PDA

View Full Version : God and social dysfunction



firstfloor
02-10-2014, 03:51 AM
I have just been listening to a fascinating talk by Jerry Coyne on ‘Why Evolution is True’ (AAI 2009). At the end of the talk he refers to research by Gregory S. Paul on the correlation between belief in God and social dysfunction. In his talk he explains that religious people will reject scientific facts if they conflict with their religious views. Consequently, it is not possible to educate religious people in evolution simply by explaining the science even if the science is unimpeachable.

G. S. Paul’s research shows a strong correlation between belief in God and social dysfunction. Coyne thinks that in societies that look after their citizens, the citizens feel secure and therefore feel less need to look to God to solve their problems.

In my view this points to one of the fundamental problems in Christianity in that it looks for supernatural solutions to natural problems instead of understanding what it means to be like a god – Genesis 3:22 - And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, ….
The solution is in our own hands – love one another.

seasanctuary
02-10-2014, 04:13 AM
Consequently, it is not possible to educate religious people in evolution simply by explaining the science even if the science is unimpeachable.

That sounds remarkably like the Calvinist apologists who claim the intellectual case for Christianity is completely compelling, and that people who hear it and don't agree are mentally handicapped.

In both cases, it's an easy claim to make when frustrated and comes off as immature.

firstfloor
02-10-2014, 05:01 AM
That sounds remarkably like the Calvinist apologists who claim the intellectual case for Christianity is completely compelling, and that people who hear it and don't agree are mentally handicapped.
In both cases, it's an easy claim to make when frustrated and comes off as immature.
These are not even slightly similar. Supernatural philosophies are evidence free. But the point of the post was to consider the link between God and social dysfunction. The rejection of scientific facts by creationists is perhaps a symptom of an underlying cultural malaise.

MaxVel
02-10-2014, 05:45 AM
I have just been listening to a fascinating talk by Jerry Coyne on ‘Why Evolution is True’ (AAI 2009). At the end of the talk he refers to research by Gregory S. Paul on the correlation between belief in God and social dysfunction. In his talk he explains that religious people will reject scientific facts if they conflict with their religious views. Consequently, it is not possible to educate religious people in evolution simply by explaining the science even if the science is unimpeachable.


Sounds like Coyne has insulated himself from the possibility that his arguments (and possibly his 'facts') aren't as good as he might think: if religious people aren't persuaded, it's because they're socially dysfunctional (not because he's wrong about anything). :whistle:



G. S. Paul’s research shows a strong correlation between belief in God and social dysfunction. Coyne thinks that in societies that look after their citizens, the citizens feel secure and therefore feel less need to look to God to solve their problems.

In my view this points to one of the fundamental problems in Christianity in that it looks for supernatural solutions to natural problems instead of understanding what it means to be like a god – Genesis 3:22 - And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, ….
The solution is in our own hands – love one another.


Good luck with that. History shows us that people aren't very good at doing that on their own.

robrecht
02-10-2014, 06:01 AM
I have just been listening to a fascinating talk by Jerry Coyne on ‘Why Evolution is True’ (AAI 2009). At the end of the talk he refers to research by Gregory S. Paul on the correlation between belief in God and social dysfunction. In his talk he explains that religious people will reject scientific facts if they conflict with their religious views. Consequently, it is not possible to educate religious people in evolution simply by explaining the science even if the science is unimpeachable.

G. S. Paul’s research shows a strong correlation between belief in God and social dysfunction. Coyne thinks that in societies that look after their citizens, the citizens feel secure and therefore feel less need to look to God to solve their problems.

In my view this points to one of the fundamental problems in Christianity in that it looks for supernatural solutions to natural problems instead of understanding what it means to be like a god – Genesis 3:22 - And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, ….
The solution is in our own hands – love one another.Very interesting ideas. I'd say a fundamental problem in some Christianities, but certainly not all.

Darth Executor
02-10-2014, 06:19 AM
I have just been listening to a fascinating talk by Jerry Coyne on ‘Why Evolution is True’ (AAI 2009). At the end of the talk he refers to research by Gregory S. Paul on the correlation between belief in God and social dysfunction. In his talk he explains that religious people will reject scientific facts if they conflict with their religious views. Consequently, it is not possible to educate religious people in evolution simply by explaining the science even if the science is unimpeachable.

G. S. Paul’s research shows a strong correlation between belief in God and social dysfunction. Coyne thinks that in societies that look after their citizens, the citizens feel secure and therefore feel less need to look to God to solve their problems.

In my view this points to one of the fundamental problems in Christianity in that it looks for supernatural solutions to natural problems instead of understanding what it means to be like a god – Genesis 3:22 - And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, ….
The solution is in our own hands – love one another.

At its peak the British Empire was spread across the entire world. It was also religious. Today? Cameron is begging Scotland not to leave. Atheism (or more specifically, the general crop of Enderpment philosophies) destroyed the West's true potential. Atheism and other liberal religions (but I repeat myself) are dysgenic.

http://www.scilogs.eu/en/gallery/3/USReligionsTFR2003.JPG

It is the cycle of civilization. prosperity -> decadence and hedonism -> collapse

firstfloor
02-10-2014, 06:26 AM
Very interesting ideas. I'd say a fundamental problem in some Christianities, but certainly not all.
True. This is Gregory Paul on the successful society scale (the USA is currently at the wrong end):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wh9_GbrLQ18

seer
02-10-2014, 07:14 AM
True. This is Gregory Paul on the successful society scale (the USA is currently at the wrong end):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wh9_GbrLQ18


Of course I suspect that the "society scale" has some rather arbitrary criterion. And yes, as we become less Christian I suspect that we will become worse.

firstfloor
02-10-2014, 07:30 AM
Of course I suspect that the "society scale" has some rather arbitrary criterion. And yes, as we become less Christian I suspect that we will become worse.
Actually, according to Gregory Paul, the opposite is true. The successful societies are less religious.

Doug Shaver
02-10-2014, 08:05 AM
(the USA is currently at the wrong end)
Some people's ideologies commit them to that sort of outcome.

Outis
02-10-2014, 08:13 AM
These are not even slightly similar. Supernatural philosophies are evidence free.

A rephrase of your previous post: "In his talk he explains that secular people will reject spiritual truth if they conflict with their secular views. Consequently, it is not possible to educate secular people in religion simply by explaining the religious truth even if the religious truth is unimpeachable."

I would say that Seasanctuary's analysis is correct. You value evidence above faith. Others value faith above evidence. If faith is a better method for understanding truth (a position I do not hold, but acknowledge that some do), then yes, the parallel between your statement and Calvinist thought is completely obvious.

firstfloor
02-10-2014, 08:45 AM
A rephrase of your previous post: "In his talk he explains that secular people will reject spiritual truth if they conflict with their secular views. Consequently, it is not possible to educate secular people in religion simply by explaining the religious truth even if the religious truth is unimpeachable."
I would say that Seasanctuary's analysis is correct. You value evidence above faith. Others value faith above evidence. If faith is a better method for understanding truth (a position I do not hold, but acknowledge that some do), then yes, the parallel between your statement and Calvinist thought is completely obvious.
These things are not symmetrical because we are real creatures living in a real world. Real evidence is all we have to work with. The supernatural realm is entirely hidden and therefore supernatural truths are also hidden. You might imagine what they are but you are forced to describe them inadequately from a natural perspective. They cannot ever be demonstrated unless you live in the spirit world – we do not.

Faith is not equivalent to evidence because of where we are.

Outis
02-10-2014, 08:58 AM
Faith is not equivalent to evidence because of where we are.

To you, it is not. To those who believe, faith is indeed equivalent if not superior. The preference for one over the other may be a choice, or may be an outgrowth of personality, but that preference says far more about the person who holds the preference than it does about any objective truth.

seer
02-10-2014, 09:14 AM
Actually, according to Gregory Paul, the opposite is true. The successful societies are less religious.

