Restating My "Religion Does Good" Post More Explicitly

[David Sklansky]

If tomorrow it was somehow proved to everybody in the world that there was no god of any sort, about 80% of the world would be personally distressed. 15% would be neutral. Only about 5% would become happier.

About ten percent of those who became inititally distressed would eventually personally DIRECTLY benefit from this new found knowledge to a point where it have more than made up for their distress. Still lots more would remain unhappy.

Put another way, even unborn people, at least for a few generations would be more likely to be happier if they believed. (Unless they were born into a very advanced country like Sweden).

On the other side of the coin is the indirect benefits to those who remain distressed. Fewer wars. More people working on cancer cures. Less repression. These extra benefits tip the balance for some more distressed people. However even throwing these things in, I think the overall happiness units of the world population would decrease without religion. Too many people would remain extremely unhappy without their god. (Of course if that is not an important measure in your eyes we have a different discussion.)

I will admit that even using my criteria, it is close. But only because present day religions are often so bad. If all religious people were either Episcopalians or reformed Jews I don't think we would want to change them.

[madnak]

You're pulling this out of nowhere. Do you have anything other than personal intuitition to back up these claims? What if you're wrong about the ten percent figure you quote, and the true figure is actually twenty percent? Would that tip the scales? Do you have any rational process according to which you've reached your conclusion? If, as you admit, "it is close," then how can you have a high level of confidence in your estimate?

I think your main problem is that you hugely underestimate the impact of war and disease, and you hugely overestimate the impact of existential distress. And of course I think you ridiculously underestimate the ease with which people can get over this problem. I'd lay 2:1 that within 20 years at least 60% of the prior theists would have regained their level of satisfaction.

And the long term is just as important as the short term.

[IronUnkind]

[ QUOTE ]
I think your main problem is that you hugely underestimate the impact of war and disease,

[/ QUOTE ]

But you hugely overestimate the degree to which religiousness influences such things.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
Put another way, even unborn people, at least for a few generations would be more likely to be happier if they believed.

[/ QUOTE ]
wtf? At least invoke Baye's if you're going to make claims like that, or provide some kind of reasoning.

[ QUOTE ]
(Unless they were born into a very advanced country like Sweden).

[/ QUOTE ]
The only thing advanced about Sweden is that they don't teach their kids psychotic crap like the OT and Jesus stories. Besides, there are plenty more countries beside Sweden with high atheist numbers and high happiness ratings. I linked the info in the other thread.

[drzen]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think your main problem is that you hugely underestimate the impact of war and disease,

[/ QUOTE ]

But you hugely overestimate the degree to which religiousness influences such things.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's curious that Mr Sklansky is so keen on the end of religion, but has no problem with money, which may not be the root of all evil but lies at the root of most conflict.

[tame_deuces]

This sounds like nothing but personal opinion to me, and an attempt to 'put it in numbers' to give it some legitimacy.

There are reasons why having religious belief would lead to happiness that has nothing to do with needing a 'belief in god', for instance the need to fit in.

[hitch1978]

Am I naive to believe that a number of people, if told tomorrow 'There is 100% NO GOD - here's the proof', would suddenly see things like rape, murder, theft, robbery etc. acceptable?

I am not saying I agree or disagree with OP, just trying to add something that seems to be always forgoten in these conversations. And I am not only talking about devout believers here. There is a MASSIVE difference between non-belief in god, (and in the ramifications therin implied with regard to everlasting punishment/reward etc,) and knowing for a fact there is no god.

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]
I will admit that even using my criteria, it is close. But only because present day religions are often so bad. If all religious people were either Episcopalians or reformed Jews I don't think we would want to change them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yipes!!! The British Lion bows it's head to thunderous applause. Justification is here, the Queen Mother sits in the kitchen, breathing a sigh of relief. If not for Sklansky we were lost but now Rule Brittanica!!. Henry the Eighth rolls in his grave, a smile, the righteous justification of adultery.

Big Ben, the Royal Navy, Houses of Parliment hold day of celebration as justification is succinct, clear and in wondrous procession.

Pox on you!! Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, Conservative Jew, Christians not of the Island, and of course all others!The work of men through their lives in concert is nothing for the Grecian Harp, Roman Law, a Beethoven Sonata, the Wonder of a Michaelangelo were all for nought, lost in the dismal burp of an improbable chance.

The blather of an Olympian Hubris, reason of the unreasonable strikes again. fades away....

[hitch1978]

The queen mother has been dead for a while now...

[carlo]

Seriously, cannot you see that this is the very time you speak of? Loss of the Godhead is prevalent throughout the major religions, the connection is lost.The consequence is an abstract materialism which is permeating each and every religion. Hell, the first to be infected by materialism is the churches and especially the Christian Church.

The Godhead is approached by perception and in this the fight goes on, as Man gains new perceptive abilities, in time and through recurrent lives. We've crashed to the earth and in fact have crashed to the sub-earthly in our perceptions. This is the very world you are speaking to.

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]
he queen mother has been dead for a while now...

[/ QUOTE ]

Who was in Virginia in May of this year? Yipes!! Another conspiracy!

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Yipes!!! The British Lion bows it's head to thunderous applause. Justification is here, the Queen Mother sits in the kitchen, breathing a sigh of relief. If not for Sklansky we were lost but now Rule Brittanica!!. Henry the Eighth rolls in his grave, a smile, the righteous justification of adultery.

Big Ben, the Royal Navy, Houses of Parliment hold day of celebration as justification is succinct, clear and in wondrous procession.

Pox on you!! Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, Conservative Jew, Christians not of the Island, and of course all others!The work of men through their lives in concert is nothing for the Grecian Harp, Roman Law, a Beethoven Sonata, the Wonder of a Michaelangelo were all for nought, lost in the dismal burp of an improbable chance.

The blather of an Olympian Hubris, reason of the unreasonable strikes again. fades away....

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm genuinely curious about this. When you make a post like the above - do you choose your words to make the concepts you are trying to convey as simple and as clear as possible to the reader? Or do you have some other criteria for choosing them?

[luckyme]

OP doesn't contribute anything to our understanding of the real world. HOW one comes to have no belief in a personal god is much more relevant than THAT they have no such belief.

let's sse -
Little boys with dogs are happier than little boys without dogs. I'll prove this to you by taking away tommorrow all the dogs that little boys have.
I'll ignore all the happy asian little boys that eat dogs and have pet pigs. Or all the happy swedish ones with no pets.

See, tol' ya, I'm right.

luckyme

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm genuinely curious about this. When you make a post like the above - do you choose your words to make the concepts you are trying to convey as simple and as clear as possible to the reader? Or do you have some other criteria for choosing them?



[/ QUOTE ]
Huh? /images/graemlins/blush.gif

[Duke]

[ QUOTE ]
Am I naive to believe that a number of people, if told tomorrow 'There is 100% NO GOD - here's the proof', would suddenly see things like rape, murder, theft, robbery etc. acceptable?

I am not saying I agree or disagree with OP, just trying to add something that seems to be always forgoten in these conversations. And I am not only talking about devout believers here. There is a MASSIVE difference between non-belief in god, (and in the ramifications therin implied with regard to everlasting punishment/reward etc,) and knowing for a fact there is no god.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are perhaps 3 people on this board who claim that they'd behave as you describe.

I'm pulling that number out of my ass.

[David Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
OP doesn't contribute anything to our understanding of the real world. HOW one comes to have no belief in a personal god is much more relevant than THAT they have no such belief.

let's sse -
Little boys with dogs are happier than little boys without dogs. I'll prove this to you by taking away tommorrow all the dogs that little boys have.
I'll ignore all the happy asian little boys that eat dogs and have pet pigs. Or all the happy swedish ones with no pets.

See, tol' ya, I'm right.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

Its a lot easier to adjust to no dog then to no heaven or no hope that prayers will be answered.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
There is a MASSIVE difference between non-belief in god, (and in the ramifications therin implied with regard to everlasting punishment/reward etc,) and knowing for a fact there is no god.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are no ramifications. Unless we ascribe characteristics to God, then any possible reward/punishment is essentially random. For every possible God who would reward a given action, there is a possible God who would punish that action in equal degree.

But that's off the subject. Do you really think nonbelievers are significantly motivated by fears about the afterlife? To such an extent that their behavior would change meaningfully if they were to learn that there are definitely no gods?

I really don't think afterlife is a significant motivator. Oh, it logically should be, for people who believe in it - but then again, the majority of people act in ways perfectly consistent with their surroundings and with self interest/reciprocal altruism. A person who believes that cheating on his wife will send him to hell is just as likely to cheat as a person who has no such belief. People don't tend to respond in their day-to-day lives to these kinds of threats. They do tend to respond to immediate pain and the threat of sanctions in life.

