The Psychology of Religion: Order, Framing, and Externality

[Zarn]

Zarn, religious thinking IS irrational by definition! There is no empirical proof of God's existence, no rational basis for the faith that the religious enjoy. If it was rational, how would it be a matter of faith?

That doesn't make religious belief stupid, or necessarily invalid, although Curt might argue otherwise.

I get a massive buzz out of sceraming myself hoarse at a football stadium most Saturdays - it's pretty irrational behaviour, but it isn't wrong because it's irrational!

Questioning the guy's motives in doing the study is not a good way to defend your position - tends to imply you're afraid of the implications of the study.

Like I said, I already got that. Why do you continue to lecture me on something I already know?

Just what position am I defending?

 

[MobBoss]

Does it ever occur you, that the fact that your god seems to be not there, and you seek to apply faith, even in the face of overwhelming emptiness: That maybe, just maybe, your belief for a larger vision is being used by a ruthless organisation that uses human vulnerability for gain...?

First of all, to me, my god is very present and here. He is not here for you as you "dont have eyes to see, dont have ears to hear" him with. My faith does not have emptiness at all, and I certainly hope I havent given that impression. As for my church being a "ruthless organization using my vulnerability for gain" thats pretty funny. My church is totally accountable to its membership...all budgets and finances are open to review, and we even have a monthly business meeting to discuss such items among the congregation. No one is using my vulnerability for gain, I can promise you that.

Do you trust these people without question?
And how did your god make himself known to you?

I have no reason to distrust them if that is the same thing. The only person I trust without question is my wife. As for your second question, I was brought up in the church and thought I knew what being a christian was...but I didnt. Being a christian means having a personal relationship with god...without that you are only a christian in name only. Its like a ham sandwich without the ham. I didnt enter into a personal relationship with him until I was broken enough to ask him to take charge of my life and change me for the better.

But we cannot just sweep away the fact that millions were killed by those
who slain in the name of religion. (and that is not just christianity) Would
you just scoff at the holocaust and the purges of the Chinese or Soviet
regimes? Of course you would not. So why should we let religions off the
hook too? Because the facade of religions are still here?

First of all, I disagree that the holocaust and the purges of the Chinese and Soviet regimes were religious in nature. And while its true that millions have been slain in the name of various religions, I would humbly submit that uncounted millions more have been saved by religion as well.

What if the 3rd Reich was still around today? Would it get away with just
forgiving itself of the crimes and 'moving on?' I somehow doubt it, really!

The 3rd Reich was not a religious based organization, so I really dont see the relevance in it.

The main thing that stabs me about modern christians (and muslims) is that
they just disregard the hideous things of the past and refuse to accept any
kind of charge that the interpretation of their belief was distorted.

Personally, I do think that events like the Inquisition and the Crusades were commited by a distorted view of christianity. But then again, I think it is man who is responsible for those actions, not God. Man seeks power where God only offers wisdom and peace. If you get a man who is corrupt by power, religious or not, you are going to get wars and naked power grabs.

And many still seek to make you apologise for being secular, while they refuse to make any amends for the countless innocents that have been exterminated.

I wont ever make you apologize for being secular Curt. However, modern christians are not responsible for what happened hundreds of years ago, when power mad men controlled the church. Those men themselves have faced judgement and were answerable to God for what they have done.

While such arrogance continues, I find it hard to let them off the hook.

I, for one, am certainly not trying to be arrogant...but rather I want religion to get its fair due as well. It hasnt all been bloodshed and gore you know.

I look at what happens in the past, compared to what the religious leaders
are trying to do today. And sadly, I see the same narrow-minded charge
towards unrealistic inwardness as always.

Then I would recommend cultivating friendships with christians who are not religious leaders and inspect their hearts and minds. I too have many problems with religious leaders over a variety of issues...being religious doesnt mean blindly following some tv evangelist at any rate.

Good things are achieved with religious resources, something I think anyone
on CFC can testify that I have never denied. But (and it's a mega-sized but)
there is a goal behind all religious (of any flavour) endeavours, and that is to
convert people.

That is one of the goals yes. And I think the church has done itself a big disservice by being a bit too pushy in that area. Hearts are won by gentleness and healing...not by salesmenship. But converting people is not the only goal either....letting God work in you, to make you a better person and to be a more spiritual person is a goal also.

When a disaster hits South-East Asia, an army of missionaries go into action,
but also try to maximise the conversion quota. When a soup kitchen is opened by salvation army-types in a New York slum, the flyers are handed out with invites to a local church...

