If we use charity and lawfulness as a measuring stick, then statistically, religious people commit significantly more good than non-religious people.

If your measuring stick is fundamentalist religious activism, and if you ignore religious activism that is quantifiably benevolent or victimless, then religious people commit significantly more evil than non-religious people.

However, one of these is a universal quality of all religious people, and the other isn't.

5/14/2010 9:24:30 AM

Prove that non-religious people are statistically less lawful or less charitable.

5/14/2010 9:34:36 AM

So I can't treat the former as self-evident, even though you treat the latter as self-evident? Fine.

http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/3447051.html
http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/data_access/data/datasets/social_capital_community_survey.html

5/14/2010 9:51:01 AM

Currently doing research into the topic at hand.

Also, what the hell are you bitching about? You made 2 claims, the first of which was fine, the 2nd of which was loaded with qualifiers. I don't care to even consider the 2nd claim.

I can buy the religiousness and charity thing, but I'm looking at the data of the report directly rather than the conclusions that create their own distinction of "religiousness" to create a dataset to support their conclusions.

Also, lawfulness? Do I need to show you the relative crime rate between the U.S. and countries that have much lower religiousness rates?

5/14/2010 10:14:28 AM

The 2nd claim is the one you have been making.

Quote :

"Also, lawfulness? Do I need to show you the relative crime rate between the U.S. and countries that have much lower religiousness rates?"

Even if I grant that without seeing the data, that's far too broad a subject for correlation to imply causality.

Lawfulness I threw out there because that study found that religious people are more likely to return change mistakenly given by a cashier.

[Edited on May 14, 2010 at 10:35 AM. Reason : .]

5/14/2010 10:29:44 AM

http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/misc/USMISC2006-SOCCAP/usmisc2006-soccap.pdf

Quote :

"37. People and families contribute money, property or other assets for a wide variety of charitable purposes. During the past 12 months, approximately how much money did you and the other family members in your household contribute to… 37A. All religious causes, including your local religious congregation (IF NECESSARY: PROMPT WITH CATEGORIES) (IF NECESSARY: By contribution, I mean a voluntary contribution with no intention of making a profit or obtaining goods or services for yourself.) (IF NECESSARY: REPEAT ASSURANCES OF CONFIDENTIALITY) (1116) <GIVEREL> 1 None 2 Less than $100 3 $100 to less than $500 4 $500 to less than $1000 5 $1000 to less than $5000 6 More than $5000 8 Don't know 9 Refused Page 19 37B. To all non-religious charities, organizations, or causes (IF NECESSARY, PROMPT WITH CATEGORIES) (IF NECESSARY: By contribution, I mean a voluntary contribution with no intention of making a profit or obtaining goods or services for yourself.) (IF NECESSARY: REPEAT ASSURANCES OF CONFIDENTIALITY)"

The relevant questions from the cited survey. I'm interested to know how much of the money that "religious" people "donated" was "including your local religious congregation" since they did not separate the two.

Quote :

"Even if I grant that without seeing the data, that's far too broad a subject for correlation to imply causality. Lawfulness I threw out there because that study found that religious people are more likely to return change mistakenly given by a cashier."

Teeheehee, you consider crime rates and religiousness bad correlators but "propensity to return incorrect change" as a good correlator for lawfulness?

[Edited on May 14, 2010 at 10:37 AM. Reason : ]

5/14/2010 10:36:06 AM

Quote :

"Some people might object to my conflation here of religious and nonreligious charity. One might argue, for example, that religious charity is more likely to take place for non-altruistic reasons than is nonreligious giving and volunteering: Religious people might give because of social pressure, for personal gain (such as stashing away rewards in Heaven), or to finance the services that they themselves consume, such as sacramental activities. Therefore, disparities in charity might disappear when we only consider explicitly nonreligious giving and volunteering. The sccbs data do not support this hypothesis, however: Religious people are more generous than secular people with nonreligious causes as well as with religious ones. While 68 percent of the total population gives (and 51 percent volunteers) to nonreligious causes each year, religious people are 10 points more likely to give to these causes than secularists (71 percent to 61 percent) and 21 points more likely to volunteer (60 percent to 39 percent). For example, religious people are 7 points more likely than secularists to volunteer for neighborhood and civic groups, 20 points more likely to volunteer to help the poor or elderly, and 26 points more likely to volunteer for school or youth programs. It seems fair to say that religion engenders charity in general — including nonreligious charity."

5/14/2010 10:37:19 AM

I'll concede your point that in the United States, in the year 2000, extreme religiousness (in terms of his conclusions, going to church once a week or greater) has a higher statistical correlation to charity than extreme non-religiousness.

