# What's with the entrenched anti-religion groupthink around here? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [December 22, 2008, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-entrenched-anti-religion-groupthink-around-here/478365 "2008-12-22T21:01:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 18
**Author:** ![SmartAleq](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smartaleq/32/163_2.png) [@SmartAleq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SmartAleq)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2008, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-entrenched-anti-religion-groupthink-around-here/478365/341 "2008-12-26T16:56:05Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > Do you really think that’s true? Can you **prove** otherwise? ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2008, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-entrenched-anti-religion-groupthink-around-here/478365/342 "2008-12-26T17:34:23Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > Do you really think that’s true? It’s painfully evident that it’s true. What works for one person doesn’t work for another. Even among believers, they cherry-pick it to death so that even folks of the same denomination can’t agree on what’s real, what is merely an illustration, what was actually meant by the words, or even what the words “heaven” and “hell” are supposed to mean. We’re all alone in the world when it comes to interpreting the influences of each of our lives. There is no “shared” experience, even among people who experience the same influence at the same time. Each one will be affected by it in their own way. For instance, It’s impossible for you and I to “process” the viewing of a sunset in exactly the same way. If there was a universal “Truth”, it would already be known by all. ---
**Author:** ![coffeecat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/coffeecat/32/3405_2.png) [@coffeecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/coffeecat)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2008, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-entrenched-anti-religion-groupthink-around-here/478365/343 "2008-12-26T18:32:05Z")
**JThunder** & **Stratocaster** : When **Cosmo** says “arbitrary,” he means “a matter of opinion,” not “picked for no good reason.” Maybe Jesus is the son of God who died for our sins, but no mortal’s going to prove it objectively in this lifetime. Special bonus, no extra charge: When I say “truth,” I mean “something true, provable or not.” For “objectively proven truth,” I say “fact.” Group hug? (Jesus would want it that way. 🙂 ) **intention** : [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Phelps) says that Phelps has been denounced by just about every other Christian denomination. The well-known voice of tolerance, [Jerry Falwell](http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/1999/03/lauerman.html), called him a “first-class nut,” and his neighbors use his church’s sign for target practice. ---
**Author:** ![intention](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e95f7d/32.png) [@intention](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/intention)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2008, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-entrenched-anti-religion-groupthink-around-here/478365/344 "2008-12-26T18:37:32Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > Dude (or Dudette), Westboro Baptist teaches that membership in the RCC is akin to devil worship. Really. He has picketed Catholic masses. Believe me, there is no allegiance between the Westboro Baptist Church and the RCC. BTW, based on your Google logic, virtually no one “criticized the Westboro.” Do you really believe that’s true? **Stratocaster** , thanks for the response. A citation would have been nice. I don’t find the RCC and the WBC agree on a whole lot … except the shining beacon of light, their common bond of humanity and love, which is their shared belief that FAGS ARE EVIL … I have not found a single quote from a Catholic condemning Westboro for that. Might be one, but I haven’t seen it. (But then, I haven’t yet found an RCC quote condemning them for anything …) Did I say or do I believe nobody criticized the Westboro Baptist Church? No, I was just describing the searches I made, and their results. I described the results I did find. Rather than laughing at my weak google-fu, I invite you, like JThunder, to point me to some citations of churches criticizing the WBC. To date, nobody has posted a single one, Catholic or otherwise. JThunder says it’s been happening on a “routine” basis, but he hasn’t produce a single cite yet. I’ve looked and haven’t found one to date. You comment on my inability to find them, but you haven’t produced one either. I’m beginning to think there’s a pattern here … w. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2008, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-entrenched-anti-religion-groupthink-around-here/478365/345 "2008-12-26T18:50:04Z")
> [@SmartAleq](#): > > Yes, yes they are. From where I’m standing, any and all decisions involving why someone should get into a certain religion are absolutely, unequivocally nothing other than personal preference, because there IS no OBJECTIVE evidence to support a decision to choose a religion. I would venture to say that this is what the atheists have been trying to get across to the religious for some time but you guys aren’t listening very well. There seems to be a lot of that going around. As stated by that great philosopher earlier in the thread: > [@](#): > > Here’s what I think is occurring in our endless laps around this track. One one side we have people who say, the