Where do morals come from?

[iNow]

You are a wise man, Phi, and yes, others have pointed out to me in the past how my abrasiveness on these subjects is often perceived. To be frank, though, I don't care. While my opinions are often informed by science, they are still my personal opinions, and in my mind, a belief in god has zero distinguishable difference from a belief that unicorn farts cause erections in leprechauns.

 

My points are all still valid, despite the fact that some may take issue with the tone of their presentation or the way they belittle the people to whom they are directed.

[Phi for All]

My points are all still valid, despite the fact that some may take issue with the tone of their presentation or the way they belittle the people to whom they are directed.

It's not simply the tone. The fact that you're equating belief in purple unicorns, a decidedly small worship group, with God, who, despite your personal beliefs, has a rather enormous following, puts you on a fallacious foundation. It's rather easy to knock down belief in purple unicorns in a sentence or two, and much more difficult to do the same with God.

 

Even without the organized belief system, the literature alone shows that belief in God can't be equated with a belief in purple unicorns, no matter how much you see them as the same intellectually.

[iNow]

My next move would be to have you provide a universally agreed upon definition of god then. Further, truth is not decided by popularity, so god is truly no different than purple unicorns just becasue "more people believe in it," but we've gone too far already. I'll just concede your point so we can move on.

Edited September 25, 2008 by iNow
Make more clear

[Pete]

It not only is a blatant strawman, due to the differing natures of worship/religion and folklore, but it ALWAYS causes friction in threads where it's mentioned. It's belittling, it's supercilious and it's unnecessary.

As well as against Science Forums Etiquette, which is posted at http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=8730 i.e.

Don't Flame

Just because someone doesn't agree with you, doesn't mean you need to insult them. They may be ignorant, but try not to flame them out of the forum. If they're intentionally insulting people, don't reply--just use the Report Post function to let the moderators know about it. They can deal with insult wars and rule-breakers more efficiently than regular users.

...

Don't Strawman

Don't strawman. It is quite annoying and you will lose your credibility, and seriously undermines any argument.

...

Don't be Mean

If you don't agree with someone, don't attack them. Tell them politely why you think they're wrong, and give them evidence. Insulting people won't get you anywhere but suspended.

iNow's post has been reported. I'll be back if/when this situation is resolved. I won't post in a forum where my religious beliefs are attacked. Especially by someone who demonstrates a poor understanding of the philosophy of science.

While I agree that unobservable phenomenon have little significance to scientific discussions' date='

[/quote']

I disagree. Its a well known fact that particle physicists use objects called virtual particles to explain the interaction between particles. Virtual particles cannot be observed in principle. Consider also the concept of a quark. So far it appears that free quarks cannot be observed. All we are able to observe are hadrons, i.e. 2 or three quark bound states. So while we can think in terms of individual quarks it appears to be theoretically impossible for them to exist.

 

Glider - I will only be checking my PMs until this problem has been resolved (if it indeed is resolved). Please send me a PM containing proof of your assertion about this Islamic law that you say exists. Thanks.

 

Thanks for your help in this thread everyone. I greatly appreciate it.

 

Pete

Edited September 26, 2008 by Pete

[iNow]

I disagree. Its a well known fact that particle physicists use objects called virtual particles to explain the interaction between particles. Virtual particles cannot be observed in principle. Consider also the concept of a quark. So far it appears that free quarks cannot be observed. All we are able to observe are hadrons, i.e. 2 or three quark bound states. So while we can think in terms of individual quarks it appears to be theoretically impossible for them to exist.

 

The difference here is that the effects of those particles can be measured and predicted, and nobody asserts they are true based on some 2,000 year old text written by barely literate people... people who didn't even know about germ theory, the reasons the stars shine, or the reasons why it rains or what causes clouds to form. Overall, though, I agree with you that "just because something cannot be observed" does not mean it has little significance in scientific discussions. That wasn't, however, Phi's point (AFAICT), and unfortunately, your celestial dictator suffers from many more troubles than just being unobservable.

[Glider]

I asked a Muslim friend about this and he tells me this is pure nonsense. I myself have never come across such a thing in my studies of Islam. Where in the world did you hear this anyway?

See iNow's response.

 

My source on this particular point is Cristopher Hitchens. He uses this specific example of warped thinking in many of his speeches and debates. He does so because (as he likes to point out, frequently) he is one of the few journalists who as actually visited all seven 'axis of evil' countries and has actually witnessed the bizzare and absurd cruelties that he reports. He also invests a lot of time and effort into thorough research of his subjects. I have yet to be presented with any strong case for doubting him.