I am not convinced that humanity would not be better off without religiousness.

5/14/2010 10:44:59 AM

Quote :

"Teeheehee, you consider crime rates and religiousness bad correlators but "propensity to return incorrect change" as a good correlator for lawfulness?"

By itself, no. That would be silly.

I was not expecting to actually have to argue that religious people commit less crimes. I've granted you the point that religious people impose their religious morals on others, but you can't grant me the point that religious people follow their religious morals?

5/14/2010 10:50:06 AM

I'm not certain what point you're trying to make here.

There are plenty of examples of religious people (even devoutly religious people like catholic priests) breaking their religious morals.

Are you suggesting secular people have no morality and therefore since religious people have a morality they must by default practice morality more than secular people?

5/14/2010 10:58:32 AM

Quote :

"Sure. However, the distinction is that I believe that without religion people will have reason to continue to do good, and less reason to continue to be assholes. "

no, the issue will just change to race or immigration or any topic that is about people who are different than them.

5/14/2010 11:20:26 AM

also, both of you need to define the metric you are using to determine if people are religious. if it is just how they choose to define themselves then i would bet that religious people break their morals with the same rate that non-christian people break their morals.

5/14/2010 11:22:54 AM

Quote :

"no, the issue will just change to race or immigration or any topic that is about people who are different than them."

Except: Nothing about being a particular race means you have a holy book saying that God hates fags, people that don't believe the way that you do are evil, etc. You also don't have a propensity to ignore logic and observation, and can be convinced of things given evidence.

5/14/2010 12:00:46 PM

LOL, is disco_stu trolling or does he really have the mind of a 3rd grader?

So according to you, the one thing keeping us from all getting along is religion? LOL



















here is a clue: $$$

5/14/2010 12:19:22 PM

without religion there are still going to be a lot of people who don't like homosexuals. are you implying that every person who is a bigot or hates homosexuals is religious? how do you explain the bigots and homophobic people who are not religious? people tend to be against things that are different than them, nothing about religion says anything about redheads but we all picked on the ginger kid on grade school. one kid had a funny accent, he got picked on too and i've never heard anything about accents in church (well actually i kinda did, but it told you to help them).

5/14/2010 12:31:07 PM

Golovko,
Did I ever say that the world would be a perfect place or that humanity would be perfect without religion? Nope, only that it would be better. Is the concept of certain states of being being better or worse than other states of being too complex for you?

I am suggesting that there would be fewer people that would hate homosexuals if Christianity were not around. To suggest that most people that are against homosexuality are so because of reasons other than religious belief is just wrong.

And note too, I'm not suggesting a reality in which every world religion suddenly disappears and all the bigots become nice people. That's absurd. I'm suggesting a reality that may not come to pass for generations.

[Edited on May 14, 2010 at 12:43 PM. Reason : .]

5/14/2010 12:39:59 PM

It's possible that religion is nascent.
...and by this I mean that, rather than dying out, may quickly evolve 180° into something else, but still basically be religion. Like, what if thousands of atheist religions pop up and dominate the next few millenniums?....perhaps characterized by object worship, political reverence or cyber-sexuality. (I'm just throwing things out there.)

5/14/2010 12:40:33 PM

Oh
My
Science

5/14/2010 12:44:18 PM

disco_stu you are an idiot. You are seriously misinformed and your rage against religion is amusing.

But lets all live in that happy place you speak of, sounds fun.

5/14/2010 12:49:28 PM

I'm convinced. What religion are you so I can sign up?

5/14/2010 12:54:42 PM

Quote :

"....perhaps characterized by object worship, political reverence or cyber-sexuality. (I'm just throwing things out there.)"

Or human solidarity.

Don't get me wrong, I think that's probably pie in the sky, but it wouldn't be a bad goal, and I wouldn't say it's any more unfathomable than a global cult based on cybersex.

5/14/2010 1:00:26 PM

Golovko, if you're interested in helping me rather than calling me names, please tell me the way that I am misinformed.

I believe that a world view based on reality, evidence, testing, peer review, skepticism, etc is better fundamentally than a world view based on delusion.

Your beliefs influence your actions. Actions based on beliefs which are based on not-reality are demonstrably worse than actions based on reality. I truly wish we lived in a bubble where what other people believed didn't affect us in any way.

[Edited on May 14, 2010 at 2:31 PM. Reason : .]

