Is there a God?

[cheesehead]

(continuation of preceding post)

Conclusion:

[20] The United States’ deep social problems are all the more disturbing because the nation enjoys exceptional per capita wealth among the major western nations (Barro and McCleary; Kasman; PEW; UN Development Programme, 2000, 2004). Spending on health care is much higher as a portion of the GDP and per capita, by a factor of a third to two or more, than in any other developed democracy (UN Development Programme, 2000, 2004). The U.S. is therefore the least efficient western nation in terms of converting wealth into cultural and physical health. Understanding the reasons for this failure is urgent, and doing so requires considering the degree to which cause versus effect is responsible for the observed correlations between social conditions and religiosity versus secularism. It is therefore hoped that this initial look at a subject of pressing importance will inspire more extensive research on the subject. Pressing questions include the reasons, whether theistic or non-theistic, that the exceptionally wealthy U.S. is so inefficient that it is experiencing a much higher degree of societal distress than are less religious, less wealthy prosperous democracies. Conversely, how do the latter achieve superior societal health while having little in the way of the religious values or institutions? There is evidence that within the U.S. strong disparities in religious belief versus acceptance of evolution are correlated with similarly varying rates of societal dysfunction, the strongly theistic, anti-evolution south and mid-west having markedly worse homicide, mortality, STD, youth pregnancy, marital and related problems than the northeast where societal conditions, secularization, and acceptance of evolution approach European norms (Aral and Holmes; Beeghley, Doyle, 2002). It is the responsibility of the research community to address controversial issues and provide the information that the citizens of democracies need to chart their future courses.

[T.Rex]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

I presume there's no obvious French candidate. Can you invent one that L'Académie française might approve?

I like: "Eglise des Incrédules" (Church of unbelievers). In French "Incrédule" sounds funny.
Tony

[tha]

Originally Posted by T.Rex

It is unpleasant to be defined as being againt some other idea... atheit, anti-theist, apatheist : always "theist" is there... Awful.
.
.
.
We need another way for naming us...
T.

Atheism took of in the second half of the 19th century and the first half of the 20th century as a widening protest movement by the people against abuse of power by the churches. In the post WWII era everything in Europe had to be reorganized and many organizations unloaded ballast from the past. And so the atheists renamed themselves to humanists. If you don't believe God is using us as his wire puppets then we must be responsible for ourselves.

[Primeinator]

Originally Posted by __HRB__

None, if you think about it.

So the whole concept of emotion is irrational?

Originally Posted by __HRB__

I don't think there is anything wrong with constantly reminding ourselves that we're a bunch of monkeys, some of whom might occasionally have had something which qualifies as a "good idea". But in general, using reason is still very hard for all of us, which is why our cognitive biases frequently cause large scale disasters.

This seems to completely defeat the whole purpose of seeking rationality then if all we are is a bunch of monkeys.

[__HRB__]

Originally Posted by Primeinator

So the whole concept of emotion is irrational?

Of course. Making brains powerful enough to pipe the the vast amount of information we receive through the reasoning department doesn't have a strong enough selective advantage, so instead evolution has provided us with emotional short-cuts, based on the principle that you only have to be better than your peers, not perfect, to have an edge.

There's a joke about two guys in the savanna being followed by a lion and the one guy stops to put on his running shoes. The other guy says: "Even with those shoes you won't be able to outrun the lion", and gets the response: "True, but I'll be able to outrun you."

Originally Posted by Primeinator

This seems to completely defeat the whole purpose of seeking rationality then if all we are is a bunch of monkeys.

We can only be as reasonable as our current hardware lets us, so to maximize our abilities we must take these limitations into consideration. After all, if we remember that our perception of reality is biased, we can use that knowledge to mitigate the adverse effects a bit.

[Zeta-Flux]

cheesehead,

I am puzzled by your most recent posts. Did you not notice the bias of the author? Did you not notice the unscientific manner in which statistics were used?

Notice this sentence which begins section 19. "If the data showed that the U.S. enjoyed higher rates of societal health than the more secular, pro-evolution democracies, then the opinion that popular belief in a creator is strongly beneficial to national cultures would be supported." This is simply false. There are too many factors present to chalk up societal health to one factor. (Of course, the opposite is also true; which negates many of the points made.) Do you really expect mainline social scientists to correlate America's religiosity with increased homicide rates vs. say, influx of immigrants, or legality of guns, or...? The homicide rate in Mexico is huge, and some of that spills over to our country. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._homicide_rate Note that Russia's homocide rate is even larger than ours, and they are a secularist nation.

Also, I'm puzzled by why the author thinks that homicide rates trump all other considerations. What about overall homicides? In that category, religious nations win quite easily (consider the massacres in post-WWII Russia). Also, I wonder why the author broke the statistics down by nation. Why not look at the percentages of the criminals themselves in the larger societal whole? Are atheists more or less likely, among themselves, to commit homicide in America than theists, among themselves? etc...

In other words, the study just doesn't make sense. It finds simple correlations between things that are likely not causally connected (while ignoring related data); and tries to draw direct connections from those correlations.

