"You must pray every day to remain healthy"

[Rrose Selavy]

The new leader of England & Wales' Catholics says:


People must pray every day if they wish to remain healthy, according to the new Archbishop of Westminster, the Most Rev Vincent Nichols.
In his first pastoral letter to his diocese since he was installed in May this year, published tomorrow, Archbishop Nichols warns that stable, fruitful and healthy lives cannot be achieved without daily prayer.


While the article suggests, unconvincingly:


Although this has yet to be reflected in numbers of worshippers, Catholicism, along with other religions in Britain, is experiencing something of a renaissance.
This is thought partly to be due to the efforts of atheists such as Richard Dawkins and novelists such as Dan Brown and Philip Pullman. The publicity engendered by their fulminations seems to have had the opposite effect of that intended and proved the truth of the adage that no religion benefits as much from persecution as Christianity.


More here:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article6838451.ece

[Jonnyclueless]

The upside about the prayer is that it doesn't matter who or what you pray to. A god, a carton of milk. Makes no difference.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

And it doesn't matter what you pray for. The Universe just chugs along doing its random stuff anyway. :(

[rwguinn]

"The Igor position on prayer is that it is hope with a beat" Igor, Terry Pratchett's Making Money

[wollery]

Oh no! The Catholic Church has appointed a pompous moron to high office, and one of his first official statements is dumb and a wee tad controversial.

I bet that that's the first time that's happened.

[BobTheDonkey]

Oh no! The Catholic Church has appointed a pompous moron to high office, and one of his first official statements is dumb and a wee tad controversial.

I bet that that's the first time that's happened.

I'll take that bet.

:D

[Ron_Tomkins]

So basically woo people continue living and behaving as if all the debunks of their fallacious ideologies had come through an ear and out through the other ear.

Am I amazed? Nooooo.

[Kahalachan]

This is thought partly to be due to the efforts of atheists such as Richard Dawkins and novelists such as Dan Brown and Philip Pullman.

This is why I never agreed with Dawkins' stridency. I remember when I was a Christian, hearing some strident atheist only had the adverse effect.

But having a calm conversation and debate showed me how my notion of god wasn't rational.

It's fine to make fun of an idea of god within atheist circles and as a joke. But as a method of persuasion it fails.

[slingblade]

Good thing I'm not trying to persuade them, then, isn't it?

[MG1962]

Its a shame people didn't pay attention to other elements in the letter

The letter, published today, warns against the temptations of ambition, favouritism and hypocrisy in the “battles and wars” that people fight among themselves.

[Cainkane1]

The new leader of England & Wales' Catholics says:



While the article suggests, unconvincingly:



More here:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article6838451.ece
Richard dawkins books and the books of other atheist authors are not actually designed to destroy faith but to provide an alternative to blind belief. I doubt if the effect of these works has any effect on how much people pray or not. If they want to waste time praying hopefully if they live in a free society they are free to do so. Nobody wants to stop them unless they want to stop themselves.

[Cainkane1]

This is why I never agreed with Dawkins' stridency. I remember when I was a Christian, hearing some strident atheist only had the adverse effect.

But having a calm conversation and debate showed me how my notion of god wasn't rational.

It's fine to make fun of an idea of god within atheist circles and as a joke. But as a method of persuasion it fails.
The same thing happens when some bible banger raising hell on the street extorts total strangers to accept Jesus or whatever. The crowd usually quickens their pace getting past them and out of earshot.

[Marduk]

Its a shame people didn't pay attention to other elements in the letter

The letter, published today, warns against the temptations of ambition, favouritism and hypocrisy in the “battles and wars” that people fight among themselves.

bet that scared a few cardinals
:D

[Pure Argent]

Does he offer any evidence to support his conclusion on prayer? No, of course not.

What's really sad is that people will most likely listen to him anyway.

[MG1962]

Does he offer any evidence to support his conclusion on prayer? No, of course not.

What's really sad is that people will most likely listen to him anyway.

Dont be so sure of that

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200304/the-benefits-meditation

[Rrose Selavy]

Prayer to some imagined deity is not the same as meditation .

[bpesta22]

Does he offer any evidence to support his conclusion on prayer? No, of course not.

What's really sad is that people will most likely listen to him anyway.

Here's all the evidence one needs! Prayer correlates strongly but inversely with health:

http://c1.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images02/99/l_189305e8c4ac4b64a465bacca23f0278.jpg




the correlation is .72-- over 50% of variance in health across states is explained just by knowing how often residents pray.

