Moontanman Posted January 11, 2012 Posted January 11, 2012 (edited) No, he is using his opinion of her as a stand in for attacking the evidence provided in her article. That is fallacious. But he had to do that because he fumbled his one attempt to cherry pick an error in the actual article when he misread 4 words and ran with it. Rather than risk it, or due to the fact that he couldn't find anything when he read more carefully, he retreated to attacking the author rather than the piece. Ok Jryan, tell me exactly what point you were trying to make with the link to that article. If I am so far off the mark please show me what the mark is. My interpretation was that you were saying you saw no reason why Genesis couldn't be taught when all those other myths were being taught. ???? Edited January 11, 2012 by Moontanman
jryan Posted January 12, 2012 Posted January 12, 2012 Ok Jryan, tell me exactly what point you were trying to make with the link to that article. If I am so far off the mark please show me what the mark is. My interpretation was that you were saying you saw no reason why Genesis couldn't be taught when all those other myths were being taught. ???? You asked me for an example of political correctness affecting the actual correctness of textbooks. I gave you an article that had several examples.
iNow Posted January 12, 2012 Posted January 12, 2012 You asked me for an example of political correctness affecting the actual correctness of textbooks. I gave you an article that had several examples. I'd challenge the assertion that it was "political correctness" in the first place which was the driving motivation here. From what I can tell, that's entirely nonsequitur, and a rather large leap/break in logic. That seems to be the weakest part of your position (even if I ignore the bias of your source as previously discussed).
jryan Posted January 12, 2012 Posted January 12, 2012 I'd challenge the assertion that it was "political correctness" in the first place which was the driving motivation here. From what I can tell, that's entirely nonsequitur, and a rather large leap/break in logic. That seems to be the weakest part of your position (even if I ignore the bias of your source as previously discussed). In which of the examples? The thrust of the article is that the editorial decisions in the textbooks are left to non-scientists who are on record seeking politically driven goals, and the text books correctness has suffered because of it. Also, getting back on topic, religion is a refuge for the down trodden. I don't think that was ever really a big secret. It's kind of the whole point. 1
iNow Posted January 12, 2012 Posted January 12, 2012 (edited) Also, getting back on topic, religion is a refuge for the down trodden. I don't think that was ever really a big secret. It's kind of the whole point. One other point was that religion is often an obstacle to progress and free inquiry... both things that drive improved economies and advancement and societal health... all things that help... the down trodden. Edited January 12, 2012 by iNow
imatfaal Posted January 12, 2012 Posted January 12, 2012 Also, getting back on topic, religion is a refuge for the down trodden. I don't think that was ever really a big secret. It's kind of the whole point. And that organised religion has long since realised this fact - and worked tirelessly to keep the masses of society downtrodden; such that those masses will have to seek solace in religion
iNow Posted January 12, 2012 Posted January 12, 2012 Cue Now: Mention of missionary work and church organizations bringing help to the poor, but note the omission of the fact that this aid is generally only offered along with attempts at indoctrination when said mention is made.
zapatos Posted January 12, 2012 Posted January 12, 2012 And that organised religion has long since realised this fact - and worked tirelessly to keep the masses of society downtrodden; such that those masses will have to seek solace in religion Can you expand on this please? I'm not suggesting that it is wrong, it is just that my personal exposure to religion hasn't shown that. I'm trying to get a better understanding of what others are seeing. Preferably if you could give examples of the kinds of things religion is doing currently along these lines.
iNow Posted January 12, 2012 Posted January 12, 2012 zapatos - I'll let imatfaal respond, but when he does it may be helpful to keep in mind the division in motivations you generally see between church congregants and church leaders and hierarchy.