You mean like North Korea? Cuba? Former Soviet Union, Communist China?

firstfloor
02-10-2014, 09:29 AM
You mean like North Korea? Cuba? Former Soviet Union, Communist China?
No, the more secular countries would include Canada, Australia, Japan, UK, France, Sweden, Denmark and Norway. A few others perhaps as well.

firstfloor
02-10-2014, 09:35 AM
To you, it is not. To those who believe, faith is indeed equivalent if not superior. The preference for one over the other may be a choice, or may be an outgrowth of personality, but that preference says far more about the person who holds the preference than it does about any objective truth.
That is one problem to which we seek a solution. I suggest that these studies show that the solution is not yet more religion, but welfare and good early education. In other words, it’s the religious faith that’s dragging you down.

Paprika
02-10-2014, 09:47 AM
No, the more secular countries would include Canada, Australia, Japan, UK, France, Sweden, Denmark and Norway. A few others perhaps as well.
Only because Gregory Paul evaluates the 'First World' countries within a recent time period :ahem:

In the 2005 paper (http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.pdf), Paul uses as measures of social dysfunction the following metrics: homicide rate, suicides rates of youths aged 15-24, child mortality, life expectancy, abortion rate and birth rate by mothers aged 15-19, and the incidences of gonorrhea and syphilis within the the total population and the population aged 15-19. I leave it to the reader to decide whether these accurately reflect social dysfunction.

Outis
02-10-2014, 09:57 AM
That is one problem to which we seek a solution. I suggest that these studies show that the solution is not yet more religion, but welfare and good early education. In other words, it’s the religious faith that’s dragging you down.

You seem to be front-loading your conclusion into your argument. (You also seem to be assuming that I am religious. I am not.)

So far, you are demonstrating a correlation based on a selective application of data. You have not, however, indicated causation, or even suggested that a definite causative relationship exists. Show me a causative relationship and we have something to talk about.

seer
02-10-2014, 09:58 AM
No, the more secular countries would include Canada, Australia, Japan, UK, France, Sweden, Denmark and Norway. A few others perhaps as well.

First, except for Japan these countries were largely Christian until mid century last. So they are still living off of Christian capitol - see what they are like 60 years from now. All these countries, including the US, are, more and more, controlling of their populations. Second, you don't get to dismiss countries like North Korea, Cuba, former Soviet Union, Communist China, et al... For these countries were the most secular - they did the most to purge religion from their culture.

firstfloor
02-10-2014, 09:59 AM
Only because Gregory Paul evaluates the 'First World' countries within a recent time period :ahem:
In the 2005 paper (http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.pdf), Paul uses as measures of social dysfunction the following metrics: homicide rate, suicides rates of youths aged 15-24, child mortality, life expectancy, abortion rate and birth rate by mothers aged 15-19, and the incidences of gonorrhea and syphilis within the the total population and the population aged 15-19. I leave it to the reader to decide whether these accurately reflect social dysfunction.
It seems very odd to an outsider like me that the party of God in the US (GOP) is against welfare and public health provision given that it professes Christian values like “love thy neighbour”. It comes over more as every man for himself. But, yes, Paul is looking at recent experience in modern industrialised countries – the direction of travel and the link between welfare and religiosity. It suggests that people look to God for help when they are NOT getting help form their own community.

Paprika
02-10-2014, 10:16 AM
But, yes, Paul is looking at recent experience in modern industrialised countries – the direction of travel and the link between welfare and religiosity. It suggests that people look to God for help when they are NOT getting help form their own community.
Unfortunately for you, in that paper Paul doesn't even examine welfare by government.

I do wonder if the correlation found in the paper means anything. Let us assume, for the sake of argument that the metrics used are sufficient to determine social welfare. Given the diverse groups the USA, is it at all appropriate to use national measurements to speak of certain subsets - in this case, the religious groups? That is, it could be that certain non-religious groups are contributing most of the measured dysfunction. Also, why are confounding factors not taken into account at all?

Outis
02-10-2014, 10:20 AM
It seems very odd to an outsider like me that the party of God in the US (GOP) is against welfare and public health provision given that it professes Christian values like “love thy neighbour”.

"Love thy neighbor" has become ambiguous due to re-definition within some Christian groups. Some Christian groups have used the argument to the effect that "It's not love to feed someone who is hungry and has no food, because they will become moochers." When dealing with self-identified Christians, a direct reference to Matthew 25:31-46 more clearly illustrates your point.

Sparko
02-10-2014, 10:31 AM
"Love thy neighbor" has become ambiguous due to re-definition within some Christian groups. Some Christian groups have used the argument to the effect that "It's not love to feed someone who is hungry and has no food, because they will become moochers." When dealing with self-identified Christians, a direct reference to Matthew 25:31-46 more clearly illustrates your point.

1. Charity is supposed to come from the individual and is voluntarily given. NOTHING in the bible says anything about approving of the government taking a person's money and distributing it to others as they see fit.

2. The bible teaches that we should help those that NEED help. Not those who are just lazy.

2 Thessalonians 3:10 For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.”

Chrawnus
02-10-2014, 10:45 AM
1. Charity is supposed to come from the individual and is voluntarily given. NOTHING in the bible says anything about approving of the government taking a person's money and distributing it to others as they see fit.

2. The bible teaches that we should help those that NEED help. Not those who are just lazy.

2 Thessalonians 3:10 For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.”

I agree with your first point, but I hardly see how 2 Thessalonians 3:10, which is about inhouse matters in the church has any bearing on this matter. Paul is talking about brothers (i.e fellow christians) who are unwilling to work, not those who are unwilling to work in general. Not that this does not imply that a Christian is obligated to support someone who sits on his ass all day long and does nothing, but I don't think 2 Thessalonians 3:10 can be used to support the notion that such persons should not be supported, unless those persons are Christians. :shrug:

Outis
02-10-2014, 10:52 AM
1. Charity is supposed to come from the individual and is voluntarily given. NOTHING in the bible says anything about approving of the government taking a person's money and distributing it to others as they see fit.

Romans 13:1-7, explicitly commands that Christians pay taxes. THis passage is especially relevant: "This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor."

And should you protest that the taxes are going to "non-Christian purposes," remember at the time Paul wrote this Roman taxes went to support (among other things) gladiatorial games, the "corn dole" in Rome, various pagan temples, and the Roman "military-industrial complex" as a whole.


2. The bible teaches that we should help those that NEED help. Not those who are just lazy.

2 Thessalonians 3:10 For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.”

You will note that the passage in 2 Thess is referring to the communal Christian meal, not to tax money. I quite agree that the government should not support those who simply do not wish to work, but I also know many people who cannot work, but are being held up as examples of "lazy takers."

Do you actually know the circumstances of each and every person who recently received cuts to their food stamps? How many of them are "lazy," and how many of them are unable? When you can answer that question, not only will your argument be justified, but you will have the perfect opportunity to take a worthwhile government job preventing food stamp fraud and waste.

Sparko
02-10-2014, 11:43 AM
Romans 13:1-7, explicitly commands that Christians pay taxes. THis passage is especially relevant: "This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor."

Yes, we are to pay taxes, and we don't have control how the government spends the money. But that is a far cry from condoning a welfare state and taking money from one person's wallet to line someone elses. Sure a government can do that, but you were talking about some discrepency with Christians wanting to help others who are hungry. I am saying that we ARE supposed to help those who need the help, but how does that count as charity if we don't do it voluntarily and have no say so in how the money (taxes) are distributed? That isn't charity, that is stealing by the government.



And should you protest that the taxes are going to "non-Christian purposes," remember at the time Paul wrote this Roman taxes went to support (among other things) gladiatorial games, the "corn dole" in Rome, various pagan temples, and the Roman "military-industrial complex" as a whole.



You will note that the passage in 2 Thess is referring to the communal Christian meal, not to tax money. I quite agree that the government should not support those who simply do not wish to work, but I also know many people who cannot work, but are being held up as examples of "lazy takers."

Do you actually know the circumstances of each and every person who recently received cuts to their food stamps? How many of them are "lazy," and how many of them are unable? When you can answer that question, not only will your argument be justified, but you will have the perfect opportunity to take a worthwhile government job preventing food stamp fraud and waste.