 

My friend gave me some great advice, i.e. Generally speaking, when you see someone (a muslim or a nonmuslim) talking about Islam without providing any evidence from authentic islamic sources (ie Quran and Sunnah) you shouldn't pay attention to what he/she's saying.

Your friend is confusing the sources of Islamic law with the implementation of Islamic law.

 

I agree that nowhere in Islamic texts does it state that virgins should be raped before they are executed. However, as iNow points out, under Sharia, it is forbidden to kill a female virgin. So, when a female virgin is sentenced to death (for a breach of some other sharia law), you have a catch 22. To execute her as a virgin would put the the executioner (and court) in breach of the law. The only way around it is to ensure that she is not a virgin when she is executed. It is the self-contradictory nature of Sharia laws (i.e. that allow a death sentence to be applied to a virgin, whilst making it illegal to kill a virgin) that results in such warped cruelty.

 

PS. Your friend forgot the Hadith, which holds equal canonical authority to the Qur'an.

 

I have a friend (who happens to be muslim) who assures me that nowhere in the Qur'an does it state that the penalty for apostacy is death. And he is right, it doesn't. However, it is in the Hadith. Just because my friend shows me that the rule does not exist in the Qur'an, does not mean that it does not exist at all. The hadith is where some of the more bizarre and self-contradictory principles come from.

 

Glider - I will only be checking my PMs until this problem has been resolved (if it indeed is resolved). Please send me a PM containing proof of your assertion about this Islamic law that you say exists. Thanks.

I didn't say the raping of virgins was an Islamic law. It is simply the method by which the courts, the prison guards and the executioners get around breaking Islamic law under which it is illegal to kill a virgin.

 

I would rather not use PM if it's ok with you. I'd prefer to engage in open forum, where my own arguments are open to critical review, for the sake of transparency. I'm just more comfortable that way.

Edited September 26, 2008 by Glider

[pioneer]

Some morals, when originally instituted, may have had practical value at that time in history. A loose analogy is raising children. When children are young they have more restrictions than when they become adults. Children are more impulsive and don't always have the common sense to see danger or the extrapolated affects of their actions. Many of these religious texts were written during the childhood and adolescence of humanity. They may have been needed by them.

 

Another way to look at it is with an example. Hypothetically, say we were to remove all synthetic and modern medical procedures for reproduction. There is no birth control pills, condoms, medicines for STD's, surgical procedures for abortions. This would simulate the world the ancients had to live in. You could not have the same open attitude toward sexuality, as today, or else the mortality and sterility rates due to STD's would be high, just to give one example. To strengthen your own position as a culture, in a world without international laws, and keep you population high and healthy you may have to place restrictions.

 

What we should try is remove the availability of the above things for one year to simulate the past. It would be interesting if social policy would go retro or just allow attrition to preserve the right to act in a way only made possible by synthetic support.

 

Progression of culture has created synthetic support. It is not green in the sense of provided by nature. Condoms do not grow on trees. But based on the availability of synthetic support, it is possible to behave in ways that could not be supported in a purely green or natural environment. T

 

I have nothing against gays but say we didn't have condoms and medical awareness and treatments. Say we had been back when spirits ruled the world and AIDS was beginning to affect the army of men needed to support the walls of defense around your city. The death rate would mean the gods are not pleased. Cause and affect would eventually see how this behavior was connected to the root cause. There is no medical or synthetic way yet to stop it, so you need to institute a social policy that would reduce the death rate or else survival of the culture is nebulous. With synthetic we can address this in another way. What would not work in a green environment can still be made to work in a synthetic world. I am of the belief if we removed all the synthetic support, many of the morals of the past would be optimization to green.

 

Thou shall not kill has no synthetic substitute at the present time. However, if we could bring people back from the dead, even days after being shot or stabbed, we may decide that killing is now OK. It is no longer a terminal condition and therefore may be considered part of free choice. If we were really good at this synthetic procedure, we may even come up with studies that show this is valid human behavior and anyone wanting to remain green (no synthetic) would be considered passe. Because technology makes it possible, synthetically, the former green morality, may seem retro.

Edited September 26, 2008 by pioneer

[iNow]

Especially by someone who demonstrates a poor understanding of the philosophy of science.

