Less God, Less Crime?

Reader Rodney Smith does the Lord's work by pointing us to this story about a new study indicating that higher rates of religious belief translate into higher rates of homicide, STD transmission, non-lethal violent crime, and assorted other signs of dysfunction. "As an atheist, I want to buy into this," says godless Rod, "but it smells more than a little funny."

But not too funny for Gregory S. Paul's study in the Journal of Religion and Society to get picked up by Brits, Aussies, Micks, and more Aussies. Could they be responding to Paul's choice for Exhibit A in his catalogue of priest-ridden barbarity—the Good Ol' U.S.A.?

Not that we don't deserve the abuse, but Paul—a freelance paleontologist who has, according to his Wikipedia entry, been described as "a superior artist" even by "one of his scientific enemies, Storrs L. Olson"—is primarily interested in how religious belief correlates with belief in evolution (not too well, as you might imagine). The societal dysfunction stuff is mostly contained in some charts at the end of his study.

I skimmed the complete study with a bias in favor of Paul's religion-is-bad disposition, but was put off by a few too many "surveys showing a strong majority," figures described as "astronomical," and definitive-yet-loosey-goosey constructions like this one:

Higher rates of non-theism and acceptance of human evolution usually correlate with lower rates of dysfunction, and the least theistic nations are usually the least dysfunctional. None of the strongly secularized, pro-evolution democracies is experiencing high levels of measurable dysfunction.

The reference to "House majority leader T. Daley" clinched it for me. Like religion itself, this study fulfills a spiritual need (the need to diagnose Americans as bible-pounding dummies), but delivers a lot less than it promises.

The Revolutionary Worker Online calls God "the original fascist."

Diamond Joe Farah says fooey to this "pseudo-intellectual case"—and he's got the ancient texts to back it up.

Comments

[JMoore]

Looks like scholarship worthy of Michael Bellesiles.

[Jennifer]

I hope Hak somehow overlooks this thread.

[JMoore]

Actually, I take that back. Bellesiles' little effort was hogwash, but at least it did not stink of rotten fish to a casual observer. This work may be 100% spot on, but it smells of ecologically dangerous landfill. It's almost as if the author wants to be discredited.

[Jeff P.]

I agree. While religion is a hinderance to society and progress, this study has a little too much non-linear reasoning to hold water. It reminds me of the minister who put out the study showing how having an abortion upped the chance of breast cancer. The numbers were favorable, but nothing remotely close to a direct corrolation was established.
We can thank the last two generations of university professors for watering down the concepts of scientific method enough so that shoddy logic like this gets noticed at all.
Let's also here it for what passes for news editorial standards, which put controversy and angry reader reaction above the idea of actual news.

[Pat Mathews]

It occurs to me the question is: is there more social dysfunction in religious areas? Or more religion in socially dysfunctional areas? There's an address here in Albuquerque where there are so many people with so many diseases any public health inspector would promptly close the place down as a health hazard --- until he found out it was the UNM Hospital. The analogy, BTW, is probably courtesy of C.S. Lewis.

[Julian Sanchez]

Haven't looked at the study, but surely the most intuitively plausible explanation for a link here has the causation going the other way: Unemployment, low education, and otherwise depressing circumstances prompt people to turn to religion.

[Ruthless]

I'll bet what hasn't been controlled for in the study is the educational/intelligence level.

[Ruthless]

Julian,
Stupidity doesn't cause religion. It's just fertile ground for it.

[Jennifer]

Ruthless, I think Julian was talking about desperation, not stupidity.

[thoreau]

First, from what I got from skimming it the study looks fairly sloppy. Maybe a careful reading would reveal rigor behind the rhetoric, but I'm not holding my breath.

Second, I come here not to defend this study, nor to defend religion, but simply to remind everybody that there is good social science out there, and please don't use this to indict all of social science. Sloppy studies are almost always used to indict the whole concept of social science. I'm no expert on the social science literature, but my general rules of thumb are:

1) Don't ever, EVER trust the press's synopsis of a study. They'll mangle even the best studies, and you'll come away thinking that they did a single correlation and ran with it, when in many cases (no, not all, I know, but many) they did a very careful study that examined multiple explanations, controlled for several variables, looked to see whether the time-dependence of the data is consistent with causation, etc.
2) Don't ever, EVER trust a journalist pretending to be a social scientist. "This happens a lot in this neighborhood and less in that neighborhood, therefore...." I guarantee you that the reporter has not done any statistical calculations beyond calculating an average (if that).
3) Be extremely skeptical of a study that wasn't peer-reviewed, including studies by think-tanks that you sympathize with.

That already helps filter out a lot of the BS that you hear about. Of course, it doesn't get rid of all of it. Which bring me to rule #4:

4) Even peer-reviewed journals have junk. If you ever start to doubt that there is any good social science to be found, go peruse a reputable economics journal. You'll find a lot more signal there. Or, go read any of the references in "Freakonomics."

There's good social science to be found out there, just like there are good auto mechanics. The sloppiness of this study just shows the need for vigilance and skepticism to filter the good from the bad.

[Ruthless]

Desperation doesn't cause religion either.

[quasibill]

One of the biggest problems with the social sciences is the common failure (as others here have already pointed out) to distinguish between correlation and causation.

Of course, the failure is often intentional, as researcher bias injects itself into the results. If you want to see this study as showing that religion causes dysfunction, then it can support that argument. However, as Julian points out, it can also support the argument that dysfunction is an atmosphere that generates religious fervor.

It's nearly impossible to establish which way the arrow flows in the social sciences, as it is very expensive, and usually very unethical, to run a controlled, one variable experiment on human populations.

So, as a rule of thumb when reading social science papers, I cross out the word "cause" in any form and replace it with "correlates".

And of course, that doesn't even address the issue of whether the correlation is weak or strong.

[Jennifer]

No, Ruthless, desperation doesn't cause religion, but I think a person feeling desperate and hopeless would be more likely to turn to religion. If you look at out-and-out cults, like the Moonies, you'll find that very few of their recruits were happy, stable people with pleasant lives.

[thoreau]

Oh, the Economist frequently highlights good studies in their "Economics Focus" section (the page before "Science and Technology").

[Ruthless]

I hear you, but we're trying to find a cause and effect.

[Jennifer]

I haven't read the study, and I doubt I will. But assuming it is true, one possibility is that it looks at areas rather than the people living in them. By which I mean, say Neighborhood A has appallingly high rates of crime, and also a higher-than-usual number of religious people. That doesn't necessarily mean the criminals and the religious folks are the same--it could be that the large number of criminals in A make life so miserable for the non-criminals that they turn to religion as a coping mechanism.

[SimonVdS]

Those of the religious persuasion may be quick to point out that as belief in the encompassing Good, i.e. God, goes up, that the "attacks" from their encompassing evil, i.e. the Devil, also goes up. Is it the religious believers who perform these criminal acts, or the non-believers?

[thoreau]

One thing to keep in mind is that most social scientists know that correlation is not causation. The mistake is most frequently made by reporters writing about somebody else's study.

One way to establish causation is to look for a time lag. Rather than calculating the correlation between X and Y, calculate the correlation between X at time t1, and Y at a later time t2. Do this for different time lags. Also reverse it. See which time lag gives the strongest correlation.

Most social scientists know that simple correlation is not causation. Most reporters don't. And most people who like to trumpet their sophistication recite the "correlation is not causation" mantra to argue against a point that the scientist is not even trying to make.

[Frank]

This is ridiculous. Do reasonable, intelligent people really need pseudo-scientific studies as to why religion is a bad thing? Religion, by definition, involves people communicating witih imaginary beings. In the realm of psychiatry, that is called "schizophrenia". Every time a study, no matter what the quality, is done regarding religion, that study only validates religion as a whole.

Why is "religion" even discussed in scientific circles? People who talk to "God" or "Gods" or whatever being they choose are delusional and need hospitalization. End of story.

[Jennifer]

Why is "religion" even discussed in scientific circles? People who talk to "God" or "Gods" or whatever being they choose are delusional and need hospitalization. End of story.

I'm an atheist, I used to believe this, and I still think it would be a wonderful thing for humanity if religion were to die a natural death. But in all sincerity, the time I've spent hanging out here and chatting with the likes of Thoreau have convinced me that what you've said is not true.

[thoreau]

An example of what I was talking about with time lags:

A study showing a correlation between 4th grade test scores and crime in the local neighborhood would be slightly interesting. It wouldn't be conclusive, but it would be suggestive of avenues for further study. OTOH, a study showing a correlation between crime today and 4th grade test scores 10 years ago would be more interesting, since those 4th graders of 10 years ago are now 20 years old and in a cohort more prone to crime.

That's just an example, of course. A REALLY good study would take a stream of test scores over time and a stream of crime rates over time from a whole bunch of neighborhoods and see if the correlations follow certain patterns in time and whatnot.

Correlation itself is not causation, but a series of carefully done correlations comparing sequences of events is highly, highly suggestive.

And most researchers know this.

[thoreau]

What better way to get me to change my ways than by diagnosing me as schizophrenic?

[quasibill]

"One way to establish causation is to look for a time lag. Rather than calculating the correlation between X and Y, calculate the correlation between X at time t1, and Y at a later time t2. Do this for different time lags. Also reverse it. See which time lag gives the strongest correlation."

All of which is fine in the physical sciences, when you can control most, if not all, of your variables. Again, this is generally impossible in social sciences. Further, you have measurement problems in the social sciences that are virtually non-existent in the physical sciences.

"Most social scientists know that simple correlation is not causation."

Unfortunately, that is not my experience. My two favorite examples, one from the left, one from the right:

1. About a decade ago, Harvard sociologists released a study stating that affirmative action improved minority graduation rates. The study was so flawed on its face that it was laughable. It made big news, however. The most obvious flaw was that the researchers ignored the data on graduation rates at 4 years. Why? They didn't say.

2. About 4 years ago, the St. Louis Fed released a study comparing belief in the devil with economic development (finding a positive correlation). Of course they included Ireland as a data point without referencing the fact that Ireland t(-20years) was more religious, but impoverished.

I can go back through my library and find many, many others, especially with respect to pedagogy, where the direction of the correlation is assumed from the start of the study, regardless of whether the correlation even exists.

"And most people who like to trumpet their sophistication recite the "correlation is not causation" mantra to argue against a point that the scientist is not even trying to make."

How so? As you acknowledge, the media generally don't understand the difference, so it is an important point to make regardless, but how can it not address the scientist's point unless she acknowledges that she has only found correlation and not definitive causation?

