I'm sure everyone here has heard an been appalled by the imprisonment of a
teacher for allowing a teddy to be called "Mohammed", and the subsequent
clamour for her execution for this "crime".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7122323.stm

Why is it that gods are so thin-skinned that their supporters need people
to be executed for "insulting" them (not that this teacher did). Indeed it
seems that there is a correllation, in that the more absolute and powerful
the god, the more thin-skinned that god is.

And yet, a god that is omnipotent and omniscient should have the ultimate
thick skin, since that god is both invulnerable, immortal, and
all-knowing. That god has heard every insult, ever, including every insult
as yet undreamt of my men. How could such a being being even the remotest
bit hurt by the pointed rantings of utterly inconsequential mortal
creations, such as humans?

If I belived in an all-powerful immortal god, every time I heard someone
insult my god I would just lean back in my comfy chair and laugh
knowingly, sure in the knowledge that the person would beburning in hell
shortly...

So, are these people really insecure? Do they really fear that their god
doesnt really exist? Do they fear exposure?

Mark

--

On 1 Dec, 12:18, Mark.Wri...@bristol.ac.uk wrote:
> I'm sure everyone here has heard an been appalled by the imprisonment of a
> teacher for allowing a teddy to be called "Mohammed", and the subsequent
> clamour for her execution for this "crime".
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7122323.stm

I think the BBC have made too much of the 'clamour for execution'. You
will
always get 'Arab street nutters' doing their thang. It's a sign of the
dumbing down of the BBC that they have indulged in excessive reporting
of the moral equivalent of football hooligans rather than doing proper
investigative reporting and engaging with Islamic intellectuals &
judges in the Sudan and elsewhere.

> ... the more absolute and powerful
> the god, the more thin-skinned that god is.

What justification have you for saying that? The Greek gods were a
touchy bunch, ready to fire thunderbolts about for minor insults --
they seem the most thin skinned to me. Look at all their petty goings
on at Troy! But (apart from Zeus) they were a lot less powerful than
Jehovah or Allah.

> And yet, a god that is omnipotent and omniscient should have the ultimate
> thick skin, since that god is both invulnerable, immortal, and
> all-knowing. That god has heard every insult, ever, including every insult
> as yet undreamt of my men. How could such a being being even the remotest
> bit hurt by the pointed rantings of utterly inconsequential mortal
> creations, such as humans?

Of course he can't be hurt. But he might decide to squash an ugly bug
for insulting his sense of aesthetics.

What's all this bear naming rubbish about anyway? If that's an example
of how English primary school teachers waste children's time then it's
hardly surprising that reading results are so bad.

On 1 Dec, 12:18, Mark.Wri...@bristol.ac.uk wrote:
> I'm sure everyone here has heard an been appalled by the imprisonment of a
> teacher for allowing a teddy to be called "Mohammed", and the subsequent
> clamour for her execution for this "crime".
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7122323.stm
>
> Why is it that gods are so thin-skinned that their supporters need people
> to be executed for "insulting" them (not that this teacher did). Indeed it
> seems that there is a correllation, in that the more absolute and powerful
> the god, the more thin-skinned that god is.
>
> And yet, a god that is omnipotent and omniscient should have the ultimate
> thick skin, since that god is both invulnerable, immortal, and
> all-knowing. That god has heard every insult, ever, including every insult
> as yet undreamt of my men. How could such a being being even the remotest
> bit hurt by the pointed rantings of utterly inconsequential mortal
> creations, such as humans?
>
> If I belived in an all-powerful immortal god, every time I heard someone
> insult my god I would just lean back in my comfy chair and laugh
> knowingly, sure in the knowledge that the person would beburning in hell
> shortly...
>
> So, are these people really insecure? Do they really fear that their god
> doesnt really exist? Do they fear exposure?
>
> Mark


I think people often react strongly when their core beliefs are
challenged, since the whole conceptual structure of their world view
is being threatened.

Dave

Dave Smith wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> I think people often react strongly when their core beliefs are
> challenged, since the whole conceptual structure of their world view
> is being threatened.
> 
Yes, that's true.

How do they know that they are their 'core beliefs' though? I find that 
they often think that they are rational and have rationality as a 'core 
belief'. They then, after discussion, seem to be unsure about how core 
rationality actually is to their belief.

I've noticed that most theists become a little unhappy, some a trifle 
inclined to violence, when they find their rationality under threat.

Is there any evidence that a pretence to rationality isn't a 'core belief'?