basic foundation of my belief system is faith-based. If you accept (or even acknowledge) that base, the rest of my belief system contains its own logic, albeit one that defies a conclusive scientific proof–by definition, given the nature of the belief system. It is not arbitrary, but a search for truth within the context of a revelation that at best is a subjective metric. I cannot convince you of it, I concede. > > On the other side, we have people who say that only a logical syllogism that starts with an objectively verifiable premise, and then proceeds in a manner that possesses the same logic, can be deemed as something other than arbitrary. > > The latter demands that this standard be met; the former responds by rejecting the standard. Repeat ad infinitum. We then get into an endless repetition of accusations of evasiveness, demands for evaluations of given belief systems, etc. We continue to talk past each other. Neither side accepts the other’s basic premise–the metrics we employ are not contradictory so much as they are irreconcilable, as The Tao’s Revenge previously pointed out. Time for another lap, apparently. ---
**Author:** ![SmartAleq](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smartaleq/32/163_2.png) [@SmartAleq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SmartAleq)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2008, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-entrenched-anti-religion-groupthink-around-here/478365/346 "2008-12-26T18:54:10Z")
And here’s something pretty interesting–a possible scientific and provable basis for belief in religion. [Apparently those with decreased function of the right parietal lobe are more likely to experience spirituality](http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081217124156.htm). From the article: > [@](#): > > “This research also addresses questions regarding the impact of neurologic versus cultural factors on spiritual experience,” Johnstone said. “The ability to connect with things beyond the self, such as transcendent experiences, seems to occur for people who minimize right parietal functioning. This can be attained through cultural practices, such as intense meditation or prayer or because of a brain injury that impairs the functioning of the right parietal lobe. Either way, our study suggests that ‘selflessness’ is a neuropsychological foundation of spiritual experiences.” > > The research was funded by the MU Center on Religion and the Professions. The study – “Support for a neuropsychological model of spirituality in persons with traumatic brain injury” – was published in the peer-reviewed journal Zygon. > > “Our research focused on the personal experience of spiritual transcendence and does not in any way minimize the importance of religion or personal beliefs, nor does it suggest that spiritual experience are related only to neuropsychological activity in the brain,” Johnstone said. “It is important to note that individuals experience their God or higher power in many different ways, but that all people from all religions and beliefs appear to experience these connections in a similar way.” So I guess my question on this would be–to those of you who follow religion, should it prove factual that your experience of spirituality is wholly or predominantly a matter of how a certain part of your brain functions, and that the function can be altered to remove the feeling of “transcendence” (which is a major reward component of religious experience) would that make you value your choice of belonging to a religion less? Or would you welcome a drug that depresses right parietal activity in order to deepen and strengthen that spiritual connection? Would the idea of “God In A Pill” offend or excite you? Taking it quite a bit further, how would you feel if your church found a way to saturate the air inside the church with right parietal suppressants in order to foster a more transcendent feeling in the congregation during the services? Would that seem fair to you? Yeah, it’s a bit of a hijack but it is new information that bridges the cognitive gap between theist and atheist rather handily… ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2008, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-entrenched-anti-religion-groupthink-around-here/478365/347 "2008-12-26T18:54:13Z")
> [@coffeecat](#): > > **JThunder** & **Stratocaster** : When **Cosmo** says “arbitrary,” he means “a matter of opinion,” not “picked for no good reason.” Maybe Jesus is the son of God who died for our sins, but no mortal’s going to prove it objectively in this lifetime. I’m afraid if I concede that one more time, I might pull a muscle. > [@](#): > > Special bonus, no extra charge: When I say “truth,” I mean “something true, provable or not.” For “objectively proven truth,” I say “fact.” I’ll buy that. > [@](#): > > Group hug? (Jesus would want it that way. 🙂 ) Jesus was a fist-bump kind of guy. It’s a well-known fact. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2008, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-entrenched-anti-religion-groupthink-around-here/478365/348 "2008-12-26T19:01:15Z")