[__HRB__]

Originally Posted by Zeta-Flux

cheesehead,

I am puzzled by your most recent posts. Did you not notice the bias of the author? Did you not notice the unscientific manner in which statistics were used?

That I'm tempted to take your side of the argument, tells us a lot about cheesehead.

Originally Posted by Zeta-Flux

Why not look at the percentages of the criminals themselves in the larger societal whole? Are atheists more or less likely, among themselves, to commit homicide in America than theists, among themselves?

This also confuses correlation and causation. Scientists, e.g. are more likely to be atheists, but also more likely to have higher incomes. Sachlogik tells us that the incentive to commit a crime is lower the better off you are, and whether you're a whack-job who believes in the supernatural is comparatively insignificant.

Also: beware of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpson's_paradox.

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by Zeta-Flux

cheesehead,

I am puzzled by your most recent posts. Did you not notice the bias of the author? Did you not notice the unscientific manner in which statistics were used?

I fail to see, from your arguments, where the study's author is any more biased, or uses statistics in a less scientific manner, than any of the other contributors to this thread.

I presented this study because I think its points are as relevant to this thread's topic as are the points that have been raised by other contributors.

Notice this sentence which begins section 19. "If the data showed that the U.S. enjoyed higher rates of societal health than the more secular, pro-evolution democracies, then the opinion that popular belief in a creator is strongly beneficial to national cultures would be supported." This is simply false.

No, it's not!

Are you contending that no one would argue --- indeed, has not already argued in this thread -- that belief in God is beneficial to the morality of society? Has not jasong, for instance, already given an argument similar to that?

From the article:

"Theists often assert that popular belief in a creator is instrumental towards providing the moral, ethical and other foundations necessary for a healthy, cohesive society. Many also contend that widespread acceptance of evolution, and/or denial of a creator, is contrary to these goals. But a cross-national study verifying these claims has yet to be published. That radically differing worldviews can have measurable impact upon societal conditions is plausible according to a number of mainstream researchers (Bainbridge; Barro; Barro and McCleary; Beeghley; Groeneman and Tobin; Huntington; Inglehart and Baker; Putman; Stark and Bainbridge). Agreement with the hypothesis that belief in a creator is beneficial to societies is largely based on assumption, anecdotal accounts, and on studies of limited scope and quality restricted to one population (Benson et al.; Hummer et al.; Idler and Kasl; Stark and Bainbridge)."

Are you contending that any of those sentences is false?
If so, can you present evidence to back up that contention?

There are too many factors present to chalk up societal health to one factor.

Perhaps that's why the study doesn't do that.

Do you really expect mainline social scientists to correlate America's religiosity with increased homicide rates vs. say, influx of immigrants, or legality of guns, or...?

I'm not sure of your meaning there. Please clarify.

The homicide rate in Mexico is huge,

... and the level of religious belief in Mexico is ... ?

Also, I'm puzzled by why the author thinks that homicide rates trump all other considerations.

Because the author has as much right to an opinion as you do?

What about overall homicides? In that category, religious nations win quite easily (consider the massacres in post-WWII Russia).

Lessee ... bias ... bias ... hmmm ... why no mention of the much more recent homicides by troops in Iraq and Afghanistan? Why no mention of homicides on September 21, 2001 by people whose motivation was religious ("God is Great" on cockpit voice recorders)?

Did you notice that the study was concerned with only recent history? E.g., "Data is from the 1990s, most from the middle and latter half of the decade, or the early 2000s."

If you insist that any study, in order to be valid, must go back to consider all post-WWII history, then I'll insist that it go back to the Inquisition and Crusades.

Also, I wonder why the author broke the statistics down by nation.

Because that's a natural and common division used in a wide variety of contexts?

Why not look at the percentages of the criminals themselves in the larger societal whole?

You're quite welcome to sponsor your own study.

Are atheists more or less likely, among themselves, to commit homicide in America than theists, among themselves? etc...

You're quite welcome to sponsor your own study.

Say .... why haven't religious folks already done such studies ... scientifically, that is?

In other words, the study just doesn't make sense.

It would if it weren't for all your obvious biases.

It finds simple correlations between things that are likely not causally connected

... "likely not", according to what reasoning? Biased-in-favor-of-religion reasoning?

and tries to draw direct connections from those correlations.

So? That's what a study does. You're welcome to sponsor a study of your own, or to quote one already done.

Your attack on the study I presented shows your own biases spectacularly. You seem so eager to discredit this study that you've allowed yourself to post a number of unsound arguments. I suggest counting higher next time. :-)

[Zeta-Flux]

Originally Posted by __HRB__

This also confuses correlation and causation. Scientists, e.g. are more likely to be atheists, but also more likely to have higher incomes. Sachlogik tells us that the incentive to commit a crime is lower the better off you are, and whether you're a whack-job who believes in the supernatural is comparatively insignificant.

I think you misunderstood me. I was pointing out that if we are going to talk about correlations, why not pick that one. Why does the author cherry pick the ones which support his conclusions (and even jury-rig the results, by ignoring some of the sample--see the statistics for Russia, for example)?

