Prometheus

I shared my thoughts but since they are not backed by data they are largely irrelevent. If you have data that answers the OP one way or another please share it. Otherwise perhaps we could move onto the question of what data could we collect and what model should we use to answer the question. I would settle for defining religion and 'better' in this context. You are simply begging the question.

Precisely. Religion is not homogeneously evil. It has good bits as well as bad. Unsurprisingly on a science forum the bad bits have been well highlighted. Some of us are just trying to highlight the good bits. It's only by measuring religion properly and fairly that we can determine what, if any, utility it has. At the moment you are considering a caricature of religion. That was a rather disingenuous attempt. After a few seconds a found these: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-intelligent-divorce/201505/clergy-counselor http://fisherpub.sjfc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1007&context=verbum http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/13636829800200040 These suggest the black and white picture you attempt to paint is not correct. The OP is a good question, but are you actually trying to answer it, or just confirm your existing biases? References? I did some quick digging and given the nature of the crime it is hard to gather statistics. Obviously you have seen some good data, so please share. And why the focus on Catholic priests? Should i not go see a Confucian monk because of problems in the Catholic clergy? So you acknowledge religion also contains good and that this is pertinent to the OP?

Depends on the priest. There are some good ones and some bad ones. Just like psychiatrists: if you can afford a psychiatrist. I would suggest some of the people who most need emotional assistance are prisoners. Yet they are usually the ones most deprived of this help. But priests are willing to go into prisons and offer such support. I've been an atheist all my adult life. The first time i actually saw priests at work was when i was a nurse, starting on an oncology ward. There is an unfulfilled need to attend to the emotional needs of the dying (we just don't know it because the deceased cannot speak). Nurses have neither the time nor the training to attend to this need. The only people i saw helping in this were priests. As a nurse i was able to eavesdrop on some intensely personal conversations and this is how i came to respect some priests; some of them were very skillful and did not peddle any dogma. And yes, non-religious people could fulfil this roll. But the point is they generally don't, not in the numbers society needs. It's easy to sit back and mock religion but if you want to do away with it focus on what people get out of it and start seeing how we might replace the invaluable services it does offer. I don't think anyone here is contesting this. The evils of religion are evident and i absolutely support calling them out to people who cannot see it. But people also do good works in the name of religion and we are far too quick to dismiss these. If evil in the name of religion is because of the religion, why is good done in the name of religion not because of the religion? Either give me a good reason or be consistent.

I agree up to a point. For instance, research suggests that people get little to no increase in happiness past a certain level of income. But few people would actually limit their income to this threshold - it takes something more than the numbers to actually reveal this truth to most of us. Either we go through the riches and directly experience a lack of extra happiness, or some other life events with some reflection and good advice help us see it. I would call this something more spirituality (not meaning something spirit like, just this very process), but whatever. Religion could help in this matter, unfortunately most religions are concerned with such trivialities as whether certain flaps of skin should be chopped off. Which brings me to the other thing science can do for spirituality - tell us exactly what religion need not concern itself. Beginning of the universe, the colour of the sky, life elsewhere in the universe? Science has these, and many other things, covered. This leaves priests and free to focus attention on important stuff like increasing compassion and empathy in the population. One can hope anyway.

I think this very good debate is pertinent. Well argued, for the most part, from both sides. Includes Richard Dawkins and Rowan Williams among others. Bit long though.

So without religion you are reasonably sure our sense of morality would have developed in exactly the same manner? And you base this on the fact there was at least one code of laws which predates most major religions? I'm not convinced of it myself, hence the conditional phrase 'i imagine...'. But the OP asks us to speculate, so i did. I haven't offered anything to back my speculation, but neither have you. But that's the nature of the subject - it's like speculating on what would happen if certain historical figures had not existed. We can guess, but we can't be as sure as you seem to be. Unless you do know some sources of evidence that can make us so sure - then please share. Can we agree morality is something humans create? Can we further agree morality is not static; it has changed with time? If so, then humans have been changing it, nothing else. Some of these people have been religious. Hopefully the issue of abortion will seem obvious to our progeny: if it does become so it will be because some people have thought long and hard about it. They may or not be religious - likely a bit of both. By analogy, the development of science has relied on a few great people and lots of other people filling in the gaps. Why do you suppose morality is any different in this regard? Maybe, but our history became one with religions taking a roll in morality. Whether we today regard that morality as moral now is beside the point. People did, and many still do. And maybe we can do without religion in the future - but how? It's not a trivial question, it might be one of the most important questions we ask. Just because we are Western and i assume we are most familiar with that holy book. It's funny i've become an Christian apologist when i agree with the implied thrust of this thread that monotheism was the worst idea humanity ever had. It's just that i don't think it nearly as black and white as it is sometimes caricatured. I agree with dimreepr in that we should not throw out the baby with the bath water. Yeah, probably in the most general sense we would have been OK. Maybe even better, but who really knows how the dice would roll. Maybe our history would still be full of people and battles and events - just with different names. And we would still have had countries and atrocities and marvels - just different borders and places and reasons. Maybe we would have developed an industrial economy thousands of years earlier and brought about a mass extinction event. What tools do we have for determining which outcomes are most likely could we repeat the experiment? Just in case this includes me: i'm not saying morality has a divine source. I'm not saying holy books don't have deprave moral standards in comparison to some of those we have today. I'm saying people have, and still do, look to these as sources of morality (even if the true source predates the religion) and so in our dialogue with such people, we need to be aware of such. Heck, Israel is still trying to draw borders based on a holy book - that holy book then must be relevant today, how can it not be part of the dialogue? Is violence committed in the name of religion because of the religion, or the innate nature of man? Is goodness committed in the name of religion because of the religion, or the innate nature of man? All i ask is that we be consistent, and that we do not shrug off the 84% of humanity that is religious as irrelevant to the discourse on morality.