[Frank]

What better way to get me to change my ways than by diagnosing me as schizophrenic?

Exactly. If you're talking to invisible beings then you need psychiatric help. The very obvious problem with that is that in less-educated countries (such as the US, Mexico, etc.) more than half of the population needs treatment. That, of course, is the crux of the problem as to why religion will never be stamped out in our lifetimes (or the forseeable future). It's simply a numbers and resource problem.

[theOneState]

Just because you don't believe in the devil doesn't mean you're not going to hell.

Or not. You might not not go, too. Or either. It's just really hard to know.

But what I don't get is why atheists are so preachy. Those are the real zealots. (Not all, of course, but enough to be annoying.)

[quasibill]

oooh. Wow.

So let me get this straight - you're stating that your proposed study COULD establish the fact that getting a poor test score in 4th grade is a CAUSE of crime 10 years later?

I'd have to disagree. Your study is merely testing to see if 4th grade test scores are measuring some other aspect of the children's lives that has a direct correlation to their tendency to become involved with the criminal justice system later in life (not engage in criminal activity - those who do it and get away with it won't be counted, and those who are innocent and found guilty or delinquent will be).

I think you'd need a lot more to establish that it was the test result that CAUSED criminal behavior.

[Jennifer]

Frank, I think Thoreau's point was that, while you might persuade him into giving up his religion, you won't insult him into it.

When I was teaching, and the students had to write persuasive essays, I wouldn't let them use arguments like "this is stupid" or "this is immoral," because nobody has ever, ever been persuaded to change their minds merely by being called such things.

[Ruthless]

"Correlation is not causation" is what I meant to say. Thanks thoreau.
But now that this debate is framed properly, what bad or good does religion cause?

[Akira MacKenzie]

From Joe Farrah's screed:

It was under the authority of God that freedom has occasionally and temporally been known in the world.

Errrr... did this guy fall asleep during history class.

The social ills we see in America today are the result of the rejection of that authority, particularly in the last 40 years.

The "social ills" Farrah vaguely references (I'm sure he's babbling about gays, abortion, drugs and porn.) have ALWAYS existed! They didn't just spring up when them gall-dang hippies came on the scene in the mid-60s. America's decline didn't start with the cancelation of "Leave It To Beaver," jackass.

Oh, there is so much nonsense to savage in this piece of garbage that I'd need my own blog to do it. Therefore, it's Time to shamelessly pimp my new blog I started a couple of days back. 🙂 Stope by http://www.akiramackenzie.blogspot.com. Otherwise, I've got it linked to my handle. I've only got the first post up, but I've got a few more on the burner that I hope to have up ASAP. Enjoy... I hope.

[quasibill]

"Frank, I think Thoreau's point was that, while you might persuade him into giving up his religion, you won't insult him into it."

It seemed so obvious to me that I began to wonder if Frank was being sarcastic when he replied.

I mean really, religion is our biggest problem? I haven't attended a church (except for weddings) since I was a pre-teen, but that's a bit of hyperbole.

[MP]

Frank,

Religion may be dominated by people who believe in a single God who is capable of micro-managing day to day events, it is not exclusive to those people. You cut off a lot of heads it stating Religion is bad. More targeted thrusts are necessary.

[gaius marius]

beyond what's already been said, wise and foolish, i'd add that "religion" is not a monolithic universal. the roman catholic church, for example, can be examined in its history to have proceeded through stages and currents primitive, pauline, constantinian, gregorian, benedictine, scholastic, humanist, counterreformational, etc.

part of the obfuscation that occurs is the inability of many to conceive of a religion and its imperfect material vessel, a church, as two different things. yet more obfuscation is injected by militants like mr frank, who are more thna anything simply blind to wisdom of any flavor, wrongly believing that the difficult questions of human existence can somehow be answered within the narrow confines of science.

to pretend, then, that one can correlate "religion" as it is understood here to anything and have a meaningful analysis is, prima facie, silly. i think what passes for religion in postmodern america is indeed quite destructive and exploitative, and the failure of protestantism to be more than an avenue to self-indulgence part of the root cause of western social affliction.

but that is not to say that christianity isn't still the one of humanity's greatest repositories of wisdom and experience. i think in fact it no exaggeration to say that human society finds its highest manifestation not in civilizations but in churches -- in fact that the purpose of civilizations may be nothing more than to lay the groundwork for the spiritual and philosophical advances embodied in religion.

[Frank]

Religion may be dominated by people who believe in a single God who is capable of micro-managing day to day events, it is not exclusive to those people. You cut off a lot of heads it stating Religion is bad. More targeted thrusts are necessary.

So then people who believe in multiple Gods that might impact their lives on a larger scale are *less* delusional? I'm not sure what you're getting at.

[mattc]

It seems to me that religion is a lazy way of explaining the world. Just like most people look at studies, polls, experiments, etc. and take for granted that the people describing it to them know what they're talking about because they use big words and are able to link ideas in a satisfying manner. I've seen a lot of intelligent discourse here on Hit&Run, a lot more than I usually see in the real world. That's one of the reasons I come here. However, most people, even if they are intelligent, don't always have the energy or the desire to figure complex ideas out for themselves. That's why bunk studies like this one gain any kind of traction. Its also why religion is still around long after we've gained the ability to disprove most of it.

[Frank]

yet more obfuscation is injected by militants like mr frank, who are more thna anything simply blind to wisdom of any flavor,

I'm not a disbeliever in wisdom. I simply don't believe that wisdom has anything to do with entities that simply do not exist. I don't believe that the guy standing on the street corner talking to Elvis is wise. I don't believe that anybody who communicates with, "prays" to God, Yaweh, Shiva, Buddah, Mohammed, etc. is particularly wise. The problem is that over thousands of years, religion and "wisdom" have been confused and obfuscated. There simply is little to no overlap between "religion" and "wisdom" because by it's very definition, a "religious" person is mentally ill. Building "wisdom" on top of mental illness (or simply group hysteria) is comparable to building a house on a foundation of cardboard boxes, and calling the house structurally sound.

[quasibill]

"i think in fact it no exaggeration to say that human society finds its highest manifestation not in civilizations but in churches "

As someone who avoids organized religion like the plague, I can nonetheless agree with the sentiment. I don't like people trying to dictate to me what the divine is, but I can appreciate the community and aspiration to a higher calling that is created.

[theOneState]

Just curious...which religions teach that God is capable of micro-managing day to day events?

[gaius marius]

what bad or good does religion cause?

i might suggest, mr ruthless, that what bad may come from a church -- which is, of course, an organization of men -- has little indeed to do with religion, which is in the end what a church aspires to. the world's higher religions are profoundly attractive, each radiating immense wisdom. their institutions, however, are prone to sin.

when we talk about what bad may come from religion, i think instead we should be careful to say that we are talking about what bad may come from organizations of men -- and this clearly is only different from asking what bad may come of a government or corporation in its aspiration.

to that end, i suggest that a church is more virtuous than the other two. a corporation aspires to material gain and all its empty trappings -- god is wealth. a government aspires to influence and manage men on the material field of action to achieve the secular ends of a chosen few -- god is power. but the higher churches of our world aspire to harmony among men as brothers -- god is love.

we shouldn't let, imo, the failings of churches and the conceit of our location in space-time, in which the pendulum of hubris has swung almost completely toward the worship of power and money, blind us to that.

[Ruthless]

mattc and gaius marius,
Your comments said about all that needs to be said, in my book.

[David]

From Farrah's response:

In the final analysis, there are but two alternative ways of living:
* under the authority of God;

* under the authority of man.

In my final analysis, he omitted "* under the authority of men of God." which would be closer to the mark. Even so, as someone who believes that man created God, the choice becomes "which authority of man?".

[gaius marius]

Its also why religion is still around long after we've gained the ability to disprove most of it.

i would suggest, mr mattc, that religion is still around and will always be around not because people are too lazy to seek truth -- but because they seek truth assiduously, and realize that, as much as science can tell us about our world, there are many higher truths about the human experience that are not within the purview of science to find.

[Number 6]

Goddamn, Thoreau, could you ease off on the reporter-bashing? Keep in mind that the guy who wrote the blog entry we're all responding to is a journalist. I shouldn't have to point this out to a scientist, but not every journalist is a lazy, scientifically illiterate moron.

[gaius marius]

I simply don't believe that wisdom has anything to do with entities that simply do not exist.

your conceit, mr frank, is to assume that what cannot be evidenced is unimportant and irrelevant.

[MP]

Frank,

Two major events in the history of time, the creation of the universe and the spark of life on Earth were either caused by:

1) Random Chance
2) Inevitable consequences of natural events
3) The hand of God (i.e. some outside sentience)

Adopting any of these positions is a matter of faith. Science may offer hypotheses, but it certainly offers no firm explanation.

And tOS, many facets of Christianity discuss how God is a presence in your daily life. Anyone who believes that God played a roll in Katrina or in the Superbowl believes in a micro-managing God.

[Frank]

to that end, i suggest that a church is more virtuous than the other two. a corporation aspires to material gain and all its empty trappings -- god is wealth. a government aspires to influence and manage men on the material field of action to achieve the secular ends of a chosen few -- god is power. but the higher churches of our world aspire to harmony among men as brothers -- god is love.

I would suggest that a church is the most vile of human organizations. A church exists specifically to spread known lies to the ignorant. A church stands as the exact opposite of achievements that mankind can make from science and education. Even worse, a church calls it's very real, obvious lies, "truth", thus actually standing in the way of mankind advancing true knowledge about the real world.

A corporation, on the other hand is not trying to hide or cover what their purpose is. A corporation is not in the business of intentionally spreading lies and calling them truth (well, some marketing goes a bit far). A corporation is in the business of making a profit, which is amoral: neither moral or immoral.

A church, however, is the most immoral, and in the true sense of the word, "evil" creation that mankind has ever wrought.

[Phil]

But what I don't get is why atheists are so preachy. Those are the real zealots.

Yeah, because Sunday morning television is overrun with atheist programming, there are entire television networks dedicated to promulgating atheism, and the major daily newspapers in the country regularly cover issues of interest to atheists and have an "Atheism" section listing atheist meetings.

***yawn***

but the higher churches of our world aspire to harmony among men as brothers

No, they don't. They aspire to getting individual members into heaven/to achieve nirvana/etc. They're all about individual fulfillment just the same way that evil greedy corporations are, except the stuff that corporations aspire to actually happens.