Inviting someone to a local church is hardly forcing someone to convert Curt. Besides they might have cookies.

Sure, it is human nature to build the 'tribe' and increase the numbers, but I
find it hollow that christ's selfless message of humility and modesty is now
used to make multi-million dollar churches and TV ministries.

I am right with you on this. I am not a big fan of mega-churches and tv ministries......personally I believe big money tends to overtly influence a church too much. Thats why I have always kept to smaller churchs to attend.

Do you really think christ would approve of the way things are performed in
modern day christianity, where a creationism museum is given more cash
than deprived children in a ghetto?

Probably not. And thats part of my point. Not every christian agrees with that type of action. When you lump us all into one big group thats narrow minded. I am a christian, but I hardly know anything about creationism. I didnt become a christian to find answers to everything...I became a christian to find healing and direction in my life.

When a heathen like me can point this out, it speaks volumes.

I agree, and I will be the first to acknowledge that it is a problem with the church today. The church changes slowly, but today, there is major growth for the simple reason is that the focus is changing from a "us vs them" mentality to a "us vs sin" mentality. And that is a good thing.

The difference between myself and you, dear MobBoss, is that I seek to
remind people of the terrible depths humans sink to, in the service of their
own vision of religion. The power of assumed divinity, intolerance, ignorance,
and mental illness can wreak hideous results.

I make no excuses for what has gone before, but that was other peoples actions, not mine. I alone am responsible for my faith and my walk. I agree that it is a thing that can be warped...however, you should also acknowledge that it HAS been warped in the past and that the real truth, as it were, has nothing to do with intolerance, ignorance or naked power grabs.

You seem to find it hard to accept that ignorance can exist within an what
seems to be an enlightened sphere like religion. But what we must never
forget, is that religious ideas can be twisted to suit the intolerance of
people who seek a way to validate any scapegoat.

Ah, but my dear Curt, ignorance is a two bladed sword that cuts both ways. I agree that a great many people who call themselves christian are pretty darn ignorant of what that really means. I am here to fight that. Likewise, people like you have their own version of what religion means, and forgive me, but you too are also ignorant of the true motives behing Christianity. I am here to argue against that as well.

This is the way of duality, and we must be aware that for all good things
that have came from religious fervour, there are also actions that are far
from what the holy books call for.

Totally agree. Its my job to focus on the good and steer people in that direction (while retaining knowledge of the evil that men do) and fight against those that would use religion for their own personal gain or to the detriment of others.

Nowhere in the holy tomes does it say that we must slaughter, extort
and put men in positions of supreme power and wealth, while the poor
starve and die.

I agree. And from my point of view this is what is happening in the greater population of Christianity today. The vast majority of churchs in the US are small churches...i.e. less than 100-200 members. Those type of churches are not in positions of "power" as it were, and the vast majority of them try to be a positive influence on the communities they are located in.

*A rich man should give his extra cash to those who need it.
*Followers are meant to worship the god, not men who act like one.
*Religion used as a political tool for money and influence is far from the ideal.

Totally agree.

Curt, after this I think you are just in a condition of religious shell shock. You have been blasted with all the negative things that man has done in the name of religion and it has effected you greatly. But, you dont have any experience in a smaller or more personal setting, like a small church or ever having a personal relationship with God. I dont like big churches either and I agree with you on many of the things you have put forth. But I would encourage to you try not and toss the baby out with the bathwater as it were. I know that churches can and do exist without corruption and that the work they do is very needed and very benficial in communities all over the world. And thats what I really mean by you being ignorant....you cant truly sit in judgement over the negative parts of religion until you have experienced the good parts of it as well.

Whew, that was a long reply.

 

[MobBoss]

This atheist (well, strong agnostic really) would! Morality is relative I accept, but there are many moral truths any human with an ounce of empathy would acknowledge, one of them being the obligationt oassist those less fortunate than yourself.

Well, where does that feeling come from? Its certainly not genetic. Remember, only the strong survive and all that. I humbly submit that you got your feelings of morality from religious thought somewhere around you. If you put a kid in the forest and he became an adult without any moral training what-so-ever...do you think he would try to help someone less fortunate from himself? Not a chance.

Morality can essentially be described as doing the right thing, as your conscience dictates and as you would wish it to be done to you.

The old "golden rule" thing. But isnt that in essence a religious belief?

