Religion - the responsibility of evidence

This website has seen hundreds of religion threads, most of them asking "do you believe?" or "what religion are you and why?".

I've loved most of them, however I'd prefer to discuss the same topic in a more focussed manner.

If I make a claim about something, lets say I tell you I am the world champion of ping pong (which, incidently I am) then you'd expect proof, or very strong evidence because the likelyhood of my claim is rather large given how many ping pong players there are and how hard it is to become the world champion.

Follow so far?

If I said I was just very good at Ping pong, well you'd probably believe me. It's not a hugely unlikely claim as alot of people are very good at ping pong.

In both cases though, the responsibility to provide evidence for my claims lies with me, and the key point is that depending on how unlikely my claims are, the evidence needed to make someone believe whatever it is I'm saying needs to be proportionate to the claim, IE if I say something that is very unlikely my evidence needs to be very strong...very likely.

Now, take this idea and apply it to any of the supernatural claims made by religious people, even just on one issue...creationism, but it applies to any of the miracle stories of the bible.

Massive claims without massive evidence or supporting information.

Can anyone provide sufficient evidence for any of the fantastical or miracle based stories of the bible? After all, the validity of these stories is the very thing that makes Jesus, and therefor the whole religion valid.

Hey there,

thanks for the very polite informed reply.

Holy books have wisdom in them, and even some ancient ideas that are only recently being validated by scientific fact and that is ace. It's always nice to see that our ancestors were aware of things long forgotten.

Does that really prove any of the larger claims? IF there was a man called Jesus and he said all the lovely things about loving your enemy and turning the other cheek, does that validate any of the paranormal acts?

The example you gave about the breastfeeding, that is a solid piece of old knowledge, but it's not fantastical and in fact in Scotland we understand that and always have. My Gran told me when I was a teenager that I'd been breastfed for 2 years cause that is how things should be.

Point it, something like that, which is mundane doesn't validate anything supernatural in any Holy Book.

Could you elegantly explain for me, the evidence for some of the larger claims of religion?

I'm really interested in any evidence at all. You mentioned the Koran, what evidence do you have to offer that backs up the validity of it's claim that only followers of Islam are the saved?

In both cases though, the responsibility to provide evidence for my claims lies with me, and the key point is that depending on how unlikely my claims are"

But the problem is that this is the 21st century... We cannot ask the exodus jews " Hey there, did moses really part the waters?"

You can't validate something which clearly cannot be examined... I mean to prove that you're a world champion, I'd have to pit you against the best...

Its pretty arrogant to assume that in order to adhere to any religion you'd have to be shown proof... That defeats the purpose of "free will"...

If you change the word "proof" to "supporting evidence" Noir, it doesn't seem so absolute, but it's essentially the same thing and fuelled by the same very valid point.

The claims made by Muslims and Christians are so fantastical and unlikely that in order to even give them a grain of credibility, a person of good judgement and thinking, IE a person of reason and intelligence would and should expect fantastical levels of evidence.

Thankfully, there is no such evidence and there never has been.

Ask yourself this. What is more likely;

That all the laws of nature that you rely on every single day of your life (gravity, time and space) have been broken and miracles are real..

or

You have made a mistake and what you believe isn't true in this case?

It's painfully obvious.

The claims made by Muslims and Christians are so fantastical and unlikely that in order to even give them a grain of credibility, a person of good judgement and thinking, IE a person of reason and intelligence would and should expect fantastical levels of evidence."

But thats the beauty of faith and free will... As we progress more and more we start to distance ourselves from religion because it offers no forensic evidence... If we were offered evidence that support one individual faith... Then it would defeat the very purpose on what makes us human...

Its a very funny thing... As to jesus' existance... Did they ever excavate jerusalem?

The laws of gravity, time, and space all fail at critical levels.

All the same, for practical, living purposes, it is still good to have some understanding of them. Logic and modern science are able to reveal some of the truths of the universe to us.

But there are other kinds of truth, no less capable of disclosing the nature of being. I'll allow that this second, mythic form of truth may only have relevance for humans, and not the natural world... but hey, that's kind of important still, right? ...Considering that that's really the only vantage point we have.

You're asking for varieties of proof that can only be applied to logistical truth. Different flavours of truth need different ways of being proven.

You are being very evasive, both of you and I understand why.

I am not saying that everything humans accept as true in one form or another should have logistical scientific proof. I'd never ask someone for "proof" they loved their children, for example.