Where, in your estimation, have I demontrated a poor understanding of the philosophy of science? Once you have provided specific examples, I'd also like to know how that negates any of the points I've made. Thanks.

[Pete]

Where, in your estimation, have I demontrated a poor understanding of the philosophy of science? Once you have provided specific examples, I'd also like to know how that negates any of the points I've made. Thanks.

In post #70 I wrote

I'll be back if/when this situation is resolved. I won't post in a forum where my religious beliefs are attacked.

Did you not read this? Perhaps guess you ignored it. After I post this message to clarify myself and my previous comments I will refrain from posting until I hear back from the moderator.

 

One of the reasons I didn't respond to your comments in post #74 is because you made too many invalid statements for me to want to address. For example you wrote

While we both share a right to free speech' date=' neither of us has a right not to be offended. So really, that's just tough noogies.

[/quote']

Freedom of speech has nothing to do with this. Just because it’s not against the law to post insults it doesn’t mean that you’re not violating the forum rules that you must have agreed to when you joined this forum. One of the reasons I chose this particular science forum is because its a moderated discussion group and there are rules to go by! When you joined this forum I assume that you agreed to abide by the forum rules, did you not?

 

You then posted the following comment

Actually, the implication is true.

Not only are you propagating a bogus stereotype but you’re going against one of the tenants of critical thinking. I.e. the willingness to consider the possibility of being wrong. You are clearly unwilling to consider the possibility that you could be wrong.

 

You then posted

You seem to live in a rationalized dichotomy of mind whereby you study physics and you study other sciences so call yourself a rational and critically thinking person (which, in those instances, you are),

Here you demonstrate a lack of understanding of a basic human characteristic. You summarily dismissed, with absolultely no justification whatsoever, the notion that a person is either adept at critical thinking or they aren’t. It’s not something that is topic dependant. If you disagree then you should have provided an argument demonstrating that fact rather than merely stating your opinion. A person either knows how to construct a logical arguement or they don't. A person's ability do so is not limited to a particular subject.

 

After that you wrote

..but then you also believe in iron age fairy tales and purple unicorns and somehow expect us to transfer the previously ackowledged rationality on to these other topics.

Not only did you use a straw man here (the purple unicorn is a bogus analogy), but you mistakenly assumed that you know why I believe in God, i.e. you asserted some nonsense about fairy takes. You incorrectly assumed that I believe in God because of some "fairy tale". The fact is that you have no idea why I believe in God. Here you make another error in critical thinking, i.e. you show contempt for those holding conflicting views.

 

After that you wrote

What interests me is how insecure you seem to be about your belief system, ..

Here you pulled an assertion out of the air by assuming I experienced a particular motion (insecurity) and strongly so. In fact there was nothing in anything I wrote which even hints at such a thing. I have no insecurities about my beliefs whatsoever. You then pulled the same stunt again when you wrote

and how deeply my (a stranger on an internet forum) words offended you.

Here you greatly exaggerated a simple distaste I have for the way you insulting theists. Where in the world did you get the idea that I was “deeply” offended? This is clearly an exaggeration. It seems to me that you showed a lack of understanding of basic human nature in that the average person will be offended when you insult them. You should also keep in mind I was merely expressing my distaste at the way you insult people for their religions beliefs. You simply took the strongest possible interpretation of the phrase “I take offense” and made it seem as if I was deeply hurt. Your comment that followed, i.e. “Suck it up” is just plain rude. No problem. I can deal with rude people and its not something that the moderators need concern themselves with

If your beliefs have merit, then there is nothing to be ashamed of and you should be immune to my harsh criticisms, and in fact be able to respond with rational ways to support those beliefs.

Your criticism means very little to me since you have no idea why I bn. What I find rude is the way you insult people’s religious beliefs.

 

You then go on to write

Yep. That doesn't make their belief in god any less silly. There are lots of really bright people all over the planet who do and believe some really stupid nonsense, but that doesn't make the stupid nonsense in which they believe and on which they act any more reasonable.

Here you once again demonstrate a lack of critical thinking by drawing a hasty conclusion based on your limited experience. By this it is meant that you summarily dismissws their reasons for believing that God exists, without even knowing what they are., perhaps because you think that you’ve heard it all before. You’ve hastily concluded that that the people I mentioned must be wrong – even though you have absolutely no idea what their reasons are.