Agreed, but the higher power in an AA meeting is not God, but the collective will of the group - much like a church really....

In this you are incorrect. Read up on the twelve steps...its not about the collective will of the group by any means. The whole thing is that none of those people, even the group as a whole, cannot help themselves in their addiction at all. While they may be accountable to one another, they themselves have no power to facilitate change within themselves.

 

[CurtSibling]

A very constructive series of replies.

We can both debate much better when we put our minds to it!

Well, to cut a long story shorter...(And give the CFC-server a rest!)
I would say that I have not chosen to get involved with religion, for much the
same reasoning you would have for not being involved in atheistic thought.

I do come from the UK, a christian nation, remember! And was taught in a
christian state-school, so I know what the stated aims of that religion is on
a smaller scale. I just chose at an early age that their solutions to life did not
really give any real answers.

Also, I feel I can see that all religion will never really be free of human power-lust
and control. As this just part of the human psyche. I don't believe humans are
capable of breaking this trend, as we are all too emotional and mentally unstable
to live in the way of the sought ideals.

I have moved beyond it all, and now look at a bigger picture.

When I get stroppy about religion, it is the human failure I am attacking,
not the concept of humans being moral or seeking a higher level of thought.
I find that purpose to be commendable.

So, out of interest - Can you tell me what your view of being christian is about.

.

 

[El_Machinae]

Well, where does that feeling come from? Its certainly not genetic.

Your parley is going great - just jumping out on this. Social living can certainly be genetic. Bees do it, moles do it.

You'll notice that social living works best when it's among a family? Selection theory allows for cooperation among creatures with genetic ties. Bees, in fact, have much stronger genetic ties than most other animals (within the hive), and that's a possible reason why they're so communal.

In addition, the ability to reason allows us to see the benefits of social living, so I agree that it's more than genetic. But, there are roots in Natural Selection theory for why animals serve 'the greater good'.

 

[MobBoss]

A very constructive series of replies.

We can both debate much better when we put our minds to it!

Well, to cut a long story shorter...(And give the CFC-server a rest!)
I would say that I have not chosen to get involved with religion, for much the
same reasoning you would have for not being involved in atheistic thought.

I do come from the UK, a christian nation, remember! And was taught in a
christian state-school, so I know what the stated aims of that religion is on
a smaller scale. I just chose at an early age that their solutions to life did not
really give any real answers.

Also, I feel I can see that all religion will never really be free of human power-lust
and control. As this just part of the human psyche. I don't believe humans are
capable of breaking this trend, as we are all too emotional and mentally unstable
to live in the way of the sought ideals.

I have moved beyond it all, and now look at a bigger picture.

When I get stroppy about religion, it is the human failure I am attacking,
not the concept of humans being moral or seeking a higher level of thought.
I find that purpose to be commendable.

So, out of interest - Can you tell me what your view of being christian is about.

.

Absolutely. To me, its about having what I call a personal relationship with God. Without that relationship, I would be a far worse person than I am today. I certainly would be more selfish...I probably would have been divorced years ago as I would have just quit my marriage when things got hard. My faith in God gives me the ability to overcome my flesh when all it wants to do is please itself. I agree with you Curt on your view of humans in general. Humans, left to their own, will always fail one another. Its in their flesh to do so. But if a person is able to put down their desire to please themself, put down their flesh, then they can truly bless others and in turn be blessed in a way that a lot of people just wont understand. Heck, I have been a christian a long time and I still have my own problems and issues, but I have seen enough to know that those can be overcome if I let God bear that yoke.

There was a time when I might have even thought of myself as an Atheist or probably a Agnostic. But that lifestyle to me was pretty empty and pretty much only consisted of me acting upon whatever I happened to desire at the moment. To be perfectly honest, it was my wife that led me to God more than anything. I had to see it in her before I would accept it. The same may be for you Curt, if it in fact ever happens at all. Like you I was unable to see it, until it was in my face on a daily basis.

 

[CurtSibling]

Absolutely. To me, its about having what I call a personal relationship with God. Without that relationship, I would be a far worse person than I am today. I certainly would be more selfish...I probably would have been divorced years ago as I would have just quit my marriage when things got hard. My faith in God gives me the ability to overcome my flesh when all it wants to do is please itself. I agree with you Curt on your view of humans in general. Humans, left to their own, will always fail one another. Its in their flesh to do so. But if a person is able to put down their desire to please themself, put down their flesh, then they can truly bless others and in turn be blessed in a way that a lot of people just wont understand. Heck, I have been a christian a long time and I still have my own problems and issues, but I have seen enough to know that those can be overcome if I let God bear that yoke.