However, you can't escape the fact that the validity of religion is based on the belief in it's divinity, it's miracles and the claims about it's Gods.

So you have these huge claims that people take as true without any decent supporting evidence. I'm not even talking about solid proof, even just supporting evidence that is of enough merit to balance out the power of the claim.

It doesn't exist, never has..never will.

Hello again my old friend [you are not really old,] and I am not really the arch angel or your arch enemy. I never even chated with Janis Krumins but I believe he owns this site. That is not to say that I could be called as witness for judicial evidence. I am not going to ask you to believe in my God or personify the Divine Creator. I don't care whether you believe in mother nature or father time. Just admit one more time that you are not mindless, heartless, nor soulless.

I will in turn admit that if I could remember everyday since the birth of Christ and show you eternity I could not prove scientifically divinty

An oath Is an appeal to God by the witness for the truth of what he declares and an Imprecation of divine vengeance upon him if his testimony be false. Hence a witness must believe in the existence of God, and It is also held that a person who disbelieves In any punishment in a future state, though he believes In the existence of a Supreme Being and that men are punished In this life for their sins, is not a competent witness. Atwood . Welton, 7 Conn. 66, 70.

If the witness believes In some superior being they could be inclined to write rule number 7." Any swearing or vulgar slang is strictly forbidden". which you protected religiously as if a PQ priest dog gone it.

So you have these huge claims that people take as true without any decent supporting evidence. I'm not even talking about solid proof, even just supporting evidence that is of enough merit to balance out the power of the claim."

You expect the proof when really no archaeologist actively searched for it?

You deny without actually proving it to be untrue... Unless we both can go back to the eras these varying miracles happened... All we have to rely on is third or first person accounts on it... The rest is up to faith...

It doesn't exist, never has..never will."

That's your faith, your belief... But then again you are going in a circle... You expect huge amonts of evidential proof (in the 21st century) without looking for it... Yet definitively say that there isn't any? But than again thats your faith...

Noir, I'm not making any claims I can't back up with supporting evidence.

Religious people do the opposite every day.

Like I said in my OP, if I wanted to make a grand claim about myself, say on P and Q, I'd expect you, and everyone else on this website to ask for evidence and not just believe me because I say so, that would be foolish of you.

You say I expect proof without looking for it. What do you think I'm doing now? I'm asking the very believers to explain their proof..their supporting evidence.

You are all being evasive, because there is none and not one of you can admit to that.

You say I expect proof without looking for it. What do you think I'm doing now? I'm asking the very believers to explain their proof..their supporting evidence."

No what you're doing is merely confirming that without substantial proof that miracles, people exist... It means that God doesn't exist...

But see here lies the problem... You haven't excavated any holy sites to prove your hypothesis, you haven't interviewed witnesses seeing as this happened long ago. you haven't properly read the books to detail any reliability from the supposed miracles... Because really all the proof you need is in these books... But if all you're saying that these miracles didn't happen based on lack of evidence than really your faith is as strong as the religious...

Lets not forget that had Napoleon I had seized British India with resistance... Ancient Egypt would not have existed (in your eyes) but it would be told as stories among the egyptians...

You can't say something doesn't exist when you have little proof

Ok, show me the evidence, assuming you do believe in these things you must have researched it and found good sources otherwise you'd be foolish to believe for no good reason.

"You can't say something doesn't exist when you have little proof"

Actually bro, this is exactly what I'm asking you to do. You are a believer, so show me the proof or evidence you trust in. If it's good enough for you then it should at the very least make sense to me.

I am not going to be stubborn about good evidence, even if it totally contradicts my feelings. I've had experiences some would call spiritual or paranormal and had to accept evidence that rendered them quite mundane and not as special as I'd hoped.

So, please..someone...anyone, if you believe then please show me the supporting evidence as to why.

Actually bro, this is exactly what I'm asking you to do. You are a believer, so show me the proof or evidence you trust in. If it's good enough for you then it should at the very least make sense to me."

I see.. Then I hope that you've read genuine lavender's sources because I'll cite just one with all pertinent info... Remember read well...

www.jannah.org/articles/quransci.html

Oh did you know that the moon split... In fact it happened around 1400 odd years ago... In fact the Quran states that it was one of the signs or "miracles" that Prophet Muhammed made as his sign of prophethood... There were many eye witness accounts... You can look it up... I'm sure you'll try to discredit it... Have fun

Where on that site does it say the moon split? I skimmed through it and I didn't see any accounts of it. So i searched the entire page for the word moon and only found 2 results. One was about the suns orbit around the milky way galaxy which is a theory and not fact."

