The correlations

[tar]

john5746,

 

Postmoderism.

 

Thanks for the link. Caused me to look up postmoderism. I will have to reevaluate my own thinking, regarding my reasons for being an Atheist. Seeems I have been having sort of postmodern thoughts myself.

 

Not sure yet what that might do to ydoaPs thesis, either.

 

Maybe, in general, skeptics seem to look to their own authority, when looking for authority to look toward.

 

Whether this is reasonable or not....

 

Regards, TAR2

[tar]

Thread,

 

Had a waking thought on "authority's" potential role in this discussion.

 

A drunk, wishing to rehabilitate, often looks "outside" himself for the strength. (not to mention that an "intervention" may have brought him/her to the "support" group, in the first place).

 

The tie-in is the thought of "independence", in the sense that education (knowledge is power), intelligence (the pen is mightier than the sword), and wealth (money is power), seem to coincide to some degree with the thought that one can "do it on their own", and turn to themself for support, authority and validation.

 

If God is to be, symbolically at least, objective reality, how one has developed or structured their own internal world and their own relationship to the objective reality that they are in and of, is pertinent to the discussion.

 

And very important as well, is what other human or group of humans does one turn to for authority, and include in their "feeling of self". (if one needs no other humans for support, and authority, then a "personal god" would be the only place left to go for such).

 

So scientists have the "scientific community" to reference. They need no personal god.

Super intelligent folk, wealthy folk, politcally powerful folk that gain personal power over the world around them, in one way or the other, I would theorize, have less need for God, than those who are powerless.

 

Secular societies are based on a body of law, that all look toward for authority. "The group" everybody looks to for support is everybody that believes in, upholds, and obeys those laws. These people have less need for religiousity, I would surmise.

 

United States is an interesting mix of peoples from all over the world, coming from varied traditions, built on the idea that all men(male or female) are created equal and endowed with unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Freedom to believe in any and all personal gods is embedded in the law.

 

A secular society, one nation of laws, under god, that is a trusted authority, even for the atheist.

 

Regards, TAR2

When one turns to God (objective reality) for support, that might include the community of humans with which he/she associates.

Be that a church community, the scientific community, the neighborhood, or the legal entity with which he/she communes.

Edited January 26, 2013 by tar

[iNow]

Humanities and social science majors had a significant loss in religious attendance and importance over their college career

 

Education and Business majors had an increase

 

Biological and Physical Science had no change in attendance but did lose religious importance.

Here it is in chart form. I've also always suspected that the Humanities show this trend due to the psychology and sociology majors. In those areas of study, people learn just how susceptible our minds are to complete hogwash and how we make our own realities. That makes the likelihood of truth in religious claims ever smaller, IMO.

 

 

[john5746]

Thanks iNow, wish I had seen that chart, much better. Interesting to me is the Physical science majors losing importance but increasing attendance. I wonder if they attend for the social aspect, but no longer believe.

 

I understand that exposure to different cultures would lead one to question their own more.

[tar]

ydoaPs,

 

Alright, I submit to the correlation. Analytical thought is an enemy to irrational hogwash. And facts tend to dismiss false (non-existing) gods.

 

But remaining is the question of whether or not this is comletely the same correlation as the inverse correlation between social health and religiousity.

 

While on the surface one could easily surmise that the more you know about how things actually are, rather than believing in how they are not, on faith, the more you will be able to actually affect and address the challenges the world around you poses,

there remains the need for something else, which I cannot clearly define, that trumps ones individual personage, that religioustiy, stripped of the hogwash, still addresses.

 

Your thesis suggests that we would be better off without spirituality and church attendence, and belief in God.

And that analytical thought should win the day, and that will be sufficient to guide us.

 

I am not sure that that is correct.

 

Regards, TAR2

[iNow]

While on the surface one could easily surmise that the more you know about how things actually are, rather than believing in how they are not, on faith, the more you will be able to actually affect and address the challenges the world around you poses, there remains the need for something else, which I cannot clearly define, that trumps ones individual personage, that religioustiy, stripped of the hogwash, still addresses.

 

Your thesis suggests that we would be better off without spirituality and church attendence, and belief in God.