[Frank]

Frank,

Two major events in the history of time, the creation of the universe and the spark of life on Earth were either caused by:

1) Random Chance
2) Inevitable consequences of natural events
3) The hand of God (i.e. some outside sentience)

Adopting any of these positions is a matter of faith. Science may offer hypotheses, but it certainly offers no firm explanation.

Ahh, religion rears it's ugliest head: attempting to explain anything that mankind has not yet explained with science as some kind of magic or voodoo. Throughout the history of mankind religion has "explained" things not yet understood via science in it's own twisted way. How many scientists were killed for suggesting that the universe does NOT revolve around the sun? How many were killed for suggesting that the world is NOT flat? The creation of the universe and the initial "spark of life" will be explained by science one day. Just because we can't explain them now doesn't mean that they were the result of soem kind of "god". In the history of man, absolutely *nothing* has been proven to be the result of a "god" of any kind. Time and time again, science has explained previously misunderstood things. There's no particular reason to expect that this will change, in light of the overwhelming lack of evidence of a "higher power".

Isn't this website called "Reason"? Why are so many religious fanatics posting here...?

[gaius marius]

worse, mr frank, i think in your eagerness to reject some of the legacies of our past which have been swept into the institutiuons of churches, you also reject what is deeply valuable.

i'd be the first to say that the judaic mythology of the world creation is ridiculous as a set of facts -- but only a fool sees them as facts. as an ancient historical record in the oral tradition dating back to abraham, ur and sumeria -- and, vestly moreso, as an allegory of human nature, fallibility, society and civility -- the pentateuch is one of the world's most important texts. wadr, to throw that baby out with the bathwater because one happens to live in a decadent day and civilization obsessed with a purely technical worldview is the very essence of foolishness.

[Ethan]

Frank writes --- "Why is "religion" even discussed in scientific circles? People who talk to "God" or "Gods" or whatever being they choose are delusional and need hospitalization. End of story."

So, let me make sure I have this right: people who feel they are communicating with God in some way should be hospitalized, but this decision should take place without any scientific work having been done in the area of religion and religious practice? So what in the world are the people in the hospital going to do with such persons, if they aren't to use science? Voodoo? Exorcism? Rain dance? "Be gone, higher being!"

OneState writes -- "But what I don't get is why atheists are so preachy. Those are the real zealots."

This one seems unlikely as well. "Preachy" was certainly a poor word choice, since most preaching takes place in churches, which do not exactly constitute a hotbed of atheism (quite the opposite is true, I am told). Certainly some atheists are very vocal and may go beyond the rules of civil discourse, but I think that they are vastly outnumbered by the zealous who are also religious, especially in the USA. And the brand of zealotry is different: An atheist zealot typically wants people to change how they think about one subject (God), while a religious zealot wants people to change how they think and to reform everything they do--sometimes right down to eating habits!--to conform some sacred text or their interpretation of it (don't have an abortion, don't have extramarital sex, don't drive a car if you are female, pray 4 hours a day, don't let gays get married, assassinate Venezuelan leaders, etc). In other words, an atheist's focus is narrow compared to universality of religious zealotry.

I suppose to a person that invests a lot in the belief that there is some Big Dude up in the sky (or worse, outside the Universe)who is ultimately responsible for our creation and general living conditions and continually watches over us would find it a bit annoying when an atheist points out the plain fact that there is no more evidence for God than for the Tooth Fairy, that the former was merely made up earlier than the latter. But that strikes me as the religious person's problem, not the atheist's

[thoreau]

quasibill-

I'm not as familiar with the social science literature as you are, so perhaps the problem is much worse than I realized.

My point in my hastily drawn example was not that the SCORE causes crime, but that one could frame the hypothesis "poor educational achievement causes crime" and then show how the rising and falling crime rate in a neighborhood can be compared with the rising and falling test scores over time. Show that when a cohort with consistently good test scores reached adulthood crime rates tended to fall, irrespective of what the test scores of the current children were, and so forth. It still wouldn't prove anything, but proof in the sciences is never absolute or binary.

My point was that there are different degrees of support for a hypothesis. A single correlation is interesting and suggests that more work needs to be done. A handful of correlations while controlling for more variables is somewhat more interesting. And a study that compares the time-dependence of several different variables in several different populations is impressive.

That's all.

Anyway, I've found some decent papers out there in the social sciences, but I'm not familiar enough with the literature to say whether those were diamonds in the rough or representative samples. I defer to those who have studied it in more detail.

[gaius marius]

attempting to explain anything that mankind has not yet explained with science as some kind of magic or voodoo.

mr frank, respectfully, you must be either not old enough or not attentive enough to this issue to speak on it in the manner you would suppose. i would suggest, before taking this sophmoric tack, reading bertrand russell -- or, at least, some work on the philosophy of science -- so as to inform yourself on the limitations of the fields of action of science, philosophy and religion.

but i will say this much: to claim that science, given enough time, will explain all is as patently and demonstrably a statement of unmitigated faith as the counterclaim that all unknown to science can be explained only in religion. it is a faith with a name -- scientism -- and is something analogous in our time to what catholicism was in the time of augustine.

[MP]

Frank,

I happen to be a Pastafarian. That doesn't mean I can't have respect for thoreau's position while at the same time I consider my Born Again relatives to be loonies.

[jf]

your conceit, mr frank, is to assume that what cannot be evidenced is unimportant and irrelevant.

In other words, don't simply brush off the idea of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Or the giant stack of turtles.

Actually, I get you, gaius (which is an unusual event), except for your earlier comment mentioning "higher churches of our world". Are you referring to Western Christian churches, or something more along the lines of Buddhist temples in the mountains of Tibet?

[thoreau]

Frank-

As a religious believer, I clearly need treatment. What do you recommend? I've heard good things about Clozapine. What about talk therapies? Any particular protocols that have proven especially effective for treating theism?

[Ruthless]

"i would suggest, mr mattc, that religion is still around and will always be around not because people are too lazy to seek truth -- but because they seek truth assiduously, and realize that, as much as science can tell us about our world, there are many higher truths about the human experience that are not within the purview of science to find."

Sorry, mr marius, but I think mattc has got you there.

[metalgrid]

So, let me make sure I have this right: people who feel they are communicating with God in some way should be hospitalized, but this decision should take place without any scientific work having been done in the area of religion and religious practice?

Well, there is work being done in this field. Ever hear of the God Helmet? Turns up a few results in google:
http://www.geocities.com/satanicus_2/GodHelmet.html
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20031206/FCOVER06/TPScience/

[SR]

"which religions teach that God is capable of micro-managing day to day events?"

Well, to start, quite a few branches of Christianity teach that belief. See, e.g., any church that promotes faith healing.

[jf]

but i will say this much: to claim that science, given enough time, will explain all is as patently and demonstrably a statement of unmitigated faith as the counterclaim that all unknown to science can be explained only in religion. it is a faith with a name -- scientism -- and is something analogous in our time to what catholicism was in the time of augustine.

I would suggest that the claim is actually that science can (not will) explain all, whereas religion has in fact explain little to nothing about much of anything.

[Ruthless]

"proven especially effective for treating theism?"

thoreau,
If you were more open-minded, you could embrace articleism instead of just "the"ism.

[Crushinator]

My personal experience is that religious fanatics tend to treat other people like shit. They have a holier-than-thou attitude and feel that their deep religious beliefs make them superior to their neighbors. Worst of all they feel compelled to shove their belief system down other people's throats - even at the point of a knife. Religious zealots suppress science, rational thinking, and individual freedom. I agree with Frank that religion is evil and a major cause of misery in the world.

[the "evil" doctor thoreau]

religion is evil and a major cause of misery in the world

I'd just like to apologize to all of the people that I've never actually hurt. I had no idea is was my fault.

[Ruthless]

Crushinator,
That's why atheists are becoming more and more militant. They're tired of being 97 pound weaklings.
Fuck yeah!

[jf]

Well, we've now learned that thoreau is the living embodiment of religion. I always suspected there were some anthropomorphized abstract constructs posting on this forum, and now I have proof.

This adds fuel to my belief that joe is the living embodiment of an obstructed bowel.

[gaius marius]

i would say, mr ruthless, that if perhaps we were discussing only the dim, gray masses of our society, mr mattc would have a point. the masses are mimetic and usually unthinking.

but that isn't how religions propagate and survive. christianity succeeded in taking up the mantle of the ancient world where mithraism and isis-worship failed because it became the religion of the constantinian elite -- and it became so precisely because it translated the message of the new testament though the work of paul into the terminology the hellenic elite understood: the language of hellenic philosophy. the catholic church was ever after, as an institution built by roman elites after constantine, the guardian and protector of platonic, neoplatonic and aristotlean philosophy as well as the wisdom of christ's message. and it was the search for wisdom and truth among these elites in a world which was proving out the profound destructive power of mundane and technical secularism that this search took place.

[gaius marius]

religion has in fact explain little to nothing about much of anything.

except humanity, mr jf. i fully submit that religion has nothing to offer on a theory of gravity -- that, in the western world, our church was granted authority over these material matters is an accident of history.

but what is the nature of love? of sin? of hatred? of society? it is deeply unsatisfying -- indeed an evasion of the question -- to reduce these to chemical signals and statistics. this is the value of religion and why religion is a permanent fixture in humankind.

[Ethan]

MP writes that there are 3 possibilities concerning the origin of the universe and the "spark of life" on Earth:
1) Random Chance
2) Inevitable consequences of natural events
3) The hand of God (i.e. some outside sentience)

He also contends that "adopting any of these positions is a matter of faith. Science may offer hypotheses, but it certainly offers no firm explanation."

There are 2 problems here, I think. First, MP leaves an option off the list, and an option that is likely the truth (at least much more likely than (1) or (3), at least with respect to the origin of life on Earth): (4) that life began as the result of chemical reactions that follow specific rules (i.e. are essentially not random)and require a certain set of very specific (and not inevitable) conditions. So life didn't have to form here, but it isn't just a random result either (there is a reason life began here but not on the Sun, for instance).

Second, science does more than offer hypotheses. It really is amazing that anyone still believes that this is true. I suppose such a belief might be why creationists and intelligent design theorists think that they are doing "science"--they think that just making up something is science.

Thinking that life or the universe began as a physical/chemical process is a hypothesis for which there can exist empirical or mathematical evidence. There can be no such evidence for a supernatural process. Thus belief in supernatural processes requires faith, and belief in physical processes need not.