Overall, I think morality is a matter of biology and conditioning - not of belief. And most people just don't want to go around causing chaos and hurting others.

I was affected by the theistic ideas, and I became consumed with guilt and had regular panic attacks featuring the hell I was sure I would go to. In my case, I was no less moral after abandoning the idea of God, but I'm much more functional and self-confident now (which allows me to do much greater good overall). Oh yeah, did I mention I'm happier?

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Its a lot easier to adjust to no dog then to no heaven or no hope that prayers will be answered.

[/ QUOTE ]

Complete appeal to emotion. If you're going that route, then I raise you self-determination and human dignity, and no hell. Let's just toss John Lennon's "Imagine" in there while we're at it - these kinds of emotional supports have nothing to do with religion.

[David Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Its a lot easier to adjust to no dog then to no heaven or no hope that prayers will be answered.

[/ QUOTE ]

Complete appeal to emotion. If you're going that route, then I raise you self-determination and human dignity, and no hell. Let's just toss John Lennon's "Imagine" in there while we're at it - these kinds of emotional supports have nothing to do with religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are in an ivory tower. Most people in this world are a lot more concerned with prayers being answered and going to heaven than they are with human dignity and self determination (even if they are, as you imply, mutually exclusive). As for no religion meaning no hell, most religious people either don't believe in it or think its pretty simple to avoid.

[Duke]

I read this thread title as "retracting" instead of restating. I can only hope.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm genuinely curious about this. When you make a post like the above - do you choose your words to make the concepts you are trying to convey as simple and as clear as possible to the reader? Or do you have some other criteria for choosing them?



[/ QUOTE ]
Huh? /images/graemlins/blush.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
What made you choose the words you did when trying to convey whatever idea or concept it was you were trying to convey? Were they chosen based on clarity and ease of understanding for the reader or something else?

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
I read this thread title as "retracting" instead of restating. I can only hope.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, he's switched to merely dealing with the "adjustment period", rather trivial, rather than claiming something more universal and innate in a large portion of humans.

Yawn. luckyme

[InTheDark]

[ QUOTE ]
Besides, there are plenty more countries beside Sweden with high atheist numbers and high happiness ratings. I linked the info in the other thread.



[/ QUOTE ]

If they're so happy, why aren't they able to reproduce at replacement levels? No one seems to have a reasonable answer for this.

From a Darwinian point of view, a happy (fit, successful) species makes lots of offspring. What's going on with these high % atheist countries?

[InTheDark]

[ QUOTE ]
Am I naive to believe that a number of people, if told tomorrow 'There is 100% NO GOD - here's the proof', would suddenly see things like rape, murder, theft, robbery etc. acceptable?

I am not saying I agree or disagree with OP, just trying to add something that seems to be always forgoten in these conversations. And I am not only talking about devout believers here. There is a MASSIVE difference between non-belief in god, (and in the ramifications therin implied with regard to everlasting punishment/reward etc,) and knowing for a fact there is no god.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see some really awful possibilities resulting from removing God across the board. Life would likely get worse for everyone.

The higher % of church attendees in my neighborhood, the safer my person and property.

[carlo]

[ QUOTE ]
What made you choose the words you did when trying to convey whatever idea or concept it was you were trying to convey? Were they chosen based on clarity and ease of understanding for the reader or something else?

[/ QUOTE ]

Best I can say is "painting a picture". In this case, obviously not "mechanical" but from my perspective there is an internal logic which connects the parts and pieces but if done properly, the "tone" of the piece is the expression of its origin.

In no way am I associating myself with him but a "flow of consciousness" by some like James Joyce comes to mind. After your question I tried to find a piece by Gurdjieff in which he describes a large two story ship on a river with many passengers and the events forthcoming. Before he presents the piece he tells the reader that "pictures" of what is happening will rise in the readers consciousness of the whole episode. The whole episode is experienced in "imaginative pictures" with great clarity. I was truly amazed that he could do this and he did. Quite a piece, truly amazing.

Aside from that the question arises, "from whence do your words come from". Not written on a paper of our mind. Seeking the solution to a mathematical problem is similar for at some point a "eureka" point is reached. the question is again"from whence does the "eureka" come from?

On and on and on...

[remski]

Karl Marx whose famous quote, "religion is the opium of the people", proposed that religion provides people with the following:

1. a sense of purpose and meaning
2. an activity designed to encourage social cohesion
3. a framework of rules designed as a form of social
control.

Although religion has been used as a reason for much violence and oppression, I agree that it does serve a useful purpose in today's social climate.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Besides, there are plenty more countries beside Sweden with high atheist numbers and high happiness ratings. I linked the info in the other thread.



[/ QUOTE ]

If they're so happy, why aren't they able to reproduce at replacement levels? No one seems to have a reasonable answer for this.

From a Darwinian point of view, a happy (fit, successful) species makes lots of offspring. What's going on with these high % atheist countries?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, those Africans are having a ball in good old Africa...http://img54.imageshack.us/img54/3212/rofl2px3.gif

You can't think of any reasons? For real?

1. Dumb people have more kids. That's fact. Dumb people are also more likely to be religious
2. Many churches shun birth control - the Catholics with over a billion members, forbid it. No birth control = heaps more kids, obviously
3. Religion actually teaches people to multiply. Having heaps of kids is considered a good thing. (Another one of the evils of religion as the world approaches overpopulation).

[InTheDark]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Besides, there are plenty more countries beside Sweden with high atheist numbers and high happiness ratings. I linked the info in the other thread.



[/ QUOTE ]

If they're so happy, why aren't they able to reproduce at replacement levels? No one seems to have a reasonable answer for this.

From a Darwinian point of view, a happy (fit, successful) species makes lots of offspring. What's going on with these high % atheist countries?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, those Africans are having a ball in good old Africa...http://img54.imageshack.us/img54/3212/rofl2px3.gif

You can't think of any reasons? For real?

1. Dumb people have more kids. That's fact. Dumb people are also more likely to be religious
2. Many churches shun birth control - the Catholics with over a billion members, forbid it. No birth control = heaps more kids, obviously
3. Religion actually teaches people to multiply. Having heaps of kids is considered a good thing. (Another one of the evils of religion as the world approaches overpopulation).

[/ QUOTE ]

This is essentially a dodge. If we're interested in Western countries, and I am, it's difficult to find the secular society that is breeding at replacement. Ireland is the European champ with a 1st class economy, high church attendence and a solid birthrate. Compare that to Spain or Italy (talk about Catholic!), not Nigeria.

There's something in it that makes the atheists understandably uncomfortable. When a cohort is not reproducing, something is amiss. It's easy to say that the cohort is 'too smart' to reproduce but I'm sure you can see how lame that sounds. My own guess is that the cohort is too selfish to reproduce.

[carlo]

Believe its "stream of consciousness" not "flow of consciousness".

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
nobody can give me a reasonable answer for this

[/ QUOTE ]

...

[ QUOTE ]
that sounds lame. i'm going to continue to assume that i'm right.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Phil153]

A dodge? How is pointing out that most of the world's Christians are FORBIDDEN BIRTH CONTROL a dodge?

You don't think married couples that are FORBIDDEN BIRTH CONTROL are going to breed more?

[ QUOTE ]
There's something in it that makes the atheists understandably uncomfortable. When a cohort is not reproducing, something is amiss.

[/ QUOTE ]
Uninhibited breeding makes me uncomfortable - it's already causing tremendous suffering and environmental destruction in many parts of the world.

In addition to the points I made above, people who lead successful and busy lives tend not to reproduce as much. By your reasoning, something is amiss with more intelligent people, since they breed less, and people with <90 IQs are raving geniuses according to your strange Darwinian view of the world.

We're not animals...and indeed the further we are from animals, the less we're going to breed, since other things consume our lives, our time and our thoughts. That's what's happening in the West, and it's not that hard to understand. Poverty, stupidity and lack of options = breeding.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Most people in this world are a lot more concerned with prayers being answered and going to heaven than they are with human dignity and self determination

[/ QUOTE ]

If this were true, there would be far more than vague correlations indicating the power of religion to provide happiness. As it is, even if we accept that the correlation between religion and happiness describes a direct causal link (which it almost certainly does not), regular exercise still has a much greater impact on happiness than religion. It would be unreasonable to conclude that religion can provide a greater benefit than regular exercise, which is a low bar as I see it.

[remski]

Although it may or may not be true, that regular exercise is a greater influence on someones degree of happiness than religious affiliation, exercise will not be able to provide a sense of purpose and meaning in ones life as religion can.

Religion as a social institution provides people with auxiliary benefits. Even if the philosophical needs of churchgoers can be met through other means, I still do not predict religious influence waining anytime soon.