5/14/2010 2:23:05 PM

Quote :

"Golovko, if you're interested in helping me rather than calling me names, please tell me the way that I am misinformed. I believe that a world view based on reality, evidence, testing, peer review, skepticism, etc is better fundamentally than a world view based on delusion. Your beliefs influence your actions. Actions based on beliefs which are based on not-reality are demonstrably worse than actions based on reality. I truly wish we lived in a bubble where what other people believed didn't affect us in any way. "

I'm not here to convince you of anything. Just pointing out that while your posts are at times amusing because of your skewed view of religion, you are very misinformed.

Is it possible you were molested by a Catholic priest when you were young?

5/14/2010 2:35:18 PM

And I'm the troll. Luckily I know TWW is not a good cross-section of humanity or I might be depressed.

5/14/2010 2:43:34 PM

You are, you go out of your way to ridicule religion with your illusions of what you think religion and prayer are that couldn't be farther from the truth.

5/14/2010 2:46:16 PM

lol at Golovko, who's done nothing in this thread BUT troll, calling anyone else a troll

[Edited on May 14, 2010 at 3:03 PM. Reason : it's also pretty funny to see disco_stu winning the fuck out of this thread]

5/14/2010 3:02:17 PM

I'm not ridiculing religion; I'm pointing out that it's not based on fact.
If it looks ridiculous it's not because of anything I've said.

5/14/2010 3:03:57 PM

Quote :

"I'm not ridiculing religion; I'm pointing out that it's not based on fact. If it looks ridiculous it's not because of anything I've said."

Science = best guess
Religion = your faith (which you lack)

5/14/2010 3:17:49 PM

To call any conclusions made by science a guess shows a total lack of understanding of the scientific method.

Scientific conclusions are demonstrable, observable, reasonable, reproducible, falsifiable, peer reviewed, and externally explainable. They have basis in reality. Since we exist in reality it is by default the best way to describe reality. They can be proven wrong. They are often proven wrong. Refinement of conclusions based on new evidence is a very core part of the scientific method.

Faith is a rejection of the scientific method. And as I said before we exist in reality; a rejection of the scientific method (or attempting to undermine it by calling it a fucking guess) is objectively wrong and a poor way to describe reality or justify belief in something.

I not only lack faith, I reject it as nonsense and dangerous.

[Edited on May 14, 2010 at 3:46 PM. Reason : faith]

5/14/2010 3:43:26 PM

anything you can't observe is really a best guess. all of those things you talk about just strengthen how much of the best it is but no one observed the creation of the universe.

Quote :

"Faith is a rejection of the scientific method."

negative

[Edited on May 14, 2010 at 3:50 PM. Reason : .]

5/14/2010 3:50:04 PM

Quote :

" Do I need to show you the relative crime rate between the U.S. and countries that have much lower religiousness rates?"

holy fuck, what an utterly worthless statistic, at least for what you're arguing

5/14/2010 3:57:55 PM

Can you please point out where I claimed to know the origin of the universe?
Can you please point out where the beginning of the universe is modeled within current accepted scientific cosmology?

Anything that can't be observed, or doesn't affect reality in any demonstrably way is pointless to even ponder.

Science doesn't deal with things that don't affect reality.

As mentioned before the question of the origin of the universe is currently a philosophical one.

But to accept a theistic explanation because science doesn't have an explanation currently? Really?

-------------------------------------------------------------
Duke, why? If religiousness is a correlator for lawfulness, wouldn't you expect the religiousness for a country as a whole to align with the lawfulness of that country as a whole? (Since each is merely a total aggregate for individuals in that country).

[Edited on May 14, 2010 at 4:04 PM. Reason : .]

5/14/2010 3:59:14 PM

religion and science don't have to conflict, they just do because of how you define them. and you define them in a way thats different from how a lot of christians practice religion, myself and other posters included. you are using one group of people and basing your conclusions of all religion on how just some people practice it. the fact that religion differs so much shows that those things are not inate to religion, just how those people practice it. that's what golovko is pointing out, that you have an over-simplistic view of religion that is making you look like an idiot.

5/14/2010 4:05:39 PM

I'm sorry but they're not compatible. They're only compatible if you (like most American Christians do) compartmentalize your religion away from the same rules you apply to observable phenomena.

But your reaction is good at least that you, like most American Christians accept some tenets of empiricism and maybe one day you'll turn your scrutiny on your belief and determine that it's not based in reality whatsoever.

5/14/2010 4:16:01 PM

there is no compartmentalization, there is no conflict.

5/14/2010 4:21:06 PM

Are you saying the God is provable by science? Because if it is not, then it is disingenuous to say that you apply the same rules for observable phenomena to God.