Moontanman Posted January 12, 2012 Posted January 12, 2012 Cue Now: Mention of missionary work and church organizations bringing help to the poor, but note the omission of the fact that this aid is generally only offered along with attempts at indoctrination when said mention is made. This is true, help from religion always comes with proselytizing, in parts of Africa Missionary work also comes with teaching the people that homosexuals are after their children and should be killed, the missionaries support this meme and urge laws to be passed that give homosexuals the death sentence and the whole killing children who are supposed witches thing is also supported by evangelical missionaries. There is the false assertions that condoms cause aids coming from the Catholic church. The third world is hugfe market for the meme of religion and the people are gullible due to lack of education and poverty. For me the enormous amounts of untaxed church money that comes from believers and is used top buy multi-million dollar mansions for the preachers, the expensive cars and a life style that is almost beyond imagining is a huge problem. It's difficult to show why this money wouldn't be better spent on educating the poor at the very least. Religion, at least the american form of it, the evangelicals, charismatic, and other sects are really nothing indoctrination machines often directed at children. The sole purpose of these mega churches is to raise money to build more churches and recruiting more and more people to fill them so they can collect more many. many of these "churches" are more like malls and religion is what is being sold. Religion is a parasitic meme that is passed down from parent to child and it's sole purpose is to generate more money so it can generate more converts to generate more money and so on. like a computer virus for the computer that is the human mind.
zapatos Posted January 12, 2012 Posted January 12, 2012 It seems to me that the correlation is not so much between religion and poverty as it is between certain types of people and poverty. In my mind, religion is kind of a framework that allows different types of people work within it. Those who are kind will tend to help those in need, those who are logical will tend to discount the fanciful aspects of religion, those who are ambitious will tend to move up the hierarchy and do what they must to stay there, and those who are gullible will take it all literally. Not much different than many other frameworks. Take corporate America for example. Those who are kind will often end up in non-profits, those who are logical will not believe that a new aftershave will result in women throwing themselves at you, those who are ambitious will be your corporate officers who want nothing more than more, and those who are gullible will believe all the ads. Many people foolishly give to the church so that the leaders can live in luxury, just as many people foolishly buy designer clothes so the CEOs can live in luxury. You could make the same comparisons to politics. I'm sure we could go back and forth all day pointing out good done by politicians versus bad done by politicians. But is politics bad, or is it specific practitioners? It would probably make more sense to criticize specific acts by specific politicians than to say, 'politics is bad, here is an example'. Politics was not responsible for Nixon acting like he did, Nixon was responsible. I don't believe there are any absolutes. Clearly not all help from religion comes with proselytizing, and clearly religion has caused people to suffer and die. But is it religion that is so bad for people, or does it depend on who is in the organization? Does religion promote bad deeds more than other organizations, or is it just easier to point to when the practioners claim to be there in support of their followers? 1
Moontanman Posted January 12, 2012 Posted January 12, 2012 In which of the examples? The thrust of the article is that the editorial decisions in the textbooks are left to non-scientists who are on record seeking politically driven goals, and the text books correctness has suffered because of it. Also, getting back on topic, religion is a refuge for the down trodden. I don't think that was ever really a big secret. It's kind of the whole point. The article http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/563mgsyh.asp?page=1 SEVERAL CENTURIES AGO, some "very light-skinned" people were shipwrecked on a tropical island. After "many years under the tropical sun," this light-skinned population became "dark-skinned," says Biology: The Study of Life, a high-school textbook published in 1998 by Prentice Hall, an imprint of Pearson Education. "Downright bizarre," says Nina Jablonski, who holds the Irvine chair of anthropology at the California Academy of Sciences. Jablonski, an expert in the evolution of skin color, says it takes at least 15,000 years for skin color to evolve from black to white or