The reason why I started with the phrase " Did you know" was because it wasn't on the cited website...Why would I write a paragraph on something already written?

Glad to see you Kevin still searching for the Singularity.
It is my Hope that you find your answer.

I've never seen a atom, but I am told they exist.
I've never seen a Black Hole , but I am told they exist. Now if one was caught in the gravitational pull of a Black Hole, I could say

"Nothing could be closer to the Truth than those Beings on the Edge and doubt."

Peace and Blessings

While I was a member of a prayer group one of the other members said she though I would enjoy reading "Miracles" by C.S. Lewis. I believe you the OP would enjoy this also. The responibility of any religion is to bring its members to the peace beyond all understanding, though understanding is a Gift of the Holy Spirit. Those who reject gifts will not recieve.

I could site many poetic verses, but that may violate the rules of this forum

Noir, I could think of a few reasons. One being that you were assuming that he would not read it so you gave him an example of what's on the web page."

Your example is totally wrong for totally two reasons... The first is you'd totally think that I'd "assume"... The second is that I wouldn't totally write something when its already written... Totally!!

Also why would you post an article that talks about all of these things but doesn't include yours and not post an article for it?"

Because the paragraph started with "Did you know"... Plus unlike the article I cited before... You can google my wonderous tidbit... Yay!!

Now can you pretend to be a dog and fetch me an article so i can debunk the bullshit in it?"

Lol...Have you seen my avatar...I'm likely to pretend to be a cat rather than a dog...And cats unfortunately, just stick around for the food...So why not like I've written in the last post google my lil tidbit but before that since you've already read my previous article...Why not try to debunk it first...

Have fun...

Kevin. Materialistic truth is totally different to spiritual truth. You only appear interested in the former in these threads, or insisting on making the latter into the former.

Materials come and go and transform and evolve, as we do. They are heard and felt and seen etc.
Faith remains the same (just stronger or weaker), despite and because of what it is based on- fact or fiction does not come into it. The whole point is the ability to believe in something BEYOND our limitations- through ancient, incredible, inspiring stories. In Hinduism, the stories are fantastic- flying monkeys, battles fought from clouds, the gods are clever, jealous, simple, conceited, vengeful, beautiful. It does not matter that we don't see these demons and monsters and giants and gods in the "real" world, now or then. Holy texts are historical records of our observation, philosophy and imagination that have been critical to moulding and empowering current human thinking. Asking for proof is to demean faith.

I heard that they found Noah's Ark again in Turkey or something. If that's the kind of crap you want, you have a lead there...

Oh, I had a long post typed up about this, but then my fellow got into town and I was wildly and agreeably distracted for a few days, so I forgot to hit "enter." Can't say I regret it too much.

Unsurprisingly, I'm still with Abby.

I get what you're saying, Kevin, about how some people put forward spiritual claims that are not backed by evidence. But you see, they lose both ways: if they support spiritual ideas with non-material proofs, then they are not based in "reality." If they support spiritual ideas with material proofs, then they are lacking in faith. It's a no-win.

I would see miracles not as phenomena that break the rules of logic or physics, but rather I'd see as miraculous those things that are so bizarre or insanely unlikely that they have to be taken with some awe. You get all those shows on the History channel, etc., about... the plagues of Egypt, for example. They have explanations for algae turning the water red, or why a certain disease might have only killed the older (firstborn) children. All these things might have scientific explanations. But the fact that they all supposedly happened at the same time, in line with what was needed... that's pretty unlucky. Anyway, it's just an example to think about.

Even if it's based in the "laws of physics," the real honest miracle is that we exist at all, let alone all the peculiarities of our situation. In the end, I don't think scientific proof or evidence with either make or break the significance and meaningfulness of religious or mythic truths.

"Nothing religious is ever destroyed by logic; it is destroyed only by the god's withdrawl."

I'm with Heidegger on this one.

I have nothing against non material situations, or personal spirtuality, love, empathy...imagination...mediation..you know name it and I'm for it.

Go into a cave for a year and meditate, be a mystic if it suits you and I'll defend you right to do so.

What I won't defend, and in fact what I might attack is your right to make totally unjustified claims about how this world works and humans role and rights in that world, based off of spiritual and mystical feelings, or visions or books written in the pre scientific 1st century roman empire.