 

Then you once again post

I encourage you to wake up and open your eyes to the ridiculous crowd you've chosen to hang out with by having this belief in iron age fairy tales.

which again shows that you’re unwilling to consider that you might be wrong. In this case you even assumed that you knew why I believe in God and summarily claimed that, whatever it is, must be wrong.

 

This post is so long because of the large number of errors you’ve made here. There’s no way I’m going to keep doing this much work with every post of yours if there are this many mistakes in them

Edited September 27, 2008 by Pete

[bigjobs]

Does psychology have an explanation of how we came to have morals? I heard that humans don't have insticts, is that true? If so the morals can't come from instinct and if so, i.e. nature plays no role then all that seems be left is nurture. Thoughts?

 

Pete

 

i reckon morals are psychosocial constructs that are created by the psychosocial nature of the culture that one is born into. eg if i am born in a western industrialised culture then certain psychosocial constructs exist that i will be educated too and thus use to navigate my way in the world.

 

if i was born in a tribal, nomadic society i would simply be educated in the psychosocial constructs (morals) that apply there.

[iNow]

Did you not read this? Perhaps guess you ignored it.

 

You're right. I did, in fact, ignore it. That is also the action I'm going to take now for the rest of your comments. You sound like a child trying to justify his imaginary friend to an adult who knows better.

[Sayonara]

The o/t argument has been split off to Pete's Complainy Thread to prevent the swansong from taking this thread off-topic.

[pioneer]

The original mention of morals is associated with the tree of knowledge of good and evil. What morality does is separate behavior into good and evil. The reason bible tradition puts Satan in the tree of morality is because morality is partially subjective. That is why it is almost impossible to get everyone to agree. It is not based exclusively on rational laws. We can always come up with exceptions to a rule but the apple tries to pitch itself as cause and affect.

 

In bible tradition, the ten commandments was a set a apples from the tree of knowledge of good and evil that was suppose to have no worms inside. But human nature extrapolated on this, adding new branches to the tree of morality, corrupting the apples. Later on Christ superseded this since he recognized there will always be pitfalls using morality. His approach was love your neighbor and turn the other cheek instead of throwing apples at him.

 

Part of the problem with morality is it gives us the knowledge of sin. In other words to know a moral law you also need to know the dark side of the law so you can avoid it. This knowledge of the dark side gives ideas to the dark side of people, which they may not have thought about on their own. The result is the tree grows with bad apples requiring new laws, which teach more bad apples. Eventually, the good apples have to employ bad apples tactics for other moral laws to fight the bad apples in another moral law. For example, in the war against drugs the government can now steal assets of even marginal bad apples. The ancients would call that Satan in the tree, since Satan is both good and evil; ends justifies the means.

[Sayonara]

Pioneer, I moved your post into this thread from the thread containing the off-topic argument. You presumably didn't notice where you were posting it.

[pioneer]

The topic was where do morals come from. There has to be an origin since morality didn't start this century. The tree of knowledge of good and evil was symbolically considered where morals came from. It is a symbol and not meant to be taken literally. It was not an actual tree, even though neurons just so happen to look like little trees.

 

Here is an example of a tree of knowledge of good and evil. We start, thou shall not drink X. Not everyone likes this new moral law, so someone comes up with a loophole such as mixing X with Y, which is not explicitly said under the law. The lawyers needs to close this loophole with logic that is airtight. This results in the simple trunk of the X tree branching. Again, others find other loopholes requiring another logic branch on the tree or a previous branch has to branch, even more, etc. Before long it looks like the tax code tree of good and evil deductions.

[iNow]

Pioneer - How does your baseless speculation explain these behaviors in children, other non-human primates, and also non-primates then?

 

If you ask me, it doesn't stand up against the reality test and can consequently be disregarded.

[pioneer]

Pioneer - How does your baseless speculation explain these behaviors in children, other non-human primates, and also non-primates then?

 

What you have pointed out is not taught, but appears through instinct. This was called the tree of life. The tree of knowledge is human contrived and is learned through education and knowledge. Just doing what is right, naturally, is different than doing what is right because you were taught it was right. They both lead to the same result but only one is natural. Nobody has to teach the primate to act, in what appears to be a moral way. It is sort of prewired into instinct. Once you teach it, then it is knowledge of good and evil. The tree of life was never equated to knowledge.

[Paralith]

The topic was where do morals come from. There has to be an origin since morality didn't start this century. The tree of knowledge of good and evil was symbolically considered where morals came from. It is a symbol and not meant to be taken literally. It was not an actual tree, even though neurons just so happen to look like little trees.