I apologise if my posts are somehow illogical, but I am enjoying this discussion, and desired to add my viewpoint.

[David Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Most people in this world are a lot more concerned with prayers being answered and going to heaven than they are with human dignity and self determination

[/ QUOTE ]

If this were true, there would be far more than vague correlations indicating the power of religion to provide happiness. As it is, even if we accept that the correlation between religion and happiness describes a direct causal link (which it almost certainly does not), regular exercise still has a much greater impact on happiness than religion. It would be unreasonable to conclude that religion can provide a greater benefit than regular exercise, which is a low bar as I see it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Religion doesn't provide happiness to most people but rather lessens their unhappiness. Exercise doesn't do that to the same extent. Plus it is a lot harder to stick to.

Meanwhile if I am wrong, then why are the great majority of moderately intelligent people religious? Is it because of other psychological flaws? Is it because you have to be more than moderately intelligent to be an atheist? (I can think of three regular posters here who tend to disprove that). Or is it because theists are actually correct?

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
Is it because you have to be more than moderately intelligent to be an atheist? (I can think of three regular posters here who tend to disprove that).

[/ QUOTE ]

Me, Nielsio, and...?

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> Meanwhile if I am wrong, then why are the great majority of moderately intelligent people religious? </font>

The answer is upbringing and education. The majority were likely brain-washed as children and most do not possess post graduate degrees or a high level of education in math or the hard sciences. Once in a great while, an extremely intelligent and very educated person will slip through the cracks who remains a theist, but this is an exception and very rare. There's no denying that skepticism increases among the post-graduate population.

There's also no disputing your main point, but I'm not convinced that the realization of there being no such things as gods would have the detrimental effect on the "average" theist that you're implying it would. I was an average theist when I came upon this realization. I was stunned at first and hell yeah, I had to re-evaluate my whole world. But in the end, I not only coped, but became a HAPPIER and more balanced person! Many of the things that really bothered me (why kids die of cancer, how some of the outrageous stories in the bible could be true, etc.), suddenly made sense and were no longer the perplexing problems they had been for me. So if I'm any kind of example we can conclude that some would actually find solace in the truth.

[soon2bepro]

Going by their word, true believers would keep believing no matter what.

And I think rational ones would be quite relieved. Maybe after a few years of mourning.

I disagree with you. But I do see your point.

However consider that right now, most educated people who claim to be theists, aren't really so. They don't really believe this nonsense, they just think it's a good thing to believe in it. And all in all, most theists aren't that religious. Religion isn't such a big part of their lives.

In my life I have personally converted several friends from theism to skepticism, and while some of them had a tough time at first, they ended up much happier and free in only a couple years time. People who can't bear giving up religion won't listen to any claims or arguments about the falsehood of their belief.

[InTheDark]

[ QUOTE ]
Uninhibited breeding makes me uncomfortable - it's already causing tremendous suffering and environmental destruction in many parts of the world.


[/ QUOTE ]

World population is soon coming to a peak, last I heard. A couple more decades and the growth will end.

[ QUOTE ]
In addition to the points I made above, people who lead successful and busy lives tend not to reproduce as much. By your reasoning, something is amiss with more intelligent people, since they breed less, and people with &lt;90 IQs are raving geniuses according to your strange Darwinian view of the world.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're free to attribute nonsense to me if that is your style. I'm interested in why reasonably comfortable, sectarian Western society of two generations ago was able to reproduce at above replacement levels and today, secular countries like Italy and Spain have birthrates near to 1.2 per couple. There was no huge spike in cohort intelligence, was there? No, they lost their religion. They also became somewhat more comfortable but not by a huge measure. I need to firgue out why, if they're soo happy, they fail to indulge in what many folks insist is the greatest pleasure in life, raising children. This from a atheist with only one child and none in my future.

[ QUOTE ]
We're not animals...

[/ QUOTE ]

What a very sectarian thing for you to say. There's hope for you yet.

[tame_deuces]

I remember that your big point on birth rates has been answered thoroughly several times, including why it most likely has no connection to atheism.

But you spam it in so many threads that most people don't really bother with it anymore.

[InTheDark]

[ QUOTE ]

I remember that your big point on birth rates has been answered thoroughly several times, including why it most likely has no connection to atheism.

But you spam it in so many threads that most people don't really bother with it anymore.

[/ QUOTE ]

The atheists have a good alibi but so far no convincing explaination.

If you prefer a one sided debate use 'ignore'.

[Splendour]

quote: I was affected by the theistic ideas, and I became consumed with guilt and had regular panic attacks featuring the hell I was sure I would go to. In my case, I was no less moral after abandoning the idea of God, but I'm much more functional and self-confident now (which allows me to do much greater good overall). Oh yeah, did I mention I'm happier?

Why be consumed with guilt? It seems like you are somehow mistaken in your understanding of theistic ideas. I admit, most people think when they believe they will be somehow immediately transformed. They expect a miraculous transformation on the spot. I guess you didn't get this immediate transformation, concluded you were bad and panicked. People are still individually different and will manifest changes in their own ways. Sort of like plants that grow at their own rates. Its only by staying in the religion and reading the text to get a deeper understanding of the spirit that you come to realize you can take it one day at a time and one bad sin at a time. Of course, it might speed up once you get deep enough into things. This is where the grace comes in. We can never do it all on our own. But once we start to put out our feelers to God he bridges the distance and does the rest. As a natural correlation from this process if you're correcting your own behavior you will be having a positive impact on the world around you and your peacefulness will deepen.

[hitch1978]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is it because you have to be more than moderately intelligent to be an atheist? (I can think of three regular posters here who tend to disprove that).

[/ QUOTE ]

Me, Nielsio, and...?

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi!

[RJT]

Just a point of order:

I highly doubt if anyone is truly happy. I have never met any one who is.

I think it would be a tough call if I had to choose between the opportunity to meet Jesus or someone who professes to be truly happy.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm interested in why reasonably comfortable, sectarian Western society of two generations ago was able to reproduce at above replacement levels and today, secular countries like Italy and Spain have birthrates near to 1.2 per couple.

[/ QUOTE ]
Two words. I want you to listen very closely. BIRTH CONTROL.

Effective and easy birth control methods began available two generations ago. As women gained control of their sexuality, it began the feminist movement, greater female independence, and a massive increase of women in the workplace. Women spend time chasing careers instead of a husband and children these days.

The explanations are so simple and obvious that I don't what you're talking about, to be honest. Do you live in the West? Do you ever observe and think about your own culture?

As for Italy and Spain - secular? WTF? Italy has 97.2% baptized Catholics and Spain has 94.2%. They are waaaay more religious than other countries with similar birthrates.

http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_romcath.html

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I remember that your big point on birth rates has been answered thoroughly several times, including why it most likely has no connection to atheism.

But you spam it in so many threads that most people don't really bother with it anymore.

[/ QUOTE ]

The atheists have a good alibi but so far no convincing explaination.

If you prefer a one sided debate use 'ignore'.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, maybe the most important point is that you are wrong. Of the 40 bottom countries on fertility rates maybe less than 10 don't have a huge majority of religious populace, maybe 3-4 countries have anything close to half its populace as 'non-followers' of major religions, and the 'atheist' percentages were even lower than that.


Of the bottom 20 on the scales, the following countries have largely religious populaces (based on 2000 numbers, but 2007 numbers will yield quite a similar result):
Italy
Spain
Singapore
Russia
Hungary
Slovakia
Andorra
Belarus
Ukraine
Hong Kong
San Marino
Macau
Greece
Lithuania
Romania

So there, now I bloody well went out and researched your statement and short story - I don't buy it.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Religion as a social institution provides people with auxiliary benefits. Even if the philosophical needs of churchgoers can be met through other means, I still do not predict religious influence waining anytime soon.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is true. Religion can meet a constellation of needs, which is part of why it's so persistent. But I think all of these needs can be met through alternative means. That's not likely to happen soon, but if religion were to disappear overnight (as in David's scenario), I think people would cope relatively quickly.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Religion doesn't provide happiness to most people but rather lessens their unhappiness. Exercise doesn't do that to the same extent. Plus it is a lot harder to stick to.

[/ QUOTE ]

While this is possible, I haven't seen any convincing evidence to back it up. Obviously my personal bias is that this is incorrect, and without evidence to the contrary I'm sticking with that view.