Miracles are a dime a dozen. Google Satya Sia babba...tens of thousands of people have witnessed his "miracles" and they are every bit as unlikely as anything in the bible. You can even watch them on youtube....prepare to be underwhelmed.

Just to see if I understand you... you are seeming to say that you support personal religious beliefs, but where you start to get wary is when those non-material beliefs start influencing the way larger groups are run and organized. Would that be fair?

Ttruth is very powerful, yet truth can be incovenient. Most of the hard religious right oppose the science that states man may be able to influence the chemical balance of our atmosphere, the environment of climate. Having abused myself with chemicals I have been in denial at times about mind over matter. In my opinion all truth matters and it would be ethical to restrict activity that would disrupt natural chemical balance. It is easy for us to pretend that we are not social creatures and label social justice as marxism. My point is not to abuse religion or religious ideology, but to acknowlege the power of ideolgy. When a media is controled so is the availability of truth.

The fact is Ricky is that in the 6th century arabia, there was no such thing as science... And for an illiterate man to memories 114 surahs by heart... Is nothing short than a miracle...

Lets not forget if Islam wasn't established, science would never have progressed as it is today

I have nothing against personal beliefs that aren't used to make fantastical unsupported claims about cosmology, paleantology, physics and morality.

Believe in Haggis being omnipetent, or Nessie watching over humanity if it suits you, but don't use that to influence social policy, education and retard the progression of science and human developement.

Religion is not useful anymore. It's a bad habit we need to kick as a species becuase we are now living in a world where we have iron age philosophies mixed up with 21st century technology, and because of religion our morals and social understandings aren't being allowed to fully catch up. It's a dangerous combination.

RickyH, hey I'm not the one wearing sunglasses indoors with no sunshine on my face! ; )

LoL, please explain more how my argument is similar to Nazi ideals, cause I just don't see it. If you are going to say something like that, actually explain why please otherwise you're not playing fair.

Kevin we have been debating this issue for so long it is a wonder there are not Mike and Kevin jokes. For those not familiar with Mike and Pat jokes
Pat And Mike

Pat and Mike had been drinking buddies and friends for years.

After having a few drinks in a bar, Mike said to Pat -
"We have been friends for years and years and if I should die before you do would you do me a favor? Get the best bottle of Irish whiskey you can find and pour it over my grave."

Pat replied, "I would be glad to do that for you my old friend.
But would you mind if I passed it through my bladder first?"

I anyone thinks I do not respect irish tradition they could be right, but I believe Nalley was originally McNalley
When we examine science very closly we could find origins in pseudo sciences that are deceptivaely similar to modern science

In the Creation of an Evolutionist there is not an alien that would deny origins.

History has proven that many unhealthy ideals have made there way into religion, thus religion has crucified God.

Must we blame the Creator for that?

Yeah.....no.

I am not trying to take away rights here. You are way off the mark even linking my ideas to Nazi ideals, but I won't take offence because you are so wrong, so clearly off the charts it's not even insulting.

I'm not forcing people to post here, nor using violence. It's just a discussiong thread brother, hardly propaganda.

If not one religious person can muster the courage of their beliefs in such a way as to honestly explain to me how they can possibly justify the outlandish totally impossible claims of their religions holy book (christianity and Islam mostly)....then that is fine with me. I understand why.

There is no evidence, or justification for the claims of the bible. It's just not there.

And for anyone who says, well you can't prove things like God, and love and faith. I'm not asking you too.

All I'm saying is. Religion makes claims about cosmology, chemistry, paleontology and physics and lays down ethical laws that are totally unsupported by evidence of a quality to justifty the power of the claims.

When I said this;

"All I'm saying is. Religion makes claims about cosmology, chemistry, paleontology and physics and lays down ethical laws that are totally unsupported by evidence of a quality to justifty the power of the claims"

You misunderstood what I meant. When you read a story about Jesus turning water into wine...that is chemistry and the bible makes a really akward claim about it. IN the same vein, when you read the story of creation, about how God made the universe and everything in it..that is a biblical claim about Cosmology...again totally unsubstantiated. Do you understand my quote now? It's the bible and the koran that make claims that are, without a doubt asking us to believe in alterations to the laws of chemistry, physics and cosmology that no scientist would ever suggest without a huge amount of evidence. Religious people don't seem to mind just spouting off nonsense about how things came to be...in total ignorance of how unlikely that is.