[Rrose Selavy]

100% of those who pray everyday eventually die.

Nuff said.

[MG1962]

Prayer to some imagined deity is not the same as meditation .

Some seem to disagree with you

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_meditation#The_official_Catholic_positio n

[fls]

This is why I never agreed with Dawkins' stridency. I remember when I was a Christian, hearing some strident atheist only had the adverse effect.

But having a calm conversation and debate showed me how my notion of god wasn't rational.

I realize that this is straying off-topic, but do you have a link or reference to something where he is strident? In my limited exposure, I've only seem him in calm conversation and debate with a Christian. An example would help me to understand this particular complaint.

Thanks.

Linda

[fls]

This part is particularly cute:

"Although this has yet to be reflected in numbers of worshippers, Roman Catholicism, along with other religions in Britain, is experiencing something of a renaissance."

How do you measure renaissance? Not in numbers of worshippers, but in numbers of "trainee priests at Allen Hall", the presence of a tour of French relics, and the expectation of a visit from the Pope.

In your face, atheists.

Linda

[Dr Adequate]

Although this has yet to be reflected in numbers of worshippers, Catholicism, along with other religions in Britain, is experiencing something of a renaissance.
This is thought partly to be due to the efforts of atheists such as Richard Dawkins and novelists such as Dan Brown and Philip Pullman. The publicity engendered by their fulminations seems to have had the opposite effect of that intended and proved the truth of the adage that no religion benefits as much from persecution as Christianity. If they benefit from persecution, wouldn't they benefit even more from real persecution, rather than the relatively mild horror of Richard Dawkins disagreeing with them? Shouldn't they perhaps resume the practice of burning one another at the stake over their dumb sectarian differences over who has the best imaginary friend?

After all, apparently the religious "renaissance" sparked by the Dawkinsite "persecution" hasn't resulted in them making any actual converts.

[Kahalachan]

I realize that this is straying off-topic, but do you have a link or reference to something where he is strident? In my limited exposure, I've only seem him in calm conversation and debate with a Christian. An example would help me to understand this particular complaint.

Thanks.

Linda

Stridency is a matter of personal opinion but he admits that's a common opinion of his approach.

His demeanour can be calm but his words and how he phrases it can be barbed.

Here's a source.

MuyUz2XLp1E

[Rrose Selavy]

However much I agreed with it, I used to think RD really didn't always do his case any good on TV at least, maybe its the nature of editing and the need for soundbites but I find as I watch many of his longer interviews , one to one, often with creationists, theologians etc, that he comes across often quite restrained, and much better overall.

He does have the occasional unfortunate quote, such as the "stupid face" of the woman who was suspended for trying to wear a crucifix. Or the Peter Kay book incident , where he was fished for a barbed quote and fell for it . But given his profile I'm sure his critics are looking for more such "ammo". They haven't found much.

I'd sure take his civility against any of his opponents anytime.



Thinks for the link, I'm gonna watch all 12 parts now!

[Kahalachan]

Thinks for the link, I'm gonna watch all 12 parts now!

Welcome. :)

It's a really interesting discussion and I enjoyed watching it.

[godless dave]

This is why I never agreed with Dawkins' stridency.

Can you provide an example of Dawkins being strident? Every time I have heard or read him he has been eminently calm and reasonable.

[godless dave]

Dont be so sure of that

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200304/the-benefits-meditation


The Archbishop mentioned that study? Really?

[godless dave]

Its a shame people didn't pay attention to other elements in the letter

The letter, published today, warns against the temptations of ambition, favouritism and hypocrisy in the “battles and wars” that people fight among themselves.

Why would we pay attention to something we learned in kindergarten when it's said by a representative of an institution that regularly practices ambition, favoritism, and hypocrisy?

Come to think of it, why would anyone (except a child molestor looking for tips) listen to anything a Catholic clergyman says about anything? That's like going to Lehman Brothers for financial advice.

[normdoering]

If you really want to stay healthy then you should listen to heavy metal every day. Try this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3-3Lzwz6K4&feature=channel_page

[MG1962]

The Archbishop mentioned that study? Really?

Does he need to?

[MG1962]

Why would we pay attention to something we learned in kindergarten when it's said by a representative of an institution that regularly practices ambition, favoritism, and hypocrisy?

Come to think of it, why would anyone (except a child molestor looking for tips) listen to anything a Catholic clergyman says about anything? That's like going to Lehman Brothers for financial advice.