> [@intention](#): > > Rather than laughing at my weak google-fu, I invite you, like JThunder, to point me to some citations of churches criticizing the WBC. To date, nobody has posted a single one, Catholic or otherwise. JThunder says it’s been happening on a “routine” basis, but he hasn’t produce a single cite yet. I’ve looked and haven’t found one to date. You comment on my inability to find them, but you haven’t produced one either. I’m beginning to think there’s a pattern here … I’m not mocking you. I’m assuming you missed the cite just before your post from coffeecat? I’m not going to find you a cite–he has been denounced, frankly, by just about everyone and every organization. He is absolutely cartoonish in his vileness, and he is an extremely easy target for scorn and ridicule. I’m not aware of a single mainstream individual or organization who has supported the nut. If my lack of a cite means you’ll continue believing we’re all in the same brotherhood, so be it. Phelps is a nut case of astounding dimensions–EVERYONE has distanced themselves from this jerk. Actually, it is a little funny that anyone thinks otherwise (sorry)… ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2008, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-entrenched-anti-religion-groupthink-around-here/478365/349 "2008-12-26T19:08:34Z")
> [@SmartAleq](#): > > So I guess my question on this would be–to those of you who follow religion, should it prove factual that your experience of spirituality is wholly or predominantly a matter of how a certain part of your brain functions, and that the function can be altered to remove the feeling of “transcendence” (which is a major reward component of religious experience) would that make you value your choice of belonging to a religion less? Or would you welcome a drug that depresses right parietal activity in order to deepen and strengthen that spiritual connection? Would the idea of “God In A Pill” offend or excite you? Taking it quite a bit further, how would you feel if your church found a way to saturate the air inside the church with right parietal suppressants in order to foster a more transcendent feeling in the congregation during the services? Would that seem fair to you? > > Yeah, it’s a bit of a hijack but it is new information that bridges the cognitive gap between theist and atheist rather handily… Interesting. I accept that we experience all things, including the spiritual, through our physical bodies. If someone isolates the functions that facilitates the spiritual (or anger, or love, or truthfulness, or whatever) that won’t mean that these functions aren’t “real.” I read a similar article years ago, so forgive my memory (and paraphrase), but the researcher said that the ability to isolate such brain functions doesn’t invalidate (or validate) the spiritual; if they likewise found the brain function that permits us to taste apple pie, that doesn’t mean apple pie is an illusion. ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2008, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-entrenched-anti-religion-groupthink-around-here/478365/350 "2008-12-26T19:11:43Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > He is absolutely cartoonish in his vileness, and he is an extremely easy target for scorn and ridicule. I’m not aware of a single mainstream individual or organization who has supported the nut. If my lack of a cite means you’ll continue believing we’re all in the same brotherhood, so be it. Phelps is a nut case of astounding dimensions–EVERYONE has distanced themselves from this jerk. Actually, it is a little funny that anyone thinks otherwise (sorry)… I agree. He’s so far off the beam that I refuse to consider him in discussions of religion. However, he’s at the top of my list when discussing things like psychopaths and nutcases. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2008, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-entrenched-anti-religion-groupthink-around-here/478365/351 "2008-12-26T19:14:07Z")
Agreed! ---
**Author:** ![SmartAleq](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smartaleq/32/163_2.png) [@SmartAleq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SmartAleq)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2008, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-entrenched-anti-religion-groupthink-around-here/478365/352 "2008-12-26T19:16:47Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > He is absolutely cartoonish in his vileness, and he is an extremely easy target for scorn and ridicule. I’m not aware of a single mainstream individual or organization who has supported the nut. If my lack of a cite means you’ll continue believing we’re all in the same brotherhood, so be it. Phelps is a nut case of astounding dimensions–EVERYONE has distanced themselves from this jerk. Actually, it is a little funny that anyone thinks otherwise (sorry)… How about somebody a bit less cartoonish? How about oh, say, Rick Warren? Pretty mainstream, I’d say, yet he’s pretty serious about how much he [don’t dig the gay people.](http://www.talk2action.org/story/2008/3/30/54825/1882) He doesn’t believe gay people should be [allowed in his church.](http://www.talk2action.org/story/2008/3/30/54825/1882) > [@](#): > > Warren’s Saddleback Church once had language on its web site stating gay people would not be accepted as members. > > “Because membership in a church is an outgrowth of accepting the Lordship and leadership of Jesus in one’s life, someone unwilling to repent of their homosexual lifestyle would not be accepted [as] a member at Saddleback,” the web site once stated. > > The language was removed from the web site by Monday. So is there widespread denunciation of Pastor Warren as well? ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2008, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-entrenched-anti-religion-groupthink-around-here/478365/353 "2008-12-26T19:21:43Z")
I dunno. How did we get on this tangent again? ---