vice versa. That sure is "many years." The suggestion that skin color can change in a few generations has no basis in science. Pearson Education spokesperson Wendy Spiegel admits the error in describing the evolution of skin color, but says the teacher's manual explains the phenomenon correctly. Just why teachers are given accurate information while students are misled remains unclear. Yes, i agree, if this is accurate it would be a misrepresentation of how skin color evolved. But then there's lots that's puzzling about the science textbooks used in American classrooms. A sloppy way with facts, a preference for the politically correct over the scientifically sound, and sheer faddism characterize their content. It's as if their authors had decided above all not to expose students to the intellectual rigor that is the lifeblood of science. There is no way to tell if this is true or not, it gives some anecdotal evidence and does not show the context it was in. Thus, a chapter on climate in a fifth-grade science textbook in the Discovery Works series, published by Houghton Mifflin (2000), opens with a Native American explanation for the changing seasons: "Crow moon is the name given to spring because that is when the crows return. April is the month of Sprouting Grass Moon." Students meander through three pages of Algonquin lore before they learn that climate is affected by the rotation and tilt of Earth--not by the return of the crows. Why does this bother you? Comparing science with folk lore to show how science is better at describing the natural world seems perfectly reasonable to me. Houghton Mifflin spokesman Collin Earnst says such tales are included in order to "connect science to culture." He might more precisely have said to connect science to certain preferred, non-Western, or primitive cultures. Were a connection drawn to, say, a Bible story, the outcry would be heard around the world. This is most certainly true, if "The Holy Bible" was asserted as just a folk lore or a primitive attempt to explain thing the uproar would be immense. Affirmative action for women and minorities is similarly pervasive in science textbooks, to absurd effect. Al Roker, the affable black NBC weatherman, is hailed as a great scientist in one book in the Discovery Works series. It is common to find Marie Curie given a picture and half a page of text, but her husband, Pierre, who shared a Nobel Prize with her, relegated to the role of supportive spouse. In the same series, Thomas Edison, inventor of the light bulb, is shown next to black scientist Lewis Latimer, who improved the light bulb by adding a carbon filament. Edison's picture is smaller. Incredibly petty, and I see no reason why the discoveries of minorities, long ignored in text books, shouldn't be accentuated. Jews have been awarded 22 percent of all Nobel Prizes in science, but readers of Houghton Mifflin's fifth-grade textbooks won't get wind of that. Navajo physicist Fred Begay, however, merits half a page for his study of Navajo medicine. Albert Einstein isn't mentioned. Biologist Clifton Poodry has made no noteworthy scientific discoveries, but he was born on the Tonawanda Seneca Indian reservation, so his picture is shown in Glenco/McGraw-Hill's Life Science (2002), a middle-school biology textbook. The head of the Human Genome Project, Francis Collins, and Nobel Laureates James Watson, Maurice H.F. Wilkins, and Francis Crick aren't named. The entire context of this would have to be shown before we could make a definitive reply but again i see no reason why minority contributions shouldn't be accentuated, everyone knows who Einstein is and unless the section was discussing the theory of relativity why should he be glorified, why not minority contributors? Addison-Wesley, another imprint of Pearson Education, is so keen on political correctness that it lists a multicultural review board of nonscientists in its Science Insights: Exploring Matter and Energy, published in 1994 but still in use. Houghton Mifflin says it overemphasizes minorities and women to "encourage" students from these groups. A spokesman for Pearson Education blames the states for demanding multiculturalism. Why is this wrong, why is showing that science isn't a WASP dominated field a bad thing? If it's the states that impose multiculturalism, however, they're only doing the bidding of the National Academy of Sciences. In 1995, the academy published the National Science Education Standards, which, according to academy president Bruce Alberts, "represent the best thinking . . . about what is best for our nation's students." The standards (which explicitly place religion on a par with "myth and superstition") counsel school boards to modify "assessments" for students with "limited English proficiency" by, for example, raising their scores. They tell teachers to be "sensitive" to students who are "economically deprived, female, have disabilities, or [come] from populations underrepresented in the sciences." Teachers should especially encourage "women and girls, students of color and students with disabilities."