Rely is the wrong word. I never said that morality is dependent on religion. I said "Religion has often played an important aspect in the development of morality." Is there any religion that hasn't got a moral component? Is there any religion that hasn't played some role in the development of morality to some degree? You may think that this development was backwards, and so no development at all, but these religions did, and continue, to influence peoples' and societal morals. So my position doesn't even consider whether morality relied or still relies on religion. It only matters that religion, for whatever reasons and at whatever time, concerned itself with morality and thus influenced the course of moral development. I submit that if this had not happened the world would have been different - but how, i could only guess. You seem very sure of this conclusion, so perhaps you could provide references. It's not that i'm lazy, just time poor. I quickly googled what you recommended and found some sites disagreeing with this idea, and others agreeing. A couple of archaeologists i know who say that unless you can thoroughly vet the source of information yourself take things said of the ancient world very tentatively: history is far more susceptible to bias than science. Which isn't to say that there isn't lots of valid literature out there, only that it would take more time to find the valid stuff than i have available. You seem to have already researched this, so you might know of good sources arguing for and against the idea. Again, i'm not arguing morality needed religion to develop, only that for some time they have, for better or worse, developed together. Maybe Jesus didn't intend to start a religion. Their intentions didn't stop the fact. What these few examples show is that humanity does not need religion for morality. But i'm not arguing against this. I'm arguing that something like 84% of the worlds population is religious to some extent. You may believe they have a skewed moral compass - OK. We still have to interact with these people, come to decisions and make laws with them. When we engage in moral dialogue with such people they will be drawing from religious sources, and so it is incumbent upon us to understand where they are coming from. Thus the bible is still morally relevant. I agree it was not a necessary prerequisite, but it is the direction our history took. Whether that was a hindrance or not can only be conjecture. We cannot repeat the experiment of humanity so we'll never really know. I think the only relevant question is what religion can do for humanity now and in the future - and if it offers nothing how can we, as a species, put it down?

Being morally relevant isn't the same as being moral. Perhaps a modern analogy would help; i hope you watch South Park. Cartman is a bit of a bigot, not someone i would like anyone to draw morals from. But he is an excellent study of immorality, and it's self-destructive nature. Consider our collective morality is a narrative, a story. We can't really understand the story if we forget the beginning.

We are delving so far back into history that all conclusions will be tentative. We have Sumerian and Babylonian texts because they wrote, and on clay tablets. What about societies with oral traditions or writing on more temporary mediums? I cannot spare the time required to delve into the veracity of all these sources, but my main point is that morality and religion met at some point, somehow. Since then many people come to morality via religion. Is this contentious? Confucianism and Buddhism are religions. This comes up quite often on this forum, maybe worth its own thread to debate? For sure there are secular countries but most countries aren't, just as there are secular people but the vast majority of the world is religious. Some of these religious people use religion as a moral compass. There would be consequences to removing this compass; some good some bad i imagine. I too would like to see a move toward more secular societies but it takes a long time. When will Indonesia or Bangladesh or Brazil become secular do you imagine? Are the USA or UK yet secular? My point is it takes time and you can't impose it. It's not the only choice, its just the one usually presented to people. The societal pressures in the UK are such that i have no choice but to celebrate Christmas if i wish to avoid a degree of ostracisation: I can celebrate religiously or by propping up the economy and getting drunk. Fortunately i don't mind being a social pariah. Biblical morals, as abhorrent as they may be, are part of our history. Its not about using Holy Books to teach morals - it's about understanding where we came from (morally, not literally). In addition, unfortunately people still use this book for moral guidance. To engage with them we need to understand their perspective rather than just brandish them immoral.

Surveys/questionnaire's often suffer from selection bias. Do we know anything about how prevalent it may be in this survey?

Yes captain. Now where's the button for go...

Not only do you do a disservice to science with such a confused analysis but you do a greater disservice to anyone seeking spiritual comfort after the loss of a loved one. A wise man once said: I can only pity you if you can only make sense of this by imagining ghosts.

