God and social dysfunction

[firstfloor]

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]

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

In the 2005 paper, 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]

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]

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]

Only because Gregory Paul evaluates the 'First World' countries within a recent time period
In the 2005 paper, 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]

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]

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]

"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.”

[JonathanL]

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.

[Outis]

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]

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]

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]

If you consider slavery or debtors prison a "welfare state"

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]

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]

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.