\ Religion is myth and superstition, no wait only the non christian ones are, i forgot and again why shouldn't women and minorites be encouraged to study science? This "best thinking" of the nation's scientific elite is being used by nearly all the 50 states as they centralize their science standards. With 22 states now requiring statewide adoption of textbooks, big-state textbook markets are the prizes for which publishers compete. Usually the content of these books is greatly influenced by the largest markets, like Texas who's school boards have been insisting on requiring Genesis be taught as science is a good example. A study commissioned by the David and Lucile Packard Foundation in 2001 found 500 pages of scientific error in 12 middle-school textbooks used by 85 percent of the students in the country. One misstates Newton's first law of motion. Another says humans can't hear elephants. Another confuses "gravity" with "gravitational acceleration." Another shows the equator running through the United States. Individual scientists draft segments of these books, but reviewing the final product is sometimes left to multicultural committees who have no expertise in science. I would have to agree this is bad but I would have to see some documentation this is true. "Thousands of teachers are saddled with error-filled physical science textbooks," wrote John Hubisz, a physics professor at North Carolina State University at Raleigh and the author of the report. "Political correctness is often more important than scientific accuracy. Middle-school text publishers now employ more people to censor books than they do to check facts." Yes, and the censorship is highly influenced by religion, i live in NC, I listen to the debates all the time. The aim of President Bill Clinton's Goals 2000 project, enacted nine years ago, was to make American students first in science literacy. It didn't happen. A study by the National Assessment governing board in 2000 found that only 12 percent of graduating seniors were proficient in science. International surveys continue to show that American high school seniors rank 19th among seniors surveyed in 21 countries. Can you show how this is connected to false textbooks? Members of the scientific elite are occasionally heard blaming religion for the sorry state of science education. But it isn't priests, rabbis, or mullahs who write the textbooks that misrepresent evolution, condescend to disadvantaged groups, misstate key concepts of physics, show the equator running through the United States, and come close to excising white males from the history of science. Young Americans need to learn science, and they need to distinguish it clearly from Algonquin myth. yes, well except those Christian myths. Pamela R. Winnick is an attorney and journalist based in Pittsburgh. Her book A Jealous God: Science's Crusade Against Religion is due out later this year. And here finally is the point, a right wing conservative Christian with an agenda to show science is attacking Religion purposefully. this entire article is for no other purpose than selling books to people who are also right wing Christians. This artle and the "news" rag it is contained is has apolitical agenda, insert Creationism into the classroom, the "Weekly Standard" is about as accurate and unbiased as Fox News, possibly even less so. Here is a review of her book http://recursed.blogspot.com/2006/07/pamela-winnicks-science-envy.html Here is a review of her book by the "Discovery Institute" A right wing site that promotes the silliness of Intelligent Design and Creationism. Notice the difference between the two? If you are a creationist fine, lets discuss it but don't try to sneak in the lies, misrepresentations and out right fabrications of fundamentalist religions apologetic crusades. http://www.discovery.org/a/3511 Another article by Pamela Winnicks http://www.post-gazette.com/regionstate/20001129creationism1.asp Care to support your assertions with evidence instead of Creation Science horse feathers and the disingenuous people who promote ID and Creationism?
imatfaal Posted January 13, 2012 Posted January 13, 2012 Can you expand on this please? I'm not suggesting that it is wrong, it is just that my personal exposure to religion hasn't shown that. I'm trying to get a better understanding of what others are seeing. Preferably if you could give examples of the kinds of things religion is doing currently along these lines. The subjugation of women and refusal to countenance women's control over their own bodies and thus reproduction. The condemnation of liberation theology in many guises - most especially of the Catholic Church in South America. The concept of earthly suffering being a necessary precursor to heavenly salvation. The cleaving to, and re-inforcement of both temporal and spiritual hierarchies.