On 1 Dec, 20:12, "Peter H.M.Brooks"  wrote:
> Dave Smith wrote:
>
> > I think people often react strongly when their core beliefs are
> > challenged, since the whole conceptual structure of their world view
> > is being threatened.
>
> Yes, that's true.
>
> How do they know that they are their 'core beliefs' though? I find that
> they often think that they are rational and have rationality as a 'core
> belief'. They then, after discussion, seem to be unsure about how core
> rationality actually is to their belief.
>
> I've noticed that most theists become a little unhappy, some a trifle
> inclined to violence, when they find their rationality under threat.
>
> Is there any evidence that a pretence to rationality isn't a 'core belief'?

Sorry, I'm not too sure what you're driving at.  I expect religious
people generally think both that it is important to be rational and
that they are rational.  Of course, some claim that a leap of faith is
required, but I expect they would argue that it is rational to take
this leap.

Dave

"Dave Smith"  wrote
>
> I think people often react strongly when their core beliefs are
> challenged, since the whole conceptual structure of their world view
> is being threatened.

According to the program I was listening to, those that were chanting for 
the teacher's death wouldn't have been told the whole truth, just that the 
woman had insulted Islam and their god. People often get upset if they only 
get a bit of the story. We had a similar thing here when someone claimed the 
combined injection was a risk to children. People all too easily believe 
what they are told.

Steve M

Dave Smith wrote:
> On 1 Dec, 20:12, "Peter H.M.Brooks"  wrote:
>> Dave Smith wrote:
>>
>>> I think people often react strongly when their core beliefs are
>>> challenged, since the whole conceptual structure of their world view
>>> is being threatened.
>> Yes, that's true.
>>
>> How do they know that they are their 'core beliefs' though? I find that
>> they often think that they are rational and have rationality as a 'core
>> belief'. They then, after discussion, seem to be unsure about how core
>> rationality actually is to their belief.
>>
>> I've noticed that most theists become a little unhappy, some a trifle
>> inclined to violence, when they find their rationality under threat.
>>
>> Is there any evidence that a pretence to rationality isn't a 'core belief'?
> 
> Sorry, I'm not too sure what you're driving at.  I expect religious
> people generally think both that it is important to be rational and
> that they are rational.  Of course, some claim that a leap of faith is
> required, but I expect they would argue that it is rational to take
> this leap.
> 
I don't think so. The whole point of a 'leap of faith' is that it is 
entirely irrational. If it were rational then it would be simply a 
rational decision, not a leap of faith.

On 2007-12-01, Paul Grieg  wrote:
> I think the BBC have made too much of the 'clamour for execution'. You
> will
> always get 'Arab street nutters' doing their thang. It's a sign of the
> dumbing down of the BBC that they have indulged in excessive reporting
> of the moral equivalent of football hooligans rather than doing proper
> investigative reporting and engaging with Islamic intellectuals &
> judges in the Sudan and elsewhere.

That could be interesting, but it's hard to get religious intellectuals
to get together at times. It would be nice to see them get over their
differences and look at common problems, with the hope that the result
would be a tendency away from dogmatic belief.

I hope that this will cause some people to look at religion and at least
say "We'll be more moderate", something that seems to be happening more
in today's world anyway as people of different backgrounds mix more and
people notice that the other lot actually don't look like nasty demons and
you can be a Generally Nice Person without actually believing in Deity X.

> What justification have you for saying that? The Greek gods were a
> touchy bunch, ready to fire thunderbolts about for minor insults --
> they seem the most thin skinned to me. Look at all their petty goings
> on at Troy! But (apart from Zeus) they were a lot less powerful than
> Jehovah or Allah.

The Hindu ones just seem to like making mistakes, like granting their
enemies powers sufficient to allow them to subsequently defeat the
gods that granted them. Maybe it's allegory with more to those stories
than I've discovered. Maybe if you take one interpretation that 'god'
in Hinduism is a nice way of looking at the complex world then it's a
warning not to trash it, though I think many Hindus in practice have a
similar idea of a personal god to many other religions.

There was an article in a newspaper in America a while back with a cartoon
of various Hindu deities in embarrassing situations. I think the response
was a few harshly worded letters. Different groups behave differently,
though for a group that seem to so love their deities we didn't see the
uproar that the Mohammed cartoons got. 

The recent story of Shambo the bull was an interesting one to watch and
ask questions about though.  Debate at our local temple, although in
Hindi so I couldn't understand much of it, sounded interesting.