Oh, and Frank, I haven't seen any religious "fanaticism" on this post so far. I have seen some things that in my view are confusions, but I don't think that "fanaticism" is accurate at all.

[gaius marius]

My personal experience is that religious fanatics tend to treat other people like shit. They have a holier-than-thou attitude and feel that their deep religious beliefs make them superior to their neighbors. Worst of all they feel compelled to shove their belief system down other people's throats - even at the point of a knife. Religious zealots suppress science, rational thinking, and individual freedom.

mr crushinator, all of that is separate from

I agree with Frank that religion is evil and a major cause of misery in the world.

all the former articulates the sinfulness and weakness of men -- indeed, all things which religion would explicitly stand against. to blame religion for the failings of men to be what they would aspire to be seems a fruitless route.

[David]

I don't think that the problem is with belief in a higher power, but the dogmatism, and dare I say it, mr gaius, the tradition that creeps in over a few generations.

Most of these belief structures aren't especially oppressive to start out with, but people add their own rigid interpretations, which evolve into "we've been doing it this way for 1500 years, it wrong to change" traditions.

This idea isn't confined to religion. Everything from political philosophies, to meaningless things like sports fandom, and comic book continuity show signs of "dogmatic creep" over time.

[Ruthless]

"in a world which was proving out the profound destructive power of mundane and technical secularism that this search took place."

I don't grok this.

[Ethan]

Thanks Metalgrid, I will check the links out. In my comment I wasn't claiming that no work has been done in this area, but rather expressing disbelief at the notion that we should turn theists over to the medical community but also not discuss religious belief in scientific circles.

[quasibill]

another anecdote (I'm sure everyone didn't see this coming):

My father in law, a devout Catholic, attended a church while we were on vacation one week after 9/11. The priest gave a mass (if I'm using the incorrect terminology, Thoreau can correct me) that told the congregation not to give into temptation and hatred. He implored them, and instructed them, that under Catholic theology, muslims were to be loved, not hated. That only an individual can sin, and that only God could pass final judgment. Several members stood up and made deragotory comments/gestures during this mass, and then walked out.

Now, I have little doubt that many of these people who walked out would also be owners of the bumper sticker "you can't be both Catholic and pro-choice". But is the problem here in the Church, or in those individuals who cherry pick what the Church teaches to justify their own preferences?

[jf]

but what is the nature of love? of sin? of hatred? of society? it is deeply unsatisfying -- indeed an evasion of the question -- to reduce these to chemical signals and statistics. this is the value of religion and why religion is a permanent fixture in humankind.

You assign far more meaning to human existence that I do, gaius. We're at the top of the food chain, for the most part, but definitely not outside of it. There are far more answers to be found for the meaning of human constructs such as love, sin, hatred, and society in zoos and jungles than in bibles and churches. Just because our brains evolved to a point where we assign "values" to biological impulses doesn't mean that we aren't basically acting on the same impulses that Fluffy and Rover do. We just have more complex reactions.

[Jennifer]

but what is the nature of love? of sin? of hatred? of society? it is deeply unsatisfying -- indeed an evasion of the question -- to reduce these to chemical signals and statistics.

Well, just because something is unsatisfying doesn't make it untrue. Evolution, pre-wired ideas in the brain, and hormones probably have a lot to do with a mother's love for her children. But even if love IS nothing more than chemicals and evolutionary pathways in the brain, so what? Can't the whole be more than the sum of its parts?

We evolved to be social animals, compared to, say, cats, which are loners and would not likely have friends if they evolved an intelligence similar to ours. But, even though you could say that I only have friends because I'm pre-wired to want some, I don't think that cheapens those friendships in any way. And judging from the fact that every single society has had some sort of religion, that suggests that the capacity for faith is pre-wired in us as well. (On the other hand, the fact that no two societies have ever independently come up with the same notion of God is, in my view, one proof that he's an invention.)

I'll admit--it DOES baffle me, how intelligent, rational (and non-schizophrenic!) people like Thoreau can believe things for which there is absolutely no evidence. On the other hand, I think of this: I love my boyfriend a great deal. But if I made a list of all the reasons I love him, you could find a dozen guys who have all those qualities and more--more thoughtful, more witty, more this, that and the other. Yet I don't love those guys--I love who I love.

[mk]

scientism -- and is something analogous in our time to what catholicism was in the time of augustine.

I can't equate a system that has questioning as it's core purpose with one whose modus operandi is a strict adherence to dogma no matter how zealous those who support the former behave.

It's comparing monkeys and apples.

[Rimfax]

The religious don't see how the nonreligious can be moral without a fear of God. Without the stern watchful eye of a divine parent how can they be expected to behave themselves when no man is watching their actions?

The nonreligious don't see how the religious can be moral if they must fear God to be so. How can someone be trusted to behave morally if they must always have the sword of Jehovacles hanging over their head to do so?

[MP]

Thinking that life or the universe began as a physical/chemical process is a hypothesis for which there can exist empirical or mathematical evidence.

You are right that it can, but since it doesn't, believing that it does is by definition a matter of faith.

[MP]

And Ethan, the sentence "Science may offer hypotheses, but it certainly offers no firm explanation." was meant to be read in context. If it pleases you, I'll re-write it as follows:

Science may offer hypotheses for these two major events, but it certainly offers no firm explanation.

[gaius marius]

Everything from political philosophies, to meaningless things like sports fandom, and comic book continuity show signs of "dogmatic creep" over time.

i agree, mr david. it would be foolish to claim that, for example, if we simply put the pope back in charge, all would be right with the world. but of course that isn't to say that, because the roman church is an imperfect social institution of men, the message of christ is null.

but its a catch-22 -- the alternative to institutionalism is its opposite. i leave it to you to judge the health of western protestantism, which degenerated into internecene secular power-cults almost immediately (from luther to henry viii tudor was less than a lifetime) which persist today (see pat robertson or billy graham), whereas the gregorian papacy integrated western civility through its growth and flowering, keeping its authority in the public trust by dynamically combatting all manner of spiritual and social ills as well as its own sins in simony. when it, not a generation but centuries later, became ineffective at maintaining that trust under the humanist popes, it forfeited its authority, which has declined (along with, eventually, western civilization more generally) ever since. the reaction of the humanists to that loss -- the counterreformation -- sealed the fate of the church and gave it the reputation which (on this board, particularly) it still enjoys.

[mk]

believing that it does is by definition a matter of faith.

I guess the trick for me is to acknowledge that it is faith while maintaining that the unexplainable is not necessarily inexplicable.

[gaius marius]

But is the problem here in the Church, or in those individuals who cherry pick what the Church teaches to justify their own preferences?

mr quasibill, i completely agree. too many postmodern westerners who imagine themselves catholic pray instead at the altar of the state, that is, of power. natioanlist hubris is the infection of our time.

[Dave W.]

One problem with all the happy secular humanism here is that once in awhile somebody will stumble on a question like: "Is it good to continue the human race." At this point, the Reason writer comes onboard, school-marm style, and chides, "That question does not deserve an answer." That was real weak (when it happened recently on a thread here). This lil dialogue exposes the central hollowness of secular philosophy, at least as practiced round here.

[Jennifer]

One problem with all the happy secular humanism here is that once in awhile somebody will stumble on a question like: "Is it good to continue the human race." At this point, the Reason writer comes onboard, school-marm style, and chides, "That question does not deserve an answer." That was real weak (when it happened recently on a thread here). This lil dialogue exposes the central hollowness of secular philosophy, at least as practiced round here.

I disagree, Dave--I don't think it's a cop-out for even the non-religious to say that existence is better than non-existence.

[gaius marius]

I can't equate a system that has questioning as it's core purpose with one whose modus operandi is a strict adherence to dogma no matter how zealous those who support the former behave.

that's the problem, mr mk -- what questioning is there in saying, "science has every answer"? none, obviously.

a scientist understand that science ultimately explains nothing -- all is flux, as parmenides said -- or, induction by enumeration is not a valid method of reasoning, as hume said. it offers only likelihoods and temporary constructs.

as admirable as it is, that is not enough for human souls to function upon. moreover, it is strictly limited in its field of inquiry -- only that which can be demonstrated by repeated experiment is subject to science. this excludes not only the field of human spirituality and interaction, but most of the complex and chaotic behavior of the natural world as well. to claim, then, that science can have all answers is simply incorrect -- as incorrect as saying that genesis explains the literal origin of the world.

[gaius marius]

This lil dialogue exposes the central hollowness of secular philosophy, at least as practiced round here.

perhaps not hollowness, mr dave w, but at least starkly defines its limitations, which are severe in the context of all questions which might be asked.

[Ethan]

MP,

Do you really believe that there exists no evidence for our current theories about the beginning of life on Earth or the origin of the universe? Do you really believe that any other theories you choose would be as well founded, no matter how they were generated? That the Big Bang Theory has as little behind it as, say, (I will make something up now) the notion that the Universe began when a giant turtle with spectacles and a vest carefully placed all the stars and planets into the Universe and then pushed the "Go Universe" button? Perhaps you need a little less 700 Club and a little more Scientific American. Our current theories on the origin of the universe are based on reasons, they are not merely conjectures. They were developed initially as explanations of observed phenomena and (here's the kicker) they imply certain future observations. When these future observations actually happen, the theory receives "confirmation" (a lot of confirmation is typically required prior to general acceptance, but not always--it depends on factors we need not bore people with now).

From NASA: "The big bang was initially suggested because it explains why distant galaxies are traveling away from us at great speeds. The theory also predicts the existence of cosmic background radiation (the glow left over from the explosion itself). The Big Bang Theory received its strongest confirmation when this radiation was discovered in 1964 by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, who later won the Nobel Prize for this discovery.

Although the Big Bang Theory is widely accepted, it probably will never be proved; consequentially, leaving a number of tough, unanswered questions."

This last bit is important. There is a difference between something that is proven, something for which there is not conclusive proof but there is some evidence ranging from very good to poor, and something for which there is no and could be no evidence. Some scientific theories are in the first category, some are in the second. All religious belief is in the third. Faith is required for the third category of belief, but not for the first or for beliefs in the second category that have moderate to good evidence. People who believe that the Big Bang is true believe the theory that is currently the best (it may not always be so) given the available evidence. How is that "faith"?

[gaius marius]

You assign far more meaning to human existence that I do, gaius.

the alternative is unthinkable, mr jf. why live at all?

[theOneState]

"which religions teach that God is capable of micro-managing day to day events?"

Well, to start, quite a few branches of Christianity teach that belief. See, e.g., any church that promotes faith healing.

