Talk:Religion
|
|
- Archives of previous discussion
- Archive01 -- To August 2004
- Archive02 -- August 2004 to November 2004
- Archive03 -- November 2004 to April 2005
- Links to selected topics in the archives
- Approaches to defining religion ... User:Melamed's approach to distinguishing religion from non-religion
| Contents |
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] (http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/p001078.html)" 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 chruch. 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 fatigue that can't go to the 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)
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."
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)
- 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)
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
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 phisics 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 beeing I removed that horribly wrong and biased last paragraph. Markus Schmaus 13:49, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)