Why does God get a pass? Why not Zeus? Or Mohammed? Or ultra-powerful-aliens?

If you can't explain this, then you are demonstrating the compartmentalization you're exhibiting: you do not apply the same standards for knowing things to God as you do to real things.

5/14/2010 4:27:07 PM

Quote :

"However, the distinction is that I believe that without religion people will have reason to continue to do good, and less reason to continue to be assholes."

The logical outworking of naturalism is natural selection and competition. Nature is red in tooth and claw (some guy named Tennyson). Old nietzsche is right if naturalism is true. At least the way I see it.

Quote :

"“If we present a man with a concept of man which is not true, we may well corrupt him. When we present man as an automaton of reflexes, as a mind-machine, as a bundle of instincts, as a pawn of drives and reactions, as a mere product of instinct, heredity and environment, we feed the nihilism to which modern man is, in any case, prone. I became acquainted, with the last stage of that corruption in my second concentration camp, Auschwitz. The gas chambers of Auschwitz were the ultimate consequence of the theory that man is nothing but the product of heredity and environment–or, as the Nazi liked to say, of ‘Blood and Soil.’ I am absolutely convinced that the gas chambers of Auschwitz, Treblinka, and Maidanek were ultimately prepared not in some Ministry or other in Berlin, but rather at the desks and in the lecture halls of nihilistic scientists and philosophers.”"

~Viktor Frankl

5/14/2010 4:28:12 PM

I disagree. Some people see art, beauty, philosophy, music, and other wonderful esoteric things that man produces as evidence of the divine.

I see them as evidence of man's propensity to rise above it's animal heritage and create a humanity that is greater than the sum of it parts. Just because we are animals does not mean we must act like wild animals. In fact, it's a logical necessity to follow the Ethic of Reciprocity and punish those that do not.

To suggest that the Holocaust was the result of Naturalism is sickening. It was fucking evil perpetrated by fucking evil people and if anything is evidence that there isn't a powerful loving God looking out for us.

[Edited on May 14, 2010 at 4:34 PM. Reason : .]

5/14/2010 4:32:38 PM

Yo Golovko. I don't think your strategy of dialogue is being too helpful. Yes Disco-stu may disagree with those of faith, but I haven't seen him attacking those on this board that do have faith. Attacking ideas yes, but individuals not so much. While I disagree with disco, insulting him as a person isn't really helpful.

You gotta give credit where its due and clearly him and moron among others have done their homework.

5/14/2010 4:34:53 PM

Quote :

"To suggest that the Holocaust was the result of Naturalism is sickening. It was fucking evil perpetrated by fucking evil people and if anything is evidence that there isn't a powerful loving God looking out for us."

The nazi's wanted to create a more pure race. They saw what happened in the Bolshevik revolution in Russia and weren't fans. They saw the jews as part of the problem. I think that they may have wanted to increase the pace of evolution. And what exactly is evil in a naturalistic world view? Who gets to define it?

5/14/2010 4:38:16 PM

We each get to define evil. I think everyone would agree the Holocaust was evil so I think that it's feasible to use this term to describe it.

Quote :

"The nazi's wanted to create a more pure race. They saw what happened in the Bolshevik revolution in Russia and weren't fans. They saw the jews as part of the problem. I think that they may have wanted to increase the pace of evolution."

You can think that all you want, I think that their motivation was a hatred of Jewish people and other groups. It is fundamentally wrong to kill another person. It is a necessity for us to peacefully exist that we not kill each other. You seem to be insinuating that there cannot be morality without religion.

5/14/2010 4:51:48 PM

^Yes sir. you are now picking up what im putting down!

Ill quote an atheist:

We have not been able to show that reason requires the moral point of view, or that really rational persons unhoodwinked by myth or ideology need not be individual egoists or classical amoralists. Reason doesn’t decide here. The picture I have painted for you is not a pleasant one. Reflection on it depresses me….Pure practical reason, even with a good knowledge of the facts, will not take you to morality. ~Kai Nielson

But I know people argue the other side of this coin. What are some good viewpoints from the other side. I frankly have not read enough on it. I know Kant did work on this but his works are highly debatable as well from what I understand

5/14/2010 4:56:25 PM

Oh, I totally agree that morality is entirely subjective.

But there it is. It exists as a product of our society that we adhere to to maintain said society. It is a function of how you treat other people and how you would like to be treated. No two people are going to have the exact same morals but as long as they align enough that they're not killing each other than they can each prosper.

This is one of those things I'm referring to where humanity has the ability to rise above its animal heritage and exist peacefully (theoretically). It's necessary for the advancement and ultimately the maintenance of humanity.