And that analytical thought should win the day, and that will be sufficient to guide us.

 

I am not sure that that is correct.

The Scandinavians don't seem to share your uncertainty, nor do the most religious states here in the US, nor does the data regarding both.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/sep/12/pope-benedict-atheism-secularism

http://www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/zuckerman/Zuckerman_on_Atheism.pdf

[tar]

The Scandinavians don't seem to share your uncertainty, nor do the most religious states here in the US, nor does the data regarding both.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/sep/12/pope-benedict-atheism-secularism

http://www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/zuckerman/Zuckerman_on_Atheism.pdf

 

Inow,

 

Yes, but you are talking correlation not causation or explaination.

 

What if drug use and teenage promiscuity are causative factors relating to social deficiencies, and these things are areas where atheists have a higher tendency to engage.

 

What if the prision population, which is highly religious is also poor, uneducated, underpriveledged and stupid. Would this not skew the numbers?

 

What if most Scandinavians believed in elves and fairies and the lessons they learned in the nursery when they learned their moral lessons from fairie tales. And was not Grimm from the lowlands? If morality is learned and shared and instilled in children, it need not be at church where it happened.

 

The poorest and most uneducated nations in the world, are also the most religious. But the causative factors may be due to missionaries that went to these places, with strategies for clean water, brought medicine and food, built schools, and a set of moral, human loving values.

 

Moral values came from somewhere. They are not findable in field theory formulae.

 

We got them from our parents, developed them to match the changes in the world, and gave them to our children.

 

Some get outdated, and religion is not real swift at changing to meet the newly found values, but some do change, new ones spring up, populations keep the baby, throw out the bathwater and move on.

 

There may be certain values that are encoded in our genes. As surely as my pleasure in the female form, is encoded in mine.

But our laws and values and morals, come a peice at a time, as us scentient folk, see what works, and what does not. We teach our children to avoid the pitfalls, and engage in the valuable stuff.

 

But consider the tenets of humanism. Can one believe that the life of a child in a far away country is as important as the life of your own child, without some belief in an objectively real truth, greater than ones own family, tribe or nation? Where would this notion be found in the pack gene? It is an abstraction. It is an ideal. It is a belief. As flimsy a notion under scientific scrutiny as a unicorn.

 

It must be an idea under development. An extension and clarification of previous thought. Perhaps an idealological mutuation of the insights of Moses, and Buddah, and Hammirabi, mixed in with the lessons taught by the elves and fairies and gods of the Morse and the Peyote smoking wise men of American Indian lore, and every other tradition that saw magic and wonder in the world around them and associated with it. Personified it in myth and ledgend, and told the stories to their children.

 

If drugs and teenage sex, and poverty were to be erased in our society, this would be a welcome thing for the churches in America. The church is not the cause of these things, it is one of the forces that tries to come to the rescue of the afflicted.

 

That religion is found amoungst the poor and uneducated, underpriveledged, terminally ill, drug addict, desease ridden and mentally disturbed, does not mean that religion causes these things. Believing such, would be like believing that pennicillin causes disease.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

And each religion should be assessed on its own merits.

For instance the inequality of women in the Muslim world is greater than the inequality of women in America, although the sexism in the Bible is rooted in both traditions. Perhaps Mohammed added something wrong to the story, that disallowed a fair mutation to what is more globally considered a more workable position.

 

And perhaps Jesus, added something positive.

Edited January 27, 2013 by tar

[tar]

It's been linked by me on this board about ten thousand times on a societal level, religiosity and just about every measure of social health are strikingly inversely correlated. But why is that? A study from last year in Nature may give us a clue. It shows that increasing analytical thinking makes one less likely to be religious. The correlation on a societal scale could all simply be because of higher proportions of educated people in the populations.

 

I guess education really might kill gods.

ydoaPs,

 

Just to be thourough in assessing your thesis.

 

Let's consider the measures of the health of a society. How charitible, how it protects its weak, how it protects its children, its sick and its poor.

 

Where did we get these measures? What writers wrote that the measure of a society is how it handles its weak.

 

Why not have Nazi measures? The law of the jungle, the survival of the fitest? Why should the strongest not prevail? Why should the old and weak and the useless child not be slaughtered?