That isn't a good example of God micromanaging day to day lives, is it? Faith healing is something some nutcases do under extreme circumstances. In other cases, they use bandaids.

The notion that God micromanages suggests religious people don't feel responsible for themselves. This is not true of most religious people (broad as that term is).

[MP]

Ethan,

The Big Bang theory may offer an explanation of what happened at the beginning of the Universe, but it has no explanation of why it happened (i.e. what were the events leading up to it that caused it to occur) and what existed before the Big Bang occurred.

I believe that for the why and the before, evidence supporting an explanation that undermines the persistent belief of a "higher power" will be found. However, my belief is still a matter of faith. It is faith in science, but faith nonetheless.

[Phil Collins]

I disagree, Dave--I don't think it's a cop-out for even the non-religious to say that existence is better than non-existence.

The cop-out isn't the answer. If a good, valid answer to the question lies in the physical, rather than the metaphysical, then that is great and good and something that should be written about. However, that wasn't waht happened. Rather, Ms. Young says, "that question does not deserve an answer." That's the cop-out.

[gaius marius]

(On the other hand, the fact that no two societies have ever independently come up with the same notion of God is, in my view, one proof that he's an invention.)

one might observe that the search for truth in this field may simply be taking longer than we've been recording history. would you deny, ms jennifer, that parochial tribal ritualism -- rites without philosophy -- evolved aeons ago into provincial pagan religion? which then birthed overarching philospohical systems in buddhism, confucianism and hellenism? which then subsequently produced through further interaction the higher religions of hinduism, islam, christianity?

and could we not say that their messages are converging over time -- that the idea of god as love has, with each successive incarnation, grown more widespread?

and could we not say that their fields of influence have grown steadily larger, each incorporating a greater and greater share of humanity (with periodic and localized setbacks)?

who is to say that the aftermath of a western civility, which has truly reached to the corners of the earth and prepared a global field of action, will not be a global faith, a unifying syncreticism of the major faiths? it would be in keeping with the trend.

[MP]

The notion that God micromanages suggests religious people don't feel responsible for themselves. This is not true of most religious people (broad as that term is).

Not true. Many take on individual responsibility because they fear the "wrath of God" consequences that may result if they do otherwise. This wrath could manifest itself as something as mundane as losing your job.

[Jennifer]

I do know of one big difference between science and religion: self-questioning. A scientist would love it if he could disprove something believed by his peers. Any scientist who was able to disprove relativity, for example, would have his career made. Theologians, however, don't find their careers helped by disproving things believed by others in their field.

[theOneState]

Yeah, because Sunday morning television is overrun with atheist programming, there are entire television networks dedicated to promulgating atheism, and the major daily newspapers in the country regularly cover issues of interest to atheists and have an "Atheism" section listing atheist meetings.

***yawn***

Yawn indeed. I was speaking of preachy individuals.

[Herman]

It's comparing monkeys and apples.

And then it's elephants on the backs of turtles, all the way down in pasta haunted skies.

[Ethan]

MP amends his claim thusly: "Science may offer hypotheses for these two major events [origin of life and origin of universe], but it certainly offers no firm explanation."

With this change, I will continue to apply your rule of interpreting your claims in context, and I must say that the response that comes to mind is little more than "so what?" Even if you were correct in equating as "faith" the belief that a magical man created from nothing all that we see and don't see and the belief that life began on Earth as the result of a chemical process (and I don't think you are correct about this), then all that results is that there are some things that science has not nailed down yet (I think that there are many such things). There would be some things that we would take on faith as working hypotheses (again, assuming for the moment that you are right, which you aren't) until the evidence forced our hand and made us think otherwise. That actually wouldn't be much different from what actually happens in science (which is part of the reason for the "so what" response)--we do take certain theories as working models in our work, but we do not just pick them out of a hat (or worse, out of a religious text). We use those theories because they explain well certain things we have observed and they continue to make novel predictions that prove true in future observations. When this ceases to be the case they will be discarded (unlike a religious theory, which no evidence can topple since such a belief isn't evidence-based to begin with). So I think that "faith" is the wrong word for such a process, since evidence has a role to play.

[Jennifer]

one might observe that the search for truth in this field may simply be taking longer than we've been recording history. would you deny, ms jennifer, that parochial tribal ritualism -- rites without philosophy -- evolved aeons ago into provincial pagan religion? which then birthed overarching philospohical systems in buddhism, confucianism and hellenism? which then subsequently produced through further interaction the higher religions of hinduism, islam, christianity? and could we not say that their messages are converging over time -- that the idea of god as love has, with each successive incarnation, grown more widespread

That's not independent discovery, Gaius--that's cultures interacting with each other. In religion, you've got group A that decides there are multiple gods who are basically like humans (flaws and all), only immortal; Group B decides there's only one god who is omnipotent; Group C has one God but he can be fooled if necessary, and so forth. Some thought the gods were immortal; others (like the Norse) thought their gods would grow old and die.

Compare that to the way all groups came to the same notion about salt: it is essential for life. All groups figured out that the sun gives more light than the moon. All groups figured out that setting yourself on fire is a bad idea. All groups figured out that a woman can't get pregnant without the help of a man. THESE are all absolute facts just waiting to be discovered. But the huge difference in views on God suggest that God is not this absolute THING which people eventually discovered.

[Timothy]

but what is the nature of love?

Well, I'm an atheist but there is wisdom to be found in ye olde New Testament, particularly 1 Corinthians. 1 Corinthians 13:4-7

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

[gaius marius]

Theologians, however, don't find their careers helped by disproving things believed by others in their field.

i think, ms jennifer, that this is a recent development in western religion. one can hearken back to an earlier, healthier age of christianity where the church was the incubator for the schoolmen and the humanists. it was the church, after all, which sanctified aquinas in his search for a reconciliation of the natural order with scripture, an intellectual movement which provided the initial impetus to modern science.

a lot of post-reformational propaganda -- part of the conceit of living in a long-secular world -- has colored our view of what the church was prior to the humanist popes. it was for centuries a much more admirable institution than any secular government has long managed to be.

[Phil Collins]

I do know of one big difference between science and religion: self-questioning. A scientist would love it if he could disprove something believed by his peers.

Yes, scientists love questions that are provable or disprovable in their lifetimes. What scientists abhor is questions where they can collect no real evidence. Then instead of questioning, you hear non-questioning. What do I mean by non-questioning? Things like higher intelligence does not exist because of Occam's Razor or because you-can't-prove-a-negative. That isn't questioning. That is a fancy dance to avoid (a certain type of) questioning.

[David]

Dave W,

Please don't start with the Phil Collins posts.

[gaius marius]

But the huge difference in views on God suggest that God is not this absolute THING which people eventually discovered.

there are, you know, many questions on which there is no absolute answer. indeed, if one seeks only absolute answers, one will be left without answers to all of one's most important questions -- to virtually all of one's questions, in fact.

i'm simply pointing out that, over millennia, the accrual of human spiritual insight, even in its diaspora, grows incrementally closer and convergent with time to the conception of god not as power but as love.

call me an optimist, but i hope for the trend to continue.

[Jennifer]

one can hearken back to an earlier, healthier age of christianity where the church was the incubator for the schoolmen and the humanists. it was the church, after all, which sanctified aquinas in his search for a reconciliation of the natural order with scripture

Not the same thing as challenging the essential beliefs of Scripture, Gaius. Ask yourself this--what would happen to the career of a Christian seminarian who claimed to have found proof that Jesus Christ never existed? Do you think the Church would embrace him and move forward into a new era of Christless Christianity? Of course not.

[theOneState]

Ethan, "preachy" was an intentional word choice. I'm not a relgious person, let alone zealot. I'm also not an angry athiest. To someone like me, atheists sound preachy.

MP,
The notion that God micromanages suggests religious people don't feel responsible for themselves. This is not true of most religious people (broad as that term is).

Not true. Many take on individual responsibility because they fear the "wrath of God" consequences that may result if they do otherwise. This wrath could manifest itself as something as mundane as losing your job.

Who does that? Seriously, I'm not a religious scholar and don't go to church, but this is a ridiculous assertion if you're trying to speak broadly about religion.

Crushinator,

My personal experience is that religious fanatics tend to treat other people like shit. They have a holier-than-thou attitude and feel that their deep religious beliefs make them superior to their neighbors.

Who in this forum has come off sounding holier-than-thou? Who's shoving their belief system down other's throats? It ain't the few religious folks in here.

[dhex]

ahhh, the eternal battle between cause and meaning. though there is surely a more graceful way for me to phrase this.

but i think it dominates a lot of what passes for american political debate. the whole creationism/intelligent design thing - the most vocal on both sides focus exclusively on meaning (i.e. darwin leads to the gay versus creationism leads to burning the gay) while the more reasonable folk focus on the cause side of things.

to make matters more complicated, those who claim to speak for cause are often total jerks, regardless of how reasonable their actual argument may be.

while mr. gaius has been his usual thoughtful self, i must take some umbrage at his notion of buddhism being a "lower" faith than hinduism or the western religious tradition, though i have no doubt as to why this is. it has the most interesting history of theological debate (with a remarkable lack of bloodshed) out of any living religious tradition.

[The Pope]

what would happen to the career of a Christian seminarian who claimed to have found proof that Jesus Christ never existed? Do you think the Church would embrace him and move forward into a new era of Christless Christianity? Of course not.

That would depend upon the proof. If the proof is good we will accept it, but the proof will initially be treated with skepticism.

Maybe that is not how my predecessors did things back in the 1500s, but, you know, times change and we really don't need any more bad PR.

Bring on da proof, Jenn. The Church won't bite.

[gaius marius]

Not the same thing as challenging the essential beliefs of Scripture, Gaius.

of course not, ms jennifer -- but neither can one say that change and exploration were antithetical to catholicism in aquinas' time. as with any healthy institution, it sought change within caution and long consideration.

Ask yourself this--what would happen to the career of a Christian seminarian who claimed to have found proof that Jesus Christ never existed?

he would be persecuted. is the church today the same as it was in aquinas' time?

the church is not an instrument of perpetual revolution, mr jennifer, and i for one am happy that something isn't run by jacobins and neocons. even now, however, in the winter of its discontent, the church is always slowly changing -- for example, along the lines of vatican ii.