**Author:** ![SmartAleq](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smartaleq/32/163_2.png) [@SmartAleq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SmartAleq)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2008, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-entrenched-anti-religion-groupthink-around-here/478365/354 "2008-12-26T19:25:34Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > Interesting. I accept that we experience all things, including the spiritual, through our physical bodies. If someone isolates the functions that facilitates the spiritual (or anger, or love, or truthfulness, or whatever) that won’t mean that these functions aren’t “real.” I read a similar article years ago, so forgive my memory (and paraphrase), but the researcher said that the ability to isolate such brain functions doesn’t invalidate (or validate) the spiritual; if they likewise found the brain function that permits us to taste apple pie, that doesn’t mean apple pie is an illusion. Yes, but the difference is that we can all agree on what apple pie actually is, we can find recipes and ingredients for it and we can each individually create an apple pie–the same cannot be said for a god, though. A closer analogy would be finding a brain function that lets one taste “blue,” since no consensus on synesthesia has been arrived at. An apple pie can be experienced in many different ways–you don’t have to taste it to know it’s there. You can smell it, you can touch it, you can see it, you can hear the noise it makes when you drop it–the apple pie is real. What is “blue” when you get away from vision? What does “blue” taste like, feel like, sound like? What is god when it isn’t a “feeling?” What does a god look like, taste like, sound like, smell like? It seems to me that if this brain function is established to be in control of the feeling of spiritual transcendence then it would be more accurate to say that individuals are creating gods in their own minds, rather than experiencing something entirely outside of themselves. ---
**Author:** ![SmartAleq](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smartaleq/32/163_2.png) [@SmartAleq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SmartAleq)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2008, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-entrenched-anti-religion-groupthink-around-here/478365/355 "2008-12-26T19:27:31Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > I dunno. How did we get on this tangent again? Just felt like bagging on Warren, partially because Westboro’s way too easy! 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2008, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-entrenched-anti-religion-groupthink-around-here/478365/356 "2008-12-26T19:31:40Z")
> [@SmartAleq](#): > > Yes, but the difference is that we can all agree on what apple pie actually is, we can find recipes and ingredients for it and we can each individually create an apple pie–the same cannot be said for a god, though. A closer analogy would be finding a brain function that lets one taste “blue,” since no consensus on synesthesia has been arrived at. An apple pie can be experienced in many different ways–you don’t have to taste it to know it’s there. You can smell it, you can touch it, you can see it, you can hear the noise it makes when you drop it–the apple pie is real. What is “blue” when you get away from vision? What does “blue” taste like, feel like, sound like? What is god when it isn’t a “feeling?” What does a god look like, taste like, sound like, smell like? > > It seems to me that if this brain function is established to be in control of the feeling of spiritual transcendence then it would be more accurate to say that individuals are creating gods in their own minds, rather than experiencing something entirely outside of themselves. No, you’re begging the question. See coffeecat’s definitions: because something can’t be objectively proven doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. It merely means we can’t objectively prove it. And we can’t all agree what apple pie is. How do we know such a thing exists at all? How do we know it’s not a trick of our senses? The only think I know for sure, frankly, is that I am thinking right now. The existence of your thoughts are the only things you can know conclusively either (assuming you actually exist–are you trying to trick me? ;))… ---
**Author:** ![SmartAleq](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smartaleq/32/163_2.png) [@SmartAleq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SmartAleq)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2008, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-entrenched-anti-religion-groupthink-around-here/478365/357 "2008-12-26T20:14:10Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > No, you’re begging the question. See coffeecat’s definitions: because something can’t be objectively proven doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. It merely means we can’t objectively prove it. > > And we can’t all agree what apple pie is. How do we know such a thing exists at all? How do we know it’s not a trick of our senses? The only think I know for sure, frankly, is that I am thinking right now. The existence of your thoughts are the only things you can know conclusively either (assuming you actually exist–are you trying to trick me? ;))… See now, as useful a tool as the _reductio ad absurdum_ can be I think we can agree that it’s much more possible to come to an agreement on what we all think of as “apple pie,” including a range of differences and variations that still allow the item in question to qualify as such than we can do the same for the term “god.” As for our relative existences I’m willing to believe in you if you’ll believe in me–just in the interests of continuing to have this conversation, don’tcha know. Otherwise it’s all just wanking and as fun as that can be in the proper context I don’t think a thread about it would go to eight pages absent something really unusual happening, ya think?