I don't hate churches any more.........

[GJ (McG)]

Actually I've written several posts about my tolerance of churches and religion.... I never fully hated them.
 
But during my absence I've been thinking about this a lot.  A couple of minor things in the past couple of days has prompted this post.
 
Two or three recent TV shows have pointed out the impact church attendance and/or faith has had on some individuals.  Kids who lived in abject poverty and were surrounded by gang culture found that church helped keep them on the straight and narrow.  It wasn't necessarily church itself, but rather an alternate life-style option.  Even if it was forced on them by concerned parents, the outcome was positive.
 
And just this past Sunday I went to the grocery store, and I saw a few young children who were dressed very nicely and were very polite.... they had just come from church.  It was a pleasant sight.
 
You all know by now that I STRONGLY believe that morals do not come from religion, but rather from humanity.  One thing that really rankles me about religious folks is the blatantly stated or implied notion that secularists don't know right from wrong - or at best don't have a good foundation for their criteria of right and wrong.
 
But I must admit that in spite of the brainwashing and blind faith crap, churches may be saving us all, as a society, from at least SOME of the worst elements, and might actually be responsible for pulling a few people out of the gutter.
 
So I guess my wishy-washy stance of "live and let live" has once again been reinforced.  If faith or church or whatever is the only thing that lifts some people up, then I'd hate to see it erradicated, and I personally can live with the mind-control and subservience inherent in it.

[Gurra100]

But I must admit that in spite of the brainwashing and blind faith crap, churches may be saving us all, as a society, from at least SOME of the worst elements, and might actually be responsible for pulling a few people out of the gutter.
 
So I guess my wishy-washy stance of "live and let live" has once again been reinforced.  If faith or church or whatever is the only thing that lifts some people up, then I'd hate to see it erradicated, and I personally can live with the mind-control and subservience inherent in it.

The "evangelical side" of the churces is of course centered around the life and teachings of Christ, and that is always a positive thing. For those who take it seriously it can lead to a lot of empathy for those not so fortunate in life. I guess we should appreciate this ! Even if it is very difficult to accept the emotional  restraints present. If you like to you can read my view of the catholic church wich is not evangelical.
Here: Our lives: Violence crime and religion
[/]

[nom]

Interesting observations GJ, and backed up by academic research too. Of course it's not only religion that acts as a protective factor for young people, but it is one of the stronger ones.

[The Emu's Prophet]

One of the reasons why religion has been so successful is that it is able to co-opt many of those things which are good in the world, and claim exclusive ownership of them. We're all familiar with the common examples, love, morality, etc; by convincing people that these things are the exclusive province of that religion, they also say that if you abandon the religion, you cannot have these things. Thus, if one does not wish to part with them, one must remain a part of that religion, and carry with them all the other dogma that goes with it. And so with churches. What is a church exactly? Basically, social club + support group + dogma. The former two things are of course, intrinsically valuable. By creating a system where the dogma promulgation system is tied to the social club/support group structure, the Church is in effect making it such that those who require the social club/support group aspect cannot attain it without also being exposed to dogma. The trick then, is to create a system whereby the social club/support group structure exists, and people can use that, without it simply being a means by which people can be indoctrinated into accepting particular ideas. Preferably something not run by Ford Vox. 

[GJ (McG)]

Ahhhh.....therein lies the rub!
 
It goes back to the problem of herding cats, IMHO.
 
Churches provide the "social club" + support group.... but it is the dogma that holds them together.... unified and strong!
It is demanding and getting strict adherance to that dogma that creates an environment that can't be easily undermined.  Some (most) use the threat of hell and the reward of heaven... Some use materialistic "carrots", suggesting that true faith will be rewarded with success in this lifetime.  Religion uses the power of "laws" that have been handed down by an omnipotent being who is not to be questioned!  And the existence of this being is impossible to disprove!  There is just enough anecdotal evidence to constantly reinforce the possibility that prayer works and that their God does indeed exist..... and once you have that, the fear of retribution for doubting is a very strong force.
 
Those of us who have questioned everything, and found the answers provided by religion to be lacking, have nothing left strong enough to permanently bind us together as a cohesive and enduring force... no matter how noble our causes may be.  We have a million priorities and projects and good intentions.  But religion has "GOD"....
 