We use whatever power we have at hand to get through the day.

You call it god, but there are other names for it too.

Going against the flow and avoiding the paths of self-destruction are
both commendable. I have never been interested in intoxicants, such
as booze and narcotics. I put aside tobacco more than ten years ago.

To keep a healthy body, is the route also to a healthy mind, and a good
way to keep focus and know what the point of your life is. But I can tell
you know all this already.

There was a time when I might have even thought of myself as an Atheist or probably a Agnostic. But that lifestyle to me was pretty empty and pretty much only consisted of me acting upon whatever I happened to desire at the moment. To be perfectly honest, it was my wife that led me to God more than anything. I had to see it in her before I would accept it. The same may be for you Curt, if it in fact ever happens at all. Like you I was unable to see it, until it was in my face on a daily basis.

We all walk on different paths in life.

I am glad you have found a focus for yourself.

My life is quite different, but we share certain views here, and
I think that some small level of agreement is better than none.

 

[Birdjaguar]

lets take Christianity under the microscope for our endeavor of inquiry,most of the so-called sacred text is mainly journalistic account with metaphors on the preaching of Christ.

The new testament is comprised of 3 gospels that tell the life story of Jesus, a fourth that carries that story to a more spiritual level and then a collection of letters and stories that circulated among christians during the very early years of the church. Inspired or not, they were the ones that the church decided in 400 AD to include in the official collection of sacred texts. No one knows what texts did not survive the first 100 years after Jesus' death. The dating on the texts, would seem to indicate that as long as people were around who actually knew Jesus, there was not any urgency to write the story down. In a illiterate society, story telling would be a more popular route for passing along important knowledge. Then once those first hand witnesses began to die out, stories were written down by "Mark". Paul's letters were saved by local churches and used as teaching tools. In the end everything available was reviewed by the church and the cuts made as to what was in and what was out of the bible.

Take this and build an institution of what we now call "the catholic church",now a new class of experts claim to know how to interpret these magical writings,since most people at that time are illiterate,these magicians illuminate the masses by reading words of fear and symbolic hate of self-denial.

In order to manage a religion that spanned Europe, the church needed to build a bureaucracy, just like any corporation today. They needed written dogma and fixed ritual to keep everyone on the same track across great distances. And it didn't work well. The Orthodox and Coptic branches went their own ways taking many christians with them. Which is closer to the "truth" is as yet undetermined.

You seem to object to the way the catholics used their religious power. The church was run by men, just like the folks at CFC. Why would you expect them to behave differently than the rest of us? What happens when you give men access to money an power? Add an entrenched bureaucracy and 2000 years. How many of the smart people outside of the church do you think were fooled by church leaders who took advantage of their position? You seem to have expectations that the thousands of church leaders over the past 2000 years were all supposed to like St. Francis of Assisi. Why would you ever make such a silly assumption? That's like saying our elected congressmen all must be honest and working for the people rather than themselvese, because we live in a democracy. Does that make our government evil? No it just makes us look stupid for electing the bozos (sorry BE no offense )

This messages that the sender to the addresees,mystify people of what is really true.That is what called religion.A whole abstracted society that the elite instruct the masses on how to view the world by magic of writing,and what this writing[the bible or other sacred texts] consist?Mainly metaphors.

Think about the church's problem. They have milliions of believers, spread over the whole world. They have to standardize and adapt as times change. Jesus cannot be resurected by the church to provide on demand experiences for those currently alive. All christian sects interpret the bible to make it real for their group. Preachers and leaders work hard to bring life and meaning and immediacy to the text. Catholic liberation theology of the 1980s and 90s was just such an interpretation in many third world countries. The fundamentalist movements we see today are struggling with the same issues faced by christians in 150 AD who did not have a personal experience with jesus to fall back on. How do we make Jesus and his teaching important and relevant to people today.

 

[CaptainF]

to put it Verrrrrrryyyyyyy shallowly, i tend to be skeptical of anything, including atheism.

I admire religion. I really do. There is nothing wrong with striving to be a better person, to reach a higher plane of existence. I find many things within religion to be necessary for living a good moral life. Oscar Romero is to me an example of a religious person we should all strive to be. He fought against injustice, and paid the ultimate price for it. There is also great wisdom within religion. One of my favorite all time quotes happens to be:

"There is no sickness like hunger, no fire like passion, no sorrow like loneliness, no crime like hatred, and no joy like the joy of freedom."