 

Perhaps because of this.

 

"Defend the weak and the fatherless; uphold the cause of the poor and the oppressed."

(from Psalms)

 

and other lessons taught in the bible

 

I sang in Sunday School "Jesus loves the little children, all the children of the world, he loves yellow, black and white, all are precious in his sight, Jesus loves the little children of the world."

 

Could this have anything to do with why I would be open to considering the health and well being of a child in a distant land?

 

Why would I be tolerant of my enemies, why would I love them as myself, why would I turn the other cheek, if it was not told to me by my parents, and church and society, that this was the proper way to be?

 

Can we measure the negative effects that religiousity has on society, using religiousity's yardstick?

 

Perhaps we can show where we have not lived up to our own standards, but can we fault the standards with our failure to live up to them?

 

And who will be the judge of whether I personnaly have lived up to these standards? Whether I have instilled them in my children?

 

Just in the interest of thoughoughness, consider the role that religion has played and continues to play in setting the standards, in suggesting that we will be judged by our actions on Earth, by a higher authority. And consider where hope and charity and such made their entry into our collective consciousness.

 

Regards, TAR2

Edited January 27, 2013 by tar

[ydoaPs]

Inow,

 

Yes, but you are talking correlation not causation or explaination.

The thesis of the OP (and the Nature paper to which it links) speaks of both.

What if the prision population, which is highly religious is also poor, uneducated, underpriveledged and stupid. Would this not skew the numbers?

Education (of critical thinking skills specifically) is precisely the causal factor posited by the OP that explains ALL of the correlations even when breaking down religious belief among departments of study for PhDs.

The poorest and most uneducated nations in the world, are also the most religious.

Indeed.

But consider the tenets of humanism. Can one believe that the life of a child in a far away country is as important as the life of your own child, without some belief in an objectively real truth, greater than ones own family, tribe or nation?

Yes.

That religion is found amoungst the poor and uneducated, underpriveledged, terminally ill, drug addict, desease ridden and mentally disturbed, does not mean that religion causes these things.

FFS, dude, no one is saying that.

Believing such, would be like believing that pennicillin causes disease.

No, it's not.

Why not have Nazi measures?

Because it's an objective fact of the universe that societies that are disease-ridden and killing themselves off with homicide and suicide aren't doing as well as those that aren't. Edited January 27, 2013 by ydoaPs

[tar]

ydoaPs,

 

Please don't call me dude. I truely take it as an insult.

 

Brazil is killing itself off in the drug infested slums, run by gun welding gangs.

So are we. The tie-in has more to do with drugs than religion.

 

And IF your thesis is correct, we should allow only educated people with several doctorates, to exist, and this will make us healthy. (Don't really mean I think that is what you are saying.) But is that what you think the facts demand? Should only rich, educated, analytical minds run the show? What about everybody else? Should the 10 percent that do not believe in God or spirits or supernatural stuff, design a society for the other 90%? Well they have, but that has gotten us, to exactly here.

Where do we go FROM here?

 

Regards, TAR2

 

P.S. I only could get as far as the abstract. You in actuality did not provide me with a link to the Nature study. And I remain too lazy or uninterested to invest the time and/or money it would take to reach it. Perhaps this is why I remain uneducated. Lack of gumption and funds to apply to the task.

[ydoaPs]

ydoaPs,

 

Please don't call me dude. I truely take it as an insult.

Ok, dude, how about this? Stop strawmanning the crap out of me, and I'll stop calling you "dude". Alright, dude?

The tie-in has more to do with drugs than religion.

NO ONE HERE IS SAYING THAT RELIGION IS THE CAUSAL FACTOR. STOP STRAWMANNING.

 

Is that clear enough this time?

And IF your thesis is correct, we should allow only educated people with several doctorates, to exist, and this will make us healthy.

Does not follow.

I only could get as far as the abstract. You in actuality did not provide me with a link to the Nature study.

I in actuality DID provide you with a link directly to the study. I'll take a screenshot tomorrow to prove it if you'd like.

Edited January 27, 2013 by ydoaPs

[tar]

Ye that dost callest me Dude,

 

Sure pally wally, whatever you say.

 

"Direct to the paper" is not what I experienced.