1. 2 Thessalonians 3 is Paul talking to believers about working and not being lazy and that those who don't work but could, should not be given food. It doesn't speak about the "communal christian meal" - it talks about idleness. And if we are to hold ourselves to such a standard, then we should do the same with unbelievers. If it is wrong to reward idleness among believers then it durn sure is wrong to reward it among unbelievers.

And I used the verse in response to your post saying


"Love thy neighbor" has become ambiguous due to re-definition within some Christian groups. Some Christian groups have used the argument to the effect that "It's not love to feed someone who is hungry and has no food, because they will become moochers."

Showing that Christians don't have the obligation to support the lazy. We have the obligation to help those who need help. And we are further supposed to use our wealth wisely and not squander it. Letting the government take our money to "help" others is very inefficient, and it tends to promote idleness among some people who would rather have a welfare check each month than to work. All of them? no. But it would be much more efficient to help the people directly through a charity or church. It is more efficient, more effective, and tends to weed out a lot of the idle who just don't want to work but can. Rather than just handing out a check each month, the people have to deal directly with the charity or church and that means directly with people who can check up on them to see if they are able to work or not. The government doesn't check on them, it just sends out money as long as the paperwork is in order. It's a big bureaucracy.

Outis
02-10-2014, 01:18 PM
But that is a far cry from condoning a welfare state and taking money from one person's wallet to line someone elses.

And do you somehow think Paul did not live in a "welfare state"? He still said obey. Condoning or not condoning is your own issue.


I am saying that we ARE supposed to help those who need the help, but how does that count as charity if we don't do it voluntarily and have no say so in how the money (taxes) are distributed? That isn't charity, that is stealing by the government.

If it is theft, it is theft that Paul tells you to comply with. Paul, however, seemingly did not think it theft. Are you wiser than he?


1. 2 Thessalonians 3 is Paul talking to believers about working and not being lazy and that those who don't work but could, should not be given food.

Excuse me, you are correct. There are other passages that speak of the communal meal, this is not one of them.

However, this specifically speaks of what the Church does. It says nothing to what the state does. Again, considering that Paul did not criticize the State (one that was deeply involved in several behaviors that are contrary to Christian ethics), one wonders if modern Christians feel themselves wiser than he?


Showing that Christians don't have the obligation to support the lazy. We have the obligation to help those who need help. And we are further supposed to use our wealth wisely and not squander it. Letting the government take our money to "help" others is very inefficient, and it tends to promote idleness among some people who would rather have a welfare check each month than to work. All of them? no. But it would be much more efficient to help the people directly through a charity or church. It is more efficient, more effective, and tends to weed out a lot of the idle who just don't want to work but can. Rather than just handing out a check each month, the people have to deal directly with the charity or church and that means directly with people who can check up on them to see if they are able to work or not. The government doesn't check on them, it just sends out money as long as the paperwork is in order. It's a big bureaucracy.

Ah, so you must be wiser than Paul, who did not criticize the state for the corn dole, even though it was given to all who came, whether or not they worked. The Romans didn't even check paperwork. BUt you go right ahead and do what Paul never did.

Sparko
02-10-2014, 01:24 PM
If you consider slavery or debtors prison a "welfare state" :ahem:

No. Rome was not a welfare state (although it might have became one as time went on) and neither was Judaism. You worked for what you got, or you sold yourself into slavery, or were jailed for your debt.

Jedidiah
02-10-2014, 02:03 PM
In my view this points to one of the fundamental problems in Christianity in that it looks for supernatural solutions to natural problems . . .

What natural problems are you referring to? Evolution is the main one I presume. But it is not truly a natural problem. Science presents us a a mass of evidence. Our mission, should we choose to accept it, is to explain this evidence. In the case of evolution most scientists have automatically eliminated any but "natural" explanations. I certainly accept the existence of the evidence, but reject the idea that we can only look at purely natural explanations.

The entire approach of the article has the same problem. It accepts certain givens that are not in fact demonstrable.

lilpixieofterror
02-10-2014, 05:17 PM
I have just been listening to a fascinating talk by Jerry Coyne on ‘Why Evolution is True’ (AAI 2009). At the end of the talk he refers to research by Gregory S. Paul on the correlation between belief in God and social dysfunction. In his talk he explains that religious people will reject scientific facts if they conflict with their religious views. Consequently, it is not possible to educate religious people in evolution simply by explaining the science even if the science is unimpeachable.

G. S. Paul’s research shows a strong correlation between belief in God and social dysfunction. Coyne thinks that in societies that look after their citizens, the citizens feel secure and therefore feel less need to look to God to solve their problems.

In my view this points to one of the fundamental problems in Christianity in that it looks for supernatural solutions to natural problems instead of understanding what it means to be like a god – Genesis 3:22 - And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, ….
The solution is in our own hands – love one another.

I do love fundy atheist who make claims and then look for evidence to back up these claims, much as they accuse YEC's of doing. So do tell FF, what sort of objective measurement was used to determine that Christians were 'socially dysfunctional' because you know the funny thing is? History records Christians looking for plenty of natural solutions for natural problems. What does Newton, Galileo, and Bacon not count because it goes against your precious belief and thus must be ignored? I look forward to seeing your objective measurement without a bunch of bald assertions being used as arguments.

lilpixieofterror
02-10-2014, 05:21 PM
No, the more secular countries would include Canada, Australia, Japan, UK, France, Sweden, Denmark and Norway. A few others perhaps as well.

Fundy atheist are so amusing when they make bald assertions they can't back up. Do tell FF, where are these objective measurements you're getting that these more secular countries are 'better'? Where do these measurements come from and how do you measure them?

lilpixieofterror
02-10-2014, 05:27 PM
First, except for Japan these countries were largely Christian until mid century last. So they are still living off of Christian capitol - see what they are like 60 years from now. All these countries, including the US, are, more and more, controlling of their populations. Second, you don't get to dismiss countries like North Korea, Cuba, former Soviet Union, Communist China, et al... For these countries were the most secular - they did the most to purge religion from their culture.

What is rather embarrassing for the fundy atheist is that the report most of them tend to use (the Human Development Index) ranks all of these countries in the top anyway. In fact, the US has moved up to number 3 for the newest list and the difference between Norway and the US, as of now is .955 to .937. That's right, FF is getting himself all worked up over the difference between an A and an A-. How embarrassing for the fundy atheist to be using such subjective measurements to make themselves feel superior.

lilpixieofterror
02-10-2014, 05:31 PM
It seems very odd to an outsider like me that the party of God in the US (GOP) is against welfare and public health provision given that it professes Christian values like “love thy neighbour”. It comes over more as every man for himself. But, yes, Paul is looking at recent experience in modern industrialised countries – the direction of travel and the link between welfare and religiosity. It suggests that people look to God for help when they are NOT getting help form their own community.

In other words, he is using a subjective measurement, that has no inherent value in reality and is just somebodies made up argument to make themselves feel superior. Tell me FF, have you read the Bible? Mine says that those who don't work, don't eat. I have no problem for providing for those who have fallen on hard times (my church has a fund for that), but there's a difference between helping those on hard times and handing them a bunch of free stuff. I've known those on welfare FF, do they really need food stamps for 3 people that equals a greater value then the amount of money that my family spends, per month for food, in food stamps?

lilpixieofterror
02-10-2014, 05:33 PM
"Love thy neighbor" has become ambiguous due to re-definition within some Christian groups. Some Christian groups have used the argument to the effect that "It's not love to feed someone who is hungry and has no food, because they will become moochers." When dealing with self-identified Christians, a direct reference to Matthew 25:31-46 more clearly illustrates your point.

So does a family of 3, need more money in food stamps then my family spends per month Outis? I love helping those who need the help, I don't love helping those who just want others to provide for them.

Outis
02-10-2014, 05:39 PM
So does a family of 3, need more money in food stamps then my family spends per month Outis?

If you can do so without violating your privacy, how do your grocery expenses per month compare to food stamp award in your state for a family of three? DOllar amounts would be nice, but I can understand that you may not wish to divulge that.

lilpixieofterror
02-10-2014, 05:42 PM
If you can do so without violating your privacy, how do your grocery expenses per month compare to food stamp award in your state for a family of three? DOllar amounts would be nice, but I can understand that you may not wish to divulge that.