> Of course he can't be hurt. But he might decide to squash an ugly bug
> for insulting his sense of aesthetics.

Maybe the thunderbolts are more subtle. ;-) 

> What's all this bear naming rubbish about anyway? If that's an example
> of how English primary school teachers waste children's time then it's
> hardly surprising that reading results are so bad.

Depends on the age of the children and what was being taught. They can't
all do partial differential equations in maths in primary school you
know. The children were asked to choose a name for the bear and vote on
it. This was last September. Mohammed was the chosen name. The bear then
was handed out to each child in turn to take away at the weekend and the
child had to write an essay on what they did. A good way of practicing
essay writing by sounds of things. "Saturday we took Mohammed to the
park and fed the birds...". Things exploded when someone reported her to
the government a couple of weeks ago.

It is reminiscent of a scene from Life of Brian isn't it, only not as
funny.

 - Richard

-- 
   _/_/_/  _/_/_/  _/_/_/     Richard Corfield 
  _/  _/    _/    _/          
 _/_/      _/    _/                Time is a one way street,               
_/  _/  _/_/    _/_/_/                     except in the Twilight Zone

On 2007-12-02, Peter H.M.Brooks  wrote:
>> Sorry, I'm not too sure what you're driving at.  I expect religious
>> people generally think both that it is important to be rational and
>> that they are rational.  Of course, some claim that a leap of faith is
>> required, but I expect they would argue that it is rational to take
>> this leap.
>> 
> I don't think so. The whole point of a 'leap of faith' is that it is 
> entirely irrational. If it were rational then it would be simply a 
> rational decision, not a leap of faith.

Churches present their evidence for belief. They also seem to expect a
case of "It works for us so it will work for you", which could be called
a rational basis for joining up even if you are taking things on faith.
How well it works for them is something you find out afterwards. You'll
find a lot of Christians saying how wonderful Christianity is and how
God/Jesus has really changed their lives and could do the same for you.

 - Richard

-- 
   _/_/_/  _/_/_/  _/_/_/     Richard Corfield 
  _/  _/    _/    _/          
 _/_/      _/    _/                Time is a one way street,               
_/  _/  _/_/    _/_/_/                     except in the Twilight Zone

On 2 Dec, 05:53, "Peter H.M.Brooks"  wrote:
> Dave Smith wrote:
> > On 1 Dec, 20:12, "Peter H.M.Brooks"  wrote:
> >> Dave Smith wrote:
>
> >>> I think people often react strongly when their core beliefs are
> >>> challenged, since the whole conceptual structure of their world view
> >>> is being threatened.
> >> Yes, that's true.
>
> >> How do they know that they are their 'core beliefs' though? I find that
> >> they often think that they are rational and have rationality as a 'core
> >> belief'. They then, after discussion, seem to be unsure about how core
> >> rationality actually is to their belief.
>
> >> I've noticed that most theists become a little unhappy, some a trifle
> >> inclined to violence, when they find their rationality under threat.
>
> >> Is there any evidence that a pretence to rationality isn't a 'core belief'?
>
> > Sorry, I'm not too sure what you're driving at.  I expect religious
> > people generally think both that it is important to be rational and
> > that they are rational.  Of course, some claim that a leap of faith is
> > required, but I expect they would argue that it is rational to take
> > this leap.
>
> I don't think so. The whole point of a 'leap of faith' is that it is
> entirely irrational. If it were rational then it would be simply a
> rational decision, not a leap of faith.


Don't some people argue along the lines of 'Pascal's wager'?  Might
not a pragmatist argue that religious beliefs have a certain 'cash
value' in terms of health and happiness, so it is rational to adopt
them?

I'm inclined to think that rationality, like wisdom and morality, is
difficult to define objectively. It involves values as well as facts
and logic.  Accordingly, whether a particular act is rational is to
some extent a matter of opinion.