 

(or is it Pallie Wallie? I am inexperienced in proper name calling)

ydoaPs,

 

Perhaps then I wonder why you have posted the same first study you linked, 10,000 times which states that there is a strong inverse correlation between religousity and societal health? What is it, that you wish to imply?

 

Regards, TAR2

I would agree, and have agreed that education tends to dismiss false, incorrect, untrue things, including fairies, nymphs, the God of the Bible, Koran, and the 32 or 3000 of Vedic fame, to name just a few.

 

If we have no argument. Then we have no argument.

 

Regards, TAR2

Edited January 27, 2013 by tar

[John Cuthber]

"Perhaps then I wonder why you have posted the same first study you linked, 10,000 times which states that there is a strong inverse correlation between religousity and societal health? What is it, that you wish to imply?"

It seems likely that he wants to imply a correlation.

Do you realise that correlation isn't the same as causation?

Of course, it's possible that there is causation, but it works in the opposite direction.

[Moontanman]

Second aside: Watched Obama, Biden and their wifes at a service at the National Cathedral, associated with the inaguaration.

Biden looked a little uncomfortable, Obama soaked it all in and enjoyed the sermons and the singing. Take-away? IF there is a commonality between the major religions and their "belief", enough to bring together Jew, Christian and Muslim traditions, in one episode, embraced by a Pragmatic, Intelligent, and Rational President, then hope and inspiration and moving forward with common purpose does not require a fight between spirituality and science, nor require that either camp prove the other wrong.

 

Please elaborate on the bolded part of this statement, are you saying it was a Muslim/Jewish/Christian service? Or the President Biden and their wives represented all three religions?

[tar]

John Cuthber,

 

I don't feel the methodologies of the various studies in the first correlation were consistent which each other, and results from one study were charted against data collected in various ways and I want to make sure that the makers of the correlation where not just cherry picking data with a political agenda in mind. For instance, I do not know if people in Sweden that were polled were asked if they believed in fairies or Elves, or the moral values found in fairy tales. And this becomes important, especially if belief in anything of a spiritual nature, would classify one as engaging in religioustiy. What about belief in a "life force", or "The Force", as refered to in Star Wars? If any Swedish people polled, believed in any of these things, and that was classified as counting as religiosity, then the health of their society would correlate that much more positively with religiousity.

 

And just what if Church attendance was considered a measure of the health of a society, or loyalty to the nation's flag, or the percentage of GDP spent on defense of the society's way of life? The observed correlations are dependent on the measures of societal health you are using, on the one hand, and the studier's definition of religiousity and choice of questions to determine this, on the other. And then separately, in the conclusions, the Red states of the Southern US are singled out as showing a strikingly powerful inverse correlation, as if to suggest that Republicans might be unhealthy to the society.

 

If ydoaPs wishes to show us that we are an unhealthy society, compared to other industrialized, 1st world societies, based on the measures of societal health used in the study, he has succeeded.

If ydoaPs wishes to show us that across the board, measures of Reliousity are inversely correlated with these measures of societal health, he has succeeded.

If ydoaPs wishes to show us that education tends to kill gods, I will take that as stipulated, having not assessed the In Nature study.

 

But if the point is to validate atheism and invalidate spirituality, I do not believe the correlations show this. That is a conclusion that has been implied, which ydoaPs insists he has not implied.

 

Moontanman,

 

I meant that the service had singing and words from at least the three major faiths of this country, and all spoke to the same message of faith, and belief, in our common spirituality, and hope. The President embraced the message, Biden was a bit uncomfortable.

 

Regards, TAR2

ydoaPs,

 

And just for kicks, consider that when you add all the correlations together it suggest that the study was probably done by analytical folk, dismissive of spirituality. Allowing for the chance of confirmational bias.

 

Regards, TAR2

What do you think of that, smartie pants?

[Ringer]

I don't feel the methodologies of the various studies in the first correlation were consistent which each other, and results from one study were charted against data collected in various ways and I want to make sure that the makers of the correlation where not just cherry picking data with a political agenda in mind. For instance, I do not know if people in Sweden that were polled were asked if they believed in fairies or Elves, or the moral values found in fairy tales. And this becomes important, especially if belief in anything of a spiritual nature, would classify one as engaging in religioustiy. What about belief in a "life force", or "The Force", as refered to in Star Wars? If any Swedish people polled, believed in any of these things, and that was classified as counting as religiosity, then the health of their society would correlate that much more positively with religiousity.