\* I am genuinely curious to know, though, what your **personal** feelings would be if you discovered that the reason you felt spiritual transcendence was vulnerable to manipulation at will by entities outside yourself, and more specifically to find that such manipulation had taken place. I think I’d feel incredibly angry and betrayed, but then again I suspect that I have enough right parietal lobe activity to push me over into the category of “solipsist” so I’m not a good yardstick… 😛 \*You know, like somebody dying with their own balls on their chin or something… ---
**Author:** ![intention](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e95f7d/32.png) [@intention](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/intention)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2008, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-entrenched-anti-religion-groupthink-around-here/478365/358 "2008-12-26T20:18:03Z")
> [@coffeecat](#): > > … > > **intention** : [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Phelps) says that Phelps has been denounced by just about every other Christian denomination. The well-known voice of tolerance, [Jerry Falwell](http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/1999/03/lauerman.html), called him a “first-class nut,” and his neighbors use his church’s sign for target practice. Um … well … while the Wikipedia site says > [@](#): > > Gay rights activists, as well as Christians of virtually every denomination, have denounced him as a producer of anti-gay propaganda and violence-inspiring hate speech.[18] **coffeecat** , thank you for attempting to provide a citation showing that other church leaders publicly disapprove of Westboro Baptist Church. You are ahead of everyone else in that regard. Unfortunately, like so many Wikipedia entries, when one looks at the underlying reference [18], you find that it doesn’t say what is claimed. In this case, the reference doesn’t even use the word “denounced”, and other than saying that Jerry Falwell doesn’t like Phelps one bit, I can’t find a single statement in that reference from a church leader condemning what the WBC is doing. Still waiting for cites … ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2008, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-entrenched-anti-religion-groupthink-around-here/478365/359 "2008-12-26T21:26:28Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > Are you suggesting, despite the assertions to the contrary in this thread, despite the example you yourself provided, that religious beliefs are _solely_ an outcome of personal preference? Someone might say, “I choose X, um, I don’t know why, I guess I just like it,” and it seems that’s the definition you’re hanging your hat on. Again, despite the fact that this is not out of necessity the way religious beliefs are developed (as your own example, again, illustrates). I’m sorry we seem to be bypassing each other on the highway to understanding. No, I don’t mean something as casual as “I guess I just like it” without much thought but ultimately, even after soul searching and study and prayer, and time invested, the religion or belief system we decide fits us best comes down to “It works for me” which is not that different from, I just like it. It fits the definition of arbitrary because even after thought and study, it’s still a matter of personnel preference. A religion might be selected because they have a better band on Sunday, or because their teachings speak deeply to your heart. Granted , one seems more arbitrary than the other but they both qualify. IMHO I’d say, yes, religious beliefs are arbitrary but not often the casual whim brand. I’m afraid that includes yours and mine, IMHO. ---
**Author:** ![coffeecat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/coffeecat/32/3405_2.png) [@coffeecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/coffeecat)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2008, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-entrenched-anti-religion-groupthink-around-here/478365/360 "2008-12-26T21:48:35Z")
I’ll come out of the closet: I’m a Spinozist who uses Judaism as a symbolic system for getting close to God. (I think that puts me somewhere between Conservative and heretic.) I believe God is the universe thinking to Itself. (Himself?) I have no problem with the Science Daily study. The perception of God is related to decreased activity in the part of the brain dealing with perception of self? So we’d know God all the time if we weren’t so self centered and hung up on our own ego? And since love involves the lowering of ego boundaries, God is love, or at least closely related to it? Why don’t religions ever point these things out! 😉 > [@intention](#): > > Unfortunately, like so many Wikipedia entries, when one looks at the underlying reference [18], you find that it doesn’t say what is claimed. In this case, the reference doesn’t even use the word “denounced”, and other than saying that Jerry Falwell doesn’t like Phelps one bit, I can’t find a single statement in that reference from a church leader condemning what the WBC is doing. > > Still waiting for cites … Do you really think that Wikipedia didn’t just screw up on a footnote, but pulled the denunciation statement out of the air, and _Jerry Falwell_ is a lone voice of tolerance crying in the wilderness? :rolleyes: Oh, ok; I have to go food shopping right now, but [http://www.dogchurch.org/](http://www.dogchurch.org/) may give you some leads. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-entrenched-anti-religion-groupthink-around-here/478365.md?page=17) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-with-the-entrenched-anti-religion-groupthink-around-here/478365.md?page=19)