jryan Posted January 13, 2012 Posted January 13, 2012 (edited) There is no way to tell if this is true or not, it gives some anecdotal evidence and does not show the context it was in. Well, given the general structure of an essay I would assume that you understand that this is the assertion on which the rest of the essay sets to demonstrate, not a stand alone statement that requires internal reference. Why does this bother you? Comparing science with folk lore to show how science is better at describing the natural world seems perfectly reasonable to me. So you support replacing the first three pages of that textbook with a retelling of Genesis? Why not just start with the science given that it is a SCIENCE textbook? This is most certainly true, if "The Holy Bible" was asserted as just a folk lore or a primitive attempt to explain thing the uproar would be immense. This is already happening. But in either case it's not the role of science education to do this. Her point was that this particular textbook allowed this bizarre tangent in the textbook because it was politically acceptable, and that it's inclusion was worthless to the subject being taught. Incredibly petty, and I see no reason why the discoveries of minorities, long ignored in text books, shouldn't be accentuated. No, it's not petty. The choice of boob-tube celebrities as examples of great scientists is just plain stupid. Certainly you can come up with a list of black scientists worth mentioning BEFORE Al Roker, right? Likewise, downplaying Edison's contribution to the light bulb because his skin color didn't meet the narrative is simply teaching ignorance. What they do in this case is subordinate the discovery to the novelty and turn science into a social lesson. Save social lessons for social studies. It's like trying to teach multiplication to third graders and spending as much time on the color of mathematicians skin as you do on multiplication tables. The object of the lesson suffers in the process. What are the chances that the multiplication tables would be addressed in social studies? The entire context of this would have to be shown before we could make a definitive reply but again i see no reason why minority contributions shouldn't be accentuated, everyone knows who Einstein is and unless the section was discussing the theory of relativity why should he be glorified, why not minority contributors? The context is given right there. The context is "Fifth Grade Science Textbook" and the point is that Albert Einstein, among many other Jewish scientists, isn't mentioned in it. You can argue that "people already know who Einstein is" ... but I'd bet most fifth graders don't. It's kind of the point they go to school is to learn important stuff that they won't get from watching Pokemon. Why is this wrong, why is showing that science isn't a WASP dominated field a bad thing? Because it's not science? But also because when the lesson plan sets out to teach the history of great milestones and bypasses the great milestones where the scientists were the wrong color for your narrative then you have failed not only to teach the science but to also teach a clear view of the history. Including minorities in the history lesson is great, but as an addition to, not a subtraction from the over all lesson... and even then you still aren't teaching science. Religion is myth and superstition, no wait only the non christian ones are, i forgot and again why shouldn't women and minorites be encouraged to study science? Who says they can't be encouraged? Teach them the science and if the science interests them then you have encouraged them to study science. Telling them they could study science because other %minorities% studied science is not encouraging them to study science, it's encouraging them, and everyone else, to insert minority status into science when, at the end of the day, it's not the color of your skin that determines the rightness of correctness of your theory, it's the results. It is quite true that racism and sexism most certainly led to a lot of brilliant minds being silenced in the past, and science suffered as a result. It is also true that making science a completely raceless/genderless pursuit of truth HELPS the progress of science. But this method on display in these textbooks isn't doing that. Excluding Albert Einstein from a science textbook is simply a redress of old wrongs that has the exact same effect on scientific progress as the exclusionary practices of previous times had. But then that is more a problem with culture and politics.. all the more reason to keep it out of science study. Usually the content of these books is greatly influenced by the largest markets, like Texas who's school boards have been insisting on requiring Genesis be taught as science is a good example. Well, they can put it right along side Algonquian Crow Gods. Problem solved, right? How best to teach the truth of science than to spend more time teaching non-science, right? Makes perfect sense. I would have to agree this is bad but I would have to see some documentation this is true. Here is a Sciencemag article from 