Dave

On 12/3/07 2:57 PM, in article
88d2ca0f-2f64-44a1-a9f5-459610127c3c@o6g2000hsd.googlegroups.com, "Dave
Smith"  wrote:

> On 2 Dec, 05:53, "Peter H.M.Brooks"  wrote:
>> Dave Smith wrote:
>>> On 1 Dec, 20:12, "Peter H.M.Brooks"  wrote:
>>>> Dave Smith wrote:
>> 
>>>>> I think people often react strongly when their core beliefs are
>>>>> challenged, since the whole conceptual structure of their world view
>>>>> is being threatened.
>>>> Yes, that's true.
>> 
>>>> How do they know that they are their 'core beliefs' though? I find that
>>>> they often think that they are rational and have rationality as a 'core
>>>> belief'. They then, after discussion, seem to be unsure about how core
>>>> rationality actually is to their belief.
>> 
>>>> I've noticed that most theists become a little unhappy, some a trifle
>>>> inclined to violence, when they find their rationality under threat.
>> 
>>>> Is there any evidence that a pretence to rationality isn't a 'core belief'?
>> 
>>> Sorry, I'm not too sure what you're driving at.  I expect religious
>>> people generally think both that it is important to be rational and
>>> that they are rational.  Of course, some claim that a leap of faith is
>>> required, but I expect they would argue that it is rational to take
>>> this leap.
>> 
>> I don't think so. The whole point of a 'leap of faith' is that it is
>> entirely irrational. If it were rational then it would be simply a
>> rational decision, not a leap of faith.
> 
> 
> Don't some people argue along the lines of 'Pascal's wager'?  Might
> not a pragmatist argue that religious beliefs have a certain 'cash
> value' in terms of health and happiness, so it is rational to adopt
> them?

   Are you thinking that belief leads to better health and happiness?  Seen
any convincing research?
> 
> I'm inclined to think that rationality, like wisdom and morality, is
> difficult to define objectively. It involves values as well as facts
> and logic.  Accordingly, whether a particular act is rational is to
> some extent a matter of opinion.
> 
> Dave

TT wrote:
> On 12/3/07 2:57 PM, in article
> 88d2ca0f-2f64-44a1-a9f5-459610127c3c@o6g2000hsd.googlegroups.com, "Dave
> Smith"  wrote:
>
> > On 2 Dec, 05:53, "Peter H.M.Brooks"  wrote:
> >> Dave Smith wrote:
> >>> On 1 Dec, 20:12, "Peter H.M.Brooks"  wrote:
> >>>> Dave Smith wrote:
> >>
> >>>>> I think people often react strongly when their core beliefs are
> >>>>> challenged, since the whole conceptual structure of their world view
> >>>>> is being threatened.
> >>>> Yes, that's true.
> >>
> >>>> How do they know that they are their 'core beliefs' though? I find that
> >>>> they often think that they are rational and have rationality as a 'core
> >>>> belief'. They then, after discussion, seem to be unsure about how core
> >>>> rationality actually is to their belief.
> >>
> >>>> I've noticed that most theists become a little unhappy, some a trifle
> >>>> inclined to violence, when they find their rationality under threat.
> >>
> >>>> Is there any evidence that a pretence to rationality isn't a 'core belief'?
> >>
> >>> Sorry, I'm not too sure what you're driving at.  I expect religious
> >>> people generally think both that it is important to be rational and
> >>> that they are rational.  Of course, some claim that a leap of faith is
> >>> required, but I expect they would argue that it is rational to take
> >>> this leap.
> >>
> >> I don't think so. The whole point of a 'leap of faith' is that it is
> >> entirely irrational. If it were rational then it would be simply a
> >> rational decision, not a leap of faith.
> >
> >
> > Don't some people argue along the lines of 'Pascal's wager'?  Might
> > not a pragmatist argue that religious beliefs have a certain 'cash
> > value' in terms of health and happiness, so it is rational to adopt
> > them?
>
>    Are you thinking that belief leads to better health and happiness?  Seen
> any convincing research?
> >

I think there are studies suggesting better health for religious
people. Confounds abound though. Perhaps the religious folk have
different personalities, they may have better social support (atheists
and humanists seldom act as community, as far as I can see), they may
have legal status, etc.

Lance

On 2007-12-03, Lance  wrote:
>
> I think there are studies suggesting better health for religious
> people. Confounds abound though. Perhaps the religious folk have
> different personalities, they may have better social support (atheists
> and humanists seldom act as community, as far as I can see), they may
> have legal status, etc.

But would you "Sell your soul" for that?

