A mountain of research has linked loneliness to an increased risk of dementia, depression, anxiety, heart disease, stroke and early death.
Loneliness is officially a health emergency in California’s San Mateo County, which is located in the San Francisco Bay Area and includes part of Silicon Valley.
The county’s Board of Supervisors passed a resolution on Tuesday that declared loneliness a public health crisis and pledged to explore measures that promote social connection in the community.
It’s the first county in the U.S. to make such a declaration.
Setting aside the object of religious worship for a moment, purely from a secular view Daniel Dennett’s book “Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon” goes into many ways in which religion was an positively adaptive force that shaped the development of humanity, leading it from a tribal nature (that could be extended to the country level) to one where larger groups that share common beliefs (like Democracy I guess) can coexist with lesser friction. So even without a god, religion was an important stepping stone to get us to today, which implies neither that it is still needed anymore nor that it is not so needed, nor that something better might not exist but it does say how that route in particular was what WAS used bc it WORKED.
But like anything, let’s say a gun, the proper use is one thing while improper use is another, and it can be dangerous if misused. Probably talking on social media is even one of these things (it can get addictive and therefore become maladaptive)! People who hold a gun should be aware of its potential for misuse, not just to oneself but to those around them as well, and those who are not aware are unfit to hold it, while those who are aware yet do not care are absolute jerks. And similarly with religion. And yes, as you pointed out, similarly with atheism/agnosticism/apatheism (a newer word meaning those who simply DGAF one way or another), as changes intended to have been made for the better end up missing a few pieces.
I am not arguing for any religion or lack thereof in particular, simply saying that those who don’t know their history… well you know the thing:-D.
It’s like that passage from The Hogfather, where kids have to practice believing in the little lies - Santa, the Easter Bunny, etc - so they can believe the big lies like justice and mercy.
Test EVERYTHING against what you KNOW to be true - 1 Thessalonians 5:21. If only the (checks notes) “Bible” would be required reading for someone to stand behind a pulpit that purports to teach said text!:-( But then they would lose their power over the sheeple, so ofc it’s to their advantage that they do not.
Tbf, some ministers strongly advocate for being skeptical, even/especially of religious matters, I know of Andy Stanley, John Piper, and ofc the infamous inkling C.S. Lewis, and so very many others. But not all of them are so careful, and just like guns, if you are surrounded by people who are less than careful with them, then the presence of a few who are is of little comfort.
Exactly. A lot of my morality was developed by my catholic priest growing up. He taught me to question my beliefs against my knowledge, my soul, and my conscience. He taught me that his primary goal was for all of us to do good and avoid evil. And he told me and many of my fellow students at catholic school that he’d rather we grow up to be atheists because we came to that conclusion than Catholics because we were told to be growing up. He also fought the magisterium over gay marriage in the 00s because he wanted to perform his sister’s lesbian wedding.
I’m still deeply wary of Christians, but I’m no longer an atheist (paganism spoke to me). But nothing scares me like a religion that can be easily twisted and teaches that you’re holy if you do what it says.
Yeah a lot to unpack there. For one, if an article says “Science says that this new diet will…”, that doesn’t mean that actual SCIENCE itself is bad, it just means that some predatory source (reporter, politician, etc.) is using it improperly.
On the other hand, religion is fundamentally different: it actually is kinda bad - as Jesus Himself said: “Be ye not a Karen, fucking over everyone else without lifting a finger to help”. Compared to tribalism, it offers a leg up b/c billions of people can be considered part of the “in-group”, not just people whose faces you have already seen since birth.
And the part I was kinda focusing on: if someone who actually is - or rather, claims to be - part of that “in-crowd” sets themselves up as an authority figure, and e.g. declares themselves a non-denominational pastor and starts preaching the EXACT OPPOSITE MESSAGE than the Bible itself (Bible says: love one another, especially those who disagree with you; while christofascists say: kill the other side!), in that case is it “religion” itself that is bad, or is it instead the former example of a predatory source talking shit about it? The answer seems to me to be: “yes”.:-P
That said, there are MANY stupid people, and moreover there are MANY different ways to be incorrect (i.e. many many many fallacies), and religion is only one of them. Personally I think that in a hundred years or so, there will be fundamentalist atheists - not first-generation ones as you are talking about, but people who inherited their beliefs from their parents (or whoever), and who likewise shit onto every foundational principe that underlies that entire belief structure/system. The atheist mindset - which as I pointed out already, literally has a bible verse supporting it - is one thing, but since when do authentic beliefs matter to a “fundamentalist”? And yet even that term is unfair, b/c a TRUE fundamentalist would actually care about whatever it is that their belief systems require.
George Carlin: “It’s called the American Dream, b/c you have to be asleep to believe it.”:-P
To be real, to be true, to ACTUALLY believe the thing that you say that you believe, whatever that is, seems to be the hardest thing in the world to do. :-| Especially these days when virtually every word has been twisted into somehow meaning its precise opposite - e.g. the party that freed the slaves were the Republicans! Can you imagine Republicans giving a crap about black people these days, or Democrats legit caring about the poors!? (case in point: doing something to stop school shootings, these days) To identify a falsehood (of whatever type - chemistry, biology, physics, sociology, governance, etc.), you must know The Truth SO WELL that a falsehood cannot pass muster. And with all the knowledge, mixed in with misinformation/anti-knowledge, available to us these days, who can keep up with even a fraction of it all? But conversely, how can we justify not doing that?