 

Here is an example of a tree of knowledge of good and evil. We start, thou shall not drink X. Not everyone likes this new moral law, so someone comes up with a loophole such as mixing X with Y, which is not explicitly said under the law. The lawyers needs to close this loophole with logic that is airtight. This results in the simple trunk of the X tree branching. Again, others find other loopholes requiring another logic branch on the tree or a previous branch has to branch, even more, etc. Before long it looks like the tax code tree of good and evil deductions.

 

With the way you mix and match all your various metaphors and analogies it's very hard to puzzle out exactly what you're trying to say, but let me take a stab at it: One day, somebody said, "You know, we need to lay down the law of what is good and what is evil." So this person laid down the laws and said they came from the mythical tree of knowledge. But some other people tried to get around these laws, and in the process of trying to prevent them from doing so, the laws got more complicated as time went on.

 

If that's what you're saying, then I have some questions for you.

 

1. Why did that first person decide we needed laws of good and evil?

2. Why did that person use the myth of a tree of knowledge to help spread those laws?

3. What was so bad about these laws that made other people try to get around them?

[foodchain]

Trying to debate religion is pointless. One simple example is how well supported biological evolution is yet such is still countered massively by various acts and means from people.

 

Lets look at the entropy argument. A person who obviously must understand that air conditioning units sell, the core of the earth is active, lighting strikes still persist and so on would state that life cant have occurred as is because it goes against entropy somehow:doh: Personally I think matter violates entropy and chemistry is a form of black magic that should get such types burnt at the stake.

 

People, not all but some simply will never agree to biological evolution or what it means or could mean via research in regards to people, they just simply will never accept this regardless of how many links you give them to why such is real, like understanding genetics or whatever. I mean thanks to people studying biology you can now get BS level degrees in fields like biotechnology, hmm, wonder what you learn and work with in that field.

 

Another point. Biological evolution is the study of that, it does not try to break down what the big bang is or was or what not.

 

Another point, how did all the diversity of people come about, in terms of anything down to why different cultures even exist, I do know the bible does not explain this at all past what the people that made it happened to know.

 

Again, its pointless to try and debate religion, it really is. Another point is scientology. Its a full fledged religion and its new and it was also made by people, it survives because people give it validity, do you think you will somehow debate scientology away, I seriously doubt this.

 

If someone wants to be religious I personally as a individual have no issues with it, yet any religious person reading this must surely be able to understand that the whole of science should not be based on Taoism or anything to do with the eight fold path. Also last time I checked science pretty much sprouted fourth from a method, like making a hypothesis and trying to falsify such, I also think currently that you cant mix religion into this to any extent with success, so again, pointless.

 

Morality comes from people and people evolved, then they made math and rocket engines... To deny this I think basically says what? I want to know and this is why I am asking.

[xnebulalordx676]

That was excellent. smooth explanation.

IMO, a combination of interactions btw individuals and larger society shaping our behavior. More specifically, the enforcement of social cooperation in line with the interests of a social group rather than just individual achievement.

----------------

I think morals are from a long stream of humans educating themselves by trial and error and passed down stories of health and safety rather than do gooding.

 

I trust that morals also were stolen from the pagans as opposed to being taken from organized religion ie. Christianity, Catholicism, Muslims, Buddhism as they are taught to have been today. And I do believe primates have the shared morals based only on the health and safety factors for their overall self preservation of a species.

I think morals are from a long stream of humans educating themselves by trial and error and passed down stories of health and safety rather than do gooding.

Edited October 3, 2008 by xnebulalordx676
spell check

[iNow]

I thought this was interesting.

 

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article571206.ece

Societies worse off 'when they have God on their side'

 

RELIGIOUS belief can cause damage to a society, contributing towards high murder rates, abortion, sexual promiscuity and suicide, according to research published today.

 

According to the study, belief in and worship of God are not only unnecessary for a healthy society but may actually contribute to social problems.

 

The study counters the view of believers that religion is necessary to provide the moral and ethical foundations of a healthy society.

 

It compares the social peformance of relatively secular countries, such as Britain, with the US, where the majority believes in a creator rather than the theory of evolution. Many conservative evangelicals in the US consider Darwinism to be a social evil, believing that it inspires atheism and amorality.