2001. Though I'm having trouble accessing their link (which may have changed since then). But The Wayback Machine is our friend and I was able to access the report from a cached copy in October 2001: Here it is. Enjoy! Yes, and the censorship is highly influenced by religion, i live in NC, I listen to the debates all the time. Do you have exampled of actual textbook edits that were done for religious reasons? Can you show how this is connected to false textbooks? This is in the same category as the first statement. She is showing that the change in the way the textbooks are edited has lead to a decline in the quality of the textbooks. She puts this decline in the context of the Clinton initiative meant to have the exact opposite effect. I don't think you need to show Clinton red lining textbooks personally to show that the attempt to be culturally inclusive in teaching science has led to a lot of pointless social crap in science lessons and that a politically driven editorial structure is producing substandard textbooks. yes, well except those Christian myths. I don't see where she argues in favor of replacing the Algonquian Crow God with Genesis in that article, just the removal of the Algonquian Crow God. If you applied the same inclusionary trend in other public religious displays then the preface of that lesson on climate would overtake the actual science and begin to look more like a lesson in theology. And here finally is the point, a right wing conservative Christian with an agenda to show science is attacking Religion purposefully. this entire article is for no other purpose than selling books to people who are also right wing Christians. Well, no. Again, this is ad hominem, and you pointing it out is actually kind of ironic... because, at least from the title, what she discusses in this book is what you engage in readily openly and willingly. In fact, it is quite possible to believe that political correctness is ruining textbooks and that people are using science to attack religion independently. Indeed, someone could disagree with her assertion of political correctness and still look at your example and still agree that people are using science to attack religion... because that is what you do. This artle and the "news" rag it is contained is has apolitical agenda, insert Creationism into the classroom, the "Weekly Standard" is about as accurate and unbiased as Fox News, possibly even less so. Man, then you really should have been more successful at showing it to be false. But alas... Here is a review of her book http://recursed.blogspot.com/2006/07/pamela-winnicks-science-envy.html Here is a review of her book by the "Discovery Institute" A right wing site that promotes the silliness of Intelligent Design and Creationism. Notice the difference between the two? If you are a creationist fine, lets discuss it but don't try to sneak in the lies, misrepresentations and out right fabrications of fundamentalist religions apologetic crusades. http://www.discovery.org/a/3511 Another article by Pamela Winnicks http://www.post-gazette.com/regionstate/20001129creationism1.asp Care to support your assertions with evidence instead of Creation Science horse feathers and the disingenuous people who promote ID and Creationism? And still you fell flat in attacking the actual article on its assertions. That must suck. And as you may have gathered by now, I am not in favor of teaching Creationism in science class as it isn't science (see also: social studies). I would prefer to see science taught in science class. But I also don't think that everything you need to know about the world comes from science class. Edited January 13, 2012 by jryan
iNow Posted April 11, 2012 Posted April 11, 2012 ...well...dammit. I hadn't realized there was so much legislation over scientific fact. Tennessee just enacted it's anti-evolution and anti-science bill... http://ncse.com/news/2012/04/monkey-bill-enacted-tennessee-007299 Governor Bill Haslam allowed Tennessee's House Bill 368 to become law without his signature on April 10, 2012, according to the Memphis Commercial Appeal (April 10, 2012). The law encourages teachers to present the "scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses" of topics that arouse "debate and disputation" such as "biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning." Why oh why is this battle still being fought more than a decade into the 21st century? 1
imatfaal Posted April 11, 2012 Posted April 11, 2012 Thanks for posting that iNow - more depressing news, but good to know about and be aware of. There are rumours (but I haven't seen confirmation) of the Louisiana version being used to teach out-and-out creationism in state schools - this seems to be unconstitutional, but through the weasel-words of ID and with the creation of a scientific controversy (where there is none) they seem to be getting away with it. Oklahoma might be trying to resurrect their version of the bill http://ncse.com/news/2012/04/once-more-unto-breach-oklahoma-007291 1