I'm not giving away all the details Outis because I don't believe it is that important. It is an observation I made and one I tend to find quite a bit. I've known plenty of people on food stamps who use them to get other people stuff. You might say, why don't I report it. Well... How do I go about and prove, to the standards of law, that a gallon of milk, bread, etc was not actually used by the person(s) in question and was instead given to somebody else?

Outis
02-10-2014, 05:47 PM
I'm not giving away all the details Outis because I don't believe it is that important. It is an observation I made and one I tend to find quite a bit.

Then your question becomes moot.


I've known plenty of people on food stamps who use them to get other people stuff. You might say, why don't I report it. Well... How do I go about and prove, to the standards of law, that a gallon of milk, bread, etc was not actually used by the person(s) in question and was instead given to somebody else?

I've seen the same. For a family of three, maximum benefit is $497. That means each person must be fed (for a thirty-day month) on $5.52 per day. Could you feed your family on that?

lilpixieofterror
02-10-2014, 05:53 PM
Then your question becomes moot.

I'm not here to convince you of anything Outis.


I've seen the same. For a family of three, maximum benefit is $497. That means each person must be fed (for a thirty-day month) on $5.52 per day. Could you feed your family on that?

Going out no you can't. Buying frozen TV dinners or pre-made stuff, you really can't. Making things in the kitchen and shopping wisely, you can do it and do it rather well. You'll be amazed at how well you could do by reusing left overs and mixing and matching things together. I'd also point out that some of these people are also getting help from their family and friends too, so not only are they being given help by the state, but they are also given help by their parents, friends, family, etc too.

Outis
02-10-2014, 06:00 PM
I'm not here to convince you of anything Outis.

Good to know.

lilpixieofterror
02-10-2014, 06:01 PM
Good to know.

Glad you see it because I really don't care if you believe me or not. I've watched it happen before and you seem to also forget something else... what if they are getting help from their parents, friends, or family as well?

Tassman
02-10-2014, 09:15 PM
Actually, according to Gregory Paul, the opposite is true. The successful societies are less religious.

Certainly the 'Zuckerman Contemporary Rates and Patterns of Atheism' survey (in The Cambridge Companion to Atheism), in correlation with the United Nations 'Human Development Index' reveals a definite trend (with some interesting anomalies) that the most highly developed nations tend to be the least religious. E.g. Norway tops the list as the most highly developed country and also, at 72% Atheist/Agnostic, is 4th on the list of non-religious nations.

AND, the reverse tends to be the case with the Central African Republic, Guinea and Burundi bottoming the 'UN Human Development Index' being extremely religious with no inhabitants listed as “no religion”

Doug Shaver
02-10-2014, 10:57 PM
Supernatural philosophies are evidence free.
You say so. People who believe in the supernatural beg to differ.

firstfloor
02-11-2014, 12:40 AM
I do love fundy atheist who make claims and then look for evidence to back up these claims, much as they accuse YEC's of doing. So do tell FF, what sort of objective measurement was used to determine that Christians were 'socially dysfunctional' because you know the funny thing is? History records Christians looking for plenty of natural solutions for natural problems. What does Newton, Galileo, and Bacon not count because it goes against your precious belief and thus must be ignored? I look forward to seeing your objective measurement without a bunch of bald assertions being used as arguments.
That’s a ‘no ball’ LPOT. I am referring to research carried out by Gregory Paul on the link between religiosity and social dysfunction on the scale of whole countries. Social dysfunction is measured by a range of indicators broadly assessing the sense of security that the citizenry of a particular country has in respect of homes, income, heath, freedom from crime, social inequality, etc.

In Paul’s essay “The Chronic Dependence of Popular Religiosity upon Dysfunctional Psychosociological Conditions” he claims that –
… popular religion is usually a superficial and flexible psychological mechanism for coping with the high levels of stress and anxiety produced by sufficiently dysfunctional social and especially economic environments. Popular nontheism is a similarly casual response to superior conditions.

http://www.gspaulscienceofreligion.com/gsptecharticles.html

firstfloor
02-11-2014, 03:45 AM
You say so. People who believe in the supernatural beg to differ.
They do and they make noises to indicate their difference but there is no substance to it which is why we have ended up with Calvinist Presuppositionalism. They pretend to know something they do not know.

Ecclesiastes 3:18
18 I also said to myself, “As for humans, God tests them so that they may see that they are like the animals. 19 Surely the fate of human beings is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath[c]; humans have no advantage over animals. Everything is meaningless. 20 All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return. 21 Who knows if the human spirit rises upward and if the spirit of the animal goes down into the earth?”

seanD
02-11-2014, 02:40 PM
No, the more secular countries would include Canada, Australia, Japan, UK, France, Sweden, Denmark and Norway. A few others perhaps as well.

What constitutes "social dysfunction" seems entirely subjective. One could easily argue that those countries you referenced are in economic disarray, particularly those of the EU, and/or are extremely populace suppressive (i.e. police states).

Jedidiah
02-11-2014, 04:23 PM
Not so, sean, the definition of social dysfunction is pretty clear. A society is dysfunctional in reverse proportion to the propensity of its people to exhibit any faith in god, especially the true God.

Soyeong
02-11-2014, 05:04 PM
I have just been listening to a fascinating talk by Jerry Coyne on ‘Why Evolution is True’ (AAI 2009). At the end of the talk he refers to research by Gregory S. Paul on the correlation between belief in God and social dysfunction. In his talk he explains that religious people will reject scientific facts if they conflict with their religious views. Consequently, it is not possible to educate religious people in evolution simply by explaining the science even if the science is unimpeachable.

Everyone tends to reject things contrary to their worldviews. There is no need for people accept Evolution in order to be a healthy society.


G. S. Paul’s research shows a strong correlation between belief in God and social dysfunction. Coyne thinks that in societies that look after their citizens, the citizens feel secure and therefore feel less need to look to God to solve their problems.

We owe everything we have to God and when we are successful, it becomes easier to forget God and to try to take credit ourselves. Conversely, when we are on hard times, then it becomes easier to see our need for God, so it is only natural for there to be a correlation.


In my view this points to one of the fundamental problems in Christianity in that it looks for supernatural solutions to natural problems instead of understanding what it means to be like a god – Genesis 3:22 - And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, ….
The solution is in our own hands – love one another.

You say the solution is in our own hands, but then you look to the government to do it for you? That's you're problem right there.


These are not even slightly similar. Supernatural philosophies are evidence free. But the point of the post was to consider the link between God and social dysfunction. The rejection of scientific facts by creationists is perhaps a symptom of an underlying cultural malaise.

If there were no evidence for supernatural philosophies, then there wouldn't be anyone who formed the belief that they were true. You're essentially saying that belief in the supernatural is uncaused because whatever the cause is, it would be evidence for that belief.

shunyadragon
02-11-2014, 05:11 PM
Sounds like Coyne has insulated himself from the possibility that his arguments (and possibly his 'facts') aren't as good as he might think: if religious people aren't persuaded, it's because they're socially dysfunctional (not because he's wrong about anything). :whistle:

I do consider the irrational rejection of science to be at least 'social dysfunction' if not the underlying symptom of a mental illness characterized by inability to relate rationally to reality.

Tassman
02-11-2014, 05:38 PM
What constitutes "social dysfunction" seems entirely subjective. One could easily argue that those countries you referenced are in economic disarray, particularly those of the EU, and/or are extremely populace suppressive (i.e. police states).

Quite the reverse! Australia, Japan, UK, France, Sweden, Denmark and Norway ALL rank highly on the United Nations 'Human Development Index' and subject to strict criteria. The Index measures “… human development by combining indicators of life expectancy, educational attainment and income into a composite human development index…”

http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/hdi

Generally speaking, (although there are interesting exceptions) the more secular countries fare better than the more religious ones with the highly religious countries of the Central African Republic, Guinea and Burundi bottoming the 'UN Human Development Index'.