 - Richard

-- 
   _/_/_/  _/_/_/  _/_/_/     Richard Corfield 
  _/  _/    _/    _/          
 _/_/      _/    _/                Time is a one way street,               
_/  _/  _/_/    _/_/_/                     except in the Twilight Zone

On 3 Dec, 21:05, Lance  wrote:
> TT wrote:
> > On 12/3/07 2:57 PM, in article
> > 88d2ca0f-2f64-44a1-a9f5-459610127...@o6g2000hsd.googlegroups.com, "Dave
> > Smith"  wrote:
>
> > > On 2 Dec, 05:53, "Peter H.M.Brooks"  wrote:
> > >> Dave Smith wrote:
> > >>> On 1 Dec, 20:12, "Peter H.M.Brooks"  wrote:
> > >>>> Dave Smith wrote:
>
> > >>>>> I think people often react strongly when their core beliefs are
> > >>>>> challenged, since the whole conceptual structure of their world view
> > >>>>> is being threatened.
> > >>>> Yes, that's true.
>
> > >>>> How do they know that they are their 'core beliefs' though? I find that
> > >>>> they often think that they are rational and have rationality as a 'core
> > >>>> belief'. They then, after discussion, seem to be unsure about how core
> > >>>> rationality actually is to their belief.
>
> > >>>> I've noticed that most theists become a little unhappy, some a trifle
> > >>>> inclined to violence, when they find their rationality under threat.
>
> > >>>> Is there any evidence that a pretence to rationality isn't a 'core belief'?
>
> > >>> Sorry, I'm not too sure what you're driving at.  I expect religious
> > >>> people generally think both that it is important to be rational and
> > >>> that they are rational.  Of course, some claim that a leap of faith is
> > >>> required, but I expect they would argue that it is rational to take
> > >>> this leap.
>
> > >> I don't think so. The whole point of a 'leap of faith' is that it is
> > >> entirely irrational. If it were rational then it would be simply a
> > >> rational decision, not a leap of faith.
>
> > > Don't some people argue along the lines of 'Pascal's wager'?  Might
> > > not a pragmatist argue that religious beliefs have a certain 'cash
> > > value' in terms of health and happiness, so it is rational to adopt
> > > them?
>
> >    Are you thinking that belief leads to better health and happiness?  Seen
> > any convincing research?
>
> I think there are studies suggesting better health for religious
> people. Confounds abound though. Perhaps the religious folk have
> different personalities, they may have better social support (atheists
> and humanists seldom act as community, as far as I can see), they may
> have legal status, etc.
>
> Lance.

Yes. Argyle reviews some of these studies in 'The Psychology of
Happiness'.  Some attempt has been made to control for confounding
variables, but clearly it's difficult to reach definitive conclusions
using surveys and correlational methods.  Nettle comments in his
recent paperback 'Happiness' :

"There is plenty of evidence that people who practice religion enjoy
benefits in health and well-being.  However, there are several
possible explanations.  One is that religious groups provide social
support and connectedness, whilst another is in terms of the kind of
personalities who tend to become religious.  Moreover, religions tend
to promote healthy life-styles.  However, another possible factor is a
cognitive one: the meta-narrative of religion reduces anxiety about
the travails of existence, and consoles the individual with a larger
context for his or her thoughts and feelings."

Dave

Richard Corfield wrote:
> On 2007-12-03, Lance  wrote:
>> I think there are studies suggesting better health for religious
>> people. Confounds abound though. Perhaps the religious folk have
>> different personalities, they may have better social support (atheists
>> and humanists seldom act as community, as far as I can see), they may
>> have legal status, etc.
> 
> But would you "Sell your soul" for that?
> 
I'd sell my soul for whatever anybody wanted to give me for it. The nice 
thing about it is that you can sell it as many times as you like.

On 2007-12-04, Peter H.M.Brooks  wrote:
> Richard Corfield wrote:
>> On 2007-12-03, Lance  wrote:
>>> I think there are studies suggesting better health for religious
>>> people. Confounds abound though. Perhaps the religious folk have
>>> different personalities, they may have better social support (atheists
>>> and humanists seldom act as community, as far as I can see), they may
>>> have legal status, etc.
>> 
>> But would you "Sell your soul" for that?
>> 
> I'd sell my soul for whatever anybody wanted to give me for it. The nice 
> thing about it is that you can sell it as many times as you like.

I meant in a more metaphorical way. Would you go through the motions of
accepting a set of beliefs that at the moment seem untenable, even have
negative connotations in terms of the implications for non-believers
and the threat of hellfire, in order to get that better health and maybe
longer life?

If you could extract the health giving and life prolonging aspects without
having to accept the beliefs would that be preferable? There are a lot
of ways you can get the community aspects without religion nowadays,
plenty of secular organisations.