immortal Posted January 1, 2013 Posted January 1, 2013 A comment in another thread: Wanted to comment on this without hijacking the thread in which it appeared 'iNow', on 30 Dec 2011 - 00:53, said: Some of the best societies on earth are irreligious as measured by the quality of life index and the human development reports. In fact, societies which are the most religious tend to have the worst poverty and the worst living conditions. http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=3189 http://www.gallup.co...st-nations.aspx From the second link: One theory is that religion plays a more functional role in the world's poorest countries, helping many residents cope with a daily struggle to provide for themselves and their families. I think that's true. If your life is hard, you can lean on religion and the thought that a better life awaits you. I guess I wasn't so active when this thread was being discussed but any ways I think I have something valuable to add to this thread. I don't agree with iNow that religion is the root cause behind producing lower standard of living and poverty stricken societies as this study contradicts his conclusion, natural selection is favouring those genetic changes which makes women to reproduce very early in their life since they carry a higher reproductive success and genes do affect human behaviour and therefore the call to reproduce and to drop out from higher university education by women may very well have been influenced by genetic factors rather than by religion. iNow seems to make wrong conclusions which are often biased towards his preconceived beliefs and notions without caring to know what the truth is, especially when it comes to matters of religion. http://www.websterworld.com/websterworld/scienceupdates/a/arehumansstillevolving549.html I agree with your proposed theory, yes lack of good quality education especially for women and also for men does affect the family size and that leads to poverty and a lower standard of living and in turn leads to urge to reproduce in dozens to back up for the bad decisions made in family planning and that leads to look for hope from somewhere outside and greatly force them to believe in superstition and a miraculous God. But I don't agree with iNow's conclusion that religion is somehow behind in producing worse societies, where does religion stop women from taking higher university education or influence women not to take up higher university education? (It is the education of women which is the main cause of higher standard of living and not the mere absence of religion in a society). Also it is wrong on your part to suggest that higher education or an higher intellect make one a non-believer as the saying goes "Don't limit your knowledge by saying God did it" but actually it is much of this intellectuality and our understanding of the workings of the universe which force us to envision a superior entity, scientific education and religious belief aren't mutually exclusive, perhaps only for a minority of dogmatic religious fundamentalists.
iNow Posted January 1, 2013 Posted January 1, 2013 I don't agree with iNow that religion is the root cause behind producing lower standard of living <snip> I don't agree with iNow's conclusion that religion is somehow behind in producing worse societies You've powerfully misrepresented both me and the work I've cited by framing your comment in this way. For that reason, I see no need to respond to you in any meaningful way. If you do not understand the position that I've put forth, then by all means, ask me questions about it, but please... Don't misrepresent it so completely.
immortal Posted January 1, 2013 Posted January 1, 2013 You've powerfully misrepresented both me and the work I've cited by framing your comment in this way. For that reason, I see no need to respond to you in any meaningful way. If you do not understand the position that I've put forth, then by all means, ask me questions about it, but please... Don't misrepresent it so completely. Ah, that's a cop out, this is exactly what you claimed, "In fact, societies which are the most religious tend to have the worst poverty and the worst living conditions." You put religion as the root cause for the worst poverty and the worst living conditions prevailing in many of the societies which is obviously wrong, try to show some honesty and accept the truth as they are.
iNow Posted January 1, 2013 Posted January 1, 2013 Seriously, dude. You're obviously experiencing pretty major issues with reading comprehension here, and yet you seem to think that somehow YOU have a better understanding of my position than I do. Funny stuff. It's like you're arguing that you know who my favorite band is and calling me a liar when I say it's a different band. Stating that societies that are more religious tend to have worse poverty and living conditions is not the same as saying that religion is the cause. If you cannot grasp this simple distinction, then that's your problem, not mine. I notice you've also once again called me dishonest for explaining my position to you clearly. This has grown old and tiresome. The fact that you cannot accurately comprehend my points does not mean my posts are lacking in honesty.
