identity would fill the role of religion for Asians when immediately after this, you said that nothing can fill the role of religion?

The most important thing for human happiness is that we think about ourselves as little as possible. Ethnic identity is pretty good at getting people to think about things other than themselves, but it isn't as good as religion.

Ignoring the (dubious) premise of your views on human flourishing, is it really inconceivable to you that a person might live a life dedicated to charity and the betterment of society without being religious? And in any case, I reject the idea that it's possible for a person to "think about things other than themselves." If a person acts charitably or engages with his community (traits you seem to reserve only for the religious), it is because he wants to do this; he is not being compelled forward by some external force. Every action a person takes comes from their inner motivations, so it is impossible to completely divorce a person's actions from their own experiences and beliefs. In other words, "selflessness" is simply a myth.

I don't know why that would be necessary. As shown, I'm much more efficient at summarizing your position than you are.

Once again, my definition of a "cult" is "An organization or group united in the common veneration of a person, idea, or object above all others." This definition has remained rock-solid throughout this conversation, whereas yours has changed multiple times.

I hope you're not seriously saying that Christians conquered the world because God willed it, because that would be just as stupid as an Egyptian peasant in 2000 BC saying "If the Pharaoh isn't the divine embodiment of Ra, then why does he rule over the entire River Nile?"

That's not an apt comparison. Pharaoh's people were native to the Nile; the Queen's weren't.

Why does that mean the comparison doesn't work? And again, are you seriously saying that Christians conquered the world because God wanted them to?

A meaningless statement if there ever was one. How could you possibly know this?

Because I've seen firsthand what happens when a person is close to God and what happens when the same person isn't.

I have no idea what you mean by this.

[John Dule]

This is particularly noticeable because psychology has a long history of antipathy to religion, largely stemming from its Freudian foundation. It is only in the last 20-30 years that psychologists have begun rejecting the idea that religions are fundamentally pathological in nature. If you want to continue to claim to know more about psychology than an introductory textbook, feel free to; if you want to continue to insist that believing in God or a soul is pathological and follow outdated pseudo psychology driven by anti-religious biases, feel free to. But you can’t be upset that every major psychological organization rejects your claims, or that the vast majority of the research shows mental health benefits to religious practice and belief. This is a point widely conceded even by an atheist like Jonathan Haidt, perhaps the country’s most prominent psychologist.

Why are you continuing to insist on posting individual sources? I have just established that the broad consensus is inconclusive, while acknowledging that there are data points that support your view. You are not engaging with anything I posted; you are merely repeating yourself, albeit this time with different quotes.

Can you please try to engage with the comment I made? Seriously, the italicized part of your post has literally nothing to do with anything I said. You are coming across as completely disconnected from this conversation.