I think we have all had moments when we've questioned what the hell life is all about, and do we have any purpose other than procreation!!!!!!
Religion has us licked there... because for most religions the meaning of "life" is only truly realized upon "death".
Life is temporary.... but death is forever.  So religion has a solitary goal of ensuring our eternity will be wonderful if only we follow God's rules.
That is some pretty powerful stuff, and I don't think non-theists will ever be able to compete with it, and hence I don't think we will ever be able to form social club / support groups with a fraction of the strength or endurance of churches.

[GJ (McG)]

I just stumbled upon a broadcast from Air America Radio that touches on many of the things we've all said here on this forum! 
 
It was about a new book by Greg Epstein, humanist Chaplain at Harvard University.  The book is titled "Good Without God: What a Billion Nonreligious People Do Believe".
 
It is rather long (16 minutes), and I don't care much for the style of the person conducting the interview.... but it really is rather interesting, and I think you might enjoy listening!
 
http://airamerica.com/ondemand/10-27-2009/lionel-greg-epstein/

[nom]

Emu & GJ: churches are more than social club + support group + dogma (or at least at their best they are). What this portrayal leaves out is faith and commitment - the sense of meaning and purpose that an individual has. I can belong to a social club and support group, but not have a commitment to it, a sense of purpose to a higher ideal. Ditto for dogma. And I can have all those things without church (or have none and still be in church).

The biggest protective factors associated with church seem to be (from memory): a commitment to a higher purpose* beyond self; a sense of belonging; social support.

*Higher purpose does not mean God. It can mean god, but it can also be any number of other things that are larger than individual people.

[Gurra100]

The biggest protective factors associated with church seem to be (from memory): a commitment to a higher purpose* beyond self; a sense of belonging; social support.

Intresting. If it really is about a higher purpose in life, why are people on churches so intrested in outer appearance, lifestyle (some lifestyles are of course destructive), the way you express yourself, and other relatively petty things compared to a higher purpose. A higher purpose in life must be tolerance, forgiveness, and of course, LOVE. All according to the teachings of Christ 

[GJ (McG)]

All according to the teachings of Christ 

And according to the teachings of Gandhi, Buddha, the Dalai Lama, and a host of other gentle humanistic spiritual leaders.

Nom, in response to your post... I totally get what you are saying... but I still maintain that it is the dogma (particularly as it relates to the state of your soul and the "afterlife") that creates such a strong bond, and a fear of losing or giving up that bond.

There are plenty of groups and organizations that exist purely to support higher ideals:  Greenpeace, Muscular Dystrophy Association, UNICEF, Big Brothers/Big Sisters, United Way, Aids Foundations, etc.Alcoholics Anonymous even strongly promotes turning to a "higher power".  But NONE of those organizations can hold a candle to churches when it comes to loyalty, dedication, and devotion.

[nom]

GJ - I don't disagree with you, at least not entirely. I would only make the point that "dogma" is in any large institution (including all those that you mention). If you are particularly referring to belief in an afterlife, then that is neither unique to, nor necessary for, Christianity. When I was a committed Christian and worked for the Church, I know many of my colleagues did not believe in an afterlife, and neither did I. Fifteen years later most of them still believe in, and work for,  the Church.

To explain a little more fully why I don't fully agree with you. I accept, without any dispute, that for some people unquestioning belief in an afterlife coupled with an intolerant faith community creates a fear that makes it very difficult to question the underlying dogma. No argument there. I don't agree that this is *always* the case. It is applying the qualities of small sample and saying it describes the entire population (e.g. all beagles are dogs, therefore all dogs are beagles). It can also be very hard to give up allegiance to an organisation and set of beliefs that make up one's social world, family, work, higher ideals and world view. Dogma, let alone the specific belief of an afterlife,  doesn't need to come into it at all.

I still maintain it is the nature, not content, of belief that causes problems. I have met Greenpeace activists that are more dogmatic and evangelical than Benny Hinn. Hence I don't agree with your statement that "NONE of those organizations can hold a candle to churches when it comes to loyalty, dedication, and devotion". I can think of  adherents to various organisations devoted to higher purpose (e.g. unions, environmental groups, political parties, charities, alternative therapies, and more) that are dysfunctionally loyal, dedicated and devoted. Few have had 20000 years of history and the power of the Roman Empire to help raise their profile...