[Ethan]

MP,
If science were to come up with an explanation of what happened before the Big Bang, wouldn't you just ask what happened before that? Incidentally, I think that questions about "before" when we are talking about universe origins might be misplaced as there may have been no "before" as Time may have come into being right along with the Universe. But, either way, how is this an argument for the claim that beliefs about the origin of life and the universe are mere "faith"? I noticed that you shifted things a bit: from saying that certain scientific beliefs are mere faith to saying that belief in science is what is mere faith. These are two different things. One could rationally believe that believing in science as a method is a form of faith and that our current scientific theories about the origin of life and the universe are not mere faith.

It's interesting though, what does "faith in science" really mean? I think something like this:
(1) The physical world exists in a particular way (that is, the world functions according to a certain set of principles, possibly a very large set but hopefully not).
(2) These principles do not vary wildly throughout time and space.
(3) These principles are knowable by us OR Some rational version of these principles is knowable by us.

Now it seems that "faith" in these things is necessary (and so perhaps "faith" is the wrong word) just to get by in the world and to think straight (to think at all) about what goes on around us. These are the assumptions of living itself--something that cannot be said of religious belief. Can you imagine how fearful we might be if we did not have "faith" that the rules of the world we lived with yesterday probably won't be in force today? You couldn't cross the street for fear of its opening up and swallowing you. The house would be no safe haven--it could just implode at any moment. And so science asks, "Ok, the world is a certain way, what is that way?" Is this really "faith" in the same sense as this: "A very powerful male person that we cannot see or hear or smell created all of Reality (except himself of course) and used nothing but his mind--oh yeah, he has a mind, and it is really really powerful."

[Ruthless]

You assign far more meaning to human existence that I do, gaius.

the alternative is unthinkable, mr jf. why live at all?

Answer: inertia.

[linguist]

Its also why religion is still around long after we've gained the ability to disprove most of it.
i would suggest, mr mattc, that religion is still around and will always be around not because people are too lazy to seek truth -- but because they seek truth assiduously, and realize that, as much as science can tell us about our world, there are many higher truths about the human experience that are not within the purview of science to find.

Here's another angle. Religion will always be around because belief of a religious nature is a human universal. It may be, to some extent, in our genes, this need to believe in something greater than ourselves. Why do I think this? 1) There is no documented human society that did not have some form of religion and 2) religion serves a bonding purpose in human society. Without society, humans could not have survived. There's some evidence to suggest that without religion, society could not have survived. See Steven Pinker, The Blank Slate for a better elucidation of this sort of argument about human universals.

[quasibill]

"The nonreligious don't see how the religious can be moral if they must fear God to be so."

While there certainly is some truth in this statement, especially with respect to "fire and brimstone" types, there is another aspect.

One can worry about whether people will act morally when they believe in only this plane of existence. For example, when faced with the fear of dying, will the person choose to do something immoral if it prolongs their life? Why not, if you don't believe in some afterlife, or greater judge?

I can acknowledge the validness of the question, but I've found that Taoist philosophy can answer the question as well as any religion, at least for me. Taking responsiblity for your own morality is its own reward.

[Timothy]

for example, along the lines of vatican ii.

Yeah, man, adapting to our modern world at break-neck speed there. How nice of them to start doing Masses in languages that aren't latin, oh, what, 1100 years after the fall of Rome?

[linguist]

Sorry Jennifer, I just saw your post and I think you already made the point I brought up.

You and I are suddenly in some weird mind-synch. Let me guess, you started your period yesterday too? 🙂

[Ethan]

Quote--"My personal experience is that religious fanatics tend to treat other people like shit. They have a holier-than-thou attitude and feel that their deep religious beliefs make them superior to their neighbors."

I would say that this is true of all fanatics of any type, not just religious ones. It's what makes fanatics so tiresome. I agree with OneState that the folks here who are defending the religious side of things are not shoving their beliefs down anyone's throat--they are simply attempting to defend themselves and their views. I do not agree with OneState's thinly veiled implication that it is the other side (we devout atheists) who are. We are simply doing the same thing. I have seen no fanaticism here so far.

[gaius marius]

while mr. gaius has been his usual thoughtful self, i must take some umbrage at his notion of buddhism being a "lower" faith than hinduism or the western religious tradition, though i have no doubt as to why this is. it has the most interesting history of theological debate (with a remarkable lack of bloodshed) out of any living religious tradition.

sorry, mr dhex -- i should clarify that the mahayana and its bodhisattvas that emerged from the philosophy of buddha is indeed a higher religion. but there is a very great difference between the two -- one the philsophy of a man living in the time of socrates and plato which was spread through the empire of ashoka similarly to hellenic philosophy through the roman empire; the other a church emergent from that indic philosophy in the the collapse of the seleucids.

as to the lack of bloodshed -- well, i suggest an examination of the gupta empire by which the mahayana spread throughout the far east.

[gaius marius]

There's some evidence to suggest that without religion, society could not have survived.

which i hope explains my deep respect for religion and its role in human development, mr linguist.

[Number 6]

You assign far more meaning to human existence that I do, gaius.

the alternative is unthinkable, mr jf. why live at all?

Not to be flip, GM, but the answer to that question is "because we are here, and we may as well make the best of it."

[MP]

Ethan,

Science does not currently offer sufficient evidence to explain everything. Believing that it will is having "faith in science". This is not equating science to faith. It is equating beliefs ungrounded by evidence as faith.

Unfortunately, faith has become a dirty word in scientific circles because it automatically triggers the spectre of religion and God. But faith does not imply God.

[Number 6]

Oh, and Gaius-Hinduism pre-dates Buddhism. Siddharta Gautama's philosophy was, in part, a reaction to the less savory aspects of the Hindu social order.

[Ruthless]

"Not to be flip, GM, but the answer to that question is "because we are here, and we may as well make the best of it.""

I said that, Number 6.
What's the matter with you? Start your period?

[dhex]

gaius: i had meant between sects. however, even counting the 200 or 300 years of the gupta dynasty, i would stand by my original phrasing.

[Number 6]

Sorry for the serial posting.
In all of Gaius's posts, I have not seen one claim about the truth of any religion, only that it is useful from a societal perspective. Utility seems an odd justification for a belief system that claims universal truth.

[linguist]

which i hope explains my deep respect for religion and its role in human development, mr linguist.

Yes, gaius, it does. In general I find your arguments very lucid and appealing (having a minor in classical civ myself).

However, what escapes me is why you are under the impression that I'm male, since I alluded to my menstruation at 11:56.

🙂

[Twba]

Ruthless, you da man!

[Jennifer]

Gaius--

he would be persecuted. is the church today the same as it was in aquinas' time?

That's exactly the point I made before--science is happy to prove itself wrong, if by doing so it can come up with something better. Religion is not.

Linguist--

No.

[Akira MacKenzie]

MP:

However, "science" doesn't attempt to fill the void of what it can't currently explain with supposition. Also, science changes as new data replaces old. A good scientist realizes that results can be falsified or misinterpreted. It may not have "all" the answers now, but its working on it, and its far cry from those who try to use supernatural explanations to explain the unexplainable.

In short words, science may not have all the answers, but unlike religion, it doesn't try to make shit up.

[Ethan]

MP writes--"Science does not currently offer sufficient evidence to explain everything. Believing that it will is having "faith in science". This is not equating science to faith. It is equating beliefs ungrounded by evidence as faith."

You've lost me here. I never claimed that science offers sufficient evidence to explain everything. Quite the opposite, in fact. Use the scroll feature to confirm this. I never said that anyone "equated" science with "faith"; I was talking about your claims with respect to particular beliefs' being "faith." Also, I have many times dealt with your claim that there is no evidence for our current beliefs regarding the origin of life and the origin of the universe but you refuse to address those points.

Faith, as you say, may have become a "dirty word" in scientific circles. I suggest that this is not because of its religious connotations but because of what the word means: "belief in the absence of evidence." Since evidence is important to scientists, a form of belief that operates without it has little or no role to play.

[poco]

belief of a religious nature is a human universal

Well, judging from the number of nonbelievers here and elsewhere, no, it isn't. Some people believed for a while and then stopped, some never believed. What is the evolutionary rationale for nonbelievers, or the guy with the quiet temporal lobes in the first God helmet article? Are they mere accidents of nature?

[gaius marius]

Hinduism pre-dates Buddhism.

as a philosophy, it has very old roots -- just as christianity can claim roots as old as plato and indeed abraham and sumeria. but as it is today, as we see it, hinduism came into form only in the aftermath of a very deep interaction with buddhism, following which it supplanted buddhism in india. to apply the name hinduism to both the precursor philosophies and ritualism and then the religion that grew from it which we know today is confusing.

[bachwards]

Jennifer,
I would suggest that science is not often as happy to prove itself wrong as you imply. I believe Lakatos makes a compelling case for how scientists shield their core research programme by formulating and readjusting their auxillary hypotheses. This protection of the core strikes me as a willingness to prove itself wrong only up to a certain point.

[gaius marius]

science is happy to prove itself wrong

i think, ms jennifer, that christianity was once happy to rediscover itself and now is not. fwiw, i further think that science is currently in the process of making that transition from dynamic to static. wait a while, and i suspect we'll see science similarly entombed, the method forgotten, the static edifice remaining. this is hardly, after all, the first outburst of technicalism the world has ever seen.

[MP]

Akira,

Correct. I'm only defending the usage of the word faith, not religion in general.

Ethan,

Is your answer to questions that remain currently unanswered "I don't know" or "I don't know, but I believe that there is a rational, scientific explanation for it". The second answer is a matter of faith. Belief in the eventual uncovery of evidence is faith.

BTW, I don't appreciate the continued need to insert snarky comments in your responses.

[gaius marius]

However, "science" doesn't attempt to fill the void of what it can't currently explain with supposition

i disagree, mr mackenzie. science as currently practiced is increasingly misapplied and used as a guise of validity. the range of misapplication runs from global environmentalism to m-theory and beyond.

[gaius marius]

menstruation at 11:56.

pardon me, ms linguist -- my predilections betray me. 🙂

[gaius marius]

In all of Gaius's posts, I have not seen one claim about the truth of any religion, only that it is useful from a societal perspective. Utility seems an odd justification for a belief system that claims universal truth.

am i qualified to make claims of fact on the nature and mind of god, mr 6? and do we dare discourse here on the possible nature of a universal truth of forms?

you seem to think that social harmony is insufficient reason for belief. i submit that it may well be the best evidence, as it were, of the truth that resides in a concept of god as love.