 - Richard

-- 
   _/_/_/  _/_/_/  _/_/_/     Richard Corfield 
  _/  _/    _/    _/          
 _/_/      _/    _/                Time is a one way street,               
_/  _/  _/_/    _/_/_/                     except in the Twilight Zone

On 4 Dec, 08:11, Richard Corfield  wrote:
> On 2007-12-04, Peter H.M.Brooks  wrote:
>
> > Richard Corfield wrote:
> >> On 2007-12-03, Lance  wrote:
> >>> I think there are studies suggesting better health for religious
> >>> people. Confounds abound though. Perhaps the religious folk have
> >>> different personalities, they may have better social support (atheists
> >>> and humanists seldom act as community, as far as I can see), they may
> >>> have legal status, etc.
>
> >> But would you "Sell your soul" for that?
>
> > I'd sell my soul for whatever anybody wanted to give me for it. The nice
> > thing about it is that you can sell it as many times as you like.
>
> I meant in a more metaphorical way. Would you go through the motions of
> accepting a set of beliefs that at the moment seem untenable, even have
> negative connotations in terms of the implications for non-believers
> and the threat of hellfire, in order to get that better health and maybe
> longer life?
>
> If you could extract the health giving and life prolonging aspects without
> having to accept the beliefs would that be preferable? There are a lot
> of ways you can get the community aspects without religion nowadays,
> plenty of secular organisations.


I think some people find religion gives their lives meaning, purpose
and structure,  which they don't find elsewhere.

Dave

Dave Smith wrote:
> On 4 Dec, 08:11, Richard Corfield  wrote:
>> On 2007-12-04, Peter H.M.Brooks  wrote:
>>
>>> Richard Corfield wrote:
>>>> On 2007-12-03, Lance  wrote:
>>>>> I think there are studies suggesting better health for religious
>>>>> people. Confounds abound though. Perhaps the religious folk have
>>>>> different personalities, they may have better social support (atheists
>>>>> and humanists seldom act as community, as far as I can see), they may
>>>>> have legal status, etc.
>>>> But would you "Sell your soul" for that?
>>> I'd sell my soul for whatever anybody wanted to give me for it. The nice
>>> thing about it is that you can sell it as many times as you like.
>> I meant in a more metaphorical way. Would you go through the motions of
>> accepting a set of beliefs that at the moment seem untenable, even have
>> negative connotations in terms of the implications for non-believers
>> and the threat of hellfire, in order to get that better health and maybe
>> longer life?
>>
>> If you could extract the health giving and life prolonging aspects without
>> having to accept the beliefs would that be preferable? There are a lot
>> of ways you can get the community aspects without religion nowadays,
>> plenty of secular organisations.
> 
> 
> I think some people find religion gives their lives meaning, purpose
> and structure,  which they don't find elsewhere.
> 
I agree, so if you have meaning, purpose and structure without it then 
joining up for health benefits is just going to make you miserable and 
have the opposite effect to the one intended!

On 2007-12-04, Peter H.M.Brooks  wrote:
>> 
>> I think some people find religion gives their lives meaning, purpose
>> and structure,  which they don't find elsewhere.
>> 
> I agree, so if you have meaning, purpose and structure without it then 
> joining up for health benefits is just going to make you miserable and 
> have the opposite effect to the one intended!

Which could imply that the health benefits are connected with the meaning
and structure. I can imagine it's a question that many people get to
ask and religious practice can give them.

Would it be ethical for a non-believer to recommend religion to someone
who needs meaning and structure?

It's an interesting question. I'd hesitate to recommend others go through
the path I have done as it's hard at times. Trying to solve it on your
own is not as easy as just accepting it on a plate. Questioning the
religion of your family can be a cause of stress. On the other hand,
I don't think I'm the kind of person who could accept it on a plate.

There are aspects of religion that can really help others, but there
are potential costs too. What if the person starts trying to force
intelligent design into science lessons, converting infidels, teaching
others that infidels are bad people or lesser people (or acting on such
belief themselves), or at worse case going out and harming infidels?

Many religious people seem to avoid this. I wonder how sometimes. They go
to church and quote a mantra that effectively implies bad things about
those that don't go, yet outside church seem to context-switch or work
in explanations around the problem. How much does this vary by religion?

 - Richard

-- 
   _/_/_/  _/_/_/  _/_/_/     Richard Corfield 
  _/  _/    _/    _/          
 _/_/      _/    _/                Time is a one way street,               
_/  _/  _/_/    _/_/_/                     except in the Twilight Zone