[ QUOTE ]
Meanwhile if I am wrong, then why are the great majority of moderately intelligent people religious? Is it because of other psychological flaws? Is it because you have to be more than moderately intelligent to be an atheist? (I can think of three regular posters here who tend to disprove that). Or is it because theists are actually correct?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's because beliefs are largely a function of upbringing. The vast majority of people in the world are religious, so it stands to reason that the majority of intelligent people are also religious. In fact, it's a striking anomaly that so many highly intelligent people are irreligious, given the prevalence of religion. I believe that theism is under represented among the moderately intelligent, which implies that they are less likely than normal to be religious. Also, moderately intelligent people in irrelegious cultures tend to be irreligous (just like everyone in such cultures).

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
quote: I was affected by the theistic ideas, and I became consumed with guilt and had regular panic attacks featuring the hell I was sure I would go to. In my case, I was no less moral after abandoning the idea of God, but I'm much more functional and self-confident now (which allows me to do much greater good overall). Oh yeah, did I mention I'm happier?

Why be consumed with guilt? It seems like you are somehow mistaken in your understanding of theistic ideas. I admit, most people think when they believe they will be somehow immediately transformed. They expect a miraculous transformation on the spot. I guess you didn't get this immediate transformation, concluded you were bad and panicked. People are still individually different and will manifest changes in their own ways. Sort of like plants that grow at their own rates. Its only by staying in the religion and reading the text to get a deeper understanding of the spirit that you come to realize you can take it one day at a time and one bad sin at a time. Of course, it might speed up once you get deep enough into things. This is where the grace comes in. We can never do it all on our own. But once we start to put out our feelers to God he bridges the distance and does the rest. As a natural correlation from this process if you're correcting your own behavior you will be having a positive impact on the world around you and your peacefulness will deepen.

[/ QUOTE ]

A fair post and worth responding to, but too far off-topic for this thread.

[David Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Religion doesn't provide happiness to most people but rather lessens their unhappiness. Exercise doesn't do that to the same extent. Plus it is a lot harder to stick to.

[/ QUOTE ]

While this is possible, I haven't seen any convincing evidence to back it up. Obviously my personal bias is that this is incorrect, and without evidence to the contrary I'm sticking with that view.

[ QUOTE ]
Meanwhile if I am wrong, then why are the great majority of moderately intelligent people religious? Is it because of other psychological flaws? Is it because you have to be more than moderately intelligent to be an atheist? (I can think of three regular posters here who tend to disprove that). Or is it because theists are actually correct?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's because beliefs are largely a function of upbringing.

[/ QUOTE ]

That argument only makes sense if you are talking about something like political views, where there are strong arguments for either side. But religious beliefs, (especially accompanied by a high degree of certainty and an attitude that all other religions are illogical except their own) are so obviously wrong, that when a moderately intelligent person holds, them its probably because of psychological factors stonger than mere upbringing.

[madnak]

You overestimate the extent to which people use reason in forming their beliefs. People aren't very rational. In fact, I'd say even the smartest people are typically not very rational. The smartest people are able to be rational when they choose to be, but their natural inclination is still not the rational approach. This is where gamblers and scientists do have an advantage, incidentally - they are in the habit of looking at things analytically, so it's easier for them to apply an analytic approach to their beliefs.

I'll go even further and say that I think it's likely we evolved the capacity to believe before we evolved the capacity to reason. Just as we tend to perform actions by mimicking others (especially during childhood), rather than by figuring our what works best, we form beliefs by listening to the beliefs of others (especially during childhood) rather than by reasoning out what makes sense.

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
But religious beliefs, (especially accompanied by a high degree of certainty and an attitude that all other religions are illogical except their own) are so obviously wrong, that when a moderately intelligent person holds, them its probably because of psychological factors stonger than mere upbringing.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a convenient viewpoint for your stance, but I don't think it's accurate.

Moderately intelligent people aren't atheist for many reasons:

1) No one they know and respect is atheist
2) They were raised thinking that godlessness = misery and/or psychosis and religion = happiness and success
3) There is a huge stigma with being atheist similar to that of being gay that makes it not even worth questioning.
4) Many people don't care enough to question the evidence. They don't care when the New Testament was written. They don't care if Noah's Ark was literal or fabled.
5) The afterlife is basically the ultimate form of bribery.
6) There is a huge stereotype of religion = benevolent, lack there of = malevolent.
7) Once it becomes a way of life, rather than just a belief, it becomes a lot harder to question, especially when it all seems to make sense, you are moderately happy, but not successful enough to be in a position of radical change, and everyone you love lives the same way of life.
8) Even moderately intelligent people (115ish IQ) can have a tough time refuting the, "What created the universe? There had to be something, and God is the only reasonable explanation" argument, or the ID argument. The strongest argument might even be attributing unusual ecstatic feelings to "finding Jesus" or "communicating with God", especially when you dangle them in front of a kid like a carrot so that the kid is looking for every excuse to find these feelings. Try convincing someone that has "felt God's touch" that there is no God.

I guess these are psychological reasons too, but I assume you are implying that religion itself is what keeps people happy, rather than the psychology of "fitting in, making people happy, and not being persecuted".

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
That argument only makes sense if you are talking about something like political views, where there are strong arguments for either side. But religious beliefs, (especially accompanied by a high degree of certainty and an attitude that all other religions are illogical except their own) are so obviously wrong, that when a moderately intelligent person holds, them its probably because of psychological factors stonger than mere upbringing.

[/ QUOTE ]
You really underestimate the effect of childhood indoctrination.

Why do you think people's religion so closely follows those of their parents?

[InTheDark]

[ QUOTE ]
As for Italy and Spain - secular? WTF? Italy has 97.2% baptized Catholics and Spain has 94.2%. They are waaaay more religious than other countries with similar birthrates.

[/ QUOTE ]

Seems obvious to me any country with 90% practicing Catholics would produce a few more babies than Italy and Spain. I'd imagine you only need maybe 40% faithfully practicing Catholics to get a replacement birthrate. So if your country has a birthrate of 1.2/couple, it's safe to say the Pope holds little sway.

There's much that confounds any effort to find signal amongst the noise. Social science is quite frustrating in this regard. There also exists a significant academic bias (at least in the Western academy) to belittle religion. This board exemplifies that trend in spades.

[David Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That argument only makes sense if you are talking about something like political views, where there are strong arguments for either side. But religious beliefs, (especially accompanied by a high degree of certainty and an attitude that all other religions are illogical except their own) are so obviously wrong, that when a moderately intelligent person holds, them its probably because of psychological factors stonger than mere upbringing.

[/ QUOTE ]
You really underestimate the effect of childhood indoctrination.

Why do you think people's religion so closely follows those of their parents?

[/ QUOTE ]

Childhood indoctrination, I already agreed, can make a difference in close cases like politics. It can also make a big difference when it comes to choosing between religions.
But it can't be the only factor when the choice is between religion and no religion (and the person has a 130 IQ.) Their upringing wouldn't sway them to believe in astrology or alien abductions would it?

Of course many of these moderately smart people have a lot of deep down doubts about their religion that they won't admit in public. But the ones who don't have these doubts are usually being swayed by a lot more than just simple parental brainwashing.

[InTheDark]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I remember that your big point on birth rates has been answered thoroughly several times, including why it most likely has no connection to atheism.

But you spam it in so many threads that most people don't really bother with it anymore.

[/ QUOTE ]

The atheists have a good alibi but so far no convincing explaination.

If you prefer a one sided debate use 'ignore'.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, maybe the most important point is that you are wrong. Of the 40 bottom countries on fertility rates maybe less than 10 don't have a huge majority of religious populace, maybe 3-4 countries have anything close to half its populace as 'non-followers' of major religions, and the 'atheist' percentages were even lower than that.


Of the bottom 20 on the scales, the following countries have largely religious populaces (based on 2000 numbers, but 2007 numbers will yield quite a similar result):
Italy
Spain
Singapore
Russia
Hungary
Slovakia
Andorra
Belarus
Ukraine
Hong Kong
San Marino
Macau
Greece
Lithuania
Romania

So there, now I bloody well went out and researched your statement and short story - I don't buy it.



[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe it's easier to get a grasp of this issue from a different angle. WHat keeps people from procreating at replacement rates? It's not enough to say 'birth control' and leave it at that. There's a reason behind every concious choice not to reproduce. In the ex-USSR I figure that the general shithole economy and overall bleak future have alot to do with it, just as Ireland exhibits the opposite with a sound fertility rate. But Italy and Spain are tough to peg. They have given up breeding as (lapsed) Catholics and I suspect that it's a combination of creeping atheism and selfishness. I see the Scandinavian countries following the same path. Vermont is on that track, fertility rate of 1.5 .