-Buddha (So true)

moving on...

I admire atheists/agnostics/non-religious in general. I see these people as also striving to obtain morality, via different routes. There have been some genuinely saintly atheists, contradicitons notwithstanding. Most atheist people i know are respectful, decent people, who gladly give charitably.

At the same time I recognize that there are odious elements of both factions. Atheists, some of them i know, use their atheism to justify their rather a$$wholed attitude towards the world, thinking that upon the pedestal of atheism sits the elixir of intelligence. They use this intelligence, which i call arrogance, to venomously lash out at respectable religious people. Many kids also become atheist just because it is "en vogue" and its "cool" to be atheist. Alternatively, many tend to replace the notion of god with an alternate one, science. This sort of "god placebo" is ludicrous. Oh, so now you don't believe in god, but instead rest all your non religious faith in SCIENCE? pleeeeez.

Alternatively, religions are also rife with heinous elements, such as the wars, and the corruption of the televangelists, the religious right, and the disrespectful prosletyzers. ugh, give me a break. There is also a vicious "bump-heads" mentality amongst religious followers. One person i met, christian, referred to any other belief as stupid, baseless, and foolhardy. I also heard a while ago, most disturbingly, of a US general, christian, in an attempt to motivate his troops stationed in Iraq, exclaimed that the Christian "god" is better than the Islamic "god". This sort of elitism and callousness amongst belief systems is what may very well end up bursting my capillaries.

I was raised in a household where i was allowed to learn, freely, of all religions, everywhere, of all sorts. This is what we need more of i believe. This will avoid the bringing up of people on one system, the only one they have ever known, which will only lead to conflict when they discover an individual with differing convictions. Me personally, i think that we should take a little bit from every spot at the buffet, so to speak, and let our taste buds dance in the glory. as Asoka once said, (loosely paraphrasing) all belief systems value purity of the heart, all merit respect. and after all is said and done, we all should every now and then, chill out and eat at the communal diner of humanity. and bask in the one thing that all creeds seem to respect: life.

 

[Taliesin]

Something that G.K. Chesterton observed, which seems to be all too true even here in OT, is that Christianity is often criticised in extremely inconsistent and even contradictory fashion. Christians are both sheep and egotists; Christianity is at once too humble and too exalted, too yielding and too warlike, too austere and too exuberant, too pessimistic and too optimistic about the world, too ready to wonder and too certain, too fragmented and too organised. The fact that these opposites are often uttered by the same person, sometimes in the same post, means that Christianity must be of a strange shape indeed. Either that, or people simply enjoy hurling unreasonable insults at it.

 

[bigfatron]

Well, where does that feeling come from? Its certainly not genetic. Remember, only the strong survive and all that. I humbly submit that you got your feelings of morality from religious thought somewhere around you. If you put a kid in the forest and he became an adult without any moral training what-so-ever...do you think he would try to help someone less fortunate from himself? Not a chance.

The old "golden rule" thing. But isnt that in essence a religious belief?.

El_Machinae put this well - it is a consequence, IIMHO, of humans becoming social beings, discovering (over a long, long period of time) that intelligence and cooperation have delivered better results for the group, and hence the individuals within that group, than direct and outright comepetition.

To take your example, a kid growing up in the jungle would not gain empathy and morality, but a kid growing up in an isolated tribe with no religion probably would, since this is preciely what allows a group of humans to survive in a harsh regime.

Individuals are still born without the most basic morality or empathy, and it is a biochemical disorder, not an act of god which makes them so - we call them psychopaths, and they scare the living daylight out of ordinary humans exactly because social morality is our inbuilt and inherent condition.

In this you are incorrect. Read up on the twelve steps...its not about the collective will of the group by any means. The whole thing is that none of those people, even the group as a whole, cannot help themselves in their addiction at all. While they may be accountable to one another, they themselves have no power to facilitate change within themselves.

Hmm, well I have attended an addiction class (part of a different, long and boring story) and it was all about finding the strength within yourself to resist, but using your support network (at the meetings and otherwise) to help you do so - no higher or outside power was called on. Maybe techniques differ depending on the location and the level of religious belief - having an overtly religious AA in most parts of the UK would be a bit pointless!

Good discussion though, I'm enjoying it...