Nice to see balanced opinions

[arthwollipot]

Can you provide an example of Dawkins being strident? Every time I have heard or read him he has been eminently calm and reasonable.Stridency is very much in the eye of the beholder. Statements that to you and me seem perfectly reasonable strike discords with some other people, especially religious believers.

For example, for some, the title "The God Delusion" is an insult - it implies that people who believe in God are deluded and therefore stupid. And there are some people who take offense at that. So they will call statements "strident" that we would consider fair and reasonable.

[fls]

Stridency is a matter of personal opinion but he admits that's a common opinion of his approach.

His demeanour can be calm but his words and how he phrases it can be barbed.

Here's a source.

MuyUz2XLp1E

Thanks for posting that (it took me a while to get to a computer where I could watch it).

But I have to admit that I still don't understand how to draw the line, as the consensus seems to be that strident = persistent + blunt. And the latter two seem to correspond to your description of being shown that your notion of a god was not rational.

Your mention of barbs is helpful. As an example, at one point in the videos referenced in this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=151131), Richard Dawkins, when agreeing with the idea that basing a society on the idea of evolution through natural selection would lead to an unpleasant state, made reference to this state as "right wing". It seemed to be a gratuitous poke at his opponent's political views.

But it's hard to know at what point persistence becomes stridency. I realize the value of making a point and then backing off, allowing time for the idea to sprout, so that the next time someone approaches the issue, they may be more open to additional challenges to their beliefs. It just seems to be a very fine line between enough persistence to get the seed planted and persistence to the point of adversity.

The other issue I have is that civility allows people to be complacent about their views. Ridicule in general can be dismissed, but ridicule from someone you perceive to be a peer or a superior is not so easy to dismiss. And I don't want to lose the power of this tool by suggesting that ridicule never has a use when it comes to persuasion. Doesn't drawing attention to the ridiculousness of claiming that Catholicism is undergoing a renaissance because some relics are on tour in the UK highlight the vacuity of the claim?

Anyway, this is wandering off-topic. It's useful to have your perspective on this. Thanks.

Linda

[Deranged]

Tennessee Williams said in times of trouble , "yes; I pray for solace." It appears to somehow benefit the psyche rather than to actually cause one to be healthy. It may also cause some people to feel more mellow since it relies on being calm and hopefully imagines onself to be in tune with the Infinite. But I doubt it would create more red blood cells although there's an outside chance it could lower blood pressure and help clear the arteries?

[godless dave]

Does he need to?

For your post to make sense he does.


Does he offer any evidence to support his conclusion on prayer? No, of course not.

Dont be so sure of that

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200304/the-benefits-meditation

Argent said the archbishop didn't offer any evidence to support his conclusion. You said "don't be too sure of that", implying that the archbiship had offered evidence to support his conclusion.

Nice to see balanced opinions

Which of those facts are you disputing? The Catholic church's 1700 year history of hypocrisy, ambition, and favoritism is well documented.

[normdoering]

If you really want to stay healthy then you should listen to heavy metal every day. Try this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3-3Lzwz6K4&feature=channel_page

The original video was removed - edited - and re-uploaded here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEwkeH2XiTQ

[Skeptic Ginger]

This is why I never agreed with Dawkins' stridency. I remember when I was a Christian, hearing some strident atheist only had the adverse effect.

But having a calm conversation and debate showed me how my notion of god wasn't rational.

It's fine to make fun of an idea of god within atheist circles and as a joke. But as a method of persuasion it fails.So are you saying that because of your personal anecdotal evidence you can draw this broad conclusion?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Its a shame people didn't pay attention to other elements in the letter

The letter, published today, warns against the temptations of ambition, favouritism and hypocrisy in the “battles and wars” that people fight among themselves.The church warning against hypocrisy?

:id:

[Skeptic Ginger]

The same thing happens when some bible banger raising hell on the street extorts total strangers to accept Jesus or whatever. The crowd usually quickens their pace getting past them and out of earshot.The non-scientific poll in this forum asking if people here see Christians more favorably or less after reading the resident preachers' posts suggests atheists are just as turned off by theist preaching as theists are turned off by atheists' actions.

I suggest neither side is going to convince the other by debate alone. People recognize the god delusions via other routes.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Stridency is a matter of personal opinion but he admits that's a common opinion of his approach.

His demeanour can be calm but his words and how he phrases it can be barbed.

Here's a source.

MuyUz2XLp1EI find it interesting you take a calm discussion making the opposite point as support for your claim Dawkins is speaking offensively. They all make the point that no matter how you discuss the idea there are no gods, theists are going to be offended. The bottom line is if you are frank, you can offend more people than if you distort your beliefs in a sugar coated way. There may be a time and place to sugar coat a challenge to someone's beliefs. But you can't expect to communicate your position clearly if you constantly muffle what you have to say.

