> Religious scholars have actually been the best psychologists
Any sources that will back this claim? Oh wait, you don't need facts. Do you give this sort of unsolicited religious advice to everyone or do you specifically choose people who are troubled?
They are just stating their opinion in an 100% neutral way. You are free to ignore it. People give "unsolicited advice" here all the time. It is a forum where people post things for others to read. Why do people get so easily upset whenever the word "religion" is displayed, heard or even implied?
Religion is quite a stirring theme, don't you think? I try really hard to avoid getting triggered (meant in a neutral way). It's easy to repress something, but that's not the point - people turn cynical when this happens and it just postpones the problem. One have to go deeper to really let go.
>Any sources that will back this claim? Oh wait, you don't need facts. Do you give this sort of unsolicited religious advice to everyone or do you specifically choose people who are troubled?
I mean, there's a fairly strong Darwinistic argument for the validity of certain religions. Very few belief systems have survived a hostile environment for anywhere near as long as the big religions.
If religious belief systems are "wrong" (in the sense of being useful for navigating the world, not in the sense of satisfying certain conditions of symbolic logic and reasoning), then why have these religions triumphed over secularism time and time again?
I'd still consider myself an atheist, but even then I'd be careful to be so dismissive of belief systems that have proven themselves over the course of millennia to be incredibly powerful, enlightening and enriching.
After reading through all the Dune books, I built up quite some awe for the catholic church. I'm not a believer, but this is fascinating how such an institution can survive for such a long time. I'm really wondering what happed behind closed doors or just things that we don't know that they pulled off to keep power. This is not meant as a critique.
> I mean, there's a fairly strong Darwinistic argument for the validity of certain religions
I always find it ironic when the "Facts and Reason" branch of atheism pretends that we would all be driving flying cars in a peaceful utopia if it weren't for pesky religion.
> If religious belief systems are "wrong" (in the sense of being useful for navigating the world, not in the sense of satisfying certain conditions of symbolic logic and reasoning), then why have these religions triumphed over secularism time and time again?
To be fair, a lot of them spread by the sword. Convert or we kill your tribe. Some of them explicitly call out in their texts that it's OK to forcibly convert or murder non-believers, an attribute which is, I'm sure, a helpful "evolutionary gene" for the religion's spread. There are also religions with non-violent, but still coercive conversion, where there are non-death-related social consequences for nonbelievers.
> why have these religions triumphed over secularism time and time again
I'm intrigued to understand your definition of "triumphed", as given the rest of the post I'm assuming you're not referring to the genocide of non-believers, which is, of course, precisely how the major religions achieved such longevity.
That's a very Christian idea. Christianity is (was) the religion of slaves, and outcasts. The whole ethic is that the individual is divinely (infinitely) valuable, despite circumstances on earth.
It doesn't take much of a leap to go from "I am valuable [because G-d says so]", to "I deserve to be equal to my fellow man, free to make my own choices".
Depends on how you understand 'science'. I wouldn't describe empirical science as 'vague'. It doesn't aim for the core of a thing like other fields do. I mean, things are changing, but the goal for most psychologists is to help people.
If you read psychological works by ancient religious scholars you’ll understand. They delve extremely deeply and insightfully inside one’s soul. True: they didn’t use Chi-squared tests so you’ll not find that. But have you actually read anything of this?
You're making an assumption that 'they understood'. Humans have a lot of insight, but at the end of the day a deep understanding of everything is mathematically impossible.
How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Nihilism.
I have no issues with religious people. I do however have issues with "missionary" types popping up around people who are vulnerable, trying to convince them with completely baseless claims of wellness.
Considering the vast majority of people who have overcome addictions with the help of religion and a religious community, "completely baseless claims of wellness" is pretty exaggerated no?
This seems pretty interesting https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6759672/ . I didn't read the full paper, but based off the introduction it seems to be a study of how religion helps people overcome addition.
My comment was in no way missionary. In fact I didn’t even mention one specific religion and suggested that you investigate your ancestors instead and find your path.
Individuals love to look at individual bits of morality in said books in a choose your own adventure exploration. As much as the moral certainty says be nice to others, it will also contain many bits that are highly questionable and would deeply conflict with others views.
In general secular psychologists don't come with the violent historical baggage that religions do.
Any sources that will back this claim? Oh wait, you don't need facts. Do you give this sort of unsolicited religious advice to everyone or do you specifically choose people who are troubled?