Superstition is not synonymous with religious. It is usually needed to be religious, but kids don't have a separate religious affiliation because they believe in Santa.

 

(as a side note, The Force was an 'entity' worshiped and studied by a group of monks who later formed the Jedi Order. So yes it would be considered a religion).

And just what if Church attendance was considered a measure of the health of a society, or loyalty to the nation's flag, or the percentage of GDP spent on defense of the society's way of life? The observed correlations are dependent on the measures of societal health you are using, on the one hand, and the studier's definition of religiousity and choice of questions to determine this, on the other. And then separately, in the conclusions, the Red states of the Southern US are singled out as showing a strikingly powerful inverse correlation, as if to suggest that Republicans might be unhealthy to the society.

Then you change the definition to suite your argument and make a logical fallacy.

. . .

But if the point is to validate atheism and invalidate spirituality, I do not believe the correlations show this. That is a conclusion that has been implied, which ydoaPs insists he has not implied.

I didn't see the implication. The point seems to be that spirituality tends to drop as one becomes more educated, and societies that are more educated tend to have higher levels of societal health. The education -> health seems to be an implied causation, but the drop in spirituality is an interesting byproduct (so far as I can make that judgement from a cursory glance).

I meant that the service had singing and words from at least the three major faiths of this country, and all spoke to the same message of faith, and belief, in our common spirituality, and hope. The President embraced the message, Biden was a bit uncomfortable.

 

Regards, TAR2

I wouldn't look to far into that, Biden always looks uncomfortable or asleep.

And just for kicks, consider that when you add all the correlations together it suggest that the study was probably done by analytical folk, dismissive of spirituality. Allowing for the chance of confirmational bias.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

What do you think of that, smartie pants?

I'm not ydoaPs but I would say that it is a possibility, but I didn't see anything that gives the idea of a glaring bias. They didn't do regression so they couldn't have tweaked that to make things more suitable to their needs. They used ISSP and Gallup for their polls on religiosity, two high quality polling companies. And societal health they got from WHO and the UN. I'm looking at the global health paper BTW.

 

I wasn't going to get into this discussion, but arguing for bias on a paper that you haven't read to make a non-existent point is fairly irritating.

 

[edit] and just to be clear I made a generalization about the paper. They use acceptance of evolution as a marker, I wrote it as more educated because it seems to imply that and education level and acceptance of evolution are strongly correlated.[/edit]

Edited January 28, 2013 by Ringer

[Villain]

Thread,

 

Had a waking thought on "authority's" potential role in this discussion.

 

A drunk, wishing to rehabilitate, often looks "outside" himself for the strength. (not to mention that an "intervention" may have brought him/her to the "support" group, in the first place).

 

The tie-in is the thought of "independence", in the sense that education (knowledge is power), intelligence (the pen is mightier than the sword), and wealth (money is power), seem to coincide to some degree with the thought that one can "do it on their own", and turn to themself for support, authority and validation.

 

If God is to be, symbolically at least, objective reality, how one has developed or structured their own internal world and their own relationship to the objective reality that they are in and of, is pertinent to the discussion.

 

And very important as well, is what other human or group of humans does one turn to for authority, and include in their "feeling of self". (if one needs no other humans for support, and authority, then a "personal god" would be the only place left to go for such).

 

So scientists have the "scientific community" to reference. They need no personal god.

Super intelligent folk, wealthy folk, politcally powerful folk that gain personal power over the world around them, in one way or the other, I would theorize, have less need for God, than those who are powerless.

 

Secular societies are based on a body of law, that all look toward for authority. "The group" everybody looks to for support is everybody that believes in, upholds, and obeys those laws. These people have less need for religiousity, I would surmise.

 

United States is an interesting mix of peoples from all over the world, coming from varied traditions, built on the idea that all men(male or female) are created equal and endowed with unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Freedom to believe in any and all personal gods is embedded in the law.