Outis
02-11-2014, 08:03 PM
Quite the reverse! Australia, Japan, UK, France, Sweden, Denmark and Norway ALL rank highly on the United Nations 'Human Development Index' and subject to strict criteria. The Index measures “… human development by combining indicators of life expectancy, educational attainment and income into a composite human development index…”

http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/hdi

Generally speaking, (although there are interesting exceptions) the more secular countries fare better than the more religious ones with the highly religious countries of the Central African Republic, Guinea and Burundi bottoming the 'UN Human Development Index'.

Again, it must be noted: you are looking at a correlation (one with, as you note, interesting exceptions). What is the causation? I'm not asking for a bare assertion of "religion." Show me a causative mechanism that you can back with evidence.

lilpixieofterror
02-11-2014, 08:13 PM
Certainly the 'Zuckerman Contemporary Rates and Patterns of Atheism' survey (in The Cambridge Companion to Atheism), in correlation with the United Nations 'Human Development Index' reveals a definite trend (with some interesting anomalies) that the most highly developed nations tend to be the least religious. E.g. Norway tops the list as the most highly developed country and also, at 72% Atheist/Agnostic, is 4th on the list of non-religious nations.

AND, the reverse tends to be the case with the Central African Republic, Guinea and Burundi bottoming the 'UN Human Development Index' being extremely religious with no inhabitants listed as “no religion”

Too bad that Tazzy wazzy is ignoring the economic conditions found with those countries. By an large, a country that is economically successful tends to rank far higher then a country that is not. The latest data too shows Norway at number 1 with the US at number 3. The percentage difference is 1.8%. That's right, Tazzy Wazzy is basing 'better' upon a less then 2% difference and he ignores social and economic factors because he doesn't care about the details. He only cares about trying to make religious people look bad.

lilpixieofterror
02-11-2014, 08:15 PM
That’s a ‘no ball’ LPOT. I am referring to research carried out by Gregory Paul on the link between religiosity and social dysfunction on the scale of whole countries. Social dysfunction is measured by a range of indicators broadly assessing the sense of security that the citizenry of a particular country has in respect of homes, income, heath, freedom from crime, social inequality, etc.

In Paul’s essay “The Chronic Dependence of Popular Religiosity upon Dysfunctional Psychosociological Conditions” he claims that –
… popular religion is usually a superficial and flexible psychological mechanism for coping with the high levels of stress and anxiety produced by sufficiently dysfunctional social and especially economic environments. Popular nontheism is a similarly casual response to superior conditions.

http://www.gspaulscienceofreligion.com/gsptecharticles.html

Just as I suspected there FF, an attack upon strawmen arguments where the fundy atheist only attacks one position, attacks a bunch of assumptions, and makes up things as he goes along because he has an agenda to press and doesn't care about details. Tell me FF, do you agree that you are an atheist because of a bad relationship with your father? After all, a psychologist wrote a book (http://www.amazon.com/Faith-Fatherless-The-Psychology-Atheism/dp/1890626252) on it, so it must be true, correct?

lilpixieofterror
02-11-2014, 08:19 PM
Quite the reverse! Australia, Japan, UK, France, Sweden, Denmark and Norway ALL rank highly on the United Nations 'Human Development Index' and subject to strict criteria. The Index measures “… human development by combining indicators of life expectancy, educational attainment and income into a composite human development index…”

http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/hdi

Generally speaking, (although there are interesting exceptions) the more secular countries fare better than the more religious ones with the highly religious countries of the Central African Republic, Guinea and Burundi bottoming the 'UN Human Development Index'.

Psst, and the US ranks highly too and you seem to miss the reality that all of those countries that rank lower tend to have problems with economics, show that more factors seem to work into it then "they are religious, they must be terrible!".

seanD
02-11-2014, 08:38 PM
Quite the reverse! Australia, Japan, UK, France, Sweden, Denmark and Norway ALL rank highly on the United Nations 'Human Development Index' and subject to strict criteria. The Index measures “… human development by combining indicators of life expectancy, educational attainment and income into a composite human development index…”

http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/hdi

Generally speaking, (although there are interesting exceptions) the more secular countries fare better than the more religious ones with the highly religious countries of the Central African Republic, Guinea and Burundi bottoming the 'UN Human Development Index'.

Being that the US, which you have insisted is a Christian nation in the past, is top of the food chain, a counter argument could easily point out that many of those countries have been subjected to other more power countries as a result of their rich natural resources; some have been subjected to external conquest over many centuries. History indeed shows this. Note, lest you veer this off topic, I myself don't think there's any correlation with religious or nonreligious countries one way or the other (what constitutes a religious government in and of itself is debatable and subjective). I just think the OP's argument is easily refutable.

Tassman
02-11-2014, 09:00 PM
Again, it must be noted: you are looking at a correlation (one with, as you note, interesting exceptions). What is the causation? I'm not asking for a bare assertion of "religion." Show me a causative mechanism that you can back with evidence.

The evidence is provided by the statistics. It is an interesting correlation that the nations which rank highest on United Nations 'Human Development Index' also tend to be the more secular ones according to Adherents.com. AND that the nations which rank lowest tend to be the more religious ones. And the same correlation can be found between the religiosity of the 50 US states and their ranking on the 'Human Development Index', with the same negative relationship between well-being and religiosity as in the different countries.

https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/05/13/the-correlation-between-religiosity-and-well-being-among-u-s-states/

Why is this? It is a reasonable assumption that the longer life expectancy, higher educational levels and higher overall incomes etc (which is what the UN Index measures) - is a major factor. Show me an alternative causative mechanism that you can back with evidence.

Outis
02-11-2014, 09:16 PM
The evidence is provided by the statistics.

The evidence of correlation, yes. But simply citing "religion" does not establish your argument--if it did, the US would not be so anomalously high.

Show me a mechanic that explains both the trend and the anomalies, or you've got nothing.


Show me an alternative causative mechanism that you can back with evidence.

Not how things work, Mr. Tassman. I note the interesting correlation, I have not made a claim that there is any necessary causation. You've made a positive claim. Back it up.

MaxVel
02-11-2014, 09:44 PM
The evidence of correlation, yes. But simply citing "religion" does not establish your argument--if it did, the US would not be so anomalously high.

Show me a mechanic that explains both the trend and the anomalies, or you've got nothing.



Not how things work, Mr. Tassman. I note the interesting correlation, I have not made a claim that there is any necessary causation. You've made a positive claim. Back it up.

Indeed.

Are the countries poor because they are religious, or religious because they're poor?

MaxVel
02-11-2014, 09:49 PM
I do consider the irrational rejection of science to be at least 'social dysfunction' if not the underlying symptom of a mental illness characterized by inability to relate rationally to reality.



I agree, if the particular rejection is in fact irrational.

But that is pretty much what is the issue - is it always irrational for someone to reject a particular scientific theory or a current scientific belief? I suggest that it is not necessarily irrational at all - in fact, that science doesn't develop unless people are willing to reject the current paradigm on all sorts of matters.

Coyne seems to want to privilege his pet ideas from serious examination - people who don't accept them are automatically 'irrational'.

Tassman
02-11-2014, 09:52 PM
The evidence of correlation, yes. But simply citing "religion" does not establish your argument--if it did, the US would not be so anomalously high.

Show me a mechanic that explains both the trend and the anomalies, or you've got nothing.



Not how things work, Mr. Tassman. I note the interesting correlation, I have not made a claim that there is any necessary causation. You've made a positive claim. Back it up.

Nope, I have not made “a positive claim”. I said it is an interesting correlation that the nations which rank highest on United Nations 'Human Development Index' also tend to be the more secular ones according to Adherents.com. AND that the nations which rank lowest tend to be the more religious ones. I also noted that the same correlation tends to exist within the USA and supported this with a link.

I said it is a reasonable assumption (NOT “a positive claim”) that the longer life expectancy, higher educational levels and higher overall incomes etc (which is what the UN Index measures) - is a major factor. Please provide an alternative explanation, which you can back with actual evidence rather than personal opinion.

As for "anomalies" and "trends", ALL "trends" have anomalies and while they must be noted they are usually not sufficient to counter the trend as such. E.g. Vietnam has a very high rate of atheism but ranks low on the HDI Index, whereas the majority of poor countries tend to be more religious.

