Restating My "Religion Does Good" Post More Explicitly

[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.