Time will tell. Nothing is for sure in social science.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe it's easier to get a grasp of this issue from a different angle. WHat keeps people from procreating at replacement rates? It's not enough to say 'birth control' and leave it at that. There's a reason behind every concious choice not to reproduce. In the ex-USSR I figure that the general shithole economy and overall bleak future have alot to do with it, just as Ireland exhibits the opposite with a sound fertility rate. But Italy and Spain are tough to peg. They have given up breeding as (lapsed) Catholics and I suspect that it's a combination of creeping atheism and selfishness. I see the Scandinavian countries following the same path. Vermont is on that track, fertility rate of 1.5 .

Time will tell. Nothing is for sure in social science.

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont find it a particularly interesting question, but it seems to me that you are claiming religious countries breed more (and cite ireland as an example) then when a counterexample like spain is presented you claim they cant really be religious since they're not breeding much. Isnt that begging the question?

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
But it can't be the only factor when the choice is between religion and no religion (and the person has a 130 IQ.) Their upringing wouldn't sway them to believe in astrology or alien abductions would it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Intelligence is not a universally rational influence. Wittgenstein, Newton, Pascal, all with estimated IQ's 190+, had long periods of intensified religious conviction as adults at the height of their intellectual power.

[Lestat]

You are grossly underestimating the power that authoritative figures and role models can have on impressionable young minds. This can last long after these role models are gone or play a significant role in their lives.

[Lestat]

Wow, I didn't even see this before I posted. Almost identical. Sorry.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> Childhood indoctrination, I already agreed, can make a difference in close cases like politics. </font>

I think this is just wrong.

<font color="blue"> Their upringing wouldn't sway them to believe in astrology or alien abductions would it?
</font>

Why not? The only reason astrology and alien abductions are less likely to stick is because there aren't enough other people that believe in them. But if you brought up a child to believe in astrology, and he sees that his neighbors and extended family are all astrologists, and he sees buildings erected all over the place to study/worship astrology, and he sees even the news media taking astrology seriously, do you REALLY think a 130 IQ is going to be the deciding difference in whether he believes in astrology when he's 30? If so, why? There's no fundamental difference between the two dogmas. The only difference is one is taken seriously all over the world, and the other is not and is even laughed at by most people.

Again, I think you're very (and unusually) wrong on this.

[David Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue"> Childhood indoctrination, I already agreed, can make a difference in close cases like politics. </font>

I think this is just wrong.

<font color="blue"> Their upringing wouldn't sway them to believe in astrology or alien abductions would it?
</font>

Why not? The only reason astrology and alien abductions are less likely to stick is because there aren't enough other people that believe in them. But if you brought up a child to believe in astrology, and he sees that his neighbors and extended family are all astrologists, and he sees buildings erected all over the place to study/worship astrology, and he sees even the news media taking astrology seriously, do you REALLY think a 130 IQ is going to be the deciding difference in whether he believes in astrology when he's 30? If so, why? There's no fundamental difference between the two dogmas. The only difference is one is taken seriously all over the world, and the other is not and is even laughed at by most people.

Again, I think you're very (and unusually) wrong on this.

[/ QUOTE ]

The difference between the equally nonsensical notions of astrology and any specific religion is the upsides of believing in it. One of those upsides is indeed pleasing your parents and "fitting in". But there are other upsides to religion that astrology doesn't have. So if your parents believed in both, there would be less subconscious psychological pressure to keep you believing in astrology than religion and it would be more likely that an intelligent person would be able to break away from their parent's belief in astrology then lets say Christianity.

How is that not obvious?

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> So if your parents believed in both, there would be less subconscious psychological pressure to keep you believing in astrology than religion </font>

Ah, but what about social pressure? This is probably a stronger motivator to sticking with religion than any upside. Or are you saying...

That moderately smart people can't face the notion of death? The abiltity/fantasy of living forever seems to be the biggest upside religion has going for it. Almost anything else, you can get from some other source, club, or support group, if you were so inclined. After all, I doubt the ratio of answered to unanswered prayers is much of an upside. What other upsides (aside from living forever), do you think religion has (that can't be had elsewhere)?

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Childhood indoctrination, I already agreed, can make a difference in close cases like politics. It can also make a big difference when it comes to choosing between religions.
But it can't be the only factor when the choice is between religion and no religion (and the person has a 130 IQ.) Their upringing wouldn't sway them to believe in astrology or alien abductions would it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, yes it would. In at least 98% of cases.

This is a difficult issue because it involves extrapolating from a wide variety of observations, but there is no question that parental and societal influence are mostly responsible for beliefs and values. Everything else combined is small in comparison. The number of different types of evidence that back this up is staggering, from studies in behaviorism to analysis of cultures to twin studies to neurology and statistics and everything. The correlation is, in any case, almost perfect, and while this becomes less true at higher levels of intellect, it is definitely still true after two standard deviations (130 IQ on the Wechsler).

[remski]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But it can't be the only factor when the choice is between religion and no religion (and the person has a 130 IQ.) Their upringing wouldn't sway them to believe in astrology or alien abductions would it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Intelligence is not a universally rational influence. Wittgenstein, Newton, Pascal, all with estimated IQ's 190+, had long periods of intensified religious conviction as adults at the height of their intellectual power.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have heard anecdotes of Astronauts, who upon their return to Earth have become profoundly religious. Although I cannot confirm or deny this, it is an interesting phenomenon.

Does anyone have any facts regarding this?

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But it can't be the only factor when the choice is between religion and no religion (and the person has a 130 IQ.) Their upringing wouldn't sway them to believe in astrology or alien abductions would it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Intelligence is not a universally rational influence. Wittgenstein, Newton, Pascal, all with estimated IQ's 190+, had long periods of intensified religious conviction as adults at the height of their intellectual power.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have heard anecdotes of Astronauts, who upon their return to Earth have become profoundly religious. Although I cannot confirm or deny this, it is an interesting phenomenon.

Does anyone have any facts regarding this?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure there are lots of factors that correlate with religion, almost independent of IQ.

Of course the classics would be extreme physical suffering, permanent social dysfunction, and near-death experiences. (Ship all three in Pascal's case.) But also stuff like psychological anguish from repressed homosexuality (Wittgenstein) helps. Or just general awareness of how utterly sordid human nature really is (Kierkegaard, Dostoevsky.)

Nietzsche is another great example, although he was obviously an atheist, his ideals for humankind are viscerally spiritual and demand transcendence. His life? About as alienated and physically miserable as you can imagine.

[remski]

Im sure Richard Dawkins would have some grievances with the notion; "religion does good".

[Brad1970]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course many of these moderately smart people have a lot of deep down doubts about their religion that they won't admit in public.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you have proof of this or is this merely speculation on your part?

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Of course many of these moderately smart people have a lot of deep down doubts about their religion that they won't admit in public.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you have proof of this or is this merely speculation on your part?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's a pretty safe assumption.

An obvious example would be someone like Hillary Clinton. I'd bet my entire poker bankroll that she gives about as much of a chance for a personal god as I do. But there are many other not-so-obvious examples. Many people wouldn't dare admit their doubts, even to (or especially to), their close friends and family.

[Lestat]

I think even neo-atheists like Dawkins, Harris, and Dennett, admit to religions good or harmless sides (for instance, what David talks about here).

The main problem they have with religion is with how rational people have been forced to keep their mouths shut and/or walk on eggshells in the face of irrationality.

An example is how we can't just state the obvious and call these Islamic fundamentalists out for being the loony tunes they are. Why? Well for one thing, we'd be insulting all the peaceful Muslims. We'd also be inferring that Christians have some of the same loony ideas. Can't have that for some reason. But it's perfectly ok to call astrologists goofy. Why is that?

[remski]

[ QUOTE ]
I think even neo-atheists like Dawkins, Harris, and Dennett, admit to religions good or harmless sides (for instance, what David talks about here).

The main problem they have with religion is with how rational people have been forced to keep their mouths shut and/or walk on eggshells in the face of irrationality.

An example is how we can't just state the obvious and call these Islamic fundamentalists out for being the loony tunes they are. Why? Well for one thing, we'd be insulting all the peaceful Muslims. We'd also be inferring that Christians have some of the same loony ideas. Can't have that for some reason. But it's perfectly ok to call astrologists goofy. Why is that?

[/ QUOTE ]

Good observation. I find it strange that tele-evangelists, such as Benny Hinn, are able to fill a stadium with his obvious brand of parlor trickery. The "feats" that he perform could not possibly fool the majority of rational, logical people that witness such implausible "miracles".

[MaxWeiss]

That's quite a giant leap you are taking there. Yes, if god was taken away right this instant, it would have negative psychological effects. However, superstition has long reigned and in a few generations something new will have emerged, or some other socio political stronghold will have taken over and the masses would take pride in that, if superstition alone didn't take foot. Very, VERY likely, the not-too-distant future people would enjoy the same levels of happiness by other means. In the meantime, we will have eradicated one very large excuse for a plethora of unconscionable actions, and with any luck, brought the dialog about future actions closer to having reason and consequences being the primary and necessary factors.