5/14/2010 5:03:01 PM

disco, what if someone comes along and says that they only way they can live prosperously is if they kill you and everyone like you? I'm not trying to beat a dead horse here, but I really do think that some people think the only way they can do better is if they get rid of those that they feel are inhibiting them.

And as for the Golden rule which you mentioned earlier as something else (which is good because I hadn't heard of that other thing you said...). Do you think that it is embodied in evolution? I guess where I see this going is that if we are the product of natural selection which is all about competition and putting ourselves in front of others how is rising above this instinct beneficial to evolution? If we assume that evolution is true, then clearly in the early stages of evolution rising above our animal instinct would have eliminated us. So where along the lines does it become a good idea to go against that which got us here in the first place?

5/14/2010 5:09:17 PM

Quote :

"To suggest that the Holocaust was the result of Naturalism is sickening. It was fucking evil perpetrated by fucking evil people and if anything is evidence that there isn't a powerful loving God looking out for us."

How is this evidence? Please enlighten us all.

5/14/2010 5:36:28 PM

Quote :

"Are you saying the God is provable by science? Because if it is not, then it is disingenuous to say that you apply the same rules for observable phenomena to God. Why does God get a pass? Why not Zeus? Or Mohammed? Or ultra-powerful-aliens? If you can't explain this, then you are demonstrating the compartmentalization you're exhibiting: you do not apply the same standards for knowing things to God as you do to real things"

faith. god by definition can't be defined or explained or proven. so if that's what you are talking about compartmentalization then ok. you can also never disprove god with science. even though science can't prove that you have free will, do you think that you have free will? science is not at conflict with religion, the scientific method is important to understand the world around us. god, by contrast, is not definable, observable, or understandable. you can't apply the scientific method to god and that is where faith comes in. if that's what you call compartmentalization fine, but there is no conflict between faith and using science to understand the world.

5/14/2010 5:41:48 PM

This should be fun.

Lutz: I do think morality is embedded in evolution. Humans have evolved the need for morality to keep us from killing each other like animals. Natural selection is obviously not a force driving the evolution of humans any more. You do not need to be strong or fast to survive or be more likely to successfully breed. This should be obvious. Actually to say that isn't the driving force is a slight misnomer. it's only that the traits that we traditionally consider beneficial for surviving and successfully breeding in the wild are not longer the most desirable. It's possible that there is some set of desirable traits, but I'm not sure what they are. Lack of faith in birth control perhaps?

Golovko: I'm not claiming "morality" is a supernatural entity capable of manipulating reality. It's a social construct, an abstract. If you're claiming that your god is an abstract, then it's good to see you've come around.

Quote :

"you can also never disprove god with science."

This is fine and good, but why should you believe in it? Science can't disprove Zeus either. Nor the Islamic version of Allah. Why are you not a Muslim?

Quote :

"do you think that you have free will"

I do not think that we have objective free will, but this is a philosophical question as well. I believe that free will is an illusion, but we effectively have free will because the parameters of our decision making are complex enough to make it appear so.

Quote :

" god, by contrast, is not definable, observable, or understandable. "

Things which are not definable, observable, or understandable are not worth mention, and especially not worth worship. Do say that they are un-observable is to say that their existence has no bearing on reality. Whether un-observable gods are there is irrelevant.

Take Zeus for example. You don't believe in him, but why? Why is your God special but everything else that everyone else believes in not? Be honest here. From where did you derive your faith in the (presumably) Christian God?

[Edited on May 14, 2010 at 6:27 PM. Reason : .]

5/14/2010 6:25:35 PM

It might be true that science does not conflict with the First Cause, impersonal, deistic version of god. The god of the Abrahamic monotheisms, however, conflicts with just about every field of science we have.

5/14/2010 7:10:25 PM

Quote :

" science is not at conflict with religion"

It doesn't have to be, but tell that the politicians religious people like to elect: http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=594795

And Lutz must not be familiar with Godwin's Law

[Edited on May 14, 2010 at 9:50 PM. Reason : ]

5/14/2010 9:48:30 PM

Embedded in evolution? Are you kidding? That absolutely goes against logic! Morality is a tool created by humans to preserve civilization.

Humans' higher intelligence allowed us to cooperate towards shared survival. Instead of fighting amongst ourselves to ensure our individual survival, we learned how to trade goods and services. Morality merely came about as a buffer to preserve the social structure. It is a tradition we've handed down. It is not human nature; it is only nuture. Protecting the weak goes against the natural order.

5/15/2010 10:51:35 AM