Outis
02-11-2014, 09:53 PM
Indeed.

Are the countries poor because they are religious, or religious because they're poor?

Or is the correlation simply a coincidence? That's my hypothesis.

Paprika
02-11-2014, 09:55 PM
I do consider the irrational rejection of science to be at least 'social dysfunction' if not the underlying symptom of a mental illness characterized by inability to relate rationally to reality.
Are you saying that accepting scientific prepositions because "scientists say so" is necessarily rational?

Soyeong
02-11-2014, 10:11 PM
I do consider the irrational rejection of science to be at least 'social dysfunction' if not the underlying symptom of a mental illness characterized by inability to relate rationally to reality.
If they had no reason for rejecting science, then it would be irrational. However, they give arguments for their position, so it is rational.

Outis
02-11-2014, 10:21 PM
If they had no reason for rejecting science, then it would be irrational. However, they give arguments for their position, so it is rational.

Arguments can be irrational. I don't believe all of the anti-science arguments given are irrational, but some of them are.

seasanctuary
02-11-2014, 11:15 PM
I do consider the irrational rejection of science to be at least 'social dysfunction' if not the underlying symptom of a mental illness characterized by inability to relate rationally to reality.

Rejection of science can be rational for an individual in an environment where the nature of science is distorted. It's a societal problem, not (usually) a personal dysfunction relating to society. If science were appropriately understood and respected throughout society, then one-off exceptions might very well suggest mental illness...but not with the way things are now.

Soyeong
02-11-2014, 11:43 PM
Arguments can be irrational. I don't believe all of the anti-science arguments given are irrational, but some of them are.

Being rational is having the ability to use reason and being irrational is not having that ability, so someone who is irrational wouldn't even be able to form an argument. I realize that people sometimes say that someone who makes a mistake in their reasoning is being irrational, but I think that is misapplied because they need to have the ability to use reason before they can make a mistake in their reasoning.

Note that people who are against Evolution generally are not anti-science, but are against a particular interpretation of scientific data. Still, if someone can make a mistake in their reasoning against evolution, but you think they are not being irrational, then where do you draw the line between that and that and being irrational? I think it has more to do with your opinion on how strong or weak their argument is than with their use of reason to arrive at their conclusion.

Outis
02-12-2014, 12:11 AM
Being rational is having the ability to use reason and being irrational is not having that ability, so someone who is irrational wouldn't even be able to form an argument. I realize that people sometimes say that someone who makes a mistake in their reasoning is being irrational, but I think that is misapplied because they need to have the ability to use reason before they can make a mistake in their reasoning.

Note that people who are against Evolution generally are not anti-science, but are against a particular interpretation of scientific data. Still, if someone can make a mistake in their reasoning against evolution, but you think they are not being irrational, then where do you draw the line between that and that and being irrational? I think it has more to do with your opinion on how strong or weak their argument is than with their use of reason to arrive at their conclusion.

An interesting viewpoint. I will consider your words.

seanD
02-12-2014, 12:14 AM
Or is the correlation simply a coincidence? That's my hypothesis.

Or are they misinterpreting the data or disregarding other data?

Outis
02-12-2014, 12:17 AM
Or are they misinterpreting the data or disregarding other data?

That expands the question beyond the scope of my hypothesis, but is a reasonable expansion, and would be a good way to test my hypothesis.

seanD
02-12-2014, 12:24 AM
Btw, like I said before, economically, a lot of the countries that have been heralded here as beacons of nonreligious progress are on the brink economic disarray. But I wouldn't readily attribute that to any type of social or cultural belief. For example, just because the European Commission found that the entire EU is corrupt to the core economically or that Japan has been in a recession for more than a decade, I wouldn't readily blame atheism as this might have more to do with a small minority of wealthy oligarchs and decision makers and little to do with the actual populace itself.

Doug Shaver
02-12-2014, 01:05 AM
You say so. People who believe in the supernatural beg to differ.

They do and they make noises to indicate their difference but there is no substance to it
Maybe. Or maybe it depends on how you're defining "evidence." Could you explain what that word means to you?

firstfloor
02-12-2014, 01:08 AM
Tell me FF, do you agree that you are an atheist because of a bad relationship with your father? After all, a psychologist wrote a book (http://www.amazon.com/Faith-Fatherless-The-Psychology-Atheism/dp/1890626252) on it, so it must be true, correct?
Nice one LPOT, that deserves extra points for originality. I shall see what Dr. Vitz has to say for himself and report back.

Tassman
02-12-2014, 02:02 AM
Btw, like I said before, economically, a lot of the countries that have been heralded here as beacons of nonreligious progress are on the brink economic disarray. But I wouldn't readily attribute that to any type of social or cultural belief. For example, just because the European Commission found that the entire EU is corrupt to the core economically or that Japan has been in a recession for more than a decade, I wouldn't readily blame atheism as this might have more to do with a small minority of wealthy oligarchs and decision makers and little to do with the actual populace itself.

We will always have corruption as demonstrated by the US financial crisis of 2007–2008, which resulted in the near total collapse of Wall Street, many US and o'seas financial institutions and the American economy as a whole. But the issue is not solely one of “economic” progress and national wealth. It’s a quality of life thing, not just economics.

firstfloor
02-12-2014, 02:14 AM
Tell me FF, do you agree that you are an atheist because of a bad relationship with your father? After all, a psychologist wrote a book (http://www.amazon.com/Faith-Fatherless-The-Psychology-Atheism/dp/1890626252) on it, so it must be true, correct?
Dr. Paul Vitz: His hypothesis seems to be that people with good fathers are more likely than those with defective fathers to believe in God because God Himself is a father (the sky daddy). A defective father is very broadly defined and includes a father who dies when the child is young. He seems to be focused on particular historical figures that grew up in a world that was mostly religious rather than contemporary general populations.

Why would it not be just as likely that people with defective fathers would look to God to be their substitute father?

He also talks about rejecting God but as we know, most atheists would say that they do not reject God. They just do not believe in things supernatural. It leaves open the question of what we really mean when we say “God”.

firstfloor
02-12-2014, 05:54 AM
Everyone tends to reject things contrary to their worldviews. There is no need for people accept Evolution in order to be a healthy society.
You might as well say that 2 + 2 = whatever suits your particular worldview. The only reason that Evolution remains controversial is because creationists lie about it.


We owe everything we have to God and when we are successful, it becomes easier to forget God and to try to take credit ourselves. Conversely, when we are on hard times, then it becomes easier to see our need for God, so it is only natural for there to be a correlation.
That is the same relationship expressed religiously.


You say the solution is in our own hands, but then you look to the government to do it for you? That's you're problem right there.
We are the government – “… government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” – Lincoln at Gettysburg.


If there were no evidence for supernatural philosophies, then there wouldn't be anyone who formed the belief that they were true. You're essentially saying that belief in the supernatural is uncaused because whatever the cause is, it would be evidence for that belief.
The cause is your limitless imagination.

firstfloor
02-12-2014, 08:23 AM
If all the science books in the world were destroyed and all memory of them expunged, it would still be possible in a few hundred years to recreate everything we currently know about nature. What would be the result if all the Holy Scriptures were similarly lost? Would Christianity re-emerge?

shunyadragon
02-12-2014, 08:34 AM
Are you saying that accepting scientific prepositions because "scientists say so" is necessarily rational?

Scientific prepositions are not believed, because scientists say so. likewise, it is not believed that the astronauts went to the moon because they say so.

Outis
02-12-2014, 08:36 AM
If all the science books in the world were destroyed and all memory of them expunged, it would still be possible in a few hundred years to recreate everything we currently know about nature. What would be the result if all the Holy Scriptures were similarly lost? Would Christianity re-emerge?

If a pig sprouts wings and flies, is it still a pig?

Not only does this statement have nothing whatsoever to do with your opening post, you still have not provided any data or evidence that makes the noted correlation anything more than an interesting coincidence. No cause. No evidence that there are no other factors affecting the correlation. Nothing but correlation and baseless claim.

If this is all you've got, I'd say (even as a non-theist) you don't have much.