 

Many liberal Christians and believers of other faiths hold that religious belief is socially beneficial, believing that it helps to lower rates of violent crime, murder, suicide, sexual promiscuity and abortion. The benefits of religious belief to a society have been described as its “spiritual capital”. But the study claims that the devotion of many in the US may actually contribute to its ills.

 

The paper, published in the Journal of Religion and Society, a US academic journal, reports: “Many Americans agree that their churchgoing nation is an exceptional, God-blessed, shining city on the hill that stands as an impressive example for an increasingly sceptical world.

 

“In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy and abortion in the prosperous democracies.

 

“The United States is almost always the most dysfunctional of the developing democracies, sometimes spectacularly so.”

 

 

The study concluded that the US was the world's only prosperous democracy where murder rates were still high, and that the least devout nations were the least dysfunctional. Mr Paul said that rates of gonorrhoea in adolescents in the US were up to 300 times higher than in less devout democratic countries. The US also suffered from "uniquely high" adolescent and adult syphilis infection rates, and adolescent abortion rates, the study suggested.

 

Mr Paul said: "The study shows that England, despite the social ills it has, is actually performing a good deal better than the USA in most indicators, even though it is now a much less religious nation than America."

 

He said that the disparity was even greater when the US was compared with other countries, including France, Japan and the Scandinavian countries. These nations had been the most successful in reducing murder rates, early mortality, sexually transmitted diseases and abortion, he added.

 

 

“The non-religious, proevolution democracies contradict the dictum that a society cannot enjoy good conditions unless most citizens ardently believe in a moral creator.

 

“The widely held fear that a Godless citizenry must experience societal disaster is therefore refuted.”

 

 

h/t

[pioneer]

What we need to do is compare modern data, to the data of 50 years ago, when religion had a more dominant role in everyday life of a much higher percentage of people. This base point of data will help to factor out the affects of liberal social engineering that has led to most of these changes. Religion actually helped lead the positive changes. Martin Luther King was a reverend. He preach the content of character but liberal social engineering change this to the color of the skin for social preferences.

 

Those social engineering changes have also changed religion, since many of the changes were integrated. For example, 50 years ago there was no gay clause, no female priests, no fast path to divorce, no TV evangelism capitalism, not much conflict between science and religion except on ethical issues, etc. There was no neurotic separation of church and state based on petty things. That is liberal social engineering to create conflict and water down religious influence.

 

The liberal social engineering helped water down the old religion and led to the dissociation and division as the atheists of the later years tried to add this water affect to allow more freedom. Eventually they departed after the virus was planted. There is a much lower percentage of participation within religion today than 50 years ago, when these were not problems. If this study is called science, liberal social engineering also appears to be watering down science, since it ignores its own fingers in the pie.

[iNow]

Nonsense, Pioneer. You obviously have zero concept of how to design a relevant scientific study, and you appear quite content to keep spouting the same unfounded ridiculousness you've been spoon fed.

 

The article I shared flatly debunked the post you made, and you made that post IMMEDIATELY after I shared that article. That's just too priceless.

 

 

Also, I challenge you to find data that religious belief has declined since the 50s. It's practically impossible to have a meaningful dialog with you because a) you make up your own facts, b) you form conclusions counter to reality, and c) you ignore corrections to your faults and keep repeating them.

 

 

 

This time, instead of making stuff up, please just read the study:

http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html

 

A few hundred years ago rates of homicide were astronomical in Christian Europe and the American colonies (Beeghley; R. Lane). In all secular developed democracies a centuries long-term trend has seen homicide rates drop to historical lows (Figure 2). The especially low rates in the more Catholic European states are statistical noise due to yearly fluctuations incidental to this sample, and are not consistently present in other similar tabulations (Barcley and Tavares). Despite a significant decline from a recent peak in the 1980s (Rosenfeld), the U.S. is the only prosperous democracy that retains high homicide rates, making it a strong outlier in this regard (Beeghley; Doyle, 2000). Similarly, theistic Portugal also has rates of homicides well above the secular developed democracy norm. Mass student murders in schools are rare, and have subsided somewhat since the 1990s, but the U.S. has experienced many more (National School Safety Center) than all the secular developed democracies combined.