[linguist]

Well, judging from the number of nonbelievers here and elsewhere, no, it isn't. Some people believed for a while and then stopped, some never believed. What is the evolutionary rationale for nonbelievers, or the guy with the quiet temporal lobes in the first God helmet article? Are they mere accidents of nature?

You've spotted the point. Good. Yes, if belief (faith), the foundation of religion, is a human universal, it means that MP has a point and that for many people, science and or humanism becomes a religious belief.

[Ethan]

MP, If you would include some of the comments you would consider "snarky" I would appreciate it--you know, so I know what sort of approach to avoid. I don't think that anything I have said is out of the bounds of what normally passes for discourse here.

Anyway, a belief that science will find the answer to a particular question in the future is not belief without evidence ("faith") because science has done so before. So there is some basis for the belief. Science is just a recipe for arriving at well-founded beliefs about the physical world. It has been shown to work. It may be that it will turn out that a particular problem is too complicated for us to really formulate a clear understanding of it or that the evidence we require for the answer is forever beyond our grasp, but the fact that this is possible does not mean that it is faith (belief without evidence)to believe that science can find the answer. If we knew that the required evidence was forever closed off to us, we would stop believing that we can find the answer. Also, when scientists say "we" in this context I don't think they necessarily mean "the people in this room" or "the humans that exist now." They mean simply that the procedure of careful observation, creation of hypotheses, and analysis (and re-analysis) of results is the way to the answer, should there turn out to be one. Perhaps the most charitable way to put the point is this: concerning questions about the way the physical world operates, if science can't find the answer then nothing else can either. "God did it" will never be a proper explanation as we are still left to wonder, "How? According to what principle?" and have made exactly no progress. Such questions can spur scientific inquiry and theory, but it will be the science that finds the answer.

[Ruthless]

linguist,
Science isn't a religion here, I'll betcha!
http://www.santafe.edu/

[Number 6]

GM-I understand your argument. However, bullshit for the sake of social harmony is still bullshit. You seem to be suggesting that institutions which promote harmony are inherently good things. I'd suggest that while there is a case to be made there, you're coming very close to a system in which those who control the institutions control the people-one presumes "for their own good." That, in turn, demands a fair amount of trust in those institutions and their leaders. History indicates that this is a bad idea.

[Ethan]

(Curtain)

Bill Nye: Wow! What's that?

Priest: It's a WorldZone 3000.

Bill: Neat! How was it made?

Priest: Your father made it.

Bill: Really? How?

Priest: He just made it. He's smart.

Bill: But how?

Priest: He saw that having one would be good. Did you see the cool lights?

Bill: Yeah, yeah. But how was it made? How does it work?

Priest: Well, your father created it as a test. Ya know, to see how you and others would react.

Bill: I see. But that is really about why dad created it, not how. How did he create it?

Priest: Well, you know your dad--he is quite mysterious.

Bill: Yeah, he is, I guess. Whoa! What are those things inside it? They look like dinosaur bones! Cool!

Priest: Actually, they are fakes. Your father put them there to test you. If you conclude that they imply that the WorldZone is much older than your father, then you have failed the test. After all, how could the Zone be older than your father, since he created it? Don't you love your father? Don't you want to be a moral person?

Bill: But I bet I could find some way to figure out how old the stuff around the bones is and then I would prove how old the bones are, on the reasonable assumption that two things that are buried together were probably buried together at the same time. Seems like a rational approach.

Priest: Well, you could, but that would just be faith.

Bill: How so?

Priest: Well, your belief that there is an answer and that your "rational approach" will find it is a belief without evidence.

Bill: What other approach would find the answer? I mean, there IS an age of those bones--they were put there at some point in the past. Isn't the only way to figure that out to actually look at the bones and see if they leave any evidence of how long they have been there? I might not be able to find it, but I might learn something that will allow others to find it. I might be wrong, but it seems that I have reason to believe that there is an answer there somewhere. I am not saying that I know that the answer will be found, only that my approach to the question is a reasoned one.

Priest: But I already told you that your father put the bones there. He put them there 10,000 hours ago.

Bill: So when I look at the bones they should look like they have been there about 10,000 hours or so! Perhaps bones dry out at a particular rate or something! I bet I could figure it out. I have figured out lots of things before, things just like this, things people said couldn't be known.

Priest: Look away from the bones!! Here, read this book. It was written by your father. It tells you a bunch of stories designed to tell you how to behave when around the WorldZone. You can meet up with others who pretend that they have read it. Oh yeah, and stay away from gay people.

Bill: But I am already a pretty good person I think. Well, except maybe for that time I shot all those chipmunks.

Priest: Doesn't a good person trust his father?

Bill: Man, I feel like molesting a bald eagle. You wanna? This whole science thing has set me free from the dictates of morality!

Priest: No, I can't. I have choir practice to administer.

Bill: Don't you mean "adpriest"?

(They both laugh and become motionless)

(Curtain)

[MP]

Snarky = Use the scroll feature to confirm this.

Maybe I'm just too sensitive today.

Anyhow, faith in a higher power does not imply that the higher power has the ability to rearrange the laws of the Universe. Is Clarke's black monolith God? That depends on your individual perspective.

[Ethan]

(Curtain)

Bill Nye: Wow! What's that?

Priest: It's a WorldZone 3000.

Bill: Neat! How was it made?

Priest: Your father made it.

Bill: Really? How?

Priest: He just made it. He's smart.

Bill: But how?

Priest: He saw that having one would be good. Did you see the cool lights?

Bill: Yeah, yeah. But how was it made? How does it work?

Priest: Well, your father created it as a test. Ya know, to see how you and others would react.

Bill: I see. But that is really about why dad created it, not how. How did he create it?

Priest: Well, you know your dad--he is quite mysterious.

Bill: Yeah, he is, I guess. Whoa! What are those things inside it? They look like dinosaur bones! Cool!

Priest: Actually, they are fakes. Your father put them there to test you. If you conclude that they imply that the WorldZone is much older than your father, then you have failed the test. After all, how could the Zone be older than your father, since he created it? Don't you love your father? Don't you want to be a moral person?

Bill: But I bet I could find some way to figure out how old the stuff around the bones is and then I would prove how old the bones are, on the reasonable assumption that two things that are buried together were probably buried together at the same time. Seems like a rational approach.

Priest: Well, you could, but that would just be faith.

Bill: How so?

Priest: Well, your belief that there is an answer and that your "rational approach" will find it is a belief without evidence.

Bill: What other approach would find the answer? I mean, there IS an age of those bones--they were put there at some point in the past. Isn't the only way to figure that out to actually look at the bones and see if they leave any evidence of how long they have been there? I might not be able to find it, but I might learn something that will allow others to find it. I might be wrong, but it seems that I have reason to believe that there is an answer there somewhere. I am not saying that I know that the answer will be found, only that my approach to the question is a reasoned one.

Priest: But I already told you that your father put the bones there. He put them there 10,000 hours ago.

Bill: So when I look at the bones they should look like they have been there about 10,000 hours or so! Perhaps bones dry out at a particular rate or something! I bet I could figure it out. I have figured out lots of things before, things just like this, things people said couldn't be known.

Priest: Look away from the bones!! Here, read this book. It was written by your father. It tells you a bunch of stories designed to tell you how to behave when around the WorldZone. You can meet up with others who pretend that they have read it. Oh yeah, and stay away from gay people.

Bill: But I am already a pretty good person I think. Well, except maybe for that time I shot all those chipmunks.

Priest: Doesn't a good person trust his father?

Bill: Man, I feel like molesting a bald eagle. You wanna? This whole science thing has set me free from the dictates of morality!

Priest: No, I can't. I have choir practice to administer.

Bill: Don't you mean "adpriest"?

(They both laugh and freeze in place)

(Curtain)

[Ethan]

Yeah, that one might have been a little snarky, I admit, and you may be a little sensitive today. Cheers.

[dhex]

"following which it supplanted buddhism in india"

because of the muslim invasion, of course.

i've read some interesting diary excerpts from folks on the islamic side and their reaction to meeting atheists who worship false idols. (or to be more accurate, meeting them, raping them, then slaughtering them, then burning, breaking and burying what they had built)

[poco]

science is not often as happy to prove itself wrong as you imply

Well, I suspect that's the politics of academia, forcing one to choose a position early on and form factions. Scientists will prove one another wrong, but rarely themselves. They can't be too open-minded lest they change it too often and be thought of by their peers as unauthoritative flip-floppers. (Aren't they essentially entitled to one apostasy per career, if that?) I guess the lesson, then, is "Believe in the scientific method, but be skeptical of scientists". (Optional ditto re religion and priests.)

[thoreau]

Hmm, you-know-who is busy tearing into somebody in another thread. I'm surprised he hasn't posted here yet.

[Jennifer]

Thoreau--

Even the biggest of assholes can only smear around a finite amount of shit.

[thoreau]

OK, Jennifer, that was just wrong. I have a strong stomach, but that was just wrong.

[gaius marius]

bullshit for the sake of social harmony is still bullshit

i think, mr 6, that a church, much like any institution, is forced by compromise to adopt vestiges of older systems that are not useful or even relevant to the point of the institution. i don't see how the catholic church is any different in that respect than, say, american government and law, which is full of precedents from english common law and parliamentary government, not to mention anachronisms of the early republic (say, the 2nd amendment) which are irrelevant and even counterproductive.

that does not mean that christianity is 'bullshit', as you say. the essence of christianity -- indeed, of all the higher religions -- is not only not that but may well be the only important thing, the basis from which a meaningful and fulfilling existence may be ultimately derived.

again, we should take care not to toss the baby with the bathwater.

[Jennifer]

Well, Thoreau, I suggest you learn what a strong stomach truly entails before you embarrass yourself further.

[gaius marius]

because of the muslim invasion, of course.

actually, mr dhex, i think that buddhism had largely been driven from the field in india long prior to the islamic invasions of the 11th c, being shunted to the backwaters of civility.

as early as the 4th c, hinduism was on the rise in that part of the world, following on the heels of the decadence and fall of the guptas.

[Stevo Darkly]

I haven't had a chance to read the whole thread, but I had a couple immediate thoughts.

1) Are we 100% sure that Gregory S. Paul, identified as "a social scientist" in the first article linked, and Gregory S. Paul, the fairly famous paleontologist and highly influential paleo-illustrator, are the same person?

Both seem to reside in or near Baltimore, MD, so it looks like it. But how common is the name "Gregory S. Paul"? Anybody got a Baltimore phone book?