[Rococo]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue"> Meanwhile if I am wrong, then why are the great majority of moderately intelligent people religious? </font>

The answer is upbringing and education. The majority were likely brain-washed as children and most do not possess post graduate degrees or a high level of education in math or the hard sciences.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is generally correct but a little harsh. Most people, at least in the U.S., believe in God for the same reason that they believe in democracy, capitalism, equality, etc. Their parents and the communities they grew up in accepted those principles, and they didn't find it particularly onerous to continue believing in those principles as they got older.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue"> Meanwhile if I am wrong, then why are the great majority of moderately intelligent people religious? </font>

The answer is upbringing and education. The majority were likely brain-washed as children and most do not possess post graduate degrees or a high level of education in math or the hard sciences.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is generally correct but a little harsh. Most people, at least in the U.S., believe in God for the same reason that they believe in democracy, capitalism, equality, etc. Their parents and the communities they grew up in accepted those principles, and they didn't find it particularly onerous to continue believing in those principles as they got older.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's kinda what I said, but DS is making a distinction between political and religious creed, because of religions upsides. What I'm saying is that if you are brought up having something drilled in you and everyone else in your family, community, country, seems to hold similar views (and certainly very few lambast them), then it makes sense how even an intelligent person doesn't think to question these beliefs even when he becomes an adult. That's all I was trying to say.

[David Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue"> Meanwhile if I am wrong, then why are the great majority of moderately intelligent people religious? </font>

The answer is upbringing and education. The majority were likely brain-washed as children and most do not possess post graduate degrees or a high level of education in math or the hard sciences.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is generally correct but a little harsh. Most people, at least in the U.S., believe in God for the same reason that they believe in democracy, capitalism, equality, etc. Their parents and the communities they grew up in accepted those principles, and they didn't find it particularly onerous to continue believing in those principles as they got older.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's kinda what I said, but DS is making a distinction between political and religious creed, because of religions upsides. What I'm saying is that if you are brought up having something drilled in you and everyone else in your family, community, country, seems to hold similar views (and certainly very few lambast them), then it makes sense how even an intelligent person doesn't think to question these beliefs even when he becomes an adult. That's all I was trying to say.

[/ QUOTE ]

A good argument for 75 years ago. Or maybe even 40 years ago. Nowadays everybody is aware that the majority of scientists disagree with most of the specific religious beliefs. Therefore moderately intelligent people who are religious, can be assummed to have made a conscious decision to disagree with those scientists.

[Splendour]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue"> Meanwhile if I am wrong, then why are the great majority of moderately intelligent people religious? </font>

The answer is upbringing and education. The majority were likely brain-washed as children and most do not possess post graduate degrees or a high level of education in math or the hard sciences.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is generally correct but a little harsh. Most people, at least in the U.S., believe in God for the same reason that they believe in democracy, capitalism, equality, etc. Their parents and the communities they grew up in accepted those principles, and they didn't find it particularly onerous to continue believing in those principles as they got older.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's kinda what I said, but DS is making a distinction between political and religious creed, because of religions upsides. What I'm saying is that if you are brought up having something drilled in you and everyone else in your family, community, country, seems to hold similar views (and certainly very few lambast them), then it makes sense how even an intelligent person doesn't think to question these beliefs even when he becomes an adult. That's all I was trying to say.

[/ QUOTE ]

A good argument for 75 years ago. Or maybe even 40 years ago. Nowadays everybody is aware that the majority of scientists disagree with most of the specific religious beliefs. Therefore moderately intelligent people who are religious, can be assummed to have made a conscious decision to disagree with those scientists.

[/ QUOTE ]

No one can rationally say this is a bad decision. It has been a very long scientific debate on creationism/evolution and multiple generations have lived and died while the debate is still on.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Nowadays everybody is aware that the majority of scientists disagree with most of the specific religious beliefs. Therefore moderately intelligent people who are religious, can be assummed to have made a conscious decision to disagree with those scientists.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm going to claim moderate intelligence - it's definitely not true that I made a conscious decision to disagree with those scientists. Belief isnt a choice.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue"> Meanwhile if I am wrong, then why are the great majority of moderately intelligent people religious? </font>

The answer is upbringing and education. The majority were likely brain-washed as children and most do not possess post graduate degrees or a high level of education in math or the hard sciences.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is generally correct but a little harsh. Most people, at least in the U.S., believe in God for the same reason that they believe in democracy, capitalism, equality, etc. Their parents and the communities they grew up in accepted those principles, and they didn't find it particularly onerous to continue believing in those principles as they got older.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's kinda what I said, but DS is making a distinction between political and religious creed, because of religions upsides. What I'm saying is that if you are brought up having something drilled in you and everyone else in your family, community, country, seems to hold similar views (and certainly very few lambast them), then it makes sense how even an intelligent person doesn't think to question these beliefs even when he becomes an adult. That's all I was trying to say.

[/ QUOTE ]

A good argument for 75 years ago. Or maybe even 40 years ago. Nowadays everybody is aware that the majority of scientists disagree with most of the specific religious beliefs. Therefore moderately intelligent people who are religious, can be assummed to have made a conscious decision to disagree with those scientists.

[/ QUOTE ]

No one can rationally say this is a bad decision. It has been a very long scientific debate on creationism/evolution and multiple generations have lived and died while the debate is still on.

[/ QUOTE ]

I (think) I understand what David is saying, but I'm not entirely sure you do.

Yes, this debate has been going on forever, but much has changed in the last 75 years (or even the last 40 years as David said), and belief in god among the upper intelligent and educated is waning. But...

The power of upbringing is still important and plays a vital role in what one believes as he grows older. There's no other way to explain why ANY reasonably intelligent and educated person still believes there is an invisible sky god lurking around somewhere. In fact, there are many very intelligent and educated people who still do. Why?

Because childhood indoctrination is extremely powerful. It is very hard to shake and altogether abandon an all-encompassing world view after years and years of having your whole life formed around such beliefs.

Whenever there's a definite right or wrong answer to be had or calculated, I'll almost always defer to David. But this involves social and psychological aspects of how the mind works. The mind MUST make sense of things and for some people, they will not abandon beliefs which they have come not only to live by, but to die by as well. It takes more than intelligence sometimes to break through that.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
No one can rationally say this is a bad decision. It has been a very long scientific debate on creationism/evolution and multiple generations have lived and died while the debate is still on.

[/ QUOTE ]

What scientific debate? Please cite peer-reviewed papers where the debate is going on.

luckyme

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Nowadays everybody is aware that the majority of scientists disagree with most of the specific religious beliefs.

[/ QUOTE ]

In my experience, most people are unaware of this. In fact, most theists think I'm full of [censored] when I raise this point, and may dispute it even when I back it up. Further, most of the people who are aware of this fact (again in my experience) couldn't care less. Again, people are nowhere near as rational as you think they are.

[andyfox]

Though I suspect I was, alas, one of the three people David referred to in an earlier post in this thead, I'm going to chime in anyway. It has to be more than just upbringing and surroundings. Astrology claims that the positions of the stars in the sky have an effect on our lives. Religion claims to be authoritative about our deaths, the afterlife. And dying, I would think, must be the scariest thing people think about. Thus they are more likely to hold irrational thoughts about religion for psychological reasons.

Yes, great edifices that have been constructed in obeisance to the almighty sky god. But at one time, astrological training was very important in the training of astronomers, mathematicians, and even doctors. Since the scientific revolution, astrology has yielded its authority much more so than has religion.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, great edifices that have been constructed in obeisance to the almighty sky god. But at one time, astrological training was very important in the training of astronomers, mathematicians, and even doctors. Since the scientific revolution, astrology has yielded its authority much more so than has religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's because astrology has been all but disproved. Religion has not. I do agree with the point that people are more likely (probably much more likely) to hold irrational beliefs about religion, but this is a sloppy way of supporting that point.

If anything, the fact that basically all intelligent people believed in astrology when their upbringing supported that belief (despite having no logical basis) is a testament to the impact of indoctrination and upbringing.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
That's because astrology has been all but disproved. Religion has not. I do agree with the point that people are more likely (probably much more likely) to hold irrational beliefs about religion, but this is a sloppy way of supporting that point.


[/ QUOTE ]

The whole "FAITH" thing means even if it were possible to rpove a particular God didn't exist... the Faithful would still believe and consider it a test the same way God put fossils in the ground to test our faith...

Religious seem only interested in science when it corresponds with their beliefs.