[arthwollipot]

I find it interesting you take a calm discussion making the opposite point as support for your claim Dawkins is speaking offensively. They all make the point that no matter how you discuss the idea there are no gods, theists are going to be offended. The bottom line is if you are frank, you can offend more people than if you distort your beliefs in a sugar coated way. There may be a time and place to sugar coat a challenge to someone's beliefs. But you can't expect to communicate your position clearly if you constantly muffle what you have to say.Yes, but at the same time we have to realise that some people view this as stridency, even though we don't. So since people are speaking only their own opinion, and there is no one single objective definition of "stridency", we can't complain when we use that word to describe Dawkins' style. After all, we use the word "stupid" to refer to their belief system, no?

[godless dave]

Yes, but at the same time we have to realise that some people view this as stridency, even though we don't. So since people are speaking only their own opinion, and there is no one single objective definition of "stridency", we can't complain when we use that word to describe Dawkins' style. After all, we use the word "stupid" to refer to their belief system, no?

Sure we can. "Strident" may not have a single objective definition (very few words do), but it does have a range of subjective definitions. If someone's usage of the word is far enough outside that range, we can conclude that they're using the word wrong.

The word "delusion" has a definition too, and it doesn't include stupidity. So if people think the title "The God Delusion" implies believers are stupid, that's their own fault for not knowing the meaning of the word, not Dawkins's fault for using it.

[MG1962]

Argent said the archbishop didn't offer any evidence to support his conclusion. You said "don't be too sure of that", implying that the archbiship had offered evidence to support his conclusion.

No because the archbishop is not offering anything new or cutting edge. The relationship of prayer as a form of meditation, which is a known stress reliever, which known to have a positive effect on physical health is very well established piece of science



Which of those facts are you disputing? The Catholic church's 1700 year history of hypocrisy, ambition, and favoritism is well documented.

No the bit you decided to edit out of your reply

Come to think of it, why would anyone (except a child molestor looking for tips) listen to anything a Catholic clergyman says about anything? That's like going to Lehman Brothers for financial advice.

[arthwollipot]

No because the archbishop is not offering anything new or cutting edge. The relationship of prayer as a form of meditation, which is a known stress reliever, which known to have a positive effect on physical health is very well established piece of science.Well, kinda. The kind of prayer that has been thoroughly debunked is intercessory prayer, in which a person prays for a specific effect on something external.

As usual, where the effects are internal and subjective, (prayer/meditation/CAM) works. When asked to provide specific external objective results, it fails.

[MG1962]

Well, kinda. The kind of prayer that has been thoroughly debunked is intercessory prayer, in which a person prays for a specific effect on something external.

I dont believe that was the sort of prayer the Archbishop was talking about. Most forms of prayer meditation revolve around repetitive phrases, which in a sense bore the higher brain functions into submission. Thus allow the rest of the mind to get involved in dealing with the particular issue


As usual, where the effects are internal and subjective, (prayer/meditation/CAM) works. When asked to provide specific external objective results, it fails.

Again depends what we are talking about. Praying that my cat fluffy does not die...and the resultant emotional changes, can only be measured subjectively. However the reduction of stress through prayer, and the subsequent health advantages of this are easily measured and documented

[fls]

Again depends what we are talking about. Praying that my cat fluffy does not die...and the resultant emotional changes, can only be measured subjectively. However the reduction of stress through prayer, and the subsequent health advantages of this are easily measured and documented

Can you give some examples where you think this has been demonstrated?

Linda

[Rrose Selavy]

I dont believe that was the sort of prayer the Archbishop was talking about.



What made you think that?

-

[godless dave]

Come to think of it, why would anyone (except a child molestor looking for tips) listen to anything a Catholic clergyman says about anything? That's like going to Lehman Brothers for financial advice.

What are you disputing about that? The bishops and cardinals who helped cover up the child abuse were rewarded by the church. Cardinal Law got promoted, and Cardinal Ratzinger was elected Pope. The Catholic Church is an organization that protects and enables child molestors. That fact is indisputable.

[godless dave]

No because the archbishop is not offering anything new or cutting edge.

That's irrelevant to your statement. You responded to a claim that the archbishop had not offered any evidence to support his statement. Your response was "don't be too sure of that". Not "don't be too sure there's no evidence" but "don't be too sure the archbishop didn't present any evidence".