I thought every school boy learned that the Indo-European language root of salvation was sol (whole).

religious people handle adversity better than atheists — mongrel

Other than your pseudo-philosophical drivel do you have any evidence of this? And I don't mean your opinion on the matter, I mean a peer review scientific article.

No I don't have any scientific articles. It's just something I came to expect during my time working in a pediatric intensive care unit. Parents who stand at the bedside of their dying child acting like we're at a barbecue or something.. they're atheists. The ones who are present and accounted for are religious.

Parents who stand at the bedside of their dying child acting like we're at a barbecue or something.. — Mongrel

I can't help but wonder what "or something" refers to, here.

No I don't have any scientific articles — mongrel

Then you don't really have anything at all. Your whole argument hinges on that one conclusion, and if you can't establish in some meaningful way then you really have nothing at all. To be honest it is very sloppy "philosophy".

It's just something I came to expect during my time working in a pediatric intensive care unit. Parents who stand at the bedside of their dying child acting like we're at a barbecue or something.. they're atheists. The ones who are present and accounted for are religious.

Don't care, everyone and their dog thinks they have special insight, but people also suffer from observational bias, which means they tend to see what they are looking for. This is why I ask for data, instead of opinions. Also I can tell you right now that your experience does not meet the standards of a fair representative sample of theists or atheists.

I can't help but wonder what "or something" refers to, here. — Ciceronianus the White

The "or something" is a cocktail party. Possible offer of a chocolate martini on the table as junior's name has already been changed to "donor" in the medical records.

Feel free to present your own view of things. Or not.

But being a friend of Caesar isn't the same as being a "friend" of Jesus. — Heister Eggcart

I suspect Jesus never had a friend, really. At least, we never hear of one, though it's claimed he "loved" John--according to John, in any case. It seems he was fond of Lazarus, however. I suspect the many Caesars had friends, though very few.

The "or something" is a cocktail party. Possible offer of a chocolate martini on the table as junior's name has already been changed to "donor" in the medical records. — Mongrel

You seem bitter. But a chocolate martini? There's no accounting for the taste of an atheist, it seems.

Bitter? No, I don't think so. I'm not judging. Just observed it.

I'll admit PICU personnel aren't particularly romantic about such things, as you probably aren't about the content of your job.

When you broaden your worldview, all you see are vicious idiots everywhere. It is not religion that is the problem. It is humanity. We are cancer. — TimeLine

If you have dealings with real idiots, or whatever politically correct designation one gives to the less intellectual amongst us, they tend to be less vicious and more loving. It's the intelligent that are vicious.

We're back to counting corpses again, to see who is the gooder thinker. If the insight is clear, the parasite is transformed into a symbiote. This is the magic of thought, that where biology must laboriously evolve, thought can change instantly.

Feel free to present your own view of things. Or not. — Mongrel

I am fairly certain I already did. My view is that your view needs more support.

I don't have any scientific articles. — Mongrel

Research has been done into the relative success that the religious and non-religious people have in coping with adversity, prolonged stress, serious illness, and so on. I wasn't able to lay my hands on a specific reference just now.

If my memory (and common sense) serve me, the differences are not altogether unambiguous. For one thing, not all religiosity is the same, and not all ir-religiosity is the same, either. Some factors that might make a difference are not religious in nature. Supportive friends, for instance, make a difference. Ones psychological make up, quite apart from religion, has something to do with how well or poorly we cope with trouble.

Parents who stand at the bedside of their dying child acting like we're at a barbecue or something. they're atheists. — Mongrel

Parents standing by the bedside of their dying child (parent, spouse, dearest friend...) might be coping with the awful inevitability confronting them by displaying levity. Fatal illness and death can take a long time, and after months of being the pillar of strength and support, one might well give way to frivolous chatter.

There isn't any master narrative that defines how people should deal with the appalling misery of life. Mostly, we learn how to suffer and witness suffering through "on the job training".

I'll admit PICU personnel aren't particularly romantic about such things, as you probably aren't about the content of your job. — Mongrel

What could be more romantic than the practice of law?

I suspect Jesus never had a friend, really. At least, we never hear of one, though it's claimed he "loved" John--according to John, in any case. It seems he was fond of Lazarus, however. I suspect the many Caesars had friends, though very few. — Ciceronianus the White

I've no idea what you're going on about, now.

Research has been done into the relative success that the religious and non-religious people have in coping with adversity, prolonged stress, serious illness, and so on. I wasn't able to lay my hands on a specific reference just now.

If my memory (and common sense) serve me, the differences are not altogether unambiguous. For one thing, not all religiosity is the same, and not all ir-religiosity is the same, either. Some factors that might make a difference are not religious in nature. Supportive friends, for instance, make a difference. Ones psychological make up, quite apart from religion, has something to do with how well or poorly we cope with trouble. — Bitter Crank

Makes sense. I did say in the OP that I don't hold it to be a hard and fast rule that religious people have better coping skills. It's really just something I noticed along the way. I think of what Victor Frankl said about the power of meaning. He created a meaning for his suffering while in a concentration camp. There was nothing religious about it.

Religion, by providing ritual, community, ties with ancestors, etc. provides a ready-made framework in which to find meaning in events. True?