 

[MobBoss]

El_Machinae put this well - it is a consequence, IIMHO, of humans becoming social beings, discovering (over a long, long period of time) that intelligence and cooperation have delivered better results for the group, and hence the individuals within that group, than direct and outright comepetition.

To take your example, a kid growing up in the jungle would not gain empathy and morality, but a kid growing up in an isolated tribe with no religion probably would, since this is preciely what allows a group of humans to survive in a harsh regime.

Individuals are still born without the most basic morality or empathy, and it is a biochemical disorder, not an act of god which makes them so - we call them psychopaths, and they scare the living daylight out of ordinary humans exactly because social morality is our inbuilt and inherent condition.




Hmm, well I have attended an addiction class (part of a different, long and boring story) and it was all about finding the strength within yourself to resist, but using your support network (at the meetings and otherwise) to help you do so - no higher or outside power was called on. Maybe techniques differ depending on the location and the level of religious belief - having an overtly religious AA in most parts of the UK would be a bit pointless!

Good discussion though, I'm enjoying it...

For your benefit here are the 12 steps of the AA program. Note that God is mentioned more than just once:

1. We admitted we were powerless over alcohol - that our lives had become unmanageable.

2. Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity.

3. Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood Him.

4. Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves.

5. Admitted to God, to ourselves and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs.

6. Were entirely ready to have God remove all these defects of character.

7. Humbly asked Him to remove our shortcomings.

8. Made a list of all persons we had harmed, and became willing to make amends to them all.

9. Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others.

10. Continued to take personal inventory and when we were wrong promptly admitted it.

11. Sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with Godas we understood Him, praying only for knowledge of His will for us and the power to carry that out.

12. Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these steps, we tried to carry this message to alcoholics and to practice these principles in all our affairs.

 

[Ayatollah So]

Zarn, religious thinking IS irrational by definition! There is no empirical proof of God's existence, no rational basis for the faith that the religious enjoy. If it was rational, how would it be a matter of faith?

The Catholic church has long held that God's existence IS provable. I don't think you can just define religion as irrational, you have to examine the evidence.

But for a different POV, here's Douglas Adams:

The argument goes something like this: “I refuse to prove that I exist,” says God, “for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.”
“But,” says Man, “the Babel fish is a dead giveaway isn’t it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don’t. QED.”
“Oh dear,” says God, “I hadn’t thought of that,” and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Maybe there is a little life left in this discussion. Let's see.

 

[sanabas]

Maybe there is a little life left in this discussion. Let's see.

Well, if the conversation's going to turn to Douglas Adams and/or Oolon Colluphid, there's plenty left.

The Catholic church has long held that God's existence IS provable. I don't think you can just define religion as irrational, you have to examine the evidence.

The obvious answer to anyone that holds god's existence as provable is 'ok, prove it to me'. The conclusion I draw from those proofs is that god's existence is only provable if you have a sufficiently broad definition of 'proof'. It's easy to define religion as irrational, as it is based on belief without rational proof. That's not an inherently bad thing, but the majority of religions seem to forget/ignore that they're based on belief without evidence, which is a problem.

 

[El_Machinae]

That, or they don't think the consequences of their proof all the way through. With a little cynical thought, one can see that their 'proof' isn't proof, but just faith phrased a different way.

I respect that people can have faith, but when they're illogical in their faith, it bugs me. Oh, and if they try to hurt me because of faith - that irks me too.

 

[Ayatollah So]

If you examine the "proofs" and find them wanting, then you're examining the evidence. Just like Ayatollah to do

 

[bigfatron]

For your benefit here are the 12 steps of the AA program. Note that God is mentioned more than just once:

1. We admitted we were powerless over alcohol - that our lives had become unmanageable.

2. Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity.

3. Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood Him.

4. Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves.

5. Admitted to God, to ourselves and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs.

6. Were entirely ready to have God remove all these defects of character.

7. Humbly asked Him to remove our shortcomings.

8. Made a list of all persons we had harmed, and became willing to make amends to them all.

9. Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others.

10. Continued to take personal inventory and when we were wrong promptly admitted it.

11. Sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with Godas we understood Him, praying only for knowledge of His will for us and the power to carry that out.

12. Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these steps, we tried to carry this message to alcoholics and to practice these principles in all our affairs.

Really? Apolgies then, I have got that one totally wrong.

I guess that many UK-based self-help groups (including the one I know about) take a less religious approach given the lower incidence of belief in the UK.