When you wrote this;

"If some radicals decide to blow themselves up, fine.. Good luck to them. One less to worry about, eh?

Sane people do crazy things all the time.. Just look at animal activists! They're freaking mental! You're not out questioning why they'd blow up an animal testing facility because of some monkeys! That to me is more insanse then radicals becoming martyrs because their life is crashing down on them every single day."

I had to re-read this to be sure you were actually saying what I hoped you weren't saying. 9/11, when 19 devout men showed devout America just how useful religious certainty is....that to you is less insane than animal activists blowing up research labs? really?....really really? I really hope you never have to deal with radicals blowing up places and people close to you, maybe you'd wise up if they did.

Finally, you asked..

"What's wrong with the ethical laws of religion?"

This one is easy to answer. There are so many moral ideas in the bible and Koran that no sane person would ever follow today. Things like stoning women for not being a virgin on her wedding night, killing your neighbour if they break the sabbath..I could go on and on. I'm not making these things up, go read about the Bibles support of slavery, even in the new testament.

We choose to ignore the ethical laws of religion when we understand them to be wrong. The ones we do follow, like thou shalt not kill etc, there is nothing holy about that idea and it's certainly not divinely inspired.

It is weak praise indeed if the best thing that can be said about much of ethical scripture is that it can be totally ignored now. We Cherry pick our religious morality, because we know..deep down we know it's not the guiding force in how we live in relation to each other.

So, in ending...it's clear to me we don't need religion for ethical guidance and we never have. We have good reasons to be good already without a divine dictatorship demanding it.

Now that we have searched nearly all of creation through the lens so to speak and found no evidence of an intelligent Creator we may be able to open our spiritual eyes to see what could be if love ruled

Love is the law, so they say Mikey.

Lets just hope the Pope gets arrested when he lands in Britain for covering up child rape...that might wake a few people up.

If you mean the Pope is the one bad cop Jarred, lol you are so wrong.

The Catholic church is full of bad cops at all levels of it's ranks and that halloween hat Ratzinger is the biggest and worst offender because he has, in his disgusting career covered up the rape and abuse of countless children.

He even silenced a whole parish when one of their priests was sexually abusing deaf children...and he got that priest transferred to another parish!

Anyone who calls themselves a decent moral person and is a catholic should be campaignin to get that scumbag removed from any leadership position.

I must agree that the responsibility of any spiritual path is to preserve human dignity. To err is human and to forgive is divine. The robbing of innocence is not easy to forgive at all. I don't believe it is unnatural for social creatures to organize. It does seem to be politically correct to distance ones self from religion. There is a popular party in the States that would like to distance themselves from government, placing all of their trust in free enterprize. It seems that organized labor is beneath them and they can easily justify encouraging labor to put production above their safety. If twenty-nine west Virginians die they can proudly display their safety awards while Glenn Beck demonizes Labor Unions for depending on Government to enforce safety. In an ideal world we could just trust human nature to preserve the dignity of life. I was watching a comedian the other night who said a stranger told him he would not find the answer to his problem in the bottle of liquor he had. He replied that's why he plained to buy another one.

I think my point is that a creature or evolved entity more often than not responds to a leader one way or another to determine responsibility of evidence

"It's the bible and the koran that make claims that are, without a doubt asking us to believe in alterations to the laws of chemistry, physics and cosmology that no scientist would ever suggest without a huge amount of evidence. Religious people don't seem to mind just spouting off nonsense about how things came to be...in total ignorance of how unlikely that is."

I do agree that this happens, but it's not everywhere. Though it's a good few hundred years behind the rest of science, you even find institutions like the Vatican accepting scientific theory as being in harmony with its existence. They even employ people like astronomers and geneticists... very intelligent, informed, scientific people. I like this movement, because it allows that science and religion do not need to be at odds. The can perform separate functions: science deals with how the world works, while spirituality negotiates our conscious existence and how to respond to the world. In this, religion (in my opinion) ought to embrace the findings of science so that it have better knowledge to act in consideration of. I'll agree that religion isn't always willing to do this, but I don't find the schism to be universal or definitional.

In my view, where religion become most perverted is when it ceases to be about truth and enlightenment and starts to become overly institutionalized, which is almost always. Humans have obviously not yet found a way to organize a group that is based on intangible ideals (religions, politics, etc) without that organization altering and taking away from the things that gave actual truth to them. A senate, which ideally is based upon principles of freedom and full representation invariably, through the bureaucratic institutionalization of it, becomes rooted in greed, special interests, and ultimately the perpetuation of its own empty existence. A church, likewise, looses its pure spiritual truth the moment it begins to concern itself with funding, power, and politics.