[tame_deuces]

I don't really know how interested they can be in science if they actually believe there are creationist scientists.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
Though I suspect I was, alas, one of the three people David referred to in an earlier post in this thead, I'm going to chime in anyway. It has to be more than just upbringing and surroundings. Astrology claims that the positions of the stars in the sky have an effect on our lives. Religion claims to be authoritative about our deaths, the afterlife. And dying, I would think, must be the scariest thing people think about. Thus they are more likely to hold irrational thoughts about religion for psychological reasons.

Yes, great edifices that have been constructed in obeisance to the almighty sky god. But at one time, astrological training was very important in the training of astronomers, mathematicians, and even doctors. Since the scientific revolution, astrology has yielded its authority much more so than has religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Great point, I'm just not sure which direction it goes.

Yes, up until modern man, astrology was widely believed in. It was actually science if I'm not mistaken (or one of the first forms of it). And yes, it has yielded it's authority, but why?

I think it's because certain things were *proved* falst about it. It was shown that the earth was not the center of the universe for example. It was proven that the constellations were only a smidgeon of what we once thought there was. But there is no way to disprove of gods. We've done away with most of the unnecessary ones however. We no longer need a sun god, or a sea, or a volcano god. But we might be a long way off from proving purpose and origin of life and the universe in general. We may never have answers for these things. And unlike astrology, god will live on.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue">If anything, the fact that basically all intelligent people believed in astrology when their upbringing supported that belief (despite having no logical basis) is a testament to the impact of indoctrination and upbringing.
</font>

Or, I could've just said this! -lol. I'm soooo not eloquent.

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
Though I suspect I was, alas, one of the three people David referred to in an earlier post in this thead, I'm going to chime in anyway. It has to be more than just upbringing and surroundings. Astrology claims that the positions of the stars in the sky have an effect on our lives. Religion claims to be authoritative about our deaths, the afterlife. And dying, I would think, must be the scariest thing people think about. Thus they are more likely to hold irrational thoughts about religion for psychological reasons.

Yes, great edifices that have been constructed in obeisance to the almighty sky god. But at one time, astrological training was very important in the training of astronomers, mathematicians, and even doctors. Since the scientific revolution, astrology has yielded its authority much more so than has religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are trying to imply that this means astrology was easily disputed because it didn't offer the psychological benefits David is talking about, I think you are looking at only one small piece of the puzzle.

Astrology was never a way of life. No one worshiped the horoscope god. There was never a stigma of being evil if you didn't believe in astrology. Etc. Etc. Etc. See my earlier post I guess if this isn't thorough enough.

[Alex-db]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, great edifices that have been constructed in obeisance to the almighty sky god. But at one time, astrological training was very important in the training of astronomers, mathematicians, and even doctors. Since the scientific revolution, astrology has yielded its authority much more so than has religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's because astrology has been all but disproved. Religion has not. I do agree with the point that people are more likely (probably much more likely) to hold irrational beliefs about religion, but this is a sloppy way of supporting that point.

If anything, the fact that basically all intelligent people believed in astrology when their upbringing supported that belief (despite having no logical basis) is a testament to the impact of indoctrination and upbringing.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is an interesting point, you mention it as though it is obvious to everyone, but I'm not sure it is even true.

Religion has essentially been disproved to the same extent as astrololgy. Prayer doesn't work, seances are parlour tricks, 'miracles' never happen, its origins tell a tale of its human creation. Astrology just needs more people explaining that the stars deliberately hide their effects whenever they are measured, and that you can't disprove that there is any effect if they are free to change the claimed effect as experimental results arrise.

[madnak]

Right, but astrology has no way to explain these things away. Astrology makes concrete predictions - religion doesn't. It doesn't harm religion at its core if we disprove prayer - plenty of religious people have considered prayer more an indulgence than anything. No major religion has made the claim that prayer necessarily has concrete physical effects.

However, astrology for all its nuance does make general predictions. In isolated cases, these predictions may not be true, but it's critical to the field of astrology that the predictions will tend to be true. Thus, there must be some correlation between birth month and personality (for example). That there is no such correlation is damning for astrology.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Right, but astrology has no way to explain these things away. Astrology makes concrete predictions - religion doesn't. It doesn't harm religion at its core if we disprove prayer - plenty of religious people have considered prayer more an indulgence than anything. No major religion has made the claim that prayer necessarily has concrete physical effects.

However, astrology for all its nuance does make general predictions. In isolated cases, these predictions may not be true, but it's critical to the field of astrology that the predictions will tend to be true. Thus, there must be some correlation between birth month and personality (for example). That there is no such correlation is damning for astrology.

[/ QUOTE ]

Madnak, I think you are right! That is the trick of religion: it make claims that are unprovable therefore it may be right and can never be wrong (ie the after death, the soul, etc.)! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Very astute!


There absolutely zero correlation that non-believers go to hell, it is pure speculation! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[dragonystic]

this is denying the antecedent

and even if it wasnt, i dont agree with your premises. if people stopped wasting their time with religion, we'd be much better off, and people would find a way to be happier.

lastly, utilitarianism is a poor way to decide if something is good or not.

[KikoSanchez]

Most rational people, atleast those growing up around the judeo-christian god and belief in hell, should feel very relieved that there is no god. According to believers, only they will make it to heaven. Of those believers, they say that only about 10% of their sect are "true believer" (see: no true scotsman). Thus, some 99% of the "souls" are supposedly destined for eternal damnation. Utilitarianism would say this is an ultimate evil. Speaking of sir Bentham, prudential utilitarianism is god, dragon.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
this is denying the antecedent

[/ QUOTE ]

Where?

[ QUOTE ]
and even if it wasnt, i dont agree with your premises. if people stopped wasting their time with religion, we'd be much better off, and people would find a way to be happier.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is exactly what I said.

[ QUOTE ]
lastly, utilitarianism is a poor way to decide if something is good or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me guess - your magical axiomatic moral standard is better?

[dragonystic]

davids argument, thats where.

and there are no magical axiomatic standards.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
lastly, utilitarianism is a poor way to decide if something is good or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fortunately, nobody actually arrives at moral choices that way.

luckyme

[pokervintage]

[ QUOTE ]
A good argument for 75 years ago. Or maybe even 40 years ago.

[/ QUOTE ]

What a joke. Do you really believe that man has changed so much in 40 years or 75 years?

Religion is driven by emotion. Blaise Pascal answered your question a few centuries ago. Just read about his famous gamble and you will understand why most moderatley intelligent people choose to "continue" to believe in God. The proposed benefits of accepting "god" far out weigh the horrible thoughts of the alternative(s). In the words of a Godfather in the movie "Casino" "Why take a chance?"

By the way I will bet that the vast majority of moderately intelligent citizens of China do not believe in God? Gee now I wonder why that might be true?

Sklansky you need to go to temple more often. Maybe the you will understand why Einstein called upon "God" to deride quantum mechanics.

pokervintage

[Zagga]

[ QUOTE ]
If tomorrow it was somehow proved to everybody in the world that there was no god of any sort, about 80% of the world would be personally distressed. 15% would be neutral. Only about 5% would become happier.

About ten percent of those who became inititally distressed would eventually personally DIRECTLY benefit from this new found knowledge to a point where it have more than made up for their distress. Still lots more would remain unhappy.

Put another way, even unborn people, at least for a few generations would be more likely to be happier if they believed. (Unless they were born into a very advanced country like Sweden).

On the other side of the coin is the indirect benefits to those who remain distressed. Fewer wars. More people working on cancer cures. Less repression. These extra benefits tip the balance for some more distressed people. However even throwing these things in, I think the overall happiness units of the world population would decrease without religion. Too many people would remain extremely unhappy without their god. (Of course if that is not an important measure in your eyes we have a different discussion.)

I will admit that even using my criteria, it is close. But only because present day religions are often so bad. If all religious people were either Episcopalians or reformed Jews I don't think we would want to change them.

[/ QUOTE ]

The thing with religion is that there is no way to disprove it. No way to get evidence that there is no god. This makes every religion not sientific, and makes the said hypothesis purely theoretical.

Still, I do think a lot of people need their faith, and couldn;t live withouth the idea that there is no source of it all and no afterlive of some sorts.

I, being an atheist, do have very mixed view about this all. On the one hand, I have always envied certain relegious people for finding so much happiness in something I could never believe. And religion gives a lot of happines to people and helps a lot of people. On the other hand so much wars have been fought and so much people have been killed due too differences between religions. So much horrible things have been done "in the name of god", so much people are not negitionable with due to their strong believes.

Would the world be more peacefull without religion? Maybe, I am sure there are plenty of other things mankind wil find reasons to fight and kill about tho.
Would people be more reasonable withouth religion? I think so, without religion a lot of impossible arguments will be gone in discussions.
Would people be more happy without religion? I doubt it, especially the first generation, will miss their old ways.