immortal Posted January 1, 2013 Posted January 1, 2013 Seriously, dude. You're obviously experiencing pretty major issues with reading comprehension here, and yet you seem to think that somehow YOU have a better understanding of my position than I do. Funny stuff. It's like you're arguing that you know who my favorite band is and calling me a liar when I say it's a different band. Stating that societies that are more religious tend to have worse poverty and living conditions is not the same as saying that religion is the cause. If you cannot grasp this simple distinction, then that's your problem, not mine. I notice you've also once again called me dishonest for explaining my position to you clearly. This has grown old and tiresome. The fact that you cannot accurately comprehend my points does not mean my posts are lacking in honesty. No, its not my problem, its a problem faced by many members who have participated in this thread which you have not addressed to. JustinW Posted 11 January 2012 - 08:33 PM Is the question whether religion correlates to poverty, or whether poverty correlates religion? Most poverty stricken countries hold the more radical religious beliefs. The more wealthy a nation the less religion is relied upon as a way maintaining hope in salvation. The further away from death you are the less you will feel the need for salvation or deliverance from sufferage. Is this a fair assumption? I'm not at all sure where this thread was wanting to go or how some might want to reason the correlation between poverty and religion. I think my assertion above is how I see that the two are connected. And once I think about it, should wealthier nations humble themselves to a certain degree? Maybe try and empathize with those who are closer to death on a daily basis? Hmmmm....... ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- tomgwyther Posted 31 December 2011 - 01:08 AM The idea that the earth orbits the sun, and that species evolve via natural selection are both good ideas who's prevalence was hampered by religious dogma of the time, as was pointed out by iNow. In modern times; the use of contraception to stop the spread of sexually transmitted diseases is - in my opinion - a good idea. But the church discourages it's use, especially among poorer communities. It would be a causative fallacy to say the 'Religion equals poverty'. More likely it is the case, that wealth enables people to educate themselves in a broader view of the world which leads to a disbelief in religious ideas. However, the religious dogma which is imposed on the poor and blamelessly illiterate peoples of the world, demonstratively serves to keep them in such a state... For purposes one can only guess at. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- iNow Posted 30 December 2011 - 11:35 PM I agree that the relationship goes both ways, but the data is quite strong, too, that when a society is more secular, free, and open to scientific inquiry it tends to do better financially and economically. Good ideas are allowed to prosper without being batted down by powerful clergy. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A Tripolation Posted 30 December 2011 - 11:38 PM Um, how do you come to this conclusion? It seems more one that is aligned with your preconceived notions. I can understand that religion is more prevalent amongst lower-income people, but what in the world does that have to do with good ideas? Its quite obvious that you are arguing for the position that religion correlates to poverty, worse societies and bad living conditions which is a causal fallacy as supported by that study.
iNow Posted January 1, 2013 Posted January 1, 2013 Its quite obvious that you are arguing for the position that religion correlates to poverty, worse societies and bad living conditions Yes, this is correct. which is a causal fallacy as supported by that study. Correlation does not equal causation, and at no time or place have I argued otherwise. Since I have not done what you are saying I have done (arguing that religion is the cause of those things), your assertion that I've engaged in a causal fallacy is itself fallacious.
swansont Posted January 2, 2013 Author Posted January 2, 2013 where does religion stop women from taking higher university education or influence women not to take up higher university education? There are a number of religious factions that inhibit the education of women. Fundamentalist Islamic ones, for example, in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.
immortal Posted January 2, 2013 Posted January 2, 2013 Yes, this is correct. Correlation does not equal causation, and at no time or place have I argued otherwise. Since I have not done what you are saying I have done (arguing that religion is the cause of those things), your assertion that I've engaged in a causal fallacy is itself fallacious. People often try to find explanations for correlations because such correlations demand explanations. There is a lot of difference between saying, "Most societies which are religious tend to have lower standard of living and worse social conditions" and saying, "Most societies which have a low standard of living and worse social conditions tend to be extremely religious." See what I mean, if you were not making an attempt to causally link religion with poverty then frame you sentences in the right context rather than using words like "tendency" which means a causal influence leading to a certain effect. There are a number of religious factions that inhibit the education of women. Fundamentalist Islamic ones, for example, in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. They are only a minority of people who misinterpret religious texts for their justification for cruel acts, it is definitely not the opinion of genuine muslims. Its wrong to put the blame on religion for someone misinterpreting and misusing religion, just because someone misused a technology doesn't mean that the science behind that technology is bad.
swansont Posted January 2, 2013 Author Posted January 2, 2013 They are only a minority of people who misinterpret religious texts for their justification for cruel acts, it is definitely not the opinion of genuine muslims. Its wrong to put the blame on religion for someone misinterpreting and misusing religion, just because someone misused a technology doesn't mean that the science behind that technology is bad. That's moot. The post asked where this was happening, and I gave two examples. There are more. That it is a minority view doesn't matter to the question that was asked, and the effect is not a minority one when that minority is actually in a position to exert a large amount of influence. 1
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now