I'm a big fan of G.S. Paul the paleontogist. I've got two of his books, the classic Predatory Dinosaurs of the World and the Dinosaurs of the Air. I am not a scientist myself, but I know he has done some very impressive work on the connection between birds and dinosaurs. (In fact, it's so close that I should say "birds and other dinosaurs.)

Paul the paleontologist sometimes posts, occasionally and rather tersely, on the Dinosaur Mailing List, a paleontological discussion forum for professionals and others maintainted by the Cleveland Museum of Natural History. (http://dml.cmnh.org) I lurk there every day.

I've never seen G.S. Paul the paleontologist voice an opinion about religion. I've looked briefly at the religion study, but couldn't tell if that was his "voice" or not. It seems a bit more academic and dry than G.S. Paul the paleontologist, who tends to be a fairly lively writer even when he gets technical. But then, this is a formal paper, not a semi-popular book.

Paul the paleontologist is known for coming up with theories that break from the older, more unorthodox thinking -- for example, he makes a good case that very birdlike dinosaurs such as Velociraptor are not just closely related to bird ancestors, but descended from earlier flying birds similar to Archaeopteryx, and this idea is now taken very seriously -- but he appears to be highly respected among his peers.

It appears most of you guys don't think very highly of this religion stury. If Gergory S. Paul the author of this study and Gregory S. Paul the paleontologist are in fact the same person, I wonder if he was dabbling in a field outside his real area of expertise and maybe is a little out of his depth.

2) For me, one thing that set off warning bells about the study is the assertion that the USA has a dysfunctional society compared to other developed nations. I think that's too broad a statement. We are a nation of many subcultures, and some of them are pretty dysfunctional. In another forum discussing the USA's rate of violent crime compared to European countries, one poster asserted that if you separated out the crime rates for the US inner cities, then the rates for the rest of the USA are actually very similar to those of Europe. If true, I wonder if the other dysfunctionalities that Paul "the social scientist" cites, like teen suicide and teen pregancy, are similarly concentrated. I think they could be.

3) In general, people who feel they aren't in control of their lives and fates tend to be more religious or superstitious, looking for supernatural means to get results from life that they can't otherwise. People who feel content and in control of their lives are more likely to feel they don't need a God.

4) There is probably a considerable overlap between people who live in poor areas, people who live in crime-ridden areas, people who live in troubled areas in general, and people who seek solace in religion. I think it's more likely that the problems lead to desperation and worry and then lead to seeing religion as a possible solution, rather than religion causing the problems.

Will read more later. I did this pretty hastily, I admit.

[dhex]

gaius: it was still very active in northeastern india until the 11th and 12th centuries. the fall of delhi was the end of a lot of things in india.

hindiuism, being very flexible at the time, had incorporated a bit of buddhist icons and art into their social structure. this may have come to some sort of very interesting synthesis, especially in regards to the social caste system and the buddhist monastic structure.

it is interesting that hinduism was able to come to some degree of terms with buddhism, a heretical sect to say the least, and the western tradition, especially islam, has displayed little but antipathy and outright violence. for obvious reasons; the flipside to stability is the destruction of those who would opposed the one true faith. (whatever that may be)

[drf]

tsk tsk Ms Jennifer, Dr. Thoreau. tsk tsk.

😉

*chuckle*

Thoreau: just adjust HanSolo's lines: "I dunno. I can imagine quite a bit"

[Stevo Darkly]

I'm still reading through the thread, but I have a follow-up comment.

I am now reluctantly convinced that Gregory S. Paul, the author of the study in question, is in fact also Gregory S. Paul the respected paleontologist. The last bit of evidence is that G.S. Paul the paleontologist once co-authored a book called Beyond Humanity, about the future evolution of intelligence, and apparently it too is hostile to religion. (See Amazon.com reviews.) The book also appears to be a bit sensationalistic and schlocky, but I'm inclined to blame the publisher and the other co-author for that.

So far, it looks like everyone here has given the religion study a panning. If it does suck, I would just like to mention that this should not reflect poorly on Paul's ability in his native field of paleontology. Everyone has blind spots and irrational hot-buttons, and everyone, no matter how capable, has limits to their competence.

In fact, I would say that over at the Dinosaur Mailing List forum, GSP is as greatly respected as thoreau is here. He's practically a god.

Actually, I should say GSP over at the DML fourm is a bit like God -- his works widely respected and admired, and his words often cited, but he rarely stops in to make his presence known in person.

While thoreau is more like Jesus -- he actually walks among us! 🙂

[Tom Crick]

"part of the obfuscation that occurs is the inability of many to conceive of a religion and its imperfect material vessel, a church, as two different things."

The church is God, not a material vessel. ...and the the church is perfect, its material vessel is not. That's one of the reasons I'll never be a Catholic.

"i think what passes for religion in postmodern america is indeed quite destructive and exploitative, and the failure of protestantism to be more than an avenue to self-indulgence part of the root cause of western social affliction."

I'd like to better understand your "avenue to self-indulgence" argument.

...If by that you mean that the root cause of western social affliction is a priesthood of believers that invents its own doctrine then I strongly disagree. Evangelicals, for instance, have long since ceded the interpretation of doctrine to their leaders, much like Catholics.

[Stevo Darkly]

Still reading the thread, but it inspired some musings from me.

THE ONE THING
My Religious Faith... and My Penis. What They Have in Common.

The following statments are true of either one.

1) It is very important to me.

2) I think about it a lot. Several times a day.

3) It's not all I think about, though.

4) It doesn't control all my thinking, but it does affect my thinking fairly often.

5) I often find it useful. You can't use it for everything in life, of course. But some things I couldn't do without it.

6) It can bring people together.

7) But it can also be divisive.

8) I want the government to stay away from it. I don't want the government messing with it. Nor do I want any government policy driven soley by it.

9) Some people don't have one. That doesn't mean they are bad people. In fact, most people I know who don't have one, I like quite a bit. Sometimes, the fact that I have one, and they don't, can lead to stimulating interaction.

10) A few of the people don't have one HATE it. They don't like the fact that I have one. They wish I didn't have it. They wish nobody had one. They consider it the source of all evil in the world.

I consider such people a bit nutty and obsessed.

From what I know, nearly all such people were once hurt by someone who had one. They may be very smart people, but as far as I can tell, their attitude is really more emotional than intellectual in basis. They can't be reasoned out of it. So I generally tend to avoid such people.

11) I won't deny that I have one. But usually I don't go far out of my way to talk about it, either. I realize that talking about it makes some people uncomfortable. As a rule, it's best to keep it fairly private unless you run across someone who is interested in it.

And among a group of people who are uninterested in it, taking it out and waving it in their faces is really rude.

12) It can be misused. Sometimes in really horrible, deplorable ways. That doesn't mean it is intrinsically evil, or that everyone who has one is going to misuse it.

13) I don't mind if people joke about it, if it's done in a fairly lighthearted way. And usuall that's the case. Often behind joking and teasing, there is real affection. But if done in a mean-spirited and nasty way, intended to hurt and viciously ridicule, then it bothers me a bit. Of course, if you get all riled up about it, people think you're just being too sensitive.

14) If you try to think about it in an objective and detached manner, it really is a pretty strange thing. Very weird, even. Even I have to admit, its kind of a funny thing. Sometimes I make a little fun of it too. But that doesn't mean it is unimportant to me.

[Stevo Darkly]

(zip)

[Douglas Fletcher]

I'm still working on my theory that God is an athiest but I'm running into trouble -- anybody want to help?

[thoreau]

Douglas-

Maybe God just has self-esteem issues and doesn't really believe in himself.

[Kris]

Stevo,

That was genius!

[Cracker Lilo]

I'm glad y'all checked into the original study. It smelled a bit weird to me, too. I like the point about how it reinforces a belief as strong as any religion.

I also loved Stevo Darkly's comparison of religion and his penis, even though I don't have the latter (and since I'm Pagan, some people don't think I have the former, either.)

[The Big Wang Theory]

I agree completely with this study. It's clear that religious belief correlates with increased dysfunctionality (a word?) of a society. What we need is a purely secular society that's completely bereft of this concept of a god so that we as a species can move beyond the superstition of religion and into the realm of our true humanity. Like the Soviet Union was. Oh, wait. That didn't work that well. Didn't they kill a few million humans? OK. Then how about China? Mao was such a great...Oh wait. 20 million murdered, right? Hmm. Cambodia!!! Aw crap. Damn Khmer Rouge. Well. Let's see. Cuba? Nope. North Korea? Shit. Isn't there a single god-free society that didn't murder millions of it's citizens? OK. Maybe Cuba & North Korea but I wouldn't want to live there.

Personally I believe in the Big Wang theory to explain the origins of the universe. An enormous penis ejaculated all that exists into the womb of the universe and we're all here as a consequence. No really!

Seriously though, I believe that this universe and all that exists is far too complex to have come (hehe) about by accident. I happen to believe in the Judeo-Christian thought regarding origins however it most certainly is NOT able to be explained in scientific terms. Perhaps legal-historical in the examination and presentation of evidence but not scientific. Indeed, evolution is an explanation based on evidence. Not truly science but an examination of evidence and a possibly explanation of said evidence.

Anyway. God bless. Yeah, I know that'll piss some of you off but that's OK. I still wish and hope the best for all of you.

TBWT

[nathan]

What interesting comments... The study, as reported, could take the same data and state that violence, murder rates, sexual diseases and dysfunction, must in fact be caused by the presence of Chevrolet automobiles, since Chevrolet automobiles also exist at high levels in the US...

As for the almost universal derision of any sort of theist, creationist, or by inference "intelligent design" by the persons making comment on this story- have any of you really noticed the complexity of language and reason?? Looked at the diagrams of the inner-ear lately?? Noticed how truly beautiful women (or men) actually are?? Not to mention hummingbirds?? Ever look at the skeleton of a whale, or a dolphin, or a dinosaur?? In viewing same, did you miss the concept of "engineering"??? Do you actually believe that all of this "evolved from marsh gas"?? Based upon what assumptions?? Did any of you read the NY Times obit for Dr. Francis Crick (with Watson, the structure of DNA)??? He, among many many many other scientists, point out that "there just hasn't been enough time" for all of this to have "evolved" on this planed from cosmic soup... Quite frankly, I would suggest that if a truly "secret ballot" of top scientists over the age of 54 were to occur, the majority would actually side with "intelligent design", however truly inconvenient that actually would be for many....
You all sound like Inquisitors reincarnated as idiots.... under water with your assumptions, based upon folly.....
I don't know who owns this place, but it definitely isn't us.... good luck...