I guess my purpose for this rant is to propose that the "seedy" side of religion - the part that seeks to have power through the assertion of falsehoods - is not innate in religion or spirituality in itself - rather that it's a result of human nature, and people's remarkable ability to f up good things.

Hey Sibs,

It's funny you mention that science and religion can work together because they each provide a seperate function. You say science shows how the world works and religion shows us how to "negotiate our conscious existence and how to respond to the world"

Thing is dear, it used to be religion that did both those things and it's only because of hundreds of years of human perserverance, death and scientific advancement we don't look to religion anymore to understand how the world works. Don't pretend for a second religion gave that up without a bloody fight..that right to preach how the cosmos, our weather system and even our health functions.

How much longer before people realize (and they should know now) that science also holds the superior explanation and information for how we are humans work, not only our health but our minds..our emotions.

Also, the "seedy" side of religion is allowed to exist because religious moderates like yourself don't do anything about it. You, and many others like you give tactit consent to a bible that is so full of pro slavery, sexist, homophobic nonsense that the "seedy" side is allowed to go on. You most likely dismiss anyone who reads the bible in a literal sense and then preaches that god hates homosexuals and slavery is ok...you justify that by saying they are taking it out of context, or it's no long relevant.

Wrong. It's there in black and white and in fact, it's the moderates who are taking the bible out of context and saying

"I think what god meant to say was..."

I'd be ashamed to call myself a christian and have a holy book, which is the source of your faith be so full of crap.

About the Pope's trangressions, I must say that it makes me quite sick that he allowed even silenced the boys families even with excommunication.

He is the ideal on how certain members of religious demoninations twist the rules not only to save their own versions of their faith but also brings to light how religion can be very interpretative to different people in many ways.

The thing is Kevin, you seem to be focusing mainly on the fundamentalistic side of religion...But then again your position as an atheist is very radical, while having an idealised view on science...Its quite sad actually...

Science is still a teenager...It still hasn't progressed in defining the many core questions out there...

I must admit that religion has been used as a tool for negative attitudes, and as long as we attempt to disperse crude oil without containing and refining it their will be polution in science and religion

If I have any real faith, it never came from the Bible. That is not my book.

You sound like a petulant kid who had their religious idealism smashed to bits, and so automatically took the view that most strongly opposes the source of your disappointment. In so doing, you're risking losing out on everything you ever used to find meaningful in a spiritual life, and you're making - not even science - but anti-religion into your new dogma. I fear a world where "religion" has become a dirty word, or where science is the prime source for all of our wisdom. The only point at which science will be able to address questions like "what is our purpose?" is when it shifts from the arrogant assumption of its reign over objectivity, and takes a step towards the unquantifiable. I see a lot to be gained if science and religion both loosen their claimed grasp on Absolute Truth and actually start functioning together. Right now they address separate needs, but personally I don't think this will always need to be the case.

The "seedy" side of religion has arisen due to the basic human ability to pervert good things. It took what ought to have been a guide for peaceful, enlightened living, and turned it into a seat of power and corruption. I specifically stated this before, and said it was wrong. However, I get the feeling that you haven't actually listened to anything I've said, which is probably why "nobody is responding to your religious threads." You've said the same thing so many times now without making any appropriate concessions or attempt at finding common ground. It's tedious and frustrating. People are bored. Maybe it's time to find another trick, pony.

"In Greek mythology, Pandora's box is the large jar ( pithos) carried by Pandora that, when opened by her, unleashed many terrible things on mankind ills, toils and sickness, and hope.[1] Contrary to popular belief, in the original story, Pandora's "box" was not actually a box at all, but rather a jar. Hence, the historically correct term would be "Pandora's jar". wikipedia"

In a world without supernatural virtues such as faith, hope, and charity religion seems to be a pandora's jar

If I were to attempt to promote Chemical Balance in a concrete way. I think it would be like trying to cap an oil well with a mason jar

On Religion
Kahlil Gibran

"Have I spoken this day of aught else?
Is not religion all deeds and all reflection,
And that which is neither deed nor reflection, but a wonder and a surprise ever springing in the soul, even while the hands hew the stone or tend the loom?"

I have been disappionted with human nature and human resources, and believe the healing must begin with the spirit to reach the heart, and mind.