Although the late twentieth century STD epidemic has been curtailed in all prosperous democracies (Aral and Holmes; Panchaud et al.), rates of adolescent gonorrhea infection remain six to three hundred times higher in the U.S. than in less theistic, pro-evolution secular developed democracies (Figure 6). At all ages levels are higher in the U.S., albeit by less dramatic amounts. The U.S. also suffers from uniquely high adolescent and adult syphilis infection rates, which are starting to rise again as the microbe’s resistance increases (Figure 7). The two main curable STDs have been nearly eliminated in strongly secular Scandinavia. Increasing adolescent abortion rates show positive correlation with increasing belief and worship of a creator, and negative correlation with increasing non-theism and acceptance of evolution; again rates are uniquely high in the U.S. (Figure 8). Claims that secular cultures aggravate abortion rates (John Paul II) are therefore contradicted by the quantitative data. Early adolescent pregnancy and birth have dropped in the developed democracies (Abma et al.; Singh and Darroch), but rates are two to dozens of times higher in the U.S. where the decline has been more modest.

In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion in the prosperous democracies (Figures 1-9). The most theistic prosperous democracy, the U.S., is exceptional, but not in the manner Franklin predicted. The United States is almost always the most dysfunctional of the developed democracies, sometimes spectacularly so, and almost always scores poorly. The view of the U.S. as a “shining city on the hill” to the rest of the world is falsified when it comes to basic measures of societal health.

Edited November 22, 2008 by iNow

[Mr Skeptic]

iNow, do you know whether the same applies within the US or other countries? Do more religious portions of a country also have higher homicide rates etc?

[iNow]

iNow, do you know whether the same applies within the US or other countries? Do more religious portions of a country also have higher homicide rates etc?

 

No, I don't. Interesting question, but tangential from the study I shared.

 

 

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/phil-zuckerman/the-religious-support-beh_b_145180.html

Proposition 8 passed because of religious folk. There is no question about it. Church-going Black Americans, tithe-paying Mormons, mass-attending Latinos, and Evangelical whites all joined forces in "protecting marriage." The underlying reason religious people voted to revoke from gays and lesbians the legal right to marry is doggedly theological: God doesn't like it. And when a society or culture does things that God doesn't like, that society or culture will suffer. This is a central tenet of every religion, and has been ever since the first shaman first claimed to be able to discern the will of the Almighty by examining the patterns in a bowl full of crushed berries.

 

And it simply isn't true. If God punishes societies that violate his commandments and rewards those that do, this just isn't apparent by looking at the state of the world today. The sociological fact is that the most irreligious nations right now are among the most successful, humane, moral, and free, while the most religious nations tend to be among the most destitute, chaotic, crime-ridden, and undemocratic. A similar pattern also holds true within the United States: those states and counties that boast the greatest numbers of strong believers and regular church attenders tend to have higher poverty rates, child abuse rates, violent crime rates, and lower educational attainment rates than those states and counties characterized by more secular populations.

 

Consider the nations of Scandinavia specifically. These countries are noteworthy because they were among the first nations to make abortion legal and readily available and they were also among the first nations (along with Holland) to allow for gay marriage. Indeed, gays and lesbians have been able to wed in these countries of Northern Europe for nearly 20 years now. And what is the state of society in these relatively irreligious nations, where weekly church attendance is among the lowest in the world and belief in God is markedly thin? They lead the world on nearly all indicators of societal well-being. From economic prosperity to low crime rates, from equality between men and women to excellent child welfare, from life expectancy to low rates of H.I.V., the relatively godless (or at least God-indifferent) nations of Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Holland suggest that secularity - and acceptance of gay marriage, specifically -- doesn't bring down the wrath of God at all. And yet when we look at the most religious nations in the world - especially those that severely condemn homosexuality, such as Iran, Angola, and Mauritania -- we see extreme poverty, high violent crime rates, oppression of women, dictatorship, warfare, corruption, etc..

 

Where is the best place to be a mother and raise children? According to the latest Save the Children Report, it is relatively godless Sweden. The worst? Extremely Godful Niger. How about murder rates? Highly religious Columbia leads the globe, while highly secular Japan is near the bottom. What about strong economies? According to the World Economic Forum, of the top ten nations boasting today's most competitive economies, nine are relatively irreligious (the USA being the sole exception). According to the latest Global Peace Index, the top five most peaceful nations are simultaneously among the most secular, such as Denmark, which ranks in at #2. Even when it comes to suicide rates, it is the former Soviet nations that lead the pack, some of which are fairly secular, but most of which are quite religious, such as Lithuania.

Edited November 23, 2008 by iNow
multiple post merged