Parents standing by the bedside of their dying child (parent, spouse, dearest friend...) might be coping with the awful inevitability confronting them by displaying levity. Fatal illness and death can take a long time, and after months of being the pillar of strength and support, one might well give way to frivolous chatter.

There isn't any master narrative that defines how people should deal with the appalling misery of life. Mostly, we learn how to suffer and witness suffering through "on the job training". — Bitter Crank

Sure. What I was meant was that people who confided to me that they were atheists (usually after the offer of a chaplain to stand with them) tended to seem a little vacant. They had checked out. Totally understandable.

What could be more romantic than the practice of law? — Ciceronianus the White

Pirate.

Your standard for evidence is pathetically low.

Yes. Some fundamental things I take to be true without any evidence at all. It's atrocious.

Religion provides a ready-made framework in which to find meaning in events. True? — Mongrel

Yes, I think that's true. The problem that the ir-a-anti-non-un-religious have is composing a narrative without the gods to account for, and provide meaning to, the ghastly events that disrupt or end lives. I think it's a tough assignment to produce a de novo narrative that both explains the horrors of life and at the same time provides comfort to the survivors.

If one can't come up with a narrative (like, if one lacks knowledge of various religious and philosophical themes) then one is going to face the cold wind blowing from the future [The Stranger, Camus] without so much as a tissue of protection.

A well-read atheist could, for instance, turn to Ecclesiastes and read that there is a time to live and a time to die. The race is not to the swift nor the battle to the strong. Time and chance govern our lives. We are grieved, but we are the survivors. A live dog is better than a dead lion.

To lose a child (a spouse, a parent...) and be unable to place the loss in a larger context has to be chilling and caustic.

Calling your argument "fundamental" does not change the fact that your standard for evidence is pathetically low.

Your standard for evidence is pathetically low. — Jeremiah

So Mongrel hasn't provided decent evidence that religion helps. Maybe her standards for evidence are low, but what kind of evidence would you accept?

We can look at surveys, we can look at long lists of anecdotal reports, and narratives that testify to the benefits of religious belief in times of disaster. It's something, but it's hear-say. There probably isn't any "proof" one way or the other. No brain scans, no blood tests, no behavioral observations or measurements.

For many, most?, religious people, "religion" is deeply integrated into their personality. It can't be pulled out as a single, measurable factor. It is the strength of the individual that gives faith the power to comfort them, rather than the other way around.

My own belief about religious relief is that many (most?) people get through disasters (or don't) on the strength of their personalities, and that religious comfort is, if not incidental, not the critical factor. Indeed, believing in prayer and divine intervention and then having one's children die must surely result in an additional burden of severe cognitive dissonance. "Why were my prayers not answered?" "Where was Jesus for my (son, daughter, father, mother, sister, brother, spouse...)?" "Why does God allow this to happen?"

On the other hand, some Nazis working at the Jewish killing pits in captured territory during the invasion of the USSR were humbled that, "The Jewish men walked to the pits like heroes."

So Mongrel hasn't provided decent evidence that religion helps. Maybe her standards for evidence are low, but what kind of evidence would you accept? — Bitter Crank

The entire OP hinges on one claim, even as a rhetorical argument it fails horribly.

The thesis is: "dependence on religion will return and atheism will be eclipsed (again)."

Which is supposedly explained by: " religious people handle adversity better than atheists"

If you have no evidence to support your one and only claim, then at least attack it from different angles.

We can look at surveys, we can look at long lists of anecdotal reports, and narratives that testify to the benefits of religious belief in times of disaster. It's something, but it's hear-say. There probably isn't any "proof" one way or the other. No brain scans, no blood tests, no behavioral observations or measurements. — Bitter Crank

A statistical analysis would certainly be a good place to start.

God forbid someone in a philosophy forum actually suggest a need for evidence.

Stop weeping.

*rolls eyes*

God forbid someone in a philosophy forum actually suggest a need for evidence. — Jeremiah

The working of logic isn't dependent on evidence.

Logic is not a magic wand you can wave and suddenly truth appears, it is a tool to help you in your considerations. Further more the OP is not employing logic; there is a differences between a rationalization and logic.

"Philosophy" is not an excuse to shrug off doing proper research, although I know many at these forums certainly treat it that way.

religious people handle adversity better than atheists" Mongrel said. — Jeremiah

A statistical analysis would certainly be a good place to start. — Jeremiah

There are enough atheists, certainly, to gather a large sample, and more than enough religious people. I would hope whoever has done, is doing, or will do this kind of analysis succeeds in defining exactly what they are measuring, because (as I said above) religion is part of their integrated personality. For atheists, whatever set of beliefs they hold are part of their integrated personalities.

I think it will be difficult to prove that believing or not believing makes a difference because it won't be possible to isolate belief (or no belief) as a measurable variable. It will be found to be tied in with too many other factors.

For instance, I count myself as a non-believer, but I was raised in a devout Protestant family and didn't reject belief in God until middle age (30 years ago). If I do well or badly in a crisis situation, to what part of my history can that be credited? Some people have never formally abjured their faith, but on close examination they don't seem to ever have seriously believed or practiced it. There are people who have deep beliefs about God's power, their own righteousness, and the power of prayer, but when they get sick they go to the doctor--right away. Is their good health a result of faith or prompt medical attention?

;)