[Splendour]

Quote: The power of upbringing is still important and plays a vital role in what one believes as he grows older. There's no other way to explain why ANY reasonably intelligent and educated person still believes there is an invisible sky god lurking around somewhere. In fact, there are many very intelligent and educated people who still do. Why?

Because childhood indoctrination is extremely powerful. It is very hard to shake and altogether abandon an all-encompassing world view after years and years of having your whole life formed around such beliefs.


Well I for one had almost no childhood indoctrination. Yet I managed to believe in God. I raise you the book of Isaiah. Written more than 800 years before Jesus. It pretty clearly indicates there is an Old Testament approach to God and a New Testament replacement of that approach not that the new approach negates Old Testament teachings. You pretty much have to read the whole book because this replacement theme weaves in and out among Israel's current affairs and it takes a pretty good biblical history knowledge to know what those old Israelites were concerned about.

See this excerpt from The Message: Isaiah 66:18

18-21"I know everything they've ever done or thought. I'm going to come and then gather everyone—all nations, all languages. They'll come and see my glory. I'll set up a station at the center. I'll send the survivors of judgment all over the world: Spain and Africa, Turkey and Greece, and the far-off islands that have never heard of me, who know nothing of what I've done nor who I am. I'll send them out as missionaries to preach my glory among the nations. They'll return with all your long-lost brothers and sisters from all over the world. They'll bring them back and offer them in living worship to God. They'll bring them on horses and wagons and carts, on mules and camels, straight to my holy mountain Jerusalem," says God. "They'll present them just as Israelites present their offerings in a ceremonial vessel in the Temple of God. I'll even take some of them and make them priests and Levites," says God.

Pretty interesting Isaiah can predict Christianity 800 or 850 years before Christ.

Many in this forum say "well its possible to speculate and then have the future fullfill it". Yeah, I can see that point of view if it only happened one time, but it doesn't happen only one time. These things happen a lot more than 1 time, but you have to be reading with an open mind the whole sweep of the bible to spot them.

[Zagga]

[ QUOTE ]

Pretty interesting Isaiah can predict Christianity 800 or 850 years before Christ.

Many in this forum say "well its possible to speculate and then have the future fullfill it". Yeah, I can see that point of view if it only happened one time, but it doesn't happen only one time. These things happen a lot more than 1 time, but you have to be reading with an open mind the whole sweep of the bible to spot them.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a nice example of comformation bias. A christian searching for "evidence" to support the ideas he believes. But as I said before, it is not about what you can prove, it is about what you can disprove and the atribute of theories that they can be disproven but survives the tests that in a way proves them.

As for this, Jules Verne made some pretty accurate predictions, Nostradamus obviously too, but both aren't considered holy.

[Splendour]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Pretty interesting Isaiah can predict Christianity 800 or 850 years before Christ.

Many in this forum say "well its possible to speculate and then have the future fullfill it". Yeah, I can see that point of view if it only happened one time, but it doesn't happen only one time. These things happen a lot more than 1 time, but you have to be reading with an open mind the whole sweep of the bible to spot them.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a nice example of comformation bias. A christian searching for "evidence" to support the ideas he believes. But as I said before, it is not about what you can prove, it is about what you can disprove and the atribute of theories that they can be disproven but survives the tests that in a way proves them.

As for this, Jules Verne made some pretty accurate predictions, Nostradamus obviously too, but both aren't considered holy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh really? Well note the clay tablet in the British museum in the next excerpt from Wikipedia regarding Nebuchadnezzar II of Babylon. Jeremiah and Daniel both made prophecies referring to him.

"While boasting over his achievements, Nebuchadrezzar is humbled by God. The king loses his sanity and lives in the wild like an animal for seven years (by some considered as an attack of the madness called clinical boanthropy or alternately porphyria). After this, his sanity and position are restored.

A clay tablet in the British Museum (BM34113) describes Nebuchadnezzar's behaviour during his insanity: "His life appeared of no value to him... then he gives an entirely different order... he does not show love to son or daughter... family and clan does not exist [2]. There is also a notable absence of any record of acts or decrees by the king during 582 to 575 BC. [3] Some scholars believe that the Book of Daniel was written long after the events described, during the 2nd century BC, and thus are skeptical of the details of Nebuchadrezzar's portrayal by Daniel.

Some scholars think that Nebuchadrezzar's portrayal by Daniel is a mixture of traditions about Nebuchadrezzar — he was indeed the one who conquered Jerusalem — and about Nabonidus (Nabuna'id). For example, Nabonidus was the natural, or paternal father of Belshazzar, and the seven years of insanity could be related to Nabonidus' sojourn in Tayma in the desert. Evidence for this view was actually found on some fragments from the Dead Sea Scrolls that reference Nabonidus (N-b-n-y) being smitten by God with a fever for seven years of his reign while his son Belshazzar was regent.

However, It is important to note that the name given to Daniel upon his arrival in Babylon was Belteshazzar, not Belshazzar, and that the end of the reign of Belshazzar the king, and the end of the Chaldean kingdom, is accurately described by the book of Daniel in chapter 5. The existence of the name of Belshazzar as a person who is clearly distinct from Belteshazzar (Daniel) within the pages of the same text which describes Nebuchadnezzar and so many other Chaldean rulers in their proper chronology casts some doubt on this theory.
The Book of Jeremiah contains a prophecy about the arising of a "destroyer of nations", commonly regarded as a reference to Nebuchadnezzar (Jer. 4:7), as well as an account of Nebuchadnezzar's siege of Jerusalem and looting and destruction of the temple (Jer. 52)."

[pokervintage]

[ QUOTE ]
commonly regarded as a reference to

[/ QUOTE ]

You went through a long diatribe only to arrive at the Religious persons most used statement of proof....commonly regarded as...

Sad.

pokervintage

[Splendour]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
commonly regarded as a reference to

[/ QUOTE ]

You went through a long diatribe only to arrive at the Religious persons most used statement of proof....commonly regarded as...

Sad.

pokervintage

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. You have some problem with the wikipedia quote? I didn't make a diatribe, it was an excerpt showing some historical substantiation for Nebuchadnezzar II's porphyria.

[pokervintage]

[ QUOTE ]
it was an excerpt showing some historical substantiation for Nebuchadnezzar II's porphyria.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I apologize, you are correct my problem is not with you but with the Wikepedia reference you used and the use of this type of "proof" to substantiate religious beliefs. It is the same method used to show that Nostradamus could predict the future.

pokervintage

[madnak]

But don't you agree that the nation of Israel proves Christianity is true? I have some links you might find interesting.

http://www.watch.pair.com/new-jerusalem.html
http://ezinearticles.com/?Bible-Predicts-Middle-East-Blood-Flow&amp;id=779274
http://www.godschosen.com/templeprophecy.htm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masturbation)
http://www.vhawknational.net/nevermindthesoup/goredskins.html (http://www.johntitor.com/)
http://jhopkinsseminary.edu/~psv/org/clm/the_temple_and_satans_folly.php (http://www.leftbehind.com/)
http://www.religioustolerance.org/inerrant.htm (http://pbfcomics.com/)

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
http://www.watch.pair.com/new-jerusalem.html
http://ezinearticles.com/?Bible-Predicts-Middle-East-Blood-Flow&amp;id=779274
http://www.godschosen.com/templeprophecy.htm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masturbation)
http://www.vhawknational.net/nevermindthesoup/goredskins.html (http://www.johntitor.com/)
http://jhopkinsseminary.edu/~psv/org/clm/the_temple_and_satans_folly.php (http://www.leftbehind.com/)
http://www.religioustolerance.org/inerrant.htm (http://pbfcomics.com/)

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[Splendour]

[ QUOTE ]
But don't you agree that the nation of Israel proves Christianity is true? I have some links you might find interesting.

http://www.watch.pair.com/new-jerusalem.html
http://ezinearticles.com/?Bible-Predicts-Middle-East-Blood-Flow&amp;id=779274
http://www.godschosen.com/templeprophecy.htm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masturbation)
http://www.vhawknational.net/nevermindthesoup/goredskins.html (http://www.johntitor.com/)
http://jhopkinsseminary.edu/~psv/org/clm/the_temple_and_satans_folly.php (http://www.leftbehind.com/)
http://www.religioustolerance.org/inerrant.htm (http://pbfcomics.com/)

[/ QUOTE ]


Take 2 aspirin. You'll feel better in the morning.

[Subfallen]

Lol, someone took the "Methods" section on that Masturbation wiki very seriously. I'm surprised it doesn't have a "May Contain Original Research or Unverified Claims" tag. /images/graemlins/smile.gif