Paprika
02-12-2014, 08:37 AM
Scientific prepositions are not believed, because scientists say so. likewise, it is not believed that the astronauts went to the moon because they say so.
Then how is the average layman to know if say evolution is true? Or Heisenberg's uncertainty theorem? Or the content of an C-13 atom?

shunyadragon
02-12-2014, 08:46 AM
I agree, if the particular rejection is in fact irrational.

But that is pretty much what is the issue - is it always irrational for someone to reject a particular scientific theory or a current scientific belief? I suggest that it is not necessarily irrational at all - in fact, that science doesn't develop unless people are willing to reject the current paradigm on all sorts of matters.

Coyne seems to want to privilege his pet ideas from serious examination - people who don't accept them are automatically 'irrational'.

It is, of course, not 'automatically irrational.' Over simplification here without addressing the issue. Current scientific theories are not based on 'scientific belief,' and scientific knowledge is intimately interrelated with the scientific methodology of falsification, and NOT applied to one specific theory, hypothesis or another independently. Change in knowledge is accepted as part of science. The problem is the selective rejection of science based on a presumption of absolute truth of one of the many possible religious belief systems. Those that reject science, and 'cherry pick' what they want to believe or not believe in this way are either extremely dishonest or socially dysfunctional unable to comprehend reality.

Scientists believe in rigorous peer review, challenging existing theories and hypothesis, and willing to reject past paradigms based on sound research, new discoveries, and results based on sound scientific methods of falsification.

Soyeong
02-12-2014, 08:50 AM
You might as well say that 2 + 2 = whatever suits your particular worldview. The only reason that Evolution remains controversial is because creationists lie about it.
The truth of Evolution is not mathematical, but is something that is open to interpretation. People are not lying simply because they interpret evidence differently from you.


That is the same relationship expressed religiously.
Right, so this is akin to noting that there is a correlation between people who have colds and people who take cold medicine and concluding that cold medicine causes colds. You need to show that Christianity is the cause of social dysfunction rather than the cure.


We are the government – “… government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” – Lincoln at Gettysburg.
That doesn't mean we are the government or that the government's role is provide social welfare.


The cause is your limitless imagination.
Give me just one example of someone forming a belief purely because they imagined it to be true, where nothing indicated to them that it was true, and where they thought they had no grounds to believe it to be true.

Outis
02-12-2014, 08:59 AM
The truth of Evolution is not mathematical, but is something that is open to interpretation. People are not lying simply because they interpret evidence differently from you.

One cannot generically accuse people of lying, no--but many who promote alternative "interpretation" most certainly do lie, and have been repeatedly caught at it.

You have a current SC state senator who wants to "Teach the controversy" on evolution. Evidently Sen. Fair either has no familiarity with the results of Kitzmiller v. Dover, or he is (there is no other word for it but dishonestly) continuing the propaganda that evolution is somehow a controversial theory.

I do also need to point out that creationism and ID are not "different interpretations of the evidence." They are flat-out rejections of the evidence.

firstfloor
02-12-2014, 09:08 AM
Not only does this statement have nothing whatsoever to do with your opening post, ...........
‘twas a random thought I wanted to share.

you still have not provided any data or evidence that makes the noted correlation anything more than an interesting coincidence. No cause. No evidence that there are no other factors affecting the correlation. Nothing but correlation and baseless claim.
“Well, I'd like to hold off judgment on a thing like that, sir, until all the facts are in.” - Turgidson

Outis
02-12-2014, 09:10 AM
‘twas a random thought I wanted to share.

“Well, I'd like to hold off judgment on a thing like that, sir, until all the facts are in.” - Turgidson

Your OP, by suggesting that the correlation is causative, has already "passed judgment." While you may seek to avoid having to back your claims, you have already made them.

Soyeong
02-12-2014, 09:24 AM
One cannot generically accuse people of lying, no--but many who promote alternative "interpretation" most certainly do lie, and have been repeatedly caught at it.

You have a current SC state senator who wants to "Teach the controversy" on evolution. Evidently Sen. Fair either has no familiarity with the results of Kitzmiller v. Dover, or he is (there is no other word for it but dishonestly) continuing the propaganda that evolution is somehow a controversial theory.

Of course there are people who have promoted Creationism who have lied, but that's a far different claim than that only reason that Evolution remains controversial is because creationists lie about it. There also a number of instances where Evolutionists have lied to promote their interpretation.


I do also need to point out that creationism and ID are not "different interpretations of the evidence." They are flat-out rejections of the evidence.

For instance, the lost squadron had more layers of ice on top of it than the number of years that they were buried. We have the same evidence, but Creationists interpret this as being because of heating and cooling patterns rather than yearly cycles, so calculations done on other ice cores end up with inflated results if there is a wrong assumption for how long it takes a layer to form.

shunyadragon
02-12-2014, 09:25 AM
Right, so this is akin to noting that there is a correlation between people who have colds and people who take cold medicine and concluding that cold medicine causes colds. You need to show that Christianity is the cause of social dysfunction rather than the cure.

I believe that statistical results, and testimonies of those that actually do reject evolution represent clear correlation to social dysfunction of selectively rejecting science. Approximately 45 to 55% of adults reject evolution based on religious grounds. They are either Christians, Muslims, or Hindus (Hare Krishna). There is no offer of a cure from any of these worldviews.




Give me just one example of someone forming a belief purely because they imagined it to be true, where nothing indicated to them that it was true, and where they thought they had no grounds to believe it to be true.

This is a bit of an unreasonable request, since virtually all those who reject evolution do so based on the grounds that their religious beliefs are true regardless of the evidence.

firstfloor
02-12-2014, 09:27 AM
The truth of Evolution is not mathematical, but is something that is open to interpretation. People are not lying simply because they interpret evidence differently from you.
Creationists deliberately misrepresent the scientific case to their own audience. It is not about interpretation.


You need to show that Christianity is the cause of social dysfunction rather than the cure.
The claim is made about religiosity, not particularly Christianity.


Give me just one example of someone forming a belief purely because they imagined it to be true, where nothing indicated to them that it was true, and where they thought they had no grounds to believe it to be true.
Your imagination is embodied and your body is in the world so it does not ever work entirely by itself. It does however misinterpret the world frequently – optical illusions for example.

Outis
02-12-2014, 09:30 AM
Of course there are people who have promoted Creationism who have lied, but that's a far different claim than that only reason that Evolution remains controversial is because creationists lie about it.

Both statements are true, however. Evolution is only "controversial" in as much as some people lie about it. The facts of evolution are incontrovertible without resorting to dishonesty. The current theory of evolution has controversies regarding specific (and relatively minute) details, but there are no controversies regarding the theory as a whole.


There also a number of instances where Evolutionists have lied to promote their interpretation.

I would challenge you to find one that was not exposed by other scientists. Not creationists, scientists.

Further, I would challenge you to fine one example of a scientist who has lied to promote the theory as a whole, as opposed to a particular detail they wish to present or take credit for.


For instance, the lost squadron had more layers of ice on top of it than the number of years that they were buried.

I would encourage you to start a thread in the Natural Science sub-forum to explore this claim.

Soyeong
02-12-2014, 09:37 AM
The claim is made about religiosity, not particularly Christianity.
I'm fine with the idea that religiosity can meet some of the needs of people, so you still need to show that it is the cause of social dysfunction rather than something that is seeking to fix it.


Your imagination is embodied and your body is in the world so it does not ever work entirely by itself. It does however misinterpret the world frequently – optical illusions for example.

It is necessary to have evidence before you can misinterpret it. Saying that in your opinion people who are followers of supernatural philosophies have misinterpreted evidence is a very different from claiming that that they have no evidence.

firstfloor
02-12-2014, 09:38 AM
Your OP, by suggesting that the correlation is causative, has already "passed judgment." While you may seek to avoid having to back your claims, you have already made them.
I was simply opening for discussion the work of Gregory S. Paul. The data you want is available at his website. http://www.gspaulscienceofreligion.com/

seanD
02-12-2014, 09:39 AM
We will always have corruption as demonstrated by the US financial crisis of 2007–2008, which resulted in the near total collapse of Wall Street, many US and o'seas financial institutions and the American economy as a whole. But the issue is not solely one of “economic” progress and national wealth. It’s a quality of life thing, not just economics.