 

A secular society, one nation of laws, under god, that is a trusted authority, even for the atheist.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

When one turns to God (objective reality) for support, that might include the community of humans with which he/she associates.

Be that a church community, the scientific community, the neighborhood, or the legal entity with which he/she communes.

 

Nothing new here....

 

On hearing this, Jesus said to them, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners." (Mark 2:17, The Holy Bible:New International Version 1984).

[tar]

John Cuthber,

 

"Do you realise that correlation isn't the same as causation?"

 

Yes I do, I am rather interested in pointing that out to "statistics Punk".

Superstition is not synonymous with religious. It is usually needed to be religious, but kids don't have a separate religious affiliation because they believe in Santa.

(as a side note, The Force was an 'entity' worshiped and studied by a group of monks who later formed the Jedi Order. So yes it would be considered a religion).
Then you change the definition to suite your argument and make a logical fallacy.
I didn't see the implication. The point seems to be that spirituality tends to drop as one becomes more educated, and societies that are more educated tend to have higher levels of societal health. The education -> health seems to be an implied causation, but the drop in spirituality is an interesting byproduct (so far as I can make that judgement from a cursory glance).
I wouldn't look to far into that, Biden always looks uncomfortable or asleep.I'm not ydoaPs but I would say that it is a possibility, but I didn't see anything that gives the idea of a glaring bias. They didn't do regression so they couldn't have tweaked that to make things more suitable to their needs. They used ISSP and Gallup for their polls on religiosity, two high quality polling companies. And societal health they got from WHO and the UN. I'm looking at the global health paper BTW.

I wasn't going to get into this discussion, but arguing for bias on a paper that you haven't read to make a non-existent point is fairly irritating.

[edit] and just to be clear I made a generalization about the paper. They use acceptance of evolution as a marker, I wrote it as more educated because it seems to imply that and education level and acceptance of evolution are strongly correlated.[/edit]

 

Ringer,

 

Your points are fair and taken. Except for the part about me charging bias on a paper I have not read. I based my bias possibility on the 10,000 times linked study, which I have read and thought about, more than once. I took the findings of the In Nature as stipulated, and drew my conclusions only from the abstract.

 

And I am not sure about the "using belief/disbelief in evolution" as a defining marker. Though I would consider myself a member of the "believe in Evolution" camp, I would not suggest that anybody take this to mean that I am either sensible or educated. Or to think that therefore I am credentialed to thusly dismiss any value in spirituality or would even want to do that. Nor would I suggest putting any stock in the correlary.

 

Regards, TAR2

Edited January 28, 2013 by tar

[Ringer]

Ringer,

 

Your points are fair and taken. Except for the part about me charging bias on a paper I have not read. I based my bias possibility on the 10,000 times linked study, which I have read and thought about, more than once. I took the findings of the In Nature as stipulated, and drew my conclusions only from the abstract.

But the only way to be able to make a statement of the kind of bias you mentioned would be in the methodology. You wouldn't be able to draw those conclusions just from the abstract. Or if you looked through the authors other works, such as blogs or talks, and noticed a strict anti-religious stance. But just throwing bias out there without support is dismissing the researchers work for nothing. It's the kind of thing that Creationists or Alternative Medicine people do, and it irks me to no end.

 

And I am not sure about the "using belief/disbelief in evolution" as a defining marker. Though I would consider myself a member of the "believe in Evolution" camp, I would not suggest that anybody take this to mean that I am either sensible or educated. Or to think that therefore I am credentialed to thusly dismiss any value in spirituality or would even want to do that. Nor would I suggest putting any stock in the correlary.

 

Regards, TAR2

I didn't say anything about valuing spirituality, I don't even know where you got that from. What I said was that there is strong correlation with education level and evolution( http://www.gallup.com/poll/114544/darwin-birthday-believe-evolution.aspx ).

[ydoaPs]

Perhaps then I wonder why you have posted the same first study you linked, 10,000 times which states that there is a strong inverse correlation between religousity and societal health?

Maybe it's because there have been 10,000 threads suggesting the world would implode without religion or that religion makes the world a better place.