That's quite a heterogeneous group, may be difficult to have a nuanced discussion with such broad strokes. Religion has often played an important aspect in the development of morality in humans. Quite what this development would have been like without religion is anybody's guess. I imagine morality would have remained the province of sophists (in the original sense) for a lot longer. If our morals now seem obvious to us, it is because people have made great efforts to make it obvious. Those people were usually religious. If however we could just dispel religion overnight it might help in some ways, but harm in others. Many people need religion to have a meaning in life. The only other real alternative available to the masses is hedonism via capitalism. Doesn't seem to make people any happier past a certain point, and might just expedite climate change. I don't think humanity is yet ready to do away with the comfort blanket of religion. The problem only comes when the Book is considered more important than the morals it tries to teach. I believe even the Bible is still morally relevant today, including the old testament. We see the narrative progress as humanity tries to figure out its conscious with works like Paradise Lost and Frankenstein, but Christians don't see it because they are blinded by faith and atheists often don't see it because of a rejection of everything religious.

Such a course in science is unlikely to deal with the fundamentals of what science actually is, but rather just give some factoids that are the result of scientific inquiry. Just as science is taught at (my old) school. Science presented this way simply becomes a sermon which serves no one except some exam board bureaucrats. Rather we should educate all people from day one in the scientific method and rational thought, rather than getting them to memorise the results of scientific inquiry.

Hmm... This is all hurting my head a little. The text i am following had only been considering single particle systems when it introduced the overlap rule, so i am a little confused by your question as to what overlaps. I think i will put this on the back-burner until the text moves onto systems with more particles - that may clear up some of my confusion, and then i can revisit this thread. The help is appreciated.

As an olive branch to all the religious people out there who may recognise the folly in various world religions but the compulsion to seek meaning is too great for them to give up the search. Of course we know atheism does not stop people from finding such meaning, but that is not the common perception: atheism is seen as a lifeless, cold and uncaring. By explicitly saying atheism allows for spirituality we may tempt people away from religious dogma. Thus it may have some value even if it brings no clarity.

Also how would you get rid of religion? If it involved forcibly 'unconverting' people (i doubt many would easily give it up), then i can't see it making humanity happier, or otherwise better. But if you mean better if it had never happened, then maybe... depending on what you mean by religion.

Thanks for all the tips, i find just being aware helps a great deal. I thought i was using the term correctly, for instance this wikipedia page refers to the zero function as trivial. Does it depend on context? Its not quite a normal distribution though (integrated over the entire set of reals, which is what i did, its the expectation of a normal), its multiplied by x which allows the substitution studiot gave to work.

I largely agree with this sentiment, except for one caveat. Trump and Pence are both climate science deniers and have said they will push back climate related legislation and maybe even the Paris agreement - which could have a domino effect on other world powers. It's already going to a rough ride even with such agreements in place - i'm not sure how much damage can be done in 4 years. It's kind of like being in a car with a speeding drunk. I wouldn't care so much if i could i could get out of the car, but i'm stuck, so i just have to plead with the driver to be careful while they trump on about there being no evidence they will crash... However, there might be a time and a place for violence but this isn't it.

In the UK as a nurse, i was under no legal compulsion to provide medical attention unless my profession was somehow obvious. Then if i do provide aid, the quality of that aid must be commensurate to my level of experience. I stress this is my personal opinion: i've already reached the age where i would refuse CPR if i could (maybe get DNAR tattooed on my chest), and i'm a far cry from old - unless someone could slap a defib on me within minutes of the event. There was an interesting study that found doctors were far more likely to not want resuscitation in the event of cardiac arrest, can't find it now, but this link is a start for anyone interested. What? Women's rights? So far off topic...sorry.

RIP Leonard Cohen. My favourite song of his:

Apparently [latex]xe^{-x^2}[/latex] is an odd function. I found out the long way finding the integral sums to zero (btw, excluding trivial cases, is that a sufficient condition to conclude a function must be odd?). However, i am supposed to be able to tell this was odd by inspection (similarly for even functions). I'm sure they don't mean i need to be able to determine the parity of any function by inspection, but does anyone know of any hints and tricks for doing so? I'm starting to see a pattern where the parity of a Gaussian integral multiplied by a polynomial is equal to the parity of the polynomial. Any others?

Cheers, this is the sort of stuff i was looking for. I'll pick through the details later. I also vaguely remember that convolutions involving Gaussian integrals had some special properties that may be pertinent - i'll have to dig up some old notes too and let you guys know.

Your voice being heard doesn't equate to you deciding an election. But i agree on some level. I don't believe democracy and voting are synonymous: as long as we have representation and accountability (and transparency but we're a long way from that) we have democracy. Voting is one way, but there may be better ways. Hopefully.

Religiosity in doctors seems much higher than for scientists: this survey puts the figure at 76% for doctors, whereas this survey has 52% of scientists believing in god or some higher power. Hate comparing isolated and heterogeneous surveys but couldn't find a survey that has doctors and scientists together - anyone know of some?