Progress in national wealth improves quality of life and development. The two are directly related. But my point was that there are many potential nuances that can get lost outside of the data.

shunyadragon
02-12-2014, 09:43 AM
Of course there are people who have promoted Creationism who have lied, but that's a far different claim than that only reason that Evolution remains controversial is because creationists lie about it.

No evolution does not remain controversial among scientists. 98% of ALL scientists accept evolution.


There also a number of instances where Evolutionists have lied to promote their interpretation.

Bizzaro!!! Please document where the science of evolution did not uncover, correct, and reject the scoundrels who perpetrated these lies Scientists have uncovered and correct them, not creationists nor other theists.


For instance, the lost squadron had more layers of ice on top of it than the number of years that they were buried. We have the same evidence, but Creationists interpret this as being because of heating and cooling patterns rather than yearly cycles, so calculations done on other ice cores end up with inflated results if there is a wrong assumption for how long it takes a layer to form.

Ohhhh! This is a very selective dishonest portrayal of the science involved in the study of ice cores. Shame on your for looking for sasquatch in ice cores and rabbits in Cambrian rocks. Did you get this from Ken Ham?

Outis
02-12-2014, 09:43 AM
I was simply opening for discussion the work of Gregory S. Paul. The data you want is available at his website. http://www.gspaulscienceofreligion.com/

Argument by weblink does not advance your claims. Mr. Paul's assertions have repeatedly been argued as questionable by other secular sources.

To put the issue succinctly, "You got nothing."

firstfloor
02-12-2014, 09:55 AM
I'm fine with the idea that religiosity can meet some of the needs of people, so you still need to show that it is the cause of social dysfunction rather than something that is seeking to fix it.
It certainly tries. It fails at what it attempts to do because it is about two thousand years out of date and is painfully slow at adapting to modern sensibilities. It institutionalizes a misdirection of our natural affections – upwards into the sky instead of towards one another.

Soyeong
02-12-2014, 09:58 AM
No evolution does not remain controversial among scientists. 98% of ALL scientists accept evolution.
He didn't claim that the controversy was among scientists.


Bizzaro!!! Please document where the science of evolution did not uncover, correct, and reject the scoundrels who perpetrated these lies Scientists have uncovered and correct them, not creationists nor other theists.

Of course they wouldn't have been known as lies if they hadn't been later corrected. :ahem:


Ohhhh! This is a very selective dishonest portrayal of the science involved in the study of ice cores. Shame on your for looking for sasquatch in ice cores and rabbits in Cambrian rocks.

I was not claiming that ice cores were the only reason to believe Evolution is true, but that it was an example of how Creationists interpret evidence differently. I'm not particularly interested in debating Cambrian rocks, but Creationists likewise interpret that evidence differently.

Soyeong
02-12-2014, 10:00 AM
It certainly tries. It fails at what it attempts to do because it is about two thousand years out of date and is painfully slow at adapting to modern sensibilities. It institutionalizes a misdirection of our natural affections – upwards into the sky instead of towards one another.

Yes, I realize that you're opinion, but you have not shown data to back it.

shunyadragon
02-12-2014, 10:07 AM
He didn't claim that the controversy was among scientists.

That is the only way it is meaningful. The normal functional person generally trust engineers to engineer the planes, buildings and bridges, Doctors to generally trust medical matters, with acceptance of imperfections and problems. The foundation of all these and evolution, is to trust the self correcting nature of science and technology in our everyday life. This is the normal view not withstanding the 'social dysfunction' and paranoia of the mentally ill.


[quote] Of course they wouldn't have been known as lies if they hadn't been later corrected. :ahem:

Then . . . what's the problem? Science is indeed self correcting in all disciplines, as with engineering and medicine in the REAL world of the sane.


I was not claiming that ice cores were the only reason to believe Evolution is true, but that it was an example of how Creationists interpret evidence differently. I'm not particularly interested in debating Cambrian rocks, but Creationists likewise interpret that evidence differently.

The question here is why??? they interpret the evidence differently? Is it rational, sane and coherent, NO! You missed the sarcasm. They interpret the evidence differently in a socially dysfunctional way out of touch with the honesty of uniformly considering the evidence from an unbiased perspective.

Tassman
02-12-2014, 09:51 PM
Progress in national wealth improves quality of life and development. The two are directly related. But my point was that there are many potential nuances that can get lost outside of the data.

It should, morally speaking, but often it doesn't, the US being a case in point.

The U.S. has the worst income inequality in the developed World because of corporate greed and Wall Street corruption.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/15/income-inequality-wall-street_n_3762422.html

And, while this is great for the “haves”, it’s not so good for the “have-nots” and undoubtedly accounts in large part to the US having the highest incarceration rates in the world with the resultant social dysfunction among the poorer classes, which in turn affects society as a whole. The end result is that the ‘inequality-adjusted Human Development Index' placed the richest nation on earth (the USA)16th on the HDI in 2013 and 23rd in 2011. The top five, namely: Norway, Australia, Sweden, Netherlands & Germany are all highly secular nations.

Outis
02-12-2014, 09:54 PM
The U.S. has the worst income inequality in the developed World because of corporate greed and Wall Street corruption.

That's incorrect: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality

Edit: Excuse me, you specified "developed world."

Tassman
02-13-2014, 02:26 AM
That's incorrect: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality

Edit: Excuse me, you specified "developed world."

You clearly didn’t check the link. The actual quote from the Huffington Post”, which I paraphrased, was: “The U.S. Has The Worst Income Inequality In The Developed World, Thanks To Wall Street: Study”. If you object to it, and the contents of the depressingly illuminating article, complain to the Huffington Post.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/15/income-inequality-wall-street_n_3762422.html

The Human Development Index, which I referred to, incorporates factors such as:

1) Life expectancy at birth, as an index of population health and longevity. 2) Knowledge and education, as measured by the adult literacy rate. 3) Standard of living, as indicated by the natural logarithm of gross domestic product per capita at purchasing power parity. The figures on the “Inequality-adjusted Human Development Index” for 2011 and 2013, which I presented, can be found here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index

As noted, the wealthiest nation in the world, i.e. the USA, only ranked 16th on the UN Human Development Index in 2013 and 23rd in 2011.

shunyadragon
03-03-2014, 06:08 AM
We are getting far a field of the problem of social dysfunction and 'ancient religious paradigms.' Yes, cultural dysfunction, economic disparities in our culture and throughout history are real issues, but not related to the thread.

I do believe that the 'social dysfunction' of ancient world views does adversely impact relationships with different religions and cultures, which often leads to violence, and social and cultural isolation. The view of good/evil dualism, ie strongly expressed I the Book of Revelation, leads to this 'social dysfunction' when 'others' are considered evil in one way or another.

The dishonesty of YEC Creationists equates very well with some personality disorders. This cannot be ethically viewed as seeing 'the evidence differently,' because many aspects of the argument for YEC Creationism do reflect outright deliberate dishonesty.

seasanctuary
03-03-2014, 09:32 AM
The dishonesty of YEC Creationists equates very well with some personality disorders. This cannot be ethically viewed as seeing 'the evidence differently,' because many aspects of the argument for YEC Creationism do reflect outright deliberate dishonesty.

Are you referring to just the leaders or also the average YEC taking the word of the leaders? I would agree on the first but not the second.

shunyadragon
03-03-2014, 10:04 AM
Are you referring to just the leaders or also the average YEC taking the word of the leaders? I would agree on the first but not the second.

This is a problem of the sheep and the goats. The goats do lead (there are a whole host of possibilities 'personality disorders from 'Narcissistic leadership, Spiritual narcissism, or Persecutory delusion.) I find evil conspiracy issues, and paranoid views common in Christian fundamentalism. But the sheep indeed chose to follow. If it is not because they have the will to make the choice, then an involuntary 'social dysfunction, personality disorder, metal illness, or some controlling group dynamic, which would make an even worse problem.