If ydoaPs wishes to show us that we are an unhealthy society, compared to other industrialized, 1st world societies, based on the measures of societal health used in the study, he has succeeded.

If ydoaPs wishes to show us that across the board, measures of Reliousity are inversely correlated with these measures of societal health, he has succeeded.

If ydoaPs wishes to show us that education tends to kill gods, I will take that as stipulated, having not assessed the In Nature study.

So far, so good.

But if the point is to validate atheism and invalidate spirituality, I do not believe the correlations show this. That is a conclusion that has been implied, which ydoaPs insists he has not implied.

Dude, I guess you didn't want the deal. NOWHERE DID I SUGGEST ANYTHING OF THE LIKE. I implied no such thing; you inferred it. I can't help what you want to read into things. What I've been arguing is very clear, and you've been straw manning it every step of the way.

And just for kicks, consider that when you add all the correlations together it suggest that the study was probably done by analytical folk, dismissive of spirituality. Allowing for the chance of confirmational bias.

So, what, you think they disregarded data that conflicted? Tell me, what countries should they have added to the study that would have changed the dramatic correlations.

I didn't see the implication. The point seems to be that spirituality tends to drop as one becomes more educated, and societies that are more educated tend to have higher levels of societal health. The education -> health seems to be an implied causation, but the drop in spirituality is an interesting byproduct (so far as I can make that judgement from a cursory glance).

...

I wasn't going to get into this discussion, but arguing for bias on a paper that you haven't read to make a non-existent point is fairly irritating.

Indeed.

John Cuthber,

 

"Do you realise that correlation isn't the same as causation?"

 

Yes I do, I am rather interested in pointing that out to "statistics Punk".

Where did I suggest that religion was the causal factor? SHOW ME.

Though I would consider myself a member of the "believe in Evolution" camp, I would not suggest that anybody take this to mean that I am either sensible or educated.

Do you have any idea what a correlation is?

[iNow]

I wasn't going to get into this discussion, but arguing for bias on a paper that you haven't read to make a non-existent point is fairly irritating.

 

QFT

[tar]

"Do you have any idea what a correlation is?"

 

No, evidence shows I have no clue.

 

The Dude

[ydoaPs]

"Do you have any idea what a correlation is?"

 

No, evidence shows I have no clue.

 

The Dude

 

 

At least you're honest about it.

[tar]

So here we have it. Secular beliefs correlate positively with measures of societal health. Literal belief in the Bible, Praying, and believing in a creator seems to do nothing for us, in fact correlate negatively with several measures of societal health taken.

 

Take-away, secular beliefs (like take the medicine) are probably more effective at promoting societal health than religious beliefs (like, let God take care of it).

 

The In Nature correlations would suggest that there is a positive correlation between secular beliefs and analytic thought.

 

Take-away, the more you know, the smarter you are, and the better you are at analysis, the more likely it will be that you can effect reality, compared to those who are uneducated, less intelligent and bad at analysis.

 

Looks like education kills Gods.

 

And we best hope that those smarter than ourselves are on our side, and have our best interests in mind. (However they have come to such a "humanist" conclusion.)

 

Regards, TAR2

And to believe in your fellow man, still requires some faith, and some belief in the greater good. And there must be some reason we have those things.

There must be a synthesis that occurs after the components have been analysed. If the efficacy of a contract with god is suspect. Who or what is it, that we should have a contract with instead? Who or what shall be our helper, and who or what should be our judge? Who or what shall be our guide?

 

After looking at the links in this thread (with the exception of the In Nature study) I am of the opinion that it would be wise to take the counsel of insightful, intelligent, educated humans (good at both analysis and synthesis), that have also demonstrated their love for their fellow man. And it is mostly unimportant, as to how they characterize this connection, or how they consider it devoloped.

 

Being as the United States was founded AS a secular nation, where the church and state should be separate, yet individual's rights to worship whatever, were protected by all (as long as they did not infringe on the rights of another to worship as they pleased), I still think the U.S. has certain claims to be considered a helper of the cause of secularity, despite the high level of religiousity, of its individual members. And should not be cast from the Shining Hill simply because pennicillin shows more efficacy in fighting infections, than prayer does.

 

Regards, TAR2

Edited January 29, 2013 by tar