-------------------

Originally Posted by cheesehead

I fail to see, from your arguments, where the study's author is any more biased, or uses statistics in a less scientific manner, than any of the other contributors to this thread.

First, you are committing the fallacy of "two wrongs make a right." It doesn't matter how biased or unscientific other posters have been. That doesn't mean you should introduce another source which does so.

Second, you are committing the fallacy of "ad hominem". While I gave evidence that your source is biased and used statistics incorrectly, you did not do the same with regards to the "other contributors" on this thread. You merely accused them of such.

I presented this study because I think its points are as relevant to this thread's topic as are the points that have been raised by other contributors.

That was obvious. What isn't obvious was why you didn't notice the great deficiencies and unscientific use of statistics.

No, it's not!

Are you contending that no one would argue --- indeed, has not already argued in this thread -- that belief in God is beneficial to the morality of society? Has not jasong, for instance, already given an argument similar to that?

From the article:

"Theists often assert that popular belief in a creator is instrumental towards providing the moral, ethical and other foundations necessary for a healthy, cohesive society. Many also contend that widespread acceptance of evolution, and/or denial of a creator, is contrary to these goals. But a cross-national study verifying these claims has yet to be published. That radically differing worldviews can have measurable impact upon societal conditions is plausible according to a number of mainstream researchers (Bainbridge; Barro; Barro and McCleary; Beeghley; Groeneman and Tobin; Huntington; Inglehart and Baker; Putman; Stark and Bainbridge). Agreement with the hypothesis that belief in a creator is beneficial to societies is largely based on assumption, anecdotal accounts, and on studies of limited scope and quality restricted to one population (Benson et al.; Hummer et al.; Idler and Kasl; Stark and Bainbridge)."

Are you contending that any of those sentences is false?
If so, can you present evidence to back up that contention?

You seem to have to misunderstood my simple assertion, which was simply that the sentence I quoted from the article was false, on the face of it.

You also seem to have misunderstood what the author wrote in that single sentence. Namely, that if the data concerning a single nation (i.e. the U.S.) showed that they enjoyed higher rates of societal health (as defined by the author of the article) than pro-evolutionary democracies then this would support the notion that belief in a creator is strongly beneficial to national culture.

The fact that he buys into the idea that such data would support such a position is as ridiculous as when theists do the same. Do you really want to appeal to such a source?

... and the level of religious belief in Mexico is ... ?

Irrelevant. Completely irrelevant. I can think of at least three reasons why.

1. If it had been relevant, so would the rate in the (secular country of) Russia. And then the author's thesis would have been destroyed.

2. If the cause of the U.S. murder rate was due to Mexico's religiosity, it would still mean that religiosity in the U.S. wasn't to blame for the murder rate.

3. The sample size (of one nation) is too small to make a good correlation between two factors. (Heard of "hasty generalization"?)

Did you seriously not see these issues?

Because the author has as much right to an opinion as you do?

You are committing the fallacy of "straw man". I have never asserted that the author is not entitled to his opinion.

It would if it weren't for all your obvious biases.

Fallacy of ad hominem.

So? That's what a study does.

No. A reputable study would never try to equate correlation with causation. Furthermore, a reputable study would never try to state the existence of a correlation with such a small sample size. Nor would it use definitions of "societal health" that are one-dimensional. etc... etc...

Your attack on the study I presented shows your own biases spectacularly.

I have given specific scientific reasons for my dislike of the study (sample size, to give one example). You have not found fault with those reasons. Whose biases are clouding the issue? *shrug*

[Zeta-Flux]

HRB,

Thanks for the link to Simpson's paradox. I don't think I've ever seen that before.

[rogue]

I just wanted to raise a point that which shows some of the major problems I have with theistic belief systems, mainly Judeo-Christian ones since I am most familiar with them. It all revolves around how we are supposed to "behave" according to some "moral code" because if we don't, then we will go to hell, or at least, not make it to heaven. Does god really care how or where I pray? Does god care about the words I use or the language in which I use them? Can a bad (or even evil) person recant on their deathbed and make it to heaven? Is the most good-hearted and moral human being denied entry to heaven because they weren't baptized or didn't get last rights, even if they practiced a faith throughout their lives? Does anyone really want to be a member of a religion that answers any of those questions in the affirmative? Can any of you theists understand why so many of us non-theists, atheists, and agnostics scoff at religion?

My wife I is what I would call a "theistic Catholic" (which fits most Catholics) while I consider myself an "agnostic Christian". She believes that God has an active roll in our lives and I don't believe that it is possible to know god. If it weren't for her fear that there is no afterlife I think that she would share the same beliefs that I have. Anyways she told me earlier this year about a friend who was talking to her about how they envisioned the afterlife. They envisioned it as sitting in front of god's throne giving him perpetual adoration. My wife explained to me that if that is what the afterlife has to offer, then she wouldn't want it. So much of the belief in the afterlife is what things we will receive in heaven, about the freedom to learn and grow and do the things that are not possible in our physical lifetime. My wife said that perpetual adoration of god (according to his one person) seemed to be robotic, where one has no free will. How can one enjoy life (or the after-life) if there is no free will?